Earth (and intelligent life) maybe REALLY unique in the Galaxy? (Book Tips too)

[flexy]

I am usually not the type who thinks that life, and in particular "intelligent" life as it evolved on Earth is unique. My common thinking was always that there is "zillions" of planets in our Galaxy and of course the entire universe, and then also "zillions" of Earth-like planets and possibly lots of places where intelligent life evolved.

Currently I am reading some books by John Gribbin. I really LOVE this guy! Very scientific, detailed, but still a joy to read even about topics that would otherwise appear "dry". I can really recommend him if you want to read some good books about quantum physics, cosmology etc.

So right now I am reading his "Alone in the Universe: Why Our Planet Is Unique" (https://www.amazon.com/Alone-Universe-Why-Planet-Unique/dp/1118147979/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8) and he makes a really good case why Earth is possibly unique and maybe even the one (or one of a very few, like just 2 or max. 3) planets in the entire Galaxy where intelligent life could have evolved. (He keeps with the Galaxy, not the "entire universe" for the scope of the book).

He lists many factors that make Earth unique, starting with how the solar system was created, how numerous unique events, like a possible supernova before the sun was "born", plate tectonics, the moon, earth's orbit, magnetic core etc. and more created a very unique solar system and planet like no other....and makes the case how only slight deviations of those many factors could have made life as we know it today impossible.

Just to give ONE example, let me recall...how our moon is unique since no other major planet in our solar system has a moon of that size. The moon helps to stabilize the Earth axis, without the moon we would not have steady seasons, and also no tides...etc..which also helped life evolve out of the oceans.

He also says that without many of those, let's call them "freak occurrences" or simply coincidences, like asteroid impacts, size/mass of the moon and other planets like Jupiter, the type of sun, stable orbits etc. it may be possible that maybe simple life-forms would have evolved, but no intelligent civilizations which depend on that things stay steady over millions or so years. Example here, without the moon and the earth axis being less stable and significant climate changes every some million years or so, an intelligent civilization could never have evolved.

It also interesting to learn that our Earth is actually a self-correcting system, eg. the greenhouse effect results in that the Earth always returns to an "optimal" temperature for life, ie. when other factors make the Earth warmer it cools itself and vice versa. He gives a good example that in theory it would be possible to move Earth to the orbit of Mars, the green house effect would then increase dramatically and still maintain a normal temperature on Earth, unlike Mars which is too cold.

Also, how asteroid/meteor impacts brought water to Earth, but just the right amount so continents (and intelligent life) could evolve etc..etc..

Good and intriguing read!

 

[Craig234]

I'm of the opinion there is likely no other life in the universe, but I don't base it on the same science - there are some missing pieces in the story of life in science still. It's a rather humanistic view of the issue. Yes, it's a bit lonely for the human race. But helps remind the need to not destroy our planet.

 

[sandorski]

Could be, but our experience with Planets is still close to nothing in comparison to what is probably out there.

 

[MongGrel]

Well, to be polite, I'm going to bed.

 

[flexy]

I'm of the opinion there is likely no other life in the universe, but I don't base it on the same science - there are some missing pieces in the story of life in science still. It's a rather humanistic view of the issue. Yes, it's a bit lonely for the human race. But helps remind the need to not destroy our planet.

Well I am torn.

I won't argue with him that there are many very specific factors that made Earth unique. So my notion that there are possibly "billions" of *very* Earth-like planets may be swerved now, after reading this book.

But, on the other hand, are all those "freak occurrences" that made life evolve here also an example of how life can adapt to whatever circumstances. Obviously we can only see it from our point of view. If life (and the entire planet actually) perfectly adapted, it may well happen elsewhere, even with entirely different parameters.

There are so many examples to list, like when he mentions that MOST systems with similar stars like the sun are actual binary systems. Now a planet in a binary star systems may not evolve life "as we know it", but then it may evolve differently, but nevertheless.

 

[cbrunny]

Sounds to me the guy just looked at a whole bunch of stuff and then threw together some haphazard explanations, then masked them in the size and scope of the universe to leave the reader befuddled and believing that "odds" actually matter in this case.

To put it another way, I think the author's argument as summarized here is complete garbage.

Sounds to me like even though he has thrown in words like 'millions of years' that he actually is approaching this thought experiment with the natural confines of "life as we know it." That is to say, "life as we know it" doesn't mean anything in the context of an infinite time period in near infinite space and (not actually but near) infinite stars/planets. Buddy is constrained by his own mind.

 

[NAC]

I didn't read the book, but it is possible that is an explanation of the Fermi paradox. Earth is just very unique, among hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy. However, I think a much more likely explanation is that we exist only in a simulation.

