>nah bro intelligent life?

>nah bro intelligent life? Impossible
>the closest habitable planet is not even 5 lightyears away
>even fricking Mars had conditions to support life
>estimated to be 40 billion habitable planets in the universe, minimum

Why is belief against intelligent life the scientific consensus? Why are scientists moronic in just this one area?

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonynous

    >Why are scientists moronic in just this one area?
    If you think that's the only area they're moronic in, you have a lot of catching up to do.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      This. They somewhat know they field of expertise and that's it, doesn't even mean they can reason correctly on their on field or any other topic.

      It's funny they concede abiogenesis is outrageously improbable, but that then positing it therefore likely didn't happen at all is heretical.

      >sample size of 9 planets
      >it's almost impossible to happen
      It's more likely it's easy to happen, just seems hard obviously. If anything should have happened way sooner but earth had bad conditions. And that's not even talking about other possible periodic table elements combinations and other types of life

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >It's more likely it's easy to happen
        Except complexity theory exists.

        Womp womp

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Could you elaborate more please?

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >40 billion habitable planets
    >2 trillion galaxies in the observable universe
    So there's no more than one habitable planet per galaxy and many galaxies have no habitable planets at all. That means for all practical purposes there is no other intelligent life since they're too far away for us to ever reach or communicate with no matter how advanced our technology.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Yes and for all practical purposes we can't see electrons so they don't exist lol

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >Yes and for all practical purposes we can't see electrons so they don't exist lol
        We can exploit the properties of electrons for our benefit because chemistry. If the nearest ayys are in a galaxy 10 million light years away then we will never interact with them and their existence or non-existence is meaningless to the technological development of mankind. If the milky way galaxy is empty except for us that's cool tho because we can eventually rule over all of it. Interstellar travel is difficult but doable. Intergalactic travel is pretty much impossible in any reasonable timespan.

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    It's funny they concede abiogenesis is outrageously improbable, but that then positing it therefore likely didn't happen at all is heretical.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Improbable becomes probable over enough time. It never becomes impossible though.

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    i don't think scientists are generally against the idea of there being intelligent life out there, just that is likely to be rare. There's been billions of different species of animal on earth so far but there's only one that is intelligent. One theory for the reason is due to the discovery of fire and the cooking of food. So not only does some animal need to be intelligent enough to want to create fire, but they need an anatomy that allows them to create fire (i.e. opposable thumbs etc) and they also need to use the fire to cook meat and they need to continue to do so for many thousands of years without going extinct in the meantime. So i think life is probably pretty likely, but intelligent life might be pretty rare

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Maybe that's because the dolphins are holding all other animals back and killing off any that threaten their monopoly on intelligence.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        dolphins are going to have a hard time creating fire. Maybe they'll find some other way. Cooking meat by putting it near thermal vents or something

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Because Science as a discipline is evidence based, and when it comes to life in the universe - let alone intelligent life - we have a sample size of exactly one.

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    the more I think about alien life the more scared out of my wits I get.

  7. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Why are humans so obsessed with the concept of 'intelligence' ? Maybe there is a whole lot of life, maybe some of it is not intelligent because it didnt face selective pressure prompting it to develop intelligence or maybe it developed other equally effective or superior strategies to counter those selective pressure. Maybe life out there is just not intelligent and doing fine. Maybe there's even 'global' more like 'cosmic' convergent evolution of life going on in some direction that isnt characterized by intelligence. In that case we'd just happen to be going down an evolutionary dead end. Maybe its those realizations that make people obsess with shit like intelligence.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      it's just one of those fundamental questions people have had about the universe for thousands of years. Would be nice to know, even if it doesn't have any immediate effect

