The conditions for life that our planet enjoys are so many and so particular, makes you think about how the universe works: it doesn't repeat itself. It is us who give the same label to different things. It would be awesome to find intelligent life somewhere else, but I really don't have any expectations. Just life, not intelligent life, I think it is easier to expect. Or, intelligence without life: is that possible?
We don't even know if intelligent life is a surefire products of evolution anyway, life doesn't need to be intelligent like us to survive, dumb life is acceptable as long as they survive and that's all evolution "care about"
The truly sad thing is that whether we are alone or not, humanity as a whole doesn't revere our incredible gift of existence. We fight and we squander and we're petty, all while taking for granted how magnificent it is to be here.
We hv a lot of questions but answers evade us. We know of this one life. Humanity. Us. Whether there is life other than us in another form on another planet with again a different form to sustain that life form we do not know. If they exist they are invisible to us. Are we invisible to them. We are not alone. There are other dimensions in the Universe. What about the trillions of humanity in some other dimension who have finished with their experiences over here. They have moved on. May be they could help us with some answers.
We aren't alone. The aliens are here, RIGHT NOW. It's a verified fact. The most advanced military in the world verified the footage of non-human technology (see Tictac). This isn't a question anymore! No more "swamp gas" or "it was Venus". The aliens are REAL and HERE. Why do people keep acting like this is a question anymore? Stop living in denial!
We may see light from other long dead civilizations or receive a message that is millions of light years old. That's probably the best we can hope for. We will almost certainly die with our bubble.
Andromeda galaxy is the nearest one to ours. It's approx 2.5 million LIGHT YEARS away. If you leave earth today at the speed of light, it would take 2.5 million years to reach Andromeda.
Finally! Michael Crichton made similar points some years ago (it would take a fiction writer with a scientific mind to sniff out BS so keenly). The compounding of UNKNOWN variables still make them unknown. That popular scientific personalities talk about the Drake equation and other similar notions with such bias has seriously dumbed down the scientific dialogue in our society. We also talk about modeling in other areas in the same way, as if these equations are not speculative but somehow predictive. Kudos to Dr. Kipping for treating science like a process, not a corruptible worldview.
His right about one thing ! Life has a short time ⏲️ to become intelligent life + get to age of modern technology + be able to have the Intelligent to want to leave they're planet. Intelligent life + life may only be around for a short period of time. Universe is a dangerous place.
@@A_Stereotypical_Heretic here is the definition of a scientist in its strictest sense: a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences. "a research scientist" From this, we can surmise that a scientist need not have a PhD. A person can attain expert knowledge from independent research, without having gone to university and received a PhD. This would accurately describe Bill Nye, whom has devoted a massive portion of his adult life to the study of more than one field of science. He is respected by professors and the greater scientific community. So, a scientist he is, a qualified professor with a doctorate he is not.
What he wrote in 2003: "More recently we have seen the rise of the so-called 'Rare Earth' theory which suggests that we may, in fact, be all alone. Again, there is no evidence either way." This is an ignorant person's skepticism. He doesn't know anything, so he doubts everything. Equally fallacious, he plays up correct theories that initially weren't accepted... until there was evidence, but he doesn't emphasize that requirement, as Sagan does at 21:30. So he scorns assertions of likelihood when there is evidence (he doesn't know of) and scorns the establishment for dismissing theories that he deems sufficiently backed by evidence when they aren't. I would be embarrassed to have written with such a tone of playground antagonism for that level of audience (see link), while also betraying an inconsistent standard of empirical support. Sure, Africa and South America "fit" together, but there also seems to be a face on Mars. Coincidences happen, so evidence needs to be accumulated--such as similar fossils below the time of continental separation and dissimilar species above. When you take pictures from a closer distance and different angles, the facial symmetry vanishes. This evidence takes time to amass. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Or as Feynman tried to teach with his license plate explanation, you can't use the hint that gives you the initial hunch to test that very hunch. Unlikely things happen all the time, so you need to collect _new_ data to see if it supports the hunch. The ubiquity of rare events is why hypothesis testing seems very conservatively structured to the uninitiated. Feynman's UFO discussion with a "layman" distinguishes whether talk of knowns or talk of likelihoods is scientific. Sure, we don't _know_ that we're not being visited by space aliens, but that doesn't make us unscientific to take sides and say it's highly unlikely. We _can_ talk about likelihood, given what we already know. That is in fact allowed, when there's data. Bayesian reasoning _is_ consistent with the scientific method. Or as Feynman put it, from what he knows about the world around him, reports of UFOs have more to do with the known, irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than with the unknown, rational characteristics of extraterrestrial intelligence. As Christopher Hitchens would point out, one of the rules of oratory is that arguments presented without evidence can just as easily be dismissed without evidence. But that's not what's going on in this case. 100B galaxies of 100B stars cooking for 14B years is what Kipping is taking on, as is the Miller-Urey experiment. Slowly evidence is amassing in the astronomical and biochemical fields on both the ease and difficulty of abiogenesis and convergent evolution of technology-wielding intelligence, and the time to cook up the heavier elements that assist life. The trouble is when people make assertions that "we just don't know" as an excuse to dismiss talk of likelihoods, use of Bayesian reasoning, and evidence that already exists. To do so is just indulging in a false equivalency. And it's especially annoying when it's born of their own ignorance of evidence that already exists (an agnosticism of laziness). stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf
This talk shows typical scientific lack of knowledge, focusing on the external. All truth of life is found within. The external is purely a temporary sensory reflection. Having "hope" that there's life out there is simply a lack of self knowledge, and encourages people to focus on the external, which again leads to a lack of self knowledge. I recommend listening to Barry Long, a legitimate spiritual teacher.
@@JohnyG29 The truth of life is that I, the reader (not the writer, since the writer is a "you", not an "I") am life itself. I am all life, and all life is in me. However to realise, which is to make real, that truth, requires living the spiritual life, or the divine life. I recommend spiritual teacher Barry Long as a "real deal" teacher, which is a very rare thing, who can act as a guide until such time as you no longer require a teacher. Barry passed in 2003, but left behind a large body of work.
Well if scientists support every viewpoint imaginable, what good are they? I can get that opinion asking my neighbor. At a certain point, "experts" need to give you an expert opinion otherwise they are not experts.
I agree with you completely. Very few scientists (e.g. Richard Feynman) have stressed the danger of expectancy bias and the importance of agnosticism in some specific cases. I am personally an agnostic when it comes to the existence of God and anthropogenic global warming (later conveniently renamed climate change). I am quite familiar with the Pupin Physics and Astronomy building where Dr. Kipping gives his lectures. I got my PhD degree from Columbia in 1978, and I wish I could be there 45 years later to meet Dr. Kipping in-person.
its basic stuff found in the first paragraphs of the first chapter of any decent analysis on the prospects of alien life; and a distraction from the correct best answer we currently have. Astronomers are good at pointing telescopes at stars and looking at spectrographs, but typically bad at logical analysis / reasoning on the prospects of alien civilization. The first law of reasoning for alien civilization is never trust an astronomer's analysis, they have all sorts of screwed up bias and archaic modes of thinking. Astronomers are among the last people to be consulted this on matter. Ok onto the elephant in the room, the biggest myth of our times, which the naive astronomer didn't address, and has never objectively thought about it in his life and never will: 1. The idea that alien civilization would blast out radio communication, loud and clear, hence our satellite dishes should be jammed with alien radio transmissions. This myth was created back in the early days of radio communication around the 1920s when most transmissions were sent uncoded. Thinkers at the time assumed radio comm would remain that way practically forever. Today most radio comm is encoded so that it resembles random noise; but it is digital as apposed to analogue, which distinguishes it from natural background noise. However it is easy to convert a digital radio stream into an analogue stream then add a few pseudo noise fx to make it completely indistinguishable from natural background noise, except for those with the encryption keys. This is how aliens communicate. 2. The myth that we can detect the tiniest signals from the other side of the universe. Actually, our best technology ( Nasa Deep Space Network ) can detect synthetic information from a synthetic source from about at maximum 180AU or one light-day away; it is 6 orders of magnitude smaller than the detection sensitivity we'd need to evesdrop info from the nearest star system. In case you haven't noticed, we can barely detect exo planets directly. If a whole exo planet can't generate enough waves to be detected by our best scopes, its going to be hard to detect an artificial source unless its pointed directly at us, and for us. This leads us onto 3. The idea of convenience that aliens want to communicate with us. In technology they are millions or billions of years ahead of us. It would be like us trying to comm with bacteria in the dirt. What is the purpose? Just to poke the bacteria and do experiments on it. Any discussion about alien civ should address these points. The astronomer's lecture was conspicuously lacking, like a half man lacking half his body and head.
4. The myth that inter stellar aliens comm using spherical wave broadcasts, this one's again from the 1920s. For interstellar space it is more sensible to use rasers ( radio equivalent of laser ) to aim a coherent beam at a target star system. (a) less power useage, (b) much better stealth; no other star system would detect the signal. The chance that we'd sit between 2 alien star systems and be able to intercept their signals is extremely low, and in these cases, aliens can simply divert signals around the solar system. That we might postcept signals after they pass their target star can be stopped by alien engineering, they can adjust their rasers to difuse enough to be too weak to detect past the target star system and also the target star system can send out an neutralizing wave signal to reduce the signal beyound the receiver. Show me the astronomer lecture that mentions these points. protip: u can't because astronomers are dumb.
@Jota Efe that astronomer got a big applause, 354K views, 11k likes, and 3447 praising comments in 3 weeks for "neither prooving nor disproving anything." Glad that we give credit where its due.
I took a long time for life to become multi cellular, and it took a long time for multi cellular life to become intelligent enough to create technologies and it took a long time for technological life to develop the abilities we have as modern humans. What we have no clue about is how long we can persist after we have developed the ability to wipe ourselves out. Sixty years so far, and counting.
That’s selective perception. Just like how science accepted that galaxies like ours were impossible in the early universe. Well early from our perspective. Yet, we have located galaxies like ours that have disproven this theory.
Actually, for most of the time life was unicellular on earth, for billions of years. And that might be the norm that most planets have without ever having a multicellular creature
What he's not taking into account are the several world extinction events that happened on planet Earth. It doesn't take as long as he is suggesting for intelligent life to evolve. That throws out a huge chunk of his argument.
Only knock to that is the Earth being 4.5 billion years old. When the Universe is 13.8 billion years old. So life on a similar planet could of had 3 times then time we did to get intelligent life.
So one of his major arguments is because we don't know exactly how many planets there are we can't make a positive claim that there is life anywhere but earth. What a trash argument in fact all you have to do is look up to see that everything in the universe is repeated constantly over and over and nothing is special and contained to any one area. Besides that you don't have to look any further than our own existence for evidence that alien life exist. In an endless amount of space what happens once will happen over and over. Everything in the universe is repeatable.
@@matthewviramontes3131 yeah. it's distance and time to the nearest alien. Calculate the time it would take to the nearest alien, in the drake equation
Well, his whole take on the Copernican argument is just wrong, and it's surprising that he didn't really think it through. While it is natural to expect that a civilization would show a survivor's bias, that, by itself, doesn't invalidate the argument. You could still imagine what an external observer of the Universe would think if they found us in such a big Universe. They would still update their probability, based on that observation, and conclude that the probability that there's EXACTLY one civilization is much lower than there being at least a few. This is also precisely what you'd think if you spotted a bacterium in an aquarium. It's absolutely irrelevant to your conclusion what that bacterium thinks.
WOW. A scientist who presents a rational cogent argument and still openly admits we really just don't know when it comes right down to it and we need more info. We could sure use a few more of this type of critical thinking scientist. Maybe even in the pharmaceutical industry.
I don't get why so many people are so obsessed with whether there is life elsewhere in the universe-which we are highly unlikely to find or interact with (though I'm not denying the watershed nature of either circumstance)-while humans demonstrate daily that they don't value other human life, nor all other life on this pale blue dot that we all occupy-and likely all will die upon, as will our very species, barring a sea change in how we behave towards each other, other life here, and the planet itself.
24:40...Anybody can see the blood vessels in the back of their eyes. It is an ordinary optical phenomenon. I have terrible eyesight - very near sighted. I reported seeing the back of my eyeball to my optometrist when I was in high school, and he thought I was crazy. I demonstrated it to him and he was amazed. It only requires a bright light source directed at a precise angle into the eyeball, which then projects a virtual image of the retina back through the lens, which you see in front of you. Percival Lowell possibly saw this virtual projection of his retina as he was peering through his telescope, but the canals seem to be only a bad interpretation of a low resolution image of the Mars surface details.
I always lean towards there being no other life. But if there is other life we are separated boat by distance and time. If there was or there is another civilization it is so far away in location we could never reach them. And they are so far separated in time that if they existed they are probably long gone by now and some other civilization might not of yet established itself.Add to that We don’t see anything in space in real time. All the light reaching us is old light. If we found a civilization We are seeing a civilization from billions of years ago. Is it still around? My guess is it isn’t. But if it was we could never get to it. Believing that sort of thing wins you know friends at parties.
I find this person to be VERY logical in his thinking ! And I watch his channel all the time . I do not ALWAYS agree with his deduction, but I do MOST of the time ! DML.
A great talk and a point that needed to be made. Thanks to Cool Worlds, I feel comfortable in being agnostic about the possibilities for life, as you said. I want to believe, but someone needs to give me a good reason!
@@zdcyclops1lickley190 but that's exactly the reasoning this video argues against? Just because it happened here doesn't mean life has happened elsewhere, let alone that it's ubiquitous or even common. As David Kipping said, the right answer is we don't know.
@@jamesgeary4294 This is what I'm struggling with. My take is all parties are saying "I think"...meaning "we don't know". One person's assumptions (the Fl value) are really no better than someone else's. Given that, there has been a progression of 'likelihood' since the first images from hubble. Q1: Are galaxies rare? A: Seems not. Appears there are trillions (thx Hubble). Q2: There are a lot of stars, are there planets with them? A: Yes. Actually a lot. Around 10 or so planets is fairly common. Q3: Are there a lot of planets in the habitable zone? A: yes. Seems this is also common. We see the transits. Q4: Of these planets in the habitable zone, do they also have similar characteristics to Earth? A: We don't know. But this is what JWT should help with (measuring VRE - vegetation red edge). This video, was all about this 4th question. What's the likelihood that these other planets are indeed similar to Earth? What even constitutes similarity?
He's going to be blushing when life is eventually found on another planet/moon. The size of the universe means elements and environment will reoccur elsewhere.
Most star systems have 2 or 3 stars and have the larger planets inward. We have never observed alien planets with moons as large as ours. The circumstances of our system and planet are exceedingly rare. Additionally, in 6 billion years, intelligent life has only evolved once--another rare circumstance. @@d.s.5157
Brilliant and also very graspable for any semi intelligent non scientist. Appreciate his agnosticism on the topic…He speaks very clearly and supports a specific point of view…but entirely without arrogance…Thank You for sharing this lecture
At this point of our history the video title alone is sheer gaslighting if on purpose, and dumb ignorant narcissistic egocentristic naive arrogance already. not worth watching. Purpose of these type of statements today is to dumb down the masses deeper into ignorance to keep on controlling and profitting from them.
This talk shows typical scientific lack of knowledge, focusing on the external. All truth of life is found within. The external is purely a temporary sensory reflection. Having "hope" that there's life out there is simply a lack of self knowledge, and encourages people to focus on the external, which again leads to a lack of self knowledge. I recommend listening to Barry Long, a legitimate spiritual teacher.
@@michaeltsung9741 Sounds like pseudoscientific nonsense to me. A brief search of Barry Long suggest the same. That's not to say that internal spiritual exploration isn't beneficial or valid. It simply falls outside the realm of logic, and thus is particularly susceptible to charlatans and grifters. It's easy to create "knowledge" when it's not falsifiable or subject to empirical verification.
That assumes no life that persists that could be potentially millions if not billions of years ahead of us. Distances would be of no issue to even a very sublight travelling species or singularity like that.
