A New Constraint on the Drake Equation(online.liebertpub.com)
online.liebertpub.com
A New Constraint on the Drake Equation
http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/ast.2015.1418
8 comments
It's beside the point, but IMO the human species is at almost zero risk of extinction from climate change. Maybe you could find a better example. The worst case would certainly be a calamity, but it would require an immense amount of additional failure for humanity to actually go extinct from it.
If we had loss of technological knowledge (say due to climate change induced conflict), it might not be possible in the future for the surviving humans to re-bootstrap back up to our our current technological level.
We have exhausted all the easily accessible minerals and fossil fuels (i.e. those resources that can be extracted using stone age tools). Any break in our current technological systems might make it impossible to recover for 10s of millions of years.
We have exhausted all the easily accessible minerals and fossil fuels (i.e. those resources that can be extracted using stone age tools). Any break in our current technological systems might make it impossible to recover for 10s of millions of years.
Like the article posted last week titled "this is not a place of honor" about making obvious markers on nuclear waste to last 10,000 years...
We may also want to invest in creating some "breadcrumbs" for a future civilization to build up from. Say, a reserve of easily accessible fossil fuel and other raw materials, and some long-lasting guideposts that indicate where to find them.
We may also want to invest in creating some "breadcrumbs" for a future civilization to build up from. Say, a reserve of easily accessible fossil fuel and other raw materials, and some long-lasting guideposts that indicate where to find them.
It is a good question of how much breadcrumbs you would need to jump from the stone age to using whatever accessible resources are left after us.
A lack of accessible fossil fuels is likely to be the major factor as it would be really difficult to get an industrial revolution going without access to the easy energy provided by fossil fuels. We could easily find a rebooted society gets stuck in a pre-industrial state with no way of breaking out.
A lack of accessible fossil fuels is likely to be the major factor as it would be really difficult to get an industrial revolution going without access to the easy energy provided by fossil fuels. We could easily find a rebooted society gets stuck in a pre-industrial state with no way of breaking out.
We have cities and garbage dumps that are full of steel, aluminium and plastic that are unlikely to be wiped out completely in any catastrophic event caused by humans. The only true problem is energy, I think. I wonder how far you could get with only biomass as a starter fuel for civilization.
Yes you could probably mine our dumps for metals, but if England is anything to go you will run out of forests as an energy source very early in an industrial revolution. If England had not been sitting on a large amount of easily accessed coal we would almost certainly not be having this conversation - in English anyway.
There's a difference between biological extinction and cultural extinction. Cultures are incredibly fragile, and the chances of developing current levels of science and technology again if we lost them aren't all that great.
As for runaway climate change - it's definitely a possibility. Current models don't try to estimate potential coupling between the effects of methane and CO2.
It doesn't seem to be considered likely. But a lot of scientists are already surprised by the speed and scale of climate change, and the fact that we're seeing effects in a decade or two that weren't expected until the end of the century.
Worries about runaway climate change may be pessimistic, but they're certainly not unscientific. Considering the stakes, more research would be wise.
As for runaway climate change - it's definitely a possibility. Current models don't try to estimate potential coupling between the effects of methane and CO2.
It doesn't seem to be considered likely. But a lot of scientists are already surprised by the speed and scale of climate change, and the fact that we're seeing effects in a decade or two that weren't expected until the end of the century.
Worries about runaway climate change may be pessimistic, but they're certainly not unscientific. Considering the stakes, more research would be wise.
Depends on how quickly the climate changed. Lets say one year winter came and spring never did. It simply went from less cold to more cold all year long and deciduous plants stopped growing north of say Dallas Texas.
