Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Kirtaner & Spardot's 420chan Wedding

To all guests, live viewers, and our Internet family, THANK YOU.
VODs will be edited soon, we are all so tired.
Wedding Gifts
Building Blocks of Life Found on Mars by Otto Struve - Thu, 07 Jun 2018 19:12:35 EST ID:eygzYfFg No.57290 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1528413155979.jpg -(198462B / 193.81KB, 945x945) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 198462
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/06/mars-organic-compounds-methane-curiosity-space-science/

>Two landmark discoveries reveal organic carbon on the red planet, shaping the future hunt for life on Mars.

I'm scared guys. This could mean life is common in the universe, which means the Great Filter is ahead of us instead of behind us.

😰😰😰😰😰

Then again, maybe this can show us the Great Filter is already behind us but when it comes to cosmic horror, I'm a half-empty kinda guy.
>>
Giovanni Cassini - Sat, 09 Jun 2018 12:57:25 EST ID:unNII3om No.57292 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I don't know dude. If anything it shows us that at least one filter lays behind us; that even though a planet has the chemistry for life it doesn't protect it from atmospheric leakage and other destructive global processes. Without a proper magnetic field, such worlds are fucked.

Earth itself would have had a huge issue with developing complex life if not for our freak moon for example.

Also remember that this doesn't mean that life is more likely, just that our solar system is more conductive for it.
>>
William Huggins - Sat, 09 Jun 2018 16:12:07 EST ID:4LbbDsR/ No.57293 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1528575127655.png -(241330B / 235.67KB, 497x363) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>mfw life will be discovered still living under the surface of Mars.
>>
Giovanni Cassini - Sat, 09 Jun 2018 16:59:19 EST ID:unNII3om No.57294 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1528577959293.jpg -(13929B / 13.60KB, 564x316) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>57293

>mfw bacterial life is everywhere in the universe as expected.

There are no aliens keeping tabs on our buttholes. Nope. Nada.

None of us got probed, what are you a tinfoil?
>>
William de Sitter - Sat, 09 Jun 2018 17:30:24 EST ID:hGyQlc1t No.57295 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57292
The most important Great Filter candidate behind us I am aware of is the mutation that enabled eukaryote cells to evolve.
It supposed to have happened when what were some ancestors of mitochondria were eaten by some larger cells. The mutation must have occured both in the ancestor host cell and the ancestor mitochondria at the same time.
As far as genetic evidence goes this supposedly happened only once.

IDK if that really is the great filter but I like the mundaneness of it from our perspective and how it would still allow for simple life to exist on other worlds and us having passed the great filter.
>>
Isaac Newton - Sat, 09 Jun 2018 17:51:23 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57296 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Just because life is common doesn't necessarily mean the Great Filter is head...there are some explanations for the Fermi paradox that don't even need a Great Filter, like for example, the Zoo hypothesis.

>>57292
Magnetic field, yes, moon, no. The moon doesn't help us much other than as a meteor shield (in which regard Jupiter works a lot harder for us.)

>>57295
Say what? I think you have that a little confused. For one thing, prokaryotes do undergo evolution. I think you meant the change to become multi-cellular, not to evolve as such. Also, no mutation had to occur simultaneously in the mitochondria and prokaryotes to become eukaryotes. Mitochondria and their host cells have separate genetic code completely, and to this day mitochondria are still prokaryotes.
>>
Giovanni Cassini - Sat, 09 Jun 2018 19:09:40 EST ID:unNII3om No.57297 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57296

>there are some explanations for the Fermi paradox that don't even need a Great Filter, like for example, the Zoo hypothesis.

The Zoo I think makes some assumptions far beyond the facts we have.

For example why are we not seeing any megastructures in space yet? Even beyond our galaxy shit looks pristine. Of course some alien power could be generating some sci-fi field in order to blind us from the entire universe, but that takes a few fact-less assumptions from our part to be an actual argument.

