Posted by Kromey at 12:30pm Sep 23 '09True, we have life here that doesn't fit within "livable" zones. And over hundreds of millions of years, it hasn't advanced past single cell organisms.
Not true, actually. The thermophiles I alluded to are, in fact, multi-cellular critters.
We really don't have compelling reason to believe that some extreme sulfophile is more likely to evolve into intelligent life than an organism more resembling mammals. Without evidence of extremophiles even beginning to approach sentience, it's a huge waste of limited resources to look for extremophile civilization before "us" civilization.
We really don't have compelling reason to believe that mammals (or mammal-like critters) are more likely to evolve into intelligent life. Sure, we've got us, and we happen to be mammals, but that's like rolling a die, getting a 5, and then declaring that there's no point in ever looking for any of the other numbers. What I mean to say is, while I will concede that the highest levels of intelligence on this planet seem to be confined to mammalian species, we have no compelling reason to believe that it couldn't evolve just as easily in a completely different form of life.
A fair point on the radio - what else could we look for? My main point really is that it's not just the search itself, but it's the academic discussions about extra terrestrial life that uses a very narrow definition of "life" that ignores evidence right in front of us.
Not true, actually. The thermophiles I alluded to are, in fact, multi-cellular critters.
We really don't have compelling reason to believe that some extreme sulfophile is more likely to evolve into intelligent life than an organism more resembling mammals. Without evidence of extremophiles even beginning to approach sentience, it's a huge waste of limited resources to look for extremophile civilization before "us" civilization.
We really don't have compelling reason to believe that mammals (or mammal-like critters) are more likely to evolve into intelligent life. Sure, we've got us, and we happen to be mammals, but that's like rolling a die, getting a 5, and then declaring that there's no point in ever looking for any of the other numbers. What I mean to say is, while I will concede that the highest levels of intelligence on this planet seem to be confined to mammalian species, we have no compelling reason to believe that it couldn't evolve just as easily in a completely different form of life.
A fair point on the radio - what else could we look for? My main point really is that it's not just the search itself, but it's the academic discussions about extra terrestrial life that uses a very narrow definition of "life" that ignores evidence right in front of us.
Re: Given what we know of life, it makes sense. - Kromey