Poll do you think there is life out there

[Moonwalker]

We are certainly not the most successful organism to have lived on earth.

Depends on how you define "most successful". If you mean to survive over a long period, a lot of microorganisms certainly are way more successful. If you mean the ability of consciousness, the ability to realize the nature and the whole universe, the ability to change almost anything we want to, no other organism is and ever was that much successful than we are.

And I hope you don't believe in such rubbish like Run Hubbard and other pathetic individuals tend to believe in and to publish...

 

[T.Neo]

If you mean the ability of consciousness,

Humans are not the only conscious animals. Animals such as elephants, dolphins and chimpanzees have been proven to be self-aware, and even relatively simple creatures maintain a rudimentary form of consciousness, without which they would not survive for long.

 

[MAraujo]

If humans are not the most successful animal species ever to have existed on Earth, we are certainly among the most successful.

not even close...Anatomically modern humans have been around for about 2 million years. The average residency for any given species is 3.5-4 million years. A great many species (too many to be listed here) have remained anatomically consistent for 200, 300, 400 million years. If, of course, thats how you measure success.

The standard argument for humans being "advanced" goes something like this:

But we have technology, science, literature, art, reason, etc. Things which other organisms don't do.

-when in fact the same argument could be made for any species. Any given organism displays traits and abilities COMPLETELY unmatched by any other.

or

We are more versatile/adaptable/widespread than other organisms.

-This is simply not true, we don't even come close to many insects plants and smaller multicellular organisms in those accomplishments.

In fact when it comes down to it....bacteria rule the world in every aspect...from the composition of the atmosphere to magmatic interactions deep in the earths crust, muticellular organisms are totally ephemeral to the microbial world we inhabit. Dr. Lynn Margolis, a former professor of mine who discovered symbiogenesis has some great books on the subject.
​

 

[ex-orbinaut]

Voted yes...

Might be a bit off beat, but I tend to believe that "life" is more or less "accidental", a result of the correct conditions and chemicals to produce "something" that can do the required chemical exchange with its environment in order to reproduce (in whatever way it does it, the exchange and the reproduction). For me, it is a certainty there is "life" of this definition all over the Universe.

Intelligence, on the other hand, I think is an too open an ended subject dependant on how one qualifies it. As far as I am concerned, bees, termites and ants are probably the most "intelligent" beings on this particular planet, but that's just my opinion.

Intergalactic travel and visitations by aliens? That IS rubbish IMHO. Without some serious genetic alteration work, I do not believe we can even live away from our home planet for too long. Just a relatively minor disruption of a circadian cycle, like jetlag or gain, has its side effects. As for prolonged space travel; isn´t there already evidence of rapid bone degeneration, for example? There is also the limitation of the maximum achievable speed vs. the distances involved. It is all highly improbable...

BTW, Good thread!

 

[T.Neo]

I'm talking about organisms from the kingdom Animalia, not bacteria or plants.

We are more versatile/adaptable/widespread than other organisms.

-This is simply not true, we don't even come close to many insects plants and smaller multicellular organisms in those accomplishments.

Wholly incorrect. Humans have colonised almost every land biome on Earth, and are able to survive for at least short periods of time in extremely harsh environments. (The ocean floor, Antarctica, space, etc.)

EDIT:

Without some serious genetic alteration work, I do not believe we can even live away from our home planet for too long. Just a relatively minor disruption of a circadian cycle, like jetlag or gain, has its side effects. As for prolonged space travel; isn´t there already evidence of rapid bone degeneration, for example? There is also the limitation of the maximum achievable speed vs. the distances involved.

That is what light switches, spinning sections and generation ships/hibernation/nuclear pulse propulsion are for.

 

[SiberianTiger]

-when in fact the same argument could be made for any species. Any given organism displays traits and abilities COMPLETELY unmatched by any other.

or

We are more versatile/adaptable/widespread than other organisms.

-This is simply not true, we don't even come close to many insects plants and smaller multicellular organisms in those accomplishments.
​

Actually, humans are quickly becoming the most important organism on Earth just because in combined effort we can change Earth's environment. It is not just ours unique trait, if you look at Earth's biological history, but is certainly an outstanding achievement for Chordata. The unique thing, however, is our present ability to kill the entire Earth biosphere in an instant, should we choose so. :focus: Or at least, to reset the whole planet's evolution to a primitive step.

We only have to learn how to exploit our power consciously at global scales.

 

[RisingFury]

But not dolphins or mice.

