Page 13
E S S A Y S
By the Number
Fig. 1. "Everybody stay calm. And try to blend in."
e57
POSITIVELY the ABSOLUTE FINAL WORD on
ADVANCED EXTRATERRESTRIAL SENTIENCE
Part 1
I have never been comfortable with the idea that a cruel, amoral race of advanced beings could have struggled through millenniums of evolutionary turmoil, survived all the hazards that threatened self-destruction or extinction at every turn, only to crown their amazing achievements by becoming ruthless, murderous bullies who possess no regard or respect for the lives of others, including intelligent beings on other worlds.
The notion seems quite improbable that the great philosophical, humanitarian concepts embraced by both ancient and modern intellectuals -- from which were developed the powerful disciplines of law and justice, ethics, scruples and so forth, including beliefs in decency, compassion, religion and charity -- are all somehow unique to the human species. It seems far more reasonable and rational to suggest that such ideas are truly universal in nature, and that just as slavery is inevitable, so is the epiphany that rejects its inherent immorality.
For this and other reasons, an informal examination of issues related to advanced extraterrestrials who might one day threaten Earth with extermination or enslavement, appeared overdue and worth debunking if possible.
This essay will attempt to address and resolve two interconnected topics:
01. The existence of sentient and advanced extraterrestrial life. Advanced is further defined as referring to an alien civilization capable of leaving their home planet and traveling to another world.
02. The proposal by well known theoretical physicist, Dr. Steven Hawking, who has warned that advanced space-travelers could exist as dispassionate, amoral (if not evil), genocidal marauders.
We should begin by tackling the second item first, namely the rather disturbing notion that Steven Spielberg’s cutesy E.T. from the movie of the same name could, in reality, share the universe with diabolical opportunists who do not embrace human perceptions of compassion and conscience.
In Dr. Hawking’s anything-is-possible scenario, heartless, cold-blooded beings reminiscent of H.G.Wells’ Martians in his classic, War Of The Worlds, explore the galaxy as nomadic conquerors who exploit distant, foreign planets in search of useful resources. Hawking suggests that such entities, when they are more technologically advanced than their prey, may take what they want and in the process, be unmindful of what or who stands-in-their-way, so to speak.
The supposition is thus made that on our own world, for example, had the Nazis reigned victorious during WWII, it is conceivable that they would have eventually developed futuristic spaceships capable of exploring, then dominating and defeating lesser life-forms or civilizations found on other worlds. And as one might imagine, their conduct and behavior would have been executed in a typically callous, Nazi-like manner. Assuming, of course, that their doctrinal view of superior and inferior races, alien or otherwise, remained intact. In other words, the Nazification of space and, in theory, all that entails.
Such a proposal relies on a single, basic assumption: That on all worlds where sophisticated, highly evolved forces for good and evil are in conflict, the possibility exists that Evil may indeed triumph over Good, and continue to develop technological advancements accordingly. The film Independence Day is perhaps the perfect model for Dr. Hawking’s speculations. In the movie, nasty, merciless aliens travel the cosmos in search of planets which possess valuable natural resources. These more-advanced invaders find Earth and launch an attack designed to exterminate humanity, therefore eliminating all resistance to the aliens’ greedy depletion of Earth’s minerals, rare elements, and who-knows what else.
In the end, the marauders are defeated as much by human ingenuity fueled via moral outrage, as they are by their own shortcomings. A more objective, realistic appraisal of the film’s premise, though, would suggest a far less optimistic outcome. The aliens would no doubt have kicked our collective asses and then moved on to their next victim.
Just for the sake of argument, let’s presume (for the moment) that Dr. Hawking is correct. Further, that Hitler’s Germany and Tojo’s Japan went on to win the second world war. Few historians would argue that such an outcome was impossible and, given a few fortuitous changes that would have favored the Axis powers instead of hindering them, the hostilities could have ended far differently than they did.
Needless to say, the next hundred years would have taken a bizarre turn. And according to Hawking, could have produced our own Earthly version of Star Wars’ evil Empire and its leader, Darth Vader.
As we re-write history solely to make a point, it’s important to establish the exact circumstances that led to the defeat of Germany and Japan and allowed the Allies to win final victory. Hypothetically, on some other planet in our galaxy, a similar technological war was fought whereby the “bad-guys” won. Had they done so on 20th Century Earth during the 1940’s, certain historical facts would have required a significantly changed outcome.
While it is true that all wars are rife with both successful and failed military campaigns, on all sides, Hitler and his Nazi minions must hold some kind of record for having accomplished the most serious blunders in the history of armed conflict. Fortunately for the world, the mistakes of the Third Reich outnumbered their successes which were also quite numerous. Most scholars would likely agree that the collapse of the Nazis, in particular, aside from all other arguments and commentary, can be distilled down to four major debacles, the combination of which doomed the Germans and ultimately the Japanese to total and devastating defeats. These four disasters which combine both military and political components were:
01. Persecution of the Jews and other groups.
By waging a campaign of hatred and genocide against the Jews and others, the Nazi regime denied itself the many benefits of the dynamic intelligentsia who lived among its large Jewish citizenry. Many Jewish scientists, industrialists, physicists, and others may well have stayed loyal to the German state, instead of being killed or fleeing to other countries. How many German-born Oppenheimers not unlike the American version who became the father of the Atom bomb, might have remained in Europe or otherwise contributed to the Nazi war machine, had they been embraced and rewarded, instead of murdered or turned into refugees?
The exact answers to such questions are unknowable, and the twists and turns of history are always the mixed results of great wisdom and great stupidity, but if there had been no concentration camps, no persecutions based on race or religion, the money, manpower, and resources expended for such non-war activities would have then been available for other, more militarily advantageous pursuits. And this alone would have prolonged the war by many months, if not years – valuable time the Germans could have used, especially toward the end, when many advanced technologies, on all sides, were being refined and rushed into production. One in particular, the “atomic bomb”, was a menu item on everyone’s plate.
02. Failure to develop a long-range, four-engine bomber.
Some history buffs might argue that Hitler’s invasion of Russia, the Barbarosa operation, should be on any short list of critical fiascos committed by the Nazi juggernaut. While true on its surface, such a broad nomination would miss a key factor that not only doomed the German crusade into Russia, but other important Nazi pursuits as well.
Operation Barbarosa failed primarily because the Russian industrial base was able to withdraw from the advancing German armies, and rebuild armaments factories that were then too far distant for the limited-range, two-engine bombers employed exclusively by the Luftwaffe. Nazi arrogance and lack of foresight prevented the development of a long-range, four-engine bomber – something the Germans could have no doubt built in large numbers. And had in the past.
Unable to destroy the ever-growing Russian war machine, which reinforced its frontline armies with a virtually unlimited supply of tanks, artillery, and aircraft, the Nazis were forced into a demoralizing retreat from which they would never recover.
