Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

exboyfil

(18,253 posts)
1. I agree with you
Fri Oct 30, 2015, 01:15 PM
Oct 2015

I don't think that evolution necessarily leads to technological life. We need to look no further than our sky to know that our planet is unusual (our moon). Is such a moon a necessary condition for life? The dinosaurs had a long time to evolve into tool users, and they never did.

100 billion stars is a large number, but once you start adding small probabilities in, the Drake equation starts predicting very low numbers. I have heard projections of a trillion year life for our galaxy. Small stars can live 100 billion years. The 100 billion is probably a good estimate for stars capable of harboring life in the Milky Way.

You really can't project with a sample size of one, but you can look at individual probabilities of specific events that led us to this point. Of course ours is probably not the only path to a technological civilization.

What is the lifespan for a technological civilization?

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Are we the first, or one ...»Reply #1