Life elsewhere? Who cares?

[iacobus]

I can't help but wonder why we are so interested in knowing if life, intelligent or not, exists out there.

 

Given that there are 10^nth stars with possible planets, etc. etc., what difference does it really make?

 

The distances are just too great for humans to ever actually be able to shake hands with them.

 

There could have been numerous civilizations that have been born, survived for a few thousand years,and then died out.

 

Our method of attempting communication is by use of electromagnetic waves. These can be harmful to life, and may therefore not be used by them.

 

And lets face it. We are looking for lifeforms that are similar to us. And asuming for the moment that in order for that to be, there would have to be a star approximately the same size as our sun, with a planet approximately the same distance from it, tilted on its axis, rotating at a relatively slow rotation, orbiting at the same speed. Come on, that's got to reduce the numbers significantly, no?

 

Wouldn't it be better to try to get this planet, which we are rapidly destroying, in better shape and take care of the lifeforms here, rather than looking out there for them?

[TINNY]

One reason is to prove the possibility of abiogenesis

[pgrmdave]

well, it is really multi-faceted. More than most people, astronomers see the vastness of the universe and can fathom best how incredible small we are; other life would make it less lonely. Finding life would bring a lot of attention to astronomy, which would attract money, something that is desperately needed. And third, curiousity. I won't deny that we're looking for something like ourselves, i.e. oxygen breathing, water needing, scientific, curious...but what else should we look for? we don't know signs of life unless we've experianced them.

[Stargazer]

I can't help but wonder why we are so interested in knowing if life, intelligent or not, exists out there.

 

Given that there are 10^nth stars with possible planets, etc. etc., what difference does it really make?

As with all science, it aims to answer some questions about us and the universe. Are we alone? Is there life elsewhere? Is life common? Where can life arise, and where can it evolve into something we would call intelligent? To get some answers to this would be great!

 

The distances are just too great for humans to ever actually be able to shake hands with them.

Yes, just like it once was impossible for us to sail across the oceans... Or when it was impossible to go to the moon. Soon we will look back at our time and think about how it used to be impossible to travel to other stars.

 

There could have been numerous civilizations that have been born, survived for a few thousand years,and then died out.

Yes, so there is a chance that the first ones to find another civilisation will be archaeologists... I hope not, though.

 

Our method of attempting communication is by use of electromagnetic waves. These can be harmful to life, and may therefore not be used by them.

Sure, light and even radio can probably have different effects on different sorts of life - but how much?

 

And lets face it. We are looking for lifeforms that are similar to us. And asuming for the moment that in order for that to be, there would have to be a star approximately the same size as our sun, with a planet approximately the same distance from it, tilted on its axis, rotating at a relatively slow rotation, orbiting at the same speed. Come on, that's got to reduce the numbers significantly, no?

Yes that is true. There are some projects in the making right now, with the aim to detect smaller planets, and even detect its chemical properties. I think we should look at all planets, or at least the ones we believe can even have the most remote chance of having life.

 

Wouldn't it be better to try to get this planet, which we are rapidly destroying, in better shape and take care of the lifeforms here, rather than looking out there for them?

I agree. But why can't we do both?

[Stargazer]

One reason is to prove the possibility of abiogenesis

True, to answer the question of how common it is for life to arise in this universe. I hope it's very common!

[Tormod]

First of all, I am moving this to the astronomy category as it does not belon to the evolution forum.

 

Our method of attempting communication is by use of electromagnetic waves. These can be harmful to life, and may therefore not be used by them.

 

Welcome, iacobus. I have heard many things before but this one was new to me. The signals we send are not harmful to life. And if they were, they would be endlessly LESS harmful than the cosmic radiation through which the signals travel.

 

And lets face it. We are looking for lifeforms that are similar to us.

 

Says who? Granted, astronomers tend to get excited when they find planets in the "habitable zone" but it is important to view this in a historic context. Not long ago it was pure heresy to claim that there were other worlds out there that could harbor life. Now we see that there may be an endless amount of planets which are similar to ours. That this makes people ask if there can be life there is not strange at all.

 

Also, since the only lifeforms we know of are carbon based it would make sense first to look for life "as we know it" and the expand the search. The SETI project is one example of listening for signals of life regardless of what or who sent them.

 

Wouldn't it be better to try to get this planet, which we are rapidly destroying, in better shape and take care of the lifeforms here, rather than looking out there for them?

 

1) You have already said we can never visit our alien friends and 2) space technology is one of the most important areas of development for taking care of our planet. Earth observation is one example (look up "envisat" for more information).

