What are the odds that other life exists?

[Sciencelad2798]

Summary:: Like how is it possible that Earth was just perfectly made for life?

It seems impossibly unlikely that Earth would be able to harvest life. I also heard that the moon is exactly 400 times smaller than the sun and 400 times the distance from each other, which makes solar eclipses possible. How could a coincidence this major even happen? I also heard that the moon is getting farther and farther away from the sun, so eventually solar eclipes won't even be possible, so what are the odds that the only time sentiment beings are on earth, is the time solar eclipes happen. Like just how could that even happen?

 

[russ_watters]

Summary:: Like how is it possible that Earth was just perfectly made for life?

It seems impossibly unlikely that Earth would be able to harvest life. I also heard that the moon is exactly 400 times smaller than the sun and 400 times the distance from each other, which makes solar eclipses possible. How could a coincidence this major even happen? I also heard that the moon is getting farther and farther away from the sun, so eventually solar eclipes won't even be possible, so what are the odds that the only time sentiment beings are on earth, is the time solar eclipes happen. Like just how could that even happen?

Life outside of Earth seems likely given the number of stars and planets out there, but the coincidence that gives us solar eclipses isn't really relevant to that. If anything it would be an argument for uniqueness (albeit a weak one) since it's a coincidence, which proves that coincidences happen.

 

[Sciencelad2798]

Life outside of Earth seems likely given the number of stars and planets out there, but the coincidence that gives us solar eclipses isn't really relevant to that. If anything it would be an argument for uniqueness (albeit a weak one) since it's a coincidence, which proves that coincidences happen.

Isn't the uniqueness evidence of a creator?

 

[fresh_42]

Isn't the uniqueness be evidence of a creator?

No. Especially as the moon wasn't always and won't be always at this specific distance.

 

[russ_watters]

Isn't the uniqueness evidence of a creator?

No. There's nothing about uniqueness that implies a creator. Flip a coin - regardless of whether it comes up heads or tails, that tells us nothing about whether there is a creator. Flip it again. Same. The more times you flip it, the more unique the sequence you get. All of that follows the laws of probability and has nothing to do with whether there's a creator.

 

[hutchphd]

Earth harvested life that is perfect for earth. The probabilities are unfathomable as are the time periods involved.
If you cannot deal with unfathomable thoughts then make up whatever stories you wish, but please do not proselytize them here.

 

[phinds]

Isn't the uniqueness evidence of a creator?

Nothing in science is evidence of a creator and this is a science forum, not a religious forum.

 

[BillTre]

The modern NASA view of life possibly arising on other planets, is based on the presumed mechanism(s) of the origin of life on earth.
This is based on chemical interactions between water and the rocky material exposed on the surface of a new planet (like Earth was about 4 billion years ago).
Water reacts with malfic and ultra malfic rocks (thought to be common on "rocky" planets I have read) in the serpentinization process to produce small carbon containing molecules in the presence of natural catalysts which in turn form larger organic molecules.

Sites on Earth considered good possibilities for life to arise include alkaline hydrothermal vents. These vents are driven by flows of serpentinized water, and would have formed in early earth. They can still be found as the process continues today where new rocks are created due to sea floor spreading.

The rock and water situation may have occurred on Mars before it dried up, and may still exist on Enceladus, a big moon of Saturn.

Three possible sites in one solar system (one confirmed). Doesn't sound that unlikely.

This is the starting point of many scenarios for how life might have arose, and is considered not that unlikely a possibility when considering the vast numbers of planets, which @russ_watters mentioned.

 

[phinds]

how is it possible that Earth was just perfectly made for life?

Just to throw some number around:

There are approximately 10E12 galaxies in the observable universe alone and each galaxy has an average of 10E8 solar systems. Let's posit a single planet per solar system (likely a very low estimate). You then have 10E20 planets in the observable universe.

Assume that the odds of life forming on a planet are an outrageously low 1 in 100,000,000. That would mean that there is life on 1,000,000,000,000 planets in the observable universe. We just happen to be one of them.

 

[russ_watters]

Assume that the odds of life forming on a planet are an outrageously low 1 in 100,000,000... We just happen to be one of them.

Well...the odds of us being one of them are 100%.