Well, if you consider yourself dumber then a mouse, be my guest, but I would like to think that all the achievements of the human race since discovering fire would point to somewhat superior intelligence.

 

[insanity]

Well, if you consider yourself dumber then a mouse, be my guest, but I would like to think that all the achievements of the human race since discovering fire would point to somewhat superior intelligence.

The mice actually are aliens who had the Earth created so they could find the question about life, the universe, and everything. The question, for which the answer is 42, will be discovered right as Earth is destroyed by Vogons to make way for a new interstellar by-pass. Upon learning of this, the second smartest creature (dolphins) tried to warn us but we thought they were doing amusing tricks. Right before Earth is destroyed the dolphins evacuate into space leaving us a message that says, "So long and thanks for all the fish." (The joke about mice and dolphins is from Hitch Hiker's Guide to Galaxy).

Anyways, as we lack general scientific evidence to support the notion of non-Earth based life I am skeptical; however, I am also skeptical about the idea of Earth being the only dot of life in the vast quantity of the universe. Personally (and I say this as a big fan of space but a general opponent of manned space-flight) I do not think we will ever find other life or will be found by it. Even some of our closest neighbors in the solar system are a long way away and once you pass the heliosheath you have an even longer way to go before you get close to another star.

 

[T.Neo]

Anyways, as we lack general scientific evidence to support the notion of non-Earth based life I am skeptical

Why are you skeptical when we don't have any evidence, only because we lack the ability to find any (yet)?

It isn't like we've been searching for years yet not detected anything...

 

[bujin]

I'm talking about organisms from the kingdom Animalia, not bacteria or plants.

Isn't that a bit of a cheat? Bacteria and plants are all part of life on earth, and there is a continuum of life from bacteria all the way up to the complex organisms that inhabit the earth today. Where do you draw the line?

Wholly incorrect. Humans have colonised almost every land biome on Earth, and are able to survive for at least short periods of time in extremely harsh environments. (The ocean floor, Antarctica, space, etc.)

And bacteria have colonised every human that has colonised every land biome on Earth, and are able to survive for much, MUCH longer. Without technology.

Again, it all comes down to the definition of "successful". Biologically speaking, "successful" would mean something that can survive. And in those terms, humans are nowhere near the top of the ladder. We are a very fragile species. However, if you define "successful" as a species that can develop technologies that help it do things that evolution couldn't provide alone, then yes, humans are at the top of the ladder. But that's a pretty narrow definition and a pretty small ladder - it is basically (1) humans, (2) everything else.

 

[insanity]

Why are you skeptical when we don't have any evidence, only because we lack the ability to find any (yet)?

It isn't like we've been searching for years yet not detected anything...

Why shouldn't I be skeptical when we don't have evidence? At the same time I am also skeptical of a no-life hypothesis. In general I think the question is entirely irrelevant because humans evolved to live on this planet and our body starts to deteriorate after we leave it... we will not travel to other stars and our (seemingly) best-bet to get off our rock is to alter Mars to make it more habitable.

 

[MAraujo]

However, if you define "successful" as a species that can develop technologies that help it do things that evolution couldn't provide alone, then yes, humans are at the top of the ladder. But that's a pretty narrow definition and a pretty small ladder - it is basically (1) humans, (2) everything else.

That is if you consider technology to be a trait that's outside of evolution. Is a beaver dam, birds nest, termite mound technology? All of those organisms have successfully done technologically what no other organism has done before. We are not unique to life, rather another link in the chain of uniqueness that is life. I would generally agree with you though.

 

[T.Neo]

Isn't that a bit of a cheat? Bacteria and plants are all part of life on earth, and there is a continuum of life from bacteria all the way up to the complex organisms that inhabit the earth today. Where do you draw the line?

No.
I'm not cheating by saying humans are the most successful members of the clade Animalia, I'm just saying they're the most successful members of that particular clade.

And bacteria have colonised every human that has colonised every land biome on Earth, and are able to survive for much, MUCH longer. Without technology.

They haven't colonized biomes, just humans.
And they are totally irrelevant as they are not animals nor are they multicellular or macroscopic.

Again, it all comes down to the definition of "successful". Biologically speaking, "successful" would mean something that can survive. And in those terms, humans are nowhere near the top of the ladder. We are a very fragile species.

Wrong. Humans can survive many things that would kill many other animals in seconds, using technology developed using their particular evolutionary adaptation.

However, if you define "successful" as a species that can develop technologies that help it do things that evolution couldn't provide alone, then yes, humans are at the top of the ladder. But that's a pretty narrow definition and a pretty small ladder - it is basically (1) humans, (2) everything else.