 

[agent00f]

I am usually not the type who thinks that life, and in particular "intelligent" life as it evolved on Earth is unique. My common thinking was always that there is "zillions" of planets in our Galaxy and of course the entire universe, and then also "zillions" of Earth-like planets and possibly lots of places where intelligent life evolved.

Currently I am reading some books by John Gribbin. I really LOVE this guy! Very scientific, detailed, but still a joy to read even about topics that would otherwise appear "dry". I can really recommend him if you want to read some good books about quantum physics, cosmology etc.

So right now I am reading his "Alone in the Universe: Why Our Planet Is Unique" (https://www.amazon.com/Alone-Universe-Why-Planet-Unique/dp/1118147979/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8) and he makes a really good case why Earth is possibly unique and maybe even the one (or one of a very few, like just 2 or max. 3) planets in the entire Galaxy where intelligent life could have evolved. (He keeps with the Galaxy, not the "entire universe" for the scope of the book).

He lists many factors that make Earth unique, starting with how the solar system was created, how numerous unique events, like a possible supernova before the sun was "born", plate tectonics, the moon, earth's orbit, magnetic core etc. and more created a very unique solar system and planet like no other....and makes the case how only slight deviations of those many factors could have made life as we know it today impossible.

Just to give ONE example, let me recall...how our moon is unique since no other major planet in our solar system has a moon of that size. The moon helps to stabilize the Earth axis, without the moon we would not have steady seasons, and also no tides...etc..which also helped life evolve out of the oceans.

He also says that without many of those, let's call them "freak occurrences" or simply coincidences, like asteroid impacts, size/mass of the moon and other planets like Jupiter, the type of sun, stable orbits etc. it may be possible that maybe simple life-forms would have evolved, but no intelligent civilizations which depend on that things stay steady over millions or so years. Example here, without the moon and the earth axis being less stable and significant climate changes every some million years or so, an intelligent civilization could never have evolved.

It also interesting to learn that our Earth is actually a self-correcting system, eg. the greenhouse effect results in that the Earth always returns to an "optimal" temperature for life, ie. when other factors make the Earth warmer it cools itself and vice versa. He gives a good example that in theory it would be possible to move Earth to the orbit of Mars, the green house effect would then increase dramatically and still maintain a normal temperature on Earth, unlike Mars which is too cold.

Also, how asteroid/meteor impacts brought water to Earth, but just the right amount so continents (and intelligent life) could evolve etc..etc..

Good and intriguing read!

Our exactly situation is definitely unique, but it seems more the result of a lack of imagination to suggest that "intelligent" life can only arise from such an exact situation.

For example, without knowing about cells in biology, would he have guessed that their incredibly intricate structure would have evolved after a billion or so years to create a foundation for such life?

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

The problem with looking back on the complexity of the events which led to the creation of the solar system and using it as an argument for our unique existence, is one of perspective. We are a colony of bacteria living on a Burma Shave sign along Route 66 and have neither the knowledge or perspective to see the larger picture.

 

[MongGrel]

I am usually not the type who thinks that life, and in particular "intelligent" life as it evolved on Earth is unique. My common thinking was always that there is "zillions" of planets in our Galaxy and of course the entire universe, and then also "zillions" of Earth-like planets and possibly lots of places where intelligent life evolved.

Currently I am reading some books by John Gribbin. I really LOVE this guy! Very scientific, detailed, but still a joy to read even about topics that would otherwise appear "dry". I can really recommend him if you want to read some good books about quantum physics, cosmology etc.

So right now I am reading his "Alone in the Universe: Why Our Planet Is Unique" (https://www.amazon.com/Alone-Universe-Why-Planet-Unique/dp/1118147979/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8) and he makes a really good case why Earth is possibly unique and maybe even the one (or one of a very few, like just 2 or max. 3) planets in the entire Galaxy where intelligent life could have evolved. (He keeps with the Galaxy, not the "entire universe" for the scope of the book).

He lists many factors that make Earth unique, starting with how the solar system was created, how numerous unique events, like a possible supernova before the sun was "born", plate tectonics, the moon, earth's orbit, magnetic core etc. and more created a very unique solar system and planet like no other....and makes the case how only slight deviations of those many factors could have made life as we know it today impossible.

Just to give ONE example, let me recall...how our moon is unique since no other major planet in our solar system has a moon of that size. The moon helps to stabilize the Earth axis, without the moon we would not have steady seasons, and also no tides...etc..which also helped life evolve out of the oceans.

