160 Billion Planets in the Milky Way?

next-Jin said:
I'd say string theory has surpassed the big bang theory. From my understanding the big bang has all but basically been put aside since cause was never addressed. Then again I'm an armchair physics idiot so who knows. :D
Click to expand...

It sounds to me like you don't know much about either. The theories don't compete or even all that closely relate.

String theories (or more recently, M theory) are not attempts to describe the origins of this universe. Rather, their focus is on describing on a fundamental level how particles and forces of nature originate, relate and interact post inflation. The modern Big Bang Theory has not been put aside in the slightest. Its a very successful model that fits closely with observation and experiment. The "cause" is not a question the theory has ever attempted to address. This question is outside the scope of the theory because "the cause" would necessarily have been before the physical laws (that we must use to measure and observe) of our universe were formed.

They "why or who" is an interesting question, but one that experiment or scientific theory will never be able to answer. It's a question that will be left to philosophers, theologians and ignorant forums posters to debate for eternity.
 
AbsintheGuy said:
People seem to state that there is probably life out there. There is zero good evidence that there is intelligent life in the universe. They state, "probably this...." "probably that..." never realizing there is no evidence for it yet. Drake's equation is a psychological example of this. Even though there is zero evidence yet, people plug in ridiculous parameters into it because they want to believe. Sort of like how religious folk "want to believe".
Click to expand...

I don't see how you can assume either way: that there is life all over, or no life. Asserting there is no life elsewhere is absurd. It has nothing to do with "lack of evidence."
 
Hamish Campbell said:
It sounds to me like you don't know much about either. The theories don't compete or even all that closely relate.

String theories (or more recently, M theory) are not attempts to describe the origins of this universe. Rather, their focus is on describing on a fundamental level how particles and forces of nature originate, relate and interact post inflation. The modern Big Bang Theory has not been put aside in the slightest. Its a very successful model that fits closely with observation and experiment. The "cause" is not a question the theory has ever attempted to address. This question is outside the scope of the theory because "the cause" would necessarily have been before the physical laws (that we must use to measure and observe) of our universe were formed.

They "why or who" is an interesting question, but one that experiment or scientific theory will never be able to answer. It's a question that will be left to philosophers, theologians and ignorant forums posters to debate for eternity.
Click to expand...

Well said.

When you try to direct attention to the ultimate causes and ontology the skill set needed is fundamental logic and reasoning. In this branch of "science" these need not apply because it is a speculative, theoretical construct.
Yet so many cling to them as ultimate truths. It really has no more value than preferring a red tie over a green one.

But honestly I do not blame the average persons approach to these weighty matters.
It is presented as ultimate answers and none of the shortcomings of these ideas are ever explored.
I watched an interview once with Neil DeGrasse Tyson. He was talking about Sir. Issac Newton, and he went on an on about what an unbelievable genius he was, and his intellect was staggering judging by is contribution to science.
I also watched a presentation given by Mr.Tyson in which he lampooned people of faith that held the position that the ultimate cause of things was God. You have to wonder; Does my Tyson know that Sir. Issac Newton was first a theologian with a profound faith in God and a scientist second?
 
Dr. Righteous said:
Well said.

When you try to direct attention to the ultimate causes and ontology the skill set needed is fundamental logic and reasoning. In this branch of "science" these need not apply because it is a speculative, theoretical construct.
Yet so many cling to them as ultimate truths. It really has no more value than preferring a red tie over a green one.

But honestly I do not blame the average persons approach to these weighty matters.
It is presented as ultimate answers and none of the shortcomings of these ideas are ever explored.
I watched an interview once with Neil DeGrasse Tyson. He was talking about Sir. Issac Newton, and he went on an on about what an unbelievable genius he was, and his intellect was staggering judging by is contribution to science.
I also watched a presentation given by Mr.Tyson in which he lampooned people of faith that held the position that the ultimate cause of things was God. You have to wonder; Does my Tyson know that Sir. Issac Newton was first a theologian with a profound faith in God and a scientist second?
Click to expand...

You can respect a man without agreeing with him on everything.