All sorts of food stocks simply die. No corn, no wheat, no cows, chickens, or pigs (in year 2) and no vegetables. Fruits from the tropics perhaps but another huge die off in that vegetation as well as temperatures drop into the 40's at night. There is no "other place" to go, so generally you see (depending on your model) 70 - 85% of the population outside the middle lattitudes die from starvation and general unrest. If you are lucky, you get someone smart enough to create a defensible space in the mid lattitudes that can support the population inside of it. The fisheries will crash in year 3 as the remaining survivors use what is left of the world wide fishing fleet to haul in ever more valuable food (aka fish). Then the people in the defensible spaces need to hold off the people outside those spaces until those outer people die and are no longer a threat. That can take a while and since the outside people will be scavenging weapons from the whole frozen world they will have a lot more ammo and war fighting resources than the people in the defensible spaces.
If it changes fast enough, the people trying to survive kill off everyone. It has happened in colonies before and it can presumably happen on a more global scale.
Would bands of indigenous jungle tribes survive? Good question, anything that moved would be hunted as food, jungle would clear cut to make farmland as quickly as possible.
If it happened slowly? Like over a couple of decades? Sure that would probably allow people to survive relatively intact save for their ability to actually make any new things of any level of technological sophistication.
Look at maps of the late Pleistocene where the glaciers were and plot those out on a modern globe. Now look at what is under those glaciers and try to figure out how long it would take to relocate that capability south. More importantly how long it would take to relocate it south. That sets the parameters for the maximum rate at which the species could tolerate the onset of a new ice age.
All sorts of food stocks simply die. No corn, no wheat, no cows, chickens, or pigs (in year 2) and no vegetables. Fruits from the tropics perhaps but another huge die off in that vegetation as well as temperatures drop into the 40's at night. There is no "other place" to go, so generally you see (depending on your model) 70 - 85% of the population outside the middle lattitudes die from starvation and general unrest. If you are lucky, you get someone smart enough to create a defensible space in the mid lattitudes that can support the population inside of it. The fisheries will crash in year 3 as the remaining survivors use what is left of the world wide fishing fleet to haul in ever more valuable food (aka fish). Then the people in the defensible spaces need to hold off the people outside those spaces until those outer people die and are no longer a threat. That can take a while and since the outside people will be scavenging weapons from the whole frozen world they will have a lot more ammo and war fighting resources than the people in the defensible spaces.
If it changes fast enough, the people trying to survive kill off everyone. It has happened in colonies before and it can presumably happen on a more global scale.
Would bands of indigenous jungle tribes survive? Good question, anything that moved would be hunted as food, jungle would clear cut to make farmland as quickly as possible.
If it happened slowly? Like over a couple of decades? Sure that would probably allow people to survive relatively intact save for their ability to actually make any new things of any level of technological sophistication.
Look at maps of the late Pleistocene where the glaciers were and plot those out on a modern globe. Now look at what is under those glaciers and try to figure out how long it would take to relocate that capability south. More importantly how long it would take to relocate it south. That sets the parameters for the maximum rate at which the species could tolerate the onset of a new ice age.
I thought we were talking about global warming?
We are, but that is sort of the "trade name" for anthropocentric climate change. Which, if you read a lot of papers track the rising temperatures but have a variety of opinions of how exactly that will affect the climate. One such change can be triggering a sudden glaciation event.
A sort of Mpemba effect on a global scale? That's got to be the goofiest global warming thing I've heard yet, and I've been following the movement since 1992.
Not really, Mpemba is about water freezing. There was a recent Nature paper discussion which looked at the non-linear effects of various climate modifiers[1]. I pointed out that some models have warming causing the onset of a glaciation event, the mechanics are warmer air carries more water vapor (itself a powerful greenhouse influence) which sets up a positive feedback loop making the air warmer and then sucking up more water from evaporation, which retains more heat which makes the air warmer. You cross the dewpoint in the stratosphere and that gets 100% solid cloud cover above the tropsphere. At which point the albedo of the planet goes way up (its a uniform white reflector at that point) and the water in the troposphere precipitates out as the mother of all snow storms and the greenhouse gas equivalent of nuclear winter.
