Do you think we are alone.

[todd8137]

But we don't have to send to receive!!!!

Just by listening in,we still here absolutely nothing.

I dony know if radio waves degrade with distance,but if like photons they don't,they would have enough time to reach here,regardless of us sending a message.

We see Supernova,s from millions of years ago.

I have to assume that any alien life will be similar to us because of the elements of the Universe.

A alien race must communicate as well,so their  signals must be out there,must.nt they?

Ok but we are looking with earth tech ,as for elements we may not have the tech to detect or find them ,see this is the problem we always revert back to "they must be like us" it's like saying ,did,god create his image on man ,or did man create is image of god on us

Going back to,elements there must be loads,more out there we have not found yet this is the great thing about this type of debate. No one is wrong or write simple answer is we will never no

Pat

[Steve 1962]

Great thread. I agree with others who have said that either yes or no answers are staggering.

I think there are loads of variables here .... But a few points that I feel are pertinent here are:

The chemistry of life only needs to have started once on the Earth - the theory of evolution indicates that we are here after a vast amount of really deep time and a truly staggering amount of random genetic mutation brought about by the unique circumstances that our ancestors experienced. To me this tends to suggest that the universe may be teeming with life - but the vast majority of it is likely to be slime and our existence as a supposedly "intelligent" species is very, very rare indeed.

The enormous expanses of deep space and deep time means that it would be very unlikely, for any signals emitted by such rare species to be detectable by another similarly rare species.

Another point that I'd like to make is just how difficult it is to communicate between species (at least here on Earth!). We share 99 point something % of a chimp's DNA and virtually 100% of their evolutionary experience / environment - but can we have a meaningful conversation with a chimp? We can't - so what makes us think that we could communicate with a being with a completely different chemistry and evolution?

Finally, our signals travel really slowly relative to the scale of the universe. What I mean by this is that our detectable radio waves have been travelling for maybe 100 years, and are not even 10% of the way to something like the Orion Nebula.......but have been travelling for many times longer than any previous journey made by anything of human construct....in fact longer than a normal human lifetime. This makes is very unlikely that any human is going to personally experience anything other than a "send" or "receive" exercise.

Any conversation would therefore have to take place between species rather than between individuals of those species and, although the initial impact of any first contact would world shaking, I think any communication would soon become a remote and abstract academic exercise as far as most individual humans would be concerned.

My view is that we are effectively alone in deep space and deep time.

Would I like to be proven wrong? Hell - yes!

Steve

[Alien 13]

I have often wondered if the distance thing and the speed of light is an issue at all any advanced civilisation out there would be comunicating using the quantum sub atomic world where changes are instantainious throughout the universe or so i thought.

Alan

[sskunky]

I caught this on film in Mexico in 1995...... Could be anything but it certainly looks round rather than plane like? Make of it what you will but I like to think of it as a UFO? LOL

[Mick UK]

I always think it's the epitome of human arrogance to think that the most advance form of life ANYWHERE in the Universe is right here on Earth.

Isnt it now assumed that within our own galaxy alone, there are around 60 BILLION planets that are capable of holding some form of life. Thats 60 Billion per Galaxy multiplied by 500 Billion or more galaxies of which many are much older than the Milky Way, then surely the assumption by some humans thinking that we are the final product in evolution is quite staggering.

I also find it hard to understand why some people struggle to come to terms with the fact that because a human cant (yet) travel the vast distances of space that no other life form can.

If a butterfly that supposedly only lives for 1 day wanted to fly from the UK to Australia would it be possible for the butterfly to do it?  Obviously not as the distance and time involved means the butterfly would die before it even left mainland Britain.

So therefore, it impossible right........well, ...no its not right, what if that butterfly flew through the door of an aeroplane that was about to embark on its journey to Australia and then flew back out of the door once the plane had landed.

Just because the butterfly didnt have the intelligence or ability to build that plane in the first place doesnt mean another life form couldn't either.

