I read the paper and I find it highly unserious how frivolously they assigned some probability to the question how many intelligent civilizations there are in the universe.
Their key assumption is: "We assume that if an SP remains in the circumstellar Habitable Zone (HZ) for a time
equal to the current age of the Earth it will develop
intelligent, communicative life." (page 5 at https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2004/2004.03968.pdf)
Why? Why do you assume a planet will develop intelligent life when it remains in the Habitable Zone long enough? Just because it happend on Earth?
And they continue with: "[...] according to the Copernican Principle – we propose that the likelihood of the development of life, and even intelligent life,
should be broadly uniformly distributed amongst any suitable habitats"
We have no clue how likely it was at Earth that life developed at all. Maybe it was just a chain of many lucky coincidences that happen once in 10 billion years. How is distribution any relevant then?
One thing that bothers me is that papers like this always assume alien life will look exactly like life on Earth. It must be the same distance from the sun as us, have water and proteins like us, etc.
If we effectively limit the definition of "life" to "the types of organisms we see on Earth", then of course we will never find life anywhere else.
Maybe there are aliens that live on a gas giant and they "eat" the lighting rather than food, and their bodies look more like circuitry than the chemical life on Earth.
Maybe there is a planet with a very strong magnetic field, and the life there is kind of like an electromagnet. They have bodies high in copper and the current of the ocean moves them through the magnetic field and generates electrical energy.
It makes sense that we restrict our search for life forms we know to be possible while we are stuck with limited tools at our disposal. But I don't want us to overlook some amazing discoveries because we have put blinders on.
The start of life is basically a statistics game waiting for a system to spontaneously enter the right self-reproducing state, and it is relatively easy for a system combining water and various mostly-carbon-based molecules to enter into that state.
We thus suppose that life looks like life on Earth because life on Earth has several properties which allowed it to come into existence. By contrast, there are no known states that cause a strong planetary electromagnetic field to rearrange copper into self-reproducing patterns: if anything, such electromagnetic fields are more likely to disrupt any spontaneous order that happens to arise.
So it's true there may be other systems of life out there, but too much handwaving about that fact can obscure the fact that the other candidates for ordered systems arising from chaos are weak candidates. It would be unwise to rely on this wild speculation while trying to responsibly and conservatively estimate how much life there is.
I think the real question with the probability of life starting is eactly how easy it is to create life or even a good reproducing state given the proper conditions. What makes it dificult is that probabilities shrink very rapidly. If you cover every planet in the universe with billions of monkeys each typing randomly on typewriters, starting a new try every week for billions of years, they will never write Hamlet. They won't even get the first line. The probability to type the right n characters is 63^n, which grows exponentially. We can think of giant volumes of planets, but the number of planets will only grow linearly with the volume. The probability of creating even basic constructs is very small.
Even if you do manage to create a basic reproducing construct, that doesn't mean you are finished. The reproducing construct will only have a limited number of instances on its single planet. So once again, it is difficult to get to the next step beause your numbers are small relative to the the imaginable probability (of course what this is is not known).
On the other hand, the probability of us observing intelligent life is 1, since the intelligent life is the observer. No matter how few planets develop intelligent life, each will look at itself and say, "There it is." Our own existance or the history on our planet says nothing about the probability of life evolving without knowing the number of "tries" that failed to evolve life.
People who agree with what I have said so far may disagree with this next part, and that is ok. In counting the number of tries, we don't know that there is only one universe in which those tries exist, meaning we could be the only ones in this universe, and ours is one of the relatively small number of universes that have life.
Of course, I can't say the probability will be small. But I think it is also unfair to just assume the probability of life evolving is big.
Right now there is a lot of active search for life based on the habitable zone theory. I also think that we should open up our ideas. We might find something of intellect and of interest closer than 17000 light years. If nearest carbon based life if so far there is not much to be learned. If we can find even a mildly interesting self supporting system in our own solar system we may not be able to play golf but we might be able to communicate and learn.
I also think we are foolish to not look for intelligence on earth. We killed off the neanderthals. There is more hope of bringing them back and asking for an opinion than finding little green men.
We might indeed find something of intellect closer! It would indeed be interesting! It is not, however, something we have reason to expect would be particularly probable.
