New estimate for the potential number of technologically advanced civilizations in our Galaxy

Discussion in 'Science' started by Monash, Jun 20, 2020.

  1. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,517
    Likes Received:
    3,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    https://www.space.com/milky-way-36-intelligent-alien-civilizations.html

    Several articles like the above are reporting on a new estimate for the number of technologically advanced civilizations in our galaxy and the number is not large.

    Their estimate is no more than 30-36 or so at around our level or above. The bad news if you are looking forward to meeting ET? The average distance between every civilization is estimated to be about 17,000 light years! On the plus side if the numbers they quote are actually in the ball park and we do survive long enough to ever start exploring interstellar space it means there is plenty of vacant real estate for everyone to share.
     
    Derideo_Te, Bowerbird and Cosmo like this.
  2. roorooroo

    roorooroo Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    Messages:
    2,814
    Likes Received:
    3,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    From the article:

    "According to a new study, there could be more than 30 civilizations..." (emphasis mine)

    There could be 100,000. There could be only us. There is no way to know at the moment, and this estimate is nothing but a wild ass guess, and at best, pseudo-science.
     
  3. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,695
    Likes Received:
    21,093
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    eventually someone will discover wormhole travel. then they'll use it. then eventually others will learn it from them.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  4. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's based on a mathematical formula,
    it's not pseudo-science.
    The Drake Equation
    What do we need to know about to discover life in space? How can we estimate the number of technological civilizations that might exist among the stars?
    https://www.seti.org/drake-equation-index
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2020
    Bowerbird likes this.
  5. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,517
    Likes Received:
    3,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So your dumping on the report because we don't 'know' the exact number of civilizations in the galaxy yet. Which begs the obvious question - how could we? What these scientists have done is provide their best estimate based on our current scientific knowledge of astronomy, stellar evolution and life sciences. What were they supposed to do instead, peer into a crystal ball or the entrails of a chicken then guess the number?

    All this team has done is refine Drakes equation based on our best data we have. Is the number stone cold accurate - no. Is it our best guesstimate, based on what we currently know - probably yes. What it does tell us however is that intelligent life in the galaxy is likely to be extremely rare, a situation that future research is unlikely to change. Note I said intelligent life, not life in general BTW. Based on the one example we currently have intelligent, tool using species seem to evolve only rarely, even on planets where complex life is otherwise generally abundant.

    For a start we can be pretty sure there aren't 100,000 advanced civilizations in the galaxy (as per your post) because that would place one right in our own back yard (galactically speaking) i.e. with a few light years of us. And even at our current tech level we have pretty much ruled that out as a possibility
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2020
    Bowerbird likes this.
  6. roorooroo

    roorooroo Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    Messages:
    2,814
    Likes Received:
    3,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Drake Equation itself is logical. However, at this point in time, five of the factors in the drake equation are impossible to determine with any sort of accuracy whatsoever. They are nothing but wild ass guesses. And when you start multiplying wild ass guesses by other wild ass guesses, the result is a purely wild ass guess and borders on pseudoscience.

    There could be 100,000 or more advanced civilizations in our galaxy, and there could also be only 1. Anything that tries to definitively narrow that down is pure speculation. May as well let a random number generator make the guess.
     
    drluggit likes this.
  7. roorooroo

    roorooroo Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    Messages:
    2,814
    Likes Received:
    3,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Here is another quote from the article cited in the OP:

    "Despite the new estimate, the researchers acknowledge it's still very possible that we could be alone"

    So at least the authors acknowledge that their number is complete speculation and there is a possibility of us being alone. I give them kudos for that.

    And here is another quote from the article:

    "The classic method for estimating the number of intelligent civilizations relies on making guesses of values relating to life, where opinions about such matters vary quite substantially" (emphasis mine)

    So the authors acknowledge they are guessing and that such guesses vary substantially. Again, kudos to them for their honesty.

    Here is the Drake Equation. I don't know if the authors used this particular equation, but obviously they used something at least similar.