However, had the Germans employed four-engine bombers that could have then reached and destroyed the Russian factories regardless of their location, Stalingrad and Moscow would have undoubtedly fallen to the Nazis. Russia would likely have surrendered under some kind of conditionality, and the Germans would have been able to return the full force of their men and materiel to a more focused, single-front war. The beneficial ramifications for a Germany not engaged in fighting simultaneously on both an eastern and western front, would have been immense and represented a possibly insurmountable problem for the Allies.
03. Insufficient support for “secret-weapons” and other technologies in which the Germans were far ahead of their enemies.
From early on, in the 1920’s and 30’s, the Germans were seriously involved in jet and rocket engine technologies, especially as they might relate to military applications. Once Hitler came to power, money and resources were made available to scientists and industry for the development of so-called, “secret weapons” that held the potential of quickly and decisively altering the course of the Nazis’ imperialistic ambitions.
Already years if not decades ahead of all other countries in the civilian construction of jet and rocket-propelled aircraft, the new influx of massive military support for such programs further increased the speed at which a nearly endless variety of exotic projects could be researched and developed.
As fate would have it, early German successes on the battlefield diminished the need and desire for expensive weapons whose purpose and use became less defined with each new victory. Funding for secret-weaponry was soon diverted to more conventional types such as tanks and propeller-driven aircraft. Not until the tide began to turn against the Nazis, did the government return its attention back to unorthodox weapon systems that might offer the opportunity to reverse ever-increasing losses in both battles and territories.
Three such weapons in particular, the jet-fighter airplane, the pulse-jet powered “buzz” bomb, and the long range, liquid-fueled V-2 missile were rushed into production towards the end of the war in a desperate, last-ditch effort to pull some kind of final victory from the jaws of impending defeat. The ploy was all for naught, of course, as time and resources had simply run out. Again as before, had the Germans listened to their military experts instead of bureaucrats, especially Hitler himself, and devoted the time, money, and energy necessary for an earlier deployment of their most advanced aircraft and rockets, the outcome of the war would surely have been a much changed affair.
04. Failure to develop an Atomic bomb.
Under-funded and under appreciated, the Germans’ atomic-energy research was woefully behind that of the Allies. Minus the equivalent of an American “Manhattan Project”, the Nazis lacked the ability to complete any kind of atomic weapon, which would have required far more time and resources than were ever available. Had the war’s timeline been substantially (albeit improbably) prolonged, however, for whatever reason, in which case the Germans might have had two to three more years to further refine their atomic program, they may well have developed a bomb on their own. German spies might possibly have bought or stolen critical secrets, and who knows what could have happened had the war dragged on for one or two more years.
Imagine a slightly different Germany, a more cunning and clever, less haughty version of itself, equipped with four-engine jet bombers, accompanied by escort jet fighters, capable of reaching New York and dropping atomic bombs. Also among this doppelganger Germany’s arsenal of weapons are multi-stage missiles, equally capable of reaching New York, even Los Angeles. All prior, for some period of time, to the Allies possessing anything comparable. A lapse that would have spelled partial if not total victory for the Axis powers.
Japan is also worth a brief mention in context with a “what-if” series of events that could have unraveled in a manner much more favorable to that island nation. The Japanese were, for one thing, working on their own atomic weapons project. No further ahead than their German partners, the two countries might conceivably have joined forces at some point, shared their secrets and thus made progress more quickly. Just a thought, but not so far fetched had other circumstances been different.
The Japanese were also involved in producing jet and rocket aircraft and under other circumstances, might again have shared these technologies with the Germans, and vice versa.
More importantly, America had only enough enriched radioactive material to make three atomic bombs, one of which was used for testing. Some amount of time, weeks and likely months, might have been required to produce additional bombs. Though the Japanese did not know of the Allies’ predicament, there was still a last minute effort to overthrow their government and to then refuse to surrender even after the second, Nagasaki bomb had been dropped. And again, this would have transpired in the absence of a third (fourth) bomb at our disposal. In the interim, until one or more weapons had been readied, there is no telling as to the amount of additional mayhem and mischief that may have resulted.
If we project a hypothetical situation whereby the German military was far more successful and thus able to assist their Axis friends in a much expanded fashion, the Japanese would then have fared much better, their ability to make war greatly improved.
Does all of this seem too much of a stretch? Maybe so. Way too many variables are involved in such a complex play-out of theoretical destinies. In Steven Hawking’s imagination, however, virtuous beings living on one or more other worlds, might well suffer a less preposterous defeat at the hands (or tentacles) of some totalitarian regime in some malevolent form of one kind or another. Good is overpowered by Evil, and the planet is then ruled by deadly thugs who ultimately turn their eyes and vicious lust for conquest towards the stars. My words not his. But the idea is the same.
Dr. Hawking concludes his proposal by suggesting the very real possibility that humans may come to regret their having sent our Earthly address into the far reaches of interstellar space. The Voyager spacecrafts, launched decades ago, each contain gold records inscribed with detailed instructions for finding Earth. In hindsight, the prospect does seem more than a bit scary, especially if Hawking is right. We should, however, stand as equal a chance of being found by beneficent aliens, one might conclude, as we do those loyal to an evil empire. Anyone for a roll of the cosmic dice?
Since Dr. Hawking’s position is as much philosophical as it is astrobiological, the case can be made and I will make it, that Evil can never survive indefinitely in the presence of Good. And even if Good were somehow eradicated absolutely, leaving only Evil in charge of everything, it would invariably turn upon its own, devour itself, and likely create new Good from its own ashes, so to speak.
Well, that all sounds very high-minded, romantic if not poetic, but what does it mean in real terms, in real life? What it means to me is the idea that even if Hitler and the Japanese had won the war, had divided the world between them and reigned over its populations with iron fists, no spaceships adorned with swastikas or rising-sun insignia would have ever ventured into space to conquer anything or anyone. The reason being, in my opinion, that entities of good-will and compassionate conscience will always rise up and either defeat the tyrants in their midst, or forever sabotage despotism’s ability to prosper.
Not yet defined in this essay are the positive qualities of what it means to be “good”, nor the negative traits of someone or something “evil”. For the purposes of this writing, I will rely on the wisdom of the famous humanitarian, Albert Schweitzer. “Good supports life, evil harms life.” Personally, I would add the word, “intentionally” as in, “…evil intentionally harms life.” Passive forms versus their more active -- and dangerous -- counterparts.
But I digress. To continue, advanced technologies that could be used to suppress and oppress others, regardless of species, whether Earthly or otherworldly, would also be available to opposing guerrilla forces and tactics. It is difficult to imagine an ongoing space program -- something akin to NASA and controlled by futuristic Nazi-types -- as an operation that would run undeterred by frequent disruptions, many of them violent in nature. Space travel and the building of space vehicles are fraught with enough difficulties under the best of conditions, without the added interference of widespread sabotage and chaos.
Moral beings will almost certainly seek to halt or destroy the advancement of perceived immoral rulers and, if necessary, kill such leaders and the soldiers who keep them in power. Certainly the potential evil empires envisioned in Hawking’s universe would have no qualms about the merciless elimination of those who resisted their authoritarian regime.
