Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
Comment
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Building Blocks of Life Found on Mars

Reply
- Thu, 07 Jun 2018 19:12:35 EST eygzYfFg No.57290
File: 1528413155979.jpg -(198462B / 193.81KB, 945x945) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Building Blocks of Life Found on Mars
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 unNII3om No.57292 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 4LbbDsR/ No.57293 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 unNII3om No.57294 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 hGyQlc1t No.57295 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 457vC2+I No.57296 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 unNII3om No.57297 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 hGyQlc1t No.57298 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 - Sun, 10 Jun 2018 19:46:22 EST 457vC2+I No.57300 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 457vC2+I No.57301 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 UWJUUXyL No.57303 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 457vC2+I No.57304 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 fjAVn7KX No.57305 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 unNII3om No.57306 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 457vC2+I No.57307 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 eygzYfFg No.57308 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 RTvYZbbR No.57309 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 457vC2+I No.57310 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 vxFcQ9yD No.57320 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 fjAVn7KX No.57321 Reply
whats that experiment where niggas made amino acids in a bottle or some shit
>>
James Christy - Fri, 29 Jun 2018 20:15:43 EST unNII3om No.57328 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 457vC2+I No.57329 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 eygzYfFg No.57342 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.
>>
Russel Hulse - Thu, 11 Oct 2018 20:39:02 EST unNII3om No.57465 Reply
1539304742880.jpg -(109315B / 106.75KB, 1155x851) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>57342

Silly carbon based lifeform looking for 'life' like its only based on material element configurations.

Please thank me for not notifying the Elder Ones over this transgression. You are still young, like We used to be. I am sure even the plasma-based gestalts would get triggered over this so I'll keep quiet.

Though please tone down your radio transmissions, it scrambles any Aether-Mind whose stellar winds brings them close to your little star. Thank you.
>>
Bernhard Schmidt - Thu, 15 Nov 2018 20:17:29 EST rNBxnMOH No.57494 Reply
>>57292
It also doesn't protect a planet from its lifeforms ruining everything on a planetary scale, as even our bacteria has done repeatedly. The whole reason we even have this toxic atmosphere to begin with is due to bacteria poisoning themselves with oxygen, which led to a mass extinction event. It's not like we don't still have time to try and terraform Earth into being a Venusian hellscape from runaway greenhouse effects. The real reason we are probably unlikely to encounter intelligent life is because odds are the development of a technology producing race is followed immediately by largescale extinction if not outright planetary sterilization in some cases. And because most things erode and are destroyed by natural processes, like for example iron, we are highly unlikely to even find any evidence of them having ever existed to begin with unless we can catch some space junk in orbit that hasn't already been reduced to dust by constant collisions, or possibly stone or something like plastics that are big enough to actually be noticeable from space and not yet buried. Even on Earth there are tons of human lost cities that we are only now rediscovering.
tempus edax rerum
>>
Vesto Slipher - Tue, 04 Dec 2018 04:59:58 EST BTs3t51f No.57524 Reply
>>57290
Apparently Titan has methane too
>The carbon in methane molecules comes in different varieties, or isotopes � carbon-12 (12C) and carbon-13 (13C). Each 13C atom has an extra neutron in its nucleus, making them slightly heavier than 12C atoms, so the GCMS can distinguish between methane with 12C and methane with 13C.

>Living organisms have a preference for carbon-12. As a result, carbon-containing molecules, such as methane, that are associated with life on Earth get enriched in 12C. The ratio of 12C to 13C is a marker or signature of life.� However, the team did not see 12C enrichment in the methane on Titan.


>>57494
>The real reason we are probably unlikely to encounter intelligent life is because odds are the development of a technology producing race is followed immediately by largescale extinction if not outright planetary sterilization in some cases.
In my opinion largescale extinction may be avoided with neurological/psychological/social variables. Language, social psychology, shared information is what allowed us to progress into the next stage of society. For a small tribe it may be beneficial for you to believe what others believe without questioning it, in modern day society that is a trait that is very easily taken advantage of. I believe that with natural selection, it may be possible for some society in the future to avoid extinction. As far as we know we are the first societies to make it this far. With the deaths of many societies, maybe there will be a future race of people more suitable for progression with the necessary neurological/social conditions.

Sure, avoiding large scale extinction is possible, but is it likely? Humans have a destructive need to feel comfortable, this should be true with every organism that makes it this far. A race of people with no greed, who ascend past their animalistic instincts and desires, who prioritize their long term future and health for short term prosperity is possible, but how likely is it that a race like this is formed before mass extinction? It could very well be 1e-∞%
>>
>>
Johannes Kepler - Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:39:07 EST 457vC2+I No.57525 Reply
>>57524
Titan's methane and organics are compounded from benzene in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays, though. If Titan has life, that's not evidence of it. There was actually an infographic on /spooky/ yesterday for some reason showing the chemical processes which lead to organic compound formation in Titan's atmosphere, but I can't be assed to go find it.

