First Rocky Exoplanet Confirmed 155
Matt_dk writes "The confirmation of the nature of CoRoT-7b as the first rocky planet outside our Solar System marks a significant step forward in the search for Earth-like exoplanets. The detection by CoRoT and follow-up radial velocity measurements with HARPS suggest that this exoplanet has a density similar to that of Mercury, Venus, Mars and Earth, making it only the fifth known terrestrial planet in the Universe. The search for a habitable exoplanet is one of the holy grails in astronomy. One of the first steps towards this goal is the detection of terrestrial planets around solar-type stars. Dedicated programs, using telescopes in space and on ground, have yielded evidence for hundreds of planets outside of our Solar System. The majority of these are giant, gaseous planets, but in recent years small, almost Earth-mass planets have been detected, demonstrating that the discovery of Earth analogues — exoplanets with one Earth mass or one Earth radius orbiting a solar-type star at a distance of about 1 astronomical unit — is within reach."
NTY (Score:5, Funny)
Re:NTY (Score:5, Funny)
We recieved some radio transmissions, but all we've decoded so far is You're the best around and Eye of the Tiger.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, so they're aware of our existence.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This what the actual radio transmission looked like.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking Rocky Horror tbh...
It's Frank N Furter's home planet *shudder*
Re: (Score:2)
Transexual, Transylvania?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What... too late?
Re: (Score:2)
There already is one (Score:2)
Such a planet already exists... it's called Philadelphia.
I happen to be an inhabitant of said planet. My name is Adrian, I welcome you to my world.
Dead serious, yes, my name is Adrian, and in fact, in my high school there was a also a guy named Rocky, and we were both in marching band and our band once performed "Gonna fly now." Such is the life on my planet, even though I'm a guy.
*goes back to watching sports and eating cheesesteaks*
By the time we get there (Score:5, Interesting)
By the time we actually got to one of these planets, would it still be able to sustain life? Should we be looking for planets that are in their early, less habitable stages?
Re:By the time we get there (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really. A lot of these planets that are being found are within the range of a few dozen to a few hundred light years in distance. According to the laws of physics as currently understood, we can't reach light speed, but anything under light speed is fair game. 50% of light speed is perfectly achievable (under the laws of physics - not today's technology), and so most of these could be realistically within 1000 years of travel time. Considering that we had animals walking around on Earth hundreds of millions of years ago, I don't think we'd miss the habitable window of these planets ;).
Re:You are forgetting to account of GR (Score:5, Informative)
1. That's Special Relativity.
2. .5c only gives a gamma of 1.15--for the traveler the apparent travel time is divided by 1.15.
3. If we assume that the other star is not moving at an appreciable percentage of the speed of light with respect to Earth (I believe this is a safe bet for pretty much any star in our own galaxy--the sun moves at .2c with respect to the rest frame of the MWG) then if Earth sees our ship hop up to .5c, that's how fast the other star will see it going, also.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You are forgetting to account of GR (Score:4, Interesting)
The faster you go the shorter the time in both the travelers frame of reference and the destination stars frame of reference. We don't need to assume some guess about what will happen. This is all stage 1 physics. Its dead simple. We know how much time will have passed both in the ships reference frame and the stars. It won't be the same in all cases, but it is bounded to be equal to or below a classical estimate from Newtonian physics.
So at traveling at
Re: (Score:2)
One interesting tidbit to be found here is indeed that time slows down exponentially as one approaches light speed. FTL is not possible for an OUTSIDE observer, but if you were traveling at the most extreme value listed, 0.999999999999999c, then time would slow down by a factor of 22369621.33 to the person traveling. So while a person traveling at that speed between two relatively fixed points would appear to take just a bit over a year to traverse the distance, the person actually traveling would travers
Re: (Score:2)
Re:By the time we get there (Score:5, Informative)
As planets which could be habitable -- when you speak of the time we actually get to these planets, we are only talking in terms of thousands or tens of thousands of years. These measures of time are beyond insignificant in geological time and would have next to no impact on habitability (barring, of course, sudden events such as asteroid impacts, nearby supernovae, wandering black holes, etc.) -- if it is not yet habitable you can't really count on that changing too much in the next ten thousand (or ten million for that matter) years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what you call "life". I think we will send only our neural content there. at first stored as a copy inside robots, who can survive pretty much everywhere where there is light and some minerals. So we can continue a normal life here *and* live on another planet in a million years. And later, we will simply send our minds trough space as digital signals in the form of laser or something like that. We would then truly be those "light lifeforms" of science fiction movies. And we would be able to have
Toasty little cinder (Score:5, Interesting)
Looks like this little guy is only 0.002 AU away from it's parent star. I wouldn't expect to find any life there, but still, this is an amazing discovery. As these methods get fine tuned it's only a matter of time before we start finding planets roughly Earth-like not only in form, but also in relation to the habitable zone around their star. I don't think we'll ever get a probe, much less a person, to any of them within my lifetime, but at least we'll have an interesting list of spots to visit when we do reach that capability :).
