The Drake formula was an attempt to calculate the probability of intelligent life on other planets. But human history shows that the formula was probably too optimistic, and that there is something missing in the calculation. This missing parameter could be critical to understanding the development of intelligent life in the galaxy, and more importantly: the development of humanity, and its chances of survival
In 1961, the American astronomer Frank Drake formulated what later became known asDrake formula". The formula is a simple multiplication of variables, the result of which is supposed to be the number of intelligent cultures (civilizations) in the galaxy that use, right now, radio communication that we can receive and thus discover their existence.
The background for publishing the formula is ST project (SETI - short for: Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence), also initiated by Drake, whose goal is to search for intelligent life in space by trying to listen to the same radio communication that the intelligent extraterrestrials use, if they exist.
The formula is simple, and is actually a product of probabilities, which are given values between 0 (no chance) and 1 (certain). The probabilities should exhaust all the relevant variables to decide whether a certain planet in the galaxy will develop life at such a level of complexity that they will reach a state where they use radio communication that we can detect. Finally, multiply the result by the number of planets in the galaxy, and this multiplication will give us the number of stars that, given good enough listening abilities, we will be able to hear them.
The factors in the equation include the chance that a given planet will have (1) the basic conditions for life to exist, such as suitable temperature, right elements, atmosphere, etc., (2) the chance that a planet with such conditions will indeed develop life, (3) the chance that once life is formed, it will develop and reach a level of civilization, (4) the chance that the civilization will develop sufficiently advanced technology, and (5) the length of time that civilization will continue to send radio communications into space.
The equation was the basis for many discussions about each of its parameters and the different estimates that can be given to it, and also about parameters that can be added to the equation. for example, The stability of the climate It is critical for the long-term development of life, therefore even on planets with conditions similar to Earth's, intelligent life will not necessarily develop if the climate there is very fluctuating. We will return to this point later.
In practice, to this day STY has not discovered messages from other planets. Aliens have not yet arrived in other ways either. The non-arrival of aliens has raised questions since the 50s, when it was drafted Fermi paradox, which simply says: If aliens exist, where are they? Fermi assumed that intelligent life on other planets would certainly tend to spread through the galaxy (if not all, at least some), and since this spread would be unstoppable, they would eventually reach the entire galaxy. So why didn't they come here? Does this mean thatWe are the first intelligent civilization?
If until now we have not found any sign of aliens, and we conclude from this that at the very least there are not many intelligent civilizations in the galaxy - where is the bottleneck? Fermi assumed that where there is life, one day that life will reach distant stars and develop technologies that make the expansion of the galaxy almost automatic. If you also assume that there are lots of stars in the galaxy that are suitable for the creation of life, then there is probably some step in this process that goes wrong. One of the factors in the Drake formula should have a very low value. But which one?
Over the years, various theories have emerged. For example, theory The rare earth Says that the conditions on Earth are so unique, that there are simply no other planets where intelligent life had the opportunity to develop. Other theories say that the drive to expand is very unique to humanity, and that there may be many intelligent beings who simply don't think of it, just as it didn't occur to humans until less than a century ago.
The dark side of the equation
There are also less pleasant explanations for the absence of aliens, and they are that the bottleneck is still ahead of us. Meaning that there may be many intelligent civilizations like us on many other planets, but for some reason they collapse (or collapse) before they manage to spread through space.
And that brings me to what I think is missing from Drake's formula. The formula is very elegant due to the fact that it divides the probability of the development of intelligent life into a series of apparently independent probabilities. The problem is that they are only seemingly independent. Any stage in the development process of a civilization can undermine the stage that preceded it, thus stopping the process.
First, after we have calculated the probability that the planet will have the conditions suitable for the development of life, and the probability that given these conditions life did develop, it is still not certain that this life will not change the conditions on the planet to such an extent that they will no longer be suitable for it. This is what scientists believe happened toThe Lepidodendron trees, that you have succeeded a lot in our world in lowering the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to such an extent that they became extinct from an excess of oxygen.
Second, given that life was able to develop, the formula says that we must calculate the probability that a civilization will develop. But even if a civilization has developed, it should be taken into account that the civilization may kill itself, for example by wars between different groups, depletion of natural resources and the like.
Fortunately, humanity has already survived both of these hurdles. We reached a large population, we developed a civilization and it survives. But now there is the next parameter in the formula, and that is the chance that a civilization will develop the technology necessary for radio communication. Or in Fermi's version, the chance that civilization will develop the ability to travel through space.