I could go on to say that there have been many great men who have suffered the mind killing disease of faith, but I'm guessing with a handle like Mr. Righteous you might take offense. So I won't. :p

LuminaryJanitor said:
What evidence?
Click to expand...

That the Earth has yet to develop intelligent life?

Seriously though, the universe is 13.7 billion years old, the solar system 5.4 billion, the earth 4.5 billion, life on earth 3.8 billion, and homo sapiens sapiens have walked the earth for roughly 200,000 years. In the billions of galaxies out there, there are billions of planets. Chemistry works. We've seen life precursors (organic chemicals, amino acids and the like) in nebulae, comets and on other planets. Why wouldn't there be other life out there, and why wouldn't some fraction of that life develop intelligence? In an infinite universe, we know it has happened once, it has to have happened elsewhere. I find the level of hubris required to think that intelligent life has only evolved here exorbitantly massive.

Not that I'm saying that they are anywhere in the neighborhood, and due to the size of the problem the likelihood of us actually observing them is minuscule.

I'm also hoping that we get some more equipment on Mars soon to follow up on the discovery of methane, possibly indicating the evidence of some type of anaerobic metabolism. We we may soon see the number of planets known to contain life double.
 
LuminaryJanitor said:
What evidence?
Click to expand...

Probability based on our new found knowledge of extra solar planets and our developing understanding of the conditions in which life can flourish. We know life arose on at least one planet with conditions (so it's turned out) that aren't as uncommon even in just our own galaxy as once believed. Even the once thought to be essential requirements of needing solid ground or liquid water for life to form are being reassessed. If our situation isn't all that unique, and our planet hasn't been around as long as billions and billions of others, there is a gigantic chance that what happened here has happened somewhere else before. Now multiply that chance by billions of galaxies.

Of course, until concrete evidence is found of some type of life elsewhere in the universe, no one can say for sure. However, anyone claiming that life cannot or does not exist yet other than on Earth is probably making a very bad bet.
 
Furthermore homo sapiens and it's immediate predecessors were not the original dominant species on this planet. Great big angry lizards were well before us and were robbed of their chance to become something more through no fault of their own. We filled the gap despite taking quite some time to get here.

I still assert there's little intelligent life on Earth. :p
 
Hamish Campbell said:
Probability based on our new found knowledge of extra solar planets and our developing understanding of the conditions in which life can flourish.
Click to expand...
So let's say there are 10^23 planets in the universe capable of supporting life.

What evidence is there to suggest that the probability of life spontaneously arising on such a planet is more than one in 10^23?
 
L0s7 4 Lyf3 said:
What's your reasoning? Just because you want to believe we're alone? Chemistry works the same there as it does here, setup survivable parameters and life will evolve to excel in it.
Click to expand...

Aluisious said:
I don't see how you can assume either way: that there is life all over, or no life. Asserting there is no life elsewhere is absurd. It has nothing to do with "lack of evidence."
Click to expand...

We have detected no evidence, therefore I will remain the skeptic until other, better, evidence is presented. I think it is perfectly reasonable to currently believe that no life exists outside of earth until presented with contrary good evidence.
 
Decibel said:
Seriously though, the universe is 13.7 billion years old, the solar system 5.4 billion, the earth 4.5 billion, life on earth 3.8 billion, and homo sapiens sapiens have walked the earth for roughly 200,000 years. In the billions of galaxies out there, there are billions of planets. Chemistry works. We've seen life precursors (organic chemicals, amino acids and the like) in nebulae, comets and on other planets. Why wouldn't there be other life out there, and why wouldn't some fraction of that life develop intelligence? In an infinite universe, we know it has happened once, it has to have happened elsewhere. I find the level of hubris required to think that intelligent life has only evolved here exorbitantly massive.

Not that I'm saying that they are anywhere in the neighborhood, and due to the size of the problem the likelihood of us actually observing them is minuscule.
Click to expand...