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        But it's very specific. The same goes for the obsession with 'life' itself. Could it be an expression of not wanting to feel insignificant like a random accident, almost as if the oppressing indifference of the universe towards anyones existence could be drowned if only enough sentient beings wished for it.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >In that case we'd just happen to be going down an evolutionary dead end
      Humans are literally the single animal species with the largest biomass on Earth. Intelligence is an extremely potent trait for proliferation, and for that reason any life we come across will have good odds of being intelligent.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        This is incorrect.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Nope. Name an animal species with a higher biomass.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Cows.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Not 1 species. And adding to that, the proliferation of "cows" is due to human intelligence so the initial argument still holds.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            cows are 1 species, the cow race

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Cattle. Cattle make up the gratest fraction of global fauna biomass. Cattle are closely followed by humans.
            Recently there was an Anon claiming the combined weight of all ants were greater than that of humans or any other species. this is wrong.
            Like I said: You are wrong. Why is everyone on this board always wrong and demands others to show them ?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            ”Cattle” is not 1 species. homosexual sapiens have more biomass than the largest cattle species. ”Ants” is not one species either.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Wrong again.
            Youre right regarding the ants. What's your point ? As I've stated, another anon incorrectly claimed this. Thank you for confirmation, just weird to try and frame it like it wasn't.

            you ever dig up every ant on earth and weight them? yeah, didn't think so nerd.

            No. So ? Please do everyone a favour and abstain from partaking in any discussions unless you have conducted the relevant research entirely on your own.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >Wrong again.
            Nope, there are a bunch of different cattle species. Even so, cattle are numerous due to human intelligence, so the initial argument can be extended to:
            >We are likely to encounter intelligent life and/or their cattle biomass

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            You are now trying to fix your argument only to avoid admitting it is objectively wrong.
            Besides that you are derailing this on a useless tangent, you may pursue it further on your own. After all you have failed to show how total biomass is a good let alone the best indicator of evolutionary success of a species.
            One could make similar arguments that - intuitively - are similarly convincing. Like tadpole shrimp or nautilus being peak evolution since they have survived and retained their form for far greater periods of times than humans have so far, as such humans would still have to but are statisticall, unlikely to prove themselves in this regard. Or the life forms that are at the intersction of the most cases of convergent evolution being peak evolution for obvious reasons. etc. etc.
            All entertainable ideas and perhaps intuitive. But that's about it so far.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >how total biomass is a good let alone the best indicator of evolutionary success of a species.
            There is no objective definition of this, it's all arbitrary. You're not following.

            Select 1 random biomass unit in our universe. It likely has a couple of the following traits:
            >Can reproduce
            >Can respond to the environment
            >It has self-preservation mechanisms
            >Is highly intelligent or is being selectively bred by another biomass that is highl intelligent
            What is common you are likely to encounter.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            you ever dig up every ant on earth and weight them? yeah, didn't think so nerd.

  8. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Why is belief against intelligent life the scientific consensus?
    because theres no evidence to support what you say

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        So what? Until you present evidence of alien life it will remain a hypothesis. It doesnt matter what clever argument you use, the idea of the scientific method is that you have to check things IRL, with observations or experiments. Talking and arguing isnt enough.

  9. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >>nah bro intelligent life? Impossible

    Never said that.
    >>the closest habitable planet is not even 5 lightyears away

    The closest star is. Habitable planet? Debatable. We don't know all that much about exoplanets.

    >>even fricking Mars had conditions to support life

    Maybe it did, but it doesn't matter since it isn't habitable now.

    to be 40 billion habitable planets in the universe, minimum

    Estimate my ass. In solar system its 1 out of 9 (look, Pluto is a fricking planet allright), that's already rare.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      holy mother of plebit

  10. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >no Dyson spheres
    >no matrioshka brains
    >no other signs of megastructures
    >no grabby aliens
    >Earth hasn't been colonized

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      soieeeentists can't even decide whether there's an entire missing planet in our solar system, but they've ruled out alien megastructures existing anywhere in the universe, kek
      the absolute fricking arrogance

  11. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    One of the main arguments against it is how "short" of a timeline it takes to colonize the galaxy/universe, given even sub light speed travel, especially when a large % of planets had a major head start on earth. Yet not a single civilization arose and colonized?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      It's still possible outside of this galaxy though right? We can't see that far precisely.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >just colonize and maintain 100 thousand light years empire bro
      or whatever you wanna call it.
      Imagine the logistics, resources, communication problems, maybe power disputes(if they are anything like humans). I think us humans cant really grasp how bizarre those distances are.