What are the chances of developing the ability to travel in space without killing ourselves first?
Here there is another missing parameter, in my opinion, and it is critical: it is not enough to ask what are the chances of developing the technology, we need to ask what are the chances of developing it without killing ourselves along the way (or right after). Many times in human history, the development of a certain ability comes before the development of the mechanisms that maintain and balance this ability. It only makes sense: before we developed the ability, it's hard for us to know what dangers it brings with it. In most cases we have to start using it and only then enter into a sort of race against ourselves to learn how to curb the monsters we create.
For example, humanity developed the ability to organize in very large groups and to manage large groups of people, but it developed this ability before the intensive development of values of morality, human rights and political theory. Along the way, millions were trampled, murdered, robbed, imprisoned, and again and again. Today there are large organizations that work to improve the lives of all people, for example countries, when they function well, but many large organizations still often work in a way that helps a certain group at the expense of others, at the expense of nature or at the expense of the future.
We have also developed the technological ability to destroy the world and ourselves, in the form of nuclear weapons. We did this at the same time as developing the ability to create a global partnership at a level that would prevent us from using this weapon through international agreements, mutual control, and the like (and still, how convinced are we today that no country will rise up one day and decide to use nuclear weapons with such power that it would bring about the end of human civilization?).
The climate crisis as a factor that brings us back
Today's capitalist economy is also another example of a complex and branched system like no other that allows us to create collaborations between masses of people who have never met and reach, in a truly global effort, a higher standard of living than ever before. But we created this ability before we had mechanisms to regulate this economy, to make sure that it does not lead to exploitation of the weak, predatory takeover by the powerful, waste of natural resources, and the like. Most of these necessary mechanisms will probably take a long time to develop.
My main point is this: humanity is developing in the current era unprecedented abilities to influence the planet, and it is doing so at the same time as developing the ability to understand the impact of our actions on ourselves, on the climate and on society. We have the ability to drastically influence the entire globe, and we still haven't finished developing measurement and control capabilities, and social mechanisms of global responsibility, transparency, and cooperation that are necessary to manage these capabilities and make sure we don't annihilate ourselves with them.
Humanity has a huge impact on the climate. We can change the balance in the atmosphere, consume global natural resources and change world orders. It is not for nothing that the geological era we live in is called theAnthropocene – The Age of the New Man. We achieved this ability before we developed the ability to consciously plan for this effect, control it and cooperate so that we do not use it to destroy the planet we are on. Ironically, human-caused warming may delaying the next ice age, and therefore "saves us" in a certain sense. It made us aware of the danger of climate change and perhaps accelerated the development of climate science which is critical to human survival over time. On the other hand, it is now not clear if the development of knowledge will happen fast enough to deal with the effects of the climate changes that have happened so far, and it is not clear if we will be able to restrain ourselves before the change is too radical. There is no doubt that without significant mechanisms of control and control over the extreme climate changes that humanity is causing, they will have devastating consequences.
It's not that there hasn't been very significant progress in the right direction: the European Union (perhaps the greatest achievement of humanity ever in terms of cooperation between large and diverse groups of people), international conferences, international courts, global ventures, global communication, etc., are all necessary and important tools To advance humanity to a situation where our future is more secure. There have also been many steps in the opposite direction, such as various separatist movements, denial of climate change, takeover by predatory and harmful corporations, overexploitation of natural resources, improper interference by powerful countries in the politics of weaker countries, and the list goes on and on.
A race between progress and the dangers inherent in premature developments in terms of social impact
Drake's formula was published in 1960, a time that was perhaps more optimistic about the future of humanity. Drake took for granted the linear development of human technology and society, and assumed that the day would come when humanity would break the boundaries of our planet and reach all ends of the galaxy. Today, with the growing awareness of the climate crisis and the enormous and largely irreversible environmental damage we have caused, the future of humanity is less clear - meaning that this should be taken into account when determining the variable about the lifespan of civilizations.
I don't know how rare the conditions on Earth are in terms of the galaxy. But in my opinion, human experience shows that the road to an advanced civilization is dangerous and mostly volatile. The survival of intelligent life is a never-ending race in which, on the one hand, we need to develop abilities that will allow us to survive, and on the other hand, and at the same time, we need to develop the social mechanisms that regulate these abilities and make sure that they are used only for our benefit. These mechanisms, unfortunately, can only be started to be developed after the dangers reveal themselves - and that is usually after a lot of damage has already been done.