Humans are not the only species to use tools at all- they're just the only species that exhibits such profound tool use. (Not counting extinct human species, which exhibited similar profound tool use without engaging in the higher human activities such as art.)

Humans have colonised almost every land biome on the planet, profoundly changed the landscape and animal fauna, have a major effect on the climate and whose actions are visible from space.

Name one other animal species that has done that.

 

[Moonwalker]

Humans are not the only conscious animals. Animals such as elephants, dolphins and chimpanzees have been proven to be self-aware, and even relatively simple creatures maintain a rudimentary form of consciousness, without which they would not survive for long.

You are obviously one of those persons who tends to minimize differences between animals and humans, between zoology and human biology.

Humans are neither animals, nor is the humanly consciousness comparable to the rudmentary consciousness of a few animals. The humanly consciousness makes the first dramatic distinction, because it includes sensation of mental conditions and the ability of deliberation, evaluation, planning, conception and attentiveness. As a result of it, culture, language, our thinking and behaviour makes the second dramatic distinction.

 

[Zatnikitelman]

So if we're not animals then we're trees or something?

"deliberation, evaluation, planning, conception and attentiveness..."
So my dog thinking about the cat and figuring out a plan to get at it while focused solely on it was a fluke?

 

[Hielor]

You are obviously one of those persons who tends to minimize differences between animals and humans, between zoology and human biology.

Humans are neither animals, nor is the humanly consciousness comparable to the rudmentary consciousness of a few animals. The humanly consciousness makes the first dramatic distinction, because it includes sensation of mental conditions and the ability of deliberation, evaluation, planning, conception and attentiveness. As a result of it, culture, language, our thinking and behaviour makes the second dramatic distinction.

Species: H. sapiens
Genus: Homo
Family: Hominidae
Order: Primates
Class: Mammalia
Phylum: Chordata
Kingdom: Animalia

Humans are animals.

 

[T.Neo]

Humans are neither animals, nor is the humanly consciousness comparable to the rudmentary consciousness of a few animals. The humanly consciousness makes the first dramatic distinction, because it includes sensation of mental conditions and the ability of deliberation, evaluation, planning, conception and attentiveness. As a result of it, culture, language, our thinking and behaviour makes the second dramatic distinction

Uh, wrong.
Humans are organisms that belong to the clade Animalia, and thus humans are animals. If humans are not animals, what are we? Plants, fungi or perhaps some class of inanimate material?
And the consciousness of many animals is not rudimentary at all, but shows a clear understanding of self and the ability to think in a complex manner.
The only trait I can see as being unique to humans is the ability to conceptualise wholly new things, like art, technology etc.

You are obviously one of those persons who tends to minimize differences between animals and humans, between zoology and human biology.

Hm, perhaps because the differences between humans and other animals are frankly, negligible?
I do not anthropomorphosise traits, nor am I a member of the "furry fandom" or suchlike, which I frankly find rather... odd.

EDIT:
Hielor's post illustrates my point brilliantly.

 

[Linguofreak]

And bacteria have colonised every human that has colonised every land biome on Earth, and are able to survive for much, MUCH longer. Without technology.

But they can't survive outside of a human being in many of the environments that human beings can survive in. They are simply able to find a pre-existing environment that is suitable for them. Humans, when faced with an inhospitable environment, can acutally build themsevles a hospitable one inside of that environment (which is equivalent to bacteria, upon entering an inhospitable envirionment, building themselves a host that can survive in that environment), and can do so for a much broader range of environments than any other species on Earth (there are a few species that can also do this, such as ants, but ants can't build an anthill that will let them survive in vacuum).

 

[Moonwalker]

Humans are animals.

Now you have shortened your denial of the fundamental differences between humans and animals, between zoology and human biology, down to three words.

Our culture, language, thinking, behaviour and consciousness is fundamentally different to any kind of animal. What your are trying to do here does not work in a rational sense.

 

[Hielor]

Now you have shortened your denial of the fundamental differences between humans and animals, between zoology and human biology, down to three words.

Our culture, language, thinking, behaviour and consciousness is fundamentally different to any kind of animal. What your are trying to do here does not work in a rational sense.

There are six kingdoms of living things:

Animalia
Plantae
Fungi
Protista
Eubacteria
Archaebacteria

Which of these do humans most closely fit into?

I'll give you a hint, we're not plants, fungi, protists, or bacteria.