Stephen Hawking Thinks Aliens Likely

OMNIpotusCOM writes "Noted astrophysicist Stephen Hawking thinks that alien life is likely, albeit primitive, according to a lecture delivered at George Washington University in honor of NASA's 50th anniversary. It begs the question of if we need to consider a Prime Directive before exploring or sending signals too far into the depths of space."

Why is this newsworthy?

firstly many Scientists have came to that conclusion, Many mathematically proven that even if you call life rare, the sheer number of stars with the possibility of planets in a habitable zone means there is a crapload of civilizations out there.

Hawking has said this before earlier as well. Just because he makes the same statement again instantly makes this news??

Come on the Drake Equation has been around for a long time now guys.

But...but...

But...but...the sumbitter managed to insert a spurious Star Trek reference!!! Surely that is newsworthy!

Re:But...but...

Not to mention a blatant physics error*, good on him, give him a /. gold star ;-)

Justin.
* "sending signals too far into the depths of space" - see 'inverse square law' and 'size of solar system', not to mention 'microwave background'

Re:Why is this newsworthy?

It is nevertheless still entirely possible, however unlikely, that our own civilization might actually be the only one in the whole universe.

We certainly don't know for sure yet. But, if the universe is infinite (our current best measurements indicate that the universe is flat [wikipedia.org] and infinite), and if the initial conditions were ergodic [wikipedia.org] (which is indeed the prediction of our best model, inflation [wikipedia.org], and is consistent with the data, e.g. the microwave background [wikipedia.org]), then there are an infinite number of causally-disconnected Hubble volumes [wikipedia.org], which essentially guarantees that life exists at multiple locations in the universe.

What this means is that in an infinite universe that has totally random initial conditions, every possible state will be realized somewhere. That means that somewhere in the universe, conditions very similar to our local conditions will be realized. Not only does this mathematically guarantee that life exists somwhere, but also that "copies" of Earth and you and me exist somewhere. All possible variants of matter organization are realized somewhere in the infinite universe (and in fact may be repeated over and over). Of course, the distances over which you will see a repeat may be fantastically large (much, much larger than the observable universe, for instance). Also, life-forms in causally-disconnected volumes can never communicate with each other. (So you may say... who cares?)

In any case, it's not known with certainty that the universe is infinite (or that the big bang was ergodic)... but our current theories allow for models where the multiple emergence of life (and all physically reasonable variants) is in fact mathematically guaranteed. Kinda interesting.

Re:Why is this newsworthy?

but also that "copies" of Earth and you and me exist somewhere

But we'll have goatees.

No begging

It begs the question of if we need to consider a Prime Directive before exploring or sending signals too far into the depths of space.

No, it doesn't [begthequestion.info]. There. Got that out of the way.

Re:No begging

Please? Please? Just ONE question? PLEASE?

Re:No begging

Not only does the old usage hardly exist anymore, but when you try to use it people have no idea what you are talking about.

When I quote relevant Shakespeare, people often have no idea what I'm talking about. Does this mean I should abandon my referencing Shakespeare, especially when it is poignant to illustrate that some political dilemma, moral quandary or even humorous device had been broached over 300 years ago?

The view that language is good enough as long as it is fairly likely to get the point across is - even putting aside that it is usually harder to parse incorrect, intelligible writing than correct prose - antithetical to the "standards" culture espoused on Slashdot. It is the permissive, lackadaisical Internet Explorer approach to HTML. And it is born, I fear, of the average nerd's mediocre ability in his own language, and his desire to change the rules to suit his own lack of interest in a discipline at least as complex, and millennia older, than his own - that of effective communication. Put down the Knuth, pick up the Fowler, and learn to express yourself as elegantly to your fellow man as you might to your computer.