Is this comment satire? Did you not watch the video? This argument was addressed. Knowing the sample size doesn’t tell you the likeliness of an event E occurring if we do not know the probability of E. You’re not justified in claiming we are not alone.
excellent presentation. i love my brain’s reaction to that time limit “we don’t have much time! only a billion years. need to spread elsewhere!” if we can survive another 10,000 years we’ll be doing well 😂
Я, американец, тебе завидую, потому что в Америке люди в средне живут по 800 лет. И этому есть серьёзное доказательство, которое предоставляет ваша судебная система. Вашим некоторым маньякам суд даёт наказание по 500 лет, и даже по 700 лет, а это значит у всех американцев хорошее здоровье. И к маньякам в Америке очень хорошо относятся. После того, как эти нехорощие люди отсидят 300 лет, их за хорошее поведение могут досрочно освободить. Значит, американец, у вас имеется элексир бессмертия и вы эту велиеую тайну скрываете от международной общественности.
Pretending is not same as knowing, the scale of the universe is way too much for a human brain to digest .Many issues here ,from basic know how to complex ones .Everything is made out of functional parts , if i exists so can others, kowtowing this issues pretty much requires exploration of all universe ,we can’t duplicate the most basics forms of life meaning we are in a very weak scientific position .
maybe thats the nature of the universe , where perspective and bias always change reality, and thats a good thing because that way we have new things, if everyone saw the universe the same way we'd all act the same way and that would be wierd and probably not lead to all what we have, so much variatey, choice. Even on this planet alone where all life shares some dna with each other, their take on how to express the code is vastly different. I dont think you cant have it both ways - predicability doesnt lead to variety and vice versa. Ultimately i think if we found an equation of the universe that would break the universe as it woudl be exploited and it doesnt look to be , but maybe has been before and the big bang could of been remnants of a past civilization who found the equation for everything and the universe too is evolving to compensate
No, he is advocating for saying “we don’t know” instead of making assumptions, because the probabilities are not known. He argues that it is unscientific to take things on faith. I agree.
This is an incredibly vague and obtuse comment. His main argument is that we don't know, and then he subsequently presents a number of examples debunking the status quo, that there 'must be a universe teeming with life'. Maybe you should elaborate.
we have one known, absolute fact - in the entire universe, in all we can see, billions and billions of lightyears in all directions...we have found no evidence of any other life in the entire universe
I see what you did there :) Now you're definitely not alone :) Incidentally, Kipping is probably among the most brilliant astronomers of our generation, in my very humble view. His papers are remarkably creative. I highly recommend to read them if you're into these things. They should be readable for most people with some basic physics/astronomy background.
Fr man, so happy I found this video! I'm not willing to die on a hill for us being alone but it's always been strange to me how one sided this conversation is. Every other physicist/scientist talks about outside intelligent life as some sort inevitability so it's nice to finally hear a different perspective.
@@Retotion What you wise guys overlook is the fact that once we find even the tiniest microbe on Mars, or a moon of Jupiter and Saturn, the whole lecture was nothing more than a waste of oxygen. And with each passing day, we get closer to the cause. Especially now that we're going to start looking at the atmospheres of extrasolar planets with the help of the James Webb Telescope. As soon as we can prove chlorophyll for the first time, the lecture is waste paper again. The deniers of the "plenty of life" theory must refute any evidence. The others only have to successfully complete the proof once...
Don't count on it. In a purely materialist cosmos, the chances of true solipsism becomes significant. The entire universe may exist only in your own mind. But that case only you would actually exist and the rest of us would be figures of your imagination. I think I need another beer.
@Wikileads No, not necessarily. As Professor Kipping said, we simply don't know, so the possibility that alien civilizations exist is as legitimate as the position that we're alone. But when scientists start proclaiming the galaxy is teeming with alien civilizations when there is zero proof of this, and insult people as arrogant or whatnot for not believing a position for which there is zero proof, then this is anti-scientific behaviour. Not the same as insanity but not appropriate either. I can understand what op meant by finally a sane response. Professor Kipping's analysis is a rare instance of evidence based logic and thoughtful even-handed balance amid a massive myriad of emotional reactions. The scientists who let their wishful thinking propel them to enthusiastically premature conclusion arejust one part of this. Think of all the craziness in non-scientific circles, from cults to people brainwashed into believing Democrats are secretly alien lizards under fake human skin.
A survey of the current scientific studies show there are now (13) Habitable zones that are mutually exclusive from each other. This makes life almost impossible, and advanced life as unique. Citations below.. Known Current Habitable zones as of 2022: - Water habitable zone - Ultraviolet/Radiation habitable zone - Photosynthetic habitable zone - Ozone habitable zone - Planetary rotation rate habitable zone - Planetary obliquity habitable zone - Tidal habitable zone - Astrosphere habitable zone - Electric wind habitable zone - Milankovich cycle zone - Stellar magnetic wind zone - Carbon dioxide zone - Carbon monoxide zone
For host stars with an effective temperature more than 7,100 K (7,100 °C above absolute zero) or less than 4,600 K, even for just microbes, a team of four Chinese astronomers showed that the liquid water and ultraviolet habitable zones will not overlap. This may seem like a fairly wide effective temperature range, but it is narrow enough to eliminate all but 3 percent of the Milky Way Galaxy’s stars.
Japanese astronomers Midori Oishi and Hideyuki Kamaya established that the zone of overlap is even narrower including the metallicity requirements of the Host star, this leaves less than 1 percent of our galaxy stars as candidates for bacterial life. Advanced life has even more stringent requirements.
Scientific Articles: - Jianpo Guo et al., “Probability Distribution of Terrestrial Planets in Habitable Zones Around Host Stars,” Astrophysics and Space Science 323 (October 2009): 367-73 - Rory Barnes et al., "Tidal Limits to Planetary Habitability," Astrophysical Journal Letters 700 (July 20, 2009): L30-L33 - David S. Smith and John M. Scalo, “Habitable Zones Exposed: Astrosphere Collapse Frequency as a Function of Stellar Mass,” Astrobiology 9 (September 2009): 673-81 - Jun Yang et al., “Strong Dependence of the Inner Edge of the Habitable Zone on Planetary Rotation Rate,” Astrophysical Journal Letters 787, no. 1 (May 20, 2014): id. L2, doi:10.1088/2041-8205/787/1/L2. - Yutong Shan and Gongjie Li, “Obliquity Variations of Habitable Zone Planets Kepler-62f and Kepler-186f,” Astronomical Journal 155, no. 6 (May 17, 2018): doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabfd1; Gregory S. Jenkins, “Global Climate Model High-Obliquity Solutions to the Ancient Climate Puzzles of the Faint-Young Sun Paradox and Low-Altitude Proterozoic Glaciation,” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 105, no. D6 (March 27, 2000): 7357-70, doi:10.1029/1999JD901125. - Midori Oishi and Hideyuki Kamaya, “A Simple Evolutionary Model of the UV Habitable Zone and the Possibility of Persistent Life Existence: The Effects of Mass and Metallicity,” Astrophysical Journal 833 (December 2016): id. 293, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/293 - Glyn Collinson et al., “The Electric Wind of Venus: A Global and Persistent ‘Polar Wind’-Like Ambipolar Electric Field Sufficient for the Direct Escape of Heavy Ionospheric Ions: Venus Has Potential,” Geophysical Research Letters (June 2016): doi:10.1002/2016GL068327 - Glyn Collinson et al., “Electric Mars: The First Direct Measurement of an Upper Limit for the Martian ‘Polar Wind’ Electric Potential,” Geophysical Research Letters 42 (November 2015): 9128-34, doi:10.1002/2015GL065084 - Russell Deitrick et al., “Exo-Milankovitch Cycles. I. Orbits and Rotation States,” Astronomical Journal 155, no. 2 (January 16, 2018): id. 60, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aaa301; Russell Deitrick et al., “Exo-Milankovitch Cycles. II. Climates of G-Dwarf Planets in Dynamically Hot Systems,” Astronomical Journal 155, no. 6 (June 4, 2018): id. 266, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aac214; - adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-ref_query?bibcode=2003ARA%26A..41..429K&refs=CITATIONS&db_key=AST - Hans O. Pörtner, Martina Langenbuch, and Anke Reipschläger, “Biological Impact of Elevated Ocean CO2Concentrations: Lessons from Animal Physiology and Earth History,” Journal of Oceanography 60, no. 4 (August 2004): 705-18, doi:10.1007/s10872-004-5763-0.
While interesting, this is only valid for our kind of life, at which point we return to something similiar to #1 of the arguments presented in this video. We have no idea what kinds of life other than our own is posssible and what we call habitable zone, might be death zones for others. Since there's no way of arriving at how probable *any* kind of life is, this research doesn't really add new information to the issue.
@quitchiboo - Actually science also has some good data on that topic as well. Carbon life is the only form of life now taken seriously by Origin of Life researchers due to reasons like this. The 13 habitable zones also apply to alternative biochemistry as well. Hard UV radiation and Gamma ray bursts and heavy asteroid bombardment and excessive atmosphere pressure will kill Silica or Silicon based prebiotic chemistry just as quickly as carbon based life. Alternative Biochemistries: Here's a great Harvard article on why Silicon based life is very unlikely to exist. The Short and sweet is that silicon, doesn’t bond as well to other silicon atoms, and not well at all in the presence of many liquids. Chains of silicon are especially unstable in water; they break apart in water, which means they are essentially no gos for originating life. They also would have incredibly slow metabolism since they could not use Oxygen or have ATP factories for cellular energy. At best primitive life, but no advanced life is possible as a Silica based life form. www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/fr_1/fr_1_future5.html
Biologists who study early life are probably the people you would want to include in this discussion. While even they don't _know_ how life first began, they know enough to at least give some interesting and illuminating context.
yes the fact that in a planet where there ara conditions to life to arise, had happen (as far as we know) only one time shows its not as common as we tend to think .
It's also somewhat interesting to remember that often times when we talk about how life can begin somewhere, we forget life could look a lot different in different circumstances. It doesn't necessarily have to start on a planet like ours, though obviously we don't have any examples of life like that.
@@eventhisidistaken If it had happend a billion times all together let alone in a day I would think that life on earth would have been more varied then it is. I was under the impression that they claim that everything is related. That would at least mean it was only successful once and may there fore have only started once. To my knowledge the scientist know quite well what life is made out of but I don't believe they have actually ever managed to actually start new life without a cell of excisting life.
Let's be honest here: We're never going to accept that we're alone in the universe, we're going to keep looking for extra terrestrial life for as long as our species exists.
Why should we as humanity accept that we are alone when this assumption is impossible to verify? We can only falsify it when we find something that is 'alive' (can also be just some type of space bacteria or fungi).
While I agree with your statement, im of the firm belief that what we are "in" is a super-duper advanced holographic simulation (akin to Star Treks "holodeck", but obviously on a much more larger scale, and complexity). With that being said, it could very well be that all that space out there in the universe is a mere "illusion" and doesnt really exist [until/if such a time arises that we are able to physically reach it, then it could very well "pop" into existence, as in the phenomena of manifestation. The phenomena of manifestation is very real for me, insomuch that I witnessed it on at least 3 occasions during my lifetime. Some would say im a kook, while others think im merely misremembering things...and thats ok. I know in my heart the phenomena is real and exists. Lastly, yes it does make your mind do one huge "Whoa !!! WTF ?!?!?!"
@@Aurochhunter Let's look at our own planet. How many species did we have since the beginning of life on this earth? Billions of life forms and only one was able to use tools, books and fire. So it must be VERY unusual to develop this kind of 'intelligence'. Another factor is the possibility to destroy the own environment or own species with the right tools and weapons. So intelligent life will probably have very short life cycles compared to simple forms (which also have way lower demands to their environment than complex forms of life)
We're still finding new/undocumented species of life here on Earth. Just because we've not seen it, doesn't mean it does'nt exist, because we have plenty of examples proving that assumption wrong. It was once thought that life could not exist in extreme temperatures. Then we found a wide array if life forms thriving on deep sea hydrothermal vents, in temperatures ranging from 400f to 700f. We've also found life thriving in lakes underneath the Antarctic ice sheets.
Amazingly well thought out and performed lecture. The kind of lecture that makes you smarter in more than a factual sense. A philosophical lecture more than a purely astronomic one and truly convincing, something rare in a philosophical lecture. 👏
Fascinating lecture, it's one I've been waiting for a long time. Thank you professor. For what it's worth, I took it over to Center for Inquiry (CFI) Forum, it's become an engaged thread. Dec 16, 9:52 PM - "Why we might be alone" Public Lecture by Prof David Kipping, under philosophy
Im a statistician. Always felt we could be alone. I believe the absence of direct evidence makes it more likely that Fl is indeed smaller than the number of stars and we are alone. Note that statistics doesnt apply to whether we are alone. We either are or are not. The statistics only apply to our knowledge of it. Its like the odds of the next card in a deck being a heart. It either is or is not. Once the deck was shuffled, the answer is fixed, only our knowledge of it is pseudo random.
There is plenty of direct evidence. Theres a lot of circumstantial evidence that shows we are not along, and keep in mind that we can convict people on circumstantial evidence for murder. Yeah sure if you ignore that, then yes were alone.
@@Alex-pb1iy Most of the "direct"evidence is mostly by people with psychological problems or the need for attention. Also, the chances of someone being guilty on circumstancial evidence, whether this is right or wrong, is still by far more likely for the crime to have happened than someone claiming to have evidence for an extra terrerestrial. Extaordinary claims really do require extraordinary evidence.
Extremely well argued - thanks David. One addition factor in Lowell’s imaginary canals is not only his faulty eyesight but the cultural archeology bias - imaging canals because they were the symbol of modern technology in the 19th century.
Rather,@@tonoornottono, I contend that it's not simply convenient and subjective consideration - based on ourselves. It's a product of the knowledge that *all* life requires energy. In fact all creative or constructive, or transformative processes we can conceive of, have an energy input of some sort. Where there would be a sentient intention to create something specific, it is reasonable to expect steeplingly requirement for energy.
My english is not good, but I understand your statement and i wrote just about modern science. Why do some weird humans think the other planets must have inhabitans? Because of the fact of waste spaces without population? The mosts planets don't offer atmospheres for any creature. Wether animals nor any other creature would ever be able exist there and nowhere was found any clue of those possibilities of life. Since time immemorial mean humans this creatures can be find . Either this probably existing creatures are in a save hiding spot and they are laughing about this stupid humans or there just don't exist. How stupid that notion to ignore!? No science found ever creatures beyond earth. The bible says on, God owns all planets and nowhere says bible on about any hint of other creatures in the universe,...like every science says. Excavations don't bring also to light indications of any creature. Not even something about islam . Only about iron age and Jesus time was found. The temples Solomon etc. Satan is lying to us and many killers say in court they weren't forced by Satan to kill somebody. Catholics are not better, because they are lying too. Revelation warns about the pope as he is an antichrist. Jesus' day of birth is unknown and chrismas, eastern aren't mentioned on bible. No problem celebrate this, but that has nothing to do with bible or christians. Islam is also a lie, which Satan uses for distracting humans from Jesus. Other populations beyond the earth or another life before our life now are lies and distractions from Jesus. Exactly that says on the bible. Scientist aren't able to confirm any islamic prove, how Solomons temple residues for example or any other useful things during iron age. Pre-existence can't be proved also. No war was an idea of God, because only humans are blame! Allah doesn't help or he can't help his fans for having a better life. Those nations are ruled by poverty, wars. Otherwise there remains nowhere any Christian among poverty, no matter where he lives. Show me one Christian who lives in danger, in poverty, but I can show you a crazy not existing Allah, who can't change it better for his fans! To believe on other creatures is also a diversion created by Satan, like I mentioned detailed!
Yes, your English has some problems, but it will gradually improve,@@burda2809. The more serious problem you have, is your silly religious stories. The main reason that no alien life is mentioned in the bible, is that the bible was entirely written by humans, starting back in the Iron Age. Human society back then didn't have the technology to investigate distant celestial objects and phenomena.
@@1959Berre I have simple proof: Simultaneous tracking of UAPs by multiple radars, multiple tracking sites (ships, planes). Confirmed solid object (not image): 1,428+ G's. What can an F-16 withstand before disintegration? 16-18 G's. What can a human withstand before death? Possibly 12-14 G's.
Prof Kipping reminds me of scientists - astronomers - typically from the 1950s when asked if they believed there were planets outside this solar system.
You don't need alien civilizations on other worlds to explain alien occupants of UFOs. We already know where sentient life and civilization comes from, Earth. That's the best place for us to look to as the origin of alien sentient life and civilization. If real, UFO occupants may be distant descendants of human or human tech.
