So I was reading up on why, if the Universe has so many stars/planets why have we not detected any other form of life, Femmi states it's because there is no other life, or if there is/was - it extinguishes itself almost immediately. And then I read about just how young the Universe, and even the Earth really is - according to https://www.universetoday.com/11430/the-end-of-everything/ the Universe wont officially end (stars wont die out) until 100 trillion years from now... Considering that the Universe is only 13.7 billion years old, and the Earth itself is only 4.5 billion years old compared to the potential 'end age' of the Universe - I wonder are we looking at things from the completely wrong angle? I mean lets say in 50 trillion years from not we have not found other intelligent life... that sounds pretty reasonable - but it seems to me like scientists are expecting us to find the 'kettle boiled' as soon as they switched the kettle on. Could it be that we are just incredibly lucky to be one of the first forms of life to evolve in the Universe, rather then the more negative outlook that we are the first and the last - given that the Universe has barely inhaled/exhaled its first breath with how long it could stick around?
Until we really look for life elsewhere we can only speculate. If we search all places (which will never happen) we can not know. We only have opinion based on no evidence. It would be strange if life were only found on Earth given the uncountable number of places it could reasonably exist. My opinion ... We are not alone in the Universe. Alex
I think opinion can be compelling (if 'informed'). To that end I would say that the Universe is incredibly young - as is the Earth is only 1 3rd younger than the Universe itself. And given that life began very soon after planets actually became 'available' (as in not molten rock) ((13.8b (age of universe - 3.8b (point life began on Earth http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/history_of_the_earth) then work out the maths with the eventual age of the Universe when it ends... it barely registers as a 'tick' if looking at a clock. It would seem we havent really given life (much less intelligent life) much time to flourish before we take the Femmi Paradox seriously. (But that's all from a complete layman I admit - there's probably a lot more to it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The key perhaps is not to over think it ... Evidence...no life. Opinion....life Reality....speculation, without evidence, and guided by opinion. Alex
Hmmm, well, do you think it's possible life began on Earth in one microscopic tiny little area, with no other life forms including any microorganisms anywhere else on the planet, or do you think it's more likely that it could have begun in many areas across the planet simultaneously?
I don't think there is much of a paradox either although I'm not sure Fermi boiled it down to life extinguishes itself immediately. The reason I don't see it as a paradox is that the distances are so great that it's possible/likely that life is everywhere and we still would be unlikely to know it. Life would have to as evolved as man (or greater) concurrent with life on Earth as a starting point. There has been plenty of time for life before now and there will be plenty of time long after we are gone. It has to be life that can communicate and that wants to communicate. Even with all that it's still very likely that no life form will ever travel to any other galaxy and it's fairly likely that no life form will ever travel to any other solar system That includes obstacles such as distance and just health, being able to survive that long away from the home planet. How likely is it that one grain of sand will ever bump into another specific grain of sand, yet there are an unfathomable number of grains of sand on the Earth.
While many folks claim that very little can be inferred from a sample of one, I do not think this notion applies to the existence of life in general or intelligent life in particular on our one sample of a planet. I have Posted remarks similar to the following to various Threads in more than one forum. BTW: I prefer to discuss the notion of technological cultures instead of intelligent life. This avoids quibbles & reasonable arguments relating to the definition of intelligence. It seems to me that life is likely to exist where ever & whenever suitable conditions for it occur, suggesting that it is a common occurrence considering the number of galaxies known to exist. It occurred here on Earth circa 3.7 billion years ago, which seems close to the first time conditions were suitable. Technological cultures are likely to be rare, with few galaxies having more than one & many having none. The following strongly imply that the development of a technological is not an inevitable result of evolution. The dinosaurs existed for many millions of years, with the last of them no closer to developing a technological culture than the first. The primate body design seems necessary: Yet only Homo Sapiens developed such a culture. The Neandertals & Denisovans seemed to have the same potential as Homo Sapiens but became extinct at a Stone Age cultural level.
