This talk shows typical scientific lack of knowledge, focusing on the external. All truth of life is found within. The external is purely a temporary sensory reflection. Having "hope" that there's life out there is simply a lack of self knowledge, and encourages people to focus on the external, which again leads to a lack of self knowledge. I recommend listening to Barry Long, a legitimate spiritual teacher.
@@JohnyG29 The truth of life is that I, the reader (not the writer, since the writer is a "you", not an "I") am life itself. I am all life, and all life is in me. However to realise, which is to make real, that truth, requires living the spiritual life, or the divine life. I recommend spiritual teacher Barry Long as a "real deal" teacher, which is a very rare thing, who can act as a guide until such time as you no longer require a teacher. Barry passed in 2003, but left behind a large body of work.
Let's be honest here: We're never going to accept that we're alone in the universe, we're going to keep looking for extra terrestrial life for as long as our species exists.
Why should we as humanity accept that we are alone when this assumption is impossible to verify? We can only falsify it when we find something that is 'alive' (can also be just some type of space bacteria or fungi).
While I agree with your statement, im of the firm belief that what we are "in" is a super-duper advanced holographic simulation (akin to Star Treks "holodeck", but obviously on a much more larger scale, and complexity). With that being said, it could very well be that all that space out there in the universe is a mere "illusion" and doesnt really exist [until/if such a time arises that we are able to physically reach it, then it could very well "pop" into existence, as in the phenomena of manifestation. The phenomena of manifestation is very real for me, insomuch that I witnessed it on at least 3 occasions during my lifetime. Some would say im a kook, while others think im merely misremembering things...and thats ok. I know in my heart the phenomena is real and exists. Lastly, yes it does make your mind do one huge "Whoa !!! WTF ?!?!?!"
@@Aurochhunter Let's look at our own planet. How many species did we have since the beginning of life on this earth? Billions of life forms and only one was able to use tools, books and fire. So it must be VERY unusual to develop this kind of 'intelligence'. Another factor is the possibility to destroy the own environment or own species with the right tools and weapons. So intelligent life will probably have very short life cycles compared to simple forms (which also have way lower demands to their environment than complex forms of life)
We're still finding new/undocumented species of life here on Earth. Just because we've not seen it, doesn't mean it does'nt exist, because we have plenty of examples proving that assumption wrong. It was once thought that life could not exist in extreme temperatures. Then we found a wide array if life forms thriving on deep sea hydrothermal vents, in temperatures ranging from 400f to 700f. We've also found life thriving in lakes underneath the Antarctic ice sheets.
Finally! Michael Crichton made similar points some years ago (it would take a fiction writer with a scientific mind to sniff out BS so keenly). The compounding of UNKNOWN variables still make them unknown. That popular scientific personalities talk about the Drake equation and other similar notions with such bias has seriously dumbed down the scientific dialogue in our society. We also talk about modeling in other areas in the same way, as if these equations are not speculative but somehow predictive. Kudos to Dr. Kipping for treating science like a process, not a corruptible worldview.
His right about one thing ! Life has a short time ⏲️ to become intelligent life + get to age of modern technology + be able to have the Intelligent to want to leave they're planet. Intelligent life + life may only be around for a short period of time. Universe is a dangerous place.
@@A_Stereotypical_Guy here is the definition of a scientist in its strictest sense: a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences. "a research scientist" From this, we can surmise that a scientist need not have a PhD. A person can attain expert knowledge from independent research, without having gone to university and received a PhD. This would accurately describe Bill Nye, whom has devoted a massive portion of his adult life to the study of more than one field of science. He is respected by professors and the greater scientific community. So, a scientist he is, a qualified professor with a doctorate he is not.