All such ruminations may, in the end, be little more than a meaningless concern. A very strong argument has been made that Earth may well exist as part of a small but exclusive cosmological club. That our planet is among only a select few, widely dispersed worlds upon which intelligent, “life-as-we-know-it” (LAWKI) has evolved -- and survived -- to any appreciable, technological level. The question of how decent or morally corrupt are such a relatively small number of civilizations becomes secondary, if not altogether moot, so far physically removed is each from the other.
Brief mention should be made with respect to this “LAWKI” (life-as-we-know-it) business, and how the concept it represents should be defined and interpreted. For the purposes of this essay, sentience, or conscious self-awareness, includes the ability and desire to alter one’s environment in such a way that it facilitates both survivability and an intellectual grasp of abstract ideas. Regardless of the exact nature of an “alien” being, whether its evolution is based on carbon or some other element, or despite its form and function deriving from a source that is presently inconceivable to us, this written composition concerns itself solely with specific kinds of technological advancement. More to the point, those advancements developed by any and all beings that would permit direct or indirect inter-communication between them and ourselves.
The proviso that technology must necessarily be a common and crucial component between or among any different and imaginable extraterrestrial civilizations is based on the following definition:
"Technology is the usage and knowledge of tools, techniques, crafts, systems or methods of organization in order to solve problems, enhance and enrich existence, or further define aesthetic models independent of survival needs." Any sentient form of life that, for whatever reason, does not develop and utilize technology as defined, would likely be incapable of communicating with us or any otherwise technological species.
For example, while it is now believed that multiple dimensions exist, each with its own characteristics and many that are possibly possessed of their own forms of life, the chances of inter-dimensional contact and communication seem remote at best. The lack of a technological means to bridge the gap between dimensions is certainly the most obvious and significant obstacle to two or more dimensions conversing with one another.
Not to be dismissed too lightly is the strong probability that simple life-forms, many microbial in size, may indeed proliferate upon numberless worlds (or moons) strewn throughout the galaxy. The harsh, often unstable conditions on many such planets would forever limit the ability of native organisms to evolve beyond certain stages of development. The prevalence of such microbes, regardless of their sophistication which may include impressive adaptations to seemingly hostile environments, should not be confused with more advanced forms imbued with a self-aware desire to comprehend both the nature of themselves and their environment – including a strong curiosity about the universe itself.
It is thus important to keep in mind that it is only sentient life-forms who develop and use the various hard technologies with which this discussion is aimed. Alternatively, the possibility certainly exists that highly intelligent but passive species, similar to Earthly whales and porpoises, swim in distant oceans -- where spaceships and radio telescopes would themselves seem like very alien concepts.
Presented here for your entertainment, deliberation, and reflection, is the first of two diametrically opposed views of our universe, especially in terms of how each addresses the scarcity of technologically active beings on the one hand, and a more optimistic, even enthusiastic approach on the other. Up first is what is known as:
The RARE EARTH Hypothesis
Are planets that foster life as we know it (LAWKI) as does the Earth, numerous or rare? In planetary astronomy and astrobiology, the Rare Earth hypothesis argues that, on Earth, the emergence of complex, multicellular life (metazoa) required a mathematically improbable, if not impossible combination of astrophysical and geological events and circumstances.
The term “Rare Earth” comes from Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe (2000), a book co-written by geologist and paleontologist, Peter Ward and Donald E. Brownlee, an astronomer and astrobiologist. Their book is the source for much of the thinking, logic, and evidence that argues against both the likelihood of an abundance of earthlike planets, and the successful ascent of an equal number of evolved, technological civilizations.
The Rare Earth hypothesis is in stark contrast (and disagreement) with the Principle of Mediocrity (also called the Copernican Principle), advocated by Frank Drake and the late Carl Sagan, among others. The Principle of Mediocrity concludes that the Earth is a typically rocky planet in a typical planetary system, located in an unexceptional region of a common, barred-spiral galaxy. Hence it is highly probable that the universe literally teems with complex life-forms.
Ward and Brownlee are quick to counter that planets, planetary systems, and galactic regions which are as hospitable to metazoan life as is the Earth (including a wildly diverse solar system located in our specific region of the Milky Way, exist as the exception and are therefore extremely rare.
By proposing, if not concluding outright, that multifarious life-forms are the uncommon norm, the Rare Earth hypothesis is a possible solution to the so-called Fermi Paradox which states: “If extraterrestrial aliens are common, why aren't they obvious?”
Also worth mentioning is that while a generalized discussion of religion is not included in this review, it should be noted that the Rare Earth hypothesis indirectly reinforces a voluntary (albeit arbitrary) belief in a God-governed universe. It would seem far more rational to accept the idea that God rules over a virtual handful of worlds within an otherwise vast but silent arena, than to imagine the Almighty supervising a fertile, thriving cosmos that literally screams with a near-infinite number and variety of life-forms and voices. All of whom beg for their Creator’s sole attention.
Since the successful March 6th, 2009 launch of the Kepler space telescope, an instrument whose sole purpose is the discovery of planets (especially Earthlike planets) orbiting distant star systems, over 1500 new worlds have been documented as of this writing – many of which appear to exist in an all-important “habitable” region known as The Goldilocks Zone. Named such after the fairytale about three bears in which some of the porridge in the tale was neither too hot nor too cold. Where the human character, Goldilocks, was meticulous about everything being just right to suit her tastes. Planets located in such a zone are likewise neither too hot nor cold for LAWKI to prosper. That’s the good news. The bad news is that these same, newly discovered worlds are much different from what was expected and, thus far, would tend to support a Rare Earth hypothesis.
So-called rocky planets like Mercury, Earth, Venus, and Mars should almost always form near their mother star, while “gas giants” such as Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, will be found in widely dispersed orbits far from their centralized, maternal sun. What Kepler is finding, however, describes a much more chaotic, hostile-to-life arrangement of worlds within the systems discovered.
For instance, a circular orbit is considered essential for any planet located in the Goldilocks zone where, assuming all other factors are equal and favorable, life can then evolve with minimum external (stellar) interruptions. Again defined for clarity, the "G" zone represents a minimum/maximum distance from a central star that is neither too far away, nor too close (for comfort).
On a planet that is too distant from its sun (Jupiter, for example) water remains frozen with weather temperatures to match. Too close to the sun (like Mercury) and extreme heat then presents its own problems. In our particular solar system, labeled as such because our central star is named “Sol”, the G-zone stretches from Venus to Mars, with Earth in-between. Venus rides the inside track of the zone and is still too hot, while Mars at the cold, outermost fringes of the forest, orbits as a failed, would-be second Earth. In the middle, between the two others, our Terra Firma is located in just the right place (orbit).
