3 ms·

Or that "intelligent" life is very unlikely if you consider that our planet will no longer be inhabitable in roughly the next 10% of its total existence and 7%

by muyuu 4y ago

Or that "intelligent" life is very unlikely if you consider that our planet will no longer be inhabitable in roughly the next 10% of its total existence and 7% since it's estimated microbial life appeared. If human equivalent creatures had taken just 10% longer to appear the sun would have dried up all the water on the earth and wiped its atmosphere before it happened.

anonymouskimmer 4y ago
The satellites of Saturn and Jupiter will still be chugging along. Our star is unusual, as well over 90% of stars are smaller (and thus longer lived). Though if you go small enough you start dealing with planets in the habitable zone being tidally locked.
- Tuna-Fish 4y ago
  But if a species capable of rocketry had not developed, there is no way complex life would be able to get to those satellites. The increased likelihood of being tidally locked is not the only problem with smaller stars. As a rule, larger stars are more stable and smaller stars are more active. This is made worse by the fact that the habitable zone is closer to the star for smaller stars. Most stars in the universe probably can't support life as we know it because any planet close enough to be warm would get it's atmosphere stripped off by flares.
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    > But if a species capable of rocketry had not developed, there is no way complex life would be able to get to those satellites. I'm talking about continuing evolution of the life that may already be there. Informative points about stars.
Turskarama 4y ago
It's hard to say for certain that there has never before been an intelligent species. Over hundreds of millions of years even evidence of cities (even assuming that all intelligent species would even make cities) could be entirely wiped away.
- sammalloy 4y ago
  Shout out to the Silurian hypothesis. It’s been linked here many times, so I won’t link to it again.
- muyuu 4y ago
  especially true if you consider that if there were hundreds of civilisations scattered across the Universe, the average distances across space and time would still be hundreds of times larger than we could deal with right now, or perhaps ever for a civilisation with advanced rocketry and telescopes similar to what we have right now, it would still be very unlikely to observe us - firstly because we've only been around at all of a tiny fraction of the time the planet exists, and secondly because despite of all the ruckus we are currently causing in the planet, we'd still be very hard to observe from sufficiently far away
- detourdog 4y ago
  I have all sorts of deluded fantasies regarding U-235 found in gabon. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/meet-oklo-the-earths-two-billion-year-old-only-known-natural-nuclear-reactor https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/meet-oklo-the-earths-tw...

by muyuu 4y ago

anonymouskimmer 4y ago

The satellites of Saturn and Jupiter will still be chugging along. Our star is unusual, as well over 90% of stars are smaller (and thus longer lived). Though if you go small enough you start dealing with planets in the habitable zone being tidally locked.

Tuna-Fish 4y ago
But if a species capable of rocketry had not developed, there is no way complex life would be able to get to those satellites. The increased likelihood of being tidally locked is not the only problem with smaller stars. As a rule, larger stars are more stable and smaller stars are more active. This is made worse by the fact that the habitable zone is closer to the star for smaller stars. Most stars in the universe probably can't support life as we know it because any planet close enough to be warm would get it's atmosphere stripped off by flares.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  > But if a species capable of rocketry had not developed, there is no way complex life would be able to get to those satellites. I'm talking about continuing evolution of the life that may already be there. Informative points about stars.

Turskarama 4y ago

It's hard to say for certain that there has never before been an intelligent species. Over hundreds of millions of years even evidence of cities (even assuming that all intelligent species would even make cities) could be entirely wiped away.

sammalloy 4y ago
Shout out to the Silurian hypothesis. It’s been linked here many times, so I won’t link to it again.
muyuu 4y ago
especially true if you consider that if there were hundreds of civilisations scattered across the Universe, the average distances across space and time would still be hundreds of times larger than we could deal with right now, or perhaps ever for a civilisation with advanced rocketry and telescopes similar to what we have right now, it would still be very unlikely to observe us - firstly because we've only been around at all of a tiny fraction of the time the planet exists, and secondly because despite of all the ruckus we are currently causing in the planet, we'd still be very hard to observe from sufficiently far away
detourdog 4y ago
I have all sorts of deluded fantasies regarding U-235 found in gabon. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/meet-oklo-the-earths-two-billion-year-old-only-known-natural-nuclear-reactor https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/meet-oklo-the-earths-tw...