 

[Motore]

I also heard that the moon is getting farther and farther away from the sun, so eventually solar eclipes won't even be possible, so what are the odds that the only time sentiment beings are on earth, is the time solar eclipes happen.

Well the moon also has a solar eclipse and it will continue to have it long after the Earth will lose it. So an eclipse is not necessary nor sufficient for life.

 

[DennisN]

What are the odds that other life exists?

Underneath my bathtub? Very likely.

It seems impossibly unlikely

Not under my bathtub.

Seriously, my feeling is that it is quite likely to exist elsewhere considering the ridiculous amount of stars (and probably exoplanets) in the observable Universe (and the rest of the Universe is likely even much bigger than the observable). But the probability of life in general (e.g. the ratio of planets with life), the nature of that life, the intelligence of it, the technology of it and so on I consider to be really big unknown issues which I think we are not even close to be able to estimate. We currently have only one data point, the Earth. Because of this I personally tend to get quite uneasy when I hear detailed speculations about extraterrestrial life.

Regarding our own neighborhood, I personally don't think life exists elsewhere in our Solar System, but it's more a feeling than scientific reasoning, and I could very well be wrong.

Just my two cents.

 

[PeroK]

Just to throw some number around:

There are approximately 10E12 galaxies in the observable universe alone and each galaxy has an average of 10E8 solar systems. Let's posit a single planet per solar system (likely a very low estimate). You then have 10E20 planets in the observable universe.

Assume that the odds of life forming on a planet are an outrageously low 1 in 100,000,000. That would mean that there is life on 1,000,000,000,000 planets in the observable universe. We just happen to be one of them.

There's no data to justify that estimate of 1 in 100,000,000. That's just a number picked out of the air.

Until there is some evidence of how likely it is for life to emerge from organic compounds (abiogenesis), then any argument on statistical grounds does not hold up.

The honest answer is that we do not know. We might have a gut feeling that what happened on Earth was not particularly improbable, but there is no statistical data to back that up.

One possible statistical argument involves the multiverse anthropic principle. If we imagine many universes where some have laws of physics that allow life to flourish, some where it's probable for life to emerge in only a few places and most have laws of physics that make life impossible, then there's a potentially valid argument based on conditional probablity: given life on Earth it's highly probable that we life in a universe with an abundance of life.

Strictly speaking, however, there is no data to say that laws of physics ever allow life to be abundant. In other words, if we postulate that our universe has the optimum possible conditions for life, and yet it's still very rare (i.e. we might be alone), then even this statistical argument fails. And, clearly, we don't know how likely it is that there is a multiverse of independent universes, each with its own laws of physics.

 

[valenumr]

Just to throw some number around:

There are approximately 10E12 galaxies in the observable universe alone and each galaxy has an average of 10E8 solar systems. Let's posit a single planet per solar system (likely a very low estimate). You then have 10E20 planets in the observable universe.

Assume that the odds of life forming on a planet are an outrageously low 1 in 100,000,000. That would mean that there is life on 1,000,000,000,000 planets in the observable universe. We just happen to be one of them.

And it's quite possible that the "entire" universe is infinite... So there is that.

 

[valenumr]

There's no data to justify that estimate of 1 in 100,000,000. That's just a number picked out of the air.

Until there is some evidence of how likely it is for life to emerge from organic compounds (abiogenesis), then any argument on statistical grounds does not hold up.

The honest answer is that we do not know. We might have a gut feeling that what happened on Earth was not particularly improbable, but there is no statistical data to back that up.

One possible statistical argument involves the multiverse anthropic principle. If we imagine many universes where some have laws of physics that allow life to flourish, some where it's probable for life to emerge in only a few places and most have laws of physics that make life impossible, then there's a potentially valid argument based on conditional probablity: given life on Earth it's highly probable that we life in a universe with an abundance of life.

Strictly speaking, however, there is no data to say that laws of physics ever allow life to be abundant. In other words, if we postulate that our universe has the optimum possible conditions for life, and yet it's still very rare (i.e. we might be alone), then even this statistical argument fails. And, clearly, we don't know how likely it is that there is a multiverse of independent universes, each with its own laws of physics.

We have a sample size of one

 

[ChMeessen]

If life emergence is the result of a natural and random process, then there is a very high probability that life exist in many places in the universe where the conditions are favorable.

