|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Drake Equation: How can ne*fl*fi be large?
In the Drake Equation, why do so many people assign high values for
ne*fl*fi? In order for this to be true, intelligent life has to form in most solar systems. I find this hard to believe. I agree with the optimistic consensus that life forms on most habitable planets. What encourages me the most is the fact that life formed so early in the Earth's history. It may have taken a long time on a geologic scale, but it happened quickly on a planetary time scale. I strongly disagree with the idea that planetary systems average 1 or even 2 habitable planets. Even if there really is or has been life on Mars and Europa, that doesn't mean habitable planets are commonplace. Remember that Mars and Europa are in the same part of the Milky Way as Earth. I recall reading in _Astronomy_ magazine once that the Milky Way (like the Sun and other stars) also has a habitable zone. The idea is that places too close to the Galactic Core are subject to too many dangers of passing stars (like orbital disruptions, asteroid impacts, nearby supernovas, etc.) while places too far from the Galactic Core don't have enough metals, and any worlds that form are gas giants or tiny asteroids. Then there's the theory that our solar system is one of the few that rarely or never spend time in a spiral arm (which poses many of the same dangers as the center of the galaxy). Let's not also forget that some of the planets in the right orbit around the sun might be the wrong size, have an eccentric orbit, or might not even exist (like a system with gas giants in the wrong places or a multiple-star system that lacks a stable orbit at the right distance, etc.). I think ne is small and possibly very, very small. I think a value of .01 is optimistic. I think .1 is Pollyannish. I think expecting this term to be 1 or greater makes Powerball ticket buyers look realistic in comparison. I strongly disagree with the idea that life is likely to evolve into intelligent life. It took only a small percentage of Earth's history for life to evolve from no life but billions of years for life to evolve into intelligent life. Amd even then, we are the only intelligent species. It seems to me that there are too many steps needed for intelligent life to form. I think there are many planets that can support simple life at least temporarily (like Mars and Europa) but not complex life, which is much more fragile. Note that during Earth's history, the larger, more complex creatures (like the dinosaurs) have been the ones most likely to be wiped out while the simpler organisms (like microbes and bugs) are the ones most likely to survive. Even on planets where complex life forms, I think the chance of intelligence is modest. There must be many planets where the most intelligent creatures are comparable to dinosaurs, rats, ants, wolves, etc. I think fi is small and possibly very, very small. I think a value of .01 is optimistic. So we have (rounding to the nearest power of 10), R=1, fp=1, ne=.01, fl=1, fi=.01, fc=1, and L=10^9. My wild guess of N is 100,000. If we adopt my Pollyanna scenarios in which ne=.1 and fi=.1, we get N=10,000,000. And yes, I think that many technological civilizations really do live for billions of years. Just because we have hostile tendencies doesn't mean that others would as well. I also think that once a civilization colonizes space, it becomes effectively immortal. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Drake Equation: How can ne*fl*fi be large?
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:02:53 -0700 (PDT), Jason Hsu wrote:
In the Drake Equation, why do so many people assign high values for ne*fl*fi? In order for this to be true, intelligent life has to form in most solar systems. I find this hard to believe. I agree with the optimistic consensus that life forms on most habitable planets. What encourages me the most is the fact that life formed so early in the Earth's history. It may have taken a long time on a geologic scale, but it happened quickly on a planetary time scale. I strongly disagree with the idea that planetary systems average 1 or even 2 habitable planets. Even if there really is or has been life on Mars and Europa, that doesn't mean habitable planets are commonplace. Remember that Mars and Europa are in the same part of the Milky Way as Earth. I recall reading in _Astronomy_ magazine once that the Milky Way (like the Sun and other stars) also has a habitable zone. The idea is that places too close to the Galactic Core are subject to too many dangers of passing stars (like orbital disruptions, asteroid impacts, nearby supernovas, etc.) while places too far from the Galactic Core don't have enough metals, and any worlds that form are gas giants or tiny asteroids. Then there's the theory that our solar system is one of the few that rarely or never spend time in a spiral arm (which poses many of the same dangers as the center of the galaxy). Let's not also forget that some of the planets in the right orbit around the sun might be the wrong size, have an eccentric orbit, or might not even exist (like a system with gas giants in the wrong places or a multiple-star system that lacks a stable orbit at the right distance, etc.). One criticism I have of the Drake equations is that they deal in averages. Many of the suns for varies reasons including these you outlined here are not suitable. I think ne is small and possibly very, very small. I think a value of .01 is optimistic. I think .1 is Pollyannish. I think expecting this term to be 1 or greater makes Powerball ticket buyers look realistic in comparison. Several people have made similar observations, one person put it at close to zero. I strongly disagree with the idea that life is likely to evolve into intelligent life. It took only a small percentage of Earth's history for life to evolve from no life but billions of years for life to evolve into intelligent life. Amd even then, we are the only intelligent species. It seems to me that there are too many steps needed for intelligent life to form. I think there are many planets that can support simple life at least temporarily (like Mars and Europa) but not complex life, which is much more fragile. Note that during Earth's history, the larger, more complex creatures (like the dinosaurs) have been the ones most likely to be wiped out while the simpler organisms (like microbes and bugs) are the ones most likely to survive. Even on planets where complex life forms, I think the chance of intelligence is modest. There must be many planets where the most intelligent creatures are comparable to dinosaurs, rats, ants, wolves, etc. Our world it almost covered with water. One point I have never heard mentioned is what if the world is covered with water. Intelligent life could not have fire. I think fi is small and possibly very, very small. I think a value of .01 is optimistic. So we have (rounding to the nearest power of 10), R=1, fp=1, ne=.01, fl=1, fi=.01, fc=1, and L=10^9. My wild guess of N is 100,000. If we adopt my Pollyanna scenarios in which ne=.1 and fi=.1, we get N=10,000,000. And yes, I think that many technological civilizations really do live for billions of years. Just because we have hostile tendencies doesn't mean that others would as well. I also think that once a civilization colonizes space, it becomes effectively immortal. The problem is put one spacefaring colonizing ETI, give them speeds for .1C and 100 million years which is nothing in geographical time. You now have the Fermi paradox one of the greatest mysteries today. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
thoughts on the Drake Equation | Brian Tung[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 99 | July 4th 08 07:42 AM |
Drake equation | Fons | Misc | 1 | May 17th 07 04:58 PM |
Drake Equation Variables | Pat Flannery | Policy | 111 | April 12th 07 07:05 PM |
The problem with the Drake Equation. | Rich | SETI | 14 | November 4th 03 02:15 AM |
Free Aug.26 CA conf. w/Drake,Ward,Grinspoon re Drake Equation Revisited | Jason H. | SETI | 2 | August 26th 03 10:03 AM |