Do I actually think this is going to happen? Not really. Are we recording unprecedented levels of greenhouse gases? Yes. Is the climate we're experiencing similar to the climate that was in effect when those levels occurred in the past? Not really, the early Pleistocene was much warmer than it is now. Moore's paper from 1980 was probably pretty influential here. He, like others, is/was really interested in why we had ice ages in the first place.
The point though is that we talk about "global warming" which implies to a lot of people who don't read the papers that our inputs into the climate will only cause increased heat, but it is more accurate to say "climate change" since we don't have good non-linear models for how the planet responds to all the forcing functions we are throwing at it.
We casually throw around terms like "hottest temperatures ever recorded" or "lowest ice levels on record" but some times lose sight of the fact that the "record" we've been keeping in terms of climate change is, according to ice cores, and other geologic carbon dating of glaciation events, perhaps 2% of a cycle. (assuming 100kyr cycle and 2kr of nominal human recordings). Remember that 2% of a year is one week. We can't take a week's worth of measurements and even imagine all of the variations we'll see that year, so we have to be careful about extrapolating with the amount of data we have. Pretty much everyone (except some really hard liners) can agree that climate can and will change, its understanding that change which we can only develop as we go along. And the latest contribution to our understand was the Nature paper that said, in essence, don't try to model this stuff with linear models.
[1] http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n5/full/nclimate25...
[2] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ted_Moore/publication/2...
Do I actually think this is going to happen? Not really. Are we recording unprecedented levels of greenhouse gases? Yes. Is the climate we're experiencing similar to the climate that was in effect when those levels occurred in the past? Not really, the early Pleistocene was much warmer than it is now. Moore's paper from 1980 was probably pretty influential here. He, like others, is/was really interested in why we had ice ages in the first place.
The point though is that we talk about "global warming" which implies to a lot of people who don't read the papers that our inputs into the climate will only cause increased heat, but it is more accurate to say "climate change" since we don't have good non-linear models for how the planet responds to all the forcing functions we are throwing at it.
We casually throw around terms like "hottest temperatures ever recorded" or "lowest ice levels on record" but some times lose sight of the fact that the "record" we've been keeping in terms of climate change is, according to ice cores, and other geologic carbon dating of glaciation events, perhaps 2% of a cycle. (assuming 100kyr cycle and 2kr of nominal human recordings). Remember that 2% of a year is one week. We can't take a week's worth of measurements and even imagine all of the variations we'll see that year, so we have to be careful about extrapolating with the amount of data we have. Pretty much everyone (except some really hard liners) can agree that climate can and will change, its understanding that change which we can only develop as we go along. And the latest contribution to our understand was the Nature paper that said, in essence, don't try to model this stuff with linear models.
[1] http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n5/full/nclimate25...
[2] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ted_Moore/publication/2...
Thanks, that's interesting as well as refreshingly reasonable with respect to our limited knowledge. However, your summary seems at odds with the field of climate science's continuous and confident prescriptions for human life. If that is the extent of our knowledge, how can we tell any nation to accept lower growth and poorer health by curtailing fossil fuel use?
I would be interested in seeing "confident prescriptions for human life" in an actual paper. What I have seen, and when I've been present at Q&A sessions with scientists presenting their results, was a lot of discomfort and equivocating when someone would ask the question "If we do <x> will it mitigate or reverse the changes in climate?". I watched one poor guy not answer the question "If I had a magic wand and removed all anthropogenic CO2 from the air, would it stop global warming?" The questioner was clearly a climate skeptic but the truth is that science doesn't actually know. That was the root of the resistance to the iron fertilization experiments[1]
As a result we have a lot of research which clearly indicates that humans are destabilizing the climate which will induce it to change, but no one that I have found has been willing to stand up and claim they could drive the climate in a particular direction or speak definitively on what the eventual result of our destabilizing influences will have.
Our ability to predict outcomes is limited by our understanding of the complex interactions (which is why I like the recent Nature article, it really gets to that point) We can make fairly mechanical predictions of the form "If this much fresh water was dumped into the ocean, it would go up by this many meters." Some have also speculated that the increased weight on the mantle of all that water will cause a massive increase in volcanism as magma is compressed.
