Are We or Aren't We Alone the Universe?

[Jochistan]

I've got money on there being other life. Maybe not how we imagine it but I doubt very highly we're totally alone. I just hope we can get along if and when we meet.

Probably not going to happen, I doubt we could so easily live amongst each other, especially when they could've evolved on such different paths that our civilizations would simply be incompatible.

I don't know if humanity would be able to handle being subservient towards another race.

[Outer Sparta]

Probably not going to happen, I doubt we could so easily live amongst each other, especially when they could've evolved on such different paths that our civilizations would simply be incompatible.

I don't know if humanity would be able to handle being subservient towards another race.

If humanity is to survive, then it needs another planet to inhabit. Kepler 581-c anyone?

[Grenartia]

I've got money on there being other life. Maybe not how we imagine it but I doubt very highly we're totally alone. I just hope we can get along if and when we meet.

Probably not going to happen, I doubt we could so easily live amongst each other, especially when they could've evolved on such different paths that our civilizations would simply be incompatible.

I'm a science major (physics, to be exact), and I find it hard to comprehend that any two civilizations could be so utterly divergent as to be incompatible.

The simple fact is, evolutionary paths are determined by the environment (after all, this is what 'survival of the fittest' is all about, that the fittest organisms to survive in a given environment will outcompete those less fit). The environment is determined by physics (and chemistry, but chemistry is ultimately reducible to physics). Physics remains the same throughout the cosmos. Sure, variations exist, but none so drastic that I can conceive of a civilization so radically different from our own that communication (i.e., the basis of understanding, which is in turn, the basis of compatibility for coexistence) is utterly impossible. There will always be the mutual experiences of obtaining resources for survival, and of death (and of dealing with it). Math is universal, and thus, provides the basis for the exchange of ideas. The exchange starts with symbolic representations of basic chemical, physical, and mathematical realities. These are then used as the basis for biology, biology the basis for psychology, and every aspect of the social experience from there.

Evolution doesn't always produce diversity. It also can produce similarity. For proof, one need not look any farther than to the nearest octupus, or to compare a bird to a bat.

[The Alexanderians]

Probably not going to happen, I doubt we could so easily live amongst each other, especially when they could've evolved on such different paths that our civilizations would simply be incompatible.

I'm a science major (physics, to be exact), and I find it hard to comprehend that any two civilizations could be so utterly divergent as to be incompatible.

The simple fact is, evolutionary paths are determined by the environment (after all, this is what 'survival of the fittest' is all about, that the fittest organisms to survive in a given environment will outcompete those less fit). The environment is determined by physics (and chemistry, but chemistry is ultimately reducible to physics). Physics remains the same throughout the cosmos. Sure, variations exist, but none so drastic that I can conceive of a civilization so radically different from our own that communication (i.e., the basis of understanding, which is in turn, the basis of compatibility for coexistence) is utterly impossible. There will always be the mutual experiences of obtaining resources for survival, and of death (and of dealing with it). Math is universal, and thus, provides the basis for the exchange of ideas. The exchange starts with symbolic representations of basic chemical, physical, and mathematical realities. These are then used as the basis for biology, biology the basis for psychology, and every aspect of the social experience from there.

Evolution doesn't always produce diversity. It also can produce similarity. For proof, one need not look any farther than to the nearest octupus, or to compare a bird to a bat.

True but those evolutionary paths all happened on Earth so there is bound to be similarity between seemingly dissimilar creatures. But like you said evolution is based on the environment, there's no telling what shape life can take because of how vastly different environments can be. On a psychological level what if we meet a species that never conceived of warfare? They can still be violent they just never considered it. Or let's go much further and say what if we discovered life that functions on a sentient level without carbon? What if they never developed speech and language is wildly different. What if they communicate through alterations and detection of body temperature?

[Grenartia]

I don't know if humanity would be able to handle being subservient towards another race.

If humanity is to survive, then it needs another planet to inhabit. Kepler 581-c anyone?

You mean Gliese 581-c? No. Too massive, probably too hot, and being tidally-locked doesn't really do much for its habitability.

Kepler 442-b seems reasonable, if distance is no objection, and if we're looking closer to home, I'd put money on a terrestrial-sized moon of Epsilon Eridani b. There's some better candidates, and certainly ones that are confirmed, but most of these are either too far, or too large (which should rule them out from a habitability perspective, since its kind of hard to move around at 3g (even 2 is stretching it), and forget anything above 4.5g.

[The Alexanderians]

If humanity is to survive, then it needs another planet to inhabit. Kepler 581-c anyone?

