How much intelligent life is there?

[theskald]

Uh, no. If we had something like a mere hundredth of the galaxy explored, we'd have a billion data points, which is enough to make a pretty good guess about the rest of the galaxy. So it'd be useful if we were anything besides the civilization barely out of the cradle that we are.

I'll remember to be more precise about my language when speaking with you .

 

[sourboy]

I think the question needs to be restated.

How many intelligent species evolved on their own in this galaxy?
I would say... hundreds, at best.

How many intelligent species are living in this galaxy?
hundreds of thousands, at least.

BTW, the Drake Equation is not accurate when considering the above. If you choose to believe in it, the last documentary he made ended with a result of 10k-100k.

 

[lovett]

Define 'intelligent'.

Have to set a standard first, then go from there.

Hell, define 'Life'.

Is a virus alive, does fire count?
What about a computer?

Are also those satellite processors in space extra terrestrial life....?

 

[Great Librarian]

There is little reason to doubt that there is extraterrestrial life in our galaxy. Intelligent life (of human equivalence presumably?)... perhaps, but markedly less likely than just there being life.

If we consider the age of the universe and the amount of time it took for us to evolve here on Earth, however, and account for the number of planets orbiting other stars and their distance from us, the question of there being life of intelligence equivalent to our own becomes meaningless presently. It would not be possible for us to know of the existence, let alone to meet any other such life (equivalently intelligent or not), coexisting with us in this galaxy.

Imagine, it takes 15 light years for light to travel to the nearest known certainly terrestrial planet. If a species of equivalent intelligence to humans evolved there simultaneously to us it would take a nearly insurmountable amount of time to traverse the distance and back and forth communication would be at best terribly inefficient. And that's an ideal situation with relatively near distances. In the vastness of our galaxy the question becomes pointless for what I should hope are very, very obvious reasons.

 

[Mirc]

Hell, define 'Life'.

Is a virus alive, does fire count?
What about a computer?

Are also those satellite processors in space extra terrestrial life....?

Fire is the result of a chemical reaction. If effects of chemical reactions are alive, then life is everywhere, and among other things all stars are alive, for example.

 

[lovett]

Fire is the result of a chemical reaction. If effects of chemical reactions are alive, then life is everywhere, and among other things all stars are alive, for example.

Fire is the result of a chemical reaction. Yup. Definitely. And life is......?

 

[Mirc]

Life is a process that's capable of reproducing itself and of growing and evolving.

Now, I'm well aware the line is very, very blurry. But I really don't think you could count fire as life under any widely-accepted criteria that I know of.

 

[North King]

Fire is the result of a chemical reaction. If effects of chemical reactions are alive, then life is everywhere, and among other things all stars are alive, for example.

Stars are nuclear reactions.

 

[lovett]

Life is a process that's capable of reproducing itself and of growing and evolving.

Now, I'm well aware the line is very, very blurry. But I really don't think you could count fire as life under any widely-accepted criteria that I know of.

Fire reproduces itself. Fire grows. Does fire evolve?

It depends how you define evolve. Does fire change under pressures comparable to natural selection?
Yeah, I'd say so. It changes shape, intensity, so on and so forth all according to environmental conditions.

 

[North King]

There's some pretty clear differences between fire and life forms. Fire doesn't react to stimuli in the same manner as life. Do we really need to define everything with strict one-liners, or can we use some common sense?

 

[TheLastOne36]

The Drake equation is a great way to work this out. The problem is we have no idea of the numbers to put in most spots in the equation. Based solely on a wild guess, I'd say there are millions of intelligent species, but very few that will reach the level of interstellar travel. After all, there's already been at least one intelligent species on this planet that died out, and chimps and orang-utans show definite signs of sapience.

Hmm?

 

[Alpine Trooper]

There is little reason to doubt that there is extraterrestrial life in our galaxy. Intelligent life (of human equivalence presumably?)... perhaps, but markedly less likely than just there being life.

If we consider the age of the universe and the amount of time it took for us to evolve here on Earth, however, and account for the number of planets orbiting other stars and their distance from us, the question of there being life of intelligence equivalent to our own becomes meaningless presently. It would not be possible for us to know of the existence, let alone to meet any other such life (equivalently intelligent or not), coexisting with us in this galaxy.

Imagine, it takes 15 light years for light to travel to the nearest known certainly terrestrial planet. If a species of equivalent intelligence to humans evolved there simultaneously to us it would take a nearly insurmountable amount of time to traverse the distance and back and forth communication would be at best terribly inefficient. And that's an ideal situation with relatively near distances. In the vastness of our galaxy the question becomes pointless for what I should hope are very, very obvious reasons.

That's true. Space is so vast and the capability to transverse it so absolutely beyond our reach that it must also be beyond the reach of any other life. Attempting to visit or contact another life form seems so ignorant an objective when one is in the primacy of the space age. However, humans are known for underestimating things. I don't think we're reaching the speed of light anytime soon either.

 

[Murky]

That's true. Space is so vast and the capability to transverse it so absolutely beyond our reach that it must also be beyond the reach of any other life. Attempting to visit or contact another life form seems so ignorant an objective when one is in the primacy of the space age. However, humans are known for underestimating things. I don't think we're reaching 186,000KM a sec anytime soon either.

Even if we could reach light speed, it's still relatively slow for traveling around the universe.

 

[Dachs]

Do we really need to define everything with strict one-liners, or can we use some common sense?

Since fire doesn't have cells you can stick to the one-liner bit.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

I'd say 10-15.

 

[Great Librarian]

However, humans are known for underestimating things.

In what way do you mean this? Certainly many suffer from a severe lack of imagination (and education) and a misplaced kind of skepticism, but do you believe that I'm underestimating our potential by admitting the vastness of space and our place relative to it? You admit, after all, that we are no where close to the achieving the speed of light (and that's overstated if anything ever was). But, perhaps you meant something else or I'm not understanding you.

Even if we could reach light speed, it's still relatively slow for traveling around the universe.

Too true, and a huge 'if'.

 

[Dr.Mindbender]

Well then I guess we have to go hard speed rather than going about in light speed. Put a little more turbo into the light speed.

 

[North King]

Since fire doesn't have cells you can stick to the one-liner bit.

I don't like restricting the definition of life to cellular life, mostly because it is imaginable (though unlikely) that one could have non-cellular lifeforms. A good one-liner for life might be, "a defined, enclosed space in which entropy is decreasing."

 

[lovett]

Since fire doesn't have cells you can stick to the one-liner bit.

Virus' don't have cells. Are they alive?

There's some pretty clear differences between fire and life forms. Fire doesn't react to stimuli in the same manner as life. Do we really need to define everything with strict one-liners, or can we use some common sense?

---

I don't like restricting the definition of life to cellular life, mostly because it is imaginable (though unlikely) that one could have non-cellular lifeforms. A good one-liner for life might be, "a defined, enclosed space in which entropy is decreasing."

Please hit us with some common sense then!

Negentropy is a nice concept to build a definition of life on, but an innumerable number of spaces export entropy to keep themselves in low entropy conditions. I suppose we could distinguish between them and life by using 'defined' to define only what we consider life, but that doesn't really work as a helpful definition.

As far as it goes, 'Life' is a value judgment. Our definitions of life tend cleave to what we already think of as life. Moreover, none of these definitions really work unless we decide to arbitrarily exclude or include certain systems.

 

[warpus]

Lucy, stay away from my ass!