# Extra Terrestrial Life **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 20, 2013, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extra-terrestrial-life/676811 "2013-12-20T10:47:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![randompattern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7993a0/32.png) [@randompattern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/randompattern)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2013, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extra-terrestrial-life/676811/81 "2013-12-25T22:12:22Z")
Wow! ---
**Author:** ![Bozuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bozuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bozuit)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extra-terrestrial-life/676811/82 "2013-12-26T01:17:26Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > 1 in a Googleplex? In case you care, “googolplex” is the number, whereas “Googleplex” is Google’s headquarters. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extra-terrestrial-life/676811/83 "2013-12-26T02:23:27Z")
Brazil hasn’t ‘banned’ anyone in a few days. He seems to be missing his ‘fix’. ---
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extra-terrestrial-life/676811/84 "2013-12-26T02:27:47Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Well it gives you a reasonable amount of confidence, right? > > How confident are you? 50%? 90%? 99%? lol that’s such a loaded question it doesn’t even merit an answer > [@](#): > > What is the non-obnoxious way to point out that you are making the same mistake again and again? You should be capable of figuring that out for yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extra-terrestrial-life/676811/85 "2013-12-26T20:48:47Z")
> [@randompattern](#): > > Whether you are arguing for or against ET you must first throw anything we know about Earth life out of the equation. The only reason life here on Earth is the way it is, is because it formed here. The Earth did not form the way it did because it needed to provide a place for a specific form of life. Life formed the way it did because it had no other choice here. On another much different planet it would go the same way, if at all. The chances that we would even recognize it as life might be very slim. Yes, but if we can’t recognize it as life, then why does it deserve to be called “life” anyway? If we go by your route then how do we know that aluminum cans and clouds and quartz crystals and sunspots and electrons aren’t alive? If we can’t recognize extraterrestrial life that isn’t exactly like our sort of life, then do we have good reason to say that terrestrial forks aren’t alive? I mean, we think they aren’t alive, but how would we know? On the one hand this is arguing about semantics. We come up with a definition of life, and then see if forks meet that definition, and if so then we declare that forks are alive. But on the other hand, we can also declare that while sunspot patterns are interesting they’re not what we mean when we say “life”. And if we find out that sunspots have some interesting properties we don’t have to declare that sunspots are or are not life, we can assign them to a category of their own. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extra-terrestrial-life/676811/86 "2013-12-26T21:11:38Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > lol that’s such a loaded question it doesn’t even merit an answer Why not? You seem to be emphasizing that you “believe” in life on other planets as if to imply that you think there is a significant chance your belief is wrong. I’m simply asking you to quantify your belief. > [@](#): > > You should be capable of figuring that out for yourself. I’m not, since my impression is that your real objection is that I have been pointing out the flaw in your argument. But please educate me. What would be a non-obnoxious way to make my point? Again my questions from before: 1. Why do you wish to have a meta-discussion? 2. Why do you continue to argue with me? ---
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extra-terrestrial-life/676811/87 "2013-12-26T23:22:28Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Why not? You seem to be emphasizing that you “believe” in life on other planets as if to imply that you think there is a significant chance your belief is wrong. I’m simply asking you to quantify your belief. No, I’m not insinuating that there is a significant chance that I’m wrong. A true belief is inherently 100% certain. The reason I don’t say I “know” is because that implies that I have proof. > [@](#): > > I’m not, since my impression is that your real objection is that I have been pointing out the flaw in your argument. > > But please educate me. What would be a non-obnoxious way to make my point? Not at all. I have no problem with you pointing things out. You could have simply said, "That still does not sufficiently prove the existence of life in the Universe. True proof cannot be achieved without the knowledge of “n.” Then, at that point, you do not have to ask me to show you the math, because that would be redundant/rude/obnoxious. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2013, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extra-terrestrial-life/676811/88 "2013-12-28T11:04:07Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > No, I’m not insinuating that there is a significant chance that I’m wrong. A true belief is inherently 100% certain. So just so we are clear, you are 100% confident that there is life on other worlds? And when you say that you lack proof, you mean that you do not have sufficient evidence from which other people should reasonably conclude that it is 100% certain? > [@](#): > > Not at all. I have no problem with you pointing things out. You could have simply said, "That still does not sufficiently prove the existence of life in the Universe. True proof cannot be achieved without the knowledge of “n.” That’s not quite my point. The point is that if you are going to make a mathematical argument, then you need to show the math. You are unable to do that because you don’t have the necessary data. Therefore your argument is flawed. Is that sufficiently non-obnoxious for you? Also, please answer my questions from before: 1. Why do you wish to have a meta-discussion? 2. Why do you continue to argue with me? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2013, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extra-terrestrial-life/676811/89 "2013-12-28T13:39:05Z")
