What's new

Habitable exoplanets are bad news for humanity

thesolar65

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Jul 3, 2012
Messages
4,922
Reaction score
-12
Country
India
Location
India
Last week, scientists announced the discovery of Kepler-186f, a planet 492 light years away in the Cygnus constellation. Kepler-186f is special because it marks the first planet almost exactly the same size as Earth orbiting in the “habitable zone,” the distance from a star in which we might expect liquid water—and perhaps life.

What did not make the news, however, is that this discovery also slightly increases how much credence we give to the possibility of our own near-term extinction. This is because of a concept known as the Great Filter.

The Great Filter is an argument that attempts to resolve the Fermi Paradox: why have we not found aliens (or why have they not found us), despite the existence of hundreds of billions of exosolar systems in our galactic neighborhood in which life might evolve? As the namesake physicist Enrico Fermi noted, it seems rather extraordinary that not a single extraterrestrial signal or engineering project has been detected (UFO conspiracy theorists notwithstanding).

This apparent absence of thriving extraterrestrial civilizations suggests that at least one of the steps from humble planet to interstellar civilization is exceedingly unlikely. The absence could be because intelligent life is extremely rare, or because intelligent life has a tendency to go extinct. This bottleneck for the emergence of alien civilizations from any one of those billions of planets is referred to as the Great Filter.

Are we alone?
What exactly is causing this bottleneck has been the subject of debate for more than 50 years. Explanations could include a paucity of Earth-like planets or self-replicating molecules. Other possibilities could be an improbable jump from simple prokaryotic life (cells without specialized parts) to more complex eukaryotic life—after all, this transition took well over a billion years on Earth.

Proponents of this “Rare Earth” hypothesis also argue that the evolution of complex life requires an exceedingly large number of perfect conditions. In addition to Earth being in the habitable zone of the Sun, our star must be far enough away from the galactic center to avoid destructive radiation, our gas giants must be massive enough to sweep asteroids from Earth’s trajectory, and our unusually large Moon stabilizes the axial tilt that gives us different seasons.

These are just a few prerequisites for complex life. The emergence of symbolic language, tools and intelligence could require other such “perfect conditions” as well.

Or is the filter ahead of us?
While the emergence of intelligent life could be rare, the silence could also be the result of intelligent life emerging frequently but subsequently failing to survive for long. Might every sufficiently advanced civilization stumble across a suicidal technology or settle into an unsustainable trajectory? We know that a Great Filter prevents the emergence of prosperous interstellar civilizations, but we don’t know whether or not we already cleared it in humanity’s past or if it awaits us in the future.

For 200,000 years, humanity has survived supervolcanoes, asteroid impacts, and naturally occurring pandemics. But our track record of survival is limited to just a few decades in the presence of nuclear weaponry. And we have no track record at all of surviving many of the radically novel technologies that are likely to arrive this century.

Esteemed scientists such as Astronomer Royal Martin Rees at the Cambridge Centre for the Study of Existential Risk point to advances in biotechnology as being potentially catastrophic. Others, such as Stephen Hawking, Max Tegmark, and Stuart Russell, also with the Cambridge Centre, have expressed serious concern about the exotic but understudied possibility of machine superintelligence.

Let’s hope Kepler-186f is barren
When the Fermi Paradox was initially proposed, it was thought that planets themselves were rare. Since then, however, the tools of astronomy have revealed the existence of hundreds of exoplanets. That seems to be just the tip of the iceberg.

But each new discovery of an Earth-like planet in the habitable zone, such as Kepler-186f, makes it less plausible that there are simply no planets aside from Earth that might support life. The Great Filter is thus more likely to be lurking in the path between habitable planet and flourishing civilization.

If Kepler-186f is teeming with intelligent life, then that would be really bad news for humanity because it would push back the Great Filter’s position further into the technological stages of a civilization’s development. This would imply that catastrophe awaits both us and our extraterrestrial companions.
count.gif


In the case of Kepler-186f, we still have many reasons to think intelligent life might not emerge. The atmosphere might be too thin to prevent freezing or the planet might be tidally locked, causing a relatively static environment. Discovery of these hostile conditions should be cause for celebration.

@Chinese-Dragon @SpArK @jarves @gambit @Marshmallow @levina @DRAY @BDforever @Jaanbaz @janon @scorpionx @chak de INDIA @Talon @Sidak @Skull and Bones @Developereo @Indischer @Peter C @sandy_3126 @Srinivas and others
 
Last edited:
Last week, scientists announced the discovery of Kepler-186f, a planet 492 light years away in the Cygnus constellation. Kepler-186f is special because it marks the first planet almost exactly the same size as Earth orbiting in the “habitable zone,” the distance from a star in which we might expect liquid water—and perhaps life.

