The hypothesis that human beings are the highest civilization in the universe is equivalent to one of the following four statements:
One. There is no extraterrestrial life.
Two. There is extraterrestrial life but no extraterrestrial civilization.
Three. There are extraterrestrial civilizations but not as high as ours.
Four. There are extraterrestrial civilizations, but everyone is equally hierarchical.
Here is an analysis of four scenarios that are still interesting to analyze.
The analysis is based on existing theories. The laws of the universe are universal, and there is no mythical world. The general tone is to use the known to speculate on the unknown, not the unknown to speculate on the unknown.
First, there is no extraterrestrial life
The birth of life, easy or not? It should be said that it is not very difficult. Of course, this is not difficult, but it is based on a large number. As long as the same environment as the earth is formed, life will appear sooner or later.
Why it must be the same as the earth. Because the laws of the universe are the same as matter. The universe is big. However, we still found only a very limited number of more than 100 kinds of elements, and only natural, only 90 kinds. We often say carbon-based life, so do other base life, such as cesium- group, strontium-group, zirconyl-group, neon-group, exist? I think it's not carbon. A set of parts for carbon-based life is a miracle. The universe that is currently visible is really not so much possible, almost infinite repetition. The same is true of matter, and the same is true of laws.
Let's discuss the greatest possibility of carbon-based life. Abandoning this and discussing something else always feels like it's hanging on.
Is it okay to produce other life in other environments, such as silicon-based life? It's not impossible. It's just that the adaptability of any life is not omnipotent. Its conditions for its generation are harsh. The process of analysis is different, and the results are the same. The most important thing is that when studying other forms of life, most people are about the same level as top scientists - no, then the problem can end here, without looking down. Of all these articles, the conclusion is the least important.
There are three conditions for life: the right star, the right planet, and the odds of creation.
A) Suitable stars:
1. First of all, the stars should be in a more desolate area. Mainly to prevent supernova explosions. Supernovae are bursts of energy with an enemy of the entire galaxy. What does it mean? Take 1 dozen hundred billion ah! If you have the same proportion of superpowers, single out 7.4 billion people in the world with 1, and they are on at the same time, not even a wheel war (don't get me wrong, it's not them that wheel you, it's you who wheel them), and after playing, it feels like such a planet can fight dozens more. It's exciting to think about.
Generally, after the supernova explosion, the surrounding stars will be blown up beyond recognition, and I am afraid that there will be no bacteria left. This safety distance is about 25 light years. The Milky Way currently erupts with a supernova every 50 years (estimated by observations in the Milky Way and extragalactic galaxies). If you get too close, a single outburst can cause the liquid gas of the surrounding planets to disappear completely, forever losing the chance of life. For example, the largest star cluster in the Milky Way, the Omega Centauri Cluster, has a radius of about 80 light-years and has about 10 million stars. Within 25 light years, there are more than 500,000 stars. About one every 20 million years. 20 million years is a short time. Life evaporates before it can be born.
The Omega Centauri cluster is one of the few visible to the naked eye. Previously it was thought to be a star.
This one has ruled out the vast majority of stars: the Milky Way's position near the center, and major clusters (clusters are clusters of stars with more than 10 stars that have gravitational effects on each other). Even the Star Association (an organization that is weaker than the star cluster connection). Basically, ignore the emergence of civilization.
Our sun is blessed with this because it is in the desolate zone of the Milky Way.
2. Stars cannot be too large or too small. Being too big means being too hot and quickly burning out as a supernova. There is not enough time for life to evolve. Too small to be hot, the planet was frozen into ice cubes.
At present, the Milky Way is mostly red dwarfs, accounting for about 75%. It seems that our yellow dwarf sun is also the best among stars.
It can't be said that red dwarfs and supergiants can't produce life, but it's a bit difficult.
Red dwarfs are the weakest stars. So its planets have to be close to it to get enough heat. The following dangers arise.
One is that it is relatively close to the red dwarf and is easily locked by the tides. In this way, the planet will always be daylight on one side and the dark sky on the other. Not conducive to survival.
The second is that although the red dwarf looks weak, the young red dwarf is very violent. Several flares a day, radiation instantly increased by hundreds to tens of thousands of times. Its planets must survive this time before life can emerge.
