Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
While the Drake equation is nothing but educated guess + assumptions = make believe number, it really doesn't matter. Based on the pervasiveness of life on Earth, its in ever nook and cranny, under great pressure, in high heat, deep in the rocks, locked in crystals etc, I'm willing to make the assumption that life is more common than uncommon if the conditions are favorable. In this the Drake Equation, while still make believe, can give a hint at the number of favorable planets to have life evolve. I'd say the only big question isn't is if there is life out there, but if there is intelligent life out there. I've seen nothing to show that intelligent life is more favorable to survival, and may be a hindrance. Many species on earth have been around unchanged for eons, when we get there, we can decide.
|
In my mind it matter quite a bit that the DE is 99.99% based in assumptions. While I'd love to believe that some day we'll meet Spock (or, more importantly, T'Pol), I still have to say there there is no information to base that on. I see extra terrestrial life as being similar to religion. It may very well be true (and it would be facinating if it could be proven), but it's not true just yet.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by balderdash111
(short of interstellar archaeology - how cool would that be??)
|
OH MAN, I'd be all over that career.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by balderdash111
Again, in fairness to the Drake equation - I don't think many would argue that it can accurately predict the number of planets with intelligent life. Rather it is a tool to show how even low probability events - given a broad enough sample size - will result in significant numbers of hits.
|
But, as you stated before, why do we assume that certain conditions must exist for life? The equasion is radically simplistic if it only draws on our understanding of life on one planet out of trillions in the universe. How do we even know if the circumstances that lead to our existence would even work elsewhere? Because we have nothing to compare to offworld, any guesswork is a waste of time. Imagine that instead of thousands of households, there was only one nielsen box attached to one TV? Would that be an accurate rating for the nation?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by balderdash111
As to being simplistic and assuming a great deal, that is probably true. However, I would suggest you look at the variables in the equation. Again, not looking at it as a predictive tool, I am hard pressed to add variables they did not think of. If anything, I would be deleting variables (e.g., it is based on an assumption that life must arise on planets, which may not be true, if I know my Star Trek  ). |
Hey, knowing your Star Trek puts you a notch up on my list. Gomtuu (a.k.a. Tin Man, from ST: TNG) was supposedly birthed in space. Yeah, I'm a nerd. Neeways, Star Trek is a good example of two things: 1) life can be more varied than we can possibly imagine, or 2) people love the idea that there is extraterrestrial life out there, espically really hot Orion slave girls. Number 1 is something that can be eternally debated, but until we actually shake hands with ET there will be no certianty. Number 2 is a big problem, because the idea of extraterrestrial life is beamed into our heads from a very young age. I don't know about you, but I was raised by Roddenberry, Lucas, Verne, Wells, Bradbury, Clark, Asimov, and Herbert. My blood runs green (5 points for the first person who names what species that makes me). It is difficult for me to admit that there may not be extraterrestrial life, espically considering my upgbringing, but I have to keep an open mind, even if that open mind includes honest pecimism.