Is life on Earth just a lucky fluke?

[Eldorado]

To get intelligent life, you need solar systems with home stars that aren’t too violent. Those systems have to have habitable planets. Those planets have to go from empty to alive somehow, in a process called abiogenesis. Once life arises, it has to stay alive.

Then, it not only has to evolve into something smart, but the smart things also have to develop technology. No one knows how likely any of those things is. Each if-then represents a kind of turning point, a transition from one phase to another. “They don’t need to be hugely rare transitions, if there are many of them, for ‘a trillion’ to actually appear quite small,” says Webb.

Many biologists, for instance, think abiogenesis is much more difficult than many astronomers think, and no one knows how it happened on Earth. While some scientists suspect that life inevitably progresses toward complication and intelligence, that’s a human-centric bias. “We don’t know if intelligence is a winning evolutionary strategy,”

Full article at Discover magazine:Link

[+Desertrat56]

30 minutes ago, Eldorado said:

but the smart things also have to develop technology.

Why?  There is no rule that smart thing have to develop technology.  What do you base this statement on?

[zep73]

5 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Why?  There is no rule that smart thing have to develop technology.  What do you base this statement on?

37 minutes ago, Eldorado said:

says Webb

 

[Dejarma]

Quote

Is life on Earth just a lucky fluke?

highly unlikely imo.... if it is then one must ask:

what's the point of the universe?

[Eldorado]

3 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Why?  There is no rule that smart thing have to develop technology.  What do you base this statement on?

It's not my statement, it's Stephen Webb's.  I'm only sharing a read.

 

[ChrLzs]

9 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Why?  There is no rule that smart thing have to develop technology.  What do you base this statement on?

I suspect it is because they have defined 'intelligent life' as that which has tech..  which is a pretty rude and insulting presumption...  

After all, we have tech and look at what is happening to us - we're wiping ourselves out.  Smarter life would see the dangers of things like globalisation and computerised manufacturing without re-distribution of wealth,  easy worldwide travel, internet/social media... and thus stay relatively safe. 

Edited November 19, 2020 by ChrLzs

[Dejarma]

8 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Why?  There is no rule that smart thing have to develop technology.

what are you classing as technology? taking into consideration that a mud hut & a wooden wheel is technology.

[+Desertrat56]

7 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

highly unlikely imo.... if it is then one must ask:

what's the point of the universe?

I agree with you, but some of us need a point, a reason.  Some don't, so they can ponder these things.

[+Desertrat56]

3 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

what are you classing as technology? taking into consideration that a mud hut & a wooden wheel is technology.

I suspect we could, if we wanted to, prove that elephants and whales are at least as intelligent as we are and they do not have technology.  We could have not developed it and be just as intelligent.  Do you think we are more intelligent than our ancestors that lived by fire pits and hunted what they could find?

[Dejarma]

4 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

I suspect we could, if we wanted to, prove that elephants and whales are at least as intelligent as we are and they do not have technology.

elephants and whales are nowhere near as intelligent as us! But I bet elephants and whales feel they're the most intelligent? 
I guess It's all relative, isn't it?

[jethrofloyd]

1 hour ago, Dejarma said:

 if it is then one must ask: ...what's the point of the universe?

The point is.....

 

[papageorge1]

Is life on Earth just a lucky fluke?

My answer is 'NO'. I believe in planes of nature. Physical life was designed and fostered by so-called Nature Spirits of the higher planes. Abiogenesis on earth was likely seeded and fostered by higher intelligences (perhaps they can even be called alien).

I see life as higher planes incarnating lower planes. Physical life is not just physical but also requires astral/mental and higher plane components. Higher plane beings design denser plane bodies they can use to manifest life on those planes.

 

 

[psyche101]

2 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

I suspect it is because they have defined 'intelligent life' as that which has tech..  which is a pretty rude and insulting presumption...  

After all, we have tech and look at what is happening to us - we're wiping ourselves out.  Smarter life would see the dangers of things like globalisation and computerised manufacturing without re-distribution of wealth,  easy worldwide travel, internet/social media... and thus stay relatively safe. 

