Do you believe Earth is a planet with rare or even unique characteristics or is a typical planet in the vast universe?

File: 194 KB, 500x500, frage ritsu.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Apr 22 16:31:32 2013 No.5702609 [Reply] [Original]

Do you believe Earth is a planet with rare or even unique characteristics or is a typical planet in the vast universe?

>>	Schaiffe !zribfvVT8o Mon Apr 22 16:33:32 2013 No.5702619 >>5702609 Yes, it is rare. I am not saying it is absolutely the only planet in the universe that has life. But a planet with life is rare.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 16:37:43 2013 No.5702630 Typical Most stars have rocky planets in there habitable zones.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 16:38:43 2013 No.5702633 >>5702630 but how many have water?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 16:39:43 2013 No.5702635 >>5702630 Then where are the aliens?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 16:39:43 2013 No.5702636 >>5702633 Any with a mass in excess of around 0.8 earth masses.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 16:39:43 2013 No.5702638 >>5702633 Water may not be a necessary condition for life to exist.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 16:42:04 2013 No.5702646 >believe >>>/x/

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 16:48:04 2013 No.5702665 >>5702646 it is a question of belief. Scientific principles tell us Earth should be a typical planet, yet empirical evidence, though not conclusive, suggests otherwise.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 16:49:04 2013 No.5702667 >>5702633 Most of them Water is one of the most common things in the universe. >>5702635 On the planets.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 16:50:21 2013 No.5702671 rare yes, unique no

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 16:51:23 2013 No.5702676 > infantile kartoons

Anonymous Mon Apr 22 16:52:59 2013 No.5702678

>>5702665
Actualy all imperial evedences point to it. The reason most of the planets we found are larger then earth is because earth sized planets in the habitable zone are a bitch to detect. If we where at Alpha Centauri we wouldn't be able to detect earth using our methods.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 16:56:36 2013 No.5702695 >>5702678 But given the age and size of the universe, if Earth was a typical planet there should be millions of alien civilizations buzzing around.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 16:57:37 2013 No.5702701 >>5702695 Define typical

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 16:58:37 2013 No.5702702 >>5702701 Not rare? Common?

>>	Schaiffe !zribfvVT8o Mon Apr 22 17:00:07 2013 No.5702707 >>5702695 Perhaps there are, but too far away to detect. you may also be assuming that once a civilisation beings, it continues indefinitely. But ultimately, extinction is certain. It is just a question of how long.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 17:01:53 2013 No.5702713 >>5702707 Yes, however you'd think at least one if not dozens of those civilizations would leave traces of their existance.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 17:01:53 2013 No.5702714 >>5702695 non sequitur

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 17:02:06 2013 No.5702717 >>5702714 It's not.

>>	Schaiffe !zribfvVT8o Mon Apr 22 17:03:23 2013 No.5702724 >>5702713 >'Perhaps there are, but too far away to detect.'

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 17:03:53 2013 No.5702721 >>5702717 Please be trolling.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 17:05:37 2013 No.5702733 >>5702721 Explain how it's not a logical conclusion. The apparent size and age of the universe suggest that many technologically advanced extraterrestrial civilizations ought to exist.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 17:07:51 2013 No.5702745 >>5702742 You can't just call stuff you don't like non sequitur. If there is such an obvious logical flaw, point it out.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 17:07:52 2013 No.5702742 >>5702733 non sequitur Try harder.

Schaiffe !zribfvVT8o Mon Apr 22 17:08:37 2013 No.5702748

>>5702733
>The apparent size and age of the universe suggest that many technologically advanced extraterrestrial civilizations ought to exist.
Yes, probably.
But so very very far away that we would never ever find them.

You underestimate the size of the universe.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 17:09:36 2013 No.5702752 >>5702748 >probably Why do you use that word?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 17:09:52 2013 No.5702750 >>5702745 If you don't see the logial flaw, you are either trolling or genuinely retarded. In both cases discussion with you is pointless.

>>	Schaiffe !zribfvVT8o Mon Apr 22 17:10:07 2013 No.5702754 >>5702752 To convey meaning.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 17:10:36 2013 No.5702757 >>5702748 You'd think at least one if not many of them would send out radio emissions, explore the galaxy, send out probes, rockets or satellites. If Earth was a typical planet we should be aware of alien life.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 17:11:21 2013 No.5702762 >>5702754 But you are not conveying meaning. You use it without referring to its original meaning.

