There is no ET - per Anders Sandberg et al

  • Thread starter Thread starter jim mcnamara
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Per
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Fermi Paradox and the likelihood of extraterrestrial life, specifically referencing a paper by Anders Sandberg and colleagues. Participants explore the implications of abiogenesis, the evolution of intelligent life, and the statistical modeling of communicative civilizations in the galaxy.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the claims made in the referenced paper, particularly regarding the transition from abiogenesis to intelligent life, suggesting that the timeline may be too constrained.
  • Others argue that the vastness of space and the long timescales involved make the Fermi Paradox less paradoxical, positing that civilizations may simply be too far apart to observe each other.
  • A participant highlights the distinction between "life" and "intelligent life," noting that discussions often conflate the two, which can lead to confusion in understanding the implications for extraterrestrial life.
  • Concerns are raised about the methodology used in the paper, particularly the reliance on intuitive estimates without sufficient experimental backing.
  • One participant discusses the evolutionary timeline on Earth, emphasizing the significant delays in the emergence of complex life and the implications for the likelihood of similar developments elsewhere.
  • Another participant mentions the statistical approach taken by the authors, which involves fitting probability distributions to existing literature on communicative civilizations, suggesting a low probability of such civilizations existing in the Milky Way or observable Universe.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express differing views on the validity of the claims made in the paper and the implications of the Fermi Paradox. There is no consensus on the likelihood of intelligent life or the interpretations of the data presented.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note the limitations of the current understanding of abiogenesis and the definitions of life and intelligence, indicating that these concepts are not well-defined and may affect the discussion.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in astrobiology, the Fermi Paradox, evolutionary biology, and statistical modeling of extraterrestrial civilizations may find this discussion relevant.

jim mcnamara
Mentor
Messages
4,789
Reaction score
3,852
Can anyone find an actual paper? I cannot.

This is an un-refereed citation, more like a slide show for a talk:
"Dissolving the Fermi Paradox"
Anders Sandberg, Eric Drexler, Tony Ord
http://www.jodrellbank.manchester.ac.uk/media/eps/jodrell-bank-centre-for-astrophysics/news-and-events/2017/uksrn-slides/Anders-Sandberg---Dissolving-Fermi-Paradox-UKSRN.pdfPlease try reading some of the pdf first. An easy read, without a lot of discussion.

One of the claims: abiogenesis could easily be common, but getting from the start to DNA is likely not happen fast enough, so 'the clock runs out' and the environment changes to the point where nothing can survive. Like what our own G star will do to Earth, circa 5 billion years in the future. For Earth to get to the point of intelligent life took a substantial chunk of time. 4 billion years.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
Here is a link to an arxiv posting, where you can download a different pdf.
It says it will be: "Submitted to Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A; 4 supplements".
 
jim mcnamara said:
Please try reading some of the pdf first. An easy read, without a lot of discussion.
I'll admit to only having skimmed the PDF, but I don't consider the Fermi paradox to be much of a paradox either, and isn't odd, but for a different reason from the PDF: space is big. The wiki article on it points out that even at speeds we could achieve, we could traverse the galaxy in a few million years. So? Even if we could build a ship capable of it, why would we? Why would anyone else? Even if we could prove there was life in a nearby star system (and I believe we will in my lifetime), why would we bother sending a mission to explore it that would take ten thousand generations (a hundred times the age of the human race) to get there? That we don't observe other civilizations could simply because we are far away.
One of the claims: abiogenesis could easily be common, but getting from the start to DNA is likely not happen fast enough, so 'the clock runs out' and the environment changes to the point where nothing can survive. Like what our own G star will do to Earth, circa 5 billion years in the future. For Earth to get to the point of intelligent life took a substantial chunk of time. 4 billion years.
I don't consider 45% to be a problematic fraction of lifespan, particular considering *my* age. If we were at 8 billion, 900 million years into the Sun's life and humans evolved while the sun was expanding to to consume Earth, I'd consider that a small window.