The article actually states:

By human standards:

After all, some of the oldest species on Earth, including cyanobacteria (3.5 million years old), coelacanths (65 million years old) and crocodiles (55 million years old), are not smart by human standards. They definitely wouldn’t be able build a radio telescope or wonder if they were alone in the universe. Nevertheless, they persist, arguably better than we have.

[psyche101]

3 hours ago, Eldorado said:

To get intelligent life, you need solar systems with home stars that aren’t too violent. Those systems have to have habitable planets. Those planets have to go from empty to alive somehow, in a process called abiogenesis. Once life arises, it has to stay alive.

Then, it not only has to evolve into something smart, but the smart things also have to develop technology. No one knows how likely any of those things is. Each if-then represents a kind of turning point, a transition from one phase to another. “They don’t need to be hugely rare transitions, if there are many of them, for ‘a trillion’ to actually appear quite small,” says Webb.

Many biologists, for instance, think abiogenesis is much more difficult than many astronomers think, and no one knows how it happened on Earth. While some scientists suspect that life inevitably progresses toward complication and intelligence, that’s a human-centric bias. “We don’t know if intelligence is a winning evolutionary strategy,”

Full article at Discover magazine:Link

I don't think it's a human centric bias. It's following the only data set we have. That's a scientific theory. 

If we hadn't got here, Neanderthal would have, if not them, Denisovian's or some their archaic hominid. I do feel the record of evolution does show that intelligence under Goldilocks conditions is inevitable. 

[Dejarma]

58 minutes ago, jethrofloyd said:

The point is.....

 

i can't stand the fekin beatles--

[Dejarma]

3 hours ago, Eldorado said:

Then, it not only has to evolve into something smart, but the smart things also have to develop technology. No one knows how likely any of those things is

we are either the only intelligent sentient life-forms in this VAST ridiculously vast universe of ours, or we are not= what one are you going for?

[Golden Duck]

3 hours ago, Dejarma said:

... one must ask:

what's the point of the universe?

Don't expect that there must be an answer

[Golden Duck]

3 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

I suspect it is because they have defined 'intelligent life' as that which has tech..  which is a pretty rude and insulting presumption...  

After all, we have tech and look at what is happening to us - we're wiping ourselves out.  Smarter life would see the dangers of things like globalisation and computerised manufacturing without re-distribution of wealth,  easy worldwide travel, internet/social media... and thus stay relatively safe. 

[Dejarma]

6 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Don't expect that there must be an answer

well there is an answer to that question in whatever shape or form- we just don't know what the answer is yet, do we, Sherlock- go play ya xbox

[Golden Duck]

Just now, Dejarma said:

well there is an answer to that question in whatever shape or form- we just don't know what the answer is yet, do we, Sherlock- go play ya xbox

Prove it! 

PS.  X-box is for losers
(See what I did there?) 

[Tatetopa]

Just remember the  old saying.    If you are one in a million in America, there are a three hundred  just like you.  The universe is big place.  You could probably have hundreds of planets will intelligent life and still remain within statistical limits of a normal distribution.

[Dejarma]

23 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Prove it! 

PS.  X-box is for losers
(See what I did there?) 

yeah i did, well done

[Abramelin]

On 11/19/2020 at 10:06 PM, Dejarma said:

highly unlikely imo.... if it is then one must ask:

what's the point of the universe?

Maybe there is no point. And why should there be a point?

[InconceivableThoughts]

8 hours ago, Abramelin said:

Maybe there is no point. And why should there be a point?

Because if there was no point, what would be the point of it all?

[InconceivableThoughts]

Personally I believe the universe is a cycle . One in which turns from inanimate to sentient and back to inanimate. Eventually the entire cosmos will be filled with conciousness and be one entity "God" just to be redistributed (big bang) when the universe fails. All life in my opinion is striving to evolve to the point where they are masters of the universe. That is life's goal in my opinion, to produce god. If it fails then it will tweak its algorithm a little to produce a different outcome hoping god is a result. If it can't do it in the time frame given then it will try again. With each time getting a little better , learning from each of its previous attempts(evolution through death).