Anonymous Mon Apr 22 17:15:37 2013 No.5702776

>>5702609
> Do you believe Earth is a planet with rare or even unique characteristics or is a typical planet in the vast universe?

There's no reason to assume that the Earth is a rare world FOR ITS CLASS. I mean class by a rocky planet in a star's habitable zone. And the exoplanet data is suggesting exactly what we suspected: There are probably planets to be found in any particular star's habitable zone.

The key issue for a planet like ours in its primary's habitable zone, is the time of relative stability. Having a 10-mi-diameter asteroid slam into the planet every 100 million years is bad. Having a star that's too variable is bad. Having a nearby supernova is bad. We don't know those statistics at all, or not enough to judge to any reasonable degree of assurance.

But rocky worlds in habitable zones... they're plentiful enough.

Schaiffe !zribfvVT8o Mon Apr 22 17:15:52 2013 No.5702778

>>5702757
>You'd think at least one if not many of them would send out radio emissions, explore the galaxy, send out probes, rockets or satellites.
The equivalent of shouting out your existence at the top of Everest, when the closest life is in Zimbabwe. (And if anything, I am understating)

Our methods of communication have such a tiny range compared to the vast size of the universe that it is incredibly unlikely that any extra-terrestrial life would ever come into contact with it.
Even if they did, do you understand the time spans involved with the transmission over such a vast distance?
We would be extinct long before any response was ever submitted back to us.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 17:19:21 2013 No.5702787 >>5702778 I am not underestimating the size of the universe, quite the contrary actually. Because of its vast size, it is unlikely that not a single civilization managed to advance to the point of being able to communicate/be detected by us.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 17:20:52 2013 No.5702791 >>5702787 > it is unlikely By what probability measure?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 17:23:07 2013 No.5702805 >>5702791 Let me rephrase that. Probability would suggest that given the vast size and age of the universe there ought to be at least a single civilization advanced enough to the point of being able to communicate/be detected by us.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 17:24:06 2013 No.5702809 >>5702805 >Probability would sugges What is your measure space and what is your probability measure?

>>	Schaiffe !zribfvVT8o Mon Apr 22 17:24:21 2013 No.5702811 >>5702787 Technological ability to communicate through space reaches a peak. A peak that we are not actually far from. Still a pathetic small rage compared to the size of the universe. We will not make contact.

Anonymous Mon Apr 22 17:30:08 2013 No.5702834

>>5702809
I'm no mathematician.
I'm going by the fact that our sun and our planet are young stars and there are billions of stars in the galaxy that are billions of years older. Assuming Earth is a typical planet, there should be plenty of earth-like planets which may develop intelligent which may eventually develop interstellar travel. The galaxy can be completely traversed in a couple of tens of million years with any practical pace of interstellar travel, so there should be some signs of alien life out there.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 17:31:22 2013 No.5702835 >>5702811 This is correct

Anonymous Mon Apr 22 17:31:22 2013 No.5702836 [DELETED]

>>5702834
>I'm no mathematician.

In other words you're talking out of your ass. You abuse the term "probability" without even knowing basics of probability theory. Congratulations, you are the cancer of this board. Everyone ITT is now dumber for having to bear your anti-intellectualism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 17:40:07 2013 No.5702871 >>5702834 You don't need to be a mathematician to understand middle school math. Did you just admit not having finished middle school?

Anonymous Mon Apr 22 17:53:22 2013 No.5702918

>>5702805

There's great merit to that assertion. The Milky Way is 8 billion years old. That's enough time for our solar system to form two times over. There must be millions upon millions of planets with ages beyond our own. There must be billions of such planets that are around our own planet's age. And it only takes 10-100 million years for a species like ours to perform a current-tech colonization of the galaxy. So odds are the galaxy should be teeming with civilizations.

YET THE SKY IS SILENT. And there are not Dyson Structures to be found, and they'd be fairly obvious. So the honest man would have to return to the Drake Equation and admit that there's something wrong in there, meaning one or more of the factors are much, much smaller than we proposed. Considering how our own civilization is preferring to make war on itself instead of expanding out into the solar system, we should then be looking at the latter factors, like the lifetime of a tech civilization. We need to look inward now, to stop the Violent Simian.

Anonymous Mon Apr 22 18:01:22 2013 No.5702945
File: 69 KB, 718x718, 382.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Radio siginals are indestingquisable from background noise at a little over a light year. The nearest star to us is around 4 light years. Interstellar communication is done with high powered inferred lasers. The signal is so focused you would never pick it up accidentally.