Let p be the probability that life emerges spontaneously due to a natural and random evolution process at some point and time in the universe. The probability is likely extremely small. The probability that it doesn't emerge is 1-p. The probability that it never emerges in a given volume v and time duration t is then (1-p)^vt. Even when p is extremely small, this probability tend to zero when v and t are huge.

Thus, if the conditions are favorable and life emergence is due to a natural and random process, there is a high probability that life will emerge because the probability that it doesn't emerge tends to zero.

Note that this reasoning is valid as long as the hypothesis that life emergence result from a natural and random process is valid. It is the mainstream assumption of scientists based on empirical evidences.

The mainstream assumption of various religious beliefs is that life is the product of a creation. In this case it might well be plausible that we are alone in the universe.

As long as there is uncertainty on the validity of the hypothesis, reasonable doubt is permitted on the existence of extraterrestrial life instances. Space exploration with the goal to find out extraterrestrial life is thus very important to understand our status in the universe.

PS: the probabilistic argument is from Dr De Duve in his book "Singularities: Landmarks on the Pathways of Life".

 

[fresh_42]

I am not so optimistic considering the probability argument about high numbers. If we list everything that had to fit so that Earth could develop life (us), then we get a rather long list of specific circumstances distributed over the entire lifecycle of our planetary system, the combination of the different sizes of its planets, its position within the galaxy, the absence of near gamma-ray sources, the stability of Earth's magnetic field, the moon, the amount of water, the extinction of predecessor populations, etc. It would be more convincing if we can find e.g. bacteria on Europe.

However, this has still nothing to do with evidence for a creator. Chances to win the lottery are almost zero. Yet there are people who win. This can hardly be interpreted as divine interference.

 

[gmax137]

I also heard that the moon is exactly 400 times smaller than the sun and 400 times the distance from each other, which makes solar eclipses possible. How could a coincidence this major even happen?

Brings to mind:

You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won’t believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!

 

[nuuskur]

Potential explanations for uniqueness are numerous. You could have "there exists a creator" among them, but there is no reason to prefer this option over another, especially when another explanation is a more satisfactory one.

On a more cynical note, "there exists a creator" is more like an appeal to ignorance if that is your first option at explaining some odd phenomenon You don't know how to explain (rationally).

 

[hutchphd]

I note that "a creator" is a one sizefits all solution to all problems and quote the Deteriorata (National Lampoon)You are a fluke of the Universe.
You have no right to be here, and whether you can hear it or not,
The Universe is laughing behind your back.
Therefore make peace with your God whatever you conceive him to be,
Hairy Thunderer or Cosmic Muffin.
With all its hopes, dreams, promises, and urban renewal,
The world continues to deteriorate.
Give up..

 

[hutchphd]

While I'm quoting howabout the late Steven Weinberg:
Weinberg told a New York Times interviewer in 1999, “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

.

 

[russ_watters]

We have a sample size of one

That only tells us that the odds aren't zero.

I predict that in my lifetime/the next 50 years scientists will have a much better idea of the odds, either finding or mostly ruling out life elsewhere in the solar system or nearby star systems.

 

[Hamiltonian]

I predict that in my lifetime/the next 50 years scientists will have a much better idea of the odds, either finding or mostly ruling out life elsewhere in the solar system or nearby star systems.

I think these two video's are a fun watch!

 

[TeethWhitener]

It would be more convincing if we can find e.g. bacteria on Europe.

I’ve been to Europe; it’s not that nice.

 

[fresh_42]

I’ve been to Europe; it’s not that nice.

Then you've been in the wrong places. It is nice.

 

[gmax137]

However, this has still nothing to do with evidence for a creator. Chances to win the lottery are almost zero. Yet there are people who win. This can hardly be interpreted as divine interference.

Reminds me of the "proof" that France has no King. There are 50 million Frenchmen, and only one can be King; hence the probability that anyone of them is King is one in 50 million. Hence there is no French King, it is just too unlikely.

Or maybe this reasoning demonstrates the divine right of the King.

 

[valenumr]

That only tells us that the odds aren't zero.

I predict that in my lifetime/the next 50 years scientists will have a much better idea of the odds, either finding or mostly ruling out life elsewhere in the solar system or nearby star systems.