Third, the atmosphere is easy to be blown away too close.
Red dwarfs can live up to trillions of years, and if they can survive the early days, it is still good to live there.
3. Then there can be no binary and multi-star systems. "Three-Body" said that the Samsung system environment is bad, in fact, it still underestimates this bad. First of all, the possibility of forming planets in multi-star systems is relatively small. Because multiple stars are mixed, the periphery is not easy to condense into planets. Even if it is formed, the environment is difficult to adapt. For example, our sun, a large eruption of solar flares, is enough to have a huge impact on the earth. It has been theorized that multiple ice ages are also related to the intensity of solar activity. If the solar system is a binary system, a sun turns around, the earth is immediately as close as Venus, and with a whimper, the earth is as far away as Mars. Or two cycles of tossing. The Earth and the Moon still have the ebb and flow, not to mention the two stars. The two stars themselves will also influence each other, with the ebb and flow of stars, sunspot flares, and other phenomena we have not seen, which will have even greater destructive power. Even eat or shake off the earth at once.
The three stars in "The Three-Body Problem" are also in centaur constellation.
A Samsung simulation trajectory with initial conditions set. Two are more massive and one is less massive. That's not very confusing. The real Centauri trisolaran is more stable than this.
So how many binary multi-star systems are there? Unfortunately, more than we thought, about a third. Of course, a condition excludes only one-third, which is probably the least of all conditions.
A relatively rare four-star system. Consists of two binary star systems. But it still has planets.
Other conditions are not considered. In this way, the Milky Way has 140 billion stars, and there may be a few percent of the stars suitable for life. Suitable for civilization, that is, stars that do not have supernova explosions around 3.8 billion years, estimated to be one in a thousand or one in ten thousand?
2) Suitable planets
Then look at the planets. Picking planets is much harder than picking stars.
Not every star can have planets. For example, in the binary three-star system, the planet is highly likely to be eaten or thrown out. The previous one has been ruled out, so we will not repeat it. Suppose the remaining stars have seven or eight planets.
1. The distance should be appropriate. In fact, this condition is relatively easy to meet. Several planets are lined up, and there is always a distance of about the same. But it can't be too bad, maybe a few percent or a dozen distances, the temperature is not suitable. Ten percent is not enough, so exaggerated? Yes, you see the Earth's orbit has not moved, but the Earth's axis is tilted a little, the summer heat can't stand it, only a few months, the winter is frozen can't stand it. Adjacent to Venus and Mars, one heats to death and one freezes to death. Since ancient times, the earth has also experienced many ice ages, which may be that the power of the sun has shaken a little.
Getting closer, there is also an important point, let the sun blow hydrogen blowing. Otherwise, 97% of hydrogen cannot be born. All planets start out with hydrogen (planets, like stars, are formed by the same nebula, so the composition is also 97% hydrogen). It can't blow light, it blows light, there is no hydrogen, there will be no water. Later, geomagnetism came to the top, and geomagnetism prevented the solar wind from blowing away hydrogen. Venus is not as good as Earth, has been blown out of hydrogen, and the atmosphere is full of carbon dioxide (very thin).
This one, excluding most of the planets, is still no problem.
Second, be the right size. Too big, it will be full of gas hydrogen like Jupiter (the main component of a large planet must be hydrogen, because the attraction is too strong, hydrogen is sucked up tightly, and it cannot be blown. Of course, there are exceptions, that is, this large planet is close to the star, and there is a lot of hydrogen when it is generated, but the stellar radiation blows its gas dry, of course, this probability is small, and the large planet is generally in the outer orbit. Even on the inside, because the radiation is too large, there will be no atmosphere, and it is still not suitable for life).
To digress, let's discuss the impact of planet size on life: in fact, planets don't need to be very large, and life is locked on the planet. Can the electric vehicle infinity stack battery run infinitely far? The answer is no. Because the battery itself has a weight. At present, the endurance of electric vehicles will not have great progress before the battery revolution. 1000 km or so to the top. What Tesla can do is only stack batteries (of course, the price is more expensive than other cars). Switching to rockets is not an infinite heap speed. Of course, the rocket is much better because it gradually loses weight as it flies. Chemical fuel rockets, the actual speed can achieve is limited (depending on the fuel performance and the proportion of total mass). The larger the planet, the harder it is to ascend to heaven. Too big a planet, maybe manned spaceflight is a luxury.