What he wrote in 2003: "More recently we have seen the rise of the so-called 'Rare Earth' theory which suggests that we may, in fact, be all alone. Again, there is no evidence either way." This is an ignorant person's skepticism. He doesn't know anything, so he doubts everything. Equally fallacious, he plays up correct theories that initially weren't accepted... until there was evidence, but he doesn't emphasize that requirement, as Sagan does at 21:30. So he scorns assertions of likelihood when there is evidence (he doesn't know of) and scorns the establishment for dismissing theories that he deems sufficiently backed by evidence when they aren't. I would be embarrassed to have written with such a tone of playground antagonism for that level of audience (see link), while also betraying an inconsistent standard of empirical support. Sure, Africa and South America "fit" together, but there also seems to be a face on Mars. Coincidences happen, so evidence needs to be accumulated--such as similar fossils below the time of continental separation and dissimilar species above. When you take pictures from a closer distance and different angles, the facial symmetry vanishes. This evidence takes time to amass. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Or as Feynman tried to teach with his license plate explanation, you can't use the hint that gives you the initial hunch to test that very hunch. Unlikely things happen all the time, so you need to collect _new_ data to see if it supports the hunch. The ubiquity of rare events is why hypothesis testing seems very conservatively structured to the uninitiated. Feynman's UFO discussion with a "layman" distinguishes whether talk of knowns or talk of likelihoods is scientific. Sure, we don't _know_ that we're not being visited by space aliens, but that doesn't make us unscientific to take sides and say it's highly unlikely. We _can_ talk about likelihood, given what we already know. That is in fact allowed, when there's data. Bayesian reasoning _is_ consistent with the scientific method. Or as Feynman put it, from what he knows about the world around him, reports of UFOs have more to do with the known, irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than with the unknown, rational characteristics of extraterrestrial intelligence. As Christopher Hitchens would point out, one of the rules of oratory is that arguments presented without evidence can just as easily be dismissed without evidence. But that's not what's going on in this case. 100B galaxies of 100B stars cooking for 14B years is what Kipping is taking on, as is the Miller-Urey experiment. Slowly evidence is amassing in the astronomical and biochemical fields on both the ease and difficulty of abiogenesis and convergent evolution of technology-wielding intelligence, and the time to cook up the heavier elements that assist life. The trouble is when people make assertions that "we just don't know" as an excuse to dismiss talk of likelihoods, use of Bayesian reasoning, and evidence that already exists. To do so is just indulging in a false equivalency. And it's especially annoying when it's born of their own ignorance of evidence that already exists (an agnosticism of laziness). stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf
We hv a lot of questions but answers evade us. We know of this one life. Humanity. Us. Whether there is life other than us in another form on another planet with again a different form to sustain that life form we do not know. If they exist they are invisible to us. Are we invisible to them. We are not alone. There are other dimensions in the Universe. What about the trillions of humanity in some other dimension who have finished with their experiences over here. They have moved on. May be they could help us with some answers.
It’s not just that space is vast, but also that time is vast. Perhaps there was once a civilization in our galaxy that sent out radio signals hoping to find other life, but it ceased to exist billions of years before humans discovered how to detect those signals.
This has been exactly my point for decades and it rarely gets discussed. The chances of another civilisation existing in our blink of an eye in time is infinitesimally small, let alone the narrow slice of time we have been aware of the concept.
@@HowardKlein1958 Yes. It is a very well-discussed and known topic. Remember that time and space are the same thing, therefore when talking about the vastness of space you're also talking about the vastness of time.
The conditions for life that our planet enjoys are so many and so particular, makes you think about how the universe works: it doesn't repeat itself. It is us who give the same label to different things. It would be awesome to find intelligent life somewhere else, but I really don't have any expectations. Just life, not intelligent life, I think it is easier to expect. Or, intelligence without life: is that possible?
We don't even know if intelligent life is a surefire products of evolution anyway, life doesn't need to be intelligent like us to survive, dumb life is acceptable as long as they survive and that's all evolution "care about"
Well if scientists support every viewpoint imaginable, what good are they? I can get that opinion asking my neighbor. At a certain point, "experts" need to give you an expert opinion otherwise they are not experts.
I agree with you completely. Very few scientists (e.g. Richard Feynman) have stressed the danger of expectancy bias and the importance of agnosticism in some specific cases. I am personally an agnostic when it comes to the existence of God and anthropogenic global warming (later conveniently renamed climate change). I am quite familiar with the Pupin Physics and Astronomy building where Dr. Kipping gives his lectures. I got my PhD degree from Columbia in 1978, and I wish I could be there 45 years later to meet Dr. Kipping in-person.
@@NoOne4kBecause space, even relatively nearby space, is enormous and beyond imagination. The Rare Earth Hypothesis and the Fermi Paradox are riddled with problems, not the least being circular logic. To assume that we're alone because our extremely small and limited exploration for life in the cosmos hasn't turned up anything is beyond ridiculous. It would be like taking a thimble full of ocean water and declaring there's no life in the oceans.