@@davidadiwego4608 I believe that humans were seeded on Earth by another culture but it doesn't follow that they too were human, at least in my belief. ET visitors can fall into many categories - time travelling humans, other races, other dimensions, other occupants that most are unaware of etc etc Myriad sources.
@@HollomanUFOLanding Why do you believe? I've seen all UFO/alien documentaries, read books on the subject. I've seen nothing that proves UFOs are alien tech. I don't believe, I don't disbelieve. Prof Kipping doesn't believe or disbelieve. He his merely saying that, based on what we know about origin of life and evolution of intelligent life, it is possible that it is extremely unlikely for there to be intelligent life elsewhere. You may note that the likes of Neil Degrasse-Tyson and prof Brian Cox, who appeal to a reverse of Murphy's Law to argue FOR a many-civilization universe, don't accept alien UFOs/alien visitation as having any scientific merit.
Its ridiculous to see you guys making long videos on why we might be alone!! Guys we are not alone. Rather we are very small number compared to what is really out there. You have no idea of time coz you are in delusion. You came earth for few hours only, due to extreme time dilation one hour is equivalent to 41+ earth years, God knows best. So when you go back to your Lord The Most High The tremendous, The irresistible one The creator of the universe, you will see you left for few hours and passed a long life on earth within that short time. See how extreme time dilation? Then do you think you were created without any purpose?? Or do you think the One who created the universe cant recreate you? Obviously he can, he is the master creator. God is the light of the heavens and the earth. Death sufferings diseases and losses are all to make you educated and to make you strong and to make you humble. So dont be arrogant and look at the universe. Do you see any shortage of anything? What is with God is everlasting. Certainly God is expanding the universe with great might and he is beyond this universe and yet he is omnipresent and nothing is hidden from him. He knows the inner most thoughts of your mind and certainly its he who inspires us with good and evil thoughts to test us. Only evil people will choose evil path. So you came earth and already witnessed your first creation. Soon you will die and wakeup in your new body with same fingerprints and you will not be able to escape. That is the day when earth will be prominent and barren ground with no water no mountains and you all will raise at once look on in anticipation. THAT IS THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT!
Wow, this may be first video I immediately watched a 2nd time. So well-presented and very thought-provoking to me. Maybe because of my bias in that I agree it is way too early to know if we are likely alone.
We already know we're not alone. Although we haven't seen "them" we have seen and recorded their transportation devises and or drones. I've seen what ever they are, the the military has seen and recorded and even measured what ever they are, for years. We know how fast they are and have some video of what ever they are. I spend a lot of time in the desert near military installations. They seem interested in our military more than our shopping malls. They observed our nuclear program and our air force. They regularly spend time stalking our pilots. We have them on both video and radar.
@@TheBandit7613 If a weird thing hovers around a military base, it's more likely it's a weird thing from the military base than a weird thing from outer space. If a military person says it's not their equipment and it moves in a manner that's impossible, it's more likely that the military person lies about it than it's from outer space.
@@TheBandit7613 You can't say I say it and we will take that . Science doen't believe in your eyes brother , it requires evidence - repeatable on experiment table . Next time you saw something set up a science camp and help them conduct experiment repeatedly . Thank You .
So, he is alone when far greater critical thinkers with far better knowledge look at the astronomical mind boggling number of known galaxies let alone planets, use common sense..lol
One of Brian Cox's friends who is a biologist told him he thinks at best, there may only be slime in the rest of our galaxy. Because of his biology education, he knows just how unlikely life is.
Wonderful lecture. Thank you, especially, for the green-ball-in-the-urn analogy. I've looked for a way to explain to people that if we happen to be the only intelligent creatures in the galaxy, then naturally we're going to assume that we're the default case. But the green-ball analogy does a nice job of showing this bias for what it is.
On 10:20 you das WE are assuming Out chemistry ist Special. But INDEED IT IS SPECIAL Every Form of Life dependas on large molecilules, and Carbon is the onlypossible element Life 0n a silicaon Base is impossible because WE would exhale silicaon Oxide, in other words SAND. HÄNDLER MUST BE A SOLVENT, ANDERTEN ONLY BE WATER AS IT IS A. POLAR LIQUID. SO ALL POSSIBLE LIFE FORMS MUST DEPEND ON CARBON AND (liquid)WATER. So der Planet must have a temperature in which water is Liquid
I adhere to Prof Brian Cox’s thoughts regarding intelligent life. Highly improbable because of the time spans involved and the possibility that intelligent life may tend to eradicate itself at some point.
Professor Cox has adopted the same position as his friend who is a biologist. He says there is likely, at best to be only slime in the rest of the milky way galaxy.
I think so too. The early start argument suggests that life could be common. However intelligent life may be extremely rare. For all we know intelligence might prove to be a dead end on the evolution tree. But of course no one knows.
The problem with the approach of this lecture (and astronomers many times), is that it treats the evolution of life like a roll of the dice, and then looks at the whole things as an exercise in probability. But NOTHING else in science works like that. Put it this way - what are the odds, when you put the right ingredients together in the right way and place them in the oven for a set amount of time at a certain temperature, uninterrupted - that you will produce a cake? The 'odds' are 100%. That's because, unless one is talking about quantum mechanics (which is far below the scale of biochemistry) - physics, chemistry, and nature is not 'random'. We have NO REASON to think that, if the right ingredients are in the right conditions, for the right amount of time, that life would not emerge EVERY SINGLE TIME, without fail. If it didn't, it would be like heating up ice and it sometimes not melting into liquid. That's not how ANYTHING works. You put a healthy seed into the ground in the right conditions and it WILL grow into a tree. The only thing that seems random is that the 'right conditions' are sometimes interrupted by things we weren't aware of. So, in the question of life, we need only ask, "How common are the ingredients and conditions on earth, for a similar time span, found throughout the universe?" That should be the MINIMUM amount of life in the universe. Because, if it isn't, one must be saying that biochemistry works in a non-scientific random and unpredictable way that nothing else in the universe works like - a very far fetched idea that doesn't come close to surviving Occam's Razor.
@@atmanbrahman1872 but you did say 99% You clearly are a the top leading scientist in the world and deserve recognition if your research truly led you to a mathematical precise number of 99% probability that we are alone. But here you are on a YT comment section…
1/3 of the way through and he hasn't used any science. It's distance and time. calculate the time it takes to get to the nearest possible alien. it's FAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He believes in people having Biases' in believing there is life out there, instead of people trusting science and the law of probability. I don't know why religious people always have to fight science on so many fronts, and now to pretend we are the only thinking creatures in the universe - that is extremely arrogant.
@@mrzoinky5999 I fail to see how saying "earthlings (humans, dolphins, bacteria, and everything in between) are the only current life in the visible universe" is arrogant. Earth's creatures did not get there from their own merit. They did not will themselves into existence while preventing others from emerging, they just happened to survive and become diverse over time.
@@mrzoinky5999 I don't think you understand religious people at all. You're being very arrogant in thinking that all religious people simply pretend we are the only thinking creatures in the universe. The reality is, we have no idea what's going on. All you know is that one day you were here and have memories. That's it. It could all be an illusion. Time may not exist. We may very well be alone. There could be a creator. Who knows? Don't assume that just because someone is religious, they are wrong. You don't know and they simply have faith in something larger. Also, there no such thing as "trusting science."
"However, I would say that everything we know about the galaxy so far is consistent with us being alone" And the problem with this statement (along with many others in this video) is that there may be as many as 2 trillion galaxies in the *visible* universe. So are we now extrapolating that all 2 trillion galaxies must be consistent with our own? Even if that were true, there would be one life form in every galaxy, implying trillions. But now we are assuming that *all* two trillion galaxies are 1. Like our own milky way and 2. Don't, in their case, have even one life form like us. I hope I've demonstrated the cherry picking required in Kipping's argument.
We live in such an exciting time having access to all of this info etc even back 40 yrs ago so much of this wasn't availiable! Keeping an open mind to everything is so important!
This is a subject that I've considered for some time. One of the aspects of being in space that rarely gets talked about is that humans begin to deteriorate as soon as they go into space and may well be that why we never see aliens because they are as tied to their planet just like us. And then again there are the impossible distances involved.
dont be stupid, that like saying humans cant breath on water.. therefor we arent meant to be in the swimming pool. Have you seen how fast some of these ufo travel? and the amount of ufo footages alone, already suggest otherwise. I think the probability that we are alone is NIL. its bloody stupid to thikn otherwise ,,,data shows that in our galaxy alone, theres about 300 million potentially habitable planet. Thats just our galaxy. Theres about 2 trillion galaxy.... its just seem so stupid to think were alone otherwise. Its beyond DUMB
> tied to their planet just like us probably by design, if the universe is infinite there is nothing unique, I don't buy the argument of the video, there is nothing special here.
@@fmeloThere's a lot special here. Kipping does a great job of debunking status quo arguments publicly paraded from mainstream/celebrity scientists or dumb podcasters *Rogan, who love presenting life like it's such a sure thing but ultimately have no more evidence for it than statistical speculation.
incredible lecture, professor kipping. a breath of fresh air after hearing so many scientists conclude there has to be life in the universe other than us.
Fresh air? Are you serious? He brings nothing new to the table and spends 25 min telling us what we already know. Of course nobody knows for certain and he criticized deGrasse Tyson as if his comments on entertainment tv were an actual scientific journal. Those who cant do science are quick criticize the ones who do. I am sure Tyson knows the difference between mathematical certainty and personal beliefs. If he cant understand that he was expressing his beliefs and that he was not presenting to actual scientific audience then he needs to self check and rethink his career.
@@davidvega1097 Kipping was being scientific. Tyson forgot he is a "physicist" and was just speaking his mind, which might also amount to nonsense. Tyson should have stuck to the actual science. A few years ago, a team of scientists at The University of Oxford arrived at the same conclusion as Kipping did using Bayesian statistics--that we might very well be alone in the universe.
@@stellarspacetraveler he was using what you call no sense to make his conclusion appear valid and make himself look smart. Now just because your a physicists does not mean you can’t be an expert in other sciences. Our brains don’t stop working if it is a subject outside our original study area. Besides this guy and all those statistics came to a whopping conclusion that we just don't know. I understand this as an actual exercise in logic but for this guy to spend 25 min is ridiculous. Now for anyone to publish this conclusion is just plain moronic. These people cant come up with their own things and they take simple things and blow them up just to make them sound smarter than he is. Now Tyson I am certain he know that his claims are not scientific or mathematically valid (I have no doubt he can do the math). Everyone with half a brain knows we just don’t know for sure as of today. Also, speculating on things that may one day be proven otherwise has lead to the creation of wonderful discoveries and inventions. They make me feel like publishing a scientific paper to prove if there is life after death.
Earth is a realm. We are unique. We are 100% alone. Space travel is non-existent. We have been lied too. Things are not what they seem. We can't leave here. Moon travel is a dream, not a reality. We are much more special than we realise. How did we start? What's our purpose? Everything, whatever that is, moves around us.
Thank you! I've been thinking along these lines ever since I read biologist Robert Shapiro's book "Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth". It may be that abiogenesis is extremely rare.
I still think that life is common out there. There's plenty of reasons to do so. Intelligent life is a whole other matter and I'm more sceptical about that. But ever since I saw this lecture, I've had to admit that my point of view is almost entirely based on hope and not data or fact. There is no evidence as of yet for or against... Only educated guesses that can go either way. Which is kinda awesome in itself. And really fun to think about.
@@johanwittens7712 I agree. I think it would be awesome if there were life out there and it is definitely highly possible that life (at least very basic versions of it) is common. But currently there is no evidence for or against and a lot of people forget or outright deny this.
This lecture is overblown. He literally contradicts himself by bringing up survivor bias and the folly of using our sample of 1 to extrapolate on life elsewhere, but then goes on to do the very same with the ridiculous timeline example. The point he made about arrogance being an emotional appeal was a good one however.
There is data; recall sea life at heat vents in a non oxygen environment. That is the best evidence we have that living organisms evolve based on conditions presented. As for intelligent live, I agree with Kipping.
Just wanted to say that I’m on exactly the same boat as you. I have had these exact thoughts and beliefs on the matter for years now, and seeing it being so eloquently defended is a nice change of pace. It seems that taking a hardline stance that there _MUST_ be life out there in the universe other than us has been the prevailing dogma, and any criticism of it is reflexively dismissed without much thought. It really does seem to be a faith-based position that lacks the evidence to support it.
@@famalam943 Literally said 'biogenesis' or to be precise abiogenesis experiments where we attempt the formation of simple biological building blocks from naturally occurring chemistry. Also, there really are just lots of stars. And that argument has gotten much stronger as when it was first said it was commonly thought most stars had no planets or just had gas giants. Turns out rocky planets are far more common than anyone expected. This actually makes a lot of 'dork' sci-fi that presumes the earth is particularly unique in structure pessimistic.
We have observed exactly NOTHING that would lead us to believe that life exists outside of earth. Not time travelers, nor interdimensional or interstellar beings. I thought most of my life that there has to be something out there, but up to this point, looks like we are it.
Great lecture! Maybe we're not alone, but it sure seems like it. Sometimes in movies we see some crazily advanced aliens invading Earth... We're going to be those aliens.
Lately I've been thinking abiogenesis couldn't be that rare in the correct conditions, I don't think we (living organisms) got one lucky shot and it went well, I guess it had to happen with several (million?) autoreplicant non living molecules, or even million living ones, but that would perish really easily, even in these acceptable natural conditions. Complex life is a whole new level & a different story
It’s still all guesswork and speculation. We don’t know the probability of abiogenesis, and without that information, we can not accurately assess the likelihood of life elsewhere in the universe.
Mr. Kipping, you have quickly become one of my favorite science educators. Looking forward to your future content with great excitement. I am an electrical engineer that absolutely loves physics and science.
It’s not just that space is vast, but also that time is vast. Perhaps there was once a civilization in our galaxy that sent out radio signals hoping to find other life, but it ceased to exist billions of years before humans discovered how to detect those signals.
This has been exactly my point for decades and it rarely gets discussed. The chances of another civilisation existing in our blink of an eye in time is infinitesimally small, let alone the narrow slice of time we have been aware of the concept.
@@HowardKlein1958 Yes. It is a very well-discussed and known topic. Remember that time and space are the same thing, therefore when talking about the vastness of space you're also talking about the vastness of time.
The numbers, however, are very compelling for a reasoned argument, based on statistics, for the likelihood of life elsewhere beyond the Earth or our system. I agree though that there's as yet, no evidence for this logical inference. Emphatically, I'm not talking about emotional 'belief', but rather logical inference.
Beings as intelligent as humans gotta be super rare. If we didn’t have Jupiter we wouldn’t have evolved because extinction level meteors would have killed all life on Earth. If we didn’t have the moon there would be chaos as far as weather and seasons at the level where once again, evolution would be difficult. If Earth didn’t have a tilt, same thing. Weather so bad that evolution to intelligent life would be difficult. And what if we didn’t have 7 other planets? What if it was just Earth and Mars? We would probably not be in the Goldilocks zone. So the chances of a star like ours, with a moon, with 7 other planets, with a tilt, with a Jupiter is super rare. Just an educated guess.
17:45 I have always said that I believe our moon to be an under-considered factor in our hypotheses as to why it appears we are alone in the cosmos. From the circumstances of its formation, to its precise mass, reflective luminosity, and the fact that it is tidally locked are all variables that I think should be considered more when looking at potential candidates for habitable exoplanets. One of the reasons I follow Professor Kipping's research is because he and his team specialize in surveying exomoons and I truly believe that may be where the answers we are looking for lie.
@@mezzb What was the entire point of Professor Kipping's lecture? Evidence! Don't make assumptions. Don't say just because there are a lot of worlds out there -100 quadrillion, more or less - more than one of them MUST have life? Evidence. There is no evidence we are alone or not, either way.