The thing people seem to miss is that life is actually quantifiable.We know what a living creature is composed of, know the basics of how it works, the chemical reactions that goes on in them. We still lack the technology to mimic them but we know how they work. There are simply so many planets in the universe, that you can randomly try every possible chemical, environmental, and planetary combinations and still be able to do them hundreds of times over.

There's no 100% sure Yes/No answer to extra terrestrial life. But the point is that the odds are very strongly leaning towards Yes.
 
AbsintheGuy said:
We have detected no evidence, therefore I will remain the skeptic until other, better, evidence is presented. I think it is perfectly reasonable to currently believe that no life exists outside of earth until presented with contrary good evidence.
Click to expand...

Why take a stand one way or the other when you can't know? It's OK to say "we don't know." The fact that life is here, and that here does not appear to be astronomically remarkable, is an indication it could be elsewhere.
 
Sly said:
But the point is that the odds are very strongly leaning towards Yes.
Click to expand...
Really? So what are they exactly, these odds? On any given planet, what is the probability of life evolving? And how did you arrive at this figure?

AbsintheGuy said:
I think it is perfectly reasonable to currently believe that no life exists outside of earth until presented with contrary good evidence.
Click to expand...
The evidence we have is equally consistent with both hypotheses. I think it's unreasonable to hold a belief either way.
 
AbsintheGuy said:
People seem to state that there is probably life out there. There is zero good evidence that there is intelligent life in the universe. They state, "probably this...." "probably that..." never realizing there is no evidence for it yet. Drake's equation is a psychological example of this. Even though there is zero evidence yet, people plug in ridiculous parameters into it because they want to believe. Sort of like how religious folk "want to believe".
Click to expand...

A thousand years ago there was no evidence that the Earth revolved around the
Sun. It was presumed that Earth was the center of the universe and everything
revolved around us.

There was no proof either way then, but as technology improved we found
the truth.

What we beleive today is always subject to change in the future.
 
LuminaryJanitor said:
What evidence?
Click to expand...

The building blocks of life, water and amino acids exist everwhere
in the universe. Our biology on Earth from bacteria to humans
can exist anywhere in the universe, given the right enviroment.

The possibilities of that enviroment are probable, and not
impossible.

The evidence is found right here on our planet.
 
LuminaryJanitor said:
So let's say there are 10^23 planets in the universe capable of supporting life.

What evidence is there to suggest that the probability of life spontaneously arising on such a planet is more than one in 10^23?
Click to expand...

What evidence is there to suggest that it's only one in 10^23? That we've only observed it once thus far from our narrow vantage point? It happened once obviously, that is proof enough that it does happen. It's also worth pointing out that we aren't entirely sure yet that life only spontaneously arose just once even here on Earth. There may have been more than a single instance in just this planets early history.

Granted, it's not proof, but overwhelming probabilities are a great indicator.
 
I really think its the last variable of the Drake equation that will limit us from finding anything.
 
msny said:
The building blocks of life, water and amino acids exist everwhere in the universe. Our biology on Earth from bacteria to humans can exist anywhere in the universe, given the right enviroment.
Click to expand...
Sustaining life is easy. Creating it is the hard part.
 
Hamish Campbell said:
What evidence is there to suggest that it's only one in 10^23?
Click to expand...
None whatsoever.

But by asserting that life is probable, you're asserting that the expected number of life-bearing planets is at least one, i.e. that the probability of any given planet developing life is at least 1/n, n being the total number of planets. What are you basing that on?

Hamish Campbell said:
It's also worth pointing out that we aren't entirely sure yet that life only spontaneously arose just once even here on Earth.
Click to expand...
Independent origins on Earth and independent origins in space are pretty much the same question, as far as I'm concerned. But we have nothing to support or refute the existence of either.

Hamish Campbell said:
Granted, it's not proof, but overwhelming probabilities are a great indicator.
Click to expand...
I'm not asking for proof. (I'd go as far as to say that proof doesn't even exist outside of formal systems, let alone in science, but that's a whole other debate.)

I'm just wondering where this probability is coming from, and how you can be so sure that it's overwhelming. The number of opportunities is certainly overwhelming, but that says nothing about the chance of success.
 