Also, why would they make us into a protective zoo in the first place? Are we this special? Or were we this lucky to develop relatively next to a non-interference type space civilization?

>Magnetic field, yes, moon, no. The moon doesn't help us much other than as a meteor shield (in which regard Jupiter works a lot harder for us.)

There's a lot of things our unlikely moon helps our world with. Regular seasons is one, moving water around is another. Then there's the hypothesis that our planetary core would not be melted and thus magnetically conductive without it at this point.
>>
William de Sitter - Sat, 09 Jun 2018 19:42:50 EST ID:hGyQlc1t No.57298 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57296
>Say what? I think you have that a little confused. For one thing, prokaryotes do undergo evolution. I think you meant the change to become multi-cellular, not to evolve as such. Also, no mutation had to occur simultaneously in the mitochondria and prokaryotes to become eukaryotes. Mitochondria and their host cells have separate genetic code completely, and to this day mitochondria are still prokaryotes.

Yes, I am aware of this and I do not mean evolution of multicellular life.
The evolution of the eukaryotic ancestor and the mitochondrial ancestor towards eukaryotic cells is supposed to be incredibly unlikely.
>>
William de Sitter - Sat, 09 Jun 2018 19:46:31 EST ID:hGyQlc1t No.57299 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57298
for reference:
http://bioscience.jbpub.com/cells/MBIO1322.aspx
>>
William de Sitter - Sun, 10 Jun 2018 19:46:22 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57300 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57297
I think when we are reasoning about something no one has ever seen any evidence of (ETI) we are inherently making fact-less assumption. The whole concept of the Fermi paradox rests on a number of assumptions which may be false. When we're talking about a set of assumptions, none of which have strong facts to connect to them, I think the only way to distinguish the quality of the arguments is how many inductive reasoning principles they agree. The second we get a shred of hard evidence, all this is naturally out the door.

Here's my argument for why I think the Zoo hypothesis is the best explanation for the Fermi paradox (I know that's not exactly what you asked but should cover it.) It's mostly by exclusion of the other possibilities with a few other facts thrown in.
>Other solutions to the paradox
-too few planets, too few main sequence stars: discounted by modern astronomical evidence
-rare earth, too many conditions needed for abiogenesis: mostly informed by 19th century theories about how life started, we now know life has multiple possible streams of development (from the shift to the thermal vent theory from the 'primordial soup' theory)
-there hasn't been enough time yet: discounted by our improved knowledge of the age of the universe and the physics of star system formation
-intraspecies or interstellar apocalyptic wars: maybe, but we would probably see evidence of this, so the fact that we don't means if this is the case it probably must also exist with the Zoo hypothesis in place. Also, if such things routinely happened in the galaxy often enough to keep all theoretical interstellar civilizations tamped down, it would have to happen at least every couple of million years -- I would think. Maybe they just haven't gotten around to stamping us down in the million or so years we've been an intelligent species, but it seems unlikely.
-natural apocalyptic catastrophes: If we have gotten this far and not yet been zapped by a gamma ray burst, there's no reason to think that no other species would be able to make it to space travel before getting zapped.
-scarcity, not enough resources: bollocks. The galaxy is so completely full of more stuff than any one species could ever need its absurd to think this.
-listening to EM radiation is wrong: I think this is a strong candidate if we someday discover our physics is incomplete and tachyonic communication is somehow possible. Any interstellar civilization would be dependent on this form of communication, so if it exists its reasonable to think most if not all theoretical ETIs we would search for use it exclusively. This also may feed into the Zoo hypothesis; they are able to keep us completely blind to them because they understand physics we do not, which certainly seems likely.
So taking that all in, we are left with the basic fact of the Fermi paradox that by all accounts life should be everywhere, and should be much older and more advanced than us, and have had millions of years of head start setting up a galactic civilization. Such beings would naturally have more advanced science and technology. It is the height of human arrogance to think that simply because we cannot conceive of a way our senses could be fooled they could not be; a pet ant has no way to conceive that it is trapped in a farm, yet it is. By all its senses and understanding, everything is just as it should be.