For now, landing on Jupiter and returning to Earth is impossible. Let's leave it aside that gaseous planets are not suitable for landing. Just looking at the return phase, according to the highest specific impulse of fuel liquid hydrogen liquid oxygen, Jupiter took off to Earth to use 99.3% of the fuel. Kerosene rockets require 99.94% of the fuel ratio (0.06% of the remaining mass, even the rocket shell can not be built, right? ）。 And these fuels are also brought from the earth. The above is a unipolar rocket, and multi-stage is much better, but I will not calculate.
Is a nuclear spacecraft OK?
Okay, if it can be made. Nuclear fission can. nuclear fusion? It is not that I am pessimistic, the materials caused by more than 90 elements, how to arrange and combine their foundations have not changed, and the strength or melting point spans an order of magnitude, it is difficult to imagine. Aero engines are approaching their limits. Nuclear fusion is successful and miniaturized, and I think the materials that make water droplets in "The Three-Body Problem" can probably do it.
Another point is that solid planets are larger, and gravitational acceleration is generally larger. Creatures must grow small. Why? For example, why aren't there huge creatures on Earth? dinosaur? The number of living blue whales is now larger than the dinosaurs of the past (of course, it can't get ashore, it can't have legs). I mean bigger creatures. Because the body weight of the organism is increased to the 3rd power. The area of the foot is increased by 2 powers, so it is not said that the thickness of the legs can offset the pressure brought by the height, and it is not enough to have all the legs below the stomach. Blue whale strandings usually crush themselves to death. Creatures are small, I'm afraid they can't evolve. It's hard to imagine a bunch of ant-sized people making tools into the Stone Age. The stone is small, the power is small. The destructive power of stones also has a relationship between the 3 power and the 2 power. So ants can lift things that weigh several times their weight. Can they fight with grains of sand? The body is smaller and the brain capacity is not enough. Full talent points are not enough to click a few times.
Planets can't be too small either. Too small to absorb the atmosphere. And it cools down quickly (any star that is contracted and exothermic when it is formed, and the kernel is hot when it is formed.) Large objects dissipate heat very, very slowly, such as rocks formed by volcanic eruptions, which dissipate heat for tens of hundreds or even tens of thousands of years), and soon become a Death Star without geological activity. At that time, it is impossible to build mountains, but the wind and rain energy comes from the sun, it is non-stop, and the original peaks and land will soon be weathered out. Then the earth will be full of seas. How unlikely it is to expect civilization to emerge on the seabed.
Planets are small, and their size is small. For example, a planet with a radius of 0.7 times the earth is only 0.5 times the area of the earth, the gravity is only one-third of the earth, the organism is larger, and the living space is small, so the biological scale is insufficient (maybe only one-sixth of the earth?). ）。 The scale alone, the Earth evolved civilization in 4.6 billion years, and the probability multiplied by 6 this small planet takes more than 20 billion years. Two billion years means that no life can be produced. The issue of scale is also mentioned below.
Planets are not the right size and have a big impact on life. The impact on civilization is even greater.
3. Have a suitable atmosphere. Can the methane ammonia gas carbon dioxide sulfuric acid atmosphere produce civilization? Not excluded, but unlikely.
This is not an oil painting. This is a real shot of Jupiter's atmospheric clouds.
Jupiter Big Red Class. A storm that blew for 350 years. Wind speeds reached a level of 50. It used to be several times bigger than it is now. Now it's going to be gone. But it can still easily hold several earths (about 25,000 kilometers long and 12,000 kilometers up and down).
4. To have water, it must be a lot of water, such as the ocean. Why? Organic logistics in the ocean is fast moving and is an assembly platform. Expect life to be born directly on land? For example, silicon-based life does not require water. Yes, give enough time, not much is trillions of years. Do other liquids work? More responsibly, the odds are extremely small. Involving too many changes, it is already difficult to put together all the components needed for a set of carbon-based life in this 90-kind element, okay? There are not many other kinds of liquid oceans, that is, this ammonia sea, carbon dioxide sea, methane sea, this simple molecular sea.