Godmachine said:
Drake's equation is widely considered interesting ..but pure guess work and not a actual good mathematical basis.

Of course there is life out there , there is also complex life. Even if there was only 5-10 advanced civilizations like ours in each galaxy .. that 's (based on the rough estimate of 200 billion Galaxies in the visable Universe) about 1,400,000,000,000 different civilizations possibly. Meaning a vastly endlessly ocean of advanced life forms filling the void.

To believe that we're the only game in town is out right ignorance but until we have facts we can (just for the moment) only wonder.
Click to expand...
rofl you cant just throw out a number like that. Fact is so far we are the only data point so everything else is just guess work. Period.
 
LuminaryJanitor said:
Really? So what are they exactly, these odds? On any given planet, what is the probability of life evolving? And how did you arrive at this figure?


The evidence we have is equally consistent with both hypotheses. I think it's unreasonable to hold a belief either way.
Click to expand...

If there were other advanced life in the universe wouldn't we have been contacted by now? I think it is safe to assume that we would have been contacted, and since we haven't (or at least I have no knowledge of it) can't I conclude that currently no advanced life exists anywhere in the universe? I think I can.
 
AbsintheGuy said:
If there were other advanced life in the universe wouldn't we have been contacted by now? I think it is safe to assume that we would have been contacted, and since we haven't (or at least I have no knowledge of it) can't I conclude that currently no advanced life exists anywhere in the universe? I think I can.
Click to expand...

Let's see

- What are we looking for, radio signals? Water? Did other intelligent life even develop radio tech or require water? What about them? What are they looking for?
- Let's say they could see our radio signals. Our radio signals only extend out for about 100 light years before they disappear completely in background noise, meaning anything 100 light years away of greater wouldn't be able to see us. And that's like 99.99% of the galaxy, which might as well be 100% of the universe.

Simply put, the universe is too big.
 
LuminaryJanitor said:
Really? So what are they exactly, these odds? On any given planet, what is the probability of life evolving? And how did you arrive at this figure?


The evidence we have is equally consistent with both hypotheses. I think it's unreasonable to hold a belief either way.
Click to expand...

I agree but i would lean more towards it being possible, since as stated it has happened once already, Earth.

AbsintheGuy said:
If there were other advanced life in the universe wouldn't we have been contacted by now? I think it is safe to assume that we would have been contacted, and since we haven't (or at least I have no knowledge of it) can't I conclude that currently no advanced life exists anywhere in the universe? I think I can.
Click to expand...

Maybe they don't want to? maybe their level of technology is the same as ours and this limiting them, they are beyond reach, they dont care and are at a time in their time line we were 100 years ago, or they are just so far advance that contacting us would not benefit them in anyway.

I think it is selfish to think that someone should contact us... what for.....? what do we have to offer? if another species had the ability to contact us beyond radio signals, i dont see what we would have to offer them. i question when people claim humans are an "intelligent species"
 
AbsintheGuy said:
If there were other advanced life in the universe wouldn't we have been contacted by now? I think it is safe to assume that we would have been contacted, and since we haven't (or at least I have no knowledge of it) can't I conclude that currently no advanced life exists anywhere in the universe? I think I can.
Click to expand...

My take: It is not safe to assume or conclude that.

Now, if we could devise a method of surviving in space for a 100,000+ light year trip looking for other life forms, then some time in the future after that development we could assume you -might- be right, but there is no way to actually verify you are right given the infinite amount of space to look in. Of course, if we per chance happen on a distant planet with life on it, you could easily be proven wrong.

With all the recorded or testified to UFO sightings everywhere, there just may be some proof of other life out there giving us glimpses to their technology. I guess communicating with us would be their choice, not ours (if they actually exist) as they obviously would have to be more advanced than us.
 
msny said:
I think its the other way around.
Click to expand...
On a planet filled with the necessary ingredients for life, we've only seen it happen once. We can easily synthesise these ingredients in a lab, but we can't synthesise a living thing. What leads you to believe that it's so straightforward?