@@kaczan3 you have to separate the work from the politics Who gives a damn? Grow up Consider that perhaps he doesn't even believe in that nonsense, but doesn't want to lose the platform TH-camrs are essentially wannabe hollywood actors anyway, we don't know who any of these people truly are
Very good, I agree with quite a bit of what you said. However, Carl Sagan’s comment about faith is wrong. You need evidence to have faith otherwise you are gullible to almost everything that is said. Unfortunately many people do have blind faith in science and religion and the so called scientists being interviewed is a typical example of fame and greed in the realm of funding. Unsupported faith is included with quite a bit of what you mentioned - Abiogenesis, you obviously believe it is possible? Have you evidence of the mechanism involved? In other words - prove it, I will believe facts. Statistics are great, you like them but you did not use them to suggest that abiogenesis was believable, was this tergiversating? The whole concept of finding life elsewhere in the universe is based on abiogenesis - your video was excellent but was it all true? Just because we are here does not mean abiogenesis worked! I purchased the book 'Was God An Astronaut' or 'Chariots of the gods', written by Eric Von Daniken, in 1970. I read the first chapter then threw it in the bin - trash but I was glad it was just a paperback. I love science and even scientific theory but unfortunately scientists cross the line when they drop the word 'theory'. Thank you for your video.
"There must be life in the universe because there must be life in the universe" is trap math. It sounds like "a lateral thinker can't afford the rocket writers tech equipment they need because a lateral thinker can't afford the rocket writers tech they need". It sounds like "There is no such thing as perfection. Everything that exists is imperfect" (Stephen Hawkings). It reminds me of E equals MC squared , which exactly leaves out the equation for abiogenesis "proximity x instantaneity". It's very "It is because it is". .. isn't it.
These statement puzzle me. There are more humans living safely then ever. The idea we are trapping enough heat to cause reverse habitation is not actually predicted in the severe models. More about economic adjustments and real painful tradeoffs sure. But in the context of choice, who leaves a power grid? I will take Crichton's Travels to the beach, but stay there forever? (Okay the pool.)
The twin belief of Were Doomed is Aliens Are Many And Look Down On Us. The twin platitudes of the discomfited athiest. It makes me wonder if the Catholics and snake handling Baptists like Carries mom did not at least have a more interesting and vivid imaginative world of statues and business (Carries mom worked 40 hours a week at the plant till an injury) than our mopey sad cafe mod boys.
Also factoring in the numerous catastrophic events in earth’s history all the way up to the Younger Dryas, it’s amazing we are here at all - or here as a result of those cataclysms.
Great lecture. Dr. Kipping is completely correct. I personally want there to be a Star Trek like universe out there just waiting for us to discover it, but what we've currently observed shows no evidence of that. You can get into as many thought experiments using statistics as you want, but at the end of the day we just don't know. Those thought experiments are important, don't get me wrong, but they prove nothing. This might not be very exciting, but this time we live in is very important. As Obi Wan said in Star Wars, we have "taken your first step into a larger world." Keep learning everyone!
You literally have no idea what you're talking about and clearly have done zero investigation. But pat yourself on the back and tell yourself you're smart. 🤓
@@sarcastaball Technically, if the universe is infinite in size then there is life out there, even if the chance is extremely low. Any sort of life around us, however, is a different story.
once again you have blown my mind David. I love your thinking process. I am hoping the evidence for life on other planets comes in my lifetime :) and if not mine then my sons. I know it was a real let down that you couldn't get the time on the james webb but don't worry your time will come!!! your are the best of the best of the best :)
@@REALdavidmiscarriage If you had watched the video you would understand that this is EXACTLY what he was arguing. Wait for conclusive evidence before taking a definitive stance.
@@REALdavidmiscarriage really ignorant statement considering the mere presence of a lot of planets doesn't tell you much if anything about the likelihood of life being on those planets.
@@Smoomty septillions of planets! Whats really ignorant is your lack of understanding of statsitics and scale... Take a few classes and physics and mathematics and maybe you will understand. Just alone the possibility of there being exactly 1 planet out of 2000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 is hubris of the highest order. I'd sooner believe in the book of mormon than believe the ideas you are proposing 😂
While I used to be on the "life is everywhere" side for years, the deeper I looked into astrophysics and biology (especially) after my university days were over, the less likely I saw this position as being correct. These days, I'm pretty convinced we're certainly alone in the galaxy as far as civilizations go, probably alone in the local group, and life itself may very well be so incredibly rare that we're alone in the galaxy even as far as simple life goes. There was a time when most astro scientists, including myself (an amateur, with a degree), believed that abiogenesis is not THE filter, that things like the complex life from simple life, or intelligent/sentient/sapient life from complex life were far greater filters. However, once I realized my bias towards astrophysics and away from biology was firmly a part of my thinking and actually dove deep into biology of the cell and simple life, I abandoned that approach and it's clear abiogenesis is by far the greatest filter of all. We're talking about a cell, a complex machine on par with a modern CPU. Imagine getting a bunch of silicon, adding some other elements, making goo, adding some heat, lightning, maybe some light, putting it in a blender for a billion years, and expecting a Ryzen 7000 to come out, the whole idea of it is ridiculous. And the fact science has been looking, experimenting with understanding the origins of life and we're absolutely nowhere with it is telling. I should just stick to physics, astrobiology is too depressing.
It's rare to see someone identify abiogenesis as being as significant a hurdle as you note. It's many orders of magnitude more difficult a hurdle than most people comprehend, or want to accept. It has always been odd to me that people can be so absolutely adamant that life, and intelligent life, exist "out there" in the universe.
While I agree that as life gets more complex it gets far less likely to survive Earth has shown that even those complicated cells can survive very extreme planetary climate changes and hostile environments. I suspect we will find that basic life, something like DNA or RNA will happen on many planets but it will be a very select few that get beyond that, and even fewer that get beyond that survive. But I do think that if basic life can get that planetary foothold and get lucky it will survive quite a while and possibly even evolve. After that I don't think we know enough to say if it will evolve past something basic. We just don't know what the drivers where for life to push beyond those simple cells into something even far more complex. I don't agree with you analogy of the "blender" and "Ryzen 7000," I don't think humans are able to really understand the deep time and extremely gradual (and probably mostly useless/dead end) changes that would of occurred. We are great at many things but not so much at that.
@@Swarm509 "extreme planetary climate change" What is extreme for earth doesn't ever put it within the range of literally any planet we know about. What is extreme to us is still insignificant in terms of actual planetary climate. For the rest of your argument, please rewatch teh video and see if the professor didn't actually address them before you made them.
Even if we are alone in the Local Group, that's still only a minute portion of the galaxies in the whole universe. But you're right, it's probably a much much rarer occurance than many think.
There's no clear evidence either way on abiogenesis being likely or not. So you pretty much went from one baseless belief to the next, apparently completely missing the point of this video that you should remain agnostic in the absence of evidence. Also, you seem to think that abiogenesis is the spontaneous formation of living cells as complex as those we see today. That's completely wrong. It probably started out as just some self-replicating molecules. Cell membranes and the complex machinery in modern cells probably evolved from that much later.
.. when the conditions are just right, as on Earth, life is unavoidable .. but there are so many variables that to get everything just right for life is .. extremely rare.
Scientists have assembled all ingredients for life, put them the ideal environment, provided stimulation, but no life formed. Just-right chemical and environmental conditions don't seem to be enough. Perhaps a big dollop of (unknown) extreme random chance is needed on top of the extreme random chance of there being just-right chemical and environmental conditions.
Respectfully, your first statement has no scientific basis. There is a return lately to the God hypothesis. Your assumption is that the Origen of life was a totally natural process. You cannot assume that the information on human DNA came from nothing
Unavoidable bc of the fact that we exist. But we have no idea how many variables and factors of chance played into the equation that resulted in life at all, let alone multicellular life, then incredibly sophisticated conscious intelligent life. The odds could be 10^-100000 for all we know for any of those tiers of life forming
@@dzenacs2011 yes that’s exactly my point haha. We cannot possibly know with any confidence in either direction without more data. I just dislike how commonly I see the misconception that because there are 100 billion stars in the Milky Way, life is guaranteed to be everywhere. There’s zero data to possibly predict how common or uncommon it is
Whilst I wouldn't say that we are alone in the entire universe, I would say that life that observes itself, like we do, is extremely rare. Kipping says(or infers) that we are not special, but in reality we are, extremely special, if only because we are extremely rare.
The movie "Contact" (1997) was based on Carl Sagan's book of the same name. In it, the main character Ellie Arraway (Jodie Foster) returns from a visit to a planet with intelligent life saying we're not common. She says "Now I realize how rare and precious we all are" I just really loved that line.
Dinosaurs ruled the Earth for hundreds of millions of years and the cataclysm that wiped them out set the conditions that led to humans. There is no reason why life on Earth had to evolve to intelligent life. The same holds true for any other planet that may have life on it.
Considering the speed of light, we might have already seen a planet where life exist, but the planet is just so far away, that we only saw it in its pre-life form. maybe the same planet, 20 lightyears away, currently has life on it.
Wonderful analysis from Prof Kipping. The one thing that I have always wondered is whether having a moon is/was important in the development of life. Many, many exoplanets, may be in the goldilocks zone, but without a moon to create tides, maybe they never create life.
The moon is still a mystery as far as I know. I've heard theories that the moon had once contributed to a shared magnetosphere on Earth. The tides don't seem any more necessary for life than oxygen. Mind you, there are forms of life on Earth that do not use oxygen respiration for metabolic function. Those forms of life also exist on a vastly different time scale (kinda like slow motion, but for the metabolism; which seemed to require unique conditions like being subterranean [which limits interactions with predators or environmental hazards]). The speed of life is a problem unsolved, and often not considered in regards to intelligence. There may be intelligent life that blinks in and out of existence in weeks; where our existence has taken hundreds of thousands of years. I don't really like this lecture; it doesn't define life. It presupposes life as "recognizable" to our senses (or the instruments commanded by our senses). We very well may require AI to seek out languages spoken in ways we cannot theorize in the span of one career.
I’ve watched other lectures, were not only was a large moon crucial, but also our axis tilt…likely secondary to the collision with what would become our moon. Our magnetic core. Having large gas giants shielding us from many asteroids, etc. So many crucial variables.
@@travishayes840 Glad to hear that I am not alone. I was not saying that these things were essential, I was just wondering out loud in the hope that Prof Kipping or others might be sparked to consider the possibility.
I know why I’m still alone, I keep watching videos like this instead going out 😂
Lol ! 😂 that was a good one ☝️
Society is overrated.
Touch Grass
So basically this lecture boil down to… we are the top of the hierarchy in the universe … a god ?
you are assuming that you wouldn't be alone if you went out...
"Oracle. Are we alone in the universe?" she asked.
"Yes," said the Oracle.
"So there's no other life out there?"
"There is. They're alone too."
very good
I really like this. 👍Very solemn but very much true.
We all will die in future they will too
I prefer to ask ALEXA.
Bingo. We're not alone in the cosmos, just very far away from everybody else.
The fact that intelligent life only formed shortly before Earth becomes uninhabitable is really interesting. I'd never thought of it that way.
The planet gets uninhabitable because we ruin it. Without humans the planet stays habitable for 500 million years
The conditions for life that our planet enjoys are so many and so particular, makes you think about how the universe works: it doesn't repeat itself. It is us who give the same label to different things. It would be awesome to find intelligent life somewhere else, but I really don't have any expectations. Just life, not intelligent life, I think it is easier to expect. Or, intelligence without life: is that possible?
We don't even know if intelligent life is a surefire products of evolution anyway, life doesn't need to be intelligent like us to survive, dumb life is acceptable as long as they survive and that's all evolution "care about"
It's not becoming uninhabitable though.
@@uku4171 not currently, but once the sun starts to change in another billion years, it will almost overnight
The truly sad thing is that whether we are alone or not, humanity as a whole doesn't revere our incredible gift of existence. We fight and we squander and we're petty, all while taking for granted how magnificent it is to be here.
You never got sick or hungry or crippled, or chewed to pieces. It is a brutal world built on mutual consumption.
We have everything we need to become something better...
Yet we are still infants on a cosmic timescale
because here sucks.
Existence is a disease, and extinction is the cure.
Sometimes we are. But sometimes we save kittens, and hug crying people, and write poetry and love and dance and sing and dream.
“I don’t know” is often the only honest thing a wise man can say.
very true
I know, right?
@@mpetrison3799 😉
Are you sure about that?
@@WilhelmFreidrich 🤷🏻♂️
"Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.”
-Arthur C Clarke
Neither is terrifying. We should learn to deal with either possibility.
@@ungmd21 yes, also the quote is overused lmao
Not really, if we're alone we can seed the galaxy with no external competition. We have each other which is very sufficient
We hv a lot of questions but answers evade us. We know of this one life. Humanity. Us. Whether there is life other than us in another form on another planet with again a different form to sustain that life form we do not know. If they exist they are invisible to us. Are we invisible to them. We are not alone. There are other dimensions in the Universe. What about the trillions of humanity in some other dimension who have finished with their experiences over here. They have moved on. May be they could help us with some answers.
@@mrnrnh8 As Dr Kipping said to conclude, for now we really don't know. You cannot know right now that we are not alone
We may be alone or we may be effectively alone. It is a distinction without a difference...
We aren't alone. The aliens are here, RIGHT NOW. It's a verified fact. The most advanced military in the world verified the footage of non-human technology (see Tictac). This isn't a question anymore! No more "swamp gas" or "it was Venus". The aliens are REAL and HERE. Why do people keep acting like this is a question anymore? Stop living in denial!
We may see light from other long dead civilizations or receive a message that is millions of light years old. That's probably the best we can hope for.
We will almost certainly die with our bubble.
Andromeda galaxy is the nearest one to ours. It's approx 2.5 million LIGHT YEARS away. If you leave earth today at the speed of light, it would take 2.5 million years to reach Andromeda.
Finally! Michael Crichton made similar points some years ago (it would take a fiction writer with a scientific mind to sniff out BS so keenly). The compounding of UNKNOWN variables still make them unknown. That popular scientific personalities talk about the Drake equation and other similar notions with such bias has seriously dumbed down the scientific dialogue in our society. We also talk about modeling in other areas in the same way, as if these equations are not speculative but somehow predictive. Kudos to Dr. Kipping for treating science like a process, not a corruptible worldview.
Well Tbf two of his examples weren't scientists
His right about one thing ! Life has a short time ⏲️ to become intelligent life + get to age of modern technology + be able to have the Intelligent to want to leave they're planet. Intelligent life + life may only be around for a short period of time. Universe is a dangerous place.
@@A_Stereotypical_Heretic here is the definition of a scientist in its strictest sense:
a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.
"a research scientist"
From this, we can surmise that a scientist need not have a PhD. A person can attain expert knowledge from independent research, without having gone to university and received a PhD.
This would accurately describe Bill Nye, whom has devoted a massive portion of his adult life to the study of more than one field of science. He is respected by professors and the greater scientific community.
So, a scientist he is, a qualified professor with a doctorate he is not.
Absolutely.
What he wrote in 2003: "More recently we have seen the rise of the so-called 'Rare Earth'
theory which suggests that we may, in fact, be all alone. Again, there is no evidence either way."
This is an ignorant person's skepticism. He doesn't know anything, so he doubts everything. Equally fallacious, he plays up correct theories that initially weren't accepted... until there was evidence, but he doesn't emphasize that requirement, as Sagan does at 21:30. So he scorns assertions of likelihood when there is evidence (he doesn't know of) and scorns the establishment for dismissing theories that he deems sufficiently backed by evidence when they aren't. I would be embarrassed to have written with such a tone of playground antagonism for that level of audience (see link), while also betraying an inconsistent standard of empirical support.
Sure, Africa and South America "fit" together, but there also seems to be a face on Mars. Coincidences happen, so evidence needs to be accumulated--such as similar fossils below the time of continental separation and dissimilar species above. When you take pictures from a closer distance and different angles, the facial symmetry vanishes. This evidence takes time to amass. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Or as Feynman tried to teach with his license plate explanation, you can't use the hint that gives you the initial hunch to test that very hunch. Unlikely things happen all the time, so you need to collect _new_ data to see if it supports the hunch. The ubiquity of rare events is why hypothesis testing seems very conservatively structured to the uninitiated.