[tenbyfifty]

Another point that I'd like to make is just how difficult it is to communicate between species (at least here on Earth!). We share 99 point something % of a chimp's DNA and virtually 100% of their evolutionary experience / environment - but can we have a meaningful conversation with a chimp? We can't - so what makes us think that we could communicate with a being with a completely different chemistry and evolution?

we can't communicate with chimps because they don't have well developed language skills like humans, its nothing to do with being separate species . If Neanderthals were still around ie a separate species of the homo genus, we would be able to talk to them because they probably had spoken language. Intelligent  aliens, by definition, would use language so we would be able to communicate with them eventually (putting aside the difficulties of 2-way coms) but our beliefs, morality and approach to life would almost certainly be different.

[Ptarmigan]

If you are going to quote me, please post my full comment. I said that here on Earth, life exists in extreme conditions (as we see them to be), so why could life not exist elsewhere in the universe in similar such extreme conditions.

Here's my full comment:

One thing to consider when thinking about "are we alone", is the simple fact that right here on planet Earth..................life exists in every single nook and cranny. Life exists on the surface,life exists in the oceans and life exists in the atmosphere..

 

Our planet is teeming with life in environments that to us humans seem impossible. They are called "extremophiles'". They happily exist in boiling water,in low oxygen environments and they even exist inside what we think as solid rock.

 

Granted they are uni-cellular organisms, but they are life. So why the hell can similar life forms not exist elsewhere in the universe..............if they manage to do so right here on Earth?

 

I do know that here on earth, they are all STILL carbon based life and need water/moisure to survive, but why cant similar life exist elsewhere and maybe they need methane,silicone,sulphur (blah blah blah) to survive.

 

I'm sure they can and do, but us carbon based life forms wouldnt know them as life forms if they slapped us in the face with a wet fish.

 

Intelligent (as we deem that to be) or not, if mankind ever found living bacteria,microbes or a big pink flying elephant in the universe (or even our own solar system).................it would be the story of all time and would answer the biggest question we have/ever had as a species.

 

I never said that we are alone. The thread title is "Do You Think We Are Alone".

 

I didnt even say that any life out there could be intelligent enough to say "hello". I just pointed out the fact that life exists here on Earth in extreme environments, so why not elsewhere.

 

Nothing more.............nothing less.

 

 

Ooops Sorry !

I was thinking aloud, it's a long thread, I just used your post to stimulate some thoughts in my poor brain cell and as an entry point to the thread.

I didnt mean anything by it and I didnt mean to imply anything about your bit.

It is too late to edit my post so how about

everyone imagines my quoted bit (of you) doesnt exist and that my first line is :

" The question arises - what do _we_ mean by being 'alone' "

Please accept my humble apology.

[symesie04]

Determining what exactly "advanced" means is always tricky. Unfortunately most of mankind assumes that advanced means intelligent or technologically superior. However how this take on it? How about advance means how far evolved via evolution we are? but wait what is evolution? is it measured by time or progress or what?. Well what if evolution is just suitability to ones environment after all that's what it is isn't it? its not survival of the fittest but survival of those best adapted to their current environment. Well heres a little fact the part of the brain responsible for emotions is far bigger and better developed in Orca's than in humans. Now it seems to me that Orca's are far better suited to there environment than humans. So why are Orca's not the most advanced creature on the planet? It seems to me "advanced " is purely a figment of our overly egotistical imagination. Orca's are the most advance and best suited in their environment, worms in theirs and humans in theirs etc etc. Dinosaurs were the best suited in theirs. Don't limit yourself to thinking environment means land or sea either, it means a lifestyle we engage in. In terms of pure time mankind evolved just a couple of million years ago, if you trace us back through our ape ancestors then just 70 million or so. The dinosaurs roamed our lands for 130 million years, and those before them for even longer, so surely in evolutionary terms they would be the most advanced creatures ever to roam the earth? if we are to take the normal stance of time equates to advancement. To think we are the latest therefore we are the most advanced is absurd. Our milky way was very different 10 billion years ago, but is no more advanced now, its just evolved. Evolved means purely that "it has evolved" it does not mean advanced.

[tekkydave]

If you think about it Radio has been around in some form or other since about 1875,so in theory all these waves have been travelling out into space for well over one-hundred years.

So any planet within this distance would be continually bombarded by these waves.

On the other hand here on Earth we have heard nothing.

Now I know this distance is just a drop in the ocean,but can we deduce the following.