    [​IMG]

    The last five factors in the Drake Equation are impossible to be determined with any sort of accuracy. Defining those numbers is pure speculation. Multiplying several numbers that are pure speculation results in nothing but a wild ass guess. What do they say? Garbage in, garbage out. We simply don't have the data to say anything other than intelligent life may or may not exist on other planets.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2020
  8. roorooroo

    roorooroo Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    Messages:
    2,814
    Likes Received:
    3,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    (emphasis mine)

    We have?

    The authors, to their credit, admitted that their numbers were only their opinions, and that others have opinions that vary greatly from the authors' opinions. This is pure speculation on the part of the authors, and is not science, and they basically admit this in the article.

    Of course, the above will not stop people from running with the "scientific news" that there are 30+ planets with intelligent life in our galaxy.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2020
    David Landbrecht likes this.
  9. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The variables of Fi and Fc are based on a sample population of 1 (the earth) and further, based on an erroneous supposition and an incorrect interpretation of evolutionary theory, which would massively impact the veracity of the formula’s predictive practicality. To make a generalization on a sample of 1 is an obvious problem in the assumption conditions, but the prediction of the emergence of intelligent life following the same evolutionary path as life on earth is an assumption that cannot be reasonably extrapolated from our understanding of life on our singular sample example of earth. It certainly cannot be assumed that if life emerges, given a certain amount of time, that a progression development can be assumed by any observation thus far made in our understanding of evolution on earth suggests that given enough time, life will progress predictively to result in the emergence of intelligence and technology given enough time.
    Human ancestry, even at the most conservative picture suggested by any level of acceptance of evolution as interpreted by the fossils record, may extend back some 16 million years, with evidence of the adaptive use of tools (technology) emerging perhaps 4-6 million years, and only within the last 100,000 years, beginning to accelerate in exponential complexity within the last 10,000 years. If time was a factor in the emergence of intelligence and technological development would it not be expected that dinosaurs and their decedents, birds, that have been evolving for over 250 million years, to have developed both intelligence and technology. But, in the context of the Fi variable of the Drake formula, even earth as a sample of 1, suggests that evolution of life, the variable time, and it’s implication for the emergence of a civilization is not a prediction that can be made with any level of rational confidence. And since, the variable Fi is a necessary predicate to the variable Fc, the rest of the equation is vacuous wishful thinking.
    With an epistemological framework based on using the methodology of scientific inquiry and it’s underlying principle of provisional knowledge and understanding of nature, the value of knowledge is based on how well that knowledge explains nature to provide for it’s practical use. Which begs the question, of what use is the Drake equation? It cannot be experimentally or observationally verified. What it does provide is a pseudo science justification for attracting funding and provides hope to those believing the UFOs are explained by extraterrestrial intelligent life having a superior technology with some level of empathy toward humans not to expose themselves too much, such that humans panic in the realization they are not only not the apex life forms, but lack the understanding of how to traverse the vastness of space by exceeding the the speed of light, a speed constraint self imposed by our primitive understanding. And yes...ghosts exist. Wait for Drake II.
     
  10. roorooroo

    roorooroo Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    Messages:
    2,814
    Likes Received:
    3,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree with you, and thank you for being more specific with the issues with these types of calculations.

    Another issue is with the factor fl = The fraction of suitable planets on which life actually appears. fl is impossible to estimate with any semblance of accuracy. We have absolutely no data which would tell us how likely life is to develop on a suitable planet. This factor may be so small that multiplying it with all the other factors results in an answer of 1, and that 1 is the intelligent life on earth. On the other hand, the factor fl may be close to 1, and the galaxy may be teeming with life.

    From wikipedia: "Geological evidence from the Earth suggests that fl may be high; life on Earth appears to have begun around the same time as favorable conditions arose, suggesting that abiogenesis may be relatively common once conditions are right. However, this evidence only looks at the Earth (a single model planet), and contains anthropic bias, as the planet of study was not chosen randomly, but by the living organisms that already inhabit it (ourselves). From a classical hypothesis testing standpoint, there are zero degrees of freedom, permitting no valid estimates to be made." (emphasis mine)

    So about all we can say is there may, or may not, be other intelligent life in the galaxy.

    Now, it will not surprise me if the resident "physicist" chimes in with a "guarantee based on science and probability" that intelligent life exists all over the galaxy.
     