I am unsure what variety of "opinion" you hope to extract from your hypothetical Neanderthal, and take the opportunity to note that, as social mammals with large and adaptable brains, the opinion systems of intelligent hominids are substantially shaped by their upbringing and how they relate to the society around them, particularly as regards the more complex systems of thought.
I think this very article disproves your hypothesis.
Life like us is probably so far away and so short-lived that we will never be able to communicate. An intelligence that is near enough to reply & able to survive millions of years (so its lifespan crosses ours) might provide some results.
If we start sending out signals and ask how long will it take for a reply? 17,000 years from something like us. Thats no use.
Might be better to phone every star in the neighbourhood starting with the nearest, and see if anyone picks up.
Our understanding of the universe and physics is still young. We're reasonably sure about 'normal' matter, things like you, a beer, or a star. Unfortunately, that's only about 5% of the universe that we know of today.
Things like Dark Matter, well, we know it falls down. That's about it, really. There's a lot of theories about it though. More unfortunately, we think Dark Matter is about 20% of the universe.
Then there's Dark Energy. It makes things fall up (?!). And we're not super sure about that, either. Most unfortunately, Dark Energy is about 75% of the universe.
We don't have a clue if any intelligence is even using photons to communicate anymore. Most of the universe doesn't seem to really interact with them anyways. And that's with this limited understanding of 'Dark' things. We're still standing at the shore of a vast ocean.
With other assumptions, they would arrive at 0 intelligent civilisations in the galaxy. That would make the rest of the paper void. :-)
Nobody knows how life is distributed in the galaxy. Assuming that we are not special (the Copernican Principle) is a valid prerequisite. As it neither can be proved or disproved, it's not unserious to just state what the unproven assumptions are.
> We have no clue how likely it was at Earth that life developed at all. Maybe it was just a chain of many lucky coincidences that happen once in 10 billion years. How is distribution any relevant then?
Habitable for who anyway? We shouldn't assume that life can only develop in the habitable (for us) zone. But we do anyway because we don't know anything else.
Why would other sentient beings even want to communicate with those self-centered carbon-breathers? Why not just laugh about their hubris and that woefully incomplete definition of life? Telling them would spoil it!
Dude - Mars billows out CO2 and methane during it's seasons, indicating that there is microbial life on that planet as well.
The media has told us that life is rare and that WE ARE ALONE IN THE GALAXY. I saw it with my own eyes of Neil deGrasse Tyson explaining in an authoritative way that we as a human species have to accept that we are alone in this galaxy.
Yet another lie pushed by the mainstream media. Also a glaring breakdown in logic to assert to a definitive negative, especially on the concept of life existing on one of the 100 billion or so star systems in the galaxy.
They can't even get their story straight. The US military is already acknowledging UFO's and the POTUS has hinted that the truth is a really big deal.
How many times will the story change and the goal posts be moved until we acknowledge that ET's have visited earth and have been for a very long time?
Personally, I think they are just overreacting to their excessive optimism about the prevalence of life in our solar system before any of the probe missions to Mars and Venus. If you read old astronomy books from that period they were full of speculation and hope that we would easily establish contact with other forms of life. They were burnt badly by the discovery that all other planets and moons in our solar system are much harsher environments than we initially expected and they received a lashing from the media after headlines full of starry eyed promises. It seems to be a similar effect to an AI winter where initial progress and optimism is met with challenges and limitations that turn fickle public opinion against the science, the researchers then internalize these beliefs or they become fringe pariahs. Thankfully some brave souls persevere and eventually prove the field isn't worthless after all.
Their key assumption is: "We assume that if an SP remains in the circumstellar Habitable Zone (HZ) for a time equal to the current age of the Earth it will develop intelligent, communicative life." (page 5 at https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2004/2004.03968.pdf)
Why? Why do you assume a planet will develop intelligent life when it remains in the Habitable Zone long enough? Just because it happend on Earth?
And they continue with: "[...] according to the Copernican Principle – we propose that the likelihood of the development of life, and even intelligent life, should be broadly uniformly distributed amongst any suitable habitats"
We have no clue how likely it was at Earth that life developed at all. Maybe it was just a chain of many lucky coincidences that happen once in 10 billion years. How is distribution any relevant then?