The most definitive statement I have ever read from an actual scientist is that by generating fewer green house gases we will destabilize it less. The elephant in the room then is without human participation the planet has seen warm spells and ice ages. So at best, our influence is eradicated and it goes back to what ever was previously changing the climate before we came along.
As a result I don't think telling anyone to accept lower growth and poorer health by curtailing fossil fuel use is a reasonable strategy. You can tell them that the more energy efficient they are, the better their economy will be able to support them. Telling them to suffer because it will stop climate change does them a disservice. Telling them to get off fossil fuel because they will be healthier and more prosperous if they can live on renewable sources benefits from being demonstrably true.
[1] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7229/abs/nature07...
As a result we have a lot of research which clearly indicates that humans are destabilizing the climate which will induce it to change, but no one that I have found has been willing to stand up and claim they could drive the climate in a particular direction or speak definitively on what the eventual result of our destabilizing influences will have.
Our ability to predict outcomes is limited by our understanding of the complex interactions (which is why I like the recent Nature article, it really gets to that point) We can make fairly mechanical predictions of the form "If this much fresh water was dumped into the ocean, it would go up by this many meters." Some have also speculated that the increased weight on the mantle of all that water will cause a massive increase in volcanism as magma is compressed.
The most definitive statement I have ever read from an actual scientist is that by generating fewer green house gases we will destabilize it less. The elephant in the room then is without human participation the planet has seen warm spells and ice ages. So at best, our influence is eradicated and it goes back to what ever was previously changing the climate before we came along.
As a result I don't think telling anyone to accept lower growth and poorer health by curtailing fossil fuel use is a reasonable strategy. You can tell them that the more energy efficient they are, the better their economy will be able to support them. Telling them to suffer because it will stop climate change does them a disservice. Telling them to get off fossil fuel because they will be healthier and more prosperous if they can live on renewable sources benefits from being demonstrably true.
[1] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7229/abs/nature07...
I suppose I have been distracted by media reports, but certainly everything you've written here is reasonable.
Let's hope it's a lot harder than you think to reach step three. If we ever reach a point where a lone actor can destroy humanity, we're pretty well screwed. You would have to ensure that 100% of the people with that ability didn't want to use it 100% of the time.
Luckily the number of people who want to exterminate all of humanity seems to be rather low.
Which just leaves the people who want to exterminate part of humanity.
Which just leaves the people who want to exterminate part of humanity.
I'm hopeful that once technology like gene editing that has that potential is so cheap and easy that a significant fraction of the people can do it, the same technology that enables them to create killer viruses also enables everyone else to cure them more effectively.
What makes you such an expert on long lived intelligent species? As far as I know, we're all working from the same sample size of one, with a written history and cultural memory that are evolutionarily insignificant.
For all we know, it may be the only long term path of survival for an intelligent species is to accept absolute dictatorship of a genocidal/eugenicist bent. I hope it's not, but if the 20th century's taught us anything, it's that any kind of non-evidence based wishful thinking towards an abstract ideal is probably the most dangerous thing.
For all we know, it may be the only long term path of survival for an intelligent species is to accept absolute dictatorship of a genocidal/eugenicist bent. I hope it's not, but if the 20th century's taught us anything, it's that any kind of non-evidence based wishful thinking towards an abstract ideal is probably the most dangerous thing.
A Phd from Trump University? :-) Seriously though, I don't (and did not) make that claim. I merely state my observation that as technology has advanced it has created opportunities for species annihilation that are both "controlled" by our species and do not exist for nominally 'unintelligent' species.[1]
That said, I'd be interested to understand how you reason from "the 20th century's teachings" to "absolute dictatorship of a genocidal bent". I would also like to understand the characterization of 'non-evidence based wishful thinking'. Happy to walk through the reasoning behind global thermonuclear war resulting in extinction, and sudden massive climate change resulting in the same. Similarly the reasoning for an individually created pandemic can be traced back to the general availability of DNA printers[2] and the ever increasing understanding of genetics and how one might use viruses modify the genetics of living humans [3].