What did not make the news, however, is that this discovery also slightly increases how much credence we give to the possibility of our own near-term extinction. This is because of a concept known as the Great Filter.

The Great Filter is an argument that attempts to resolve the Fermi Paradox: why have we not found aliens (or why have they not found us), despite the existence of hundreds of billions of exosolar systems in our galactic neighborhood in which life might evolve? As the namesake physicist Enrico Fermi noted, it seems rather extraordinary that not a single extraterrestrial signal or engineering project has been detected (UFO conspiracy theorists notwithstanding).

This apparent absence of thriving extraterrestrial civilizations suggests that at least one of the steps from humble planet to interstellar civilization is exceedingly unlikely. The absence could be because intelligent life is extremely rare, or because intelligent life has a tendency to go extinct. This bottleneck for the emergence of alien civilizations from any one of those billions of planets is referred to as the Great Filter.

Are we alone?
What exactly is causing this bottleneck has been the subject of debate for more than 50 years. Explanations could include a paucity of Earth-like planets or self-replicating molecules. Other possibilities could be an improbable jump from simple prokaryotic life (cells without specialized parts) to more complex eukaryotic life—after all, this transition took well over a billion years on Earth.

Proponents of this “Rare Earth” hypothesis also argue that the evolution of complex life requires an exceedingly large number of perfect conditions. In addition to Earth being in the habitable zone of the Sun, our star must be far enough away from the galactic center to avoid destructive radiation, our gas giants must be massive enough to sweep asteroids from Earth’s trajectory, and our unusually large Moon stabilizes the axial tilt that gives us different seasons.

These are just a few prerequisites for complex life. The emergence of symbolic language, tools and intelligence could require other such “perfect conditions” as well.

Or is the filter ahead of us?
While the emergence of intelligent life could be rare, the silence could also be the result of intelligent life emerging frequently but subsequently failing to survive for long. Might every sufficiently advanced civilization stumble across a suicidal technology or settle into an unsustainable trajectory? We know that a Great Filter prevents the emergence of prosperous interstellar civilizations, but we don’t know whether or not we already cleared it in humanity’s past or if it awaits us in the future.

For 200,000 years, humanity has survived supervolcanoes, asteroid impacts, and naturally occurring pandemics. But our track record of survival is limited to just a few decades in the presence of nuclear weaponry. And we have no track record at all of surviving many of the radically novel technologies that are likely to arrive this century.

Esteemed scientists such as Astronomer Royal Martin Rees at the Cambridge Centre for the Study of Existential Risk point to advances in biotechnology as being potentially catastrophic. Others, such as Stephen Hawking, Max Tegmark, and Stuart Russell, also with the Cambridge Centre, have expressed serious concern about the exotic but understudied possibility of machine superintelligence.

Let’s hope Kepler-186f is barren
When the Fermi Paradox was initially proposed, it was thought that planets themselves were rare. Since then, however, the tools of astronomy have revealed the existence of hundreds of exoplanets. That seems to be just the tip of the iceberg.

But each new discovery of an Earth-like planet in the habitable zone, such as Kepler-186f, makes it less plausible that there are simply no planets aside from Earth that might support life. The Great Filter is thus more likely to be lurking in the path between habitable planet and flourishing civilization.

If Kepler-186f is teeming with intelligent life, then that would be really bad news for humanity because it would push back the Great Filter’s position further into the technological stages of a civilization’s development. This would imply that catastrophe awaits both us and our extraterrestrial companions.
count.gif


In the case of Kepler-186f, we still have many reasons to think intelligent life might not emerge. The atmosphere might be too thin to prevent freezing or the planet might be tidally locked, causing a relatively static environment. Discovery of these hostile conditions should be cause for celebration.

@Chinese-Dragon @SpArK @jarves @gambit @Marshmallow @levina @DRAY @BDforever @Jaanbaz @janon @scorpionx @chak de INDIA @Talon @Sidak @Skull and Bones @Developereo @Indischer @Peter C @sandy_3126 @Srinivas and others
are bhai @isro2222 ko bhul gaye kya. he can only give the proof that aliens exists . I believe no nasa or any other space agency.
 
Last week, scientists announced the discovery of Kepler-186f, a planet 492 light years away in the Cygnus constellation. Kepler-186f is special because it marks the first planet almost exactly the same size as Earth orbiting in the “habitable zone,” the distance from a star in which we might expect liquid water—and perhaps life.

What did not make the news, however, is that this discovery also slightly increases how much credence we give to the possibility of our own near-term extinction. This is because of a concept known as the Great Filter.

