h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

There is already an edited entry on extrasolar planets, written by Yours Truly, at A3100203. If you want to write an entry on the Drake equation then it would work as a standalone entry, but you could not write another entry on extrasolar planets in general.

Hi DK,

I don’t want the entry to get into a discussion about whether life does or does not exist outside this planet as that is not where I’m coming from. Yes, the conclusion that there are other civilisations out there is deliberately taken as given. That is the point, to encourage realisation of what is more than highly likely. I agree that in the end proof of other life whether intelligent or not is required, but given our considerable and rapidly increasing knowledge of life and the universe to date, the chances of there not being any other sentient beings in the immensity of universe is so small it ‘is as near to zero as makes no odds’, as Douglas Adams might have said. Man’s brain is not confined to the terrestrial any more and it is the tunnel vision of millennia that has to be grappled with now that people have the ability to see beyond the confines of their own world and existence.

With the enormous size of our own galaxy when coupled to the stupefying vastness of the universe there must by sheer weight of numbers alone be other civilisations out there. Where they are or how far away they are, whether they still exist or are just coming on stream is to be found out.

It’s been said before but it’s worth repeating, ‘where life can exist, it will’. And, there is plenty of room out there for it to do just that.

Thanks for the comment, although I disagree strongly that this is not suitable for the Guide.

Regards,

27R

I don't think it's suitable as it's an opinion piece. It also needs a rather more structured approach. Really, what you've done is created a point for discussion. I could, if I felt so inclined, counter with Fermi's Paradox: if there are aliens out there, why aren't they here already? But then, I'd be doing your job for you.

'if there are aliens out there, why aren't they here already? But then, I'd be doing your job for you'.


I doubt that one would require the brain of Einstein to answer this.

(1) The low 'concentration' of planets/solar systems/galaxies with aliens on
(2) Therefore, the vast distances that could be involved
(3) Therefore the time rquired to traverse such distances
(4) They may not be as technologically advanced as us anyway (they could be at any stage of evolution; perhaps more advanced)

(Good to see you back FM

I'll make no judgements about this being an EG piece, simply because it's not my place as a mere researcher.

Still, the equation itself is a piece of information that might be guideworthy; if only to spell out some of the more obvious variables. It never really gets down to things like composition of the atmosphere, tidal forces from an orbiting satellite, exposure to various radiations or electrical charges, etc.; but it is not meant to get that specific.

To Deke:
I understand the mindset, but try to keep an open mind based on a historical perspective, at least. Remember that most religions hold that we were 'created' and are special. That necessitated the existence of a geocentric view of the universe, with us at the center.

Once it was shown, conclusively, that we revolve around the sun, we had to settle for heliocentric. Our telescopes then proved that those little points of light out there are other suns, and that ours is not all that special. It's really an average sort of sun (perhaps another factor for the equation).

We're not even near the center of our own galaxy; so, now, we are required to see this as a multi-galactic universe without a definable center.

If your opinion is based even the tiniest bit on theological grounds, you would still have to admit that any Creator has done a pretty good job at keeping us from feeling too special, positionwise.

I understand 27R's use of the word arrogance, but you may be right about the pejorative context. Perhaps 'naive' would be a better adjective.

I've never been to Greenland or Iceland, but I'm assured that Greenland is particularly icy, and that Iceland is not. I don't have a problem accepting a premise that has been 'proven' by others and not by me. With that in mind, statistics work, most of the time, as a predictor of large scale populations. We may not be able to predict how a particular citizen will vote; but can, many times, predict the outcome of an election based on a poll of a sufficient sample size of the voters.

Our direct sample size is about nine planets (depending on your definition), and that is really too small to draw a statistical conclusion about the amount of life in the universe. Conversely, very few elections have had a candidate that received only one vote, and that's with populations under a billion.

It is statistically impossible that one planet - and only one planet - out of the trillions, would happen to have just the right conditions to have been blessed (cursed?) with intelligent life in the entire expanse of space and time (not to say that statistically unlikely things cannot happen, but ...).

The only way that we might consider ourselves the only significant life-bearing planet in the universe is if there is a God with that specific intent. But, ask yourself, if I were God, would I create 'all this' just to give life to one man and one woman, on one mudball?

Arrogance? Perhaps not. But, it has to be either devotion to dogma, naivety (my preferrence), lack of critical thinking skills, or complete ignorance (not in the sense of stupidity, but in the sense of 'I don't care to know').

I do not mean to offend, but this entry was intended to spark thinking and discussion; neither of which are bad things, even if we disagree.

'I do not mean to offend, but this entry was intended to spark thinking and discussion; neither of which are bad things, even if we disagree.'

No, indeed not. But PR has a rather narrower remit than that. If the author were to write a piece about the Drake Equation: how it came to be (because Drake ran out of things to talk about at a conference and had to come up with a discussion topic in a hurry), what the terms mean, how far we have come in narrowing the range of those terms, how much fither we have to go etc... then it would make a good EG entry. That is essentially what we are and should be discussing here, not whether the idea itself has any intrinsic merit.

FM, you are absolutely right. The merit of the equation is not the subject at hand. Any such discussions really belong somewhere else (though I've been sucked into them in PR before, and probably will be again ).

I apologise for the segue. I have total respect for people who carry contrary opinions to mine, including the likelihood. I really only meant to support your contention that arrogance was perhaps too strong of an adjective.

Hi, I don't have time to read all the backlog, but I do have an oppinion (of course) so I'm sorry if I repeat things that were already said.

1. The entry sounds oppinionated (and it is), but this is the common oppinion in the scientific community these days, so I think we can live with that.
2. The entry is not well structured - it goes several directions at once and reaches nowhere... I think there's alot of work before it is fit for PR - maybe the WW is a more approperiate place for it.
3. There's alot of relevant information missing - since this is a big subject, maybe a uni project can be done on search for life in the universe, including explenations of the dimentions of things, seach for planets, SETI - Microwave communication and the hydrogen line, theories about how life is/was created...

As it stands this doesn't read like a great entry, but it does look like quite a good start.

I'll write some more when I have time.


Dancer

'(Good to see you back FM)'
Am I back? Well, parts of me are. The informed rationalist voice in PR is back. But the trenchant but isolated voice that despairs at seeing mystical drivel being passed off as established fact, and is not afraid to say so - well, he's not back. Neither is FM the writer, as he really doesn't agree with the idea of giving people badges for the more entries they write, and he decided it might be better if he shed his skin every 24 entries.

This entry *isn't* drivel, and it has the germ of an even better entry in it. This is the sort of stuff we should be encouraging, not s*** about how spells and crystals can make you feel better. But then, I'm not allowed to say that anynore: it's more important to be inclusive, than to rigorous and factual. I wonder what DNA would have said.

still working on this ?

anybody wounders how this could fit in with the Drake Equation entry thats also in PR

Removal proposed. Seconder?

Seconded.

Galaxy Babe
Scout

Added to db