This topic is of sufficient interest to me that I click this thread now and then. Yet I only see something like > [@brazil84](#): > > … Is that sufficiently non-obnoxious for you? > … > > 1. Why do you wish to have a meta-discussion? 2. Why do you continue to argue with me? I’m surprised the Mods haven’t asked you gentlemen to continue your subthread in the Pit. Meanwhile, the question arises: Can some of the probabilities of the happenstances that led to life on Earth be estimated? - A chemical bath led to RNA(_) which somehow got trapped within a membrane. The use of proteins and then DNA were evolved; organelles were captured; sexual reproduction evolved; and so on. (_ - RNA itself may have been [preceded by self-reproducing PNA](http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0049043&representation=PDF).) Since several organelle captures were necessary for the development of advanced life, such captures might not be awfully rare. (There need to be “Goldilocks” conditions, but as a cooling planet passes through a range of parameters, chancing on a Goldilocks state might be the norm.) - The development of eukaryotes was followed by evolution to high-tech humans, ants, etc. How likely were the various coincidences along the way? I don’t know, but one _might_ try to exploit internal evidence. For example, the fact that arthropods developed into fantastic ants, while vertebrates led to humans, among many examples of life’s diversity _might_ suggest that such evolution is likely, once eukaryotes and sex have developed. Or does it? Insects, fruit (and even worms?) need each other, and were needed for humans to develop. Could Earth’s rich panoply be a huge combination of coincidences? Perhaps; I just don’t know. So what are the odds a star taken at random (there are about a septillion stars in the observable universe – easy for me to remember) will have a planet with life? As good as 1 in a billion? If so, there’s about a quadrillion living planets, with several dozen just in our own galaxy. If the odds are much poorer, say 1 in a quintillion, then there might be only a million living planets in the whole universe. If the odds are only a googol-to-one, than Earth is indeed an amazing one-of-a-kind item. What are the odds? I don’t know. **YoungKusher** ’s hunch might very well be correct, but I just don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2013, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extra-terrestrial-life/676811/90 "2013-12-28T13:42:53Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > I’ve always believed that there has to be life beyond earth simply because of the numbers. The odds are certainly in favor of life bearing, earth-like planets. Although, I’m wondering how important it is for the planet to be earth-like. > > Take extremophiles for example. These are microbial life forms that live in seemingly impossible environments. Some of these can live in toxic boiling pools near volcanoes, and some are at the bottom of the ocean surviving on sulfur emissions(this is counterintuitive because sulfur is generally toxic). > > I have just read an article that explains how NASA has discovered a new organism living in its “clean rooms.” This organism is not just a new species, but also a new genus. You know what NASA does to make these rooms so “clean?” > Here’s the full article: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10432816/New-life-found-in-Nasas-spacecraft-clean-rooms.html](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10432816/New-life-found-in-Nasas-spacecraft-clean-rooms.html) > > Even with a government agency trying to keep all contaminants out, an organism still finds a way to make itself at home there. > > So my point is this: is Earth somehow predisposed to allowing the proliferation of life beyond it being a Goldilocks planet? Or could life, and potentially intelligent life, be easily able to exist all over the universe in ways we don’t even comprehend? To me it seems possible for other life to exist, but to go through the same evolution that went on earth make it sound very difficult to turn out the same way. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2013, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extra-terrestrial-life/676811/91 "2013-12-28T17:24:47Z")
Oh shit. I actually think I agree with **brazil** here. **Blake** once argued with me about this, and his argument was similar to **Brazil** ’s. Basically, the idea is, because we have no idea what makes life happen in the first place, we have no way of estimating a probability that there is life out there. For all we know, the probability is high, and for all we know, it’s so low that we are, in fact, almost certainly the only living planet in the universe. There’s just no way to tell right now. For all we know right now, the development of life on our planet was due to an utterly incomprehensibly improbable event, some arrangement of, not just chemicals, but particular molecules _just so_ that even given a quintillion planets chemically like ours, still would probably never happen. And for all we know right now, the development of life on our planet just required carbon to be mixed in with phosphorus for an appropriately long amount of time. (Well, that’s probably not true, but hopefully you get the idea. For all we know it’s simple to make life happen.) This is all premised, though, on the idea that we have “no idea how life started in the first place.” Maybe that’s overstating it. I don’t really know. ---
**Author:** ![BMalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@BMalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BMalion)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2013, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extra-terrestrial-life/676811/92 "2013-12-28T18:58:16Z")
It’s a cookbook! ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2013, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extra-terrestrial-life/676811/93 "2013-12-28T23:22:06Z")