The Great Filter is an argument that attempts to resolve the Fermi Paradox: why have we not found aliens (or why have they not found us), despite the existence of hundreds of billions of exosolar systems in our galactic neighborhood in which life might evolve? As the namesake physicist Enrico Fermi noted, it seems rather extraordinary that not a single extraterrestrial signal or engineering project has been detected (UFO conspiracy theorists notwithstanding).

This apparent absence of thriving extraterrestrial civilizations suggests that at least one of the steps from humble planet to interstellar civilization is exceedingly unlikely. The absence could be because intelligent life is extremely rare, or because intelligent life has a tendency to go extinct. This bottleneck for the emergence of alien civilizations from any one of those billions of planets is referred to as the Great Filter.

Are we alone?
What exactly is causing this bottleneck has been the subject of debate for more than 50 years. Explanations could include a paucity of Earth-like planets or self-replicating molecules. Other possibilities could be an improbable jump from simple prokaryotic life (cells without specialized parts) to more complex eukaryotic life—after all, this transition took well over a billion years on Earth.

Proponents of this “Rare Earth” hypothesis also argue that the evolution of complex life requires an exceedingly large number of perfect conditions. In addition to Earth being in the habitable zone of the Sun, our star must be far enough away from the galactic center to avoid destructive radiation, our gas giants must be massive enough to sweep asteroids from Earth’s trajectory, and our unusually large Moon stabilizes the axial tilt that gives us different seasons.

These are just a few prerequisites for complex life. The emergence of symbolic language, tools and intelligence could require other such “perfect conditions” as well.

Or is the filter ahead of us?
While the emergence of intelligent life could be rare, the silence could also be the result of intelligent life emerging frequently but subsequently failing to survive for long. Might every sufficiently advanced civilization stumble across a suicidal technology or settle into an unsustainable trajectory? We know that a Great Filter prevents the emergence of prosperous interstellar civilizations, but we don’t know whether or not we already cleared it in humanity’s past or if it awaits us in the future.

For 200,000 years, humanity has survived supervolcanoes, asteroid impacts, and naturally occurring pandemics. But our track record of survival is limited to just a few decades in the presence of nuclear weaponry. And we have no track record at all of surviving many of the radically novel technologies that are likely to arrive this century.

Esteemed scientists such as Astronomer Royal Martin Rees at the Cambridge Centre for the Study of Existential Risk point to advances in biotechnology as being potentially catastrophic. Others, such as Stephen Hawking, Max Tegmark, and Stuart Russell, also with the Cambridge Centre, have expressed serious concern about the exotic but understudied possibility of machine superintelligence.

Let’s hope Kepler-186f is barren
When the Fermi Paradox was initially proposed, it was thought that planets themselves were rare. Since then, however, the tools of astronomy have revealed the existence of hundreds of exoplanets. That seems to be just the tip of the iceberg.

But each new discovery of an Earth-like planet in the habitable zone, such as Kepler-186f, makes it less plausible that there are simply no planets aside from Earth that might support life. The Great Filter is thus more likely to be lurking in the path between habitable planet and flourishing civilization.

If Kepler-186f is teeming with intelligent life, then that would be really bad news for humanity because it would push back the Great Filter’s position further into the technological stages of a civilization’s development. This would imply that catastrophe awaits both us and our extraterrestrial companions.
count.gif


In the case of Kepler-186f, we still have many reasons to think intelligent life might not emerge. The atmosphere might be too thin to prevent freezing or the planet might be tidally locked, causing a relatively static environment. Discovery of these hostile conditions should be cause for celebration.

@Chinese-Dragon @SpArK @jarves @gambit @Marshmallow @levina @DRAY @BDforever @Jaanbaz @janon @scorpionx @chak de INDIA @Talon @Sidak @Skull and Bones @Developereo @Indischer @Peter C @sandy_3126 @Srinivas and others
The reason there are no Intelligent spices is because Evolution does not favor intelligence. It favors survival.
Sharks have been the dominant species in the sea for millions of years but are still dumb because they don't need intelligence to survive.
 
Thats not evolution, shark haven't evolve much for millions years,. 2nd after ants, thats why they're dumb. While humans are evolve alot, only aging less than 100 thousands years. So evolution means intelligence as per evolutionary theory. Check profile of dogs or dolfins, they have evolve more, so more intelligence compare to others. Homo spiens profile tree is pretty messy.
The reason there are no Intelligent spices is because Evolution does not favor intelligence. It favors survival.
Sharks have been the dominant species in the sea for millions of years but are still dumb because they don't need intelligence to survive.
 