Re:Toasty little cinder (Score:4, Interesting)
Then again, perhaps their scientists are thinking much the same thing about us:
"A rocky planet, similar to our own, was discovered in a nearby solar system. However, having only a fifth of our planet's mass, and being located 500 AU from its star, the planet is probably much too cold to support life. Temperatures below 800 degrees are thought to be far too low in energy for the spark of life to begin."
You call that cold? (Score:5, Interesting)
Meanwhile, as scientists on an outer planet look our way:
"Rocky planets like the one recently discovered are turning out to be quite common throughout our area of space. Given a dense enough atmosphere, this planet could even support life like ours, although it's hot enough to kill all but the most tolerant extremophiles known. Spectroscopic analysis, though, reveals its deadly nature: much of its surface is covered with molten hydroxic acid, which forms toxic clouds and then falls as corrosive rain. If life-giving ammonia was ever present on the surface, it's long since combined with the abundant free oxygen in the atmosphere. Our chemists are still uncertain what could produce so much free oxygen; fantasists have speculated on forms of life that would metabolize oxygen in the same way that we metabolize hydrogen, but the analogy breaks down quickly as you look more closely at the chemistry involved."
Re: (Score:2)
And maybe hundreds of millions of years ago they also thought:
"It's not worth going to that barren rock because it would take 10,000 years to get there, but let's fire off a probe filled with genetic material at that rock and see if anything evolves -- y'know for shits and giggles"
Re: (Score:2)
I can accept that alien scientists would use english, but I don't think they'd say "similar to our own" if they were going to immediately say how different the two planets were. Good communication is good communication.~
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't an alien scientist speaking, it was an alien slashdot editor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We've already found some tantalizing prospects. Perhaps the best is Gliese 581d, which is a super-Earth (anywhere from 8-13 Me) that's within its star's habitable zone. We've even started broadcasting to it, just in case.
COROT 7b is interesting because it's only 5 Me, and because we were able to calculate its density and prove that it's a rocky planet. There will be other prospects. We're getting pretty good at this planet hunting game.
Yes but... (Score:1)
It might have Roddenberries.
Re: (Score:2)
no, its a hell planet.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't stop people from going to Thailand
Not really the first (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For those interested in details.. (Score:4, Informative)
Here's a scientific paper describing how the period/mass/size/etc of the planet was deduced from observation data: http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0241 [arxiv.org]
According to the paper, this planet's orbital semimajor axis (or in plain English, the "average" distance from the planet to the sun) is about 0.0172 astronomical units. Since its sun's temperature is roughly at the level of our Sun (also in the paper), it means the planet is probably a hell much hotter than the Earth...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Just as well we don't go there ourselves. Next thing you know, we'd be dropping nuclear powered probes on it and polluting all of space.
ok (Score:2)
I'm packing my bags
Hey Rocky... (Score:5, Funny)
.... watch me pull a planet out of my hat!
Where is it located? (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe jump to the left?
Then a step to the right, perhaps?
Grand Tradition (Score:3, Funny)
In the grand tradition of selling things you don't own, like the names of stars and acres on the moon, I hereby offer to sell 40 acre lots on this planet for a mere $10,000 each. That's cheaper than a lot this size would cost in any large city here on earth. Imagine what you could do with your lot. Since there isn't any law enforcement there yet, you could grow illegal crops, build a manufacturing plant without any polution controls, or just use it to test your nuclear bombs. This is a limited time offering, and quantities are limited, so don't delay. And if you order today, we'll include the plans for a trebuchet so you can fling dead animals onto your neighbors property.But wait, order during this program, and we'll include a set of ginzu knives (shipping, handling, and other fees are an additional charge) which can cut through the toughest tomato without the need for a hammer, but you'll want to use one anyway just for the splattering fun.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're going to have to lower your prices a bit. Considering that I can get 40 acres on the moon for less than $1500 [lunarregistry.com], I don't see how this is a good deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Hay, I'm throwing in a set of knives. Well, one knife anyway. You shouldn't expect such quality service for free!
