E.T. Exists!!!

The Con's last post was very well said, and I can't really critique it on a sound scientific basis, for --- like the Con points out --- we simply do not know enough about the origin of life to say for certain. For the sake of the debate as a whole, and to do justice to the problems science seems to be facing when it comes to this question, I'll take this time to illustrate a few potential problems, aware that they could be resolved as we learn more: 1. Regularity of Commonness It is true that science generally uncovers that the things we once thought unique were not unique at all. Nevertheless, we must also admit that the facts we know of the universe at present do not exclude unique things from occurring. Until we know how life has arisen, we are totally in the dark about how "unique" or "common" life is in the universe, at large. Yet I think we do have a hint when we look at the radical difference between even the most rudimentary forms of life vs non-life. If abiogenesis is correct, then even the least complex model of how life arose is still almost impossibly complex to fathom when we look at the particular details. True, life resembles a kind of large-scale mimick of simple chemical processes such as absorption, retention, transformation and repulsion, excretion, etc. but the complexity involved in a simple cell is unmatched in its functional symmetry, unity and action, if we compare it to known chemical processes. Insofar as it so radical different, yet clearly derived from natural elements, it would be too far a stretch to imagine that it is something common in the universe --- unless, of course, we know how it came about. Now for some craziness: 2-3. Intrinsic Connection / Missing Link I don't have much to add to this by way of critique. I will say that we can perhaps plot out consciousness as a vast, trillion-fold system of individual electro-chemical reactions which, working in concert, produce a unified field of intentional and receptive awareness, but the problem is how we get to the initial biological structure of the first living consciousness. But, of course, the answer may come from some other field of science rather than biological studies. I have a very vague and fuzzy notion that there must be some principle of symmetrical organization that "influenced" these chemicals to act in concert, just as certain chaotic weather conditions can produce the elegant patterns of a snow-flake. 4. Alternative Idea This could well be possible, but I doubt humanity will make it that far. In order to colonize space, we need to leave the planet. In order to leave the planet, we must be able to derive enough resources from the planet itself to get us off world. At the current pace, we have too many people, are using up too many resources, and not putting nearly enough money into space travel. Technology, while wonderful, is still limited to the raw materials that make things work. If we use them up, even if we are capable of going off world, we won't be able to, and we will perish and die --- forgotten, as if never having existed. Also, even if we do make it off-world, we need to continue to produce space-ships, space-stations, etc. and this will require mining the resources of other planets. However, if we over-mine (which will likely happen, considering our current trajectory) and do not drastrically keep the population in check, then we may find that we are limited to the solar system. If that is true, our entire civilization is just another exercise in futility, equivalent to all the other mass die-offs of history. The only thing which would prove me wrong is if we both have enough resources to get off the planet, firstly, and if there exists enough in our solar system to leave it and colonize the rest. But even if we have the proper resources, we are trusting that human beings will make the proper decisions in this regard. As we speak, the United States --- the arguable leader for a long time in space-technology --- is wallowing in filth and inertia, and, as a whole, seems to be losing its resolve to survive. If Russia weren't so degraded, I would have more hope for it. India is deeply backward in many respects, despite the incredible brilliance of many Indians, and I fear that their democracy will prevent the necessary territorial and economic expansion that is required for them to lead the way. The E.U. is a joke and a half. This leaves us with China as the horse to bet on for future space-colonization. They alone have an authority which is centralized enough to ensure population control, and as they incorperate more free enterprise into their system, I think they are capable of making as many technological strides as the U.S., Europe, Israel, Japan, etc. But even then, national competition still casts its shadow on the world. The best scenario I see is the BRIC nations coming together under the central direction of a Sino-Russian pact to counter the West. Ideally, the West will dwindle away into computer-obsessed pleasure-junkies, and such tools as virtual reality, drug legalization, etc. can be used to make the West impotent and sluggish, so that it will die away peacefully and perhaps give the more authoritarian structures the benefit of its flourishing technology. Will this happen? It depends on Russia and China. India's democracy will prevent it fromt taking the initiative, and Brazil, like most Latin America countries, is too deeply under the thumb of the West. The animosity of India and China, also, is very regrettable. Hopefully the Uighar uprisings and the prevalence of Islamic extremism will make China less and less inclined to support Pakistan as a hedge against India, but this again brings us to whether testosterone will win out and entomb us or whether the calmer heads will prevail. Likely the former will happen. "Life is a long study for death", I believe a Greek philosopher once said. Sentient life may be a terrible accident, producing pain, screams and tears in a cosmos which, formerly, was without them, and we may be forced to collectively conclude that: Sleep is good, death is better --- truly, but greatest of all is to have never been. --- Heinrich Heine On that note, I leave it to Con to cheer us up. :) http://www.youtube.com...