Let me try to summarize this.
So basically the idea is that the scientists believe (based on the presence of so many exoplanets) that life is highly likely in outer space and therefore intelligent life is also likely.
But we cannot find any signs or contact from such forms of life, which leads them to believe that one reason for it is that once life reaches a point where they are able to contact extra terrestrial life (i.e. they are smart enough to explore space) they are also able to create weapons of mass destruction or harm their environment in such a way that eventually leads to a suicide of the entire civilization.

My take on this-
I find this theory pretty interesting but I feel the article is jumping the gun a bit. We have been looking for extraterrestrial life for only the last few decades. In the life of the universe that is less than a second out of the whole year. And even in these last few decades the technology have never been the same. Considering the scale of this universe I do believe that there is life in countless places in this universe, intelligent life on the other hand would be much rare, intelligent life looking for other intelligent life even more rare.
This is one of the greatest mysteries for us humans, and if by the time I die they are not able to find life it would be probably be the biggest disappointment and reason to mourn on that day.
 
Or if they are bound by higher moral standards.
Why would they be bound by "higher moral standards", which barely is a figment of human imagination based on social conscience with no measurable of quantifiable metrics?
 
Thats not evolution, shark haven't evolve much for millions years,. 2nd after ants, thats why they're dumb. While humans are evolve alot, only aging less than 100 thousands years. So evolution means intelligence as per evolutionary theory. Check profile of dogs or dolfins, they have evolve more, so more intelligence compare to others. Homo spiens profile tree is pretty messy.
Actually that is not true. Evolution do not support intelligence it supports survival and intelligence evolved in humans because evolving instinct was an important part of survival.
I also disagree with the original poster(the person you quoted) because intelligence plays a role in survival (not a very important role, basic instinct works just perfect there). If life is given time to evolve it is bound to eventually evolve into something more intelligent. (again the scale of time we are talking about is very important)
 
Why would they be bound by "higher moral standards", which barely is a figment of human imagination based on social conscience with no measurable of quantifiable metrics?

Exactly, with the advancement of a society, comes a factor of better understanding of the fragility of one's existence and hence higher consciousness. In the past, many rituals with were a norm for the society, is being considered immoral or barbaric in present times.

Though, i'm speaking from human standpoint.
 
Why would they be bound by "higher moral standards", which barely is a figment of human imagination based on social conscience with no measurable of quantifiable metrics?

They might have a better scientific if not moral standard - to let a species exist in its natural environment doing things it had always been doing.
 
If there is any life on other planet than they surely are dumb, as they haven't sent anything on Earth mission. :pop:

But on second thought what if the have already found us without our knowledge and planning to colonize us? :confused:

because intelligence plays a role in survival

Jelly fish survived for millions of years without brain, same is the case with morons
 
Last edited:
They might have a better scientific if not moral standard - to let a species exist in its natural environment doing things it had always been doing.

Without higher moral standards, the existence of their civilization will be at stake beyond a certain limit. I think that factor is embedded in Drake's equation, not sure though.

For an example, human civilization came close to extinction during the height of Cold war.
 
I also disagree with the original poster(the person you quoted) because intelligence plays a role in survival (not a very important role, basic instinct works just perfect there). If life is given time to evolve it is bound to eventually evolve into something more intelligent. (again the scale of time we are talking about is very important)
There are two components to Evolution
a) Environmental ( also known as Selection pressure)- This is when the environment suddenly/gradually becomes harsh against the species, and it becomes difficult to survive.
b) Genetic ( known as Survival of the fittest) - Now due to reproduction and copying/ propagation of genes , random mutations leave some members a little more different than others , some of these survive the Environmental pressure because of this mutation.
Now coming to your objection
intelligence will play a role only if it increases survival. Humans became intelligent because the selection pressure ( Bigger and almost always faster predators like Lions, tigers etc) required them to be organized in social units , which required ever increasing intelligence, Due to lack of fur and weaker body the early human turned to tool making and wielding, increasing their chances of survival and putting a selection pressure on the brain(complex ability to make tools from stone/sticks and their proper use and body co-ordination.)
So, humans always experienced selection pressures that promoted intelligence, both social and then progressively scientific(tools-> fire-> wheel->agriculture). Hence if a species does not experience the correct selection pressures, they will not evolve intelligence. The time must translate into the appropriate selection pressures.

If there is any life on other planet than they surely are dumb, as we haven't sent anything on Earth mission.
But on second thought what if the have already found us without our knowledge and planning to colonize us?
I like your approach to the problem.

Jelly fish survived for millions of years despite without brain, same is the case with morons
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
 

Back
Top Bottom