Well, exactly. If I gave you a bag with a million marbles and told you there are two different colored marbles in the bag, and had you extract one marble from the bag, which happened to be green, all you know is there was at least one green marble in the bag.

Anyhow, I'm mostly agree with your second statement. Either we will find fairly conclusive evidence of life elsewhere in the next 50 to 100 years, or we will still be scratching our heads wondering and searching.

 

[valenumr]

Well, exactly. If I gave you a bag with a million marbles and told you there are two different colored marbles in the bag, and had you extract one marble from the bag, which happened to be green, all you know is there was at least one green marble in the bag.

Anyhow, I'm mostly agree with your second statement. Either we will find fairly conclusive evidence of life elsewhere in the next 50 to 100 years, or we will still be scratching our heads wondering and searching.

If we do find evidence of life previously existing on Mars or exotic bacteria in the oceans of Europa, I think a better question would be: can we extrapolate that life is abundant in the universe?

 

[russ_watters]

If we do find evidence of life previously existing on Mars or exotic bacteria in the oceans of Europa, I think a better question would be: can we extrapolate that life is abundant in the universe?

We'll have no choice but to conclude that it must be.

 

[valenumr]

We'll have no choice but to conclude that it must be.

Arguments could still be made that the solar system is "special" I suppose, but I'm in the "life is probably abundant" camp, philosophically speaking.

I hope JWST provides tantalizing evidence of life on an exoplanet.

 

[nuuskur]

I might have a conceptual misunderstanding, but if there is a creator, wouldn't that increase the likelihood of there being life elsewhere?

 

[Bystander]

The "camel sticks his nose under the tent..."

 

[phinds]

The "camel sticks his nose under the tent..."

Indeed.

 

[berkeman]

Let's avoid any discussion digressions about creators or other religious topics please, or the thread risks closure.

 

[BWV]

Need to distinguish between complex multicellular life and microbes. We had a billion + years of Earth's history with only single-cell organisms and we know they can thrive in environments where multicellular life (as we understand it) cannot. One can imagine some sort of microbe living in the seas of Titan, but its a big leap to imagine the equivalent of animals or plants

The Earth is about midway through a billion year window where complex multicellular life is possible (in about 600 million years, increasing solar radiation will make photosynthesis impossible). So assuming other earth-like planets are similar, we also care about when this life might come about - its an even smaller window for a technological civilization.

 

[collinsmark]

Summary:: Like how is it possible that Earth was just perfectly made for life?

It seems impossibly unlikely that Earth would be able to harvest life. I also heard that the moon is exactly 400 times smaller than the sun and 400 times the distance from each other, which makes solar eclipses possible.

It doesn't need to be exact. All that's necessary is for the angular diameter of the moon to be greater than or equal to the angular diameter of the Sun (or star in question). It can be "greater than." It doesn't need to be equal or "exact."

For example, here is a couple of simultaneous eclipses happening on Jupiter (eclipses happen on Jupiter very frequently; they're really nothing unusual). I took this photo last year with my backyard telescope.

Figure 1. Jupiter, Ganymede, and Io. 2020-08-15 04:33.7 UT

How could a coincidence this major even happen? I also heard that the moon is getting farther and farther away from the sun, so eventually solar eclipes won't even be possible, so what are the odds that the only time sentiment beings are on earth, is the time solar eclipes happen. Like just how could that even happen?

The Moon is not gradually getting farther away from the Sun any more than the Earth is getting farther away from the Sun. I think you mean that the Moon is getting farther away from the Earth. This is true, but only by a 3.8 centimeters (1.5 inches) per year.

Whatever the case, eclipses are not unusual, and more to the point, the existence of life on Earth almost certainly has nothing particularly to do with eclipses.

--------------------------------------------

On a different note, this might be a good time to introduce the Drake Equation into this thread.

The Drake Equation is a contrived equation to calculate the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible. Again, it's a contrived equation, not a derived one. So it's not particularly insightful on its own. But it does help with defining and compartmentalizing the different aspects involved, and should be relevant to this discussion.