(a)There is no one there to receive them.)

(b)They have not attained the Tecnology to receive and transmit this kind of wave.

©They use a totally different type of communicating.

I suppose planets we have reached so far could be classed as Batch Sampling,and on Earth we use this method to determine if a product has passed muster,but we don't check all,we just assume the rest is ok.

Could this be applied here?

I for one cant believe we are alone,but most of the alien worlds discovered so far seem like Hell on Earth.

So again are we alone?

Mick.

I think there probably is. Somewhere. I think the chances of us ever discovering it or making contact is impossibly small.

[Cath]

It seems to me "advanced " is purely a figment of our overly egotistical imagination.

Indeed it is. But be careful, the locals will not take kindly to this little know fact. Be prepared for the coming backlash

Their is more at play than facts when it comes to the locals Symesie ... hide!

[John]

" The question arises - what do _we_ mean by being 'alone' "

"You're Never Alone with a Schizophrenic" Ian Hunter, 1979 

[tekkydave]

Determining what exactly "advanced" means is always tricky. Unfortunately most of mankind assumes that advanced means intelligent or technologically superior. However how this take on it? How about advance means how far evolved via evolution we are? but wait what is evolution? is it measured by time or progress or what?. Well what if evolution is just suitability to ones environment after all that's what it is isn't it? its not survival of the fittest but survival of those best adapted to their current environment. Well heres a little fact the part of the brain responsible for emotions is far bigger and better developed in Orca's than in humans. Now it seems to me that Orca's are far better suited to there environment than humans. So why are Orca's not the most advanced creature on the planet? It seems to me "advanced " is purely a figment of our overly egotistical imagination. Orca's are the most advance and best suited in their environment, worms in theirs and humans in theirs etc etc. Dinosaurs were the best suited in theirs. Don't limit yourself to thinking environment means land or sea either, it means a lifestyle we engage in. In terms of pure time mankind evolved just a couple of million years ago, if you trace us back through our ape ancestors then just 70 million or so. The dinosaurs roamed our lands for 130 million years, and those before them for even longer, so surely in evolutionary terms they would be the most advanced creatures ever to roam the earth? if we are to take the normal stance of time equates to advancement. To think we are the latest therefore we are the most advanced is absurd. Our milky way was very different 10 billion years ago, but is no more advanced now, its just evolved. Evolved means purely that "it has evolved" it does not mean advanced.

I often think we have evolved faster than we should have done. I also think sometimes how the Earth would have a more secure future if humans had never existed. But then an asteroid could arrive tomorrow and wipe out all living things (except maybe bacteria and a few hardy insects). Well - that cheered me up a bit

[John]

I often think we have evolved faster than we should have done. I also think sometimes how the Earth would have a more secure future if humans had never existed. But then an asteroid could arrive tomorrow and wipe out all living things (except maybe bacteria and a few hardy insects). Well - that cheered me up a bit

This is book an interesting read around that topic:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/World-Without-Us-Alan-Weisman/dp/0753513579

[Ptarmigan]

Just incase :

" The question arises - what do _we_ mean by being 'alone' "

I underlined "we" as part of my apology to Luke, because in my original post I had written "you" whilst quoting him.

if you see what I mean.

[Doshy]

You're never alone with a pint.

[symesie04]

Indeed it is. But be careful, the locals will not take kindly to this little know fact. Be prepared for the coming backlash

Their is more at play than facts when it comes to the locals Symesie ... hide!

Oooh err I suddenly feel like the Wicker man

[Cath]

Oooh err I suddenly feel like the Wicker man

lol

They burnt me at the stake a short while back for mentioning the same ... or so they think ... he he he he

[petergc]

I say yes there is. We are a dot in our solar system and an even smaller dot in the Milky Way, making us a spec In the universe given the amount of galaxies within it. There must be something/one else out there.

I'm no scientist so can't give elaborate answers. Maybe one day we will or we will not. I agree with others when they say it will not happen in our lifetime.

My Dad always said to me as a boy when we used to look at the stars, "some where out there in space there is someone doing just as we are son"

[Kropster]

There almost certainly has to be life elsewhere in the Universe, but because of the way the Universe is constructed we are very unlikely ever to meet aliens in person.