Moreover, I think the reason that any interstellar civilization would come to a consensus on how to manage less developed civilizations and impose it on a galactic scale, is not because we are special, or to protect us from harm, but simply to protect themselves from us. Interacting with a more primitive species invariably destroys the existing native culture and leads to a situation where they will try to steal the more advanced culture to overthrow the power relationship. Simply leaving them alone allows them to develop potentially galaxy destroying technologies like Von Neumann probes or otherwise wrecking environmental havoc, perhaps precisely by kooky megastructure concepts. So, from a game theory perspective, I think most species would converge on the idea that the safest thing to is to keep primitive species ignorant of the galaxy at large until they have developed to the point that they can discover it on their own, i.e. they've reached a level of technological and cultural maturity where they can at least comprehend why they have to cooperate with the rest of the galaxy, because of the extreme existential threat posed by the kinds of technology such K2+ civs would wield.

So anyway, why no megastructures and a pristine universe beyond? All they would have to do is intercept photons in a radius around the solar system and modify them slightly, they might not have much work to do if ETI mostly uses FTL comms. Sounds like a massive undertaking for us but for a Kardashev III civ a nanodust of self replicating light sensors and laser transmitters dispersed in the Oort cloud of any star that has the potential of developing sentient life would be trivial, like mulching the garden. They don't do it because we are special or they love us (they might, they might not) but mainly because all 'civilized' life recognizes the 'primitives' as dangerous and both wants to keep them at bay, and keep them from wanting to take the goods of civilization, thus tabs need to be kept on them. Factor in the level of existential threats advanced technology can create and to me it seems like it would be viewed as a logically necessary solution for any species that got to the level to be able to do it.

>>There's a lot of things our unlikely moon helps our world with
I didn't say it didn't help, just that it wasn't strictly necessary for life to form, as was a popular hypothesis in the 20th century. Also if I recall correctly the theory about the moon helping the core remain liquid was proven false because of the scales involved, and had been thought due to Mars' lack of large moon and solid core, but our core is liquid because of its greater mass. Could be wrong about that tho.
>>
William de Sitter - Sun, 10 Jun 2018 19:46:44 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57301 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57298
Well, like that article you posted says, cells became eukaryotic as they incorporated the mitochondria; that's one of the key differences of prokaryotes, they do not have distinct organelles generally, of which the mitochondria is one. The mitochondria itself is another independent cell, which is prokaryotic. The change that enabled prokaryotes to take in the mitochondria and become eukaryotes probably wasn't one of cooperation; mitochondria learned they could penetrate the cell membranes of other bacteria and eat their sugars internally. The mitochondria are parasites and are to this day. They are feeding on us still, our eukaryotic life has just adapted to get an equal arrangement out of the deal over time, learning to consume the mitochondria's waste. It is unquestionably an unlikely development though, which is why life stayed at the prokaryotic stage for literally billions of years.
>>
Tadashi Nakajima - Sun, 10 Jun 2018 21:36:52 EST ID:UWJUUXyL No.57303 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57300
Space travel is the result of learning to write and keep records and build upon discoveries. But humans have been trading and recording knowledge for a very long time and nobody pre-ww2 was traveling into space, as far as we know.

The stuff that happened in history to create the political/social will and the resources and the manpower and the leisure time to develop space travel only happened once and mostly got seriously underway becuase the USA and Russia were at war, which itself was a very specific series of events.

Currently there's some famous huckster claiming he'll develop a mission to Mars soon, and occassionaly politicians in various countries talk up their space travel programs to inspire the plebs, but very little progress has been made. There are still no known settlements outside of Earth and nobody is seriously attempting to start one. All of the infrustructure involved could also be wiped out at any moment by the weapons that were developed alongside spaceships.