Pristine oceans need to have enough organic matter. It was a pot of thick soup. In this way, organic molecules can have a chance to meet. Otherwise, if it is so far away, no one will force them together. Of course, this soup is extremely thin compared to the soup we drink. Therefore, there must be some kind of enrichment effect, so that the local concentration is greatly increased.
Does a watering hole that has been stable for 8 billion years work? No, it's enough to give another 8 trillion years. Because there is no scale. Every enrichment area of the ocean is equivalent to a puddle. Hundreds of millions. They are simultaneously engaged in creation activities, and they will communicate with each other. So I said to have a lot of water. Evolution is also, these genes in our body, starting from bacteria, hundreds of millions of individuals worked hard to evolve to leave us. Of course, most of them did not produce any new genes, or did not pass them down, or were discarded in the middle of passing down (sexual reproduction greatly increased the enrichment of good genes). However, without this basis of scale, human beings could not be born. The scale (trial and error) of life has evolved so exquisitely is the whole story.
Counting from 250 million years ago when mammals appeared, every 20 years, it is counted as 10 million generations. Assuming every mammal has parents (nonsense), then a person has 10 to the 3 millionth power of ancestors! Of course, this number is not accurate, but I think it will still be very large. So, there are many ancestors who have accumulated genes for us, so we can be so smart.
The secrets of the human body, which can be solved by a few scientists for hundreds of years, are impossible. At present, human beings can't even understand how the broken mouth of human skin heals.
Of course, substances are reused. A person has 10 atoms to the 27th power, and the Earth has 10 atoms to the 50th power. This means that there are at least 10,000 atoms in everyone's body now that were the atoms that made up Qin Shi Huang in that year. (Rough calculations assume that his atoms are evenly distributed across the Earth.) Considering that it is basically in the biosphere and the replacement of atoms throughout the life of Qin Shi Huang, this number may be much larger).) Again, there's Newton, Einstein... And any dinosaur from 200 million years ago, together they made up you. Of course, the age is not far from now, and the atomic distribution is not very uniform.
5, to have geomagnetism. No geomagnetic stars would have stripped the planet's atmosphere away long ago.
6, the outside should have the protection of the big planet. In 1994, the comet hit Jupiter. Fragment G is the most powerful. It crashed into Jupiter at 07:32 (UTC) on July 18, and was powerful at six trillion tons of TNT explosives (its equivalent is equivalent to 750 times the global nuclear weapons stockpile combined). As long as this fragment is concerned, humanity will be destroyed. It is no problem for civilization to go back hundreds of millions of years. In addition, there are countless other fragments, which can probably cultivate the earth several times.
Asteroids in general are oddly shaped. But such a long time is also rare.
The asteroid belt is located inside the orbit of Jupiter, can Jupiter protect the Earth from asteroid impact? The answer is, yes. Because if you want to hit the Earth, the orbit must first become elliptical. As soon as it became elliptical, Big Brother Jupiter came out to clean it up.
It seems that no matter how powerful Jupiter is, it is only guarding a orbital surface. In fact, interstellar space is even more empty than the vacuum created in the Earth's laboratory. The vast majority of the dangers come from the solar system's own "components." They all have similar orbital surfaces. From other tricky angles to hit the earth, there is probably only two-way foil. Jupiter's role is still very large.
It is said that the moon was hit in this way - one of the theories of moon formation. is a more competitive hypothesis.
7, have a moon. Otherwise, there is no super-rising tide, and the creatures ashore do not know that they will be delayed for hundreds of millions of years. The longer the time, the greater the chance of being accidentally destroyed. Is the formation of the moon easy? Looking at Mercury Venus, which has no moons, the third place earth really does not necessarily form a moon. The most competitive theory at the moment is that there was no moon at the beginning of the formation of the Earth. Later, it happened to be arranged by fate, and the small planets collided with the earth, which collided with the moon. The strong proof in support of this hypothesis is that the earth-moon component is very close.