Anonymous Mon Apr 22 18:01:51 2013 No.5702947 [DELETED]

>>5702918
>return to the Drake Equation and admit that there's something wrong in there, meaning one or more of the factors are much, much smaller than we proposed

That's not the only problem. A much bigger error in the equation is that whoever came up with it doesn't know shit about probability. Only the dumbest "special education" kids believe that finite Laplace probability spaces are the only possible models and that all random variables are always independent. This is such a blatant failure of understanding at the lowest possible level of logic that I am truly wondering how hard these people would fail an IQ test.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 18:14:07 2013 No.5702986 Considering the size of the universe then that's highly improbable

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 18:19:06 2013 No.5703003 >>5702695 >millions of alien civilizations buzzing around why aren't we "buzzing around"...

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 18:21:07 2013 No.5703011 >>5703003 We are.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 18:22:07 2013 No.5703016 >>5702945 Inverse Square Law: Making Seti look like to the money pit that it is since the days of Newton...

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 18:23:21 2013 No.5703020 >>5703011 Orly? So our civilisation has created things large enough to detect by our own methods from even proxima centauri...

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 18:28:21 2013 No.5703033 >>5703020 No.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 18:29:36 2013 No.5703037 >>5703033 well, then again...how much "buzzing around" has our species been doing recently.

Anonymous Mon Apr 22 18:57:21 2013 No.5703108

Guys, don't forget that our solar system has 2 planets within the green zone. Venus should have a mean temperature of 140 degrees. Nope, wait, it has a mean temperature of 860 degrees because of runaway 'greenhouse' gasses.

Even if a planet is the size of earth in a green zone it doesn't mean shit.

I believe that Earth is unique. Too many factors must come together to create it and we barely know what those factors are.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 19:45:07 2013 No.5703197 >>5703037 We've left plenty of traces in space.

Anonymous Mon Apr 22 19:50:21 2013 No.5703208
File: 27 KB, 580x464, new-planet-discovered-in-habitable-zone-of-a-sun-600-light-years-away_12.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5703108
Actual we have 3 and Venus would need extraordinary circumstances to be habitable. The impact that slowed its rotation to a halt certainly didn't help matters. Mars was inhabitable for the first billion our so years of its history and we be inhabitable again when the sun gets hotter. It would still be inhabitable rite now if it wasn't for the Pluto sized object that fucked its magnetic field and the extremely intense early solar winds.

Pic related

Anonymous Mon Apr 22 19:54:21 2013 No.5703219

There are definitely aliens out there...somewhere in the Universe.

There are not necessarily advanced civilizations in our own galaxy. We could just as likely be the first ones as not. Or maybe there's another race that's just a few thousand years more advanced than us and runs the entire fucking galaxy, which means all we see is them and don't realize it.

But there are definitely other Earth like planets all over the place. Not necessarily as pleasant as ours, because our moon is pretty much perfect.

Anonymous Mon Apr 22 20:07:07 2013 No.5703254

>>5703208

Pity about Mars. If it was as big as Earth, it would probably have turned out ok.

Also, the spectacle of a total solar eclipse is very rare in the galaxy, and might even be unique amount habitable planets. It needs a big moon, which is already rare, and it has to be at exactly the right distance to just barely block out the sun and no more.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 21:39:52 2013 No.5703453 >>5703254 >Also, the spectacle of a total solar eclipse is very rare in the galaxy, and might even be unique amount habitable planets. Now that is a proof for intelligent design.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 21:43:22 2013 No.5703462 >>5703197 Space is a really, really big place. We've left little to no real impact on it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 21:45:52 2013 No.5703466 >>5703219 >because our moon is pretty much perfect. Perfect.. FOR US. We developed to it, not the other way around. It stands to reason life on other planets would have developed for their own circumstances.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 21:48:21 2013 No.5703473 >>5703442 If their own circumstances involve being fucking pounded by asteroids and still managing to create civilization my hat is off to them.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 22:04:21 2013 No.5703507 >>5703473 Why the link to the crossthread post that I strangely just replied to as well?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 22:07:22 2013 No.5703513 >>5702630 No. Even with the most generous estimates that isn't true.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 22:07:52 2013 No.5703512 >>5703507 Total accident.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 22:09:22 2013 No.5703516 >>5702638 im not going to say 100% absolutes here...but water is probably required for all life. Id be extremely suprised if life could exist without it

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 22:10:52 2013 No.5703518 >>5703516 I'm fairly certain life can exist without water, but humans can't really comprehend a life that would be so different from all we understand as living.