N = R_* \cdot f_p \cdot n_e \cdot f_l \cdot f_i \cdot f_c \cdot L

where:

N = the number of civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy with which communication might be possible.

and,

R_* = the average rate of star formation in our galaxy
f_p = the fraction of those stars that have planets
n_e = the average number of planets that can potentially support life, per star that has planets
f_l = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point
f_i = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations)
f_c = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space

I won't go into the estimates for each component in this post. But I will say that our estimates of f_p have gotten much larger within the last couple of decades.

 

[symbolipoint]

Of course, intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe; AND THEY SPEAK ENGLISH! You had to have watched Star-Trek.

 

[phinds]

Of course, intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe; AND THEY SPEAK ENGLISH! You had to have watched Star-Trek.

Well, they can't be all that intelligent. They keep running up against Kirk, who talks like a moron, and they always lose.

 

[BWV]

It doesn't need to be exact. All that's necessary is for the angular diameter of the moon to be greater than or equal to the angular diameter of the Sun (or star in question). It can be "greater than." It doesn't need to be equal or "exact."

For example, here is a couple of simultaneous eclipses happening on Jupiter (eclipses happen on Jupiter very frequently; they're really nothing unusual). I took this photo last year with my backyard telescope.

View attachment 292093
Figure 1. Jupiter, Ganymede, and Io. 2020-08-15 04:33.7 UT
The Moon is not gradually getting farther away from the Sun any more than the Earth is getting farther away from the Sun. I think you mean that the Moon is getting farther away from the Earth. This is true, but only by a 3.8 centimeters (1.5 inches) per year.

Whatever the case, eclipses are not unusual, and more to the point, the existence of life on Earth almost certainly has nothing particularly to do with eclipses.

--------------------------------------------

On a different note, this might be a good time to introduce the Drake Equation into this thread.

But you have the the Rare Earth version, which has a serious following:
(from the Wiki entry)
The following discussion is adapted from Cramer.[55] The Rare Earth equation is Ward and Brownlee's riposte to the Drake equation. It calculates

, the number of Earth-like planets in the Milky Way having complex life forms, as:

According to Rare Earth, the Cambrian explosion that saw extreme diversification of chordata from simple forms like Pikaia (pictured) was an improbable event

where:

• N* is the number of stars in the Milky Way. This number is not well-estimated, because the Milky Way's mass is not well estimated, with little information about the number of small stars. N* is at least 100 billion, and may be as high as 500 billion, if there are many low visibility stars.
• 
  is the average number of planets in a star's habitable zone. This zone is fairly narrow, being constrained by the requirement that the average planetary temperature be consistent with water remaining liquid throughout the time required for complex life to evolve. Thus,
  
  =1 is a likely upper bound.

We assume N* = 5*10^11. The Rare Earth hypothesis can then be viewed as asserting that the product of the other nine Rare Earth equation factors listed below, which are all fractions, is no greater than 10−10 and could plausibly be as small as 10−12. In the latter case, N could be as small as 0 or 1. Ward and Brownlee do not actually calculate the value of N, because the numerical values of quite a few of the factors below can only be conjectured. They cannot be estimated simply because we have but one data point: the Earth, a rocky planet orbiting a G2 star in a quiet suburb of a large barred spiral galaxy, and the home of the only intelligent species we know; namely, ourselves.

• 
  is the fraction of stars in the galactic habitable zone (Ward, Brownlee, and Gonzalez estimate this factor as 0.1[6]).
• 
  is the fraction of stars in the Milky Way with planets.
• 
  is the fraction of planets that are rocky ("metallic") rather than gaseous.
• 
  is the fraction of habitable planets where microbial life arises. Ward and Brownlee believe this fraction is unlikely to be small.
• 
  is the fraction of planets where complex life evolves. For 80% of the time since microbial life first appeared on the Earth, there was only bacterial life. Hence Ward and Brownlee argue that this fraction may be small.
• 
  is the fraction of the total lifespan of a planet during which complex life is present. Complex life cannot endure indefinitely, because the energy put out by the sort of star that allows complex life to emerge gradually rises, and the central star eventually becomes a red giant, engulfing all planets in the planetary habitable zone. Also, given enough time, a catastrophic extinction of all complex life becomes ever more likely.
• 
  is the fraction of habitable planets with a large moon. If the giant impact theory of the Moon's origin is correct, this fraction is small.
• 
  is the fraction of planetary systems with large Jovian planets. This fraction could be large.
• 
  is the fraction of planets with a sufficiently low number of extinction events. Ward and Brownlee argue that the low number of such events the Earth has experienced since the Cambrian explosion may be unusual, in which case this fraction would be small.

