That’s a pretty weak argument due to the mediocrity principle and the sheer scale of the universe; while we certainly don’t know the values for all parts of the Drake Equation, we have a pretty good idea, at this point, that Earth-like planets are probably pretty common, and given that abiogenesis occurred very rapidly on Earth, that is weak evidence that abiogenesis isn’t hard in an absolute sense.
Most likely, the Great Filter lies somewhere in the latter half of the equation—complex, multicellular life, intelligent life, civilization, or the rapid destruction thereof. But even assuming that intelligent life only occurs in one galaxy out of every thousand, which is incredibly unlikely, that would still give us many opportunities to observe galactic destruction.
It is theoretically possible that we’re the only life in the Universe, but that is incredibly unlikely; most Universes in which life exists will have life exist in more than one place.
given that abiogenesis occurred very rapidly on Earth, that is weak evidence that abiogenesis isn’t hard in an absolute sense.
We don’t even know that it occurred on earth at all. It might have occurred elsewhere in our galaxy and traveled to earth via asteroids.
most Universes in which life exists will have life exist in more than one place.
Why? I don’t see any reason why that should be the case. If you take for example posts that internet forum users write most of the time most users who write posts only write one post.
Most planets and stars in the universe are not in our galaxy. If our galaxy has a bit of unicellular life because some very rare event happened and is the only galaxy with life, that fits to a universe where we are the only intelligent species.
That’s a pretty weak argument due to the mediocrity principle and the sheer scale of the universe; while we certainly don’t know the values for all parts of the Drake Equation, we have a pretty good idea, at this point, that Earth-like planets are probably pretty common, and given that abiogenesis occurred very rapidly on Earth, that is weak evidence that abiogenesis isn’t hard in an absolute sense.
Most likely, the Great Filter lies somewhere in the latter half of the equation—complex, multicellular life, intelligent life, civilization, or the rapid destruction thereof. But even assuming that intelligent life only occurs in one galaxy out of every thousand, which is incredibly unlikely, that would still give us many opportunities to observe galactic destruction.
It is theoretically possible that we’re the only life in the Universe, but that is incredibly unlikely; most Universes in which life exists will have life exist in more than one place.
We don’t even know that it occurred on earth at all. It might have occurred elsewhere in our galaxy and traveled to earth via asteroids.
Why? I don’t see any reason why that should be the case. If you take for example posts that internet forum users write most of the time most users who write posts only write one post.
That would make it more likely that there’s life on other planets, not less likely.
Most planets and stars in the universe are not in our galaxy. If our galaxy has a bit of unicellular life because some very rare event happened and is the only galaxy with life, that fits to a universe where we are the only intelligent species.
It looks like you accidentally submitted your comment before finishing it (or there’s a misformatted link or something).
I corrected it.