Feynman's UFO discussion with a "layman" distinguishes whether talk of knowns or talk of likelihoods is scientific. Sure, we don't _know_ that we're not being visited by space aliens, but that doesn't make us unscientific to take sides and say it's highly unlikely. We _can_ talk about likelihood, given what we already know. That is in fact allowed, when there's data. Bayesian reasoning _is_ consistent with the scientific method. Or as Feynman put it, from what he knows about the world around him, reports of UFOs have more to do with the known, irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than with the unknown, rational characteristics of extraterrestrial intelligence. As Christopher Hitchens would point out, one of the rules of oratory is that arguments presented without evidence can just as easily be dismissed without evidence. But that's not what's going on in this case. 100B galaxies of 100B stars cooking for 14B years is what Kipping is taking on, as is the Miller-Urey experiment. Slowly evidence is amassing in the astronomical and biochemical fields on both the ease and difficulty of abiogenesis and convergent evolution of technology-wielding intelligence, and the time to cook up the heavier elements that assist life. The trouble is when people make assertions that "we just don't know" as an excuse to dismiss talk of likelihoods, use of Bayesian reasoning, and evidence that already exists. To do so is just indulging in a false equivalency. And it's especially annoying when it's born of their own ignorance of evidence that already exists (an agnosticism of laziness).
stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf
Videos like this make me grateful to be alive in the time of the internet.
Lol. and doing a bank transfer worth an amount of 234.93
This talk shows typical scientific lack of knowledge, focusing on the external. All truth of life is found within. The external is purely a temporary sensory reflection. Having "hope" that there's life out there is simply a lack of self knowledge, and encourages people to focus on the external, which again leads to a lack of self knowledge. I recommend listening to Barry Long, a legitimate spiritual teacher.
@@michaeltsung9741 So what is the truth of life?
@@JohnyG29 The truth of life is that I, the reader (not the writer, since the writer is a "you", not an "I") am life itself. I am all life, and all life is in me. However to realise, which is to make real, that truth, requires living the spiritual life, or the divine life. I recommend spiritual teacher Barry Long as a "real deal" teacher, which is a very rare thing, who can act as a guide until such time as you no longer require a teacher. Barry passed in 2003, but left behind a large body of work.
@@michaeltsung9741 Ain't nobody got it figured out, and never will.
A true scientist is supposed to think this way. Great Lecture!
Indeed but what is a TV Scientist supposed to say under pressure :)
"Supposed to", the operative term here...he excises the inextricable from his pedestrian comments.
Well if scientists support every viewpoint imaginable, what good are they? I can get that opinion asking my neighbor. At a certain point, "experts" need to give you an expert opinion otherwise they are not experts.
True scientist also thinks of ways to look for life elsewhere, and so we are.
I agree with you completely. Very few scientists (e.g. Richard Feynman) have stressed the danger of expectancy bias and the importance of agnosticism in some specific cases. I am personally an agnostic when it comes to the existence of God and anthropogenic global warming (later conveniently renamed climate change).
I am quite familiar with the Pupin Physics and Astronomy building where Dr. Kipping gives his lectures. I got my PhD degree from Columbia in 1978, and I wish I could be there 45 years later to meet Dr. Kipping in-person.
We're here because of four and a half billion years of un believable luck.
If the dinosaurs never died off, would intelligent life have ever evolved here?
Seems like a statement of faith
Since when is Bill Nye a Scientist??
This is a tremendous lecture.
Thank you.
I watched it with my visiting alien friend. He thought the arguments very good indeed as well. ;)
its basic stuff found in the first paragraphs of the first chapter of any decent analysis on the prospects of alien life; and a distraction from the correct best answer we currently have. Astronomers are good at pointing telescopes at stars and looking at spectrographs, but typically bad at logical analysis / reasoning on the prospects of alien civilization. The first law of reasoning for alien civilization is never trust an astronomer's analysis, they have all sorts of screwed up bias and archaic modes of thinking. Astronomers are among the last people to be consulted this on matter.
Ok onto the elephant in the room, the biggest myth of our times, which the naive astronomer didn't address, and has never objectively thought about it in his life and never will:
1. The idea that alien civilization would blast out radio communication, loud and clear, hence our satellite dishes should be jammed with alien radio transmissions.
This myth was created back in the early days of radio communication around the 1920s when most transmissions were sent uncoded. Thinkers at the time assumed radio comm would remain that way practically forever. Today most radio comm is encoded so that it resembles random noise; but it is digital as apposed to analogue, which distinguishes it from natural background noise. However it is easy to convert a digital radio stream into an analogue stream then add a few pseudo noise fx to make it completely indistinguishable from natural background noise, except for those with the encryption keys. This is how aliens communicate.
2. The myth that we can detect the tiniest signals from the other side of the universe. Actually, our best technology ( Nasa Deep Space Network ) can detect synthetic information from a synthetic source from about at maximum 180AU or one light-day away; it is 6 orders of magnitude smaller than the detection sensitivity we'd need to evesdrop info from the nearest star system.
In case you haven't noticed, we can barely detect exo planets directly. If a whole exo planet can't generate enough waves to be detected by our best scopes, its going to be hard to detect an artificial source unless its pointed directly at us, and for us. This leads us onto
3. The idea of convenience that aliens want to communicate with us. In technology they are millions or billions of years ahead of us. It would be like us trying to comm with bacteria in the dirt. What is the purpose? Just to poke the bacteria and do experiments on it.
Any discussion about alien civ should address these points. The astronomer's lecture was conspicuously lacking, like a half man lacking half his body and head.
4. The myth that inter stellar aliens comm using spherical wave broadcasts, this one's again from the 1920s. For interstellar space it is more sensible to use rasers ( radio equivalent of laser ) to aim a coherent beam at a target star system. (a) less power useage, (b) much better stealth; no other star system would detect the signal. The chance that we'd sit between 2 alien star systems and be able to intercept their signals is extremely low, and in these cases, aliens can simply divert signals around the solar system. That we might postcept signals after they pass their target star can be stopped by alien engineering, they can adjust their rasers to difuse enough to be too weak to detect past the target star system and also the target star system can send out an neutralizing wave signal to reduce the signal beyound the receiver.
Show me the astronomer lecture that mentions these points. protip: u can't because astronomers are dumb.
@Jota Efe that astronomer got a big applause, 354K views, 11k likes, and 3447 praising comments in 3 weeks for "neither prooving nor disproving anything." Glad that we give credit where its due.
@@plasmaastronaut Aho.
@@plasmaastronaut TH-cam Ph.D. in the room.
I took a long time for life to become multi cellular, and it took a long time for multi cellular life to become intelligent enough to create technologies and it took a long time for technological life to develop the abilities we have as modern humans. What we have no clue about is how long we can persist after we have developed the ability to wipe ourselves out. Sixty years so far, and counting.
That’s selective perception. Just like how science accepted that galaxies like ours were impossible in the early universe. Well early from our perspective. Yet, we have located galaxies like ours that have disproven this theory.
Actually, for most of the time life was unicellular on earth, for billions of years. And that might be the norm that most planets have without ever having a multicellular creature
Yeah sure😂
What he's not taking into account are the several world extinction events that happened on planet Earth. It doesn't take as long as he is suggesting for intelligent life to evolve. That throws out a huge chunk of his argument.
Only knock to that is the Earth being 4.5 billion years old. When the Universe is 13.8 billion years old. So life on a similar planet could of had 3 times then time we did to get intelligent life.
FINALLY someone speaking straight about this subject. Thank you.
It's nonsense is what it is
So one of his major arguments is because we don't know exactly how many planets there are we can't make a positive claim that there is life anywhere but earth. What a trash argument in fact all you have to do is look up to see that everything in the universe is repeated constantly over and over and nothing is special and contained to any one area. Besides that you don't have to look any further than our own existence for evidence that alien life exist. In an endless amount of space what happens once will happen over and over. Everything in the universe is repeatable.
@@matthewviramontes3131 yeah. it's distance and time to the nearest alien. Calculate the time it would take to the nearest alien, in the drake equation
Well, his whole take on the Copernican argument is just wrong, and it's surprising that he didn't really think it through. While it is natural to expect that a civilization would show a survivor's bias, that, by itself, doesn't invalidate the argument. You could still imagine what an external observer of the Universe would think if they found us in such a big Universe. They would still update their probability, based on that observation, and conclude that the probability that there's EXACTLY one civilization is much lower than there being at least a few. This is also precisely what you'd think if you spotted a bacterium in an aquarium. It's absolutely irrelevant to your conclusion what that bacterium thinks.
@@plafar7887 Totally agree Plafar.
WOW. A scientist who presents a rational cogent argument and still openly admits we really just don't know when it comes right down to it and we need more info. We could sure use a few more of this type of critical thinking scientist. Maybe even in the pharmaceutical industry.
WOW. Someone who thinks this scientist is unique in any way. Perhaps you’ve never learned what a scientist is?
Alone can mean either "the only" or it can mean "forever out of contact". It's easier to accept the latter than the former...
Not alone for sure ,all this engineering for nothing? We have no idea what’s beyond discernible horizon, not seeing don’t change reality.
I don't get why so many people are so obsessed with whether there is life elsewhere in the universe-which we are highly unlikely to find or interact with (though I'm not denying the watershed nature of either circumstance)-while humans demonstrate daily that they don't value other human life, nor all other life on this pale blue dot that we all occupy-and likely all will die upon, as will our very species, barring a sea change in how we behave towards each other, other life here, and the planet itself.
@@obiecanobie919 What engineering?
@Obie Canobie did you even watch the video you are commenting on??
Some of this from these scientists is deliberate disinformation
24:40...Anybody can see the blood vessels in the back of their eyes. It is an ordinary optical phenomenon. I have terrible eyesight - very near sighted. I reported seeing the back of my eyeball to my optometrist when I was in high school, and he thought I was crazy. I demonstrated it to him and he was amazed. It only requires a bright light source directed at a precise angle into the eyeball, which then projects a virtual image of the retina back through the lens, which you see in front of you. Percival Lowell possibly saw this virtual projection of his retina as he was peering through his telescope, but the canals seem to be only a bad interpretation of a low resolution image of the Mars surface details.
I always lean towards there being no other life. But if there is other life we are separated boat by distance and time. If there was or there is another civilization it is so far away in location we could never reach them. And they are so far separated in time that if they existed they are probably long gone by now and some other civilization might not of yet established itself.Add to that We don’t see anything in space in real time. All the light reaching us is old light. If we found a civilization We are seeing a civilization from billions of years ago. Is it still around? My guess is it isn’t. But if it was we could never get to it. Believing that sort of thing wins you know friends at parties.
His analysis of Percival Lowell is nonsense.
Oh really? How?
Fantastic, thanks for posting this David! Loved watching it.
I find this person to be VERY logical in his thinking !
And I watch his channel all the time .
I do not ALWAYS agree with his deduction, but I do MOST of the time !
DML.
A great talk and a point that needed to be made. Thanks to Cool Worlds, I feel comfortable in being agnostic about the possibilities for life, as you said. I want to believe, but someone needs to give me a good reason!
Once the entire Earth had no life whatsoever. No one knows how or why life began. If it happened before it can happen again.
Without watching, why are we alone?
@@zdcyclops1lickley190 but that's exactly the reasoning this video argues against? Just because it happened here doesn't mean life has happened elsewhere, let alone that it's ubiquitous or even common. As David Kipping said, the right answer is we don't know.
@@jamesgeary4294 just because life happened here doesnt mean it couldnt happen somewhere. Same hollow argument on your hollow argument
@@jamesgeary4294 This is what I'm struggling with. My take is all parties are saying "I think"...meaning "we don't know". One person's assumptions (the Fl value) are really no better than someone else's.
Given that, there has been a progression of 'likelihood' since the first images from hubble.
Q1: Are galaxies rare?
A: Seems not. Appears there are trillions (thx Hubble).
Q2: There are a lot of stars, are there planets with them?
A: Yes. Actually a lot. Around 10 or so planets is fairly common.
Q3: Are there a lot of planets in the habitable zone?
A: yes. Seems this is also common. We see the transits.
Q4: Of these planets in the habitable zone, do they also have similar characteristics to Earth?
A: We don't know. But this is what JWT should help with (measuring VRE - vegetation red edge).
This video, was all about this 4th question. What's the likelihood that these other planets are indeed similar to Earth?
What even constitutes similarity?
Dr. Kipping is a bracing gust of cool logic.
🦉
Well said
He's going to be blushing when life is eventually found on another planet/moon. The size of the universe means elements and environment will reoccur elsewhere.
Most star systems have 2 or 3 stars and have the larger planets inward.
We have never observed alien planets with moons as large as ours.
The circumstances of our system and planet are exceedingly rare.
Additionally, in 6 billion years, intelligent life has only evolved once--another rare circumstance.
@@d.s.5157
@@d.s.5157 I'm sure he also believes that the Roswell crash was had nothing to do with present alien life, or their technology, for that matter.
Brilliant and also very graspable for any semi intelligent non scientist. Appreciate his agnosticism on the topic…He speaks very clearly and supports a specific point of view…but entirely without arrogance…Thank You for sharing this lecture
At this point of our history the video title alone is sheer gaslighting if on purpose, and dumb ignorant narcissistic egocentristic naive arrogance already. not worth watching. Purpose of these type of statements today is to dumb down the masses deeper into ignorance to keep on controlling and profitting from them.
@@MilkoOfficialChannel Did you watch it? If you did, why are you using an emotional statement?
simple = in this universe , there is no any life form! maybe in another universe ( if it exist )
You opinion of it about being “x” to “z” is a hypothesis and would need to be tested.
Umm, _what_ , @@M4R10_?
Thank your for this lecture, Dr. Kipping! You and your family have a great Christmas and New Year!!
This talk shows typical scientific lack of knowledge, focusing on the external. All truth of life is found within. The external is purely a temporary sensory reflection. Having "hope" that there's life out there is simply a lack of self knowledge, and encourages people to focus on the external, which again leads to a lack of self knowledge. I recommend listening to Barry Long, a legitimate spiritual teacher.
@@michaeltsung9741 Sounds like pseudoscientific nonsense to me. A brief search of Barry Long suggest the same. That's not to say that internal spiritual exploration isn't beneficial or valid. It simply falls outside the realm of logic, and thus is particularly susceptible to charlatans and grifters. It's easy to create "knowledge" when it's not falsifiable or subject to empirical verification.
@@michaeltsung9741 All truth is found in Christ, not within.
@@florida8953 true ) 🙏✝️
Given distances,we might as well be alone, even if we aren't.
That assumes no life that persists that could be potentially millions if not billions of years ahead of us. Distances would be of no issue to even a very sublight travelling species or singularity like that.
Nearly every star has planets and there are billions upon billions of them. We are not alone.
Is this comment satire? Did you not watch the video? This argument was addressed. Knowing the sample size doesn’t tell you the likeliness of an event E occurring if we do not know the probability of E.
You’re not justified in claiming we are not alone.
Do the research. They are here. The evidence is overwhelming, including from many senior military personnel.
excellent presentation. i love my brain’s reaction to that time limit “we don’t have much time! only a billion years. need to spread elsewhere!” if we can survive another 10,000 years we’ll be doing well 😂
We have already survived for hundreds of thousands of years as Homo Sapiens.
Я, американец, тебе завидую, потому что в Америке люди в средне живут по 800 лет. И этому есть серьёзное доказательство, которое предоставляет ваша судебная система. Вашим некоторым маньякам суд даёт наказание по 500 лет, и даже по 700 лет, а это значит у всех американцев хорошее здоровье. И к маньякам в Америке очень хорошо относятся. После того, как эти нехорощие люди отсидят 300 лет, их за хорошее поведение могут досрочно освободить. Значит, американец, у вас имеется элексир бессмертия и вы эту велиеую тайну скрываете от международной общественности.
@@tolyamochin4066 что
Perspective from emotional bias seems to be a huge problem in science throughout our history. Please keep more of these coming, they’re incredible!
We need more teachers like this
Even “rational” physics is full of emotional bias with respect to its most essential premises.