[1] Trust me, the last thing I'd want to do is get into an argument about what constitutes sentience.
[2] http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/05/07/40446024...
[3] https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/therapy/genetherapy
That said, I'd be interested to understand how you reason from "the 20th century's teachings" to "absolute dictatorship of a genocidal bent". I would also like to understand the characterization of 'non-evidence based wishful thinking'. Happy to walk through the reasoning behind global thermonuclear war resulting in extinction, and sudden massive climate change resulting in the same. Similarly the reasoning for an individually created pandemic can be traced back to the general availability of DNA printers[2] and the ever increasing understanding of genetics and how one might use viruses modify the genetics of living humans [3].
[1] Trust me, the last thing I'd want to do is get into an argument about what constitutes sentience.
[2] http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/05/07/40446024...
[3] https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/therapy/genetherapy
If you reduced the global population to 50 million people with a common culture, climate change would become much easier to deal with, the standard of living would be much higher, and a single nation-state with no rivals would have no need for nuclear weapons.
It would also involve wiping out or sterilizing 98%-99% of the species, but in terms of stabilizing the population and avoiding the possibility of a boom-bust extinction or nuclear war, that would be a solution both "hateful" and geared towards species longevity. I think it's better to risk extinction than to actually do that, but if one's sole concern is to avoid extinction...
Meanwhile, a european nun who chooses to live and work in Africa is definitely filled with genuine love for humanity, but their social and economic views would probably destroy our species and certainly any hope of technological progress if practiced universally.
It would also involve wiping out or sterilizing 98%-99% of the species, but in terms of stabilizing the population and avoiding the possibility of a boom-bust extinction or nuclear war, that would be a solution both "hateful" and geared towards species longevity. I think it's better to risk extinction than to actually do that, but if one's sole concern is to avoid extinction...
Meanwhile, a european nun who chooses to live and work in Africa is definitely filled with genuine love for humanity, but their social and economic views would probably destroy our species and certainly any hope of technological progress if practiced universally.
The three points he listed are pretty obvious requirements if you want a long lived species. You don't need a large sample size to know that not killing yourself by failing at one of those three is important.
HaaS: Humanity as a Service
PaaS: Panspermia as a Service
"Like Dropbox, but with DNA"
PaaS: Panspermia as a Service
"Like Dropbox, but with DNA"
> Today, we can kill everyone off with an exchange of the already existing nuclear weapon inventory
I'm not convinced we can. For starters, the nuclear weapon inventory is a lot smaller than it was back in the 80s when those sorts of statements were popular. And secondly, as I understand it, it was always a bit of a lie, an estimate based on some silly assumptions (e.g. that everybody in the world lives in cities), which in repetition eventually lost those assumptions.
And yes, I agree with the other poster that it's pretty much impossible to kill everyone on earth with climate change.
Species-ending diseases I do worry about, but maybe that just means I don't know as much about immunology as I do about nuclear weapons.
I'm not convinced we can. For starters, the nuclear weapon inventory is a lot smaller than it was back in the 80s when those sorts of statements were popular. And secondly, as I understand it, it was always a bit of a lie, an estimate based on some silly assumptions (e.g. that everybody in the world lives in cities), which in repetition eventually lost those assumptions.
And yes, I agree with the other poster that it's pretty much impossible to kill everyone on earth with climate change.
Species-ending diseases I do worry about, but maybe that just means I don't know as much about immunology as I do about nuclear weapons.
There are many fewer weapons available for an impromptu nuclear war, and despite the horror that I think many readers here underestimate, that reduction is a Very Good Thing. The problem is that the nuclear explosives may have been taken apart to some extent, but they can also be put back together.