Sequels (Score:2)
Planet not so important as its discovery (Score:2)
This planet is too big, too close to its Sun, and orbiting too fast to be habitable in any way we are accustomed too. But this doesn't mean its discovery is not news: Astronomers are finding more evidence that planets are common. Progress is being made towards discovering planets more like our own than the gas giants which were first discovered.
What is needed is more telescopes of good sensitivity. Each main sequence star not wholly unlike our own needs to be carefully monitored over time, in order to detec
I wonder how they're defining "planet" (Score:3, Interesting)
The summary (and TFA too ;-) reminded me of the recent debate over the definition of "planet".
One obvious problem is with the claim that we only knew of four "rocky planets" before this one. Since Mercury and Mars are included, it's likely that the definition they're using would also classify at least Titan and Triton as "rocky planets", giving us six.
But, (I can hear people saying), Titan and Triton aren't planets because they don't orbit the sun. Well, neither does this new planet; it orbits another star. Some people have seriously defined "planet" to mean objects that orbit our sun, and of course that definition immediately says that there can't be any more planets in the rest of the universe. If you accept this new object as a "rocky planet", what's your definition? You'll have to word it very carefully so that it includes things orbiting a distant star, but not those that are in orbits around local gas giants.
And if you find a good wording for that, you face another likely future problem: How small an object is allowed as the primary? Suppose a new rocky-planet-like object is found in orbit around a nearby "brown dwarf". The primary isn't a proper star, so is the object merely a moon and not a planet? It's also likely that we'll soon find Jupiter-class objects in free space, not orbiting a star; if one has a Mercury- or Mars-like object in orbit, would it be classified as a rocky planet or a moon? If it's a planet, then why isn't Ganymede also a planet?
I'd predict that in the not-too-distant future, as smaller things can be detected remotely, astronomers might decide to abandon such definitions that depend on the type of primary, and rewrite definitions so that they only use properties of the object itself. Either that, or they'll deprecate "planet" as a lay term that's not useful for scientific purposes. Dunno what they'd replace it with, though.
Meanwhile, the Sophists amongst us may be in for a lot of fun in the near future. Those of us who sat at the sidelines chuckling over the angst caused by the demoting of Pluto are probably looking forward to a lot more astronomical geek humor in the next few years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pluto got that shaft again in this article. Not even a nod as the former 5 rocky planet.
Re: (Score:2)
A rocky planet orbits the sun. A rocky exoplanet orbits other suns. But who cares anyway? It's just us pigeonholing the objects we see in the sky.
Giants can have life too (in their moons) (Score:2)
I know it's cool and all, but a giant planet in the habitable zone is more important than a rock planet hovering close to its star's burning atmosphere. Imagine a Saturn + Titan in the habitable zone. We'd only see the Saturn from here, but we can assume that such a planet might have large moons, moons capable of sustaining a dense atmosphere (which I know isn't the most common thing, but still).
Let's imagine a Titan around whichever giant exoplanet we know that's in the habitable zone, and that it has th
Where's the data? (Score:2)
It would be nice if news submissions to *science*.slashdot.org contained hard data URLs, rather than simply paraphrasing other press releases. I would like for example to know precisely *what* us being measured and how it is being measured (brightness vs. radial velocity, spectroscopic planet "light" frequency shifts, etc.). If you only know the orbital period and a radial velocity shift then it would be complete "fiction" (or "certitude" based on dead universe physics). With only a couple of parameters
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:gotta wonder how far this search will go (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not only the (seemingly pointless, as your post insinuates) search for celestial bodies beyond our own planet's atmosphere, but through this search we learn more about our own planet's origins and those of our local solar system, as well as our general role in the cosmos and what we can expect in the years and millennia to come.
Re: (Score:2)
...it insinuates that we have a lot of work ahead of us.
Yes, if the place has oil we need to build supertankers to travel the stars!
Of course, the first barrel will very expensive... so we'll just skip that one and get the rest of them instead.