Pretending is not same as knowing, the scale of the universe is way too much for a human brain to digest .Many issues here ,from basic know how to complex ones .Everything is made out of functional parts , if i exists so can others, kowtowing this issues pretty much requires exploration of all universe ,we can’t duplicate the most basics forms of life meaning we are in a very weak scientific position .
maybe thats the nature of the universe , where perspective and bias always change reality, and thats a good thing because that way we have new things, if everyone saw the universe the same way we'd all act the same way and that would be wierd and probably not lead to all what we have, so much variatey, choice. Even on this planet alone where all life shares some dna with each other, their take on how to express the code is vastly different. I dont think you cant have it both ways - predicability doesnt lead to variety and vice versa. Ultimately i think if we found an equation of the universe that would break the universe as it woudl be exploited and it doesnt look to be , but maybe has been before and the big bang could of been remnants of a past civilization who found the equation for everything and the universe too is evolving to compensate
it's why no one was allowed to ask a question about the vaccine
Somehow I think his arguments, while being eloquently expressed, are based on as many assumptions as many other theories.
No, he is advocating for saying “we don’t know” instead of making assumptions, because the probabilities are not known. He argues that it is unscientific to take things on faith. I agree.
Uh he addresses that uncertainty in many of his videos, u should check ‘em out!
I absolutely agree
This is an incredibly vague and obtuse comment. His main argument is that we don't know, and then he subsequently presents a number of examples debunking the status quo, that there 'must be a universe teeming with life'. Maybe you should elaborate.
we have one known, absolute fact - in the entire universe, in all we can see, billions and billions of lightyears in all directions...we have found no evidence of any other life in the entire universe
There is NO life out there until you have evidence of it.
Finally a sane approach to this question. Thanks so much. I am not alone.
I see what you did there :) Now you're definitely not alone :) Incidentally, Kipping is probably among the most brilliant astronomers of our generation, in my very humble view. His papers are remarkably creative. I highly recommend to read them if you're into these things. They should be readable for most people with some basic physics/astronomy background.
Fr man, so happy I found this video! I'm not willing to die on a hill for us being alone but it's always been strange to me how one sided this conversation is. Every other physicist/scientist talks about outside intelligent life as some sort inevitability so it's nice to finally hear a different perspective.
@@Retotion What you wise guys overlook is the fact that once we find even the tiniest microbe on Mars, or a moon of Jupiter and Saturn, the whole lecture was nothing more than a waste of oxygen. And with each passing day, we get closer to the cause. Especially now that we're going to start looking at the atmospheres of extrasolar planets with the help of the James Webb Telescope. As soon as we can prove chlorophyll for the first time, the lecture is waste paper again. The deniers of the "plenty of life" theory must refute any evidence. The others only have to successfully complete the proof once...
Don't count on it. In a purely materialist cosmos, the chances of true solipsism becomes significant. The entire universe may exist only in your own mind. But that case only you would actually exist and the rest of us would be figures of your imagination. I think I need another beer.
@Wikileads No, not necessarily. As Professor Kipping said, we simply don't know, so the possibility that alien civilizations exist is as legitimate as the position that we're alone. But when scientists start proclaiming the galaxy is teeming with alien civilizations when there is zero proof of this, and insult people as arrogant or whatnot for not believing a position for which there is zero proof, then this is anti-scientific behaviour. Not the same as insanity but not appropriate either. I can understand what op meant by finally a sane response. Professor Kipping's analysis is a rare instance of evidence based logic and thoughtful even-handed balance amid a massive myriad of emotional reactions. The scientists who let their wishful thinking propel them to enthusiastically premature conclusion arejust one part of this. Think of all the craziness in non-scientific circles, from cults to people brainwashed into believing Democrats are secretly alien lizards under fake human skin.
A survey of the current scientific studies show there are now (13) Habitable zones that are mutually exclusive from each other. This makes life almost impossible, and advanced life as unique. Citations below..
Known Current Habitable zones as of 2022:
- Water habitable zone
- Ultraviolet/Radiation habitable zone
- Photosynthetic habitable zone
- Ozone habitable zone
- Planetary rotation rate habitable zone
- Planetary obliquity habitable zone
- Tidal habitable zone
- Astrosphere habitable zone
- Electric wind habitable zone
- Milankovich cycle zone
- Stellar magnetic wind zone
- Carbon dioxide zone
- Carbon monoxide zone
For host stars with an effective temperature more than 7,100 K (7,100 °C above absolute zero) or less than 4,600 K, even for just microbes, a team of four Chinese astronomers showed that the liquid water and ultraviolet habitable zones will not overlap. This may seem like a fairly wide effective temperature range, but it is narrow enough to eliminate all but 3 percent of the Milky Way Galaxy’s stars.
Japanese astronomers Midori Oishi and Hideyuki Kamaya established that the zone of overlap is even narrower including the metallicity requirements of the Host star, this leaves less than 1 percent of our galaxy stars as candidates for bacterial life. Advanced life has even more stringent requirements.
Scientific Articles:
- Jianpo Guo et al., “Probability Distribution of Terrestrial Planets in Habitable Zones Around Host Stars,” Astrophysics and Space Science 323 (October 2009): 367-73
- Rory Barnes et al., "Tidal Limits to Planetary Habitability," Astrophysical Journal Letters 700 (July 20, 2009): L30-L33
- David S. Smith and John M. Scalo, “Habitable Zones Exposed: Astrosphere Collapse Frequency as a Function of Stellar Mass,” Astrobiology 9 (September 2009): 673-81
- Jun Yang et al., “Strong Dependence of the Inner Edge of the Habitable Zone on Planetary Rotation Rate,” Astrophysical Journal Letters 787, no. 1 (May 20, 2014): id. L2, doi:10.1088/2041-8205/787/1/L2.
- Yutong Shan and Gongjie Li, “Obliquity Variations of Habitable Zone Planets Kepler-62f and Kepler-186f,” Astronomical Journal 155, no. 6 (May 17, 2018): doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabfd1; Gregory S. Jenkins, “Global Climate Model High-Obliquity Solutions to the Ancient Climate Puzzles of the Faint-Young Sun Paradox and Low-Altitude Proterozoic Glaciation,” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 105, no. D6 (March 27, 2000): 7357-70, doi:10.1029/1999JD901125.
- Midori Oishi and Hideyuki Kamaya, “A Simple Evolutionary Model of the UV Habitable Zone and the Possibility of Persistent Life Existence: The Effects of Mass and Metallicity,” Astrophysical Journal 833 (December 2016): id. 293, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/293
- Glyn Collinson et al., “The Electric Wind of Venus: A Global and Persistent ‘Polar Wind’-Like Ambipolar Electric Field Sufficient for the Direct Escape of Heavy Ionospheric Ions: Venus Has Potential,” Geophysical Research Letters (June 2016): doi:10.1002/2016GL068327
- Glyn Collinson et al., “Electric Mars: The First Direct Measurement of an Upper Limit for the Martian ‘Polar Wind’ Electric Potential,” Geophysical Research Letters 42 (November 2015): 9128-34, doi:10.1002/2015GL065084
- Russell Deitrick et al., “Exo-Milankovitch Cycles. I. Orbits and Rotation States,” Astronomical Journal 155, no. 2 (January 16, 2018): id. 60, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aaa301; Russell Deitrick et al., “Exo-Milankovitch Cycles. II. Climates of G-Dwarf Planets in Dynamically Hot Systems,” Astronomical Journal 155, no. 6 (June 4, 2018): id. 266, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aac214;
- adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-ref_query?bibcode=2003ARA%26A..41..429K&refs=CITATIONS&db_key=AST
- Hans O. Pörtner, Martina Langenbuch, and Anke Reipschläger, “Biological Impact of Elevated Ocean CO2Concentrations: Lessons from Animal Physiology and Earth History,” Journal of Oceanography 60, no. 4 (August 2004): 705-18, doi:10.1007/s10872-004-5763-0.
While interesting, this is only valid for our kind of life, at which point we return to something similiar to #1 of the arguments presented in this video. We have no idea what kinds of life other than our own is posssible and what we call habitable zone, might be death zones for others. Since there's no way of arriving at how probable *any* kind of life is, this research doesn't really add new information to the issue.
@quitchiboo - Actually science also has some good data on that topic as well. Carbon life is the only form of life now taken seriously by Origin of Life researchers due to reasons like this.
The 13 habitable zones also apply to alternative biochemistry as well. Hard UV radiation and Gamma ray bursts and heavy asteroid bombardment and excessive atmosphere pressure will kill Silica or Silicon based prebiotic chemistry just as quickly as carbon based life.
Alternative Biochemistries:
Here's a great Harvard article on why Silicon based life is very unlikely to exist.
The Short and sweet is that silicon, doesn’t bond as well to other silicon atoms, and not well at all in the presence of many liquids.
Chains of silicon are especially unstable in water; they break apart in water, which means they are essentially no gos for originating life.
They also would have incredibly slow metabolism since they could not use Oxygen or have ATP factories for cellular energy. At best primitive life, but no advanced life is possible as a Silica based life form.
www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/fr_1/fr_1_future5.html
Biologists who study early life are probably the people you would want to include in this discussion. While even they don't _know_ how life first began, they know enough to at least give some interesting and illuminating context.
yes the fact that in a planet where there ara conditions to life to arise, had happen (as far as we know) only one time shows its not as common as we tend to think .
I *highly* recommend looking into Dr. James Tour and his incredible insight into the *chemistry* of the origin of life.
@@matiasfernandez5635 We do not know that it only happened once. It could be happening a billion times a day, and we probably wouldn't know it.
It's also somewhat interesting to remember that often times when we talk about how life can begin somewhere, we forget life could look a lot different in different circumstances. It doesn't necessarily have to start on a planet like ours, though obviously we don't have any examples of life like that.
@@eventhisidistaken If it had happend a billion times all together let alone in a day I would think that life on earth would have been more varied then it is. I was under the impression that they claim that everything is related. That would at least mean it was only successful once and may there fore have only started once.
To my knowledge the scientist know quite well what life is made out of but I don't believe they have actually ever managed to actually start new life without a cell of excisting life.
Sorry but we are NOT....stop getting it wrong.
I SAW THEM.
Yawn
Let's be honest here: We're never going to accept that we're alone in the universe, we're going to keep looking for extra terrestrial life for as long as our species exists.
Why should we as humanity accept that we are alone when this assumption is impossible to verify?
We can only falsify it when we find something that is 'alive' (can also be just some type of space bacteria or fungi).
While I agree with your statement, im of the firm belief that what we are "in" is a super-duper advanced holographic simulation (akin to Star Treks "holodeck", but obviously on a much more larger scale, and complexity). With that being said, it could very well be that all that space out there in the universe is a mere "illusion" and doesnt really exist [until/if such a time arises that we are able to physically reach it, then it could very well "pop" into existence, as in the phenomena of manifestation.
The phenomena of manifestation is very real for me, insomuch that I witnessed it on at least 3 occasions during my lifetime. Some would say im a kook, while others think im merely misremembering things...and thats ok. I know in my heart the phenomena is real and exists. Lastly, yes it does make your mind do one huge "Whoa !!! WTF ?!?!?!"
@@highsoflyify Right, we’re so focused on finding _intelligent_ life, that we often forget that there could well be more primitive life out there.
@@Aurochhunter
Let's look at our own planet. How many species did we have since the beginning of life on this earth?
Billions of life forms and only one was able to use tools, books and fire. So it must be VERY unusual to develop this kind of 'intelligence'.
Another factor is the possibility to destroy the own environment or own species with the right tools and weapons. So intelligent life will probably have very short life cycles compared to simple forms (which also have way lower demands to their environment than complex forms of life)
We're still finding new/undocumented species of life here on Earth. Just because we've not seen it, doesn't mean it does'nt exist, because we have plenty of examples proving that assumption wrong. It was once thought that life could not exist in extreme temperatures. Then we found a wide array if life forms thriving on deep sea hydrothermal vents, in temperatures ranging from 400f to 700f. We've also found life thriving in lakes underneath the Antarctic ice sheets.
Amazingly well thought out and performed lecture. The kind of lecture that makes you smarter in more than a factual sense. A philosophical lecture more than a purely astronomic one and truly convincing, something rare in a philosophical lecture. 👏
@@pianoman16 Stick to pianos, man. They don't care you're an arrogant twit.
Fascinating lecture, it's one I've been waiting for a long time. Thank you professor. For what it's worth, I took it over to Center for Inquiry (CFI) Forum, it's become an engaged thread. Dec 16, 9:52 PM - "Why we might be alone" Public Lecture by Prof David Kipping, under philosophy
What a joke--Of course we are not alone, there's a Trillion Galaxies and billions of planets in each galaxy
Names! We need names!!
Im a statistician. Always felt we could be alone. I believe the absence of direct evidence makes it more likely that Fl is indeed smaller than the number of stars and we are alone. Note that statistics doesnt apply to whether we are alone. We either are or are not. The statistics only apply to our knowledge of it. Its like the odds of the next card in a deck being a heart. It either is or is not. Once the deck was shuffled, the answer is fixed, only our knowledge of it is pseudo random.
There is plenty of direct evidence. Theres a lot of circumstantial evidence that shows we are not along, and keep in mind that we can convict people on circumstantial evidence for murder. Yeah sure if you ignore that, then yes were alone.
@@Alex-pb1iy Most of the "direct"evidence is mostly by people with psychological problems or the need for attention. Also, the chances of someone being guilty on circumstancial evidence, whether this is right or wrong, is still by far more likely for the crime to have happened than someone claiming to have evidence for an extra terrerestrial. Extaordinary claims really do require extraordinary evidence.
Don't forget 'time'. Most of the starlight we see left it's source 1000s of years ago. So how would we know.
@@Alex-pb1iyYeah there’s ton of evidence out there somewhere in the ether. We just have to be positive and believe just because.
After we find intelligent life we might likely begin asking, "So just the two of us then? Are we alone, just the two of us?" 🤣
Extremely well argued - thanks David. One addition factor in Lowell’s imaginary canals is not only his faulty eyesight but the cultural archeology bias - imaging canals because they were the symbol of modern technology in the 19th century.
we now look for things like dyson spheres because they’re extrapolations of our own needs. we want to meet ourselves grown-up.
Rather,@@tonoornottono, I contend that it's not simply convenient and subjective consideration - based on ourselves. It's a product of the knowledge that *all* life requires energy. In fact all creative or constructive, or transformative processes we can conceive of, have an energy input of some sort. Where there would be a sentient intention to create something specific, it is reasonable to expect steeplingly requirement for energy.
My english is not good, but I understand your statement and i wrote just about modern science.
Why do some weird humans think the other planets must have inhabitans?
Because of the fact of waste spaces without population?
The mosts planets don't offer atmospheres for any creature.
Wether animals nor any other creature would ever be able exist there and nowhere was found any clue of those possibilities of life.
Since time immemorial mean humans this creatures can be find .
Either this probably existing creatures are in a save hiding spot and they are laughing about this stupid humans or there just don't exist.
How stupid that notion to ignore!?
No science found ever creatures beyond earth.
The bible says on, God owns all planets and nowhere says bible on about any hint of other creatures in the universe,...like every science says.
Excavations don't bring also to light indications of any creature.
Not even something about islam .
Only about iron age and Jesus time was found. The temples Solomon etc.
Satan is lying to us and many killers say in court they weren't forced by Satan to kill somebody.
Catholics are not better, because they are lying too.
Revelation warns about the pope as he is an antichrist.
Jesus' day of birth is unknown and chrismas, eastern aren't mentioned on bible.
No problem celebrate this, but that has nothing to do with bible or christians.
Islam is also a lie, which Satan uses for distracting humans from Jesus.
Other populations beyond the earth or another life before our life now are lies and distractions from Jesus.
Exactly that says on the bible.
Scientist aren't able to confirm any islamic prove, how Solomons temple residues for example or any other useful things during iron age.
Pre-existence can't be proved also.
No war was an idea of God, because only humans are blame!
Allah doesn't help or he can't help his fans for having a better life.
Those nations are ruled by poverty, wars.
Otherwise there remains nowhere any Christian among poverty, no matter where he lives.
Show me one Christian who lives in danger, in poverty, but I can show you a crazy not existing Allah, who can't change it better for his fans!
To believe on other creatures is also a diversion created by Satan, like I mentioned detailed!
Yes, your English has some problems, but it will gradually improve,@@burda2809.
The more serious problem you have, is your silly religious stories.
The main reason that no alien life is mentioned in the bible, is that the bible was entirely written by humans, starting back in the Iron Age. Human society back then didn't have the technology to investigate distant celestial objects and phenomena.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Prof Kipping may soon find himself alone in believing we are alone.
Nope, there's at least two of us.