> [@BMalion](#): > > It’s a cookbook! [It’s a floor wax!](http://screen.yahoo.com/shimmer-floor-wax-000000185.html) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2013, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extra-terrestrial-life/676811/94 "2013-12-29T00:12:04Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Oh shit. I actually think I agree with **brazil** here. **Blake** once argued with me about this, and his argument was similar to **Brazil** ’s. Basically, the idea is, because we have no idea what makes life happen in the first place, we have no way of estimating a probability that there is life out there. For all we know, the probability is high, and for all we know, it’s so low that we are, in fact, almost certainly the only living planet in the universe. There’s just no way to tell right now. > > For all we know right now, the development of life on our planet was due to an utterly incomprehensibly improbable event, some arrangement of, not just chemicals, but particular molecules _just so_ that even given a quintillion planets chemically like ours, still would probably never happen. > > And for all we know right now, the development of life on our planet just required carbon to be mixed in with phosphorus for an appropriately long amount of time. (Well, that’s probably not true, but hopefully you get the idea. For all we know it’s simple to make life happen.) > This is all premised, though, on the idea that we have “no idea how life started in the first place.” Maybe that’s overstating it. I don’t really know. Well I think the problem though is that one gets the impression that we are reduced to an Aristotelian position and if it makes sense that the probabilities are not good to support the idea that there is life out there, that then we should not look for it. Of course that is not the intention but it does sound like it. So, it is like the historical movie I saw of Galileo pointing out the Aristotelian idea to assume that bigger objects fall faster than smaller ones. He pointed out at his guests that if we follow Aristotle then we should leave a grape and the orange in the fruit bowl and not check if Aristotle was correct, but “what if we pick the fruit and let them fall at the same time?” The look in the face of the cardinal at the other side of the table was not one of pleasure when he saw the results. I think the point is good, the evidence is not there yet, but I do think that there is a curious rejection that there is an increase in the probability that there is life out there when compounds related to life that appear in many places in the universe and that then we found many planets in locations that would support life as we know it. IIUC the next generation of orbital telescopes will look for the types of atmosphere many of those planets have, should we leave the fruit in the bowl? ---
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2013, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extra-terrestrial-life/676811/95 "2013-12-29T01:36:11Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > So just so we are clear, you are 100% confident that there is life on other worlds? > > And when you say that you lack proof, you mean that you do not have sufficient evidence from which other people should reasonably conclude that it is 100% certain? Yupp, do you have a point? > [@](#): > > That’s not quite my point. The point is that if you are going to make a mathematical argument, then you need to show the math. You are unable to do that because you don’t have the necessary data. Therefore your argument is flawed. All I did was provide what you asked for: an example of a non-obnoxious statement. I wasn’t trying to encapsulate your entire point for you. > [@](#): > > Is that sufficiently non-obnoxious for you? I really don’t care at this point. You’ve become fixated on a petty detail of the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2013, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extra-terrestrial-life/676811/96 "2013-12-29T10:43:13Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > Yupp, do you have a point? Yes of course. But first I wanted to make sure I understand your position. Anyway, if you are 100% certain of something but you don’t have evidence which would similarly convince other people, then all you are doing is proclaiming your faith. So congratulations on your faith. > [@](#): > > All I did was provide what you asked for: an example of a non-obnoxious statement. That’s not what I asked for. I asked for this: > [@](#): > > What would be a non-obnoxious way to make my point? Please do not strawman me. > [@](#): > > I really don’t care at this point. :shrug: You are the one who brought it up. But since you don’t care anymore, I will continue to make the point as before. > [@](#): > > You’ve become fixated on a petty detail of the discussion. :shrug: You are the one who brought it up. Also, please answer my questions from before: 1. Why do you wish to have a meta-discussion? 2. Why do you continue to argue with me? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2013, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extra-terrestrial-life/676811/97 "2013-12-29T17:18:52Z")
Well, that last post really sounds like if the Cardinal had replied to Galileo. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Riga\_Marole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riga_marole/32/7316_2.png) [@Riga\_Marole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riga_Marole)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2013, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extra-terrestrial-life/676811/98 "2013-12-29T17:35:00Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > … > So my point is this: is Earth somehow predisposed to allowing the proliferation of life beyond it being a Goldilocks planet? Or could life, and potentially intelligent life, be easily able to exist all over the universe in ways we don’t even comprehend? You know the answer to that question already. Let’s just hope they’re lizards like us. [http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/04/12-million-americans-believe-lizard-people-run-our-country/63799/](http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/04/12-million-americans-believe-lizard-people-run-our-country/63799/) ---