So even if intelligent tool using life with an instinct for travel is common in the universe, there's still so many variables required to get them even attempting space travel within their own area let alone sending self-replicating probes out or whatever. Therefore it is more sensible to consider that life is filtered than that it is hiding from us.
>>
Joseph von Fraunhofer - Tue, 12 Jun 2018 18:22:30 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57304 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57303
You aren't really considering the scales involved. Compared to the age of our species, to the age of the earth let alone the universe, the transition from developing agriculture to setting foot on the moon happened virtually instantaneously. Within a few decades of discovering powered flight, we were using it to leave our homeworld, and have been in space ever since. Sure, it doesn't match the rate of progress of our ideals or science fiction, but that's because we are little protein bags that can scarcely live a century. Our perspective is nothing.

>>which itself was a very specific series of events.
It was utilized in a particular series of events, but almost any other planet could end up having similar circumstances. Space became instrumental to the conflict because reaching space is a universal technological milestone; we can image scores of other circumstances that would also have brought it about.

Yes, the infrastructure would be wiped out, but people would still remember it was possible. There would be wreckage. Within centuries, we would reclaim our lost progress. For most worlds, this would be the case, as the level of technology to eradicate life and all traces of the past is somewhat different than merely being able to nuke your world with ICBMs.

In short, 'very little progress' is a very small, human perspective on what's happening. Just because we haven't made it fully into space in 100 years of trying doesn't mean that absolutely no one in a galaxy of 100 billion stars could make it over the course of ~6 billion years. Do the math.
>>
Subramanyan Chandrasekhar - Sat, 16 Jun 2018 12:05:24 EST ID:fjAVn7KX No.57305 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57295

its called endosymbiotic theory. another key moment was the evolution of chloroplasts by cyanobacteria who changed the atmosphere to be more oxygen rich and support multicellular life
>>
Fred Whipple - Sat, 16 Jun 2018 16:08:14 EST ID:unNII3om No.57306 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57304

When we talk about scales, it took 4-5 billion years for the biosphere to develop intelligent life. When we look at what was and what is alive, we see that only a precious few groups of animals actually appear to be selected for intelligence, and only one of those has had enough of a brain evolution to even begin reaching for the stars. And even in our case, colonization and expansion is far from a certainty.

That's 1 in 8.7 million or so extant species, and that last number is MUCH higher if we consider all species that ever existed. The chance for us happening is miniscule.

Life does not develop human-level intelligence by anything other than 'accident'. From this we can with certainty say that the majority of life bearing worlds does not have civilization-builders, and likely will never develop one.
>>
Pierre-Simon Laplace - Sat, 16 Jun 2018 21:13:36 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57307 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57306
>>That's 1 in 8.7 million or so extant species,
The number of extant species is a pretty much irrelevant fact to the rate of the evolution of intelligence. You seem to be implying that, out of a very large pool of potential genetic mutations, only a few selected for intelligence. But intelligence has developed multiple times independently on earth in the roughly 1/2 billion years that large complex multicellular organisms have existed. Most of that 4 billion year figure we were confined to single celled life. Intelligence develops logarithmically, but that doesn't mean anything about it's process is 'accidental'; its driven by the necessity of the evolutionary arms race.
>>Life does not develop human-level intelligence by anything other than 'accident'.
You could say every step of evolution is an 'accident,' but 'accidents' happen all the time. It really depends on what you mean by accident. That's precisely the point of the Fermi paradox. I feel like you guys aren't even grasping the fundamental issue and are getting derailed by trivial aspects.

Intelligence has survival utility. Evolution selects for survival on every planet in the universe. Very few times have species become dumber -- if intelligence had no evolutionary utility, we would not expect this to be the case, as brain mass is very energy intensive. So, in any biosphere where evolution is progressing at an appreciable rate, the utility of intelligence will eventually show itself. After all, intelligence is the only thing that can actually protect life from existential threats beyond the biosphere, so clearly intelligence is evolution's best bet.