These are the races that determine the history of intelligent life forms, and the outcomes are random and uncertain. Will humanity have time to learn how to produce enough food for large populations over time, before we cause too much damage to the ecosystem to prevent it? Will we learn how to deal with climate change before we create too dramatic and irreversible changes in the climate? Will we succeed in creating a global society where there is mutual guarantee before a competition for resources arises that will degenerate us into separatism and war? Will we figure out how to live in this world in a happy, fulfilling and sustainable way, before we use up all its resources trying to do so?
We have no tools to answer these questions today. All we can do is try to influence in the right direction, see which way the wind blows, and guess what the historians of the future will find here; Whether it will be humans taking over the galaxy, aliens or perhaps machines with consciousness, and whether they will find our culture alive and thriving or dead and buried under tens of meters of ice.
31 תגובות
All the basic assumptions for life development conditions that we don't know are wrong since we are looking for life similar to the ones we know (carbon-based...needing oxygen...needing water...dependent on certain temperatures and the like). Who determined that every concept of life depends precisely on these conditions? The potential aliens, including the "grey" ones, are suspiciously similar to humans and it is not impossible that they are a figment of their imagination, such as witches or ghosts. There is no rule or criterion for how "life" is supposed to occur. Until we receive conclusive proof of life... the subject will continue to fascinate on the philosophical level And the psychological... as an expression of the desire to know more or fear less... but not on the practical level.
Shlomo Raphael,
Your comment is spot on and interesting, but consider the following: Homo sapiens have existed for about 200 years. The earlier species appeared say 3 million years ago.
The age of the Milky Way is estimated at about 13 billion years. So if there are aliens they could have existed a long time ago (and survived or not).
So if you look at the Drake formula, the distance ceases to be relevant because it is radiation that travels at the speed of light, and it can (apparently) be absorbed long after it has been emitted.
If you look at Fermi, then even the 10,000 years you are talking about should not be significant, because species could have formed even a billion years ago.
By the way, I don't know where you got the number 17,000 light years from, but it's not from this article.
Eliahu,
Not sure I understood where the antagonism is coming from. But in any case, the intention was really not to say anything due to the promotion or to show self-satisfaction (God forbid) and I also don't see how the sentence you quoted is what you read.
The claim is that progress creates problems that didn't exist before, and some of them are solved with the help of a new type of morality, and some we don't know how to solve.
This does not make our society better than earlier societies that do not have this morality, it just means that they did not create for themselves the problems that we did create and are trying to solve.
"For example, humanity has developed the ability to organize in very large groups and to manage large groups of people, but it developed this ability before the intensive development of values of morality, human rights and political theory. On the way, millions were trampled, murdered, robbed, imprisoned and killed and killed"
With reference to the author's statement that he is again seriously flawed in projecting his worldview on evolutionary processes, nowhere is it said, written, or proven any connection between a technologically advanced society and moral values of any kind, I will argue the opposite and say that advanced societies get to survive thanks to the effective "weeding" of unwanted individuals And that's how they reach an advanced technological level
What is the basis for my claim? Exactly the same as the writer's, both are meaningless and lack any real meaning, but the main thing is to push moral values to a place where there is no need and create a false representation of the connection between morality = progress and a wonderful feeling of self-satisfaction
Why has no one given their opinion that there is life on other inhabited planets, but they have not yet reached the level of radio wave detection. There may be an inhabited planet or planets still alive as in our Roman times or as in the time of the Ionian Empire. How do you want them to contact us, or how will they fly towards us? Not every culture has to be more advanced than us. This is the first axiom that many good people get wrong. A second thing that will close the door on the question why no extraterrestrial visited us? This is Einstein's theory of relativity which states that it is impossible to travel faster than the speed of light. So if the average distance as stated in the article is 17,000 light years, then you will wait at least another 10,000 years until the next visit. It's strange to me that none of the senior scientists gave their opinion on this and only me, the little one, your faithful servant.
Gedi, you are right in every word.
Yosef,
In my opinion it falls under "the chance that a planet with such conditions [suitable for the creation of life] will indeed develop life"
Interesting article
And again, as in many matters in scientific theories, new information presents a new reality that the theory did not anticipate or address.
Yes it is about the expansion rate of the universe
And the singular point
And so it is in medical science.
and other sciences
Thus the theoretical formula in this article is proven after less than eighty years to be unstable.