Anonymous Mon Apr 22 22:14:37 2013 No.5703526

>>5703020
If by things you mean signals then yes. The next generation radio array will be capable of easily detecting an airport radar at 50 lightyears. Other and intentional transmissions can be seen at much greater distance.
Current generation searches would have detected a civilization like ours that close.

Anonymous Mon Apr 22 22:35:51 2013 No.5703586

Given the dramatic acceleration of resource usage we're seeing in what is a comparatively miniscule part of the history of life on this planet, and an even smaller part of the history of, say, our galaxy, I think it's very likely that any civilization that might have arisen within a potentially detectable range either became extinct or collapsed into a pre-radio state before our civilization could come about.
For two such civilizations to be detectable to each other, they'd have to arise not only near each other, but within an astronomically narrow time frame.

Anonymous Mon Apr 22 22:50:53 2013 No.5703627

>all these absolutes being posted
>what the actual fuck

Considering the fact we have a limited scope of the galaxy, much less the universe we cannot conclude that we're the only planet with abundant life. Life could exist in the oceans Europa, in the clouds of Jupiter, on the surface of Titan, etc.

How about this, when we actually go to other worlds and set our feet upon them, then we can make some absolutes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 22:58:51 2013 No.5703650 >>5703526 That's complete and utter bullshit. I'd like you to show us a reference for that. Protip: you can't.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 22:59:07 2013 No.5703651 >>5703518 Water is about the best solvent there is. Solvents lets reactions happen. Put those two facts together and see what you come up with.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 23:07:06 2013 No.5703669 >>5703651 Water increases the chances of life existing, but that doesn't mean that water HAS to exist for there to be life.

Anonymous Mon Apr 22 23:13:53 2013 No.5703679

Just going to start blabbering off what I believe since it seems relevant to this thread.
>Everything is really fucking far away. Really fucking far. For reference, Voyager 1 was sent sometime in the late 70s. It's just starting to leave the solar system (if it has even left yet).
>Why are people so fixed on the idea that life can only exist in conditions x, y, and z? The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence (~qtd. Boondocks). There are organisms living in the blistering heat of volcanoes, and in places where light doesn't even touch.
>Everyone discusses how there should be far more advanced civilizations that have techniques much greater than us if life was to exist outside our solar system, now this necessarily isn't certain. There always has to be the one person in the world the smartest, the one person the stupidest, etc. We could just happen to be the most advanced civilization. It'd be like picking a random person from the Earth and killing him, odds are you arn't going to be picked, but SOMEONE has to be picked (But I don't fucking believe we're the most advanced, we're probably not that far along compared to other civilizations)
>We always talk about how lucky we are to be where we are, and in any other conditions we wouldn't exist. But the thing is, we DO exist. We can always talk about how lucky we are to be in this area, because those that do not exist cannot praise themselves on such grand location (for they do not exist). Pick 500 random people from the world and place them in a room, odds are none of them will have ever met each other. Place a child in a secluded room from his birth and don't let anyone else interact with him or him to know of anyone else. He will grow up believing he's the only one to exist.
>Who says any other intelligent life would want to meet us? Look at our world. Threat of nuclear war constantly. America being an asshat to everyone, best-korea doing his own thing. War and violence and etc Who would want to meet us?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 23:18:08 2013 No.5703686 >>5703679 On your last point, anybody would want to meet us. Carnivores are necessarily smarter than herbivores, so any intelligent life is likely to be predatory like us.

Anonymous Mon Apr 22 23:19:36 2013 No.5703690

>>5703679
continued because comment too long:
>We're that awkward kid no one wants to talk to. He keeps trying to talk to everyone else at lunch, but everyone just ignores him. Pretends he doesn't exist. Plus all our movies treat aliens as bad people villians immediately need to be destroyed... Not good for a welcome face.
>What if other civilizations don't notice us? Did you notice that ant you stepped on earlier this morning (hur dur anon you're implying we went outside).

And then theres a bunch of other shit but I don't want these two replies to be 100 minutes apart etc.
The point I'm trying to make is we assume life would fly to meet us, it would immediately notice us, it wants to be buddies with us, it's just like us, etc. We're putting too much emphasis on how much it has to be like us, because we simply cannot open our minds to imagine something different. Our minds are just shut in to only consider stuff based upon our own life, because it's the only life we know to definitely exist. Etc etc, blah blah, that's just what I personally believe.

