I agree with this assumption. I am by no means an Astrobiologist or anything like that. All things space related have simply been a lifelong hobby of mine. But I too feel it is extremely, for lack of better words, "arrogant" of us humans to believe that what WE need for survival is universal throughout the cosmos. Or even what other species on our planet need. I am not trying to discredit those professionals in this field who may believe otherwise, but in my opinion once we strip everything down to the basics the reality is that we only have a sample size of 1, which is our own planet. We obviously look for planets that look like ours because we only know of one planet that can sustain life definitively which is our own. But to think that a planet like our own, or even conditions similar to conditions here on Earth are REQUIRED to sustain life is just the modern version of human centric ideology to me. Plus even if we stick to our own requirements for life the Universe is absolutely full of those components as you said. I know that as humans capable of cognitive thought we like to believe ourselves special in some way, but once one understands the sheer SIZE of the cosmos and all that it entails I find it virtually impossible that our little random planet is the only one in the entire Universe with life on it.
What if Fred Saberhagen's "Berserkers" actually exist? They are one of the more alarming answers I can think of to the Fermi Paradox. Where are they? they're all dead, killed by the Berserkers. And the only reason we haven't found anyone else yet is that the fact we haven't is the reason we're still alive to be asking the question. It's the fatality of the search for extraterrestrial life, not the futilty. Maybe we'd best just shut up.
Sorry about the bad link, can't figure what's wrong but try this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserker_(novel_series)
1. Earth is NOT "random," as you said. It is very special as explained in many books including Rare Earth by Ward and Brownlee. 2. Your opinion as to what is "virtually impossible" is quite immaterial. 3. If you understood the complexity involved, you would agree with brilliant scientists who say humans are something of a miracle. We can't begin to create new species of flies or bacteria in labs after spending hundreds of millions of dollars, much less abiogenesis. And this isn't primordial soup in the sunlight either. It's learned biochemists and biologists doing their best with all that they know, which is a very great deal more than you know. Douglas Axe has stated that a polypeptide 150 amino acids in length yields only 1 functional sequence in 10 to the 77th different combinations. And that is a small polypeptide. It gets worse beyond staggering imagination. Titin has 34,350 amino acids in its sequence. It's in your muscles.
I don't know what you mean by "create new species in a lab", but let's remember that speciation has been witnessed in lab conditions. And, whether humans can construct a living orgnism from some sort of raw maerial or parts is interesting, but failure to do so isn't proof of anything other than where we are in biology today.
cerberus said: ↑ The charlatans er, I mean the cosmologists will still (ostensibly?) keep on looking for it though. Well they need the proverbial 'research funding' to keep on pouring in so they can continue their lucrative jobs-for-life don't they! Carl Sagan said in one of his books that about 10% of people believe our sun is alive. I also heard that 10% of Americans think Elvis is still alive. Look at the huge number who revel in every lie from CNN, MSNBC, The View, and all the other liars. "There's a sucker born every minute."
Sounds like you've got all the answers. Too bad it's only in this one area, where none of your assertions can be proven & your thesis really doesn't benefit anyone at all.
Cosmology; a branch of astronomy concerned with the studies of 'the origin and evolution of the universe, from the Big Bang to today and on into the future.' FGS! If you in insist on criticizing a branch science at least try and pretend to you have the faintest idea what that branch of science is actually does! Were a Cosmologist to actually discover evidence of extraterrestrial life then yes, it would be the scientific discovery of the century, But to pretend that that is actually the sole purpose of the field in question only displays your total and complete ignorance of what Cosmology actually encompasses. Any such discovery would be an an inadvertent offshoot of cosmology in general. For every astronomer actively involved in SETI like research there are literally 1000 others investigating the basic structure and evolution of the universe - in all its complexity. And none of their funding is dependent on their discovering 'little green men'. How about trying to actually reading a book on the topic before displaying the depth of your ignorance.
As time goes on, isn't it less likely that advanced species would form? Look at our planet. If you removed humans completely, and a new intelligent species arose a few million years later, how would they get beyond the stone age? All the accessible resources have already been harvested. That would be the same throughout the universe, and if there were space farers the first resources they would take on a new planet would be the most accessible. Meaning one truly advanced species would likely end all hopes for anyone coming after them...
Supposed exhaustion of accessible resources, whatever that refers to, doesn't seem to have slowed us down much. That's why we have mines that are sometimes more than a mile deep. Also, space farers will likely be utilizing energy sources and other resources that are technologically superior to what our crude materialistic groveling entails.
Having only the earth as a reference I would say that nature would replenish natural resources. A lot of the stuff like coal and oil may not be replenished but possibility replaced by burning plant material and then advancing to charcoal. That would get you to the iron age. Steam engines will run on wood. Natural gas would be replenished. With intelligence a new species would advance and adapt.
Where would they get the iron if all accessible iron has already been mined? Insert any metal or mineral resource. I suppose the tectonic plates might shift enough after billions of years, but that may exceed the life sustaining window of any given planet...
I think they point @Dispondent is making is that the iron (or anything else) has to be in an accessible place for a primitive species to access. Iron ore or oil deposits miles underground are no problem for us because we've already built the infrastructure to access it, but how would a primitive people do that without first accessing easy to access resources?
There can be 150,000,000,000,000,000,000 space faring civilizations in the universe and they'd ALL be alone in the observable universe. Odds of finding anything more advanced than pond scum, absent our seeding life, is slim to none.
That perspective is generally valid except that there are mines in South Africa and some other regions that are 90,000 years old. Ancient humans were surprisingly resourceful. Or somebody else was capable, if there's any truth to the fringe stories about visitors from another planet who genetically engineered us.
Because there aren't any. The oldest evidence for civilization only goes back 12,000 years. In fact the intelligence our species is famous for only came about 50,0000 years ago so we wouldn't have been capable of much more than stone axes that far back, certainly not mining.
Here's something controversial from Michael Tellinger. Since it involves interpretation of Sumerian tablets, some skeptics regard it as myth. Oddly, some people react with a vicious hatred of Tellinger. The article does not mention one of his other books that extensively explores the plethora of mysterious corral-like rock arrangements in South Africa. Most of the circular walls don't have any openings. http://viewzone.com/adamscalendar33.html
That's the officially recognized age of Gobekli Tepe. The site appears to go back 250,000 years. Monte Verde is dated 14,500 years. https://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/official-first-americans-werent-clovis-people-after-all/