Re: (Score:2)
"if the place has oil"
There are oceans of oil there. But, we'll have to politely ask the natives to move their floating habitats out of the way, so we can package it up for shipment. And, we'll have to fight off the native sales critters who want to sell us portable cold fusion plants. Damned profiteers.....
Re:gotta wonder how far this search will go (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If we found a planet with roads and a city - civilisation, that has truly astonishing implications for our entire culture.
Do they have oil? Gold? Rare materials? Do they believe in Christ? We must build an FTL drive ASAP so we can find these things out!
Just be careful if they approach us with open gun ports. It might just be a greeting......
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I already assume there are exoplanets out there that have life even intelligent life. Obviously this is just an assumption without evidence but why should it be surprising? Perhaps you are right though. Perhaps if we do find planets with intelligent life it'll knock down our collective self-centeredness a notch. I suppose that's worth it, but I'd really rather see the money/effort spent on gravity wave detectors as those will provide the most profound insights into the origin of everything.
Re: (Score:2)
It's one thing to say "Odds are that there's life on other planets because the Universe is so big." It's quite another to say "There is life on other planets for example the second planet of star X2949!" Even if we don't find any life, finding planets around other stars increases our solar system sample size from one and tells us a lot about how planets form.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I find it almost impossible to believe that, if there's another rocky, Earth-like planet out there, that it doesn't have intelligent life on it.
Don't the first few billion years of earth's history provide strong evidence against that idea?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't the first few billion years of earth's history provide strong evidence against that idea?
I wouldn't think so, necessarily. The key phrase I used was Earth-like. I wasn't trying to imply that just about any rocky planet we found was bound to have intelligent life on it (although I think a lot of them will probably have some life on them, even if it's just algae-like), but I think if it's got rocks, an atmosphere (maybe oxygen-rich, but maybe not), and, of course, enough time to do it in, I don't see why it should evolve that much differently from our own. Maybe I'm thinking too intuitively, b
Re: (Score:2)
The key phrase I used was Earth-like.
... and, of course, enough time to do it in, ...
No, I think the key phrase is:
If you want to argue that all (or most) Earth-like planets will produce intelligent life at some point, that's a perfectly good hypothesis. But even if that's true there still will be many Earth-like planets out there that's haven't reached that point yet (and might not last long enough to do so). My point was just that, if you take your post at face value, you find it "almost impossib
Re: (Score:2)
The key phrase I used was Earth-like. No, I think the key phrase is: ... and, of course, enough time to do it in, ...
If you want to argue that all (or most) Earth-like planets will produce intelligent life at some point, that's a perfectly good hypothesis. But even if that's true there still will be many Earth-like planets out there that's haven't reached that point yet (and might not last long enough to do so). My point was just that, if you take your post at face value, you find it "almost impossible to believe" an X could exist without Y, when you're standing on an X that didn't have Y for the vast majority of it's existence - and that sounds kind of silly.
How are you defining "Earth-like"? Are you defining it as a planet that will one day have Earth's conditions, or one that already has Earth's conditions? If we find a planet that has the same conditions we have now, it's likely they'll have intelligent life. The Earth is something like 4 or 5 billion years old. For most of that time, it didn't have the conditions it has now. Anatomically modern humans have been around for about 195,000 years [wikipedia.org]. For most of that time, the Earth would've been recognizab
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would think that finding a rocky, Earth-like planet might be a near-guarantee for finding life, but not necessarily intelligent life. However, some of those life forms might have some level of intelligence. They might not be little green men building flying saucers, but they might be smart pack hunters on the order of wolves. Even if we just found alien bacteria, though, it would be huge.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But of a logical jump there. It might be like Australia, or Pakistan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've lived there most of mine also, I think you might be...
Re: (Score:2)
Nuke em til they glow. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But if we were looking at ourselves....imagine the distance. Yes, we'd be looking at ourselves hundreds of years ago. Time voyeurism :)
being optimistic are we? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:gotta wonder how far this search will go (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Our sleeperships/seedships might greatly enhance the potential survivability of our species. Their sleeperships/seedships might do the opposite.
That realisation might also have a big impact.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you might be disappointed in the actual overall reaction.
I think you're not thinking in the proper scale here. How much of a reaction do you think Copernicus got out of his contemporaries?
Re: (Score:2)
There's quite a bit of difference between abstract expectations and knowing something for real and dealing with it. The expectation that there's probably life somewhere out there is very different from the certain knowledge that there's an intelligent civilisation just like us on that planet right there.
There's no way that's not going to make an impact.
Re: (Score:2)
And if the inhabitants are nothing like humans but have a dominant religion claiming that they were "created in god's image"? Or does that just mean that their religion is wrong (like all the other ones on Earth)?
I think you underestimate the lengths people will go to in order to insulate their religion from falsification. Sure, it might upset some evangelicals, but that's a small group, compared to either a) the sheep who will believe what their pastors tell them to believe, and b) those who will come up with the latest mental gymnastics to think themselves out of this quandary. No sooner will the discovery be made than you'll have theologians "discovering" that the thing "made in God's image" is the soul, not t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No sooner will the discovery be made than you'll have theologians "discovering" that the thing "made in God's image" is the soul, not the body
The idea that "God's image" is not about the body is hardly a new one. 3 dimensional bodies are part of this universe. God, as creator of this universe, by necessity isn't. My guess is that "God's image" is about rational though, as that's what distinguishes us from animals.
Re: (Score:2)
No sooner will the discovery be made than you'll have theologians "discovering" that the thing "made in God's image" is the soul, not the body
The idea that "God's image" is not about the body is hardly a new one. 3 dimensional bodies are part of this universe. God, as creator of this universe, by necessity isn't. My guess is that "God's image" is about rational though, as that's what distinguishes us from animals.
Two points here:
:)
1) Human beings are animals. Nothing distinguishes us from them, per se. We're (most of the time) thinking animals, but that's it. And it's not even clear that we're the only thinking animals, depending on how you deinfe "rational thought". Other animals use tools, make decisions, etc. What actually seems to distinguish us the most from other animals is written communication. If chimps, whales, or dolphins ever start writing things down, though, we might be in deep shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
2) Indeed, the idea of the soul being "God's image" is old, but that's not the point, really. The point is that if another race of intelligent beings was found somewhere else in the universe, it would topple the idea of humans being the top of the food chain.
Wasn't the point of a food chain that it's a circular thing? We're being eaten by bugs and worms (and the occasional shark) and all that? But even if we are at the top of the food chain on our planet, how would life on a different planet change that? They're bound to be in exactly the same dominant position on their planet as we are on ours.
Believers would have to find some other way to explain how we were still God's favored ones (which is almost certainly what "in God's image" was meant to imply).
That's not at all certain. I just gave you an excellent alternative theory (that fits the bill much better, IMO).
And they'd do it by saying something like our soul is more advanced than the soul of the beings that we encounter.
A "more advanced soul"? What does that even mean? I thin
Re: (Score:2)
2) Indeed, the idea of the soul being "God's image" is old, but that's not the point, really. The point is that if another race of intelligent beings was found somewhere else in the universe, it would topple the idea of humans being the top of the food chain.
Wasn't the point of a food chain that it's a circular thing? We're being eaten by bugs and worms (and the occasional shark) and all that? But even if we are at the top of the food chain on our planet, how would life on a different planet change that? They're bound to be in exactly the same dominant position on their planet as we are on ours.
The food chain isn't circular. If it was circular, it would be called a cycle (or, if you like the circular chain idea, maybe a bracelet).
The idea of the food chain is that the animals above eat the animals below. Cow eats grass. Human eats cow. That kind of thing. It's a predator-prey relationship. When I say humans are at the top of the food chain (in the literal sense) I mean that man has no natural predators. Nothing naturally hunts us for food. At most, humans get killed when they antagoniz
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that if another race of intelligent beings was found somewhere else in the universe, it would topple the idea of humans being the top of the food chain.
(...) But even if we are at the top of the food chain on our planet, how would life on a different planet change that? They're bound to be in exactly the same dominant position on their planet as we are on ours.
The idea of the food chain is that the animals above eat the animals below. Cow eats grass. Human eats cow. That kind of thing. It's a predator-prey relationship. When I say humans are at the top of the food chain (in the literal sense) I mean that man has no natural predators. Nothing naturally hunts us for food. At most, humans get killed when they antagonize an animal (getting between a female lion and her cubs, for example).
So what you meant above was: "if another race of intelligent beings was found somewhere else in the universe, it would topple the idea of humans having no natural predators"?
I think you might want to revise that argument.
Believers would have to find some other way to explain how we were still God's favored ones (which is almost certainly what "in God's image" was meant to imply).