It is the near-circular orbits, however, shared by all the inner planets in our system, that play a crucially vital role. A planet must remain in a stable orbit that circumscribes its sun at roughly the same distance throughout the entirety of its orbital journey. Irregular, elliptical orbits that enter and exit, then reenter and re-exit their G-zones (in regular intervals) are as much an impediment to the evolution of life as either constant freezing or melting temperatures, as would be found in a circular orbit, but one outside the Goldilocks region. And indeed, worlds in even moderately elliptical orbits alternatively freeze and boil as they depart from, then streak close to, an unforgiving sun.
Evolution in order to prosper, requires relatively long periods – the longer the better – of only sporadic geologic and meteorological changes. Once the ingredients of life take root, so to speak, organisms are likely to succeed in adapting (via mutations) to environmental changes that can happen either slowly -- a process called Gradualism -- or to those that occur quickly and violently, referred to as Catastrophism. Whereas the former is measured over millions of years, the other might explode within a matter of moments.
These two forces which must surely occur back and forth on all worlds, again demonstrate a dynamic interplay of events that continually shape and reshape the process of evolution itself. The chief mechanism of evolution is a progression of adaptations – via mutation – called “natural selection”. The game is a serious contest of pull-and-push that forces some organisms into extinction while lifting others from the shadows of obscurity. On Earth, the rise of mammals and their replacement of the dinosaurs as our world’s dominate life-form, is apt evidence of the ebb and flow in question.
Planetary Extinction-Level-Events (ELE’s), disasters typical of Catastrophism, can be generated internally as in so-called “super” volcanoes, giant earthquakes, tsunamis and like calamities. Destructive events on a global scale can also result from external assaults, the most dramatic of which are impacts by comets and asteroids. On all worlds, the path that leads from life’s earliest beginnings to a modern calendar date that spans hundreds of millions of years, is a winding, zigzag, treacherous road filled with countless dead-ends, perilous side-streets, and dangerous one-way alleys – ever changing, subject to sudden blockages and detours, and whose latest, unbroken stretch of highway ahead is far from smooth, let alone certain.
As the many pre-conditions, stipulations, and imperatives mount-up in order for life to exist, all coming together at just the right time, in just the right place, in just the right amounts, the Rare Earth hypothesis begins to take on a foreboding veracity. Even then, our persistent, ebullient optimism yearns for the detection and discovery of the smallest of extraterrestrial “germs”, while the prospect of finding some alien, technologically magnificent culture seems ever more improbable.
In keeping with a viewpoint that grows more sterile and barren with each new discovery, the Kepler telescope continues to find planets that possess the highly elliptical orbits mentioned earlier, a condition that all but eliminates such worlds as candidates for even the simplest forms of microbial life. Circular orbits may indeed be as common as irregular ones, but again, unless such orbits are within the “zone”, the chances for any kind of life – advanced or otherwise – remains problematical.
As if the mathematics and physics that favor life were not demanding and imposing enough, an additional series of prerequisites are considered essential for life to exist in even primitive fashion, let alone as a bastion of superior, technological entities. In some ways, NASA and the space community at large have done a disservice to the citizenry that supports and encourages them. The average person, in my opinion, tends to believe that extraterrestrial life is not only possible, but likely. A probable falsehood whose popularity is due in no small part to the hype promoted by businesses vested in perpetuating the mythologies involved.
Imagine first that the Earth did not possess its familiar companion, the Moon. It is thought that the rocky planets do not normally possess any moons, and if Mercury, Venus, and Mars serve as our preliminary examples, this theory appears accurate. Scientists now realize and appreciate that our moon was born of a propitious (and highly improbable) collision between Earth and another planet roughly the size of Mars.
We know this is true because the moon and Earth share the exact same DNA, in a manner of speaking. If the moon were merely a passing body that was captured in Earth’s gravitational field, the geology of the two would not be as identical as they are. The two irregular moons that orbit Mars, for instance, are asteroids that were indeed trapped by the force of that planet’s gravity.
Without Earth’s moon, we humans simply would not exist, period – end of discussion. The reasons are both fundamental and complex, but suffice it to say that a moonless Earth would probably have been a world almost completely covered by water, albeit an ocean likely teeming with life. With all manner of aquatic organisms, perhaps, but not with people. Or technology.
As it orbited the sun, the moonless Earth would have wobbled wildly on its axis, the four seasons elapsing as unimaginably harsh versions of their current conditions. Life may well have spawned on such a world, given a circular orbit within the Goldilocks zone, but we wouldn’t expect fins and flippers to build cities or produce printed-circuit boards.
Consider next that the very size of a planet must conform to a fairly rigid set of specific rules and conditions. If a planet does not generate a strong magnetic field, for example – one that deflects the harmful effects of the “solar winds” produced by stars like our sun – that world can lose its protective atmosphere, its surface then exposed to the bulk of a sun’s deadly radiation. The atmosphere on such a planet is literally blown away by the force of this stellar storm, and it is highly doubtful that any life-form(s) could survive such a non-stop onslaught of destructive, lethal particles. Such a circumstance is believed to have transpired on Mars and accounts for the loss of both its atmosphere and large bodies of liquid water.
As an aside, it is this same tempest of radiation emitted by stars, of course, that creates the wispy tails attached to melting comets as their orbits brings them ever closer to suns throughout the cosmos.
Earth is large enough, its interior pressures and temperatures such that our planet’s metallic (iron) inner cores remain hot, fluid, and magnetically active. Mars, about half the size of Earth, is thought to have lost its atmosphere due to the loss of that world’s own magnetic field. Unfortunately for the red planet, its diminutive mass allowed its inner regions to cool, heat escaped into space, and the core ceased to generate the necessary field effect. As a result, the once thicker and heavier atmosphere simply evaporated away – followed soon after by its oceans.
Scientists (and others) are still hopeful of finding evidence that, prior to its loss of magnetic field and atmosphere, life once flourished upon the early Martian soil. More importantly, that organisms swam within its ancient seas.
This brings us to our last consideration with respect to life, regardless of whether it sprang into existence on Earth or elsewhere. Liquid water. We have a lot of it on our world, although only about 1% of Earth is composed of the stuff. But where did it all come from? Did it just rain a lot for a really long time? The answer may surprise you. Almost all of our ocean water doesn’t belong to us. Not in the same way as we might think of Earth’s land masses as being native soil.
According to the current wisdom, the oceans of both Mars and Earth came by way of special-delivery, so to speak. Specifically by way of watery comets, icy asteroids, and just plain chunks of ice floating around in space. With so much free hydrogen and oxygen drifting through the cosmos -- the two ingredients needed to make water -- it’s no wonder that the liquid is among the most common and abundant substances in the universe.
For untold millions of years, Earth was assailed by an unceasing deluge of water in one form or another. For tens or hundreds of millions of years, water continued to collect in all of the planet’s valleys and lowlands until it glistened and flickered under the sunlight like some heavenly disco ball.
This is not, however, the end of our particular story. Still ahead, we examine the more optimistic assessments about extraterrestrial life. We'll investigate the so-called Drake Equation, the purpose of which is to predict the chances, the odds that E.T. is on the line and it's just a matter of getting our sim cards synchronized. Can you hear me now?
The notion seems quite improbable that the great philosophical, humanitarian concepts embraced by both ancient and modern intellectuals -- from which were developed the powerful disciplines of law and justice, ethics, scruples and so forth, including beliefs in decency, compassion, religion and charity -- are all somehow unique to the human species. It seems far more reasonable and rational to suggest that such ideas are truly universal in nature, and that just as slavery is inevitable, so is the epiphany that rejects its inherent immorality.
For this and other reasons, an informal examination of issues related to advanced extraterrestrials who might one day threaten Earth with extermination or enslavement, appeared overdue and worth debunking if possible.
This essay will attempt to address and resolve two interconnected topics:
01. The existence of sentient and advanced extraterrestrial life. Advanced is further defined as referring to an alien civilization capable of leaving their home planet and traveling to another world.
02. The proposal by well known theoretical physicist, Dr. Steven Hawking, who has warned that advanced space-travelers could exist as dispassionate, amoral (if not evil), genocidal marauders.
We should begin by tackling the second item first, namely the rather disturbing notion that Steven Spielberg’s cutesy E.T. from the movie of the same name could, in reality, share the universe with diabolical opportunists who do not embrace human perceptions of compassion and conscience.
In Dr. Hawking’s anything-is-possible scenario, heartless, cold-blooded beings reminiscent of H.G.Wells’ Martians in his classic, War Of The Worlds, explore the galaxy as nomadic conquerors who exploit distant, foreign planets in search of useful resources. Hawking suggests that such entities, when they are more technologically advanced than their prey, may take what they want and in the process, be unmindful of what or who stands-in-their-way, so to speak.
The supposition is thus made that on our own world, for example, had the Nazis reigned victorious during WWII, it is conceivable that they would have eventually developed futuristic spaceships capable of exploring, then dominating and defeating lesser life-forms or civilizations found on other worlds. And as one might imagine, their conduct and behavior would have been executed in a typically callous, Nazi-like manner. Assuming, of course, that their doctrinal view of superior and inferior races, alien or otherwise, remained intact. In other words, the Nazification of space and, in theory, all that entails.
Such a proposal relies on a single, basic assumption: That on all worlds where sophisticated, highly evolved forces for good and evil are in conflict, the possibility exists that Evil may indeed triumph over Good, and continue to develop technological advancements accordingly. The film Independence Day is perhaps the perfect model for Dr. Hawking’s speculations. In the movie, nasty, merciless aliens travel the cosmos in search of planets which possess valuable natural resources. These more-advanced invaders find Earth and launch an attack designed to exterminate humanity, therefore eliminating all resistance to the aliens’ greedy depletion of Earth’s minerals, rare elements, and who-knows what else.
In the end, the marauders are defeated as much by human ingenuity fueled via moral outrage, as they are by their own shortcomings. A more objective, realistic appraisal of the film’s premise, though, would suggest a far less optimistic outcome. The aliens would no doubt have kicked our collective asses and then moved on to their next victim.
Just for the sake of argument, let’s presume (for the moment) that Dr. Hawking is correct. Further, that Hitler’s Germany and Tojo’s Japan went on to win the second world war. Few historians would argue that such an outcome was impossible and, given a few fortuitous changes that would have favored the Axis powers instead of hindering them, the hostilities could have ended far differently than they did.
Needless to say, the next hundred years would have taken a bizarre turn. And according to Hawking, could have produced our own Earthly version of Star Wars’ evil Empire and its leader, Darth Vader.
As we re-write history solely to make a point, it’s important to establish the exact circumstances that led to the defeat of Germany and Japan and allowed the Allies to win final victory. Hypothetically, on some other planet in our galaxy, a similar technological war was fought whereby the “bad-guys” won. Had they done so on 20th Century Earth during the 1940’s, certain historical facts would have required a significantly changed outcome.
While it is true that all wars are rife with both successful and failed military campaigns, on all sides, Hitler and his Nazi minions must hold some kind of record for having accomplished the most serious blunders in the history of armed conflict. Fortunately for the world, the mistakes of the Third Reich outnumbered their successes which were also quite numerous. Most scholars would likely agree that the collapse of the Nazis, in particular, aside from all other arguments and commentary, can be distilled down to four major debacles, the combination of which doomed the Germans and ultimately the Japanese to total and devastating defeats. These four disasters which combine both military and political components were:
01. Persecution of the Jews and other groups.
By waging a campaign of hatred and genocide against the Jews and others, the Nazi regime denied itself the many benefits of the dynamic intelligentsia who lived among its large Jewish citizenry. Many Jewish scientists, industrialists, physicists, and others may well have stayed loyal to the German state, instead of being killed or fleeing to other countries. How many German-born Oppenheimers not unlike the American version who became the father of the Atom bomb, might have remained in Europe or otherwise contributed to the Nazi war machine, had they been embraced and rewarded, instead of murdered or turned into refugees?
The exact answers to such questions are unknowable, and the twists and turns of history are always the mixed results of great wisdom and great stupidity, but if there had been no concentration camps, no persecutions based on race or religion, the money, manpower, and resources expended for such non-war activities would have then been available for other, more militarily advantageous pursuits. And this alone would have prolonged the war by many months, if not years – valuable time the Germans could have used, especially toward the end, when many advanced technologies, on all sides, were being refined and rushed into production. One in particular, the “atomic bomb”, was a menu item on everyone’s plate.
02. Failure to develop a long-range, four-engine bomber.
Some history buffs might argue that Hitler’s invasion of Russia, the Barbarosa operation, should be on any short list of critical fiascos committed by the Nazi juggernaut. While true on its surface, such a broad nomination would miss a key factor that not only doomed the German crusade into Russia, but other important Nazi pursuits as well.
Operation Barbarosa failed primarily because the Russian industrial base was able to withdraw from the advancing German armies, and rebuild armaments factories that were then too far distant for the limited-range, two-engine bombers employed exclusively by the Luftwaffe. Nazi arrogance and lack of foresight prevented the development of a long-range, four-engine bomber – something the Germans could have no doubt built in large numbers. And had in the past.
Unable to destroy the ever-growing Russian war machine, which reinforced its frontline armies with a virtually unlimited supply of tanks, artillery, and aircraft, the Nazis were forced into a demoralizing retreat from which they would never recover.
However, had the Germans employed four-engine bombers that could have then reached and destroyed the Russian factories regardless of their location, Stalingrad and Moscow would have undoubtedly fallen to the Nazis. Russia would likely have surrendered under some kind of conditionality, and the Germans would have been able to return the full force of their men and materiel to a more focused, single-front war. The beneficial ramifications for a Germany not engaged in fighting simultaneously on both an eastern and western front, would have been immense and represented a possibly insurmountable problem for the Allies.