Few if any of the specifics of Earth's specifications seem unusually rare*. We're in a good spot in the habitable zone, Earth is middle-aged, we have a Jupiter to clear-out asteroids from the inner solar system, etc. All of these things seem to me as about as mundane as running into your neighbor at the grocery store. They seem like more of an inevitable outcome than a spectacularly rare confluence of extraordinarily rare events to me.

*The most unusual to me would be the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs. This event took an apparently stable biosphere and shook it up in a way that enabled us to emerge. But even then, massive extinction events aren't that rare either.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: ConfusedMonkey, jim mcnamara, BillTre and 1 other person
I also am somewhat skeptical of this approach.
WRT the parts about the likelihood of chemistry generating "life", it seems like a lot of numbers being intuited, without a lot of experimental support.
This stuff is not yet well understood.

Another thing is what I consider the sloppiness of word usage in many discussions of this field.
The terms "life" and "intelligent life" are often used without clear distinctions.
The "having life" condition would be fulfilled by just having bacteria/archaeal level organisms, something that seems to have happened quite rapidly on earth.
This pdf is about having intelligent life, but in some places they just say life. Not good, as it can lead to confusion.

Intelligent life on Earth required the evolution of eukaryotic life forms, with their access to greater energy sources than that of mere bacteria (and archaea).
This allowed the production of much greater complexity of cellular form and in multi-cellular organisms larger and more complex organisms that are able to support a nervous system that would be able to underlie "intelligent" behavior. Bacteria/Archaea have never done this in their 3 billion years here.
The jump from the bacterial/archaeal grade of organism organization (generation of mitochondria from a bacterial symbiont in an archaeal cell) took about 1-2 Billion years after the bacterial/archaeal arose. A significant delay, based upon an unlikely and difficult relationship to set up.

After the eukaryotes arose it only took another ~1billion years to make the human lineage (which is common referred to as "intelligent").
Intelligence is another poorly defined term. In this usage, it seems to really mean; intelligent in a Fermian manner (as in having a big enough effect to make astronomical observations possible)
Alternatively, some argue that crows are intelligent.
The human lineage itself has generated several different most likely intelligent species (Neanderthals, Denisovans, etc.). This affect the likelihood of intelligent life generation as I look at it has greater than one on just our single planet.
The level of "intelligence", to be noticed cosmologically, would require the development of a well organized and large social structure.
This is something beyond mere intelligence in creatures and should be distinguished from it.
I do think the Drake equation makes a lot of these distinctions, but the way people talk about it breezes over those issues.

This is my rant about sloppy word use in very complex issues. Sloppy word use doesn't help bring clarity.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DennisN, jim mcnamara and fresh_42
@BillTre did you read the very first page? And what is the name of the institute? A tad woo-woo IMO. Anyway I wanted this up to fend off some of the potential takes on the pop-sci "news" sites.

@russ_watters , @BillTre - Anyway good posts guys. I think the entire concept needs a tune up, but this um, "thing", probably is not it. But it is worthy of discussion.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
New @BillTre did you read the very first page? And what is the name of the institute? A tad woo-woo IMO. Anyway I wanted this up to fend off some of the potential takes on the pop-sci "news" sites.

Here is what the second pdf has:
Anders Sandberg, Eric Drexler and Toby Ord Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University
 
Here's what the authors did. They collected estimates from the literature, then fit probability distributions to them. They then found the overall probability distribution of N, the number of communicative technical civilizations. It has a probability of 30% of being less than one per Milky-Way-sized galaxy and 10% of being less than one per observable Universe.

When the Drake equation was proposed, back in 1961, the only parameter that we had any clue about was Rs, the rate of star formation. Nowadays, we have a good clue as to fp and we are starting to get one about ne. We still don't have much of a clue about fl, fi, fc, or L, however.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters