Page 14
E S S A Y S
By the Number
Fig. 1. Some aliens are born tall and grow smaller with age.
e57
POSITIVELY the ABSOLUTE FINAL WORD on
ADVANCED EXTRATERRESTRIAL SENTIENCE
Part 2
At some point in our distant past, the Earth’s accretion of stellar rainfall dwindled to a drizzle, then a sprinkle here and there, and finally stopped almost altogether. Far more important than why or how the torrents from space trailed off when they did, is that they did at all, when they did.
Had the bombardment from above continued for much longer, the planet would have been smothered by water, with only the tip of Mount Everest, if that, being one of the few islands protruding above the surface. On the other hand, if the downpour had ceased a number of million years sooner than it did, the water would have both boiled and drained away, leaving behind a dry and desolate world.
As if the Hand of Providence itself swept across the Earth, just the right amount of water fell upon the land for just the right amount of time, to comfortably accommodate the existence of human beings – should they ever evolve. Pretty crazy, right?
Add to this, the fact that by virtue of the moon's existence and presence, the Earth's natural tendency to wobble erratically, was stabilized such that the tilt of the planet on its axis was minimized. The result of a world with four seasons, an equator, and overall moderate temperatures, was the formation of permanent polar ice caps, in which the subsequent reduction of sea levels exposed great expanses of dry land.
Not all the big events that shaped our past in one way or another, are stuck in the past. The Earth is still too active of a planet for our own good. It is due for a procession of quasi-catastrophic events set to occur over the next decades, centuries, and millennia. What’s sticky and tricky is that these events can happen in a random order, at any time, despite their all coming due, then overdue. And many are expected right now according to the geologic record. Some are already overdue. Others very overdue.
Once again, life on our planet is faced with surviving an impending gauntlet comprised of both internal and external threats. Again, the concern is solely with ELE’s, or extinction-level-events. Such cataclysmic occurrences are deemed so destructive that many, if not most species are made extinct by the event, thus its given nomenclature. In a worst case scenario, nearly all life is exterminated and the Earth is returned to a condition simulating its earliest beginnings.
Humanity is currently in a state of quiet desperation as we race to develop technologies capable of either staving off the next event entirely, or surviving its most deadly effects. Preventing the impact of an asteroid on a collision course with Earth, for instance, versus seeking refuge in caves to avoid an erupting super-volcano, or even a large and lethal solar flare. The sun is hardly more stable than the Earth itself and is given to dangerous, albeit infrequent tantrums.
As if all of this hasn’t raised your spirits enough, the Earth is due for a reversal of its magnetic poles. Scientists are unsure of how, exactly, such a thing unfolds, or whether its manifestations are mild or catastrophic. While doubtful that this coming reversal represents an ELE, two things are certain to happen:
First is the inconclusive nature as to what degree our present lives will be disrupted and changed by such a reversal. Second is that this reversal of the poles will definitely happen, sooner or later. The geologic record of past reversals reads like the uniform stripes on a zebra, so don’t let anyone tell you the whole thing is a bunch of theoretical hooey.
So-called, “gamma-ray-bursts” are last on our list of fun topics that support the Rare Earth hypothesis. Our galaxy is filled with stars of all sizes and shapes, colors and other characteristics. Two of the most important attributes of a star can spell potential trouble for life-sustaining planets: age and temperament. Older stars tend to start burning erratically, unpredictably, with potentially lethal consequences for its family of planets. Depending on the type or classification of a star, it can explode violently in the form of what’s called a “super-nova”. These explosions can occur anywhere at any time. And when they do, beams of intense radiation are shot into space like short-lived – but deadly – spears of laser light. Any life-bearing planets caught in the path of one of these beams would suffer (have suffered) total sterilization as a result. Which is a polite way of saying that everything alive would be burnt to a crisp. So much for that particular civilization’s space program.
As we conclude our review of the Rare Earth hypothesis and the founding principles upon which it is based, one cannot help but be struck numb by the sobering revelations the proposition suggests. But despair not; let not your heart be troubled. For there is hope in the form of an alternative viewpoint.
Presented again for your entertainment, deliberation, and reflection, is the other side of the argument -- the hopes, aspirations, and beliefs of those who not only believe the Rare Earth hypothesis is pure balderdash, but that their own perspectives warrant continued funding and research.
SETI & The DRAKE Equation
The Drake Equation (sometimes called the Green Bank Equation or the Green Bank Formula) is a mathematical blueprint used to estimate the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy. The SETI Program is used in the fields of exobiology and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.
The Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) is the collective name for a number of activities that people undertake while searching for intelligent, technologically equipped, extraterrestrial life. SETI projects use scientific methods to search for electromagnetic transmissions (EMR) sent from civilizations located on distant planets. Although the United States government contributed to earlier SETI projects, recent work has been funded primarily via private sources.
It should be noted and understood that the immense spatial distances which exist between and among the individual stars and galaxies, are so large as to make impractical any known means of extraterrestrial contact other than EMR (electro-magnetic-radiation). A fancy term for radio astronomy which uses huge, parabolic “dishes” to transmit and receive interstellar signals.
These transmissions, whether our outgoing own, or of incoming alien origin, are identifiable based on their dissimilarity when compared to the uniform background “noise” that saturates the void of universal space. This static is understood to be the radioactive, leftover remnants of the so-called “Big Bang”. SETI is currently listening for virtually any type of repetitive signal -- in the form of an unusual pattern -- that either could not, or should not, be produced naturally.
Great challenges inhibit our searches across the cosmos for a first transmission that could be characterized as being-of-intelligent-origin (BIO). This is based on the idea that any signal’s direction, spectrum, and method of communication are all unknown beforehand.
SETI projects necessarily make assumptions in order to narrow their searches, and consequently no truly exhaustive hunt has been conducted thus far. Of course, the first and greatest assumption is that other intelligent species, many of whose civilizations might be hundreds of thousands, even millions of years old, would choose to use EMR (electro-magnetic radio waves) for the purpose of communication. That alien beings would do this at all, despite their development of other advanced and superior technologies far beyond our understanding or imagination, requires an enormous leap of faith.
The question arises as to whether we ourselves would, on purpose, employ archaic means of communication at such time when more advanced methods become available to us. Given that the speed of light (radio waves) remains constant as an unalterable limitation, there is every reason to believe that more than one device or technology might be employed in order to allow contact with the least advanced species -- as well as the most.
It is not too great a stretch to imagine a highly evolved race, one that is actively attempting to communicate with whomever, incorporating all of the transmission technologies at their disposal. They too, would assume, would they not, that other civilizations seeking to make contact could stand upon any number of different rungs, high or low, of the technological ladder at their disposal.
The DRAKE Equation
The Drake Equation strives to demonstrate the statistical odds in opposition to the pessimistic Fermi Paradox. It was devised by Frank Drake, Emeritus Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of California, Santa Cruz.
The equation was developed in 1961 as a way to focus on the factors which determine how many intelligent, technological civilizations within our galaxy, might be attempting to communicate with anyone capable of receiving and deciphering their signals.
The formula reads as follows:
N = N* Fp Ne Fl Fi Fc FL
The equation is generally read as a logical sequence of questions:
Where N* represents the approximate number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy. And where:
F stands for fraction;
p for planets;
e for estimation;
l for life;
i for intelligence;
c for communication;
L for lifespan.
Q: How many stars are in the Milky Way Galaxy?
A: Current (conservative) estimates are 300-400+ billion.
Fp is the fraction of stars that have planets around them.
Q: What percentage of stars have planetary systems?
A: Current estimates range from 20% to 50%. Kepler’s early successes suggest that 50% may be a conservative figure that is possibly much less than the actual number.
Ne is the number of planets, per star, that are capable of sustaining life as we know it (LAWKI). This enumeration does not address intelligent life-forms that are so different from ourselves that communication would be difficult if not impossible. Highly intelligent, sentient types that live in deep oceans, for example, and never go on to develop hard technologies.
Q: For each star possessed of a planetary system, how many planets are capable of sustaining life?
A: Current estimates range from one to five. The Kepler telescope again hints that these approximations fall short of actual figures, which appear to be both higher and lower than previously imagined. For instance, before Kepler, it was assumed that most planetary arrangements consisted of roughly circular orbits similar to those seen in our own solar system. Kepler, however, continues to discover planets that travel about their suns in elliptical orbits, which all but stifles the ability for any spark of life to blaze forth.
Fl is the fraction of planets in Ne where life evolves.
Q: On what percentage of the planets that are capable of sustaining life, does life actually evolve?
A: Current estimates range from 100% (where life can evolve, it will) down to near 0% (the Rare Earth hypothesis).
Fi is the fraction of Fl where intelligent life evolves.
Q: On planets where life does evolve, what percentage spawns intelligent life?
A: Estimates range from 100% (intelligence is so great a survival advantage, it should surely evolve) down to near 0% (the Rare Earth hypothesis). Again the differentiation must be made between relatively static, less intelligent life-forms, and those which result from a lengthy lineup of ancestors who, via trial and error, adaptation, extinction and survival, have risen to a position of prominence on their world (top predators). But even more so, beings whose development of technology permits interstellar communication.
Fc is the fraction of Fi that endeavor to communicate with extraterrestrial intelligences.
Q: What percentage of advanced beings possess both the means and the desire to communicate?
A: 10% to 20%. An estimate that may be too conservative. Intelligence as a quality of survival (acquisition of knowledge) should seek extraterrestrial, cosmological contact as an enhancement/enrichment of itself. EMR (radio) broadcasts represent the most practical and expedient means for doing so. Possibly the only method for doing so.
FL is the fraction of a planet's lifespan during which evolved civilizations remain capable of communicating.
Q: With each civilization that strives to communicate, for what fraction of that planet's existence does a given civilization survive?
A: This is the toughest of all the questions. If we take Earth as an example, the expected lifetime of our sun and its inner circle of rocky planets is roughly ten billion years. Thus far, humans have been communicating with radio waves for less than 100 years. But how long will our civilization endure? Will we destroy ourselves in a matter of years via nuclear holocaust, or will we overcome our cultural, religious, and societal problems, then prosper for a millennium or more?
Is an asteroid or comet, with our name on it, heading towards us even now, its ultimate, unavoidable collision bringing a quick and violent end to the human species? Is a “closer-to-home” natural disaster, such as one or more giant earthquakes or super-volcanoes -- each capable of producing effects similar to nuclear-winter -- set to catapult humanity back into the Dark Ages, both literally and figuratively.
The Earth is overdue for a pole reversal of its magnetic fields. What will be the short and long term effects of such a reversal? All electrical devices and the machines that fulfill our electrical requirements, are based on a strict conformance to the nature of electricity as it presently exists. Will a gradual or rapid pole reversal change the polarity associated with an electrical charge, and thus nullify our ability to make and use electricity?
The ever-present threat of an epidemic/pandemic, worldwide plague could bring a quick halt to humankind’s forward march of progress. The danger here lies in both naturally occurring diseases and manufactured strains designed as biological weapons. While it is doubtful that any one outbreak would kill everyone on the planet, humans as an advanced technological species would be at an end for hundreds if not a thousand years or more.
Religious and/or social terrorism also represents a threat of global proportions. Especially as concerns the use of nuclear or biological weapons. Unless governments can stabilize ever worsening economic and societal conditions, the potential for chaos and anarchy could easily equal the destructive equivalent of any nuclear or other type of devastation. And again, humanity would quickly retire to living once more in caves instead of exploring the heavens.
Last on our short list of obstacles facing the survival of the human species are first, water, then food. Fresh, potable water is already a precious commodity in the world, and getting scarcer. The average human can live for about 3-4 days, more or less, without water. If one’s water supply is cut-off for one week only (or less), you will likely die. If municipal water supplies were suddenly destroyed, contaminated, or ceased to operate, your bottled water, bathtub water, etceteras, would be exhausted in short order. Although the idea is disgusting to consider, it is possible to drink urine (which is pharmaceutically sterile), either your own or that of another.
Thus far the only people drinking recycled urine on a routine basis are astronauts in space. The irony is that all people are astronauts on “Spaceship Earth”. Humans are engulfed by a veritable ocean of potentially usable, drinkable water, in the form of their own urine, and the purification (recycling) process is inexpensive, easy to accomplish, and could be made widely available. Various proposals have been advanced regarding the feasibility of tapping the fresh water content of polar icebergs. In theory a single berg, if big enough, could supply enough potable water to supply the requirements of an entire city. Desalinization of ocean water also remains a viable option.
Aside from the “yuck” factor, the average person’s lack of basic, scientific awareness remains a seemingly insurmountable (and deadly) obstacle. First-grade chemistry teaches us that (pure) water is one of the more simple molecules consisting of two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen. Human urine is nothing more than plain water which contains some added contaminants. Remove the minor impurities and pure water is the result.
The terminology that refers to drinking, washing, or bathing in “recycled urine” is an unfair, misleading, and confusing misnomer; the correct and more accurate description for the process should describe it as water reclamation or some such. This would be little different (but even easier and cheaper) than reclaiming and purifying highly contaminated, bacteria and chemical-laden rain and run-off water currently and indiscriminately wasted as it pours down street gutters and into the ocean.
Although people can go weeks without food, such a statistic only applies to those who already possess a healthy body weight. Most of the world’s populations are underweight and would perish far sooner if denied food even temporarily. Large populations, whether on Earth or elsewhere, have nutritional demands that balance on precarious scales of need, availability, and distribution.
Specialization is probably the downside of all technological civilizations, everywhere in the universe. Unless a species derives its sustenance autonomously, both liquid and solid, some kind of division-of-labor would seem likely as it pertains to those industries responsible for supplying food (and water) versus the multitude of other attributes to be found in any modern technocracy.
The fact that food (on Earth ) is a problem at all is astonishing, and a damning testament to cultural taboos and other idiosyncratic beliefs and behaviors (including religious) that run contrary to human survival. In terms of food production and consumption, we are indeed are own worst enemy.
Humanity struggles to remain at the top of the food-chain, so to speak, with its greatest (and most prodigious) “competitor” to be found under every garden rock, in every dusty, household corner. The entire planet is literally awash in a tsunami of protein and other vitamins and minerals essential for human life, and yet this unlimited resource is shunned by the western world – along with its large-scale industrial capacity to process the foodstuff in question -- namely bugs and insects.
In the movie, Soylent Green, government factories secretly processed human bodies into food, in the form of wafers and cookies, in order to quell rioting by starving citizens. Unfortunately for much of the world’s population, most of which is starving, culturally reinforced disgust and disdain for Earth’s most diminutive creatures (yet its greatest food source) again stymies a solution with otherwise worldwide implications. Equally unfortunate is the likelihood that protein and vitamin-rich wafers and cookies made from insects would be met with the same repugnance as were the human fodder in the referred-to film.
Large factories designed to process millions of tons of insects into billions of all manner of life-saving food items could, virtually overnight, eliminate the blight of famine from the list of humanity’s most pressing (and depressing) problems. The cost-effectiveness of producing food from bugs, compared to using livestock, fisheries, and crops alone, staggers the imagination. Literally trillions of dollars are wasted raising various animals in poor, inhumane conditions, and in tilling millions of acres of artificially fertilized land for crop production. In regard to crops especially, how much money, time, and resources are spent trying to kill and control the very insect “pests” that infest them? One can’t help but see the supreme irony in such an absurd situation.
It is believed by many futurists that insects will ultimately inherit the Earth, then evolve to their own level of sentience and possibly go on to develop some kind of technology. Given the inherent and highly disciplined industriousness of insects in general, and their propensity for building nests, mounds, hives and other artificial habitats, a whole world under their control is extremely interesting to contemplate.
Were it not a joke so much at our own expense, it is humorous to imagine a far distant future where a couple of bug-like archeologists are discussing the strange species that preceded them as rulers of the planet. The gist of their conversation is something to the effect that had the bloated populations of humans, as they called themselves, chosen to eat the bugs’ ancestors instead of raising both crops and large numbers of equally large mammals, insects may still, even then, be little more than meals packaged on store shelves, while their free-roaming cousins lived at the mercy -- and pleasure -- of pest-control experts.
Here is a final answer to our original question:
Q: “With each civilization that strives to communicate, for what fraction of that planet's existence does a given civilization survive?”
A: If humanity were destroyed tomorrow, the answer to this question would be 1/100,000,000th. If we survive for 10,000 years the answer will be 1/1,000,000th.
In other words, the minimum amount of time might be as little as one-hundred-millionth of a planet’s total lifespan. If we were suddenly gone tomorrow, we would have existed as a viable civilization, for one-hundred-millionth of the Earth’s existence. In 10,000 additional years, humanity will have existed for a millionth of the planet’s lifespan, which is about 100 times better than it was 10,000 years earlier. If we survive 50,000 more years, the odds increase dramatically that we will not only avoid extinction, but make our way into deep space, yelling our heads off as we go (so to speak).
When all of these variables are multiplied together, we conclude with:
N = is the estimated number of communicating civilizations in our galaxy.
The real value of the Drake Equation is not found in an inconclusive, likely unknowable answer itself, but rather the questions that are prompted when attempting to come up with an answer. Obviously there is a tremendous amount of guesswork involved when filling in the equation’s variables. As we learn more from astronomy, biology, and other sciences, serious academics (and philosophers) will be better able to estimate the answers to the questions posed.
So is Dr. Hawking’s suggestion that vile, mean-spirited aliens are, even now, as H.G. Wells might have put it, studying us with cool and calm calculation as they make their plans against us? Maybe. In a universe full of possibilities, I suppose that anything is possible. But my vote is still cast in favor of the “good guys” who either always win-out over their enslavers, or prevent these same, would-be emperors and despots from exporting their tyranny into outer space.
On the contrary, the reality of things may well be more akin to another Hollywood movie, The Day The Earth Stood Still. In this film, human beings themselves are the perceived threat to a peaceful, organized community of alien races. They fear that, with our discovery of atomic weapons combined with future space exploration, that we will bring with us our propensity for violence and destabilize the tranquility and harmony of the unified organization of planets, or some such thing. I like this scenario as much as any, and consider it at least equal to what Dr. Hawking proposes.
The Day The Earth Stood Still does force us, as a species, to confront one of the great truths that serves as a constant impediment not only to space exploration, but in our ability to peacefully coexist among ourselves, let alone with other, extraterrestrial races. Unless and until we conquer and tame the bestial monsters that continue to roam within human hearts and souls, it is the bugs and insects, and not H.G. Wells’ Martians who, in a manner of speaking, will look upon us with envious eyes, patiently awaiting their opportunity to lay claim to the planet, to an Earth that we so arrogantly regard (with disregard) as our personal and private storehouse from which humanity so eagerly plans to derive whatever is necessary in order to appease its insatiable appetite.
Some Additional Thoughts:
Glossed-over too quickly perhaps, is the reasonable idea that low-level, non-technical, less intelligent life-forms may well proliferate on thousands, even millions of planets, especially among the large numbers of moons that orbit Jupiter-size (give or take) worlds known as “gas-giants”. This may hold true even for large planets in either circular or elliptical orbits, but whose configuration of typically numerous moons may place one or more within alternate, miniature versions of Goldilocks zones.
If the discovery of life, in and of itself, whether in the form of pond scum, rock lichens, or deep ocean microbes were the ultimate goal, our continued exploration for simple organisms will likely prove productive and rewarding. Untold riches may well result from such findings, yielding benefits for medicine, genetics, and our understanding of the life-process in general. Also important would be the myriad technical advancements reaped along the way, any one of which might well enhance the human condition as a whole.