You mean Gliese 581-c? No. Too massive, probably too hot, and being tidally-locked doesn't really do much for its habitability.

Kepler 442-b seems reasonable, if distance is no objection, and if we're looking closer to home, I'd put money on a terrestrial-sized moon of Epsilon Eridani b. There's some better candidates, and certainly ones that are confirmed, but most of these are either too far, or too large (which should rule them out from a habitability perspective, since its kind of hard to move around at 3g (even 2 is stretching it), and forget anything above 4.5g.

Well as I understand it it's speculated that even tidally locked planets may be habitable around the thin strip of twilight between the freezing dark and the deadly light. Keep in mind though that we might be able to produce Arcologies by the time we achieve interstellar travel.

[Grenartia]

I'm a science major (physics, to be exact), and I find it hard to comprehend that any two civilizations could be so utterly divergent as to be incompatible.

The simple fact is, evolutionary paths are determined by the environment (after all, this is what 'survival of the fittest' is all about, that the fittest organisms to survive in a given environment will outcompete those less fit). The environment is determined by physics (and chemistry, but chemistry is ultimately reducible to physics). Physics remains the same throughout the cosmos. Sure, variations exist, but none so drastic that I can conceive of a civilization so radically different from our own that communication (i.e., the basis of understanding, which is in turn, the basis of compatibility for coexistence) is utterly impossible. There will always be the mutual experiences of obtaining resources for survival, and of death (and of dealing with it). Math is universal, and thus, provides the basis for the exchange of ideas. The exchange starts with symbolic representations of basic chemical, physical, and mathematical realities. These are then used as the basis for biology, biology the basis for psychology, and every aspect of the social experience from there.

Evolution doesn't always produce diversity. It also can produce similarity. For proof, one need not look any farther than to the nearest octupus, or to compare a bird to a bat.

1. True but those evolutionary paths all happened on Earth so there is bound to be similarity between seemingly dissimilar creatures. But like you said evolution is based on the environment, 2. there's no telling what shape life can take because of how vastly different environments can be. 3. On a psychological level what if we meet a species that never conceived of warfare? They can still be violent they just never considered it. 4. Or let's go much further and say what if we discovered life that functions on a sentient level without carbon? 5. What if they never developed speech and language is wildly different. What if they communicate through alterations and detection of body temperature?

1. The only real difference between Earth and terrestrial (in terms of make-up) exoplanets seems to be size. Though this is almost certainly an artifact of detection limits. The major consequences this would have for any civilization on a Superearth (which are hypothesized to be more likely to be superhabitable, i.e., more favorable to life than Earth) is they'd be built to withstand higher g-forces, and they'd have a harder time getting off the ground.

2. Yes. However, I doubt these different environments would be so drastically different that any civilized species springing up from them would be utterly incompatible. As I said, they'd still deal with staying alive, and death and dealing with it.

3. Then, at most, they'd be rather intrigued, possibly disturbed, or some combination thereof, by our history. However, that outcome is highly unlikely, given that evolution almost mandates competition between species. Competition for limited resources, especially ones essential for life, breeds violence. Competition is a trait most well associated with predators (though all species, even plants, engage in it), and intelligence is merely an adaptation to become more efficient at successfully outcompeting other species (and in many cases, members of one's own species). Therefore, any intelligent civilization would almost be guaranteed to be familiar with the concept of violence, especially against one's own species.

By the same token, however, aggression has diminishing returns with increasing technological capability, purely by virtue of the fact that the more advanced your technology, the more capable you are of utterly destroying your environment. Past a certain point (if we're going by human civilization, chemical weaponry would be a decent starting point, but nuclear weaponry is much more fitting for this), any civilized species with the technology to wipe themselves out will either have to tame their aggressive instincts, or kill themselves off.

4. Then you're probably talking about artificial life forms. In this case, a handful of possibilities emerge. First, they rose against their creators. Second, they peacefully coexist with them. Third, as a subset of the second, they spread outwards to explore and help create habitable spaces for their creators. In any case, assuming they're sentient, they have to be aware of their creator's history. History which is certainly influenced by the factors mentioned in point #3. On the other hand, while it is possible to conceive of ways life can develop organically without carbon, this is hard to imagine in any beneficial way. For instance, silicon-based life (chemistry, not computers) would have to exist at super-high temperatures. Also, the main advantage of silicon-based life is Si's chemical similarity to C. But compared to carbon, silicon is much less well suited to the kinds of reactions and the formations of compounds typical of carbon-based life. For instance, CO₂ is a gas, one that is useful for plants in photosynthesis (obvious implications for ecosystems). But SiO₂ is the chemical formula for quartz, the main ingredient in sand, and in glass. So, instead of cells expelling a gas which is easily dissolved in water (the universal solvent), cells are expelling an abrasive powder. It seems rather obvious that its much more beneficial to life to expel gas dissolved in water than something closer to sandblasting or quicksand (depending on whether the medium is gaseous or liquid).