The nuclear arsenal is predominantly hydrogen bombs, and they are insanely powerful. The Hiroshima bomb was 16 kilotons. A W-87 and W88 warheads are a bit under half a megaton, or roughly 30X more powerful. The W-78 is about 350kilotons, about 20X larger. The B-83 bomb lets you dial in just how spectacular you want a return to neolithic life to be, all the way up to 1.2 megatons, about 70X larger than the Hiroshima bomb. There are fewer than 250 cities with over 1M population. With just the ready US arsenal you could blanket most of the populated parts of the planet.
In 1967 the US maintained an arsenal of about 30,000 (!!!!!) nuclear weapons. You have to wonder. Now the stockpile is about 4500 and about 1500 are deployed and ready at a moment's notice.
The nuclear arsenal is predominantly hydrogen bombs, and they are insanely powerful. The Hiroshima bomb was 16 kilotons. A W-87 and W88 warheads are a bit under half a megaton, or roughly 30X more powerful. The W-78 is about 350kilotons, about 20X larger. The B-83 bomb lets you dial in just how spectacular you want a return to neolithic life to be, all the way up to 1.2 megatons, about 70X larger than the Hiroshima bomb. There are fewer than 250 cities with over 1M population. With just the ready US arsenal you could blanket most of the populated parts of the planet.
In 1967 the US maintained an arsenal of about 30,000 (!!!!!) nuclear weapons. You have to wonder. Now the stockpile is about 4500 and about 1500 are deployed and ready at a moment's notice.
Recent research has shown that nuclear winter after even a limited exchange would be worse than previously thought. We don't know how/if our technological society would bounce back from N billion starvation deaths.
Indeed, just 100 small warheads would (maybe) do it. See Mills' Multidecadal global cooling and unprecedented ozone loss following a regional nuclear conflict [0] which models the effects of a limited nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan.
[0] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000205/full
[0] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000205/full
The U.K., U.S. and Russia have already bombed the world with hundreds of atmospheric nuclear weapons in the mid 20th century.
In effect there was a nuclear war, it's just that all the bombs were exploded on "friendly territory" like Australia, the pacific islands and Nevada.
In effect there was a nuclear war, it's just that all the bombs were exploded on "friendly territory" like Australia, the pacific islands and Nevada.
Atmospheric tests do not produce the same particulates as setting entire cities on fire.
So it was sort of OK "nuclear war on ourselves"?
I believe you misunderstand the cause of a nuclear winter.
The cause isn't the nuclear radiation per se. It is the extreme destruction of many large urban centres simultaneously. The problem is that all of those cities burning simultaneously would send up a tremendous amount of ash and smoke that would block the sky for quite a while.
This would cause a reduction in the amount of sunlight that would be available for growing crops and combined with the almost total destruction of global economy could result in the destruction of the entire human race through mass starvation.
The cause isn't the nuclear radiation per se. It is the extreme destruction of many large urban centres simultaneously. The problem is that all of those cities burning simultaneously would send up a tremendous amount of ash and smoke that would block the sky for quite a while.
This would cause a reduction in the amount of sunlight that would be available for growing crops and combined with the almost total destruction of global economy could result in the destruction of the entire human race through mass starvation.
Michael Crichton tears up the Drake Equation (and SETI) pretty thoroughly in his speech entitled Aliens Cause Global Warming.
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers...
"...the Drake equation can have any value from “billions and billions” to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested..."
-Crichton
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers...
"...the Drake equation can have any value from “billions and billions” to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested..."
-Crichton
While it may be apocryphal, it's said that Drake described the equation as a means of "organizing our ignorance". That is, it's not meant to be applied literally, but rather as a means of focusing discussion on the relevant parameters. In that sense, I think it's been phenomenally successful.
Exactly. First step in knowing something like that is putting into words what we don't know. And it's not insurmountable; the data from the Kepler spacecraft is giving us quite a bit of data that may go a long way to building a statistical model for one of the unknown variables.
