Another *Life Might Be Rare* paper

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter marcus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Paper
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of a paper analyzing the probability of abiogenesis and the rarity of life in the universe. Participants explore the evidence presented in the paper, the Bayesian framework used for analysis, and the broader implications for understanding life beyond Earth.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the paper does not definitively prove whether life is rare or not, emphasizing that the evidence is insufficient to draw strong conclusions.
  • There is a suggestion that the early emergence of life on Earth could still be consistent with a low probability of abiogenesis, depending on the chosen Bayesian prior.
  • One participant draws an analogy to system failures, implying that there are limits to how far life can evolve before catastrophic events intervene.
  • Another participant highlights the small sample size of Earth in the context of the universe and suggests that discovering life elsewhere could significantly alter the probabilities regarding the rarity of life.
  • The Fermi paradox is mentioned, with a participant suggesting that technological and resource challenges of interstellar travel should also be considered in discussions about the existence of extraterrestrial life.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on the implications of the paper or the rarity of life. Some agree on the limitations of the evidence, while others propose different explanations and considerations regarding the emergence of life.

Contextual Notes

The discussion acknowledges the limitations of using Earth as a sample size for broader conclusions about life in the universe and the dependence on specific assumptions in Bayesian analysis.

marcus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
24,752
Reaction score
795
Don't expect to learn a lot. They don't prove life is rare and they don't prove it isn't rare. Basically they argue that the evidence we have so far (life's quick appearance on the Earth not long after the surface temperature stabilized in the liquid water range) is not sufficient. They argue that life could still be rare even though in this one case it appeared soon after liquid water conditions got established.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.3835
Life might be rare despite its early emergence on Earth: a Bayesian analysis of the probability of abiogenesis
David S. Spiegel (1), Edwin L. Turner (1, 2), ((1) Princeton, (2) IPMU, University of Tokyo)
(Submitted on 19 Jul 2011)
Life arose on Earth sometime in the first few hundred million years after the young planet had cooled to the point that it could support water-based organisms on its surface. The early emergence of life on Earth has been taken as evidence that the probability of abiogenesis is high, if starting from young-Earth-like conditions. We revisit this argument quantitatively in a Bayesian statistical framework. By constructing a simple model of the probability of abiogenesis, we calculate a Bayesian estimate of its posterior probability, given the data that life emerged fairly early in Earth's history and that, billions of years later, sentient creatures noted this fact and considered its implications. We find that, given only this very limited empirical information, the choice of Bayesian prior for the abiogenesis probability parameter has a dominant influence on the computed posterior probability. Thus, although life began on this planet fairly soon after the Earth became habitable, this fact is consistent with an arbitrarily low intrinsic probability of abiogenesis for plausible uninformative priors, and therefore with life being arbitrarily rare in the Universe.
10 pages, 5 figures, submitted to PNAS

FWIW Edwin Turner looks like a thoroughly creditable guy. 95 papers on arxiv going back to mid 1990s when he seems to have been working with Abe Loeb at Princeton. Has collaborated with other worldclass people like David Spergel (not to be confused with the current co-author Spiegel). Also Marcy and Butler (exoplanet search leaders.) For me this carries some weight. But maybe you think the conclusions are mild enough that it doesn't really matter much. See what you think.
 
Last edited:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Thanks marcus!
 
That's a bit like the old Windows(TM) analogy-- 'Higher' life can only get so far before the system crashes...

You may invoke too-frequent mega-volcanoes, incoming asteroids, near-by supernovae etc etc...

My preferred explanation is that the funding was cut...
 
Earth is admittedly a small sample size, and the sequence of events leading to the emergence of sentient life [i.e., humans] appears unique, but again, also a small sample size. If we find any form of life, as we know it, elsewhere in the solar system, probabilities change. The fermi paradox remains in play, but, I suspect the combined technological and resource challenges of interstellar travel also need to be considered.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
396
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K