 

[valenumr]

It doesn't need to be exact. All that's necessary is for the angular diameter of the moon to be greater than or equal to the angular diameter of the Sun (or star in question). It can be "greater than." It doesn't need to be equal or "exact."

For example, here is a couple of simultaneous eclipses happening on Jupiter (eclipses happen on Jupiter very frequently; they're really nothing unusual). I took this photo last year with my backyard telescope.

View attachment 292093
Figure 1. Jupiter, Ganymede, and Io. 2020-08-15 04:33.7 UT
The Moon is not gradually getting farther away from the Sun any more than the Earth is getting farther away from the Sun. I think you mean that the Moon is getting farther away from the Earth. This is true, but only by a 3.8 centimeters (1.5 inches) per year.

Whatever the case, eclipses are not unusual, and more to the point, the existence of life on Earth almost certainly has nothing particularly to do with eclipses.

--------------------------------------------

On a different note, this might be a good time to introduce the Drake Equation into this thread.

The Drake Equation is a contrived equation to calculate the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible. Again, it's a contrived equation, not a derived one. So it's not particularly insightful on its own. But it does help with defining and compartmentalizing the different aspects involved, and should be relevant to this discussion.

N = R_* \cdot f_p \cdot n_e \cdot f_l \cdot f_i \cdot f_c \cdot L

where:

N = the number of civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy with which communication might be possible.

and,

R_* = the average rate of star formation in our galaxy
f_p = the fraction of those stars that have planets
n_e = the average number of planets that can potentially support life, per star that has planets
f_l = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point
f_i = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations)
f_c = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space

I won't go into the estimates for each component in this post. But I will say that our estimates of f_p have gotten much larger within the last couple of decades.

Honestly, I'm not a huge fan of the drake equation. It is more like coffee table philosophy, and there is always the quarterly pop-sci article talking about it. The concept, and general question is interesting to me more than the idea of plugging in numbers to come up with an answer.

 

[symbolipoint]

@valenumr makes a strong point. Formulate an equation to use for predicting life occurring on other than our earth. Then the question naturally comes, How Do You Test The Theory?

 

[sophiecentaur]

How Do You Test The Theory?

You have to wait for the answer to come through.
There is a much more pertinent question to answer than Drake addresses. What is the probability that Mankind will avoid severely damaging itself in the next couple of decades. The variables are fairly easy to identify and many of them have relatively short error bars.

 

[collinsmark]

Dr. Becky's insight on the subject (video released just today, 2021-11-11):

 

[woopydalan]

If we do find evidence of life previously existing on Mars or exotic bacteria in the oceans of Europa, I think a better question would be: can we extrapolate that life is abundant in the universe?

If life on Mars were found to be based on DNA, it just means we are martian in origin

 

[woopydalan]

We'll have no choice but to conclude that it must be.

At the same time, I think most people would be underwhelmed if the universe was teeming with bacterial life. What people really want to know is if intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe.

 

[valenumr]

At the same time, I think most people would be underwhelmed if the universe was teeming with bacterial life. What people really want to know is if intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe.

It would be surprising to find it anywhere.

 

[sophiecentaur]

It would be surprising to find it anywhere.

In the unlikely event of it being found (apart from in the solar system) and particularly if we got a 'message' from somewhere, the big problem would be to stop worldwide panic and misapprehension that 'they' could arrive here at any minute (despite the message coming from hundreds of thousands of light years away).

Still, the religions of the world would surely do well out of the news.

 

[valenumr]

In the unlikely event of it being found (apart from in the solar system) and particularly if we got a 'message' from somewhere, the big problem would be to stop worldwide panic and misapprehension that 'they' could arrive here at any minute (despite the message coming from hundreds of thousands of light years away).

Still, the religions of the world would surely do well out of the news.

Well, I was being snarky, as in, there is no intelligent life on earth.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Well, I was being snarky,

Heaven forbid - on PF of all places.

 

[valenumr]

Heaven forbid - on PF of all places.

It would be crazy though, wouldn't it? I can't even imagine how the global world view would change.