03. Insufficient support for “secret-weapons” and other technologies in which the Germans were far ahead of their enemies.
From early on, in the 1920’s and 30’s, the Germans were seriously involved in jet and rocket engine technologies, especially as they might relate to military applications. Once Hitler came to power, money and resources were made available to scientists and industry for the development of so-called, “secret weapons” that held the potential of quickly and decisively altering the course of the Nazis’ imperialistic ambitions.
Already years if not decades ahead of all other countries in the civilian construction of jet and rocket-propelled aircraft, the new influx of massive military support for such programs further increased the speed at which a nearly endless variety of exotic projects could be researched and developed.
As fate would have it, early German successes on the battlefield diminished the need and desire for expensive weapons whose purpose and use became less defined with each new victory. Funding for secret-weaponry was soon diverted to more conventional types such as tanks and propeller-driven aircraft. Not until the tide began to turn against the Nazis, did the government return its attention back to unorthodox weapon systems that might offer the opportunity to reverse ever-increasing losses in both battles and territories.
Three such weapons in particular, the jet-fighter airplane, the pulse-jet powered “buzz” bomb, and the long range, liquid-fueled V-2 missile were rushed into production towards the end of the war in a desperate, last-ditch effort to pull some kind of final victory from the jaws of impending defeat. The ploy was all for naught, of course, as time and resources had simply run out. Again as before, had the Germans listened to their military experts instead of bureaucrats, especially Hitler himself, and devoted the time, money, and energy necessary for an earlier deployment of their most advanced aircraft and rockets, the outcome of the war would surely have been a much changed affair.
04. Failure to develop an Atomic bomb.
Under-funded and under appreciated, the Germans’ atomic-energy research was woefully behind that of the Allies. Minus the equivalent of an American “Manhattan Project”, the Nazis lacked the ability to complete any kind of atomic weapon, which would have required far more time and resources than were ever available. Had the war’s timeline been substantially (albeit improbably) prolonged, however, for whatever reason, in which case the Germans might have had two to three more years to further refine their atomic program, they may well have developed a bomb on their own. German spies might possibly have bought or stolen critical secrets, and who knows what could have happened had the war dragged on for one or two more years.
Imagine a slightly different Germany, a more cunning and clever, less haughty version of itself, equipped with four-engine jet bombers, accompanied by escort jet fighters, capable of reaching New York and dropping atomic bombs. Also among this doppelganger Germany’s arsenal of weapons are multi-stage missiles, equally capable of reaching New York, even Los Angeles. All prior, for some period of time, to the Allies possessing anything comparable. A lapse that would have spelled partial if not total victory for the Axis powers.
Japan is also worth a brief mention in context with a “what-if” series of events that could have unraveled in a manner much more favorable to that island nation. The Japanese were, for one thing, working on their own atomic weapons project. No further ahead than their German partners, the two countries might conceivably have joined forces at some point, shared their secrets and thus made progress more quickly. Just a thought, but not so far fetched had other circumstances been different.
The Japanese were also involved in producing jet and rocket aircraft and under other circumstances, might again have shared these technologies with the Germans, and vice versa.
More importantly, America had only enough enriched radioactive material to make three atomic bombs, one of which was used for testing. Some amount of time, weeks and likely months, might have been required to produce additional bombs. Though the Japanese did not know of the Allies’ predicament, there was still a last minute effort to overthrow their government and to then refuse to surrender even after the second, Nagasaki bomb had been dropped. And again, this would have transpired in the absence of a third (fourth) bomb at our disposal. In the interim, until one or more weapons had been readied, there is no telling as to the amount of additional mayhem and mischief that may have resulted.
If we project a hypothetical situation whereby the German military was far more successful and thus able to assist their Axis friends in a much expanded fashion, the Japanese would then have fared much better, their ability to make war greatly improved.
Does all of this seem too much of a stretch? Maybe so. Way too many variables are involved in such a complex play-out of theoretical destinies. In Steven Hawking’s imagination, however, virtuous beings living on one or more other worlds, might well suffer a less preposterous defeat at the hands (or tentacles) of some totalitarian regime in some malevolent form of one kind or another. Good is overpowered by Evil, and the planet is then ruled by deadly thugs who ultimately turn their eyes and vicious lust for conquest towards the stars. My words not his. But the idea is the same.
Dr. Hawking concludes his proposal by suggesting the very real possibility that humans may come to regret their having sent our Earthly address into the far reaches of interstellar space. The Voyager spacecrafts, launched decades ago, each contain gold records inscribed with detailed instructions for finding Earth. In hindsight, the prospect does seem more than a bit scary, especially if Hawking is right. We should, however, stand as equal a chance of being found by beneficent aliens, one might conclude, as we do those loyal to an evil empire. Anyone for a roll of the cosmic dice?
Since Dr. Hawking’s position is as much philosophical as it is astrobiological, the case can be made and I will make it, that Evil can never survive indefinitely in the presence of Good. And even if Good were somehow eradicated absolutely, leaving only Evil in charge of everything, it would invariably turn upon its own, devour itself, and likely create new Good from its own ashes, so to speak.
Well, that all sounds very high-minded, romantic if not poetic, but what does it mean in real terms, in real life? What it means to me is the idea that even if Hitler and the Japanese had won the war, had divided the world between them and reigned over its populations with iron fists, no spaceships adorned with swastikas or rising-sun insignia would have ever ventured into space to conquer anything or anyone. The reason being, in my opinion, that entities of good-will and compassionate conscience will always rise up and either defeat the tyrants in their midst, or forever sabotage despotism’s ability to prosper.
Not yet defined in this essay are the positive qualities of what it means to be “good”, nor the negative traits of someone or something “evil”. For the purposes of this writing, I will rely on the wisdom of the famous humanitarian, Albert Schweitzer. “Good supports life, evil harms life.” Personally, I would add the word, “intentionally” as in, “…evil intentionally harms life.” Passive forms versus their more active -- and dangerous -- counterparts.
But I digress. To continue, advanced technologies that could be used to suppress and oppress others, regardless of species, whether Earthly or otherworldly, would also be available to opposing guerrilla forces and tactics. It is difficult to imagine an ongoing space program -- something akin to NASA and controlled by futuristic Nazi-types -- as an operation that would run undeterred by frequent disruptions, many of them violent in nature. Space travel and the building of space vehicles are fraught with enough difficulties under the best of conditions, without the added interference of widespread sabotage and chaos.
Moral beings will almost certainly seek to halt or destroy the advancement of perceived immoral rulers and, if necessary, kill such leaders and the soldiers who keep them in power. Certainly the potential evil empires envisioned in Hawking’s universe would have no qualms about the merciless elimination of those who resisted their authoritarian regime.
All such ruminations may, in the end, be little more than a meaningless concern. A very strong argument has been made that Earth may well exist as part of a small but exclusive cosmological club. That our planet is among only a select few, widely dispersed worlds upon which intelligent, “life-as-we-know-it” (LAWKI) has evolved -- and survived -- to any appreciable, technological level. The question of how decent or morally corrupt are such a relatively small number of civilizations becomes secondary, if not altogether moot, so far physically removed is each from the other.