Anyway, I've met no reasonably educated man who does not know the correct usage of "beg the question". A few minutes ago I was reading a book published in the last decade which employed it correctly. Had the author wished to indicate that a particular question was "raised", he would have done so. While I'm here:

• The gay/homosexual debate is a red herring; "gay" is a term of self-identification associated with the liberalisation of attitudes towards same-sex attraction and lifestyle; the term has evolved over 80 years in tandem with the LGBT movement. The poster's use of "beg the question" is, on the other hand, the result of incorrectly applying a well-known phrase of standard English.
  
• Since this site targets computer professionals and enthusiasts, it would do well to respect the field's established jargon. If I need to reinstall Windows (and that means I've erred at least twice ;-)), I have not bricked my PC!
  

Here endeth the rant.

Re:No begging

You're that guy at parties no one wants to talk to because he's so damned pedantic.

Fixed that for you.

Prime Directive?

We, as a species, haven't managed to solve the problem of destroying primitive cultures *here* or a thousand other problems that suggest not corrupting alien cultures is something we shouldn't worry too much about.

I mean seriously -- if we think our technology and culture is okay for the entire planet, why should we stop here?

okk..

It begs the question of if we need to consider a Prime Directive before exploring or sending signals too far into the depths of space.

You're absolutely right! We should definitely set hold back on all the space exploration we've been doing. Also, we should set physical limits for our transmissions to "expire" after a certain distance, so we don't send them "too far". In fact, that would be the only responsible thing to do for Masters of the Universe such as us.

No

"Aliens being likely" does not mean that it's likely we will ever meet one (or be successful in either sending or receiving any communication).

Hawking isn't an astrobiologist

However, because alien life might not have DNA like us, Hawking warned: "Watch out if you would meet an alien. You could be infected with a disease with which you have no resistance."

That is precisely why I wouldn't be worried. Any pathogenic symbiote would have evolved to take advantage of the host's physiology -- not ours.

Prime Directive my shiny metal ass!

Was there a planet that Kirk/Picard/Janeway didn't leave in a fundamentally different state after turning up?
Humans are designed to trade, travel and exploit resources. Then move on when there are too many tourists.
Frankly, I'm surprised there isn't aready a Prime Directive that reads:
"See that blue/green planet with all the space junk and EM noise? You want to leave that one well alone!"

Nope

The Prime Directive applies when an advanced culture encounters a more primitive one. While I think there is alien life out there, I seriously doubt that we'll find anyone more primitive than us.

The problem with Hawking's statement

Stephen Hawking is a brilliant man who once claimed to be fortunate to suffer from ALS, because it gives him far more time to think and do things that normal people would instead spend on other activities (because they can).

The only problem I have with his statements at GWU is that he is focusing too much on radio waves. He is speculating that since we haven't detected any radio waves, it is unlikely that any intelligent civilization exists close to earth (and by close, I mean in astronomical measures).

In my opinion, scientists are taking too much for granted when looking for life. We assume that it is more likely to find life wherever water exists and we constantly assume that the conditions must be earth-like. And regarding the radio waves, I don't understand why an extraterrestrial civilization would even need to use such technology. It is just as likely that they communicate in entirely different ways. After all, hearing and seeing is just one way of living, but not a necessity.

I realize that radio waves occur from more than just television shows, but this is mainly the type of signals we look for since the odds of intended communications from other planets are insanely small.

The Prime Directive is Evil

It begs the question of if we need to consider a Prime Directive

"Hello Mr. Alien. Welcome to our planet. Boy, you sure are more advanced than us!"

"Why, yes, we are, thank you. By the way, I couldn't help noticing that many of you still die from cancer."

"'Still die'? You mean you don't?"

"Oh, no, we cured that a long time ago. Same for that crooked politician thing you've got going. And war. Oh, and that thing you call 'Alzheimers', too. And global warming. We don't have any of that. They all turned out to be really simple to fix, in fact."

"Really? that's wonderful. Will you teach us how to solve these things."

"What? No, no, child, your culture isn't ready for all that. Besides, you're so cute the way you are. No, we'll just stay up in our ships and watch you figure it out. It will probably take several more generations, but that's OK, with our advanced medical technology, we will live long enough to see it... unless you wipe yourselves out in the process, that is. He he. You amuse us."