@@1959Berre I have simple proof: Simultaneous tracking of UAPs by multiple radars, multiple tracking sites (ships, planes). Confirmed solid object (not image): 1,428+ G's. What can an F-16 withstand before disintegration? 16-18 G's. What can a human withstand before death? Possibly 12-14 G's.
For practical purposes we are alone everything is too far
Prof Kipping reminds me of scientists - astronomers - typically from the 1950s when asked if they believed there were planets outside this solar system.
what does that even mean?
You don't need alien civilizations on other worlds to explain alien occupants of UFOs. We already know where sentient life and civilization comes from, Earth. That's the best place for us to look to as the origin of alien sentient life and civilization.
If real, UFO occupants may be distant descendants of human or human tech.
@@davidadiwego4608 I believe that humans were seeded on Earth by another culture but it doesn't follow that they too were human, at least in my belief. ET visitors can fall into many categories - time travelling humans, other races, other dimensions, other occupants that most are unaware of etc etc Myriad sources.
@@HollomanUFOLanding Why do you believe? I've seen all UFO/alien documentaries, read books on the subject. I've seen nothing that proves UFOs are alien tech.
I don't believe, I don't disbelieve.
Prof Kipping doesn't believe or disbelieve. He his merely saying that, based on what we know about origin of life and evolution of intelligent life, it is possible that it is extremely unlikely for there to be intelligent life elsewhere.
You may note that the likes of Neil Degrasse-Tyson and prof Brian Cox, who appeal to a reverse of Murphy's Law to argue FOR a many-civilization universe, don't accept alien UFOs/alien visitation as having any scientific merit.
We need the healthy skepticism in science
More lecture videos please! ❤❤❤❤❤
In space no one can smell your farts
(Arthur C Clarke)
Its ridiculous to see you guys making long videos on why we might be alone!!
Guys we are not alone. Rather we are very small number compared to what is really out there.
You have no idea of time coz you are in delusion. You came earth for few hours only, due to extreme time dilation one hour is equivalent to 41+ earth years, God knows best.
So when you go back to your Lord The Most High The tremendous, The irresistible one The creator of the universe, you will see you left for few hours and passed a long life on earth within that short time.
See how extreme time dilation?
Then do you think you were created without any purpose??
Or do you think the One who created the universe cant recreate you?
Obviously he can, he is the master creator.
God is the light of the heavens and the earth.
Death sufferings diseases and losses are all to make you educated and to make you strong and to make you humble.
So dont be arrogant and look at the universe. Do you see any shortage of anything?
What is with God is everlasting.
Certainly God is expanding the universe with great might and he is beyond this universe and yet he is omnipresent and nothing is hidden from him.
He knows the inner most thoughts of your mind and certainly its he who inspires us with good and evil thoughts to test us.
Only evil people will choose evil path.
So you came earth and already witnessed your first creation. Soon you will die and wakeup in your new body with same fingerprints and you will not be able to escape.
That is the day when earth will be prominent and barren ground with no water no mountains and you all will raise at once look on in anticipation.
THAT IS THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT!
Wow, this may be first video I immediately watched a 2nd time. So well-presented and very thought-provoking to me. Maybe because of my bias in that I agree it is way too early to know if we are likely alone.
We already know we're not alone. Although we haven't seen "them" we have seen and recorded their transportation devises and or drones. I've seen what ever they are, the the military has seen and recorded and even measured what ever they are, for years. We know how fast they are and have some video of what ever they are.
I spend a lot of time in the desert near military installations. They seem interested in our military more than our shopping malls.
They observed our nuclear program and our air force. They regularly spend time stalking our pilots. We have them on both video and radar.
@@TheBandit7613 If a weird thing hovers around a military base, it's more likely it's a weird thing from the military base than a weird thing from outer space. If a military person says it's not their equipment and it moves in a manner that's impossible, it's more likely that the military person lies about it than it's from outer space.
@@TheBandit7613 You can't say I say it and we will take that . Science doen't believe in your eyes brother , it requires evidence - repeatable on experiment table . Next time you saw something set up a science camp and help them conduct experiment repeatedly . Thank You .
i was like…wait it’s over!!??
Brian Cox actually changed course. Respect to Brian 💯
wdym
So, he is alone when far greater critical thinkers with far better knowledge look at the astronomical mind boggling number of known galaxies let alone planets, use common sense..lol
One of Brian Cox's friends who is a biologist told him he thinks at best, there may only be slime in the rest of our galaxy.
Because of his biology education, he knows just how unlikely life is.
@@andrewdouglas1963 any sources or more info on that. sounds interesting
@@TicTac2
th-cam.com/users/shortsVBSGGaTqP-8?si=DvG3SxAn8tuF8lct
Wonderful lecture. Thank you, especially, for the green-ball-in-the-urn analogy. I've looked for a way to explain to people that if we happen to be the only intelligent creatures in the galaxy, then naturally we're going to assume that we're the default case. But the green-ball analogy does a nice job of showing this bias for what it is.
On 10:20 you das WE are assuming Out chemistry ist Special. But INDEED IT IS SPECIAL
Every Form of Life dependas on large molecilules, and Carbon is the onlypossible element Life 0n a silicaon Base is impossible because WE would exhale silicaon Oxide, in other words SAND. HÄNDLER MUST BE A SOLVENT, ANDERTEN ONLY BE WATER AS IT IS A. POLAR LIQUID. SO ALL POSSIBLE LIFE FORMS MUST DEPEND ON CARBON AND (liquid)WATER. So der Planet must have a temperature in which water is Liquid
I adhere to Prof Brian Cox’s thoughts regarding intelligent life. Highly improbable because of the time spans involved and the possibility that intelligent life may tend to eradicate itself at some point.
Professor Cox has adopted the same position as his friend who is a biologist.
He says there is likely, at best to be only slime in the rest of the milky way galaxy.
I think so too. The early start argument suggests that life could be common. However intelligent life may be extremely rare. For all we know intelligence might prove to be a dead end on the evolution tree. But of course no one knows.
And as Arthur C. Clark once famously said "either we are alone in the universe or we are not, and either thought is equally terrifying."
Why?
There’s another possibility: multiverses
Favorite German convertible - that is awesome! May I use it in conversation? :)
@@insomxWe're talking about lifeforms , NOT EXISTENCE.
He said a lot of things. Almost nothing he said was anything more than fiction.
This is the most reasonable and realistic approach to this question.
The problem with the approach of this lecture (and astronomers many times), is that it treats the evolution of life like a roll of the dice, and then looks at the whole things as an exercise in probability. But NOTHING else in science works like that. Put it this way - what are the odds, when you put the right ingredients together in the right way and place them in the oven for a set amount of time at a certain temperature, uninterrupted - that you will produce a cake? The 'odds' are 100%. That's because, unless one is talking about quantum mechanics (which is far below the scale of biochemistry) - physics, chemistry, and nature is not 'random'. We have NO REASON to think that, if the right ingredients are in the right conditions, for the right amount of time, that life would not emerge EVERY SINGLE TIME, without fail. If it didn't, it would be like heating up ice and it sometimes not melting into liquid. That's not how ANYTHING works. You put a healthy seed into the ground in the right conditions and it WILL grow into a tree. The only thing that seems random is that the 'right conditions' are sometimes interrupted by things we weren't aware of. So, in the question of life, we need only ask, "How common are the ingredients and conditions on earth, for a similar time span, found throughout the universe?" That should be the MINIMUM amount of life in the universe. Because, if it isn't, one must be saying that biochemistry works in a non-scientific random and unpredictable way that nothing else in the universe works like - a very far fetched idea that doesn't come close to surviving Occam's Razor.
99% sure that we are alone.
Extreme arrogance.
@@Adizzle235 I didn't say 101%. Lol
@@atmanbrahman1872 but you did say 99%
You clearly are a the top leading scientist in the world and deserve recognition if your research truly led you to a mathematical precise number of 99% probability that we are alone.
But here you are on a YT comment section…
@@Adizzle235 He said, "99% sure that we are alone". He didn't say that there's a 99% chance we're alone; he said he's personally sure.
great lecture.
this way of thinking is so crucial right now and should be applied to all facets of society.
Exactly. You hit on the most important point of Prof. Kipping's lecture.
1/3 of the way through and he hasn't used any science. It's distance and time. calculate the time it takes to get to the nearest possible alien. it's FAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He believes in people having Biases' in believing there is life out there, instead of people trusting science and the law of probability.
I don't know why religious people always have to fight science on so many fronts, and now to pretend we are the only thinking creatures in the universe - that is extremely arrogant.
@@mrzoinky5999 I fail to see how saying "earthlings (humans, dolphins, bacteria, and everything in between) are the only current life in the visible universe" is arrogant. Earth's creatures did not get there from their own merit. They did not will themselves into existence while preventing others from emerging, they just happened to survive and become diverse over time.
@@mrzoinky5999 I don't think you understand religious people at all. You're being very arrogant in thinking that all religious people simply pretend we are the only thinking creatures in the universe. The reality is, we have no idea what's going on. All you know is that one day you were here and have memories. That's it. It could all be an illusion. Time may not exist. We may very well be alone. There could be a creator. Who knows? Don't assume that just because someone is religious, they are wrong. You don't know and they simply have faith in something larger. Also, there no such thing as "trusting science."
Such an informative and well spoken individual. Thank You.
Aderall is bad
@@vincenthaddad he's about as interesting as all those "men of science" of the 16th century who thought the Earth was the center of the universe
"However, I would say that everything we know about the galaxy so far is consistent with us being alone"
And the problem with this statement (along with many others in this video) is that there may be as many as 2 trillion galaxies in the *visible* universe. So are we now extrapolating that all 2 trillion galaxies must be consistent with our own? Even if that were true, there would be one life form in every galaxy, implying trillions. But now we are assuming that *all* two trillion galaxies are 1. Like our own milky way and 2. Don't, in their case, have even one life form like us.
I hope I've demonstrated the cherry picking required in Kipping's argument.
We live in such an exciting time having access to all of this info etc even back 40 yrs ago so much of this wasn't availiable! Keeping an open mind to everything is so important!
Doesn't matter how much we know today because we won't be here someday soon
@@travelfun3812 Don't know that for sure. Even with Biden in the White House, we can't be sure.
@@jazz4asahel Don't worry! Biden is not an obstacle when it comes to disclosure I think.
@@jutjubow Disclose is this: we're alone, because any intelligence out there would want to stay away from us.
This is a subject that I've considered for some time. One of the aspects of being in space that rarely gets talked about is that humans begin to deteriorate as soon as they go into space and may well be that why we never see aliens because they are as tied to their planet just like us. And then again there are the impossible distances involved.
dont be stupid, that like saying humans cant breath on water.. therefor we arent meant to be in the swimming pool. Have you seen how fast some of these ufo travel? and the amount of ufo footages alone, already suggest otherwise. I think the probability that we are alone is NIL. its bloody stupid to thikn otherwise ,,,data shows that in our galaxy alone, theres about 300 million potentially habitable planet. Thats just our galaxy. Theres about 2 trillion galaxy.... its just seem so stupid to think were alone otherwise. Its beyond DUMB
> tied to their planet just like us
probably by design, if the universe is infinite there is nothing unique, I don't buy the argument of the video, there is nothing special here.
@@fmeloThere's a lot special here. Kipping does a great job of debunking status quo arguments publicly paraded from mainstream/celebrity scientists or dumb podcasters *Rogan, who love presenting life like it's such a sure thing but ultimately have no more evidence for it than statistical speculation.
incredible lecture, professor kipping. a breath of fresh air after hearing so many scientists conclude there has to be life in the universe other than us.
Fresh air? Are you serious? He brings nothing new to the table and spends 25 min telling us what we already know. Of course nobody knows for certain and he criticized deGrasse Tyson as if his comments on entertainment tv were an actual scientific journal. Those who cant do science are quick criticize the ones who do. I am sure Tyson knows the difference between mathematical certainty and personal beliefs. If he cant understand that he was expressing his beliefs and that he was not presenting to actual scientific audience then he needs to self check and rethink his career.
@@davidvega1097 Kipping was being scientific. Tyson forgot he is a "physicist" and was just speaking his mind, which might also amount to nonsense. Tyson should have stuck to the actual science. A few years ago, a team of scientists at The University of Oxford arrived at the same conclusion as Kipping did using Bayesian statistics--that we might very well be alone in the universe.
I sure agree!
After reading The Dark Forest I have no hurry for us to be found, but I believe that there are others, is a statistic posibility too big
@@stellarspacetraveler he was using what you call no sense to make his conclusion appear valid and make himself look smart. Now just because your a physicists does not mean you can’t be an expert in other sciences. Our brains don’t stop working if it is a subject outside our original study area. Besides this guy and all those statistics came to a whopping conclusion that we just don't know. I understand this as an actual exercise in logic but for this guy to spend 25 min is ridiculous. Now for anyone to publish this conclusion is just plain moronic. These people cant come up with their own things and they take simple things and blow them up just to make them sound smarter than he is. Now Tyson I am certain he know that his claims are not scientific or mathematically valid (I have no doubt he can do the math). Everyone with half a brain knows we just don’t know for sure as of today. Also, speculating on things that may one day be proven otherwise has lead to the creation of wonderful discoveries and inventions. They make me feel like publishing a scientific paper to prove if there is life after death.
Earth is a realm.
We are unique.
We are 100% alone.
Space travel is non-existent.
We have been lied too.
Things are not what they seem.
We can't leave here.
Moon travel is a dream, not a reality.
We are much more special than we realise.
How did we start? What's our purpose?
Everything, whatever that is, moves around us.
Thank you! I've been thinking along these lines ever since I read biologist Robert Shapiro's book "Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth". It may be that abiogenesis is extremely rare.
Abiogenesis may not be required. 🤔
Fantastic lecture. I have been saying this sort of stuff to people for years and I constantly get ridiculed for it.
I still think that life is common out there. There's plenty of reasons to do so. Intelligent life is a whole other matter and I'm more sceptical about that.
But ever since I saw this lecture, I've had to admit that my point of view is almost entirely based on hope and not data or fact. There is no evidence as of yet for or against... Only educated guesses that can go either way.
Which is kinda awesome in itself. And really fun to think about.
@@johanwittens7712 I agree. I think it would be awesome if there were life out there and it is definitely highly possible that life (at least very basic versions of it) is common. But currently there is no evidence for or against and a lot of people forget or outright deny this.
This lecture is overblown. He literally contradicts himself by bringing up survivor bias and the folly of using our sample of 1 to extrapolate on life elsewhere, but then goes on to do the very same with the ridiculous timeline example. The point he made about arrogance being an emotional appeal was a good one however.
There is data; recall sea life at heat vents in a non oxygen environment. That is the best evidence we have that living organisms evolve based on conditions presented.
As for intelligent live, I agree with Kipping.
Just wanted to say that I’m on exactly the same boat as you. I have had these exact thoughts and beliefs on the matter for years now, and seeing it being so eloquently defended is a nice change of pace. It seems that taking a hardline stance that there
_MUST_ be life out there in the universe other than us has been the prevailing dogma, and any criticism of it is reflexively dismissed without much thought. It really does seem to be a faith-based position that lacks the evidence to support it.
In my opinion this is the most plausible presentation I have seen on the subject.
Kind of ignores a lot of details in research in other fields like biogensis experiments.
Its the dumbest! Aleans are here NOW!! ITS AN ABSOLUTE FACT!! WAKE UP!!!!
@@bryanfinkell9022
Name one who you know.
I felt quite the opposite
@@famalam943 Literally said 'biogenesis' or to be precise abiogenesis experiments where we attempt the formation of simple biological building blocks from naturally occurring chemistry.
Also, there really are just lots of stars.
And that argument has gotten much stronger as when it was first said it was commonly thought most stars had no planets or just had gas giants. Turns out rocky planets are far more common than anyone expected. This actually makes a lot of 'dork' sci-fi that presumes the earth is particularly unique in structure pessimistic.
We have observed exactly NOTHING that would lead us to believe that life exists outside of earth. Not time travelers, nor interdimensional or interstellar beings. I thought most of my life that there has to be something out there, but up to this point, looks like we are it.
Great lecture! Maybe we're not alone, but it sure seems like it. Sometimes in movies we see some crazily advanced aliens invading Earth... We're going to be those aliens.