Anonymous Mon Apr 22 23:22:06 2013 No.5703699

>>5703686
Just because we're smart doesn't mean they'd want to meet us. We have no clue what they're like, their intelligence, etc. We could be mentally retards in comparison to them. Maybe they just don't want to talk to us, we're too stupid to be of any contribution to the conversation, and all we do is yell and break things. We glorify ourselves far too much.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 23 00:55:07 2013 No.5703902 Planets like earth are rare, but the universe is so vast that there has to be hundreds of thousands within our galaxy alone.

Anonymous Tue Apr 23 01:02:51 2013 No.5703912

Unique:
- iron core still rotating in a liquid mantle: sheltering magnetic field
- plate tectonics, so there are nice concentrations of minerals to mine
- dense atmosphere
- star is quiet, not many flares
- hit by lots of comets early on, so still has water
- in habitable zone, so water is at all phases
- has a biosphere, so atmosphere contains lots of free oxygen
- large moon, so strong tidal effects

There are no other planets like this in our galaxy or in Andromeda. Unlikely to have others like that elsewhere in the universe.

Anonymous Tue Apr 23 01:05:07 2013 No.5703918

>>5703912

No other planets like this?

Uh...do you know how long it's been since we discovered the first rocky planet in the habitable zone of an extrasolar star? Not very fucking long. And we sure as fuck can't look inside them or see what's going on with them very well at all.

Anonymous Tue Apr 23 03:24:37 2013 No.5704146

>>5702695
>But given the age and size of the universe, if Earth was a typical planet there should be millions of alien civilizations buzzing around.

Not at all. Earth-like planets numbering in the millions doesn't imply lots of alien civilization.

Earth is 4 billion years old and has only developed intelligent life once, which only industrialized in the last 10,000 years or so. It has also come close to extinction one already.

Intelligent life is likely what is exceedingly rare, not life itself or even complex life.

Anonymous Tue Apr 23 03:26:37 2013 No.5704151

>>5702757
>You'd think at least one if not many of them would send out radio emissions

Radio emissions would need to be directed very specifically at us for us to detect them.

Our own casual radio emissions become too weak a few light years out and would be nearly undetectable.

Anonymous Tue Apr 23 03:29:36 2013 No.5704154

>>5702805
>Probability would suggest that given the vast size and age of the universe there ought to be at least a single civilization advanced enough to the point of being able to communicate/be detected by us.

No, you are underestimating the size and also likely not grasping that just producing an Earth like planet does not guarantee intelligent beings and technology.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 23 03:34:52 2013 No.5704165 >>5702811 Harriet, please. Why are you such an anti-intellectual slut?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 23 03:51:37 2013 No.5704186 File: 46 KB, 419x535, 1353840331124.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Its full of life!

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 23 07:47:23 2013 No.5704396 It is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself. Everyone else already kicked the bucket.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 23 07:51:38 2013 No.5704403 >>5704396 > It is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself. Elaborate, please.

Anonymous Tue Apr 23 07:57:07 2013 No.5704408

>>5704403
Intelligent life becomes increasingly efficient at annihilating itself with technical progress. Nuclear war, biological warfare, accidental contamination, nanotechnical catastrophe, climate change, etc.
It's only a matter of time until something somewhere goes terrible wrong.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 23 08:01:37 2013 No.5704413 >>5704408 But why would you claim ALL intelligent life is this way? Maybe it's just us humans.

Anonymous Tue Apr 23 08:07:53 2013 No.5704420

>>5704413
Assuming all intelligent life develops like it does on Earth, through the process of evolution and natural selection, the evolutionary psychology that developed during the competition for scarce resources over its course would leave all species subject to aggressive, instinctual drives. These compel to consume resources, extend longevity, and to reproduce, in part, the very motives that led to the development of technological society. So in the end every technologically advanced civilization would face the same danger of self-destruction.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 23 08:09:06 2013 No.5704421 >>5704408 That's only true of white people.

Anonymous Tue Apr 23 08:10:51 2013 No.5704423

for a planet with the exact size of earth, equally big sun and the same distance from it, I suppose its not even unreasonable to expect intelligent bipeds given the right starting conditions

given the size of the universe its bound to happen several dozen times even

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 23 08:33:38 2013 No.5704444 >>5704423 >several dozen times you must be joking. several billion, if not trillion times. drake equation hurr durr

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 23 08:42:52 2013 No.5704451 >>5704421 You have proven your inadequacy to browse this board. Please leave.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 23 09:23:09 2013 No.5704496 >>5703650 http://www.ska.ac.za/qa/ >The SKA will be so sensitive that it will be able to detect an airport radar on a planet 50 light years away.

