Why we might be alone in the Universe

[AFTT47]

Anything is possible.   Science is not done by assuming everything that might be possible are all equally possible and worth considering.  Rather it is done by using evidence to separate the probable from all that is merely possible. Those who pushes the possible as being equal to the probable are either ignorant or hucksters.   Those who do so by using apparently crafted fraudulent analogies, like this guy, are more likely hucksters.

Again, the odds of humans being the only life that thinks at our level being the only intelligent life in our universe is unlikely knowing that there are stars that produce the same atoms that make up our solar system.

Again, though, that is not saying we will find life like ours, especially not when we are so focused on fighting each other and global corporate greed. It is just to say the universe is big.

We should "In theory" expect to see intelligent life like us, if we could visit every planet in the universe of similar composition. 

I don't think we will though, because of the size of the universe and the odds of stumbling on intelligent communication. I do think though, we will within a century prove that microbial life can exist in harsh environments within our solar system.

You continue to ignore the fact that we don't know the mechanism by which non-living matter becomes living. It has proven to be a very tough nut to crack. Until we have a working theory in hand which demonstrates the complete step-by-step sequence showing how inanimate matter becomes animate matter, the intellectually honest answer is that we don't know how it happened and that we therefor cannot predict the likelihood of it happening elsewhere. A sample size of 1 is useless from a scientific perspective.

I'm a recent convert on this. I have previously been a member of the school of thought that there HAS to be other intelligent life in the universe based on its spatial and temporal depth. I've come to acknowledge though that this is an intuitional argument and that human intuition is not a reliable gauge of reality.

Here are the facts:

1. The evolution of simple life to complex life is undeniable. This is fact.

2. We do not know how life started in the first place. We have worked hard on this problem for a long time but still can't crack it. Until we do, we have no tool with which we can employ to predict the likelihood of non-life becoming life.

3. We do not know how likely it is that complex but non-intelligent life will evolve to intelligent life. We do know that non-intelligent species like the dinosaurs can be very successful without it and that there are very high evolutionary penalties for big brains.

4. There are no physical principals which would prevent a technological civilization from expanding across an entire galaxy. FTL travel is NOT a requirement! Assuming no new physics, we won't see the galactic empires as depicted in popular science-fiction but expansion across interstellar distances is definitely on the table.

I can see one of two answers to the so-called Fermi Paradox:

1. Intelligent life is very rare and we are indeed the first technological civilization in our region. This option seemed absurd to me until recently. I now accept it as a plausible argument.

2. Any intelligent species will eventually reach the point where it will direct its own evolution. It will use technology to advance its own intelligence to the point where one of us would seem like bugs by comparison. This vastly superior intelligence will not find it advantageous to expand materialistically.

3. Related to #2, new physics will reveal better avenues of expansions we don't currently understand. I realize this is pure speculation but that doesn't take it off the table. I am amazed at the arrogance of those who have the hubris to think we know it all. We have only recently run into the dark matter and dark energy thing. And we haven't even begun to realistically tackle the question of what comprises the fabric of space-time.