Carl Sagan was wrong: Why astronomers and journalists should pay attention to biologists about ET

The reason we haven’t been contacted by other intelligent life forms is they aren’t out there, according to Praxtime.

  1. Time for intelligent life to fill a galaxy: super short 20 million years
  2. Time for intelligent life to evolve in a galaxy: moderate 20 billion years
  3. Time of universe to keep having stars: super long 20 trillion years

The first perspective shift is to step back in time, and realize the universe is very young. With 20 trillion years of star generation ahead, the universe has only covered 13.7 billion years or roughly .07% of its life span. Compare this to a person who expects to live 70 years, and you’d get .07% * 70 years = roughly 18 days. So in human terms the universe is a three week old baby. No wonder there’s not too much life out there yet.

The Fermi Paradox states that the Earth is a commonplace planet circling a commonplace star. There’s nothing special about us. Therefore intelligent life should be common in the universe. And here’s the paradox: They should be here already. So where are they?

That’s how astronomers think. But biologists know better. Of the 2 million species on Earth, only one has evolved humanlike intelligence: Us. There’s no reason to assume that it’s happened again elsewhere. And if it had, it would fill the galaxy relatively quickly, and would have left no room for us.

They’re not here because we’re the first.

Avoiding “Sagan Syndrome.” Why Astronomers and Journalists should pay heed to Biologists about ET.

18 thoughts on “Carl Sagan was wrong: Why astronomers and journalists should pay attention to biologists about ET

  1. Mitch Wagner Post author

    Gary Stock: +Mitch Wagner, no, zero evidence points in that direction.  Only a lack of apparent evidence points in that direction.  By making that slick error, the writer reveals the conclusion they settled upon before beginning.By asserting a negative (that is, making an assertion which can not be proven) as the basis for their argument, they abandon the framework of logic.  Sure, it feels right — “Hey, I never seen no alien goonies neither!” — while  Whitehead spins in his grave.Simultaneously, the writer assumes and asserts (without acknowledging either) that humans could (further, that humans would) perceive the presence of intelligent beings.  The writer offers no evidence for that, either — nor could any be offered.That spells the end of that article, for me.via


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.