Anonymous Tue Apr 23 09:28:53 2013 No.5704507

>>5704420

This is pretty much the logic driving my conclusions. Lifeforms compete and co-operate, but their competitive drives are much stronger than their co-operative drives. We see this all over nature. Humans are obviously very violent at all levels, and it's difficult to not get caught up in the social and economic violence of the Human community. In the USA, Humans load up with huge debts via White Flight just to avoid Negro violence, but that just creates economic violence against all others in the nation. Ultimately societies tear themselves apart.

This is not an environment for the formation of a space-faring culture. The energy and economic barrier to gain routine access to space becomes far too large for such a self-immolating culture. And the USA is the best sort of culture for escaping in the first place, given its wealth and literacy.

Alas, even the best access to wealth and literacy can't dampen the Violent Simian inside. So Humans are bound to fail. This has probably been duplicated across the universe many times.

Anonymous Tue Apr 23 09:37:23 2013 No.5704520

>>5704413

Firstly it's apparent from the nature of Earth's biosphere. It's not just Humans. Lifeforms on Earth compete excessively.

Secondly the sky is silent of intelligent signals and visual indicators. It's obviously the case that there are no galactic civilizations.

The evidence is clear at this time that civilizations just don't get past a Kardashev Type I.

Anonymous Tue Apr 23 09:40:07 2013 No.5704524

>>5704520

And to expand on the theme, I tell people this all the time, but it makes no difference. People will keep blowing through resources just to have a better set of bathroom fixtures. The individual drive to succeed overwhelms all else.

What Humans don't like to admit is that the median IQ of 100 isn't very smart. So it's not like half of the population of even industrial nations are wastes of space. It's more like 90%. Median IQ in an industrial nation should be more like 150, if one rationally expects that nation to cooperate for an intellectually recognized goal like space colonization.

Anonymous Tue Apr 23 10:19:38 2013 No.5704564
File: 34 KB, 400x266, Bigelow_BA330.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Personally, I like to think of both our habitat and our civilization as unique in the galaxy. That makes us precious commodities which must be both preserved and strengthened. We can't assume we will find another cradle planet, so we must learn to make our own habitats! We have the capability and the technology, we just need the will.

Occupy Mars! Occupy Moon! Occupy space!

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 23 10:28:52 2013 No.5704573 >>5704564 1% of the population own 99% of the space colonies

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 23 11:38:52 2013 No.5704641 >>5704564 Preserved, eh? You know damned well that your leaders will choose to murder billions once the oil runs out.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 23 12:01:52 2013 No.5704668 File: 2.05 MB, 480x271, 1354865669197.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5702609

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 23 12:17:23 2013 No.5704696 >>5703516 >.but water is probably required for all life as we know it There. Much better.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 23 15:41:39 2013 No.5705079 File: 94 KB, 539x465, ancient sadness.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5704668

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 23 18:53:53 2013 No.5705598 >>5702947 >Drake equation >whoever came up with it Leave.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 23 18:55:54 2013 No.5705607 I am an alien from a planet similar to earth, we also have a site similar to this one with less fags

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 23 18:57:24 2013 No.5705615 >>5705598 Lol

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 23 18:59:23 2013 No.5705619 >>5703516 what about ammonia? it has similar characteristics (i.e dipole)

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 23 19:01:24 2013 No.5705623 >>5705607 >Calls home planet (and not Earth) alien

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 23 19:25:38 2013 No.5705679 >>5703453 > I don't even know the definition of proof I will just assume that you are joking.

diversity coordinator !D3ux1y2oJM Tue Apr 23 19:34:08 2013 No.5705702

Earth is probably something on the magnitude of like 1 in a trillion planets. There are trillions of planets in the universe, however.
I'd call it rare, even unique strictly speaking. Noteworthy, even. Remarkable, sure.
But I am sure there are more interesting places in the universe.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 24 02:42:54 2013 No.5706523 >>5704165 Please answer the question.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 24 03:37:25 2013 No.5706619 >>5705619 Does frozen ammonia sink or float? The fact that ice floats is supposed to be essential for life as we know it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 24 03:40:24 2013 No.5706621 >>5706619 >we know it

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math