I blame Einstein for limiting everything to the speed of light!

[Ptarmigan]

Oooh err I suddenly feel like the Wicker man

Heheee

Now there was a very silly film,

especially as they corrupted the word,

it should have been wicca and had nothing to do with basket weave

But that's a whole different topic , , ,

[symesie04]

There almost certainly has to be life elsewhere in the Universe, but because of the way the Universe is constructed we are very unlikely ever to meet aliens in person.

I blame Einstein for limiting everything to the speed of light!

Well to be fair to the man when he set the universal speed limit we were still using drum brakes and airbags were a thing of the future. You would think with the use of all round disk brakes physics might take the proverbial hand brake off.

[symesie04]

Heheee

Now there was a very silly film,

especially as they corrupted the word,

it should have been wicca and had nothing to do with basket weave

But that's a whole different topic , , ,

Think Brit Ekalnd dancing naked corrupted me!

That intrigued me enough to look into the title. And it seems the title is due to the actual wicker man in which he is sacrificed (a ritual mentioned by ceasar apparently) rather than the wicca referring to pagan religions.

As taken from Wiki (not wici or wicki or anything else)

Shaffer wanted the film to be "a little more literate" than the average horror picture. The focus of the film was crystallised when he "finally hit upon the abstract concept of sacrifice". The image of the wicker man, which gave the filmmakers their title, was taken from one sentence in Julius Caesar's account of his wars in what is now France. Caesar claimed that the local tribes there had executed their most serious criminals by burning them alive in a huge man-shaped sculpture of woven twigs; for Shaffer, this was "the most alarming and imposing image that I had ever seen".^[

[Knight of Clear Skies]

The bottom line is we have no evidence of life beyond Earth, although we've barely looked. A vast universe argues in favour of there being plenty of life out there, but what if the odds against it spontaneously arising on a particular planet are equally vast?

I always think it's the epitome of human arrogance to think that the most advance form of life ANYWHERE in the Universe is right here on Earth.

I agree it would be foolish to assume that we are the most advanced form of life, but considering the possibility that we could be is a different matter altogether.

We are evidence enough. Earth is evidence enough. Any planet that is absolutely teaming with life (just like planet Earth) is evidence enough.

How much evidence do you need?

Certainly the Earth provides bountiful evidence that life is possible and adaptable, but that does not tell us how difficult it is for life to get started in the first place. Evolutionary theory does not address this and we have no theory of abiogenesis - all we have are some plausible hypotheses.

Are life and consciousness natural and common consequences of the physical processes that shape our universe, or are we some massive cosmic fluke? The anthropic principle cautions us against making assumptions, we are privileged observers by dint of being alive and conscious. Until we have some independent evidence we can't distinguish between those two scenarios. The good news is there are some ways we can attack the problem, in the lab, through simulation and by old-fashioned looking and exploring.

[symesie04]

A final thought as im sure your all sick to death of my thoughts by now if you weren't after the first line of my first post

Now I will try and find a link for this (although uncertain what to search for) but there is a evolutionary biologist in America who has been studying bacterial life forms that make their home in incredibly Arsenic rich water in lakes in the (I believe) Death Valley region. Now there are several organisms that thrive in these incredibly hostile environments. But what she finds most interesting is that one in particular seems to thrive the more hostile the environment becomes. It seems that as the level of Arsenic is increased then the more one particular strain of the bacteria thrive. This has led her to declare that she thinks its possible that this particular strain is of a totally different evolutionary tree to the rest of life on earth which has little or no resistance to Arsenic. Now granted her work is somewhat debated at present but interesting it is none the less. If her ideas were to be proved correct at some stage and this bacteria has indeed evolved independently of all other life on earth it has huge connotations not just on earth but for life elsewhere in the Universe. If life has evolved not just once but multiple times on earth alone there it would be certain that life has also evolved elsewhere in the Universe. Lets hope more resources are put into proving her theories either right or wrong.

[davew]

lol

They burnt me at the stake a short while back for mentioning the same ... or so they think ... he he he he

You mean someone has the temerity to have an alternative opinion to yours ?

Tell us. Tell us his name and we shall smite him. Or her

Dave.