Brief mention should be made with respect to this “LAWKI” (life-as-we-know-it) business, and how the concept it represents should be defined and interpreted. For the purposes of this essay, sentience, or conscious self-awareness, includes the ability and desire to alter one’s environment in such a way that it facilitates both survivability and an intellectual grasp of abstract ideas. Regardless of the exact nature of an “alien” being, whether its evolution is based on carbon or some other element, or despite its form and function deriving from a source that is presently inconceivable to us, this written composition concerns itself solely with specific kinds of technological advancement. More to the point, those advancements developed by any and all beings that would permit direct or indirect inter-communication between them and ourselves.
The proviso that technology must necessarily be a common and crucial component between or among any different and imaginable extraterrestrial civilizations is based on the following definition:
"Technology is the usage and knowledge of tools, techniques, crafts, systems or methods of organization in order to solve problems, enhance and enrich existence, or further define aesthetic models independent of survival needs." Any sentient form of life that, for whatever reason, does not develop and utilize technology as defined, would likely be incapable of communicating with us or any otherwise technological species.
For example, while it is now believed that multiple dimensions exist, each with its own characteristics and many that are possibly possessed of their own forms of life, the chances of inter-dimensional contact and communication seem remote at best. The lack of a technological means to bridge the gap between dimensions is certainly the most obvious and significant obstacle to two or more dimensions conversing with one another.
Not to be dismissed too lightly is the strong probability that simple life-forms, many microbial in size, may indeed proliferate upon numberless worlds (or moons) strewn throughout the galaxy. The harsh, often unstable conditions on many such planets would forever limit the ability of native organisms to evolve beyond certain stages of development. The prevalence of such microbes, regardless of their sophistication which may include impressive adaptations to seemingly hostile environments, should not be confused with more advanced forms imbued with a self-aware desire to comprehend both the nature of themselves and their environment – including a strong curiosity about the universe itself.
It is thus important to keep in mind that it is only sentient life-forms who develop and use the various hard technologies with which this discussion is aimed. Alternatively, the possibility certainly exists that highly intelligent but passive species, similar to Earthly whales and porpoises, swim in distant oceans -- where spaceships and radio telescopes would themselves seem like very alien concepts.
Presented here for your entertainment, deliberation, and reflection, is the first of two diametrically opposed views of our universe, especially in terms of how each addresses the scarcity of technologically active beings on the one hand, and a more optimistic, even enthusiastic approach on the other. Up first is what is known as:
The RARE EARTH Hypothesis
Are planets that foster life as we know it (LAWKI) as does the Earth, numerous or rare? In planetary astronomy and astrobiology, the Rare Earth hypothesis argues that, on Earth, the emergence of complex, multicellular life (metazoa) required a mathematically improbable, if not impossible combination of astrophysical and geological events and circumstances.
The term “Rare Earth” comes from Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe (2000), a book co-written by geologist and paleontologist, Peter Ward and Donald E. Brownlee, an astronomer and astrobiologist. Their book is the source for much of the thinking, logic, and evidence that argues against both the likelihood of an abundance of earthlike planets, and the successful ascent of an equal number of evolved, technological civilizations.
The Rare Earth hypothesis is in stark contrast (and disagreement) with the Principle of Mediocrity (also called the Copernican Principle), advocated by Frank Drake and the late Carl Sagan, among others. The Principle of Mediocrity concludes that the Earth is a typically rocky planet in a typical planetary system, located in an unexceptional region of a common, barred-spiral galaxy. Hence it is highly probable that the universe literally teems with complex life-forms.
Ward and Brownlee are quick to counter that planets, planetary systems, and galactic regions which are as hospitable to metazoan life as is the Earth (including a wildly diverse solar system located in our specific region of the Milky Way, exist as the exception and are therefore extremely rare.
By proposing, if not concluding outright, that multifarious life-forms are the uncommon norm, the Rare Earth hypothesis is a possible solution to the so-called Fermi Paradox which states: “If extraterrestrial aliens are common, why aren't they obvious?”
Also worth mentioning is that while a generalized discussion of religion is not included in this review, it should be noted that the Rare Earth hypothesis indirectly reinforces a voluntary (albeit arbitrary) belief in a God-governed universe. It would seem far more rational to accept the idea that God rules over a virtual handful of worlds within an otherwise vast but silent arena, than to imagine the Almighty supervising a fertile, thriving cosmos that literally screams with a near-infinite number and variety of life-forms and voices. All of whom beg for their Creator’s sole attention.
Since the successful March 6th, 2009 launch of the Kepler space telescope, an instrument whose sole purpose is the discovery of planets (especially Earthlike planets) orbiting distant star systems, over 1500 new worlds have been documented as of this writing – many of which appear to exist in an all-important “habitable” region known as The Goldilocks Zone. Named such after the fairytale about three bears in which some of the porridge in the tale was neither too hot nor too cold. Where the human character, Goldilocks, was meticulous about everything being just right to suit her tastes. Planets located in such a zone are likewise neither too hot nor cold for LAWKI to prosper. That’s the good news. The bad news is that these same, newly discovered worlds are much different from what was expected and, thus far, would tend to support a Rare Earth hypothesis.
So-called rocky planets like Mercury, Earth, Venus, and Mars should almost always form near their mother star, while “gas giants” such as Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, will be found in widely dispersed orbits far from their centralized, maternal sun. What Kepler is finding, however, describes a much more chaotic, hostile-to-life arrangement of worlds within the systems discovered.
For instance, a circular orbit is considered essential for any planet located in the Goldilocks zone where, assuming all other factors are equal and favorable, life can then evolve with minimum external (stellar) interruptions. Again defined for clarity, the "G" zone represents a minimum/maximum distance from a central star that is neither too far away, nor too close (for comfort).
On a planet that is too distant from its sun (Jupiter, for example) water remains frozen with weather temperatures to match. Too close to the sun (like Mercury) and extreme heat then presents its own problems. In our particular solar system, labeled as such because our central star is named “Sol”, the G-zone stretches from Venus to Mars, with Earth in-between. Venus rides the inside track of the zone and is still too hot, while Mars at the cold, outermost fringes of the forest, orbits as a failed, would-be second Earth. In the middle, between the two others, our Terra Firma is located in just the right place (orbit).
It is the near-circular orbits, however, shared by all the inner planets in our system, that play a crucially vital role. A planet must remain in a stable orbit that circumscribes its sun at roughly the same distance throughout the entirety of its orbital journey. Irregular, elliptical orbits that enter and exit, then reenter and re-exit their G-zones (in regular intervals) are as much an impediment to the evolution of life as either constant freezing or melting temperatures, as would be found in a circular orbit, but one outside the Goldilocks region. And indeed, worlds in even moderately elliptical orbits alternatively freeze and boil as they depart from, then streak close to, an unforgiving sun.