Lolzz😁😁😱😱🤣🤣
LOL, don't be so naive :D :D :D
@@W-733_KWX what's "so naive" about it?
Lately I've been thinking abiogenesis couldn't be that rare in the correct conditions, I don't think we (living organisms) got one lucky shot and it went well, I guess it had to happen with several (million?) autoreplicant non living molecules, or even million living ones, but that would perish really easily, even in these acceptable natural conditions.
Complex life is a whole new level & a different story
It’s still all guesswork and speculation. We don’t know the probability of abiogenesis, and without that information, we can not accurately assess the likelihood of life elsewhere in the universe.
Mr. Kipping, you have quickly become one of my favorite science educators. Looking forward to your future content with great excitement. I am an electrical engineer that absolutely loves physics and science.
24th like
True this is great
respect to you sir
Do the research. They are here. The evidence is overwhelming, including from many senior military personnel.
It’s not just that space is vast, but also that time is vast. Perhaps there was once a civilization in our galaxy that sent out radio signals hoping to find other life, but it ceased to exist billions of years before humans discovered how to detect those signals.
This has been exactly my point for decades and it rarely gets discussed. The chances of another civilisation existing in our blink of an eye in time is infinitesimally small, let alone the narrow slice of time we have been aware of the concept.
@@HowardKlein1958 Yes. It is a very well-discussed and known topic.
Remember that time and space are the same thing, therefore when talking about the vastness of space you're also talking about the vastness of time.
we thought we had 5 billion years, now it turns out only 250 million years - panagea
This is based on the rudimentary understanding of physics, time, space, and reality of the psychotic apes making these proclamations.
We would find evidence of their existence in geology
Wow, such a brilliant lecture! Thank you for letting us participate!
Except he is wrong.UFO's and aliens are real.
Brilliant arguments in opposition to many highly-visible scientists who claim we can't be alone simply and solely because the universe is so vast.
The numbers, however, are very compelling for a reasoned argument, based on statistics, for the likelihood of life elsewhere beyond the Earth or our system. I agree though that there's as yet, no evidence for this logical inference. Emphatically, I'm not talking about emotional 'belief', but rather logical inference.
Beings as intelligent as humans gotta be super rare. If we didn’t have Jupiter we wouldn’t have evolved because extinction level meteors would have killed all life on Earth. If we didn’t have the moon there would be chaos as far as weather and seasons at the level where once again, evolution would be difficult. If Earth didn’t have a tilt, same thing. Weather so bad that evolution to intelligent life would be difficult. And what if we didn’t have 7 other planets? What if it was just Earth and Mars? We would probably not be in the Goldilocks zone. So the chances of a star like ours, with a moon, with 7 other planets, with a tilt, with a Jupiter is super rare. Just an educated guess.
17:45
I have always said that I believe our moon to be an under-considered factor in our hypotheses as to why it appears we are alone in the cosmos. From the circumstances of its formation, to its precise mass, reflective luminosity, and the fact that it is tidally locked are all variables that I think should be considered more when looking at potential candidates for habitable exoplanets. One of the reasons I follow Professor Kipping's research is because he and his team specialize in surveying exomoons and I truly believe that may be where the answers we are looking for lie.
@@mezzb What was the entire point of Professor Kipping's lecture? Evidence! Don't make assumptions. Don't say just because there are a lot of worlds out there -100 quadrillion, more or less - more than one of them MUST have life? Evidence. There is no evidence we are alone or not, either way.
Great and refreshing lecture with a reasonable conclusion!
An open minded lecture. Thank you.
This guy supports BLM
@@kaczan3 good
@@kaczan3 you have to separate the work from the politics
Who gives a damn?
Grow up
Consider that perhaps he doesn't even believe in that nonsense, but doesn't want to lose the platform
TH-camrs are essentially wannabe hollywood actors anyway, we don't know who any of these people truly are
@@EddieDubs not agreeing or disagreeing
Just wondering why that's "good"
Even blm doesn't support blm
@@EddieDubs What about white lives? Yellow lives? Red lives?
Very good, I agree with quite a bit of what you said.
However, Carl Sagan’s comment about faith is wrong. You need evidence to have faith otherwise you are gullible to almost everything that is said.
Unfortunately many people do have blind faith in science and religion and the so called scientists being interviewed is a typical example of fame and greed in the realm of funding.
Unsupported faith is included with quite a bit of what you mentioned - Abiogenesis, you obviously believe it is possible? Have you evidence of the mechanism involved? In other words - prove it, I will believe facts.
Statistics are great, you like them but you did not use them to suggest that abiogenesis was believable, was this tergiversating?
The whole concept of finding life elsewhere in the universe is based on abiogenesis - your video was excellent but was it all true?
Just because we are here does not mean abiogenesis worked!
I purchased the book 'Was God An Astronaut' or 'Chariots of the gods', written by Eric Von Daniken, in 1970. I read the first chapter then threw it in the bin - trash but I was glad it was just a paperback.
I love science and even scientific theory but unfortunately scientists cross the line when they drop the word 'theory'.
Thank you for your video.
This guys knows his stuff for sure. Impressive.
Engaging lecture, thanks for posting this!!
I'm wondering how FL would vary if we find evidence of life on, say Mars. We need to keep exploring.
A glimmer of intellectual hope in a mad World. thanks!
🥺 This is the kind of thinking that causes us to suddenly make new discoveries. Great idea! 💡
"There must be life in the universe because there must be life in the universe" is trap math. It sounds like "a lateral thinker can't afford the rocket writers tech equipment they need because a lateral thinker can't afford the rocket writers tech they need". It sounds like "There is no such thing as perfection. Everything that exists is imperfect" (Stephen Hawkings).
It reminds me of E equals MC squared , which exactly leaves out the equation for abiogenesis "proximity x instantaneity". It's very "It is because it is". .. isn't it.
We're currently busy destroying the only known habitable planet in the universe so that a tiny number of obscenely rich people can get even richer.
Stop shaking your fist at clouds old man.
It is so sad that the greedy few are allowed to destroy the only inhabitable rock in the universe. We are not intelligent life.
These statement puzzle me.
There are more humans living safely then ever. The idea we are trapping enough heat to cause reverse habitation is not actually predicted in the severe models.
More about economic adjustments and real painful tradeoffs sure. But in the context of choice, who leaves a power grid?
I will take Crichton's Travels to the beach, but stay there forever? (Okay the pool.)
The twin belief of Were Doomed is Aliens Are Many And Look Down On Us.
The twin platitudes of the discomfited athiest.
It makes me wonder if the Catholics and snake handling Baptists like Carries mom did not at least have a more interesting and vivid imaginative world of statues and business (Carries mom worked 40 hours a week at the plant till an injury) than our mopey sad cafe mod boys.
Also factoring in the numerous catastrophic events in earth’s history all the way up to the Younger Dryas, it’s amazing we are here at all - or here as a result of those cataclysms.
Well, we simply don't know. I'd still argue that life in the Universe is likely abundant. Whether it is "intelligent" or not, is another matter.
Great lecture. Dr. Kipping is completely correct. I personally want there to be a Star Trek like universe out there just waiting for us to discover it, but what we've currently observed shows no evidence of that. You can get into as many thought experiments using statistics as you want, but at the end of the day we just don't know. Those thought experiments are important, don't get me wrong, but they prove nothing. This might not be very exciting, but this time we live in is very important. As Obi Wan said in Star Wars, we have "taken your first step into a larger world."
Keep learning everyone!
You literally have no idea what you're talking about and clearly have done zero investigation. But pat yourself on the back and tell yourself you're smart. 🤓
I always try to tell my friends that aliens might not exist lol it’s very hard to explain thank you for this video
It’s still mathematically impossible for there not to be life out there in a universe this vast
@@JustinLodesIt's mathematically possible. As of yet we only have a sample of 1. What do we get when we multiply by 1? Do you remember?
@@sarcastaballHow many solar systems have been searched?
@@adebayostephen7576 We haven't even fully searched the one we're in yet. How come?
@@sarcastaball Technically, if the universe is infinite in size then there is life out there, even if the chance is extremely low. Any sort of life around us, however, is a different story.
We may not be alone, but we are so far apart from each other that we will probably never meet them.
😀😀😀😀
With our homophobia, racism and assorted hatreds, it's probably just as well we can't collide with other races.
@@sampalmer9628 so you are told over and over and over again.
once again you have blown my mind David. I love your thinking process. I am hoping the evidence for life on other planets comes in my lifetime :) and if not mine then my sons. I know it was a real let down that you couldn't get the time on the james webb but don't worry your time will come!!! your are the best of the best of the best :)
it has already come.
Superb lecture, David. Well argued, especially the ending summary regarding faith without evidence. Thanks!!!
I think it’s faith without evidence to think we are alone in a universe with 2 septillian exoplanets but hey to each their own…
@@REALdavidmiscarriage If you listened to the talk, he addresses that right in the beginning.
@@REALdavidmiscarriage If you had watched the video you would understand that this is EXACTLY what he was arguing. Wait for conclusive evidence before taking a definitive stance.
@@REALdavidmiscarriage really ignorant statement considering the mere presence of a lot of planets doesn't tell you much if anything about the likelihood of life being on those planets.
@@Smoomty septillions of planets! Whats really ignorant is your lack of understanding of statsitics and scale... Take a few classes and physics and mathematics and maybe you will understand. Just alone the possibility of there being exactly 1 planet out of 2000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 is hubris of the highest order. I'd sooner believe in the book of mormon than believe the ideas you are proposing 😂
While I used to be on the "life is everywhere" side for years, the deeper I looked into astrophysics and biology (especially) after my university days were over, the less likely I saw this position as being correct. These days, I'm pretty convinced we're certainly alone in the galaxy as far as civilizations go, probably alone in the local group, and life itself may very well be so incredibly rare that we're alone in the galaxy even as far as simple life goes.
There was a time when most astro scientists, including myself (an amateur, with a degree), believed that abiogenesis is not THE filter, that things like the complex life from simple life, or intelligent/sentient/sapient life from complex life were far greater filters. However, once I realized my bias towards astrophysics and away from biology was firmly a part of my thinking and actually dove deep into biology of the cell and simple life, I abandoned that approach and it's clear abiogenesis is by far the greatest filter of all.
We're talking about a cell, a complex machine on par with a modern CPU. Imagine getting a bunch of silicon, adding some other elements, making goo, adding some heat, lightning, maybe some light, putting it in a blender for a billion years, and expecting a Ryzen 7000 to come out, the whole idea of it is ridiculous. And the fact science has been looking, experimenting with understanding the origins of life and we're absolutely nowhere with it is telling.
I should just stick to physics, astrobiology is too depressing.
It's rare to see someone identify abiogenesis as being as significant a hurdle as you note. It's many orders of magnitude more difficult a hurdle than most people comprehend, or want to accept. It has always been odd to me that people can be so absolutely adamant that life, and intelligent life, exist "out there" in the universe.
While I agree that as life gets more complex it gets far less likely to survive Earth has shown that even those complicated cells can survive very extreme planetary climate changes and hostile environments. I suspect we will find that basic life, something like DNA or RNA will happen on many planets but it will be a very select few that get beyond that, and even fewer that get beyond that survive. But I do think that if basic life can get that planetary foothold and get lucky it will survive quite a while and possibly even evolve. After that I don't think we know enough to say if it will evolve past something basic. We just don't know what the drivers where for life to push beyond those simple cells into something even far more complex.
I don't agree with you analogy of the "blender" and "Ryzen 7000," I don't think humans are able to really understand the deep time and extremely gradual (and probably mostly useless/dead end) changes that would of occurred. We are great at many things but not so much at that.
@@Swarm509 "extreme planetary climate change" What is extreme for earth doesn't ever put it within the range of literally any planet we know about. What is extreme to us is still insignificant in terms of actual planetary climate. For the rest of your argument, please rewatch teh video and see if the professor didn't actually address them before you made them.
Even if we are alone in the Local Group, that's still only a minute portion of the galaxies in the whole universe. But you're right, it's probably a much much rarer occurance than many think.
There's no clear evidence either way on abiogenesis being likely or not. So you pretty much went from one baseless belief to the next, apparently completely missing the point of this video that you should remain agnostic in the absence of evidence.
Also, you seem to think that abiogenesis is the spontaneous formation of living cells as complex as those we see today. That's completely wrong. It probably started out as just some self-replicating molecules. Cell membranes and the complex machinery in modern cells probably evolved from that much later.
Remember the old saying, "If it happens once, it could never happen again"
Oh wait...
This would have really impressed me when I was in my early teens.
im 14 and this is deep
@@charwest5892 I believe you.
I’m 63 and it’s deep
I'm 76 and it is interesting but utterly irrelevant to everything real or pertains to nothing.
.. when the conditions are just right, as on Earth, life is unavoidable .. but there are so many variables that to get everything just right for life is .. extremely rare.
Scientists have assembled all ingredients for life, put them the ideal environment, provided stimulation, but no life formed.
Just-right chemical and environmental conditions don't seem to be enough. Perhaps a big dollop of (unknown) extreme random chance is needed on top of the extreme random chance of there being just-right chemical and environmental conditions.
Respectfully, your first statement has no scientific basis. There is a return lately to the God hypothesis. Your assumption is that the Origen of life was a totally natural process. You cannot assume that the information on human DNA came from nothing
Unavoidable bc of the fact that we exist. But we have no idea how many variables and factors of chance played into the equation that resulted in life at all, let alone multicellular life, then incredibly sophisticated conscious intelligent life. The odds could be 10^-100000 for all we know for any of those tiers of life forming
@@Jm-wt1fs or your argument could be reversed to "we dont have enough information life maybe everywhere" lol
@@dzenacs2011 yes that’s exactly my point haha. We cannot possibly know with any confidence in either direction without more data. I just dislike how commonly I see the misconception that because there are 100 billion stars in the Milky Way, life is guaranteed to be everywhere. There’s zero data to possibly predict how common or uncommon it is
Whilst I wouldn't say that we are alone in the entire universe, I would say that life that observes itself, like we do, is extremely rare. Kipping says(or infers) that we are not special, but in reality we are, extremely special, if only because we are extremely rare.
Compared to what
You missed the whole point of the lecture
The movie "Contact" (1997) was based on Carl Sagan's book of the same name. In it, the main character Ellie Arraway (Jodie Foster) returns from a visit to a planet with intelligent life saying we're not common. She says "Now I realize how rare and precious we all are" I just really loved that line.
Dinosaurs ruled the Earth for hundreds of millions of years and the cataclysm that wiped them out set the conditions that led to humans. There is no reason why life on Earth had to evolve to intelligent life. The same holds true for any other planet that may have life on it.
Considering the speed of light, we might have already seen a planet where life exist, but the planet is just so far away, that we only saw it in its pre-life form. maybe the same planet, 20 lightyears away, currently has life on it.
Wonderful analysis from Prof Kipping. The one thing that I have always wondered is whether having a moon is/was important in the development of life. Many, many exoplanets, may be in the goldilocks zone, but without a moon to create tides, maybe they never create life.
The moon is still a mystery as far as I know. I've heard theories that the moon had once contributed to a shared magnetosphere on Earth. The tides don't seem any more necessary for life than oxygen. Mind you, there are forms of life on Earth that do not use oxygen respiration for metabolic function. Those forms of life also exist on a vastly different time scale (kinda like slow motion, but for the metabolism; which seemed to require unique conditions like being subterranean [which limits interactions with predators or environmental hazards]). The speed of life is a problem unsolved, and often not considered in regards to intelligence. There may be intelligent life that blinks in and out of existence in weeks; where our existence has taken hundreds of thousands of years.
I don't really like this lecture; it doesn't define life. It presupposes life as "recognizable" to our senses (or the instruments commanded by our senses). We very well may require AI to seek out languages spoken in ways we cannot theorize in the span of one career.
So your premise is tides are necessary to create life? 🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@cwlim62 it is a possibility. And you cannot prove otherwise.
I’ve watched other lectures, were not only was a large moon crucial, but also our axis tilt…likely secondary to the collision with what would become our moon. Our magnetic core. Having large gas giants shielding us from many asteroids, etc. So many crucial variables.
@@travishayes840 Glad to hear that I am not alone. I was not saying that these things were essential, I was just wondering out loud in the hope that Prof Kipping or others might be sparked to consider the possibility.