"Asshole"

Re:But The Real Question:

Will they simply laugh at us earthlings; or shake their heads in frustration, wondering "when will we ever learn"?

What makes you think life forms entirely alien to earth will even have heads? Starfish have no heads, jellyfish have no heads.

I think it's a bit early to worry about TFS's "Star Trek Prime Directive". Sure, there is probably life alien to earth but face it, guys - we haven't found any. Not yet.

There are folks who think an advanced civilization from some other star has already come here to study us (Roswell), but if in fact those are aliens come to visit us, I think it more likely that it is a species descended from us come back in time to do some archaeology rather than visiting from Betelguise to work on a Wikipedia entry on us..

Travelling faster than the speed of light is, after all, just as impossible as time travel. Humans have been human for less than a million years, what will we be like in another ten million? Will we have found that time travel is as impossible as air travel was 1000 years ago?

Re:But The Real Question:

> Travelling faster than the speed of light is, after all, just as impossible as time travel

Travelling faster than the speed of light is pretty much the same thing as time travel. If you could travel faster than the speed of light, then you could time travel.

Re:But The Real Question:

And liberation? Whose fault is it that the people of the world suffer tyrants and murderers ruling them, really? If all the people go together we could overthrow them without too much difficulty. But then, we'd have to overthrow the new tyrants who led the last revolution, and so on.

I'll have you know that I, as an enlightened being, have been liberating lesser beings for years. I have personally liberated hundreds if not thousands of civilizations of ants. I've also liberated civilizations of bees, wasps and hornets. I'll tell you... the totalitarianism they were subjected to would make a civilized person weep.

They must have been captives, because once I slew their rulers and set them free, they all left and I never saw them again. But I'm sure they were singing my praises, whatever happened to them.

Re:But The Real Question:

The best evidence for intelligent life in the universe is that it hasn't contacted us yet
(Paraphrasing Calvin)

Re:too much st

I would presume any such Prime Directive would ultimately be abused/ignored like it has been on Star Trek. International Law is only arbitrarily enforced. Let's first get a grip on how we treat our own people and the other species which inhabit our planet, then maybe we could think about how we would treat extra-terrestrial life forms (if in fact there are any). The only downside to idealism is reality.

Re:too much st

I don't know what this Prime Dircetive actually says but if it's something along the lines of

1) Subjugate and conquer any species you encounter against which you can prevail with military might.
2) Use diplomacy and survelliance/espionage techinques to undermine any species against whom you are not guaranteed to prevail to bring about their downfall and leave you in control of their resources.
3) Attempt to avoid or form favourable alliances with anything you come across which is stronger than you.
4) ...
5) Profit

Re:too much st

Nonsense. An unknown computer genius would write a virus for their vast computer system after three days of exposure to it, and then upload it by way of a MacBook, crippling their defenses and allowing a ragtag band of fighter pilots (very few of whom have actually flown the planes they've been given) to take down the invader's superweapons. Technology's got nothing on good old corporate-sponsored flag-waving feel-good heroic ingenuity.

Re:Some Notes on Alien Life

I don't see why Fermi's paradox is in any way a good argument. By his argument, there are no lobsters at all. I know this because last night I left my door open and waited for one to crawl in.

Put another way - we (humanity) went from fairly small mammals to now in about 65 million years. If the dinosaurs hadn't fallen victim to $extinctionLevelEvent, they could easily have become as evolved as we are now - just a whole lot earlier. So, if intelligent/sentient life could have evolved here 60 million years ago, why wouldn't that be the case in another solar system?

For all we know, it's entirely possible that 15,000 light years away there's a planet with a civilization that is EXACTLY as evolved as we are. Why haven't we heard from them yet? Physics - would take 15,000 years for any signal to reach us. Hell, 200 light years away would suffice for that argument, and in both cases Fermi would look like an idiot.

As an aside, I see his paradox along the lines of creationism - after all, we can't prove that something doesn't exist. Only that it does.