      How far can we really see anyway? Assuming all planets on the Solar System had intelligent life (without satellites), on which planets would we be able to see them there walking by their daily life? We couldn't probably even see Mars ffs, we can't see our own oceans floor. Then they look into space, don't see anything obviously, "yep we are alone".

  12. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Those beliefs are banned by the deep state, and therefore heresies punishable by excommunication from the scientific community.

  13. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Why is belief against intelligent life the scientific consensus?
    it's not

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      At least on Lex Fridman, almost very science guest is against it.

  14. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Because self-replicating partial turing machines have minimal complexity ratings which obliterate any hope of finding them. Any appeal to a large amount of space or time is simply ignorant of that fact.

    Multiplying the probability by "4*10^10 extra planets times 14*10^9 extra years" does nothing when you have to divide it by 10^140 for amino acid based primary and secondary strands.

    You can appeal to some fantasy of the gaps where life is actually super common but not without believing in some sort of god or simulation or philosophical assumptions.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Says the guy pulling numbers out of his ass
      Lol lmao even

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Go ahead and compute the minimal length for partial turing machines (both strands) dumbfrick.

        Even if the entire universe were nothing but primordial soup, 10^80 baryons is not enough to get two abiogenesis events in the same lightcone. It's so fricking over that it never began.

  15. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Belief against intelligent life in the scientific community stems primarily from the Fermi paradox and its implications. We are by no means the oldest planet or star in the milky way, and developed from sticks and stones to computers and rockets in the span of a few hundred thousand years, the blink of an eye in the astronomical scale.
    If any species even remotely similar to us evolved on some distant planet one or two million years before we did, the exponential growth of technology and infrastructure should have hit a point where we should be able to see them. Dyson spheres, interstellar communications, city lights or satellites. The fact we've seen absolutely nothing of the sort through our telescopes seems contradictory to the abundance of stars and potentially habitable planets there are.
    Perhaps the development of life to a point where it can be seen from other planets is much more difficult than it first appears, and humanity is just exceptionally early.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >If any species even remotely similar to us evolved on some distant planet one or two million years before we did, the exponential growth of technology and infrastructure should have hit a point where we should be able to see them. Dyson spheres, interstellar communications, city lights or satellites.
      or maybe, just maybe, your assumptions about what an alien civilization thousands to millions of years more advanced than us might look like are comically wrong

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Maybe. It's not at all an easy task to envision what the future would look like, especially so far in the future. Not to mention this of course hinges on the assumption that said aliens in question are, like humanity, greedy by nature, filling any space available to them and using any resource at their disposal. If they weren't, they'd likely never leave their home planet. Still though, a dyson sphere/swarm seems like such an obvious concept I'm not sure how many viable alternatives there could be for a civilisation that demands more energy than a planet could provide.

  16. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >40 billion habitables planets in the universe
    Huh, its estimated 60 billion earth-like in the Milk Way alone, and the universe has 2 trillion galaxies.
    Obviously there is life, Fermi paradox is utter nonsense as it doesn't account for many things and also assume many stupid things.

  17. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    When you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras.

  18. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    honest question: how far away do you think a light year is? If you read the number 5 and instantly thought the quantity is small makes me think the word "moron" hits closer to home than you want to admit.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >there's other ant hills in the world bro
      >no way lmao
      >we saw potential evidence of activity less than 5 miles away
      >honest question: how far away do you think a mile is?

      I guess you don't understand the concept of relative scale, but that's okay, maybe you'll be a little sharper once you've eaten breakfast. Did you have breakfast today, champ?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *