5 ms·

I'm always surprised this isn't discussed more or at least a variable to consider among others for updating the Drake Equation.

lomnakkus 11y ago
Personally, the Drake Equation has always seemed more than a little silly to me -- in that -- the plausible range of most of the parameters means that you can get pretty much any result you want. Don't get me wrong, it's a fine thing to ponder and think about all the involved variables and probabilities, but I wouldn't take it very seriously as an actual estimate of anything meaningful.
- ethbro 11y ago
  When you don't know a lot, estimates have wide bounds. That doesn't diminish the importance of trying to logically construct a formula for establishing bounds. They might not be useful today, but you've got to start somewhere.
  - lomnakkus 11y ago
    Sure, but we might want try to at least constrain the parameters with better (verifiable!) bounds and perhaps even modify the equation occasionally when we learn more -- as we have done (learn, that is) since it was proposed. I should make clear that I wasn't disagreeing with mercurialshark, per se. As I said: It's certainly a good thing to think about these things, but... :) EDIT: Assuming it generally agrees with observed facts, a good sign for any scientific theory is how much it constrains the explanation/solution space. (Paraphrased, obviously. For the life of me I cannot remember who said this. Perhaps David Deutsch?) I don't think the Drake Equation adequately constrains the solution/explanation space.
    - noselasd 11y ago
      We do constrain the Drake equation when we know more. It's just that we don't know a lot. We have come to know the number of stars around pretty well - at least in our galaxy. Thanks to Kepler and other exoplanet hunters, we know know alot more about the number of planets. These findings are used to constrain the Drake equation. The rest of the parameters we don't know much about, yet.
- IndianAstronaut 11y ago
  Especially considering we have a sample size of one, possibly two if you count Mars as a potential place of habitability. I would hold judgement till we explore Europa. Depending on what we find there life may or may not be common in the universe.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    All this will tell us is that life can survive the trip to Mars or Europa. We already know this to be the case ( microbes are tough) and asteroid strikes provide the means of getting Earth life to these planets/ moons. At this point I would be more surprised if we don't find microbial life in the solar system outside of Earth.
Wingman4l7 11y ago
Yes; I've often wondered about the potential existence of planets with an insufficient quantity of rare earth metals, and if that renders them basically "inhospitable" to high tech civilization.
- erikpukinskis 11y ago
  Why rare earth metals specifically?
  - Wingman4l7 11y ago
    They're used for a whole host of technologies -- doping semiconductors, magnets, lens coatings, metal alloys, etc.
- dogma1138 11y ago
  Life also has to be on dry land and pretty similar in to us as far as sensory capabilities go to get any where. If you can't see you aren't going to develop laser, if you live under water you won't have fire, heck even hands are required for fine tool making so it's unlikely that we'll have space elephants or squids...
- daveguy 11y ago
  Rare earth metals are a very specific set of elements. If you are talking "nothing above lithium" that means only hydrogen helium and lithium. AKA no carbon oxygen nitrogen (or silicon).

lomnakkus 11y ago

Personally, the Drake Equation has always seemed more than a little silly to me -- in that -- the plausible range of most of the parameters means that you can get pretty much any result you want. Don't get me wrong, it's a fine thing to ponder and think about all the involved variables and probabilities, but I wouldn't take it very seriously as an actual estimate of anything meaningful.

ethbro 11y ago
When you don't know a lot, estimates have wide bounds. That doesn't diminish the importance of trying to logically construct a formula for establishing bounds. They might not be useful today, but you've got to start somewhere.
- lomnakkus 11y ago
  Sure, but we might want try to at least constrain the parameters with better (verifiable!) bounds and perhaps even modify the equation occasionally when we learn more -- as we have done (learn, that is) since it was proposed. I should make clear that I wasn't disagreeing with mercurialshark, per se. As I said: It's certainly a good thing to think about these things, but... :) EDIT: Assuming it generally agrees with observed facts, a good sign for any scientific theory is how much it constrains the explanation/solution space. (Paraphrased, obviously. For the life of me I cannot remember who said this. Perhaps David Deutsch?) I don't think the Drake Equation adequately constrains the solution/explanation space.
  - noselasd 11y ago
    We do constrain the Drake equation when we know more. It's just that we don't know a lot. We have come to know the number of stars around pretty well - at least in our galaxy. Thanks to Kepler and other exoplanet hunters, we know know alot more about the number of planets. These findings are used to constrain the Drake equation. The rest of the parameters we don't know much about, yet.
IndianAstronaut 11y ago
Especially considering we have a sample size of one, possibly two if you count Mars as a potential place of habitability. I would hold judgement till we explore Europa. Depending on what we find there life may or may not be common in the universe.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  All this will tell us is that life can survive the trip to Mars or Europa. We already know this to be the case ( microbes are tough) and asteroid strikes provide the means of getting Earth life to these planets/ moons. At this point I would be more surprised if we don't find microbial life in the solar system outside of Earth.

Wingman4l7 11y ago

Yes; I've often wondered about the potential existence of planets with an insufficient quantity of rare earth metals, and if that renders them basically "inhospitable" to high tech civilization.

erikpukinskis 11y ago
Why rare earth metals specifically?
- Wingman4l7 11y ago
  They're used for a whole host of technologies -- doping semiconductors, magnets, lens coatings, metal alloys, etc.
dogma1138 11y ago
Life also has to be on dry land and pretty similar in to us as far as sensory capabilities go to get any where. If you can't see you aren't going to develop laser, if you live under water you won't have fire, heck even hands are required for fine tool making so it's unlikely that we'll have space elephants or squids...
daveguy 11y ago
Rare earth metals are a very specific set of elements. If you are talking "nothing above lithium" that means only hydrogen helium and lithium. AKA no carbon oxygen nitrogen (or silicon).