Some students asked how it was so coincidental that they could knock out the moon at once. In fact, after the collision, the earth should be hot, even molten. Matter flies, and then part of the matter falls, part of the matter flies out of the gravitational range of the earth, and part of the matter becomes the ring of the earth. The rings of stars gradually form the moon under the action of gravity. Maybe some comets formed at that time. If it can be found, this hypothesis can be proved.
Having the moon doesn't necessarily keep it. This is also related to the rotation speed of the earth. The Rotation of the Earth is to be transmitted to the Moon by tidal forces. For example, the moon's orbit now moves outward 3 .8CM a year. Multiplying by billions of years, is a big number. If the earth turns faster, it may be that the moon has long been thrown away (it will not be forever if it is left, and if it is taken over by the sun, it will suddenly and quickly move away from the earth and officially say goodbye). Of course, if the Earth turns too slowly, the Moon will also fall on the Earth because it will be tidally braked.
How many creatures have been stranded on land every day for billions of years until now? Every day they struggle to find a way to survive. If it is not forced by the environment, who will go ashore to develop? It can be said that the moon contributes a lot.
The presence or absence of a moon should only affect the emergence of civilization, not the production of life.
The other conditions are not written.
The above odds, to use multiplication, the more multiplied the smaller. In particular, it is worth mentioning that the above conditions are not isolated. There is a connection between each other. It is difficult to say whether the connection is strong or weak.
We are looking at the above four equivalents. 1. If suitable stars account for 1% and suitable planets are 1/10,000, multiply to get the total number of star systems with a suitable star coefficient of 1 part per million. That is, there are about 140,000 planets in the Milky Way that can produce life. A lot of it, right. The above data is estimated and the size is negotiable. No serious scientist puts their energy on this, they can at most estimate it. You say 1.4 million is okay. Because next, there is a bigger test - the odds of the creation of the mystery.
iii) Chances of creation
The birth of life, there is also an uncalculable chance of confusion, that is, a pot of warm organic soup, how many billions of years does it take to form life? For example, how long does it take for a pile of wood to be placed in a vat and shake vigorously? Remember that a 361 subcomposition of Go has exceeded the total number of atoms in the universe. How can a life not have more than 361 parts? Students who engage in organic synthesis understand that synthesis is really metaphysics. This step of creation is the most difficult, after all, it is out of nothing. I'm inclined to have the best luck, we won the jackpot in 800 million years, and the other 140,000 brothers are probably still in the lottery. But so many billions of years have passed, and there may be hundreds of other lucky people.
The birth process of life is probably inorganic small molecules - organic small molecules - organic macromolecules - biological macromolecules - purine pyrimidine amino acids - DNA proteins - composed of life. There is no guidance from God. From making your own parts to assembling them yourself, you basically rely on Mongolia.
How many planets are there in the universe? I don't know, but not infinity. It is estimated that the total number of atoms in the universe is only 10 to the 80th power. Of course, this is also very, very big. Let's calculate a problem. If there are 60 people in a class, only one seat arrangement is the most beneficial to the class. So how many types of arrangements are there? Do you want to try each rehearsal for a few days. Sorry, that number is 10 to the power of 81. It is 10 times the total number of atoms in the universe. Your teacher is afraid that he will not find this optimal arrangement until the universe explodes 100 times.
Perhaps compared to probability, our universe is really not big.
In addition to the chemical origin theory recognized by most scholars, there are also extraterrestrial sources. That is, "life on earth, flying from heaven". "Life" in space in the universe can fall on Earth with meteorites and then multiply and evolve. Can meteorites be fireballs that carry life? Fireballs can't, but there are ice meteorites too. This does not explain how the first life in the sky came about, but only why the earth had life so quickly.
We look everywhere for extraterrestrial life. You might as well set your sights on Earth. It should be said that the ocean soup is now thicker than in the early days of the earth, and the environment is more suitable. The question is, why haven't there been any other batches since the first life was formed 3.8 billion years ago? Shouldn't it? It should be produced continuously. Maybe the other batches are just like the alien creatures, a completely different kind of life. Unfortunately not. Maybe something unexpected. For example, it is not as strong as it used to be. Or they were born, but disappeared again. Or suppressed by the creatures of the present. Whatever the accident is, it shows on the side that life is not so easy to be born.
