Meh, we have wonderful toys. Phones still plugged into the wall when I was a kid.

(May 9, 2019 at 8:55 pm)ignoramus Wrote: Why would a free to roam horse in the wild be any less happy than us?

We are debt slaves and technology slaves ... What's to love?

Could always go backwards. Back in your pew, ewe! (though I know you'd be a ram)

ahhhh, the middle ages ... I miss the good old days!

(If I go back to the middle ages, I'll just shut about science! lol I like my BBQ, but I don't want to BE the BBQ!)

(May 9, 2019 at 7:29 pm)_=vulcanlogician Wrote:

(May 9, 2019 at 6:40 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Second data point as in a second independent abiogenesis as you conceive it is not the only way to constrain deductions based on current understanding of possible chemical process of abiogenesis.   We actually do have a an alternative data point.  That is how long did it take for abiogenesis to occur in the one instance where it is known to have occurred, after conditions can reasonably be said to have allowed it.

The answer is very quickly.  That is a strong data point, as strong as discovering several independent occurrence of abiogenesis on other planets, for the contention that abiogenesis is a easy process to facilitate on a time scale of hundred million years in geological and chemical conditions prevalent on early earth.

The early start of life on earth is addressed at 9:35 in the video.

Except he didn’t address it.  What he did was to use an bullshit analogy with additional flourish - a very tight drop dead deadline - absent from the hypothesis it attempts to mimic to insinuate that the support cited for the original hypothesis suffers from extreme sample bias, when in fact the 60 second drop dead deadline has no analogy in the theory of abiogenesis.   The notion that the average lock picking process takes days or many time longer than the prisoner has does not exactly correspond to any well supported theory of what is going on during abiogenesis.  

In fact the observation that life arose on earth in less than 10% of the time it had available to arise - far skewed to the quick side of 50% one would expect to be average of the random sample constrained by the sample Windows - suggest the sample bias or the size of the sample window is weak explanation for the observation of quick abiogenesis.

So he tries to pass off as an analogy that which is no analogy, in order discredit a red herring.  And he did it in a manner very much reminiscent of a confidence trickster.

Let’s examine his bullshit analogy further by extending it.  Let’s say the prisoner picked the lock in not 60 seconds but 6 seconds.   Someone then tells him via YouTube that he would have dropped dead in 60 seconds, ie before now, had he not picked the lock, so his sample is skewed, but he sees zero evidence for that to be the case.   Should he conclude based on the available evidence of his picking of the lock in 6 seconds is likely a freakish occurrence, skewed by observer biases, and not an indication of how easily can the lock be picked?

Perhaps Thanos overdid it...

(May 9, 2019 at 9:29 pm)Fireball Wrote:

(May 9, 2019 at 8:55 pm)ignoramus Wrote: Why would a free to roam horse in the wild be any less happy than us?

We are debt slaves and technology slaves ... What's to love?

Could always go backwards. Back in your pew, ewe! (though I know you'd be a ram)

Off the grid, aka 1850s.

Ever notice they suck everything they can from the grid?

The Wow! Signal is still the best anecdotal evidence for ET:

Wikipedia -- Wow! Signal

It's no evidence for anything.

(May 8, 2019 at 10:52 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: I thought this was a logical and realistic analysis...

Highly unlikely that there is not life elsewhere considering the size of the universe, trillions of galaxies, knowing all the elements on the periodic table exist throughout the universe. 

If humans do not cause our own extinction I can see scientists proving that a minimum, life can exist in extreme environments within our solar system, say on Mars, or a moon of another planet, even if only microbial. 

But it is reasonable, that we may never speak with other intelligent life like ours, considering how remote we are, and even how big just our galaxy alone is.

It may be that life is common but technological civilizations are vanishingly rare, like one per million galaxies. For now we should act as if we are the galaxy's (or even the universe's) one shot at a star-spanning civilization. If we don't do it, there's a good chance it will never get done. And that would be sad, IMHO.