 

Also, studying the formation of planets teaches us a lot about our own. I see no need to ask for a halt on the search for life in the universe. Most of that is privately funded (NASA withdrew it's funding to the SETI project long ago) and as such is an enterprise which neither pollutes the earth, nor takes away jobs (or rather, it creates jobs), and it keeps people's hopes up that one day we might find something.

[iacobus]

Welcome, iacobus. I have heard many things before but this one was new to me. The signals we send are not harmful to life. And if they were, they would be endlessly LESS harmful than the cosmic radiation through which the signals travel.

Thank you for the welcome.

I am afraid the was a misinterpretation here. I didn't mean to imply that signals beamed from earth would harm anything. We know that here on our planet, high power lines can be damaging to life. Also we know that it isn't very wise to stand near a transmitting antenna. Microwaves will cook a person. And so on. Therefore, I thought perhaps intelligent lifeforms elsewhere would refrain from developing and using such things.

Yes, just like it once was impossible for us to sail across the oceans... Or when it was impossible to go to the moon. Soon we will look back at our time and think about how it used to be impossible to travel to other stars.

Soon? What is the definition for soon? I doubt very seriously if man will be traveling to any stars in the forseeable future. We are all excited, (at least I was) that we had reached mach 10. That's a far cry from what will be needed.

Yes that is true. There are some projects in the making right now, with the aim to detect smaller planets, and even detect its chemical properties. I think we should look at all planets, or at least the ones we believe can even have the most remote chance of having life.

Is it possible that there are great big critters on a great big planet? Or little bitty creatures on a little bitty planet?

Also, studying the formation of planets teaches us a lot about our own.

Like its totally unstable; hundreds of species have been wiped out by earthquakes and volcanic eruptions; there are a zillion and a half big rocks flying around and eventually, (some predict soon, see definition of "soon" above) one will hit our little planet and .......... Instead of pouring more funds into looking for the big bullets, we keep looking out into space for them.

I would be concerned if we ever did make contact with other life. If they were stronger than us, and knew our violent history, they would either kick out butts, or post a warning to others to bypass the crazy planet. If we happened to be stronger than they, we would probably eat them. We eat many of the lifeforms here, don't we?

 

Iacobus

[Tormod]

iacobus...I fail to see what you're getting at. You take up many different topics. Mach 10 is related to earth-bound travel, like Stargazer pointed out. True, we are not able to travel to the stars today, and probably not for many generations. Then you talk about NEOs, earthquakes, the possible dangers of aliens...

 

But what is the problem? That someone is spending money looking for life? Or that someone is not spending money on defending the planet against NEOs? Or what is it?

 

Exploring the universe is a worthwile cause. If you are afraid that too much money is being spent on anything, you should look towards the defense industry, not the scientific community. Astronomers do not build satellites in orbit with the sole purpose of intercepting ICBMs. Astrobiologists work at insitutes, not on starships traveling to distant planets. I completely fail to understand your concern.

 

But then again I fail to understand a lot of things, so that is not something to worry about. ;)

[iacobus]

He! He! I do seem to be slipping around, don't I.

My comment relative to the mach 10 thing was meant to bring to the surface the fact that we can't hardly go anywhere far away at mach 10. It would take too long.

The NEO things are a real threat, and the people trying to map them are having a difficult time getting funding.

My comment on the earthquake and things was in response to the "we are learning about our planet" comment. We don't know squat about our planet, and looking out into space for some x light years at something that might be a planet, because the home star wobbles, isn't going to teach us anything here.

Yes, I rather strongly feel that the money being spent looking for life out there is, at this time, wasted.

Hey, it's a big subject, and there s a lot of ground to cover. But you may be right. Let's lock in on the NEO's. Are they a threat? Should more funding go in that direction? I think so.

 

Iacobus

[Stargazer]

Soon? What is the definition for soon? I doubt very seriously if man will be traveling to any stars in the forseeable future. We are all excited, (at least I was) that we had reached mach 10. That's a far cry from what will be needed.

Mach 10 is certainly not the fastest we have managed to achieve, as the space shuttles are much faster, for example. I believe that we one day can travel among the stars as we today sail across the oceans or fly across and between continents.

 

Is it possible that there are great big critters on a great big planet? Or little bitty creatures on a little bitty planet?

I have no idea, but since there are a wide range of sizes that Earth life comes in, I would say that most any size is possible, as long it's... well, possible :-) That was not much of an answer, I know...

[Tormod]

He! He! I do seem to be slipping around, don't I.

 

Yes. Since the topic of this thread is about life elsewhere I see no reason to discuss NEOs here. Start a new thread if you like - we try to keep things manageable. ;)

[iacobus]

No, my original post pertained to why we should care if there is other life out there in space. I have great difficulty understanding why so much effort should be put into this search. The thread slid off track because of comments about the funding.