The fact that the Drake equation can have any value from “billions and billions” to zero is precisely the point. There is a "right" answer and we can get closer and closer to it if we choose what to study properly.
We know a lot more about exoplanets now than we did in 2003. We're moving on to find out how many are in the Goldilocks zone, or how many contain water. Our idea of what to plug in is slowly getting better.
Pointing out that the Drake equation is technically not science since it doesn't involve testable hypotheses is pointless pedantry. Call it statistics then. Or metaphysics. Or a thought experiment.
We know a lot more about exoplanets now than we did in 2003. We're moving on to find out how many are in the Goldilocks zone, or how many contain water. Our idea of what to plug in is slowly getting better.
Pointing out that the Drake equation is technically not science since it doesn't involve testable hypotheses is pointless pedantry. Call it statistics then. Or metaphysics. Or a thought experiment.
"We know a lot more about exoplanets now than we did in 2003. We're moving on to find out how many are in the Goldilocks zone, or how many contain water. Our idea of what to plug in is slowly getting better."
"Unfortunately", that's nailing down the one parameter that nobody has ever particularly questioned. There's some lines of thought that our solar system might be unusual in relevant ways, but nobody has ever seriously argued that the only planets in the galaxy are in our system, or anything related to that that would make that parameter small.
It's all the rest of the parameters where the mystery is.
"Unfortunately", that's nailing down the one parameter that nobody has ever particularly questioned. There's some lines of thought that our solar system might be unusual in relevant ways, but nobody has ever seriously argued that the only planets in the galaxy are in our system, or anything related to that that would make that parameter small.
It's all the rest of the parameters where the mystery is.
I think you're right. It's even pretty self-evident that it isn't zero: First, if any of the factors in the equation were zero, then I wouldn't be typing this. Second, imagine if you rolled a die with an unknown number of sides a thousand times and only got to look at one result, which turned out to be a 2. Would you argue that it was totally plausible for the other 999 rolls to have produced 1's? Possible, yes, but not bloody likely, and all you need to do is look at the night sky to see there's some serious dice rolling going on.
If anyone is wondering about the weird title of that speech, Crichton is a global warming denier.
Was. He died in 2008.
[deleted]
One in 10^24 seems like really easy odds to beat. Basically anything should happen more often than that, right? But if we choose a random 17 letters of the alphabet, the odds that they spell "probabilistically" is less than that. If we gave 17 letters to each of the 10^24 planets, we expect the word to happen on only one star (actually less than one). It's not too hard to argue that life is more difficult to get by random chance than the word "probabilistically."
So before taking this article to mean that life is actually pretty likely, consider that an event having to occur at least one in 10^24 odds is actually extremely difficult for complex probabilistic phenomena. Who knows how likely life is, but we can't just assume it's higher than one in 10^24.
So before taking this article to mean that life is actually pretty likely, consider that an event having to occur at least one in 10^24 odds is actually extremely difficult for complex probabilistic phenomena. Who knows how likely life is, but we can't just assume it's higher than one in 10^24.
You're obviously coming down on the pessimistic side of the line but what's cool about this paper is that we now have a line in the sand to argue about!
I deliberately tried not to come off as pessimistic. I'd just seen a pop science article on this paper that went along the lines of "OMG, 10^-24? That's so small! Aliens are basically guaranteed!" It was totally exploiting people's lack of intution about numbers. I just felt the need to point out that 10^-24 is much more run-of-the-mill than it seems. The crazy thing is that probabilistic things are multiplicative, so it's all exponential. The difference between 10^-3 and 10^-4 is a single extra flip of a 10-sided die. The odds of life on a habitable planet might be 10^-10, it might be 10^-100, but you can be damned sure our uncertainty spans many orders of magnitude above and below 10^-24.
(edit: I just looked up the pop article I was complaining about. It was in the new york times and the title was literally "Yes, There Have Been Aliens." Hence my crankiness.)