He also says that without many of those, let's call them "freak occurrences" or simply coincidences, like asteroid impacts, size/mass of the moon and other planets like Jupiter, the type of sun, stable orbits etc. it may be possible that maybe simple life-forms would have evolved, but no intelligent civilizations which depend on that things stay steady over millions or so years. Example here, without the moon and the earth axis being less stable and significant climate changes every some million years or so, an intelligent civilization could never have evolved.

It also interesting to learn that our Earth is actually a self-correcting system, eg. the greenhouse effect results in that the Earth always returns to an "optimal" temperature for life, ie. when other factors make the Earth warmer it cools itself and vice versa. He gives a good example that in theory it would be possible to move Earth to the orbit of Mars, the green house effect would then increase dramatically and still maintain a normal temperature on Earth, unlike Mars which is too cold.

Also, how asteroid/meteor impacts brought water to Earth, but just the right amount so continents (and intelligent life) could evolve etc..etc..

Good and intriguing read!

It sounds to me like you should be reading other books.

That sounds more like nonsense with no real research.

 

[Ken g6]

It seems to be fairly easy to have a planet develop conditions suitable for life. Mars did it. Venus may have too.

The problem seems to be keeping conditions habitable long enough for oxygen-producing organisms to evolve, and to oxidize all the metals on the planet so that an oxygen-rich atmosphere can develop. Oh, and oxygen-breathing organisms have to evolve too, or they'll be poisoned to death by the oxygen.

 

[flexy]

It sounds to me like you should be reading other books.

That sounds more like nonsense with no real research.

Please read his book(s), he is not some nonsense-babbling new-age guy. As said he makes good points. Read the book and you'd understand his arguments. And...frankly...what exactly there is "nonsense"?

 

[flexy]

Ken G6, exactly! But this is the "fine line" here. Conditions for life: Yes, Primitive life: Possible. But...

Here too (and he mentions Mars and Venus many times in the book), we had unique events on Earth which turned primitive life into a tech civilization. For example where I am right now in the book he goes over multiple events such as asteroid/meteorite impacts, climate changes, ice ages (due to how the earth axis wobbles in periodic intervals) etc. which caused periodical hardships on Earth..and it was these hardships which forced life to adapt and ultimately become intelligent.

Good example...science found that ALL of today's humans genetically can be traced back to likely less than 1000 human ancestors. This means that at some point far in the past, humans (respective their ancestors) ALMOST died out with the exception of a very few who survived somewhere locally. Without such catastrophic events (which are entirely random in nature), a high tech civilization would LIKELY have never evolved.

 

[agent00f]

Ken G6, exactly! But this is the "fine line" here. Conditions for life: Yes, Primitive life: Possible. But...

Here too (and he mentions Mars and Venus many times in the book), we had unique events on Earth which turned primitive life into a tech civilization. For example where I am right now in the book he goes over multiple events such as asteroid/meteorite impacts, climate changes, ice ages (due to how the earth axis wobbles in periodic intervals) etc. which caused periodical hardships on Earth..and it was these hardships which forced life to adapt and ultimately become intelligent.

Good example...science found that ALL of today's humans genetically can be traced back to likely less than 1000 human ancestors. This means that at some point far in the past, humans (respective their ancestors) ALMOST died out with the exception of a very few who survived somewhere locally. Without such catastrophic events (which are entirely random in nature), a high tech civilization would LIKELY have never evolved.

Consider all the conditions which had to be met throughout history for you to be born. How can such an unlikely event ever occur?

 

[flexy]

No, I am not falling in THIS trap, the argument often given by creationists. What I call "backwards logic". From that PoV, yes my birth, or a lottery win for a specific person, or even this post before I wrote it (the combination of letters etc.) are mathematically extremely unlikely to occur.

But this is not my argument and the guy also doesn't use this silly way of backwards logic.

He however makes good points that Earth and the entire solar system may well be unique (or at least extremely rare) because of many, many factors that ultimately life and then a tech civilization emerged. I can only recommend that people read the book because I don't see his arguments as silly at all. This is not some creationist blahblah by a long-shot, some of his points (to me) seem sound.

** And from a scientific view, my or your birth are not "unlikely", at all.

 

[agent00f]

No, I am not falling in THIS trap, the argument often given by creationists. What I call "backwards logic". From that PoV, yes my birth, or a lottery win for a specific person, or even this post before I wrote it (the combination of letters etc.) are mathematically extremely unlikely to occur.

But this is not my argument and the guy also doesn't use this silly way of backwards logic.