Evolution in order to prosper, requires relatively long periods – the longer the better – of only sporadic geologic and meteorological changes. Once the ingredients of life take root, so to speak, organisms are likely to succeed in adapting (via mutations) to environmental changes that can happen either slowly -- a process called Gradualism -- or to those that occur quickly and violently, referred to as Catastrophism. Whereas the former is measured over millions of years, the other might explode within a matter of moments.
These two forces which must surely occur back and forth on all worlds, again demonstrate a dynamic interplay of events that continually shape and reshape the process of evolution itself. The chief mechanism of evolution is a progression of adaptations – via mutation – called “natural selection”. The game is a serious contest of pull-and-push that forces some organisms into extinction while lifting others from the shadows of obscurity. On Earth, the rise of mammals and their replacement of the dinosaurs as our world’s dominate life-form, is apt evidence of the ebb and flow in question.
Planetary Extinction-Level-Events (ELE’s), disasters typical of Catastrophism, can be generated internally as in so-called “super” volcanoes, giant earthquakes, tsunamis and like calamities. Destructive events on a global scale can also result from external assaults, the most dramatic of which are impacts by comets and asteroids. On all worlds, the path that leads from life’s earliest beginnings to a modern calendar date that spans hundreds of millions of years, is a winding, zigzag, treacherous road filled with countless dead-ends, perilous side-streets, and dangerous one-way alleys – ever changing, subject to sudden blockages and detours, and whose latest, unbroken stretch of highway ahead is far from smooth, let alone certain.
As the many pre-conditions, stipulations, and imperatives mount-up in order for life to exist, all coming together at just the right time, in just the right place, in just the right amounts, the Rare Earth hypothesis begins to take on a foreboding veracity. Even then, our persistent, ebullient optimism yearns for the detection and discovery of the smallest of extraterrestrial “germs”, while the prospect of finding some alien, technologically magnificent culture seems ever more improbable.
In keeping with a viewpoint that grows more sterile and barren with each new discovery, the Kepler telescope continues to find planets that possess the highly elliptical orbits mentioned earlier, a condition that all but eliminates such worlds as candidates for even the simplest forms of microbial life. Circular orbits may indeed be as common as irregular ones, but again, unless such orbits are within the “zone”, the chances for any kind of life – advanced or otherwise – remains problematical.
As if the mathematics and physics that favor life were not demanding and imposing enough, an additional series of prerequisites are considered essential for life to exist in even primitive fashion, let alone as a bastion of superior, technological entities. In some ways, NASA and the space community at large have done a disservice to the citizenry that supports and encourages them. The average person, in my opinion, tends to believe that extraterrestrial life is not only possible, but likely. A probable falsehood whose popularity is due in no small part to the hype promoted by businesses vested in perpetuating the mythologies involved.
Imagine first that the Earth did not possess its familiar companion, the Moon. It is thought that the rocky planets do not normally possess any moons, and if Mercury, Venus, and Mars serve as our preliminary examples, this theory appears accurate. Scientists now realize and appreciate that our moon was born of a propitious (and highly improbable) collision between Earth and another planet roughly the size of Mars.
We know this is true because the moon and Earth share the exact same DNA, in a manner of speaking. If the moon were merely a passing body that was captured in Earth’s gravitational field, the geology of the two would not be as identical as they are. The two irregular moons that orbit Mars, for instance, are asteroids that were indeed trapped by the force of that planet’s gravity.
Without Earth’s moon, we humans simply would not exist, period – end of discussion. The reasons are both fundamental and complex, but suffice it to say that a moonless Earth would probably have been a world almost completely covered by water, albeit an ocean likely teeming with life. With all manner of aquatic organisms, perhaps, but not with people. Or technology.
As it orbited the sun, the moonless Earth would have wobbled wildly on its axis, the four seasons elapsing as unimaginably harsh versions of their current conditions. Life may well have spawned on such a world, given a circular orbit within the Goldilocks zone, but we wouldn’t expect fins and flippers to build cities or produce printed-circuit boards.
Consider next that the very size of a planet must conform to a fairly rigid set of specific rules and conditions. If a planet does not generate a strong magnetic field, for example – one that deflects the harmful effects of the “solar winds” produced by stars like our sun – that world can lose its protective atmosphere, its surface then exposed to the bulk of a sun’s deadly radiation. The atmosphere on such a planet is literally blown away by the force of this stellar storm, and it is highly doubtful that any life-form(s) could survive such a non-stop onslaught of destructive, lethal particles. Such a circumstance is believed to have transpired on Mars and accounts for the loss of both its atmosphere and large bodies of liquid water.
As an aside, it is this same tempest of radiation emitted by stars, of course, that creates the wispy tails attached to melting comets as their orbits brings them ever closer to suns throughout the cosmos.
Earth is large enough, its interior pressures and temperatures such that our planet’s metallic (iron) inner cores remain hot, fluid, and magnetically active. Mars, about half the size of Earth, is thought to have lost its atmosphere due to the loss of that world’s own magnetic field. Unfortunately for the red planet, its diminutive mass allowed its inner regions to cool, heat escaped into space, and the core ceased to generate the necessary field effect. As a result, the once thicker and heavier atmosphere simply evaporated away – followed soon after by its oceans.
Scientists (and others) are still hopeful of finding evidence that, prior to its loss of magnetic field and atmosphere, life once flourished upon the early Martian soil. More importantly, that organisms swam within its ancient seas.
This brings us to our last consideration with respect to life, regardless of whether it sprang into existence on Earth or elsewhere. Liquid water. We have a lot of it on our world, although only about 1% of Earth is composed of the stuff. But where did it all come from? Did it just rain a lot for a really long time? The answer may surprise you. Almost all of our ocean water doesn’t belong to us. Not in the same way as we might think of Earth’s land masses as being native soil.
According to the current wisdom, the oceans of both Mars and Earth came by way of special-delivery, so to speak. Specifically by way of watery comets, icy asteroids, and just plain chunks of ice floating around in space. With so much free hydrogen and oxygen drifting through the cosmos -- the two ingredients needed to make water -- it’s no wonder that the liquid is among the most common and abundant substances in the universe.
For untold millions of years, Earth was assailed by an unceasing deluge of water in one form or another. For tens or hundreds of millions of years, water continued to collect in all of the planet’s valleys and lowlands until it glistened and flickered under the sunlight like some heavenly disco ball.
This is not, however, the end of our particular story. Still ahead, we examine the more optimistic assessments about extraterrestrial life. We'll investigate the so-called Drake Equation, the purpose of which is to predict the chances, the odds that E.T. is on the line and it's just a matter of getting our sim cards synchronized. Can you hear me now?
Fig 2. Sylvia's idea for the "boom box" made her wealthy.
You're currently on page NOU13
listed under NOUMENOMICON.
The link below jumps to NOU14
where we examine why some still
believe the odds are good that life
exists elsewhere.