You might as well do an experiment that has been passed down from generation to generation: put all the elements needed for life in the fully sealed glass, put it in the right environment, simulate thunder and rain from time to time, and wait for the birth of life. The odds are small, but in case of luck. I believe that after hundreds of years, this thing will become a national treasure (only the longest ones). I think this experiment has already been done.
In short, the birth of life is relatively easy. Every galaxy should have some life to a greater or lesser extent, and there should still be a batch of life in the Milky Way. But it definitely doesn't get to the point where it's very common.
There is also a condition that excludes some life/civilization. It is that a planet has had or will have life or even civilization, but as their stars die or we humans perish or for other reasons, they/we will die with it. We don't have to think about it, it's the same as nothing. And staggering to and from work is a truth, and we are not on a bus.
Interested students can search for the Drake formula.
Second, there is a possibility that there is no civilization in life
After thousands of tribulations, life was finally born.
Some people say that as long as there is enough time, life will definitely evolve into civilization. I have no objection. But the problem arises with "enough" time. There is not enough time to be interrupted. It took us 3.8 billion years to produce civilization. There were several catastrophes in between, but they all left a glimmer of life, and each time it ended. Yes, not all disasters can leave the seeds of life, and not all disasters can end. In fact, in another billion years, the earth will not be suitable for life, caused by the slow expansion of the sun. You don't have to wait until the Red Giant Stage. This time, I'm afraid, there is only the beginning and not the end.
Why does it have to evolve for such a long time, and can't other planets evolve civilizations in just 100 million years? The answer is no. Because of the evolution of life, survival is the first direction, not intelligence. Cockroaches are older than dinosaurs. They haven't had time to order the Wisdom Tree for 350 million years. Wisdom is not the goal, which means that wisdom will appear for a long time. The long time means that the likelihood of interruption is greatly increased.
Any point in thousands of talents, such as teeth, skin, eyes, ears, muscles, and even hair color reduction contrast, may not be less priority than wisdom. Life is so quick to make a profit. Even a large number of beings (plants, bacteria, viruses, fungi, etc.) have completely abandoned the gift of intelligence. Some people tend to call evolution theory evolution. Life is only passive adaptation, "degradation" in the eyes of human beings, in fact, from the perspective of environmental adaptability, they are evolving. Biologically, there is no distinction between high and low in the evolution of life. If the environment were to go back to ancient times, perhaps the current life would have evolved back into the way it was in ancient times. It can even be said that people are no more advanced than trilobites. Trilobites have been breeding for 320 million years. Advanced is not advanced, do not look at wisdom, look at adaptability. Wisdom is also only about strengthening adaptability. Species such as horseshoe crabs, jellyfish, and sponges can be learned. Yes, SpongeBob is really alive! I've lived many hundreds of millions of years! And the cyanobacteria that have lived for 3.5 billion years are the real kings of the earth!
Wisdom has been born for 5 million years. Humans lived most of the 5 million years in the Stone Age. In other words, there is no absolute advantage in primary wisdom. We would like to thank these 5 million years of natural calm. Otherwise humanity would have died prematurely. In fact, it almost went extinct.
The success of life is not based on the level of wisdom, but on the ability to survive.
There is a fact that everyone does not want to admit, that is, although humans are at the top of the biological chain, humans are far from the most successful creatures. Pessimistically speaking, the wisdom of mankind, in the face of great natural disasters, is still inferior to the kings above.
In the right environment, wisdom can play an advantage. In harsh environments, humans are less adaptable than bacteria. Compared with other living creatures, human beings are not very adaptable in the face of natural disasters, or even inferior. If a supervolcano or asteroid hits the earth now, and then there is another 10,000 years of dark night (historically, it is not too easy to make a 10,000-year long night), and I am afraid that it is still bacteria and the like.
After all, technology is something outside the body and can be deprived. The catastrophe reduces the size of the population, breaks the industrial system, and enters a vicious circle. How big is it to maintain the existing system? At least one business is reserved for each key industry. At least a full (broken not counting) medium-sized state size. Before the technology broke through enough to overwhelm the sea, human beings have been crunchy!