He however makes good points that Earth and the entire solar system may well be unique (or at least extremely rare) because of many, many factors that ultimately life and then a tech civilization emerged. I can only recommend that people read the book because I don't see his arguments as silly at all. This is not some creationist blahblah by a long-shot, some of his points (to me) seem sound.

** And from a scientific view, my or your birth are not "unlikely", at all.

How is he so sure that (intelligent) life can only exist given our exact unique circumstances? I highly recommend looking into physical biology to see just how complex yet bizarre to the human mind the first billion or so years of evolution was. His argument is that how it worked out for this place must be how it needs to work out elsewhere; how can his human mind be sure of this?

 

[SMOGZINN]

He however makes good points that Earth and the entire solar system may well be unique (or at least extremely rare) because of many, many factors that ultimately life and then a tech civilization emerged

But from what you describe here he is making the backwards logic argument. If there are lots of sets of events that could lead to the emergence of a technological civilization then his argument doesn't make sense. What people are trying to point out to you is that for it to be otherwise he would have to be making the argument that ONLY these very specific set of events could possibly lead to a technological society.

 

[IronWing]

This does sound an awful lot like the puddle argument.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You paint a target around a random arrow and shout BULLSEYE!

 

[flexy]

Well, it's of course (almost) a paradox.

As I understand you guys' argument. The more "random" freak occurrences occurred that ultimately gave rise to intelligent life (which IS among his arguments), the more unlikely the arising of intelligent life also is, in particular elsewhere.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Well, it's of course (almost) a paradox.

As I understand you guys' argument. The more "random" freak occurrences occurred that ultimately gave rise to intelligent life (which IS among his arguments), the more unlikely the arising of intelligent life also is, in particular elsewhere.

But what you don't seem to grasp is just how big numbers we are talking about are. If a occurrence only has a one in a million chance of happening we are still talking about it happening thousands of times in our galaxy. Then we have to ask how likely are they to clump, as in how many of them have the same root cause. For example the single star, large moon, many meteor impacts, and a large outer planet might all have very similar causes and so would be expected to appear together often.

 

[flexy]

Uhm..there is not anything "I don't seem to grasp", but nevertheless it might have changed the old notion that there are "zillions of Earth-like planets out there"....to "those are out there, but likely MUCH less frequently as thought before". I am not necessarily agreeing with him that the Earth would be only one or two of such planets in the galaxy. I am aware that if "freak accidents" happened here, they must also have happened elsewhere. Often? No, but they don't have to. I don't see it as easy to calculate the odds to be honest. Because it is well correct, if "freak occurrences" occurred here, then they can well occur elsewhere. And I think it's definitely naive to start thinking of "life as we know it" since HOW life could possibly develop and adapt..who knows?

For example, ONE of his arguments with the less stable orbits in binary star systems, I could well think of life which during millions of years somehow adopts to tolerate such extremes, even if life "as we know it" wouldn't thrive in such a system.

 

[sandorski]

Discussing this subject is kinda like discussing the next gen of Video Cards. There's more speculation than Facts involved. Main difference being that the video cards will be out within a year and our knowledge of other planets may need centuries of investigation before we know with great confidence.

 

[Ken g6]

Here too (and he mentions Mars and Venus many times in the book), we had unique events on Earth which turned primitive life into a tech civilization.

Once complex life evolves with brains, it seems like there is more-or-less constant pressure to develop bigger brains. Tool use also seems to develop frequently. (Birds do it, bees do it...) So I rather expect complex life with brains to develop technology eventually, given enough millions of years.

Discussing this subject is kinda like discussing the next gen of Video Cards. There's more speculation than Facts involved. Main difference being that the video cards will be out within a year and our knowledge of other planets may need centuries of investigation before we know with great confidence.

Hopefully it's also alike in that whatever we eventually discover won't greatly harm us.

 

[flexy]

Yes, but this pressure is caused be "less than optimal" conditions, eg. it forces life-forms to adapt and to evolve. Or differently: On a "paradise planet" where everything is just perfect, complex intelligent life (like humans) would LIKELY not have evolved. (There is no need for a technological intelligence). This was my opinion before but the book's author also re-iterates this.
He for example points out that humans evolved out of E. Africa, where at the time there had been massive changes in climate...and not from, say, the tropics in South America which maintained a relatively steady comfortable environment for millions of years.

So for intelligent life to evolve there must be hardships. (As I mentioned earlier, genetics can trace back humans to only 1000 or so assumed individuals, we basically ALMOST died out at some point). It's a balance act of hardships and adapting. Heck the large meteorite impact who wiped out dinosaurs etc. also gave rise to us, ultimately.