But nothing less than actual, indisputable contact with another civilization, peer level or otherwise, will yield the big answers to the biggest questions. We should not expect, however, our reception of one or more extraterrestrial signals, and the further transmission of our own, to be anything more than one-way exchanges. This means we send, they send -- we receive, they receive. But no conversation, in any real sense, ever takes place. The speed of light (radio waves) is so limited and the distances between any two civilizations so great, that hundreds of years may separate a response, if any, by a receiver to a sender. Even a best case would involve decades between one and the other, and that's really a long shot. Literally.
Because much of this essay is based on opinion, conjecture, and speculation, my intent -- as the author -- was not to take one side over another and thus promote a specific idea based on some personal and presumably (or pretentious) superior insight into the subjects discussed. On the contrary, the more familiar one becomes with these kind of topics, the more questions one uncovers -- without unraveling any great truths in the process. What makes a lot this so much fun is the fact that one needn't be a physicist, nor a mathematician, nor be college educated at all in order to comment on any of the topics addressed in this essay.
Albert Einstein didn't use math when he first imagined the relationships later described for General and Special Relativity. Higher forms of mathematics came along as secondary (and necessary) proofs that what had existed initially as almost philosophical insights, did indeed possess foundations based on fact -- and not solely on speculation, however well educated. Most (if not all) of the essays promenaded throughout NOUMENOMICON focus on areas of science, philosophy, and psychology, where no special education or expertise is required. In most (if not all) cases, a little common sense mixed with a little knowledge mixed with a strong desire to examine those areas where even the experts find themselves at the limits of their own understanding, is all that's necessary to go exploring.
Probably the most important factor that has enriched my personal explorations is the quality of what's called critical thinking. Normally critical thinking involves a methodical deconstruction of what someone else had expounded upon, what ideas they have been put forth, how valid are their facts, including the veracity of their assertions in general. I've learned to be very critical of what others say about virtually anything and everything. And then form my own opinions and conclusions accordingly. More often than not, I find the commentary by others wanting.
This is no more true than the manner in which I attempt to criticize my own thinking and writing -- about anything and everything. Critical thinking should apply first to one's own ideas, our own beliefs, our prejudices, and only afterward be extended to include what others think and say. Sort of like that admonition to not throw rocks if you live in a glass house, but far deeper, far more introspective in nature. A willingness is required to find fault in one's outlook on life, to admit to flaws in one's character, understand both your weaknesses and your strengths. And only after submitting your most cherished beliefs to the harshest of scrutinies, where one must first prove -- to their own unflinching satisfaction -- why their understanding of whatever is the best they can do, might one dare to judge the views of another.
If one adopts the attitude I describe, there is virtually no limit to where one might choose to let their mind venture, but especially in the areas of philosophy, theoretical science, and psychology. No diploma or degree necessary. When you're wrong (heaven forbid) just make sure it's always a double whammy. that you're mistaken both because you got your facts wrong, and because you decided you were correct beforehand. That dual combination will get you in trouble more times than you care to imagine (or admit). Trust me; I would never lie to you. Meanwhile, back to the conclusion of our original essay.
The mute, starlit heavens surveyed by SETI, along with rudimentary tools such as the Drake Equation, do little more than emphasize our human ability to ask some of the right questions, about a universe that seems reluctant to offer-up its many secrets. As the Kepler telescope continues to unveil our galaxy’s amazing profusion of planetary systems, their numbers and varieties beyond all expectations, it is, at this stage of affairs, anyone’s guess as to whether the mathematical odds at work will favor a profligate abundance of life in all its forms, or thwart all but the most meager of microbes.
Just for the romantics, the idealists in the crowd, let me leave you with a final thought or two that might elevate the discussion to a level that perhaps deserved a bit more time and attention.
Although the total number of galaxies in the universe is presently unknown, best guesstimates are in the hundreds of billions and even more, if anything. Many of these galaxies are larger and more dense than our own, and when we ponder the sheer number of planets, let alone their accompanying moons that must exist in the entire cosmos, this ultimate sum staggers the imagination.
If only one Earth might be found for each galaxy, the total number still populates the universe with hundreds of billions of intelligent life-forms. If, on the other tentacle, a thousand Earths should thrive in every galaxy, still a highly conservative figure from all indications, we might be surrounded by trillions of advanced civilizations.
That again returns us to the Fermi Paradox which is again the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations, and the lack of evidence for, or contact with, such civilizations.
Indeed, where is everybody?
Or are they here, now? And have been for a long time. Anyone up for a trip to Roswell?
Had the bombardment from above continued for much longer, the planet would have been smothered by water, with only the tip of Mount Everest, if that, being one of the few islands protruding above the surface. On the other hand, if the downpour had ceased a number of million years sooner than it did, the water would have both boiled and drained away, leaving behind a dry and desolate world.
As if the Hand of Providence itself swept across the Earth, just the right amount of water fell upon the land for just the right amount of time, to comfortably accommodate the existence of human beings – should they ever evolve. Pretty crazy, right?
Add to this, the fact that by virtue of the moon's existence and presence, the Earth's natural tendency to wobble erratically, was stabilized such that the tilt of the planet on its axis was minimized. The result of a world with four seasons, an equator, and overall moderate temperatures, was the formation of permanent polar ice caps, in which the subsequent reduction of sea levels exposed great expanses of dry land.
Not all the big events that shaped our past in one way or another, are stuck in the past. The Earth is still too active of a planet for our own good. It is due for a procession of quasi-catastrophic events set to occur over the next decades, centuries, and millennia. What’s sticky and tricky is that these events can happen in a random order, at any time, despite their all coming due, then overdue. And many are expected right now according to the geologic record. Some are already overdue. Others very overdue.
Once again, life on our planet is faced with surviving an impending gauntlet comprised of both internal and external threats. Again, the concern is solely with ELE’s, or extinction-level-events. Such cataclysmic occurrences are deemed so destructive that many, if not most species are made extinct by the event, thus its given nomenclature. In a worst case scenario, nearly all life is exterminated and the Earth is returned to a condition simulating its earliest beginnings.
Humanity is currently in a state of quiet desperation as we race to develop technologies capable of either staving off the next event entirely, or surviving its most deadly effects. Preventing the impact of an asteroid on a collision course with Earth, for instance, versus seeking refuge in caves to avoid an erupting super-volcano, or even a large and lethal solar flare. The sun is hardly more stable than the Earth itself and is given to dangerous, albeit infrequent tantrums.
As if all of this hasn’t raised your spirits enough, the Earth is due for a reversal of its magnetic poles. Scientists are unsure of how, exactly, such a thing unfolds, or whether its manifestations are mild or catastrophic. While doubtful that this coming reversal represents an ELE, two things are certain to happen:
First is the inconclusive nature as to what degree our present lives will be disrupted and changed by such a reversal. Second is that this reversal of the poles will definitely happen, sooner or later. The geologic record of past reversals reads like the uniform stripes on a zebra, so don’t let anyone tell you the whole thing is a bunch of theoretical hooey.
