801

submitted 2 weeks ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

273 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Kolanaki@pawb.social 39 points 2 weeks ago

I've been wondering this for years now. Sci fi and even actual scientific speculation tends to assume aliens would be way ahead of us in terms of technology because their planets may have been formed earlier. I don't think time alone matters. If they don't have resources, if fhey don't evolve the same way, if they have more difficulties in doing shit due to any number of reasons... They could be far less advanced than us. Maybe nobody in the entire universe has figured out how to realistically travel between stars yet. Maybe we are the only ones who have even managed to get off our rock.

[-] an0nym0us_dr0ne@europe.pub 13 points 2 weeks ago

There still is the „Early Bird Theory“.

When you look at us, the Earth, life has formed almost immediately after the conditions where given. On top of that the universe itself isn’t even that old. There is a good chance, that Fermi was right but we are just the first ones.

… which makes me think that whatever or whoever designed us had some work left to do. You left in some bugs buddy.

[-] bstix@feddit.dk 9 points 2 weeks ago

There's also a theory that we're too late, and that our existence is like the remaining microbes in a puddle of water in a desert.

The universe used to be lukewarm with conditions for life to exist everywhere, until it expanded and started cooling.

On a positive note, this could also mean that life lies dormant everywhere just waiting for the right conditions, so that anywhere that has the right conditions also has life.

[-] CatAssTrophy@safest.space 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

IMO it is more likely that we're more early than late (though an argument can be made that there's a sweet spot in between the two).

When the universe was lukewarm, I don't think the conditions existed for life to exist everywhere because there hadn't been enough stellar nucleosynthesis for there to be astrophysical metals (i.e. anything heavier than helium, with the possible exception of lithium at a very low concentration). Not much useful chemistry can be done with just hydrogen and hellium.

Additionally, planetary systems surrounding earlier generation stars are much rarer than those of the same class at the Sun. Planets that formed around earlier generation stars did not have access to a high enough variety of astrophysical metals to create the complex chemistries that chemical life requires and their host stars were likely too short lived to make advanced evolution possible, even if they had planetary systems.

Planets formed around stars younger than/with higher metallicity are much more likely to be gas giants that would have their own set of issues with the evolution of chemical life (e.g. much lower carbon presence).

The "optimal" time frame for the development of complex life on a planet would theoretically vary by its position compared to the galactic bulge its star formed in, i.e. earlier closer to the galactic center and later further out. Being closer to galactic core makes for a higher chance of being blasted by a supernova or other extremely high energy astronomical event, making for a higher chance of mass extinctions.

If most stars/planets formed much before our sun lacked sufficiently complex chemistry, and those formed much after it lack sufficient carbon and provide a host of gravitational/pressure issues that would inhibit technological development even if evolutionary life did arise, it seems likely that most planets potentially with advanced civilizations are of similar ages. With some slightly older examples nearer the galactic core and some slightly younger ones deeper into the spiral arms.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Well said, this is what really gets me wondering just how astronomically (heh) lucky humanity is. I think the by far best argument for the Early Bird hypothesis is our status as a third generation system, in a relatively safe position in the galaxy, on a planet with the right amount of gravity, with a moon and gas giant asteroid shield, with a Goldilocks zone, with a fossil fuel reserve which required the right cascade of environmental disasters and evolutionary progress, etc etc etc.

Life seems to arise very easily, but the circumstances you need to build a space ship don't.