And even that there is a formula
In the belief that the scientific truth in the statement stated above is true
Yes he is regarding Darwin's theory as he wrote it at the beginning of its journey.
But it is absolutely natural and true
draw a preliminary conclusion and then it develops.
The main problem in my opinion in all these explanations throughout all the years of science
It is the adherence of scientists to the theoretical basis even if variables are discovered that complicate the theory.
To the point of rudely rejecting other options.
Something that will occasionally turn out to be a mistake.
Yes, it is human nature that it is difficult to withdraw from the past explanations that he has set for himself
And a pity
All the science about aliens is found in the Bible, which is based on their conduct in the chapter of Ezekiel, which describes the event with an alien and the rest of the incarnation and its purpose to make it the Messiah for Israel. A deeper examination will explain that the Bible is flooded with events with aliens who are called angels.
This whole article, and the Drake formula, are based on an unfounded a priori assumption - all consciousnesses in the universe are built the same and work in a similar way. We think that we have discovered this matrix, and that it is the only one that exists, therefore, every intelligent life form will develop along the same evolutionary path in which we developed.
One of the reasons for this thinking is that there is currently only one species of human on earth - Homo sapiens. As an evolutionary phenomenon, this is very unusual, and stems from certain characteristics of the species, for example being an exterminating and domineering species at a level that does not exist in any other species. There was another strong hominid species, the Neanderthal, which either assimilated into Homo sapiens or was exterminated by it. We suffer from a singularity that is not favorable to our chances of survival. Especially lacking in front of us are truly different consciousnesses, which reach high achievements in completely different ways than ours.
For example, we once talked about a DNA coil. Triple, not double - Triple Helix DNA Such a structure will produce completely different life forms, much more complex, with many more evolutionary possibilities. The fact that D.N.A. Such does not exist on earth, does not mean that it does not exist in the universe. And what were the chances of our engagement with these kinds of life forms, for whom we are quite primitive creatures? It's like a human communicating with a fly. We will lack the basic tools even just to understand the simplest things that such consciousnesses deal with. So what is the talk about radio communication, as if it is the pinnacle of technology? This is what our consciousness can perceive. There is an upper limit to the development of a DNA coil. Double can reach it, and it is absolute. But who are we to say that there is nothing beyond that?
The most successful reason: we simply do not interest anyone
What I miss in all Drake calculations of any kind is the biological side or especially the DNA
The formation of intelligent life requires a very specific DNA (a mistake in one letter will destroy everything) of billions of letters.
What is the probability of spontaneous formation of such an SNA? - Close to zero!
And we have not yet touched on thousands of other related questions, such as the removal of the formation of biological mechanisms whose existence depends on each other, for example the formation of the "factory" to create proteins - the ribosome, when it itself is made of protein (who or what created it?).
Thanks for the response Michal, that's an interesting way to look at it.
If humanity really treated the ecosystem as something that we are part of and not separate from, we would probably do less damage on the one hand, but on the other hand I am not sure that this way of thinking would have led to technological progress like the one that humanity has achieved.
Without technological progress it is impossible to go into space and it is impossible to prevent the natural fluctuations in the climate (which in the long run are also just as dangerous as the man-made climate crisis). Does this mean that technology is necessarily a good thing? Probably depends on who you ask.
Yoav,
Regarding the chance of life forming: this is also a parameter in the equation, and there are arguments about what value it should receive.
Regarding insects: are you really claiming that insects are a more developed life form than humans because their total mass is greater?
Aliens = figment of imagination of Hollywood producers.
There is no extraterrestrial life.
No one has landed on the moon.
And Area 51 is used for weapons development.
Enough with the stupidity.
Instead of talking about the possibility of intelligent life, it is better to ask if life at all can be created. Zero chance. Apart from that, intelligent life is not the pinnacle of development. The mass of insects is greater than the mass of other creatures, excluding plants and fungi. Isn't this a measure of excessive success, which makes man and his "intelligence" redundant, with or without radio waves? In general, the whole desire to find extraterrestrials stems from the feeling of loneliness felt by an unbelieving person, who realizes that he is stuck on a small ball in infinite space, and there is nothing else
Hi Hagi,
״In terms of cooperation between large and different groups of people"The European Union is a tremendous achievement. That doesn't mean it doesn't have a lot of problems, as with anything on a huge scale that is done for the first time.
Hi Guy, I don't know how you arrived at the claim that I don't refer to it, there is an explicit reference.