So-called, “gamma-ray-bursts” are last on our list of fun topics that support the Rare Earth hypothesis. Our galaxy is filled with stars of all sizes and shapes, colors and other characteristics. Two of the most important attributes of a star can spell potential trouble for life-sustaining planets: age and temperament. Older stars tend to start burning erratically, unpredictably, with potentially lethal consequences for its family of planets. Depending on the type or classification of a star, it can explode violently in the form of what’s called a “super-nova”. These explosions can occur anywhere at any time. And when they do, beams of intense radiation are shot into space like short-lived – but deadly – spears of laser light. Any life-bearing planets caught in the path of one of these beams would suffer (have suffered) total sterilization as a result. Which is a polite way of saying that everything alive would be burnt to a crisp. So much for that particular civilization’s space program.
As we conclude our review of the Rare Earth hypothesis and the founding principles upon which it is based, one cannot help but be struck numb by the sobering revelations the proposition suggests. But despair not; let not your heart be troubled. For there is hope in the form of an alternative viewpoint.
Presented again for your entertainment, deliberation, and reflection, is the other side of the argument -- the hopes, aspirations, and beliefs of those who not only believe the Rare Earth hypothesis is pure balderdash, but that their own perspectives warrant continued funding and research.
SETI & The DRAKE Equation
The Drake Equation (sometimes called the Green Bank Equation or the Green Bank Formula) is a mathematical blueprint used to estimate the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy. The SETI Program is used in the fields of exobiology and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.
The Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) is the collective name for a number of activities that people undertake while searching for intelligent, technologically equipped, extraterrestrial life. SETI projects use scientific methods to search for electromagnetic transmissions (EMR) sent from civilizations located on distant planets. Although the United States government contributed to earlier SETI projects, recent work has been funded primarily via private sources.
It should be noted and understood that the immense spatial distances which exist between and among the individual stars and galaxies, are so large as to make impractical any known means of extraterrestrial contact other than EMR (electro-magnetic-radiation). A fancy term for radio astronomy which uses huge, parabolic “dishes” to transmit and receive interstellar signals.
These transmissions, whether our outgoing own, or of incoming alien origin, are identifiable based on their dissimilarity when compared to the uniform background “noise” that saturates the void of universal space. This static is understood to be the radioactive, leftover remnants of the so-called “Big Bang”. SETI is currently listening for virtually any type of repetitive signal -- in the form of an unusual pattern -- that either could not, or should not, be produced naturally.
Great challenges inhibit our searches across the cosmos for a first transmission that could be characterized as being-of-intelligent-origin (BIO). This is based on the idea that any signal’s direction, spectrum, and method of communication are all unknown beforehand.
SETI projects necessarily make assumptions in order to narrow their searches, and consequently no truly exhaustive hunt has been conducted thus far. Of course, the first and greatest assumption is that other intelligent species, many of whose civilizations might be hundreds of thousands, even millions of years old, would choose to use EMR (electro-magnetic radio waves) for the purpose of communication. That alien beings would do this at all, despite their development of other advanced and superior technologies far beyond our understanding or imagination, requires an enormous leap of faith.
The question arises as to whether we ourselves would, on purpose, employ archaic means of communication at such time when more advanced methods become available to us. Given that the speed of light (radio waves) remains constant as an unalterable limitation, there is every reason to believe that more than one device or technology might be employed in order to allow contact with the least advanced species -- as well as the most.
It is not too great a stretch to imagine a highly evolved race, one that is actively attempting to communicate with whomever, incorporating all of the transmission technologies at their disposal. They too, would assume, would they not, that other civilizations seeking to make contact could stand upon any number of different rungs, high or low, of the technological ladder at their disposal.
The DRAKE Equation
The Drake Equation strives to demonstrate the statistical odds in opposition to the pessimistic Fermi Paradox. It was devised by Frank Drake, Emeritus Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of California, Santa Cruz.
The equation was developed in 1961 as a way to focus on the factors which determine how many intelligent, technological civilizations within our galaxy, might be attempting to communicate with anyone capable of receiving and deciphering their signals.
The formula reads as follows:
N = N* Fp Ne Fl Fi Fc FL
The equation is generally read as a logical sequence of questions:
Where N* represents the approximate number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy. And where:
F stands for fraction;
p for planets;
e for estimation;
l for life;
i for intelligence;
c for communication;
L for lifespan.
Q: How many stars are in the Milky Way Galaxy?
A: Current (conservative) estimates are 300-400+ billion.
Fp is the fraction of stars that have planets around them.
Q: What percentage of stars have planetary systems?
A: Current estimates range from 20% to 50%. Kepler’s early successes suggest that 50% may be a conservative figure that is possibly much less than the actual number.
Ne is the number of planets, per star, that are capable of sustaining life as we know it (LAWKI). This enumeration does not address intelligent life-forms that are so different from ourselves that communication would be difficult if not impossible. Highly intelligent, sentient types that live in deep oceans, for example, and never go on to develop hard technologies.
Q: For each star possessed of a planetary system, how many planets are capable of sustaining life?
A: Current estimates range from one to five. The Kepler telescope again hints that these approximations fall short of actual figures, which appear to be both higher and lower than previously imagined. For instance, before Kepler, it was assumed that most planetary arrangements consisted of roughly circular orbits similar to those seen in our own solar system. Kepler, however, continues to discover planets that travel about their suns in elliptical orbits, which all but stifles the ability for any spark of life to blaze forth.
Fl is the fraction of planets in Ne where life evolves.
Q: On what percentage of the planets that are capable of sustaining life, does life actually evolve?
A: Current estimates range from 100% (where life can evolve, it will) down to near 0% (the Rare Earth hypothesis).
Fi is the fraction of Fl where intelligent life evolves.
Q: On planets where life does evolve, what percentage spawns intelligent life?
A: Estimates range from 100% (intelligence is so great a survival advantage, it should surely evolve) down to near 0% (the Rare Earth hypothesis). Again the differentiation must be made between relatively static, less intelligent life-forms, and those which result from a lengthy lineup of ancestors who, via trial and error, adaptation, extinction and survival, have risen to a position of prominence on their world (top predators). But even more so, beings whose development of technology permits interstellar communication.
Fc is the fraction of Fi that endeavor to communicate with extraterrestrial intelligences.
Q: What percentage of advanced beings possess both the means and the desire to communicate?
A: 10% to 20%. An estimate that may be too conservative. Intelligence as a quality of survival (acquisition of knowledge) should seek extraterrestrial, cosmological contact as an enhancement/enrichment of itself. EMR (radio) broadcasts represent the most practical and expedient means for doing so. Possibly the only method for doing so.
FL is the fraction of a planet's lifespan during which evolved civilizations remain capable of communicating.
Q: With each civilization that strives to communicate, for what fraction of that planet's existence does a given civilization survive?
A: This is the toughest of all the questions. If we take Earth as an example, the expected lifetime of our sun and its inner circle of rocky planets is roughly ten billion years. Thus far, humans have been communicating with radio waves for less than 100 years. But how long will our civilization endure? Will we destroy ourselves in a matter of years via nuclear holocaust, or will we overcome our cultural, religious, and societal problems, then prosper for a millennium or more?
Is an asteroid or comet, with our name on it, heading towards us even now, its ultimate, unavoidable collision bringing a quick and violent end to the human species? Is a “closer-to-home” natural disaster, such as one or more giant earthquakes or super-volcanoes -- each capable of producing effects similar to nuclear-winter -- set to catapult humanity back into the Dark Ages, both literally and figuratively.
The Earth is overdue for a pole reversal of its magnetic fields. What will be the short and long term effects of such a reversal? All electrical devices and the machines that fulfill our electrical requirements, are based on a strict conformance to the nature of electricity as it presently exists. Will a gradual or rapid pole reversal change the polarity associated with an electrical charge, and thus nullify our ability to make and use electricity?
The ever-present threat of an epidemic/pandemic, worldwide plague could bring a quick halt to humankind’s forward march of progress. The danger here lies in both naturally occurring diseases and manufactured strains designed as biological weapons. While it is doubtful that any one outbreak would kill everyone on the planet, humans as an advanced technological species would be at an end for hundreds if not a thousand years or more.
Religious and/or social terrorism also represents a threat of global proportions. Especially as concerns the use of nuclear or biological weapons. Unless governments can stabilize ever worsening economic and societal conditions, the potential for chaos and anarchy could easily equal the destructive equivalent of any nuclear or other type of devastation. And again, humanity would quickly retire to living once more in caves instead of exploring the heavens.
Last on our short list of obstacles facing the survival of the human species are first, water, then food. Fresh, potable water is already a precious commodity in the world, and getting scarcer. The average human can live for about 3-4 days, more or less, without water. If one’s water supply is cut-off for one week only (or less), you will likely die. If municipal water supplies were suddenly destroyed, contaminated, or ceased to operate, your bottled water, bathtub water, etceteras, would be exhausted in short order. Although the idea is disgusting to consider, it is possible to drink urine (which is pharmaceutically sterile), either your own or that of another.
Thus far the only people drinking recycled urine on a routine basis are astronauts in space. The irony is that all people are astronauts on “Spaceship Earth”. Humans are engulfed by a veritable ocean of potentially usable, drinkable water, in the form of their own urine, and the purification (recycling) process is inexpensive, easy to accomplish, and could be made widely available. Various proposals have been advanced regarding the feasibility of tapping the fresh water content of polar icebergs. In theory a single berg, if big enough, could supply enough potable water to supply the requirements of an entire city. Desalinization of ocean water also remains a viable option.
Aside from the “yuck” factor, the average person’s lack of basic, scientific awareness remains a seemingly insurmountable (and deadly) obstacle. First-grade chemistry teaches us that (pure) water is one of the more simple molecules consisting of two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen. Human urine is nothing more than plain water which contains some added contaminants. Remove the minor impurities and pure water is the result.
The terminology that refers to drinking, washing, or bathing in “recycled urine” is an unfair, misleading, and confusing misnomer; the correct and more accurate description for the process should describe it as water reclamation or some such. This would be little different (but even easier and cheaper) than reclaiming and purifying highly contaminated, bacteria and chemical-laden rain and run-off water currently and indiscriminately wasted as it pours down street gutters and into the ocean.
Although people can go weeks without food, such a statistic only applies to those who already possess a healthy body weight. Most of the world’s populations are underweight and would perish far sooner if denied food even temporarily. Large populations, whether on Earth or elsewhere, have nutritional demands that balance on precarious scales of need, availability, and distribution.
Specialization is probably the downside of all technological civilizations, everywhere in the universe. Unless a species derives its sustenance autonomously, both liquid and solid, some kind of division-of-labor would seem likely as it pertains to those industries responsible for supplying food (and water) versus the multitude of other attributes to be found in any modern technocracy.
The fact that food (on Earth ) is a problem at all is astonishing, and a damning testament to cultural taboos and other idiosyncratic beliefs and behaviors (including religious) that run contrary to human survival. In terms of food production and consumption, we are indeed are own worst enemy.
Humanity struggles to remain at the top of the food-chain, so to speak, with its greatest (and most prodigious) “competitor” to be found under every garden rock, in every dusty, household corner. The entire planet is literally awash in a tsunami of protein and other vitamins and minerals essential for human life, and yet this unlimited resource is shunned by the western world – along with its large-scale industrial capacity to process the foodstuff in question -- namely bugs and insects.
In the movie, Soylent Green, government factories secretly processed human bodies into food, in the form of wafers and cookies, in order to quell rioting by starving citizens. Unfortunately for much of the world’s population, most of which is starving, culturally reinforced disgust and disdain for Earth’s most diminutive creatures (yet its greatest food source) again stymies a solution with otherwise worldwide implications. Equally unfortunate is the likelihood that protein and vitamin-rich wafers and cookies made from insects would be met with the same repugnance as were the human fodder in the referred-to film.
Large factories designed to process millions of tons of insects into billions of all manner of life-saving food items could, virtually overnight, eliminate the blight of famine from the list of humanity’s most pressing (and depressing) problems. The cost-effectiveness of producing food from bugs, compared to using livestock, fisheries, and crops alone, staggers the imagination. Literally trillions of dollars are wasted raising various animals in poor, inhumane conditions, and in tilling millions of acres of artificially fertilized land for crop production. In regard to crops especially, how much money, time, and resources are spent trying to kill and control the very insect “pests” that infest them? One can’t help but see the supreme irony in such an absurd situation.
It is believed by many futurists that insects will ultimately inherit the Earth, then evolve to their own level of sentience and possibly go on to develop some kind of technology. Given the inherent and highly disciplined industriousness of insects in general, and their propensity for building nests, mounds, hives and other artificial habitats, a whole world under their control is extremely interesting to contemplate.
Were it not a joke so much at our own expense, it is humorous to imagine a far distant future where a couple of bug-like archeologists are discussing the strange species that preceded them as rulers of the planet. The gist of their conversation is something to the effect that had the bloated populations of humans, as they called themselves, chosen to eat the bugs’ ancestors instead of raising both crops and large numbers of equally large mammals, insects may still, even then, be little more than meals packaged on store shelves, while their free-roaming cousins lived at the mercy -- and pleasure -- of pest-control experts.
Here is a final answer to our original question:
Q: “With each civilization that strives to communicate, for what fraction of that planet's existence does a given civilization survive?”
A: If humanity were destroyed tomorrow, the answer to this question would be 1/100,000,000th. If we survive for 10,000 years the answer will be 1/1,000,000th.
In other words, the minimum amount of time might be as little as one-hundred-millionth of a planet’s total lifespan. If we were suddenly gone tomorrow, we would have existed as a viable civilization, for one-hundred-millionth of the Earth’s existence. In 10,000 additional years, humanity will have existed for a millionth of the planet’s lifespan, which is about 100 times better than it was 10,000 years earlier. If we survive 50,000 more years, the odds increase dramatically that we will not only avoid extinction, but make our way into deep space, yelling our heads off as we go (so to speak).
When all of these variables are multiplied together, we conclude with:
N = is the estimated number of communicating civilizations in our galaxy.
The real value of the Drake Equation is not found in an inconclusive, likely unknowable answer itself, but rather the questions that are prompted when attempting to come up with an answer. Obviously there is a tremendous amount of guesswork involved when filling in the equation’s variables. As we learn more from astronomy, biology, and other sciences, serious academics (and philosophers) will be better able to estimate the answers to the questions posed.
So is Dr. Hawking’s suggestion that vile, mean-spirited aliens are, even now, as H.G. Wells might have put it, studying us with cool and calm calculation as they make their plans against us? Maybe. In a universe full of possibilities, I suppose that anything is possible. But my vote is still cast in favor of the “good guys” who either always win-out over their enslavers, or prevent these same, would-be emperors and despots from exporting their tyranny into outer space.
On the contrary, the reality of things may well be more akin to another Hollywood movie, The Day The Earth Stood Still. In this film, human beings themselves are the perceived threat to a peaceful, organized community of alien races. They fear that, with our discovery of atomic weapons combined with future space exploration, that we will bring with us our propensity for violence and destabilize the tranquility and harmony of the unified organization of planets, or some such thing. I like this scenario as much as any, and consider it at least equal to what Dr. Hawking proposes.
The Day The Earth Stood Still does force us, as a species, to confront one of the great truths that serves as a constant impediment not only to space exploration, but in our ability to peacefully coexist among ourselves, let alone with other, extraterrestrial races. Unless and until we conquer and tame the bestial monsters that continue to roam within human hearts and souls, it is the bugs and insects, and not H.G. Wells’ Martians who, in a manner of speaking, will look upon us with envious eyes, patiently awaiting their opportunity to lay claim to the planet, to an Earth that we so arrogantly regard (with disregard) as our personal and private storehouse from which humanity so eagerly plans to derive whatever is necessary in order to appease its insatiable appetite.
Some Additional Thoughts:
Glossed-over too quickly perhaps, is the reasonable idea that low-level, non-technical, less intelligent life-forms may well proliferate on thousands, even millions of planets, especially among the large numbers of moons that orbit Jupiter-size (give or take) worlds known as “gas-giants”. This may hold true even for large planets in either circular or elliptical orbits, but whose configuration of typically numerous moons may place one or more within alternate, miniature versions of Goldilocks zones.
If the discovery of life, in and of itself, whether in the form of pond scum, rock lichens, or deep ocean microbes were the ultimate goal, our continued exploration for simple organisms will likely prove productive and rewarding. Untold riches may well result from such findings, yielding benefits for medicine, genetics, and our understanding of the life-process in general. Also important would be the myriad technical advancements reaped along the way, any one of which might well enhance the human condition as a whole.
But nothing less than actual, indisputable contact with another civilization, peer level or otherwise, will yield the big answers to the biggest questions. We should not expect, however, our reception of one or more extraterrestrial signals, and the further transmission of our own, to be anything more than one-way exchanges. This means we send, they send -- we receive, they receive. But no conversation, in any real sense, ever takes place. The speed of light (radio waves) is so limited and the distances between any two civilizations so great, that hundreds of years may separate a response, if any, by a receiver to a sender. Even a best case would involve decades between one and the other, and that's really a long shot. Literally.
Because much of this essay is based on opinion, conjecture, and speculation, my intent -- as the author -- was not to take one side over another and thus promote a specific idea based on some personal and presumably (or pretentious) superior insight into the subjects discussed. On the contrary, the more familiar one becomes with these kind of topics, the more questions one uncovers -- without unraveling any great truths in the process. What makes a lot this so much fun is the fact that one needn't be a physicist, nor a mathematician, nor be college educated at all in order to comment on any of the topics addressed in this essay.
Albert Einstein didn't use math when he first imagined the relationships later described for General and Special Relativity. Higher forms of mathematics came along as secondary (and necessary) proofs that what had existed initially as almost philosophical insights, did indeed possess foundations based on fact -- and not solely on speculation, however well educated. Most (if not all) of the essays promenaded throughout NOUMENOMICON focus on areas of science, philosophy, and psychology, where no special education or expertise is required. In most (if not all) cases, a little common sense mixed with a little knowledge mixed with a strong desire to examine those areas where even the experts find themselves at the limits of their own understanding, is all that's necessary to go exploring.
Probably the most important factor that has enriched my personal explorations is the quality of what's called critical thinking. Normally critical thinking involves a methodical deconstruction of what someone else had expounded upon, what ideas they have been put forth, how valid are their facts, including the veracity of their assertions in general. I've learned to be very critical of what others say about virtually anything and everything. And then form my own opinions and conclusions accordingly. More often than not, I find the commentary by others wanting.
This is no more true than the manner in which I attempt to criticize my own thinking and writing -- about anything and everything. Critical thinking should apply first to one's own ideas, our own beliefs, our prejudices, and only afterward be extended to include what others think and say. Sort of like that admonition to not throw rocks if you live in a glass house, but far deeper, far more introspective in nature. A willingness is required to find fault in one's outlook on life, to admit to flaws in one's character, understand both your weaknesses and your strengths. And only after submitting your most cherished beliefs to the harshest of scrutinies, where one must first prove -- to their own unflinching satisfaction -- why their understanding of whatever is the best they can do, might one dare to judge the views of another.
If one adopts the attitude I describe, there is virtually no limit to where one might choose to let their mind venture, but especially in the areas of philosophy, theoretical science, and psychology. No diploma or degree necessary. When you're wrong (heaven forbid) just make sure it's always a double whammy. that you're mistaken both because you got your facts wrong, and because you decided you were correct beforehand. That dual combination will get you in trouble more times than you care to imagine (or admit). Trust me; I would never lie to you. Meanwhile, back to the conclusion of our original essay.
The mute, starlit heavens surveyed by SETI, along with rudimentary tools such as the Drake Equation, do little more than emphasize our human ability to ask some of the right questions, about a universe that seems reluctant to offer-up its many secrets. As the Kepler telescope continues to unveil our galaxy’s amazing profusion of planetary systems, their numbers and varieties beyond all expectations, it is, at this stage of affairs, anyone’s guess as to whether the mathematical odds at work will favor a profligate abundance of life in all its forms, or thwart all but the most meager of microbes.
Just for the romantics, the idealists in the crowd, let me leave you with a final thought or two that might elevate the discussion to a level that perhaps deserved a bit more time and attention.
Although the total number of galaxies in the universe is presently unknown, best guesstimates are in the hundreds of billions and even more, if anything. Many of these galaxies are larger and more dense than our own, and when we ponder the sheer number of planets, let alone their accompanying moons that must exist in the entire cosmos, this ultimate sum staggers the imagination.
If only one Earth might be found for each galaxy, the total number still populates the universe with hundreds of billions of intelligent life-forms. If, on the other tentacle, a thousand Earths should thrive in every galaxy, still a highly conservative figure from all indications, we might be surrounded by trillions of advanced civilizations.
That again returns us to the Fermi Paradox which is again the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations, and the lack of evidence for, or contact with, such civilizations.
Indeed, where is everybody?
Or are they here, now? And have been for a long time. Anyone up for a trip to Roswell?
EPILOGUE
"We're going to need a bigger boat."
Fig. 2. Credit: Paramount Pictures
Members of the magpie family include ravens, crows, and some others. Such birds (parrots also) are among the most intelligent animal species on earth, including primates, whales, and octopusses. As opposed to the mammalian brains of chimpanzees, cetaceans, and even dogs, the brains of birds are solely reptilian in nature. A trait no doubt derived from their dinosaur, specifically raptor-rich ancestry. At the core of mammal brains is a vestigial reptile component, over which exist the more highly evolved layers that demarcate the seemingly superior nature of mammalian intelligence.
Such a description is misleading, however, in the sense that certain bird-brains (clearly a misnomer) are as highly evolved in terms of their reptilian qualities, as are mammalian brains with respect to their own advanced abilities. Such an observation suggests that a crow is to its own kind, as a chimpanzee is to humans. And just as humans succeeded chimps both literally and figuratively, might not birds have otherwise -- under other conditions -- evolved their own form of sentience and ultimately a technological civilization? This is not only an interesting question, but a potentially disturbing one as well.
Emotions, specifically sympathy and empathy, appear to be qualities exclusive to sentient, mammalian brains (minds). Though we may attribute feelings of annoyance and anger, even a crude form of grief to other animals, it's doubtful they experience happiness or any other emotion in the same manner as we define such things for ourselves. Had evolution allowed for the hypothetical ascendents of crows or ravens to achieve self-awareness, would compassion and other similar faculties have sprung forth in their advanced reptilian minds? Or, as more likely might be the case, would emotionally detached, unsympathetic souls have sought to explore and exploit the cosmos? I think the answer is no.
If evil is defined as intentionally causing harm as an end unto itself, then it seems highly doubtful that Vulcan-like, emotionless (as compared to evil) beings of any sort would possess the curiosity and motivations necessary to develop advanced technologies. Certainly those which could enable the exploration of other worlds. Such inquiries also ask whether sentient robots would endeavor to destroy or conquer humankind and then seek to explore and dispassionately vanquish, if necessary, whoever else they should encounter along their travels. As Mr. Spock himself might say, such a scenario just doesn't seem logical. Emotion seems somehow inexorably connected to intellect; the more advanced the latter, the more expected or predictable should be the former.
The presence of emotions, even for reptiles, would seem to be as logical a result of enhanced evolutionary attributes as the development of technology itself. So what are the chances that Earth might one day, as Dr. Steven Hawkings suggests, be invaded by Terminator robots, Klingons, or storm troopers with beaks? Highly unlikely would be my guess. Interestingly, no amount of doctoral credentials necessarily endows one person with more insight into these questions than someone who's just generally familiar with such things. Someone who cares a lot about them and has strong feelings on the subject. It's all very emotional.
Such a description is misleading, however, in the sense that certain bird-brains (clearly a misnomer) are as highly evolved in terms of their reptilian qualities, as are mammalian brains with respect to their own advanced abilities. Such an observation suggests that a crow is to its own kind, as a chimpanzee is to humans. And just as humans succeeded chimps both literally and figuratively, might not birds have otherwise -- under other conditions -- evolved their own form of sentience and ultimately a technological civilization? This is not only an interesting question, but a potentially disturbing one as well.
Emotions, specifically sympathy and empathy, appear to be qualities exclusive to sentient, mammalian brains (minds). Though we may attribute feelings of annoyance and anger, even a crude form of grief to other animals, it's doubtful they experience happiness or any other emotion in the same manner as we define such things for ourselves. Had evolution allowed for the hypothetical ascendents of crows or ravens to achieve self-awareness, would compassion and other similar faculties have sprung forth in their advanced reptilian minds? Or, as more likely might be the case, would emotionally detached, unsympathetic souls have sought to explore and exploit the cosmos? I think the answer is no.
If evil is defined as intentionally causing harm as an end unto itself, then it seems highly doubtful that Vulcan-like, emotionless (as compared to evil) beings of any sort would possess the curiosity and motivations necessary to develop advanced technologies. Certainly those which could enable the exploration of other worlds. Such inquiries also ask whether sentient robots would endeavor to destroy or conquer humankind and then seek to explore and dispassionately vanquish, if necessary, whoever else they should encounter along their travels. As Mr. Spock himself might say, such a scenario just doesn't seem logical. Emotion seems somehow inexorably connected to intellect; the more advanced the latter, the more expected or predictable should be the former.
The presence of emotions, even for reptiles, would seem to be as logical a result of enhanced evolutionary attributes as the development of technology itself. So what are the chances that Earth might one day, as Dr. Steven Hawkings suggests, be invaded by Terminator robots, Klingons, or storm troopers with beaks? Highly unlikely would be my guess. Interestingly, no amount of doctoral credentials necessarily endows one person with more insight into these questions than someone who's just generally familiar with such things. Someone who cares a lot about them and has strong feelings on the subject. It's all very emotional.
* * * *
You're currently on page NOU14
listed under NOUMENOMICON.
Click below to see a comprehensive, detailed,
complete evaluation of the U.S. Constitution.
complete evaluation of the U.S. Constitution.