5. For both of these cases, this doesn't actually matter. Life, in the most conventional definition, exhibits all or most of the following traits:
-homeostasis (it can regulate its internal environment)
-organization
-metabolism (processing energy to maintain and/or improve its organized state)
-growth
-adaptation (the ability to change over time in response to a change in the environment)
-response to stimuli
-reproduction

As long as the key aspects of this are in place, assuming you're interacting with an intelligence, in theory, you can communicate by exposing it to an input and observing an output.

[Grenartia]

You mean Gliese 581-c? No. Too massive, probably too hot, and being tidally-locked doesn't really do much for its habitability.

Kepler 442-b seems reasonable, if distance is no objection, and if we're looking closer to home, I'd put money on a terrestrial-sized moon of Epsilon Eridani b. There's some better candidates, and certainly ones that are confirmed, but most of these are either too far, or too large (which should rule them out from a habitability perspective, since its kind of hard to move around at 3g (even 2 is stretching it), and forget anything above 4.5g.

Well as I understand it it's speculated that even tidally locked planets may be habitable around the thin strip of twilight between the freezing dark and the deadly light. Keep in mind though that we might be able to produce Arcologies by the time we achieve interstellar travel.

Sure, that's a fair point, but I was operating off the assumption that this was a colonization attempt to be undertaken immediately. Also, I should note that this means that any starship would be an STL generation ship (as even Alpha Centauri would be 40 years away), which would necessitate it being an arcology. However, there is a presumable period after arrival at the destination where the surface arcology would still need to be set up, meaning that unless the entire population is going to sit on a (probably centuries-old) ship with little to no self-resupply capability while the arcolog(ies?) are being built, the surface conditions would have to be reasonably hospitable to life as we know it. Then again, as long as we're building arcologies, we don't necessarily have to worry about planetary habitability, beyond the ability of the construction materials to withstand the difference in conditions between the exterior and interior, and gravity for the occupants.

[New haven america]

Anyone who denies that alien life exist is either misinformed or in denial.

Or is simply drawing a conclusion based on the available evidence.

Well, considering the amount of star, planets, and moons in our galaxy alone, it's likely there's at least one planet or moon with life on it.

[Immoren]

I don't know if humanity would be able to handle being subservient towards another race.

If humanity is to survive, then it needs another planet to inhabit. Kepler 581-c anyone?

Asteroid bases and O'Neill cylinders>planetary colonies.

[Opportunity Nox]

Or is simply drawing a conclusion based on the available evidence.

Well, considering the amount of star, planets, and moons in our galaxy alone, it's likely there's at least one planet or moon with life on it.

IMHO life is probably quite common.

Intelligent life is another matter entirely.

[Summerset Plains]

Is this true?

[Grenartia]

Is this true?

I honestly cannot tell if you're being serious or not.

[Alvecia]

Is this true?

Yes.

[Winzig]

I think that life is very rare, so although we may not necessarily be alone, I can't imagine that life is anywhere near as common as we would like to believe. We may never meet other life due to the sheer distances involved in the universe.

[Xanixi]

If humanity is to survive, then it needs another planet to inhabit. Kepler 581-c anyone?

Asteroid bases and O'Neill cylinders>planetary colonies.

Silly planets are overrated xD

[Ifreann]

We're not alone. We got each other on this godforsaken rock.

I'd rather die than have this be all there is. Seriously, that would suck so much.

That's stupid. If there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe then you will almost certainly die before humanity encounters it. Your life in a universe with extraterrestrial civilisation and in a universe without extraterrestrial civilisation would be identical.

[CITY18]

Their is no way in hell that we aren't alone in the Universe.

[Ifreann]

Their is no way in hell that we aren't alone in the Universe.

Because unlikely means impossible?

[The Sotoan Union]

We're not alone. We got each other on this godforsaken rock.

I'd rather die than have this be all there is. Seriously, that would suck so much.

Yeah I'm fine with not encountering aliens. Have you really thought the consequences through? Otherwise if you didn't encounter them your life would be no different.