The article comes to say that in addition to all the parameters of the Drake equation (which is one of them), there are other things that should be taken into account.
I am sure that if aliens have already arrived here, they realized that we are not that intelligent and kept looking
The fossil energy tycoons said they want to keep their source of livelihood even at the cost of the extinction of humanity
If the limit is the speed of light on physical arrival there is nothing to talk about at all.
So far the closest planet suspected of supporting life is a thousand light years away. The universe is expanding so that the stars are not getting closer but are only moving away at an increasing rate.
If by chance we discover a transmission, it is very possible that the person who sent it is long gone. There is nothing to talk about about two-way communication at all.
Planets and suns also have a lifespan and it is possible that the development of a life took place relatively late in the life cycle and there was not enough time left for these lives to mature into rationality.
In general, even if we discovered life after the first second we would say cool, it is not at all certain that it would have been good for humanity, similar to the white man who met Indians.
The Drake formula is built on subjective probabilities. And beyond the details of the formula, the general question is whether the probability of the development of intelligent life in the universe is equal to the probability that such life will not develop? Unlike Drake, it seems to me that it is quite clear that the development of intelligent life is probably a rare event and as strange as this may seem, there is also a probability (which I cannot estimate) that we are the only ones in the universe. The universe is a turbulent place, full of various radiations, and is not particularly conducive to biological life.
The article started well and then you started spouting nonsense about the climate "crisis". Climate change is not a danger to humans. just no.
We have already had significant climate changes in human history and then there was no energy available and yet we survived. The nation is not in any danger at all... In fact, if we listen to warnings like here, we may destroy our world due to stupidity. Put solar panels and see how cold you will be in the winter...
Drake equation.
Blah blah blah
global warming…
As someone who agrees with all the evidence that man caused it, the context and leap of logic in this "article" is almost as ridiculous as the baseless admiration for the EU
Very ethnocentric to seek wisdom based on radio usage
There is enough evidence that there are intelligent extraterrestrials.
NASA is investing billions in the red planet, not for nothing... there are a lot of manned photographs on purpose that there was something there and maybe there are more remains of an ancient culture.
An important detail that is missing in the article "The Supreme Order" of The outsiders are just like in "Star Trek" we are too young a race and they don't want to interfere yet. Perhaps they fear that their disclosure will cause international chaos!
Especially among the religious of all religions.
Nice article. However, perhaps part of the equation that has been forgotten is the level at which man will be able to understand something completely different in the race for progress: we are only part of a planet that is aware and needs to evolve, similar to the relationship of the brain cells with our body. In our arrogance, and mainly due to the circumstances in which we developed, we forgot this fact, and we live a bit like cells that forget that they are part of a system and try to develop. (a phenomenon we call cancer...).
If and when we expand our awareness that our relationship with the Earth is not only ecological, and that the Earth is not just a springboard to the stars... When we see our common mission, we will know that we are part of it and treat it as the heart cells treat the other cells in the body - with respect and understanding - then we will walk on a planet The earth will change... and then maybe there is a place to ask about aliens...
Never ending barbara. The peak was in seeing the European Union (a degenerate, flawed and inclusive version of the Union of the Allied States of America) as some kind of human summit, when in practice it is a sharp retreat to a world where the leaders do not care at all about the people but prefer to educate them. An introduction to 1984 some would say.
The chance of intelligent life in our galaxy is so low that most of the chances just don't exist. If there is intelligent life it is probably somewhere in another galaxy, probably quite far away.
Even if these exist and transmit strong enough signals, their ability to cross the vast space is very doubtful.
Yes, there is some kind of quantum communication technology that is "instant" and does not depend on space and time limits and the speed of light and that alien beings use it, which radio communication is parametric in relation to it in the same relation as communication by sending a note in a bottle thrown into the ocean in relation to radio communication
It's funny that you don't really address the most important thing, at least in my opinion: that apparently the chance of spontaneously creating life out of nothing is simply very small. So small that it doesn't really matter how many galaxies and stars there are, it's still small and rare enough that it will probably only happen once.
And maybe we just don't know how to recognize other life or advanced technology?
Who said life on another planet would be similar to our biology? Maybe instead of flesh and blood creatures they will be made of stone and iron?
And why would aliens use radio technology? Maybe they developed more advanced technology? Maybe they even communicate via telepathy?
We look for lives that are relatively similar to us and thus may miss lives that are right in front of our eyes. The trouble is we don't know how to look for something we don't know