AbsintheGuy said:
If there were other advanced life in the universe wouldn't we have been contacted by now?
Click to expand...
No. There are several reasons why that might be the case, but I think the most significant factor is that we can probably only detect signals within a few hundred light years, and our own signals are only detectable within a few dozen light years (due to the miniscule span of time we've been transmitting them). As has been mentioned before, the universe is a big place...

If there were a civilisation as sophisticated as ours, 1000 light years from here, wouldn't they be asking themselves the same question?

MrGuvernment said:
I agree but i would lean more towards it being possible, since as stated it has happened once already, Earth.
Click to expand...
There's no doubt that it's possible; the question is whether or not it's probable.
 
Some of the fun things to think about.

1. We are "god."
Even if we develop the technology to colonize another planet outside our solar system in order to survive the sun going nova, what's going to save us from our universe crashing back in on us or just expanding out and all stars eventually dying? Maybe eventually we develop the technology to open a tiny wormhole to another universe where we can only send through atom-sized robots with our DNA to search for and colonize another planet in the new universe that can sustain us. Effectively humans have always existed and we infinitely create ourselves in a new universe when our universe dies.

2. God was and always is
Even if #1 is true, then where/when did it start? I like the converstations if God created the "whatever" which created the big bang, then what created God? If there is actually a God as what we think of, then this God would be out of our plane of exisitance. If humans are 3-dimensional beings, then time for us is a linear path. A true God which is omnipotent and all powerful which can be everywhere at the same time and control everything as well as change the laws of physics at will would likely live outside of our normal dimensions. If this God existed in the 4th or higher dimension, then God's time would be a plane and not a line. A line always has a start and end point but a plane has no start and no end. Effectively nothing had to create God, instead God had, has, and will exist. There is no start and no end to a God.

3. Life as we know it
It's fun to read the arguments whether "life as we know it" exists elsewhere. What's to say life has to be like us? There could be silicon based lifeforms that don't need nitrogen, oxygen, water, carbon, etc to live. Just like there could be beings that aren't corporeal at all that we can't even comprehend. Drake's equation is fun to play with, but it only predicts life as we know it (and even then the equation itself is based on assumptions). Where's the equation to predict life as we don't know it?
 
AbsintheGuy said:
We have detected no evidence, therefore I will remain the skeptic until other, better, evidence is presented. I think it is perfectly reasonable to currently believe that no life exists outside of earth until presented with contrary good evidence.
Click to expand...

"Good evidence"

Nice failsafe there. You're basically saying that you won't believe it until evidence that YOU consider to be "good" is presented. ie: an alien staring at your face holding a plasma gun to your face. Good thing YOU don't dictate what is good enough or not.

Sorry bud - but the science and mathematics in place - regardless of what you think is "good" enough, shows that what you describe as "good enough" is absolutely meaningless and doesn't count for anything.
 
I'm with others on this in regards to needing to see proof in anything to believe in it.

Right now, I'm an atheist.

Right now, I don't believe in other life in this massive thing we're a part of other than what's on this planet.

I’m a realist and I believe in what I can see proof of, and don’t believe in things I cannot see proof of.

There very well could be both of those out there for all I know. I'm more inclined to believe that there is other life out there based on the fact that of all of the planets out there, like earth or not, it's almost impossible that there isn't at least SOME form of life out there other than us. This thing we're a part of is too vast to make that an impossibility. The other life out there could be built entirely differently than us, and could be based on entirely different substances. They could be dumber than a rock for all I know, or they could also all be much smarter than us, taller than us, etc..

I think that for humanity to pass the test of time we need to get rid of borders, currency, and high and low classes. Everyone should have access to food, water, medical care, and there should be no person above another. It should be a right of humanity as we are the dominate species on earth. That said, we also need to care for our planet and all living things on it to ensure we have a place to live long into the future and have the resources, food and otherwise, we need to continue to survive. We need to get together as a planet and work together to ensure our future offspring have what they need to continue to flourish and quit bickering over who has what that I want from them. Why did we lose sight of caring and providing for each other, and focusing on having more than any other one person? People shouldn’t be dying of easily treatable sicknesses, or starvation. Think of all the food we waste every year, in the U.S. alone. There are nations out there where people are starving to death. They could easily be fed with the surplus of food some nations have in this world, and it’s completely ridiculous. Tons of people die every year of medical problems there are cures for, and people with medical problems live less of a life than they could live if they had access to the money the super rich in this world have access to and have stock piled. The world will never move on as a planet, and will certainly not survive if this planet doesn’t at some point decide to get together and just function as one being, one planet, trying to ensure all of our survivals far into the future as a whole. We will eventually just die off as a civilization, or kill each other.