>>. From this we can with certainty say that the majority of life bearing worlds does not have civilization-builders, and likely will never develop one.
Of course. That fact is already taken for granted within the figures of the Drake equation. This is why I assume you misunderstand the Fermi paradox.
>>
Heinrich Olbers - Sat, 16 Jun 2018 22:23:39 EST ID:eygzYfFg No.57308 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Quick reminder that intelligence can increase without any selections for intelligence taking place.

Gram for gram, the bird brain is far superior than the mammal brain - in general.

Why?

Birds all descend from flying ancestors that had to skim on weight to improve their flight. What's a good way to skim on weight? Having a small, light brain that can do whatever a bigger heavier brain can do because more density of connections.
>>
Henry Draper - Tue, 19 Jun 2018 09:00:47 EST ID:RTvYZbbR No.57309 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57290
>Protip
>Explain what your weird doomsday theory is, instead of expecting us all to fucking know or to spend time googling
>>
Pierre-Simon Laplace - Tue, 19 Jun 2018 16:49:47 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57310 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57309
I think most people who would come to this board would be familiar with the Great Filter. It's why basically no one else complained about that.

Essentially, OP is going along with a common (not at all crazy, but actually quite rational) explanation to the Fermi paradox (the observation that no aliens have been discovered despite our model (the Drake equation) which suggests they should be everywhere.) The idea is that there is a 'Great Filter,' some kind of universal milestone or event that is incredibly difficult for species to get past, which accounts for why basically none have done so (and thus why we see no aliens.)

For adherents of the Great Filter theory, the question is whether the filter lies behind us or ahead of us. If it lies behind us, that means that one of the steps of evolution that leads to human-level intelligence is the Great Filter. However, because most of the steps between single-celled life and human level intelligence are fairly smooth (under this idea, you can see objections to this concept ITT) the best candidates for a 'behind us' Great Filter are in the process of life itself coming into being, a la 'Rare Earth' explanations for the Fermi paradox.

The article which OP posted suggests that the formation of life is fairly common in the universe, which suggests the Great Filter lies ahead of us, meaning most civilizations can make it to our level but are wiped out by some kind of doomsday technology or environmental collapse that civilizations make. That is what is making OP so scared.
>>
Clyde Tombaugh - Thu, 28 Jun 2018 05:00:35 EST ID:vxFcQ9yD No.57320 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57290
Maybe the great filter is a meaningless concept.
I mean, i get it but life and existence isn't made up of words and definitions.
Maybe some planets and lifeforms have filters before them and others don't, there are no rules to it.


I for one will be thrilled if they found actual living things somewhere in space, that shit would be trippy as fuck
>>
John Wheeler - Thu, 28 Jun 2018 12:45:38 EST ID:fjAVn7KX No.57321 Ignore Report Quick Reply
whats that experiment where niggas made amino acids in a bottle or some shit
>>
William Lassell - Thu, 28 Jun 2018 19:19:05 EST ID:4LbbDsR/ No.57322 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1530227945717.jpg -(260780B / 254.67KB, 512x512) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>57321

The universe.
>>
James Christy - Fri, 29 Jun 2018 20:15:43 EST ID:unNII3om No.57328 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57307

>The number of extant species is a pretty much irrelevant fact to the rate of the evolution of intelligence
>Intelligence develops logarithmically, but that doesn't mean anything about it's process is 'accidental'; its driven by the necessity of the evolutionary arms race.

It is very relevant. Looking at the history of evolution, intelligence seems to not be driven by competition between species but rather competition within species.

Today we have a bunch of intelligent species, within birds, cetaceans and primates. And only primates have the manipulatory limbs to actually make something of that intelligence. That is still one in how many groups of animals?

Truth is that maintaining intelligence is expensive, using energy and resources that may well be better used elsewhere. All truly smart animals today are few in numbers. Even humans were very few at some point. There's a threshold along the line where intelligence actually becomes more usefull than its worth in the natural world, and it appears most species selected toward intelligence struggle to actually reach it.

>That's precisely the point of the Fermi paradox. I feel like you guys aren't even grasping the fundamental issue and are getting derailed by trivial aspects.

The point with the 'accident' thing is to show how much stochasticity rules our world. A species might be selected for intelligence for some time, but then be selected for something else due to changing biological competition or physical factors. Or the line may be erased completely during a mass extinction or climate change. Evolution favors the ones that are adapted to the 'present', not what might be useful down the line.

>Of course. That fact is already taken for granted within the figures of the Drake equation. This is why I assume you misunderstand the Fermi paradox.

We all misunderstand it, the equation does too. Truth is we're still in the early days of the universe. Earth is predicted to be within the first 7% of all possible lifebearing worlds that will ever be.

In fact, some scientists just published a new interpentation of the Drake Equation where they took the great uncertainty of having only Earth known into account, as well as updated knowledge gained from the ongoing exoplanet hunt etc.
Their results showed that at best only one in three galaxies have a civilization like us. Furthermore their work posited that there's a very likely chance we're the first.
>>
Fred Hoyle - Sat, 30 Jun 2018 17:08:28 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57329 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57328
>> There's a threshold along the line where intelligence actually becomes more usefull than its worth in the natural world, and it appears most species selected toward intelligence struggle to actually reach it.
>>Evolution favors the ones that are adapted to the 'present', not what might be useful down the line.
These ideas are mutually exclusive. If evolution can only select for what is beneficial now, not in the future, then the lower stages of intelligence must also have some utility or they indeed would not be selected for to even be able to reach the higher stages. You contradict yourself.

Moreover, all this, as well as your comments about stochastic processes, are all already conceived within the figures of the Drake equation. So pointing things we all already know out about how life came into being does nothing to address the actual question/problem.

>>Earth is predicted to be within the first 7% of all possible lifebearing worlds that will ever be.
I've seen that result, and I think it's totally spurious from the data of the study it came out of. It assumes a lot of things about the requirements for life (do we really need trace amounts of chromium for life to exist at all? Or was it just the case that there happened to be chromium on earth and life integrated it? Think critically about that...) I think a more reasonable estimate for the earliest entrance of life is about ~7 billion years post big-bang, when there was enough carbon (which may indeed be an essential element) but negligible amounts of all heavier elements. That's quibbling though; even if we are in the first 7%, where are the other 6%?

>>Their results showed that at best only one in three galaxies have a civilization like us. Furthermore their work posited that there's a very likely chance we're the first.
Again, you should actually analyze the study rather than taking the pop-sci lead line as the truth. I've seen this cycle of articles and it's mostly hogwash (in terms of what the journos claim the scientists found -- the scientists themselves have a very even handed understanding of their study.)
So what that study did was assign uncertainty distributions based on our confidence interval of each figure of the Drake equation. Their update to the methodology was to include an uncertainty range of estimates, rather than ending up with a single figure estimate. They noted that, based on their current uncertainty figures (which are representations of how poorly we understand science, not how few aliens there are) our uncertainty should suggest to us that there is a 33% chance we are alone, but also a 65% chance that we are not. Their main takeaway was that absence of ETI signals should not indicate to us that there is a Great Filter ahead (I think that one could question that logic) but, moreover, that if we do discover ETI, we shouldn't be particularly surprised.

Then the journos hear that and cook up the most sensational headline possible 'SCIENTISTS PROVE MAN ALONE IN THE UNIVERSE.' Give me a break.
>>
Roger Penrose - Sun, 08 Jul 2018 21:07:26 EST ID:eygzYfFg No.57342 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57328
>Their results showed that at best only one in three galaxies have a civilization like us. Furthermore their work posited that there's a very likely chance we're the first.

We'll all be Cthulhu all along.
We'll do the buttprobing and dreamraping.


Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.