**Author:** ![Riga\_Marole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riga_marole/32/7316_2.png) [@Riga\_Marole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riga_Marole)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2013, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extra-terrestrial-life/676811/99 "2013-12-29T17:41:13Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > … intelligent civilizations with the technology required to contact us may be incredibly rare. In fact, we might be the only ones in our galaxy, or at least in our neighborhood of the galaxy. Many years ago Carl Sagan talked about a fourth dimension and if there were beings existing in it we’d not be able to see them - at least that’s what I remember he said. So aliens or even “homies” could be all around us and we wouldn’t know. ---
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2013, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extra-terrestrial-life/676811/100 "2013-12-30T05:20:47Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Yes of course. But first I wanted to make sure I understand your position. > > Anyway, if you are 100% certain of something but you don’t have evidence which would similarly convince other people, then all you are doing is proclaiming your faith. > > So congratulations on your faith. Actually, the evidence I have provided does similarly convince other people: > **[Poll Shows What Americans Think About Life On Other Planets](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/alien-poll_n_3473852)** > > Poll Shows What Americans Think About Life On Other Planets 50% of Americans share my belief and only 33% share your stance on the matter. Also, in a documentary series, the renowned astrophysicist, Stephen Hawking, argued that it is ‘perfectly rational’ to assume intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe. You should contact him and let him know that it’s not “perfectly rational” and is really just an educated guess, or better yet, just blind faith. > **[Stephen Hawking: Earth could be at risk of an invasion by aliens living in...](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1268712/Stephen-Hawking-Aliens-living-massive-ships-invade-Earth.html)** > > In a new TV series, the astrophysicist argues it is 'perfectly rational' to assume intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe. And I’m still not sure what your point is. Are you trying to alienate me in my belief by saying it’s nothing more than “proclaiming my faith?” I have already clearly defined my belief on this matter, so I’m not sure how telling me I’m just “proclaiming my faith” is really a valid point at this stage in the discussion. It seems more like an attempt to belittle my stance on the matter. > [@](#): > > :shrug: You are the one who brought it up. But since you don’t care anymore, I will continue to make the point as before. You say that as if you bear zero responsibility in the matter; as if you weren’t the one asking me to help you understand. Just to be clear, YOU are the one who brought up the current point of the meta-discussion. The meta-discussion’s true origin point is when you arrogantly assumed the meaning of one of my statements. Also, just to be clear, I said I don’t care because there is no reason for you to “make your point” anymore, it has already been made. Which means it would still be inappropriate for you to continue spouting the question “show me the math” here in this discussion. > [@](#): > > :shrug: You are the one who brought it up. Excuses are like assholes, everybody’s got one and they all stink… > [@](#): > > Also, please answer my questions from before: You still haven’t answered my question, “Why are you dragging this out?,” you just responded to it by saying I have to answer your questions first… For some reason, in your universe, other people are required to explain themselves to you first. Even though the meta-discussion originated from a assumption of yours. > [@](#): > > 1. Why do you wish to have a meta-discussion? 2. Why do you continue to argue with me? Sure, I’ll humor you. 1. It was never my “wish” to have a meta-discussion(I made that very clear several posts back so the fact that you keep asking your questions is again, obnoxious), you turned it into one when you attempted to compare my form of argument to yours. Ever since that point I have found myself, for the most part, simply responding to your comments and defending the tactics I used in the main discussion. Now that it already underway, my essential goal of the meta-discussion is to preserve the true meaning of my statements. It is disconcerting to leave someone with an inaccurate notion of what has transpired after spending a significant amount of time discussing a matter. 2. I have not been arguing with you in regards to the meta-discussion up until this post. I have essentially just been entertaining your queries and clarifying where I feel necessary or where you need it. I think I am arguing as of this post, and my reason is, I felt obligated to make sure the subjects of the meta-discussion are clear in meaning. I am not here to teach you the finer points of how not to be obnoxious during a discussion. That should be self-evident to anyone with common sense. And that’s not even the point. The more important aspect of this meta-discussion is that you could have simply said, “I apologize. I wasn’t trying to be obnoxious. I was just trying to make my point.” Instead, you misinterpreted my statement and then later you chose to use an argumentative statement(also the statement that initiated the meta-discussion), by claiming I am the obnoxious one. So, rather than just cater to my peeved emotional state and continue on with the main discussion, you chose to divert guilt from you to me in a petty, defensive manner. Of course, a lot of this is subjective. Including both of our stances in the main discussion. I just hope I have made my positions at least a little bit more clear. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extra-terrestrial-life/676811.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extra-terrestrial-life/676811.md?page=6)