(edit: I just looked up the pop article I was complaining about. It was in the new york times and the title was literally "Yes, There Have Been Aliens." Hence my crankiness.)
> We find that as long as the probability that a habitable zone planet develops a technological species is larger than ∼10^−24, humanity is not the only time technological intelligence has evolved.
I wonder how they turn a statement based on a probability into a statement that is an absolute truth (no probabilities involved).
I wonder how they turn a statement based on a probability into a statement that is an absolute truth (no probabilities involved).
TFA has the same problem the Drake equation has in general. We lack the insight to judge whether -24 is a reasonable exponent. Why shouldn't it be -35, or any other number?
I don't think the paper is arguing whether it is a reasonable exponent or not. They are just saying IF the exponent is -24 or smaller, then there is more than one technologically advanced species. It makes no claim about how close to reality that exponent is.
Right, TFA is at least as pointless as the Drake equation itself.
The universe is a really inconceivably big place. In fact they (the smart people) are not entirely sure that it isn't infinite.
Drake equation or not, seems such a big place that it seems hard to imagine that this tiny little spot is in some way unique.
Drake equation or not, seems such a big place that it seems hard to imagine that this tiny little spot is in some way unique.
You can use this same argument to conclude that there's an alien race that speaks French. Of course we know they don't: as big as the universe is, the possibility space of possible languages is much bigger. French is only spoken on Earth, not because French is unique, but because it's not unique.
But maybe, if everyone only spoke French, it wouldn't occur to us that other languages were even possible. We'd be trying to estimate how many French speaking aliens were out there.
Deoxyribonucleic acid is our French. Because it's all we know, we think it's special. But the possibility space is much bigger.
But maybe, if everyone only spoke French, it wouldn't occur to us that other languages were even possible. We'd be trying to estimate how many French speaking aliens were out there.
Deoxyribonucleic acid is our French. Because it's all we know, we think it's special. But the possibility space is much bigger.
People have been thinking about non-carbon based life, so not everyone is thinking only about French, at least not all the time.
What about ancient Vimana and places like ankor wat? Wouldn't that suggest that technological species happened at least twice on the same star?
Angkor Wat was built in the twelfth century AD, and is well within the known technological capabilities of the Khmer empire at the time.
A vimana, which from googling appears to be some kind of flying temple in Sanskrit myths, does not appear to have actually existed.
A vimana, which from googling appears to be some kind of flying temple in Sanskrit myths, does not appear to have actually existed.
Vimana are not unique to India and there are references from all over the world and include the Egyptian Saqqara Bird, the pre-Columbian golden airplane models, the Greek Icarus legend, the Chariot of Ezekiel, the Nazca runways (lines), The Abydos carvings, The Tassili rock paintings from Algeria and the Chinese references to Lu Ban’s wooden aircraft that flew great distances. Naturally, these references are often dismissed by modern historians as simply impossible but there can be no doubt that humanity has a collective memory of have once been able to fly in ancient times.
correctio:
> a collective memory of having once DESIRED to fly in ancient times
> a collective memory of having once DESIRED to fly in ancient times
Or even just to have worshiped flying beings. Modern fiction is full of fantastical and impossible things. Are we to believe that people in the ancient world were incapable of flights of fancy and everything they wrote and made must be taken absolutely literally?
Vimana seems to mean any of several ancient flying machines
Today, we can kill everyone off with an exchange of the already existing nuclear weapon inventory. But that requires a reasonably large number of people to make mistakes or take action.
We're in the process of killing everyone off by screwing up the natural climate process which requires a large number of people to commit to inaction.
Within this century we will have the means and the understanding for a single individual to craft a DNA based pathogen that can infect and kill nearly everyone on the planet.
These are the three tests for graduation into the club of "long lived intelligent species." Fail any one of them and you don't make it. I call them:
We apparently passed test 1, we're not doing so well on test 2, and we'll have to be a lot better at eradicating hate in individuals if we want to have a hope of passing test #3.