This disease, wealth, was created. We are all just modern day slaves given money to make us feel like we get something in return for what we do. So few are allowed to control so many in this world when we should all control everything that goes on. Governments and those in the loop in this world should not be allowed to keep so many secrets from all of us, we should all be able to see the full big picture whenever we want. This isn’t my planet, or your planet, or even Joe Blow’s planet. This is all of our’s planet, and it should be treated as such. All resources should be shared, everyone should work together with a common goal. To just ensure we all live the best lives possible.

Sadly, none of this will ever happen though. We will just kill each other off in the end fighting over who has what that we want that they aren’t sharing with us. I'll just take the same stance as the rest of humanity in regards to it though: "Screw it…I’ll be dead long before that happens anyways. So who cares?"

/endoutburst
 
AbsintheGuy said:
If there were other advanced life in the universe wouldn't we have been contacted by now? I think it is safe to assume that we would have been contacted, and since we haven't (or at least I have no knowledge of it) can't I conclude that currently no advanced life exists anywhere in the universe? I think I can.
Click to expand...

No, that is not a safe assumption. There's the small matter of the universe being very big. Even the galaxy is huge. We've only been emitting radio signals for a hundred years, and low power ones at that, so the zone in which our presence could be detected is very small compared to the size of the galaxy.
 
blade52x said:
- Let's say they could see our radio signals. Our radio signals only extend out for about 100 light years before they disappear completely in background noise, meaning anything 100 light years away of greater wouldn't be able to see us
Click to expand...

It's not that they "disappear in background noise," they simply haven't traveled further. Given our current understanding of physics there's just no way anything more than 100 light years from us could detect that we're here.
 
Aluisious said:
No, that is not a safe assumption. There's the small matter of the universe being very big. Even the galaxy is huge. We've only been emitting radio signals for a hundred years, and low power ones at that, so the zone in which our presence could be detected is very small compared to the size of the galaxy.
Click to expand...

This. What people don't realize is just how damned big the universe is. People see a picture of a galaxy and imagine each dot as a star which we could somehow easily travel to. Nope. Each dot in a picture of a galaxy is really a collection of thousands of stars, each one too far away from the next to even think about ever traveling to. There's a reason that two colliding galaxies would never even physically "hit" each other; everything is too damned far away from everything else. The scales are unimagineable - which is evident by the way some people think that intelligent life would have "contacted us by now". Have we contacted THEM yet? No. There's a reason for that. There's a reason we can just barely get to our own moon let alone the nearest star. Voyager has been traveling for over 30 years and it has just barely left the SOLAR SYSTEM. It'll be a good long while before it even gets remotely close to another star aside from our sun.

This universe is huge. The amount of space between our sun and the nearest star alone is difficult to imagine.
 
Not only are we dealing with unimaginable distances to other potential life-bearing planets, etc., we are also dealing with a matter of unthinkable time. I believe that there must be other life out there, but the odds seem overwhelmingly miniscule that there could not only be a nearby life-bearing planet, but that the life on this planet evolved similar to us and within the same time frame.
As for anything else, it makes my head hurt...
 
AbsintheGuy said:
If there were other advanced life in the universe wouldn't we have been contacted by now? I think it is safe to assume that we would have been contacted, and since we haven't (or at least I have no knowledge of it) can't I conclude that currently no advanced life exists anywhere in the universe? I think I can.
Click to expand...

I havent seen a guy named Joe Schultz who lives in Germany either.
In fact I've never seen Germany either. Yet, I know it exists and there
is a good chance some guy named Joe Schultz lives there.