>> but how likely is it that a race like this is formed before mass extinction?
But, space is infinite in extent. So even if the factor for species to develop self-sustaining attitudes is 1e-∞% (which I sincerely doubt) it still should occur an endless number of times in the universe.

I don't think we really could assign a numerical value to such a probability, because there are too many unknowns. Sapient beings are dynamical systems that don't evolve predictably. One idea that one of them has can change the course of the history of their whole species forever, for better or worse. There's no way to account for that mathematically, other than to say that the potential of sapient life is infinitely unknown.
>>
Viktor Ambartsumian - Thu, 06 Dec 2018 07:05:35 EST BTs3t51f No.57527 Reply
>>57525
In my post I quoted
>>Living organisms have a preference for carbon-12. As a result, carbon-containing molecules, such as methane, that are associated with life on Earth get enriched in 12C. The ratio of 12C to 13C is a marker or signature of life.� However, the team did not see 12C enrichment in the methane on Titan.
Because I don't believe there to be life on mars or titan
>>
Paul Goldsmith - Thu, 06 Dec 2018 18:42:25 EST 457vC2+I No.57528 Reply
>>57527
Well, how could I know that's why you quoted it? You didn't make a comment about it, and its just a fact. But if you just change my post from saying, 'by cosmic rays, though', but to 'by cosmic rays, as you imply' then it comes out the same.

To be clear, however, just because organics in Titan's atmosphere aren't biological in origin, doesn't mean Titan itself doesn't support life, it just doesn't mean that it does support life. It could have subterranean earth-like biota, or support life that operates on a different biochemistry. We just don't know until we go there.

But, Europa is probably a better candidate moon to find earth-like life, for sure.
>>
Galileo Galilei - Thu, 06 Dec 2018 18:46:48 EST rNBxnMOH No.57529 Reply
1544140008542.jpg -(108509B / 105.97KB, 720x960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>57524
I wasn't talking about human societies. I was talking about alien societies. I explicitly meant that there is a high chance humanity wipes itself out as within a very tiny period of time we went from industrialization to almost killing a lot of the biosphere with nuclear weapons--which we still might do in the next century--as well as things like climate change. What if we created a runaway greenhouse effect? Maybe not totally Venus tier, but something like it? We have already proven of ourselves within a single generation that the jump to that kind of pre-space industrial advancement could easily kill us all. It is not inconceivable that a majority of races in the universe that did make that jump to industrialization types of societies promptly ended up killing themselves and most of the planet, just as much as it is conceivable that on many planets a type of life similar to bacteria arising promptly (in geological terms) farted out enough oxygen into the atmosphere to kill almost everyone microbial thus creating a near-human breathable atmosphere.

What I am stating is that man is a bacteria I want to see infecting other worlds but the problem is that it is quite proven how hazardous it is to make that jump towards being a more advanced technological society without dooming themselves somehow. Not to mention as I stated previously that humanity as anything but a vaguely enlightened tribe of apes has only existed for tens of thousands of years, and that the accepted span for "historical" that is to say post-agricultural man has existed for only 10-17.000 years, which is absolutely nothing in geological terms of the hundreds of millions of years of life on earth.

Ergo, you are not just plotting the spatial but also the temporal coordinates to a planet in which a) life has arisen, b) life is at the stage of abstract thinking, c) life has achieved technical progress and advancement without having killed itself in the process. While the universe and even our local stellar cluster may be vast, that is actually an incredibly small set of coordinates.

It would of course be much, much easier if you could somehow greatly expand either your spatial or temporal search.
>>
George Airy - Tue, 11 Dec 2018 18:09:21 EST HUBAqrsF No.57537 Reply
>>57529

gotta fold thru them higher dimensions, wrinkle in time nigga
>>
William Fowler - Fri, 26 Apr 2019 21:44:59 EST BAFVpoIC No.57660 Reply
>>57290
Also it's very clear that the atmosphere used to exist also due to solar planetary models
>>
Fritz Zwicky - Sat, 18 May 2019 01:22:57 EST +jtol4RH No.57705 Reply
>>57660
I was watching this TED talk of some Elon Musk fanboy who was trying to sell the idea of us being on Mars by 2027 and talking about trying to trigger a runaway greenhouse effect to terraform the place. But see the thing is, Mars used to have an atmosphere and doesn't anymore because the current theory is somehow its inner dynamo stabilized and Mars lost the magnetosphere. This means that even if you did somehow actually outright import an atmosphere to the planet it's still just going to get blown away by the stellar winds.

What's really spooky to me though is Venus. It's almost like our twin planet, but is also just about the most inhospitable place in the solar system because its atmsophere is so thick that it's filled with crushing pressure just on the surface in addition to rock melting heat because of the greenhouse effect.