Getting back to finding life. We transmit a signal, and if there were something out there relatively close to us, it would be 200 years or so to get a reply. Even then, it would be purely by chance that the return signal would be picked up here.

I can't see the reasoning behind this. Why invest in something like this?

I can see returning to the moon. In fact, if there were calls for volunteers to set up a moon base, I would jump at the chance.

I'm trying to understand, but I have to tell you, it is very very difficult for me.

Iacobus

[Stargazer]

Well we're mostly listening, actually. I don't see why SETI is so bad, really. It's part of our scientific study of the universe. More insight regarding other solar systems, extraterrestrial life and intelligent life, would increase our understanding of the universe, and probably see ourselves in different light. What, exactly, is wrong with looking for answers?

[Tormod]

iacobus, I think you are vastly overestimating the amount of money and resources put into the search for life in the universe. Do you have any facts or figures to back up your concern that too much is being spent?

[Aki]

No, my original post pertained to why we should care if there is other life out there in space. I have great difficulty understanding why so much effort should be put into this search.

 

I think it's just for curiosity. Man always want to find an answer to their question.

[iacobus]

The following excerpts do not answer your question, but it's all I could find on a short notice.

Here are some data.

Key Points on the President's FY 2005 Budget

The Budget requests $16.2 billion in FY2005 and $87 billion for NASA over five years, an increase of $1 billion over the FY 2004 five-year plan.

 

This seems to me to be very realistic and acceptable.

Now the above figures apply to N.A.S.A., and includes things I most definitely approve of. Moon, Mars, our Solar System, things near to home. Things that can directly affect our planet, and therefore our lives.

 

I am having a bit of difficulty finding any listings for the private funding for the long distance stuff. But I'll continue to search for something. And as you mentioned, I might be over-estimating the amount of money and resources being spent on the search for life in the universe. It would be interesting to know how much has been spent on these ventures. And what the human race has gained from it.

Iacobus

[Tormod]

Now the above figures apply to N.A.S.A., and includes things I most definitely approve of. Moon, Mars, our Solar System, things near to home. Things that can directly affect our planet, and therefore our lives.

 

"near to home" is of course a matter of definition. 100 years ago nobody would think we could ever reach Mars with a space probe. Now they're sent out every two years.

 

The Solar System is so vast that it's hard to imagine the size of it - it streches from the sun an many, many times further out than the outer planets. The Oort cloud hols endless amounts of icy material, clumped up in snowballs, which occasionally dive in towards the sun as comets. These are believed to be carriers of key elements for the building blocks of the basis of life as we know it - hydrogen and oxygen (ie, water), carbon, and other elements. Studying these can teach us something about how the solar system formed, because they are remains of the matter that was around then. They are 4,5 billion years old. That is what the Rosetta mission is currently on it's way to do - and that mission is funded by the European Space Agency, by the way.

 

I am having a bit of difficulty finding any listings for the private funding for the long distance stuff. But I'll continue to search for something. And as you mentioned, I might be over-estimating the amount of money and resources being spent on the search for life in the universe. It would be interesting to know how much has been spent on these ventures. And what the human race has gained from it.

 

For me, the term "search for life" is a bit misleading. Some people do exactly that. They may be hobby astronomers paying out of their own pockets, or they may be astronomers on the payroll of any university or insitution world-wide.

 

But what usually happens is that we make a discovery of some kind - like seeing a Hubble shot which shows how stars are born or die, and we see a planetary nebula and watch solar systems be born. We use satellites like Integral and Swift to study gamma rays in order to learn how these incredible strong events occur, and how often - because our cosmos is swamped with radiation. The search for life takes place inside all of this. Just like a geologist studies fossils in the ground, a planetary scientist or exobiologist study the observations made by our instruments and try to find out if there is life out there, or if life is unique to Earth.

 

What "the human race" benefits from it? This universe is our home. If we keep studying our back yard forever then we might fail to find out if we live in a desert or just on the outskirts of a big jungle swamped with life, if you allow a bit of science fiction into it. We may also learn how whether there are planets out there which we might one day colonize.

 

In a larger picture, I see no difference between studying the universe and studying the earth. We need to learn more about our earth for many reasons - like finding out how to battle pollution, predict global warming trends, and make better navigation systems. But I wish more money was put into cosmology and astronomy than what is currently spent. It is a much more worthwhile pursuit than that of, say, "war on terrorism". Now what has the human race gained from that? If you took a tiny fraction of what the US government has spent on wars in the past decade, you could probably fund ten times the exploration of the cosmos that we are able to do today.