  11. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I personally make no predictions of life elsewhere in the universe. From my perspective we are still struggling to understand how it began on this planet.
    If we find possible evidence for currently existing or past life elsewhere in the universe as perhaps we might find on Mars, I would find it extremely interesting and see that discovery as a beginning...the beginning of a new line of inquiry where we could compare evidence for differences and similarities that might further shed understanding of our genesis.

    I already find it highly interesting that we have found life in many of the most extreme environments on this planet...

    https://space.nss.org/life-in-extreme-environments/

    One of my favorite examples of life that appears to challenge thinking are tardigrades...
    https://www.theguardian.com/science...may-have-survived-spacecraft-crashing-on-moon

    I have been to Mono Lake, seemed other worldly to me, my imagination at the time was admittedly fueled and primed for that feeling, but aside from my imagination, other forms of life found there also interestingly challenge conventional thinking,
    https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/02dec_monolake

    All life as we currently know it seems to have in common the same basic building blocks stemming from the probabilities of compositions based on the building block, carbon. Giving similar properties of silicon, many suggest that silicon could be an alternative building block for life,
    https://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/possibility-silicon-based-life-grows/

    Despite life found in locations that might be counter intuitive to survival of anything, as far as I know, we have never discovered life that was not DNA based, provisionally suggesting to me a common ancestry. So, if other building blocks, like silicon have potential as a base for life, the question I would have, is what would be the analog for its DNA? It seems to me, given my current level of understanding, to be the key structure that is requisite for reproduction. But, I like surprises, they make life worth it’s continuation for me.
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  12. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,517
    Likes Received:
    3,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    'We have' as in the human scientific community. And you you are making the mistake of reading statistical analysis as opinion. Its not that. Their number is derived from a mathematical analysis of all the data (we have) relating to the problems being examined - in the case the likelihood of advanced alien civilizations existing.

    Statistical analysis like the one undertaken here are a routine part of research in all branches of science. So again - maths not 'guess work'. Their figures may well/(almost certainly will) change with more data but they can't be faulted for using what they have available now.

    As for Drakes equation that is nothing more than a speculative rule of thumb with Dr Drake created back in 1961. At that point in history the basic structure of DNA had only just recently been discovered and the existence of extra solar planets was still pure speculation. Flash forward 50 plus years and as of this year we have discovered more than 3000 star systems with planetary bodies. So the number third element in Drakes equation (Fp) gets blown out of the water right from the start - current evidence states indicates far more planets exist than Drake ever imagined.

    What is interesting about that fact is that if you plug current estimates for the number for extra solar planets in the Galaxy into Drakes equation the end number of intelligent species should increase phenomenally over Drakes original estimate (I think Drake's was around 3500 or something like that). Yet when these scientists crunched their numbers their final tally went in the opposite direction i.e. 30-36.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2020
  13. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2020
  14. roorooroo

    roorooroo Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    Messages:
    2,814
    Likes Received:
    3,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Their number is NOT derived from a mathematical analysis of all the data relating to the problem. Their number is derived from mathematical treatment of assumptions.

    From the cited article:

    "This work, led by researchers at the University of Nottingham, assumed that intelligent life not only exists off-Earth, but develops on other planets similarly to how it does on Earth."

    "They assume that intelligent life most likely forms in less than 5 billion years (based on what has happened on Earth)."

    "Taking these criteria into account and under these numerous assumptions, the researchers made an approximate estimation of the number of intelligent civilizations that could theoretically exist in the Milky Way."

    "Despite the new estimate, the researchers acknowledge it's still very possible that we could be alone"

    It is apparent that the researchers are not doing science, instead, they are making guesses based on assumptions. This is admitted in the commentary. I feel certain that the researchers themselves would be quick to admit that what they are doing here is not science. Don't take that in a bad way, there is nothing wrong with looking at issues through assumption as these researchers are doing. What these researchers are doing is valuable. However, the rest of us need to understand that their results do not necessarily tell us anything about reality.