Which keeps making me thinking: if intelligent life developed on Venus as a blue world, and eventually developed something like fossil fuels and triggered a greenhouse effect cascade reaction, would we ever even notice? An entire planet like Earth could exist in such a place and there would never be any evidence of it because even the rocks themselves have all been destroyed. There's literally no trace left of anything there before except chemicals in its atmosphere.
>>
George Gamow - Sat, 18 May 2019 01:54:09 EST aGo2dCNY No.57706 Reply
>>57705
theres a book call "the world without us" which explains that even on earth there would be little evidence of civilization remaining in just a few thousand years if we were all to disappear today.
>>
Tycho Brahe - Mon, 20 May 2019 15:26:49 EST 9YXtXzja No.57710 Reply
>>57706
This is why I find it infuriating that so called academics, think it's impossible that there was an age that had iron working in the far past.
>>
Johannes Kepler - Mon, 20 May 2019 15:52:39 EST 457vC2+I No.57714 Reply
1558381959047.jpg -(91225B / 89.09KB, 800x683) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Uhm...
1.) Fossils we don't have. Even if all metal turned to dust there would still be fossilized remnants of any civilization.
2.) Other fossils we don't have. There are no species in the fossil record that had the anatomy to build technology before humans (arguably some of the other hominids.) So if we're positing a pre-human civilization, what animal are we talking about?
3.) Fossils/artifacts we do have. If we're talking about a prior civilization in human pre-history, well, we have evidence of the 'technology' of the earliest hominids. If it survived, why wouldn't evidence of the more advanced technology survive, as well as all the steps the technology would have to take in between?
>>
Edwin Salpeter - Tue, 21 May 2019 04:09:35 EST +jtol4RH No.57721 Reply
>>57706
I am well aware of that and you do not understand what I am saying here. Many stoneworks would persist for many thousands of years here. In 100 million years even if we disappeared right now there would still be a mysterious sedimentary explosion of plastic deposits in the geological record. I mean that Venus itself is such a blasted landscapes not even that would exist because also last I read most of it was subducted too so a lot of the fossil record would also be obliterated.
https://topex.ucsd.edu/venus/papers/065_Fowler_JGR_1996.pdf
But, idk enough about that, or how a fierce enough runaway greenhouse effect could theoretically eventually impact things like plate tectonics here. Point being, Venus is so harsh I'm not even sure there'd be much of a fossil record or how you could even attempt to retrieve a sample of it without destroying it in the process by being exposed to environment. Also I hadn't realized it wasn't hot enough to melt rock. Thought I remembered it was for some reason. It's also just more horrifying because it would both sterilize the planet and leave no real record.
>>
Edmond Halley - Sun, 26 May 2019 06:09:35 EST WC9xzZc9 No.57728 Reply
>>57714
>Even if all metal turned to dust there would still be fossilized remnants of any civilization
In the event of an extreme cataclysm, such as giant meteor strike the Earth could be so transformed that those fossils become inaccessible under hundreds of miles of earth and/or water. It could be that the few fossils we do find actually paint an inaccurate picture of the past as all the good stuff is buried.
>>
Vesto Slipher - Sun, 26 May 2019 19:02:24 EST 457vC2+I No.57731 Reply
>>57728
I'm a little skeptical of that idea, as it's unfalsifiable until we develop much more advanced tunneling or ground imaging technology, and we do have pretty amazingly accurate records of events both before and after pretty much the largest meteor impacts the biosphere would even be theoretically capable of surviving. The way plate tectonics works, unless the entire crust is turned into a molten fireball, there will always be some evidence somewhere especially of a species as cosmopolitan as metal-workers would have to be.
>>
Arthur Eddington - Tue, 28 May 2019 20:01:49 EST ay76ZdB1 No.57732 Reply
the pvc dildos in my closet will last at least ten thousand years
>>
Vera Rubiin - Fri, 07 Jun 2019 15:04:05 EST izGRJ+VN No.57738 Reply
>>57731
Even in the case there will be evidence in the geological records.
A layer unusually high concentration of iron compounds and scattered refined metals everywhere. Evidence of mining on the layers below.
I can't come up with a complete list but I've seen somebody do it, perhaps I'll find that again.
In the case of "turn the entire crust into a molten fireball" of course life itself would vanish and the atmosphere would be heated so much that it would be blown away into space.
This would paradoxically make it easier to preserve evidence of our civilization since stuff can't oxidize.

This doesn't mean a large enough chuck couln't do it though. With enough kinetic energy the upper crust could evaporate too and be blown away into space.
It would have to be an extra-solar object though since we are pretty much certain nothing of that magnitude is around as far as we can see.
>>
A_Wizard !cMZsY.BCnU!!vVWR8L52 - Sun, 16 Jun 2019 15:24:42 EST 9YXtXzja No.57744 Reply
>>57290
We've pretty thoroughly contaminated it already though. Considering that even the exterior of the space stations have microbial life on them, and how impossible it is to irradicate every spore and microbe, the red planet is likely already colonised with lichens, puffballs, and extremophile bacteria. It's going to be a long hard journey to determine if the life we find on mars had existed before our modern arrival, unless we manage to find more complex life forms than bacteria and fungi.
>>
Fred Whipple - Tue, 02 Jul 2019 20:39:38 EST eygzYfFg No.57754 Reply
>>57728
Throw that meteor hard enough, and there won't be any fossils left. Everything will turn into molten rock.

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