I don't need anyone to tell me Joe is real, chances are he exists. In fact
there are probably thousands of Joe Schultz's in Germany.
 
jctusmc03 said:
I'm with others on this in regards to needing to see proof in anything to believe in it.

Right now, I'm an atheist.

Right now, I don't believe in other life in this massive thing we're a part of other than what's on this planet.

I’m a realist and I believe in what I can see proof of, and don’t believe in things I cannot see proof of.

There very well could be both of those out there for all I know. I'm more inclined to believe that there is other life out there based on the fact that of all of the planets out there, like earth or not, it's almost impossible that there isn't at least SOME form of life out there other than us. This thing we're a part of is too vast to make that an impossibility. The other life out there could be built entirely differently than us, and could be based on entirely different substances. They could be dumber than a rock for all I know, or they could also all be much smarter than us, taller than us, etc..

I think that for humanity to pass the test of time we need to get rid of borders, currency, and high and low classes. Everyone should have access to food, water, medical care, and there should be no person above another. It should be a right of humanity as we are the dominate species on earth. That said, we also need to care for our planet and all living things on it to ensure we have a place to live long into the future and have the resources, food and otherwise, we need to continue to survive. We need to get together as a planet and work together to ensure our future offspring have what they need to continue to flourish and quit bickering over who has what that I want from them. Why did we lose sight of caring and providing for each other, and focusing on having more than any other one person? People shouldn’t be dying of easily treatable sicknesses, or starvation. Think of all the food we waste every year, in the U.S. alone. There are nations out there where people are starving to death. They could easily be fed with the surplus of food some nations have in this world, and it’s completely ridiculous. Tons of people die every year of medical problems there are cures for, and people with medical problems live less of a life than they could live if they had access to the money the super rich in this world have access to and have stock piled. The world will never move on as a planet, and will certainly not survive if this planet doesn’t at some point decide to get together and just function as one being, one planet, trying to ensure all of our survivals far into the future as a whole. We will eventually just die off as a civilization, or kill each other.

This disease, wealth, was created. We are all just modern day slaves given money to make us feel like we get something in return for what we do. So few are allowed to control so many in this world when we should all control everything that goes on. Governments and those in the loop in this world should not be allowed to keep so many secrets from all of us, we should all be able to see the full big picture whenever we want. This isn’t my planet, or your planet, or even Joe Blow’s planet. This is all of our’s planet, and it should be treated as such. All resources should be shared, everyone should work together with a common goal. To just ensure we all live the best lives possible.

Sadly, none of this will ever happen though. We will just kill each other off in the end fighting over who has what that we want that they aren’t sharing with us. I'll just take the same stance as the rest of humanity in regards to it though: "Screw it…I’ll be dead long before that happens anyways. So who cares?"

/endoutburst
Click to expand...

You cant see infra-light either.
Certain optical devices can, but how do you know
for certain, there not doctoring the results?

Doesnt mean it's not existant, even if I cant see it directly.
 
LuminaryJanitor said:
Really? So what are they exactly, these odds? On any given planet, what is the probability of life evolving? And how did you arrive at this figure?


The evidence we have is equally consistent with both hypotheses. I think it's unreasonable to hold a belief either way.
Click to expand...

msny said:
You cant see infra-light either.
Certain optical devices can, but how do you know
for certain, there not doctoring the results?

Doesnt mean it's not existant, even if I cant see it directly.
Click to expand...

Its highly unlikely he is talking about only things he can see with his eyesight, heh heh. I imagine he is talking about things we can empirically verify.
 
msny said:
I havent seen a guy named Joe Schultz who lives in Germany either.
Click to expand...
But you know there are lots of people called Joe, and you know that there are lots of people called Schultz, and you probably know that Schultz is a German name, so you have some basis on which to make an educated guess.

Here's a better analogy. I give you a random number generator. I tell you nothing about the range or distribution of values it produces, except that it once returned the number 1.

If you ask it for 200 billion more numbers, how many 1s do you expect?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top