There are a lot of differing opinions today among astrobiologists and planetary specialists as to whether life is common in the universe, and how many intelligent and sentient life-forms (like humans) are out there in the heavens. On the one hand, paleontologists, biologists and geoscientists have found over the past twenty years or so that life forms can flourish in very harsh environments, places with little or no light or oxygen and very cold or very hot temperatures, even places with relatively high exposure to ultraviolet or radioactive radiation. Of course, most of these life forms aren’t much more than very simple one-celled germ-like things. But they are alive.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the accelerating pace of exoplanet research and discoveries have allowed the detection of a rapidly increasing number of planets whirling around far-distant stars. Our scientists have learned how to distinguish rocky Earth-like planets from “gas bags” like Jupiter and Saturn, and in a few years they might even be able to detect whether these planets have an atmosphere, and what kinds of gasses are in that atmosphere. The boffins are obviously very interested in finding out how many “second Earths” are out there, rocky planets of near-Earth size orbiting a bright but stable star at a distance where liquid water could exist and where a favorable atmosphere could form. Again, we are still some years away from being able to pinpoint such stars and planets, but thus far, a large number of candidates have emerged. <\/p>\n
So, given that life can form even under very tough conditions, and given that “habitable zone” planets may relatively common in the cosmos, many scientists are coming to believe in a “cosmic life imperative<\/a>” in the Universe. But recall that all of this was “on the one hand”. On that other hand is the increasing realization that planet Earth and our Solar System may not be your garden-variety planetary situation. A lot of the newly discovered exo-planetary systems are quite unlike our own. Even the ones with rocky planets that are Earth-size often orbit stars that are much more dim or which pulsate or which have twin stars or which frequently belch out huge flares or X-rays that would make life very sparse, if it could get started at all. At best, a few microbe colonies might struggle to stay alive at fringe locations. And even the discovered Earth-like planets are often too close or too far from the star to allow running water (or have highly elliptical orbits where water would boil on one end and freeze on the other). <\/p>\n But even if you get a “Goldilocks” star like our sun with rocky planets at just the right distance, life is still not guaranteed. A recent article on the Nautilis site<\/a> talks about how life needs to be able to “catch fire” (in a sense) on a planet; it needs the right local conditions for the right amount of time in order to spread and evolve and start changing the planet itself into a more habitable environment for further life. The author of this article, David Grinspoon (a senior scientist at the Planetary Science Institute), calls this an extension of the “Gaia hypothesis”, i.e. that the whole Earth in itself should be considered a very complex but ultimately integrated and unique form of life. Dr. Grinspoon compares the fate of Venus, Earth and Mars, three rocky planets of relatively similar size, all of which exist in the habitable zone of our Solar System. Obviously, only one of the three became “infected” by life. Dr. Grinspoon feels that life did get started on both Venus and Mars, as they once had enough water and preliminary atmospheres to allow this. But that life never reached a “critical mass” whereby the atmosphere and temperature and surface chemistry of these planets were altered sufficiently to allow for verdant development and growth of myriad species of life. Only Earth had the right combination of volcanoes, plate movements, magnetic fields caused by an iron core of just the right size, etc. So, despite some evidence that Mars might still have a few isolated colonies of microbes at certain spots, Dr. Grinspoon contends that habitable planets will either become verdant habitats dominated by life-forms as the Earth (aka “Gaia”) is, or will be mostly dead, with at best a few tiny germ-like things that do next to nothing but barely hang on.<\/p>\n Many planet hunters and exobiologists remain optimistic that given the incredible number of stars and galaxies that litter our Universe (as the Hubble space telescope and other new space observation platforms have helped us to realize), there have to be many, many places where life has emerged, and has developed into sophisticated forms like our animals and humans. Even if only one out of a hundred have the potential for life (one study indicates<\/a> that 20% of the stars in our Milky Way galaxy are like our sun, and 20% of them have Earth-sized planets in a temperate zone), that leaves a LOT of chances for life to develop. Planetary scientist Sara Seger was the subject of a recent article in the NY Times<\/a>, where she was pictured at her kitchen table “with her empty mug . . . talking about hundreds of billions of galaxies and their hundreds of billions of stars. Tens of billions of habitable planets, far more of them than there are people on Earth. There has to be other life somewhere out there. We can\u2019t be that special.”<\/p>\n And yet, Howard A. Smith, a senior astrophysicist at the Harvard\u2010Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, also had a recent article<\/a> on the Nautilis site, where he basically said that human-like life may NOT be common at all despite the unimaginably vast expanses of star and galaxy fields in the heavens, and thus we probably ARE quite special. He feels that the exoplanetary evidence to date is not very encouraging, and also cites the growing realization of all the special circumstances and strokes of luck that allowed higher forms of life to emerge on our planet (E.g., the early oxygenation of the atmosphere by an evolving type of cyanobacteria during the Proterozoic period came close to poisoning<\/a> all of the existing anerobic life forms before the new oxygen-loving germs that eventually evolved into modern life could develop from them). Dr. Smith concludes his article by saying <\/p>\n I think it is good advice not to make too many assumptions, and presuming we must be commonplace is an assumption. Of course, presuming we are rare is another. Instead, we must learn from nature with an open mind. I think the evidence, and the simplest conclusion, is that humanity is not ordinary and we may have a significant cosmic role. There are, therefore, ethical issues to consider, and religion can contribute a meaningful voice to this discussion. We should treat one another as the priceless beings we appear to be, and care for our rare cosmic home, the Earth. Modern science may have prompted this re-evaluation, but addressing it will require the best of all our human abilities.