    From Wikipedia:

    "Criticism related to the Drake equation focuses not on the equation itself, but on the fact that the estimated values for several of its factors are highly conjectural, the combined effect being that the uncertainty associated with any derived value is so large that the equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions."

    "The last four parameters, fl, fi, fc, and L, are not known and are very difficult to estimate, with values ranging over many orders of magnitude"

    Actually, Drake and his colleagues produced guesses for each parameter that were not all specific numbers, but were a wide range of numbers. According to Wikipedia, doing multiple calculations based on the highs and lows of the guesses gave answers ranging from 20 at the low end to 50,000,000 at the high end.

    Also note that for the factors fl and fi, Drake used values of 1, which were very much assumptions. The University of Nottingham researchers did the same thing.

    From Wikipedia:

    "There is considerable disagreement on the values of these parameters, but the 'educated guesses' used by Drake and his colleagues in 1961 were:
    • R∗ = 1 yr^−1 (1 star formed per year, on the average over the life of the galaxy; this was regarded as conservative)
    • fp = 0.2 to 0.5 (one fifth to one half of all stars formed will have planets)
    • ne = 1 to 5 (stars with planets will have between 1 and 5 planets capable of developing life)
    • fl = 1 (100% of these planets will develop life)
    • fi = 1 (100% of which will develop intelligent life)
    • fc = 0.1 to 0.2 (10–20% of which will be able to communicate)
    • L = 1000 to 100,000,000 years (which will last somewhere between 1000 and 100,000,000 years)
    Inserting the above minimum numbers into the equation gives a minimum N of 20 (see: Range of results). Inserting the maximum numbers gives a maximum of 50,000,000. Drake states that given the uncertainties, the original meeting concluded that NL, and there were probably between 1000 and 100,000,000 civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy."

    Now, there are still serious issues with both Drake's original guesses and with the guesses of the researchers at the University of Nottingham. Namely:

    From Wikipedia:

    "Geological evidence from the Earth suggests that fl may be high; life on Earth appears to have begun around the same time as favorable conditions arose, suggesting that abiogenesis may be relatively common once conditions are right. However, this evidence only looks at the Earth (a single model planet), and contains anthropic bias, as the planet of study was not chosen randomly, but by the living organisms that already inhabit it (ourselves). From a classical hypothesis testing standpoint, there are zero degrees of freedom, permitting no valid estimates to be made."

    "Criticism of the Drake equation follows mostly from the observation that several terms in the equation are largely or entirely based on conjecture. Star formation rates are well-known, and the incidence of planets has a sound theoretical and observational basis, but the other terms in the equation become very speculative. The uncertainties revolve around our understanding of the evolution of life, intelligence, and civilization, not physics. No statistical estimates are possible for some of the parameters, where only one example is known. The net result is that the equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions of any kind, and the resulting margin of error is huge, far beyond what some consider acceptable or meaningful."

    The above bolded and underlined sentence also applies to the researchers at the University. I am not saying that whether there is, or is not intelligent extraterrestrial life anywhere out there. What I am saying is that the researchers are not doing science with this estimate - they are merely making a guess based on their assumptions. Now, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the researchers publishing the results of their assumptions. However, the rest of us need to be aware that this is not science.

    And, as to be expected with "research" that is based on assumptions, there are opposing views.

    https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/rare-earth/
    "Peter Ward, a paleontologist at the University of Washington and coauthor (with Don Brownlee) of Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe, argues that while simple life-forms like extremophiles can exist in harsh conditions, complex life requires much more benign and stable conditions. As a result, Ward believes that we are effectively alone in the universe."

    And another link, with a nice presentation of considerations:
    https://infogalactic.com/info/Rare_Earth_hypothesis

    And another from Wikipedia:
    "As an example of a low estimate, combining NASA's star formation rates, the rare Earth hypothesis value of fp · ne · fl = 10^-5, Mayr's view on intelligence arising, Drake's view of communication, and Shermer's estimate of lifetime:

    R∗ = 1.5–3 yr^−1, fp · ne · fl = 10^−5, fi = 10^−9, fc = 0.2, and L = 304 years
    gives:
    N = 9.1 × 10^−13
    i.e., suggesting that we are probably alone in this galaxy, and possibly in the observable universe."