That's not at all certain. I just gave you an excellent alternative theory (that fits the bill much better, IMO).
Your alternate theory concerns what, in particular, in man is made in God's image. That's not what I'm addressing here. What I'm addressing is what it means symbolically to be made in God's image. The symbolic significance would seem to be that humans are closer to God (i.e., his chosen people) than any other creature. If we were confronted with a species that was as well or better off than us in significant ways, that would pose a problem for that vview.
It would only pose a problem for the view that we're the only favoured ones. But the notion of each planet having its own favoured species wouldn't pose any fundamental theological problems.
And they'd do it by saying something like our soul is more advanced than the soul of the beings that we encounter.
A "more advanced soul"? What does that even mean?
Europeans used the same kinds of arguments against indigenous people all the time. Even the most advanced race can be thought of as "poor, ignorant savages" if your definition of knowledge includes knowing God. Even people in the same culture can have those kinds of thoughts about each other, if one groups religious practices are outside the norm for that community.
The idea of other humans having no soul or a lesser soul is a rather backward view that I doubt anyon
Re: (Score:2)
The idea of the food chain is that the animals above eat the animals below. Cow eats grass. Human eats cow. That kind of thing. It's a predator-prey relationship. When I say humans are at the top of the food chain (in the literal sense) I mean that man has no natural predators. Nothing naturally hunts us for food. At most, humans get killed when they antagonize an animal (getting between a female lion and her cubs, for example).
So what you meant above was: "if another race of intelligent beings was found somewhere else in the universe, it would topple the idea of humans having no natural predators"?
I think you might want to revise that argument.
This is why I specified "in a literal sense". If we found another race of beings somewhere in the universe, and they were "superior" to us, in intellect, technology, or just brute power, we might become their prey. Maybe not in the gastronomical sense, but at the very least, in the competition for resources. To put it in a really basic way, for probably the first time in our species' existence since we developed agriculture, we'd have real competition for resources from other animals (in this case, the
Re: (Score:2)
1) Human beings are animals. Nothing distinguishes us from them, per se.
Nothing? Seriously? Are you saying other animals are just as capable of developing our level of culture and art? Of abstract discussion? Of undersatanding science? Of controlling fire, inventing cars and computers?
We're (most of the time) thinking animals, but that's it.
That's a pretty big "it" if you ask me.
And it's not even clear that we're the only thinking animals, depending on how you deinfe "rational thought". Other animals use tools, make decisions, etc.
And you really don't see a difference between their tools and decisions and ours?
What actually seems to distinguish us the most from other animals is written communication. If chimps, whales, or dolphins ever start writing things down, though, we might be in deep shit. :)
And your claim is that that is not related to rational thought?
Really, the difference we're talking about here is not one of gradual steps, it's one of many orders of magnitude.
Re: (Score:2)
1) Human beings are animals. Nothing distinguishes us from them, per se.
Nothing? Seriously? Are you saying other animals are just as capable of developing our level of culture and art? Of abstract discussion? Of undersatanding science? Of controlling fire, inventing cars and computers?
I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that human beings aren't different from other animals. I'm saying that human beings are animals. We're not a separate category just because we can speak to each other and write (which is where all those other things you mention come from).
We're (most of the time) thinking animals, but that's it.
That's a pretty big "it" if you ask me.
Maybe yes, maybe no. We don't really have a good way of finding out what, if anything, other species are thinking right now. In certain animals, we understand what different behaviors mean generally, but we don't have any
Re: (Score:2)
And if the inhabitants are nothing like humans but have a dominant religion claiming that they were "created in god's image"?
If their capable of rational thought, they'd be entire correct in that belief, according to my relgion.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, can you name a religion that insists there is no life on other planets? I'm not aware of any,
Neither am I, but I'm sure the discovery of an intelligent civilisation would spark some discussion about their status in regards to sin and salvation in some religions.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess, they will eventually find a habitable exoplanet or moon.
By that time Mars or some other planet or moon will have a permanent population in our solar system.
Given the incentive, it is almost sure they will develop 50% light speed travel and populate the exoplanet too.
We won't live to see it anyway.
Anyway, finding such a habitable place seems the easiest, safest and cheapest of the steps.
Re: (Score:2)
Speak for your self. I'm hoping for head in a jar status or at least occupying a big chunk of RAM.
Re: (Score:2)
Also known as Balboa.
Nyet! Is hideout for moose and squirrel!