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So, perhaps humanity is pretty special after all, and maybe we do have some sort of cosmic mission. Maybe we should stop thinking that human life is cheap, and that if we disappear because of our own stupidity, some other intelligent space aliens (like we see on so many popular movies like Arrival and Star Trek and Independence Day) will zoom in with their megaships and take up where we left off. But what if they don’t, because they don’t exist? Well, wouldn’t that be a shame. We have come an incredibly long way with our social organization and our technology. Without all of this social structure and technology, we’d never know all of the good stuff that I’ve just described about life chemistry and stars and galaxies and exoplanets. You’d think that social organization and technology should then be leading us towards what Dr. Smith advises, i.e. “treat one another as the priceless beings we appear to be”. <\/p>\n Unfortunately, an article in the November Atlantic throws some cold water on that notion. E.T. Brooking and P.W. Singer wrote the cover story entitled “War Goes Viral<\/a>“. No, they are not talking about biological warfare. They are talking about “viral” as in Facebook, Twitter, You Tube, Instagram, etc. In their own words, Brooking and Singer “sought to untangle a seeming contradiction. The internet has long been celebrated for its power to bring people together. Yet as it turns out, this same technology is easily weaponized. Social-media platforms reinforce ‘us versus them’ narratives, expose vulnerable people to virulent ideologies, and inflame even long-dormant hatreds.” Humankind is showing its usual craftiness in making greater and greater use of modern internet technology and smart phones and social media to forward its worst instincts. <\/p>\n This isn’t exactly new, however. Brooking and Singer point out that the development of the telegraph in the early part of the 19th Century was hailed as a tool that would bring humankind together and foster greater states of understanding and sympathy — but soon became mostly an engine of trade and warfare. Quote:<\/p>\n According to the historian Johanna Neuman, great thinkers of the day believed that ‘the knowledge relayed by the telegraph would make nations so conversant with the national interests of their one-time enemies that war would come no more.’ The first transatlantic cable was laid between North America and Europe in 1858. In an exchange of congratulations, President James Buchanan expressed to Queen Victoria his belief that the telegraph would ‘prove to be a bond of perpetual peace and friendship between the kindred nations, and an instrument designed \u2026 to diffuse religion, civilization, liberty, and law throughout the world.’ Within a few days, Britain would use the same cable to send orders to its military.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The prognosis from Brooking and Singer for a human species armed with smart phones loaded with social media apps is not encouraging. <\/p>\n For all the hope that comes from connecting with new people and new ideas, researchers have found that online behavior is dominated by ‘homophily’: a tendency to listen to and associate with people like yourself, and to exclude outsiders. Social networks are bad at helping you empathize with people unlike you, but good at surrounding you with those who share your outlook. The new information ecosystem does not challenge biases; it reinforces them. Within a circle of friends or like-minded acquaintances, social media certainly fosters connection. But the further one zooms out\u2014to whole societies or the course of global affairs\u2014the more this connection is marred by tribalism and mutual mistrust<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Radio and TV and the telephone were significant communications technology jumps over the past 100 years, but hand-held social media kicks it up a notch by allowing everyone to have a world-wide audience. We don’t just passively entertain our opinions and prejudices in private, we find many, many others with the same prejudices and add to the fire. <\/p>\n Lately we’ve been hearing a lot about the political dangers of “fake news”. Fake news is the new front line in the political wars that are tearing America apart. And the social media revolution provides the ammo: <\/p>\n Perhaps the greatest danger in this dynamic is that, although information that goes viral holds unquestionable power, it bears no special claim to truth or accuracy. Homophily all but ensures that. A multi-university study of five years of Facebook activity, titled ‘The Spreading of Misinformation Online’, was recently published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Its authors found that the likelihood of someone believing and sharing a story was determined by its coherence with their prior beliefs and the number of their friends who had already shared it\u2014not any inherent quality of the story itself. Stories didn\u2019t start new conversations so much as echo preexisting beliefs.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n America, when you fell in love with all of those pretty I-Phones and stimulating social sites, you were unknowingly asking for a leader with little regard for truth and accuracy. And sure enough, you got him!<\/p>\n I once thought that the only way for humankind to find one-ness would be for a common non-human enemy to present itself clearly right to everyone’s face. I.e., an invasion from space, Independence Day style. The real thing, not something playing on your Samsung Galaxy. Maybe more of us should go out at night and turn off our phones and look up into the night, and think . . . what if we are alone? Would we start moderating our political vehemence and start looking harder for common ground and stop being sure that our views are always right, just because the Huffington Post and Bernie Sanders, or Sean Hannity and Newt Gingrich, say they are right?<\/p>\n Well . . . probably not. I’m sorry to be fatalistic, but what’s gonna happen is gonna happen. The stars remain beautiful and inspiring, and the quiet and loneliness of the night can be haunting. But if humankind gets past its warrior instincts and its climate change crisis and it somehow achieves a peaceful and sustainable state, it will be just by luck. Luck has gotten us as far as we have gotten, considering the fates of Venus and Mars, the oxygen catastrophe, the earth-like planet around the star nearest to us (Proxima Centauri b<\/a>) that remains sterile because of X rays and solar winds, etc. Let’s hope that we’re not pushing our luck one step too far!!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" There are a lot of differing opinions today among astrobiologists and planetary specialists as to whether life is common in the universe, and how many intelligent and sentient life-forms (like humans) are out there in the heavens. On the one hand, paleontologists, biologists and geoscientists have found over the past twenty years or so that […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[21,9,23],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6526"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6526"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6526\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6529,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6526\/revisions\/6529"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6526"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6526"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6526"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}