Planets with life, if the environment is harsh, can not produce civilization. A planet without land cannot produce civilization. Planets that have been frozen, deep under the ice sheet, may have a group of crater creatures (unlikely, because of their small size), but they will never come ashore.
Even if a planet is the same as the Earth's environment, it may still last a lifetime, and it will not be able to generate civilization. Because time may not be enough. A random big change, delay wisdom for 1 billion years, intelligent creatures can never be produced. Before talking about the importance of the moon, in fact, the significance of the moon is also to speed up the landing of organisms. In the past, the moon was close, and the gravitational force was several times greater. The tides are naturally large. We're in a race against time. No one knows which second of billions of years will usher in the end.
A moderate disaster is a must. Only by alternating between the disaster environment and the appropriate environment can we promote the development of life. Suitable environment produces large-scale organisms, and the disaster environment is a sieve, filtering genes.
Complex environments are a must. The complexity of the environment can promote the diversity of life. For example, there is only one ancient continent, the surrounding is humid, inland desert; offshore resources are abundant, and the deep sea is similar to desert. The emergence of this environmental civilization will also be delayed.
Although it is difficult to develop, it is always a bit arrogant to say that others are unlucky and have not developed to civilization on the big base of the entire observable universe. If we only look at the Milky Way and say that we are the luckiest, it is also reasonable.
Three. There is civilization, but not as advanced as us.
There is little such a possibility. Mainly after the formation of civilization, the time required to develop to the same level of civilization on earth is extremely short. Once in civilization, technology will suddenly accelerate (the big bang of technology). It only takes 5,000 years to catch up with us. 5,000 years is like a moment.
Four. There is civilization, but everyone is equally advanced.
This is a big possibility. Regardless of whether the milky way or the entire universe, there may be a factor that seals the throat of a sword: civilization cannot develop indefinitely.
We are blinded by the explosion of technology in these two hundred years, thinking that as long as we are given some time, there will be generations of Einstein, one after another infinitely overturning the theories of predecessors and excavating the origin of the world. In fact, we may already have mastered the vast majority of the world's laws. Because the origin of the world is simple. The laws of the universe are not Russian matryoshka dolls. Wormholes and the like may always exist in the human imagination. There are too many problems that humans cannot solve.
Things that violate the laws of science cannot be done. For example, human beings cannot create perpetual motion machines. What does not violate the laws of science may not be able to do it. For example, human beings can never know how many words Confucius said in his lifetime.
Take these decades as an example, in fact, it is only the development of the technical level of electronics (only the development of electronic technology, not the development of electronic theory), which makes us feel that science and technology are changing with each passing day. Comparing other technologies and theories with electronics, you can understand why you were able to successfully land on the moon in 1969, and after more than 50 years, it is still so difficult to land on the moon. This is limited by the properties of chemical fuels, as well as the properties of materials. It is not a control system (electronic technology) that can be solved after the cattle are gone.
So can electronics take us forward? For now, not. Ren Zhengfei mentioned in his speech that on the chip, it has been exposed to quantum tunneling, and Moore's Law has failed. In information technology, the limits of Shannon's theorem have been approached.
Perhaps every civilization that was born with difficulty will quickly touch this ceiling. Everyone is the same tall. The civilization of the earth is the highest civilization.
Yes, Earth civilization still has potential and can develop for some time. But hundreds of thousands or even tens of thousands of years have been ignored.
Some people say that there are many civilizations in the universe. Yet we don't see them. Perhaps, it is because they can't come out and can't send a signal. Interstellar communication, just think about it. That is to say, science and technology have a ceiling.
And we may be the only few hundred years in the earth's lifetime that we can happily think about this problem. Then I found out that the technology was over.
The laws of the universe do not work with us. They were not born for our use.
conclusion
Estimate based on probability, size, and time:
In the observable universe, life on Earth must not be the only life. Nor will it be the only civilization. But because of the limitations of the law (possibly), human civilization is likely to be the highest (strictly speaking, it will be a few thousand years).
Within the galaxy, life on Earth is probably not the only life, but it may be the only civilization, and certainly the highest civilization.
In fact, these have nothing to do with us. The only thing that matters is that we will never see aliens in our lifetimes —well, it's irrelevant if we don't see them.
That concludes the article. It must be stated that this is only a possibility.