    So honestly, there is no reason to consider that the researchers in the cited article are producing anything new, or that they have come up with any amazing scientific evidence.

    The scientific community is certainly not all in agreement with the Nottingham researchers.

     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2020
    Monash likes this.
  15. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The thing is that there are so many barriers for a planet to have life and we keep discovering new ones. But usually this is specifically life like ours, so its possible a very different type of life evolved on a planet completely unsuitable for us. Also, advanced life may only exist for only a small time. The earth has been around for 4.5 billion years but has only had an advanced civilization for a few hundred years. And an asteriod may wipe us out in a few million year.

    One thing to consider is that if we have 35 civilizations in the milky way, and they have had hundreds of millions of years to colonize, they should have countless planets by now. Just think of our technological progress in just the last 100 years.

    So its possible there are only one or two advanced civilizations per galaxy or that they exist at different times. It is also possible we are just really bad at detecting advanced life because our telescopes can't really tell us a lot right now. Or maybe interstellar travel is impossible so they stay on their host planets. Maybe they wiped themselves out with climate change, AI, nanobots, nuclear-like weapons, artificial viruses or bio-weapon.
     
  16. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I predict intelligent life elsewhere will look like dinosaurs... they were pretty successful as life goes, lasting millions of years... long enough to develop technology and advanced agriculture, seeding a crop here on earth, just nearing maturity for the coming harvest. They do keep checking the progress and sampling the crop, you know.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2020
  17. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We evolved from monkeys which had large brains and advanced hands for a life in trees. When they became bipedal, these hands were freed and could be used for making tools. This sparked a whole round of evolution. Without free advanced hands to actually make tools, your intelligence doesn't get you nearly as far. So I predict that advanced life will have something like hands. Probably the best reptilian candidates were herbavor dinosaurs that evolve for a life in trees or using their hands for advanced foraging functions.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  18. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First, fossil evidence does not indicate we evolved from monkeys, but have a common ancestor. Second, while we can somewhat sort the sequence of technology development from the physical evidence of artifacts recovered in context of the fossil record, there is no consensus or definitive evidence that can be used to determine the chicken or egg type argument for the causal trajectory for the emergence of human intelligence. Lots of conjecture and guesses, but that is all it is... guesses. One of the latest is a specific gene...
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180411131649.htm

    By the way, I have owned ferrets and can attest some seem more intelligent than some humans I have met.
     
  19. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    https://www.popularmechanics.com/sp...experts-what-would-aliens-actually-look-like/
     
  20. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am not sure humans could escape the bias trap to make predictions of alien morphology in the unlikely event we’d achieve contact and as for interspecies communication? How well are we doing with cetaceans which give both indications learned culture and organized communication? Seems a good analog for what to expect.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  21. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Personally I think our concept of alien life is too Earth-centric.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  22. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Shaped by Hollywood university.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  23. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Indeed.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  24. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,517
    Likes Received:
    3,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Really good answer BTW.

    My interest in the original article was in the fact that despite the number of know exoplanets rising significantly with each passing year the number estimated for (technologically) advanced civilizations was so small. As for the rest? nothing I read suggested the researchers calculations were meant to be taken as definitive. There are to many variables we don't/may never have reliable values for. But if I read the trend right recent studies (this one included) seem to be leaning towards pushing the total number of potnetial civilizations in the galaxy down not up. Has anyone done a meta study yet?

    Anyway its looking increasingly like theres going to be no Mos Eisley Cantina scenes for our descendants.
     
    Cosmo and roorooroo like this.
  25. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,517
    Likes Received:
    3,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In fairness too Hollywood the cost of creating 'realistic' looking aliens via old school special effects (make-up/animatonrics etc) was and is very expensive - hence all the plastic ears and noses stuck on actors in old B Grade SF movies and TV series. With the cost of digital effects plummeting we are starting to see some better examples e.g. the aliens from 'Arrival' were IMO a good example of 'outside the box' aliens. Not only did they look completely 'alien' their though processes were alien as well. So at least some people are trying to do better.
     
    Cosmo likes this.

Share This Page