That would be a much more accurate title, but I think it's to counter the conventional wisdom that there must be tons of life in the universe.@@MarkusAvrelius
incredible lecture, professor kipping. a breath of fresh air after hearing so many scientists conclude there has to be life in the universe other than us.
Fresh air? Are you serious? He brings nothing new to the table and spends 25 min telling us what we already know. Of course nobody knows for certain and he criticized deGrasse Tyson as if his comments on entertainment tv were an actual scientific journal. Those who cant do science are quick criticize the ones who do. I am sure Tyson knows the difference between mathematical certainty and personal beliefs. If he cant understand that he was expressing his beliefs and that he was not presenting to actual scientific audience then he needs to self check and rethink his career.
@@davidvega1097 Kipping was being scientific. Tyson forgot he is a "physicist" and was just speaking his mind, which might also amount to nonsense. Tyson should have stuck to the actual science. A few years ago, a team of scientists at The University of Oxford arrived at the same conclusion as Kipping did using Bayesian statistics--that we might very well be alone in the universe.
@@glennwoodruff2398 he was using what you call no sense to make his conclusion appear valid and make himself look smart. Now just because your a physicists does not mean you can’t be an expert in other sciences. Our brains don’t stop working if it is a subject outside our original study area. Besides this guy and all those statistics came to a whopping conclusion that we just don't know. I understand this as an actual exercise in logic but for this guy to spend 25 min is ridiculous. Now for anyone to publish this conclusion is just plain moronic. These people cant come up with their own things and they take simple things and blow them up just to make them sound smarter than he is. Now Tyson I am certain he know that his claims are not scientific or mathematically valid (I have no doubt he can do the math). Everyone with half a brain knows we just don’t know for sure as of today. Also, speculating on things that may one day be proven otherwise has lead to the creation of wonderful discoveries and inventions. They make me feel like publishing a scientific paper to prove if there is life after death.
Brilliant and also very graspable for any semi intelligent non scientist. Appreciate his agnosticism on the topic…He speaks very clearly and supports a specific point of view…but entirely without arrogance…Thank You for sharing this lecture
At this point of our history the video title alone is sheer gaslighting if on purpose, and dumb ignorant narcissistic egocentristic naive arrogance already. not worth watching. Purpose of these type of statements today is to dumb down the masses deeper into ignorance to keep on controlling and profitting from them.
Thank you for the work you are doing professor Kipping. I would have loved working in your team. Our world needs more minds like yours to profess reason and expand our knowledge. ❤
He's going to be blushing when life is eventually found on another planet/moon. The size of the universe means elements and environment will reoccur elsewhere.
Most star systems have 2 or 3 stars and have the larger planets inward. We have never observed alien planets with moons as large as ours. The circumstances of our system and planet are exceedingly rare. Additionally, in 6 billion years, intelligent life has only evolved once--another rare circumstance. @@d.s.5157
@@d.s.5157 He didn't say that life is not common. He said that we have no evidence to compute the probability of life. Discoveries of life would give us more data, but it wouldn't discredit anything said in this video.
We aren't alone. The aliens are here, RIGHT NOW. It's a verified fact. The most advanced military in the world verified the footage of non-human technology (see Tictac). This isn't a question anymore! No more "swamp gas" or "it was Venus". The aliens are REAL and HERE. Why do people keep acting like this is a question anymore? Stop living in denial!
We may see light from other long dead civilizations or receive a message that is millions of light years old. That's probably the best we can hope for. We will almost certainly die with our bubble.
I really liked the way Professor Kip lectures/teaches. He has a genuine smile and its more like he's conversing with you about something so casual, except it's about the universe and scientific equations lol.
Biologists who study early life are probably the people you would want to include in this discussion. While even they don't _know_ how life first began, they know enough to at least give some interesting and illuminating context.
yes the fact that in a planet where there ara conditions to life to arise, had happen (as far as we know) only one time shows its not as common as we tend to think .
It's also somewhat interesting to remember that often times when we talk about how life can begin somewhere, we forget life could look a lot different in different circumstances. It doesn't necessarily have to start on a planet like ours, though obviously we don't have any examples of life like that.
@@eventhisidistaken If it had happend a billion times all together let alone in a day I would think that life on earth would have been more varied then it is. I was under the impression that they claim that everything is related. That would at least mean it was only successful once and may there fore have only started once. To my knowledge the scientist know quite well what life is made out of but I don't believe they have actually ever managed to actually start new life without a cell of excisting life.
“We might be alone”. Why would anyone think we are alone?! What we have sampled of the universe is equivalent to taking a cup, dipping it in the ocean, looking at what’s inside the cup and conclude “yep, no life in the ocean”
Bad analogy, if you were to take a cup from the ocean you would discover microplastics among other things that would suggest that there is life however you may question its intelligence.
I see what you did there :) Now you're definitely not alone :) Incidentally, Kipping is probably among the most brilliant astronomers of our generation, in my very humble view. His papers are remarkably creative. I highly recommend to read them if you're into these things. They should be readable for most people with some basic physics/astronomy background.
Fr man, so happy I found this video! I'm not willing to die on a hill for us being alone but it's always been strange to me how one sided this conversation is. Every other physicist/scientist talks about outside intelligent life as some sort inevitability so it's nice to finally hear a different perspective.
@@Retotion What you wise guys overlook is the fact that once we find even the tiniest microbe on Mars, or a moon of Jupiter and Saturn, the whole lecture was nothing more than a waste of oxygen. And with each passing day, we get closer to the cause. Especially now that we're going to start looking at the atmospheres of extrasolar planets with the help of the James Webb Telescope. As soon as we can prove chlorophyll for the first time, the lecture is waste paper again. The deniers of the "plenty of life" theory must refute any evidence. The others only have to successfully complete the proof once...
Don't count on it. In a purely materialist cosmos, the chances of true solipsism becomes significant. The entire universe may exist only in your own mind. But that case only you would actually exist and the rest of us would be figures of your imagination. I think I need another beer.
@Wikileads No, not necessarily. As Professor Kipping said, we simply don't know, so the possibility that alien civilizations exist is as legitimate as the position that we're alone. But when scientists start proclaiming the galaxy is teeming with alien civilizations when there is zero proof of this, and insult people as arrogant or whatnot for not believing a position for which there is zero proof, then this is anti-scientific behaviour. Not the same as insanity but not appropriate either. I can understand what op meant by finally a sane response. Professor Kipping's analysis is a rare instance of evidence based logic and thoughtful even-handed balance amid a massive myriad of emotional reactions. The scientists who let their wishful thinking propel them to enthusiastically premature conclusion arejust one part of this. Think of all the craziness in non-scientific circles, from cults to people brainwashed into believing Democrats are secretly alien lizards under fake human skin.
Im a statistician. Always felt we could be alone. I believe the absence of direct evidence makes it more likely that Fl is indeed smaller than the number of stars and we are alone. Note that statistics doesnt apply to whether we are alone. We either are or are not. The statistics only apply to our knowledge of it. Its like the odds of the next card in a deck being a heart. It either is or is not. Once the deck was shuffled, the answer is fixed, only our knowledge of it is pseudo random.
There is plenty of direct evidence. Theres a lot of circumstantial evidence that shows we are not along, and keep in mind that we can convict people on circumstantial evidence for murder. Yeah sure if you ignore that, then yes were alone.
@@Alex-pb1iy Most of the "direct"evidence is mostly by people with psychological problems or the need for attention. Also, the chances of someone being guilty on circumstancial evidence, whether this is right or wrong, is still by far more likely for the crime to have happened than someone claiming to have evidence for an extra terrerestrial. Extaordinary claims really do require extraordinary evidence.
So one of his major arguments is because we don't know exactly how many planets there are we can't make a positive claim that there is life anywhere but earth. What a trash argument in fact all you have to do is look up to see that everything in the universe is repeated constantly over and over and nothing is special and contained to any one area. Besides that you don't have to look any further than our own existence for evidence that alien life exist. In an endless amount of space what happens once will happen over and over. Everything in the universe is repeatable.
@@matthewviramontes3131 yeah. it's distance and time to the nearest alien. Calculate the time it would take to the nearest alien, in the drake equation
Well, his whole take on the Copernican argument is just wrong, and it's surprising that he didn't really think it through. While it is natural to expect that a civilization would show a survivor's bias, that, by itself, doesn't invalidate the argument. You could still imagine what an external observer of the Universe would think if they found us in such a big Universe. They would still update their probability, based on that observation, and conclude that the probability that there's EXACTLY one civilization is much lower than there being at least a few. This is also precisely what you'd think if you spotted a bacterium in an aquarium. It's absolutely irrelevant to your conclusion what that bacterium thinks.
No, he is advocating for saying “we don’t know” instead of making assumptions, because the probabilities are not known. He argues that it is unscientific to take things on faith. I agree.
This is an incredibly vague and obtuse comment. His main argument is that we don't know, and then he subsequently presents a number of examples debunking the status quo, that there 'must be a universe teeming with life'. Maybe you should elaborate.
@@atmanbrahman1872 but you did say 99% You clearly are a the top leading scientist in the world and deserve recognition if your research truly led you to a mathematical precise number of 99% probability that we are alone. But here you are on a YT comment section…
Great lecture. Dr. Kipping is completely correct. I personally want there to be a Star Trek like universe out there just waiting for us to discover it, but what we've currently observed shows no evidence of that. You can get into as many thought experiments using statistics as you want, but at the end of the day we just don't know. Those thought experiments are important, don't get me wrong, but they prove nothing. This might not be very exciting, but this time we live in is very important. As Obi Wan said in Star Wars, we have "taken your first step into a larger world." Keep learning everyone!
You literally have no idea what you're talking about and clearly have done zero investigation. But pat yourself on the back and tell yourself you're smart. 🤓
I took a long time for life to become multi cellular, and it took a long time for multi cellular life to become intelligent enough to create technologies and it took a long time for technological life to develop the abilities we have as modern humans. What we have no clue about is how long we can persist after we have developed the ability to wipe ourselves out. Sixty years so far, and counting.
Pretending is not same as knowing, the scale of the universe is way too much for a human brain to digest .Many issues here ,from basic know how to complex ones .Everything is made out of functional parts , if i exists so can others, kowtowing this issues pretty much requires exploration of all universe ,we can’t duplicate the most basics forms of life meaning we are in a very weak scientific position .
maybe thats the nature of the universe , where perspective and bias always change reality, and thats a good thing because that way we have new things, if everyone saw the universe the same way we'd all act the same way and that would be wierd and probably not lead to all what we have, so much variatey, choice. Even on this planet alone where all life shares some dna with each other, their take on how to express the code is vastly different. I dont think you cant have it both ways - predicability doesnt lead to variety and vice versa. Ultimately i think if we found an equation of the universe that would break the universe as it woudl be exploited and it doesnt look to be , but maybe has been before and the big bang could of been remnants of a past civilization who found the equation for everything and the universe too is evolving to compensate
This is a subject that I've considered for some time. One of the aspects of being in space that rarely gets talked about is that humans begin to deteriorate as soon as they go into space and may well be that why we never see aliens because they are as tied to their planet just like us. And then again there are the impossible distances involved.
dont be stupid, that like saying humans cant breath on water.. therefor we arent meant to be in the swimming pool. Have you seen how fast some of these ufo travel? and the amount of ufo footages alone, already suggest otherwise. I think the probability that we are alone is NIL. its bloody stupid to thikn otherwise ,,,data shows that in our galaxy alone, theres about 300 million potentially habitable planet. Thats just our galaxy. Theres about 2 trillion galaxy.... its just seem so stupid to think were alone otherwise. Its beyond DUMB
> tied to their planet just like us probably by design, if the universe is infinite there is nothing unique, I don't buy the argument of the video, there is nothing special here.
@@fmeloThere's a lot special here. Kipping does a great job of debunking status quo arguments publicly paraded from mainstream/celebrity scientists or dumb podcasters *Rogan, who love presenting life like it's such a sure thing but ultimately have no more evidence for it than statistical speculation.
The numbers, however, are very compelling for a reasoned argument, based on statistics, for the likelihood of life elsewhere beyond the Earth or our system. I agree though that there's as yet, no evidence for this logical inference. Emphatically, I'm not talking about emotional 'belief', but rather logical inference.
We live in such an exciting time having access to all of this info etc even back 40 yrs ago so much of this wasn't availiable! Keeping an open mind to everything is so important!
its basic stuff found in the first paragraphs of the first chapter of any decent analysis on the prospects of alien life; and a distraction from the correct best answer we currently have. Astronomers are good at pointing telescopes at stars and looking at spectrographs, but typically bad at logical analysis / reasoning on the prospects of alien civilization. The first law of reasoning for alien civilization is never trust an astronomer's analysis, they have all sorts of screwed up bias and archaic modes of thinking. Astronomers are among the last people to be consulted this on matter. Ok onto the elephant in the room, the biggest myth of our times, which the naive astronomer didn't address, and has never objectively thought about it in his life and never will: 1. The idea that alien civilization would blast out radio communication, loud and clear, hence our satellite dishes should be jammed with alien radio transmissions. This myth was created back in the early days of radio communication around the 1920s when most transmissions were sent uncoded. Thinkers at the time assumed radio comm would remain that way practically forever. Today most radio comm is encoded so that it resembles random noise; but it is digital as apposed to analogue, which distinguishes it from natural background noise. However it is easy to convert a digital radio stream into an analogue stream then add a few pseudo noise fx to make it completely indistinguishable from natural background noise, except for those with the encryption keys. This is how aliens communicate. 2. The myth that we can detect the tiniest signals from the other side of the universe. Actually, our best technology ( Nasa Deep Space Network ) can detect synthetic information from a synthetic source from about at maximum 180AU or one light-day away; it is 6 orders of magnitude smaller than the detection sensitivity we'd need to evesdrop info from the nearest star system. In case you haven't noticed, we can barely detect exo planets directly. If a whole exo planet can't generate enough waves to be detected by our best scopes, its going to be hard to detect an artificial source unless its pointed directly at us, and for us. This leads us onto 3. The idea of convenience that aliens want to communicate with us. In technology they are millions or billions of years ahead of us. It would be like us trying to comm with bacteria in the dirt. What is the purpose? Just to poke the bacteria and do experiments on it. Any discussion about alien civ should address these points. The astronomer's lecture was conspicuously lacking, like a half man lacking half his body and head.
4. The myth that inter stellar aliens comm using spherical wave broadcasts, this one's again from the 1920s. For interstellar space it is more sensible to use rasers ( radio equivalent of laser ) to aim a coherent beam at a target star system. (a) less power useage, (b) much better stealth; no other star system would detect the signal. The chance that we'd sit between 2 alien star systems and be able to intercept their signals is extremely low, and in these cases, aliens can simply divert signals around the solar system. That we might postcept signals after they pass their target star can be stopped by alien engineering, they can adjust their rasers to difuse enough to be too weak to detect past the target star system and also the target star system can send out an neutralizing wave signal to reduce the signal beyound the receiver. Show me the astronomer lecture that mentions these points. protip: u can't because astronomers are dumb.
@Jota Efe that astronomer got a big applause, 354K views, 11k likes, and 3447 praising comments in 3 weeks for "neither prooving nor disproving anything." Glad that we give credit where its due.
It’s really an “if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?” question. Organized human society is 9,000 years old. Our technological biosignature is 100 years old. Let’s be optimistic and say our technological biosignature will last 20,000 years. That could happen thousands of times across the galaxy with no intelligent species coming into contact with another. 20,000 years is a strobe in cosmic time. A blink of an eye. It’s the dull glow of an occasional firefly against the endless cosmic night.
Yes but if the universe is billions of years old you'd think quite a few galactic civilizations would have become large enough over millions of years for us to notice them? Why dont we pick up their signals or transmission, or their space junk, or their massive superstructures, etc. You'd think e'd find SOMETHING, ANYTHING? It's too quiet... I think we are all alone, just us humans.
Early evolution on earth wasn’t big on mammals. But for an asteroid, birds and big lizards might be in charge these days. Would they want to build rockets? How long did it take the monkeys to get from coming down from the trees to going up in the sky? Blink of cosmic time.
@@rumham8124 You do understand that modern humans are a blend of several sapient hominids...right? Humans weren't even the sole sapient creatures on Earth, yet somehow we are alone...that is quite a leap in logic.
I find this person to be VERY logical in his thinking ! And I watch his channel all the time . I do not ALWAYS agree with his deduction, but I do MOST of the time ! DML.
@@GG-hu9dn Given the size of the universe and, therefore, the amount of knowledge there is to know, every human - including you - knows very little. Given the nature of your comments, YOU are nowhere near as intelligent as you believe yourself to be.
@user-cx7kg6ok9b Clearly, you judge others by your standards ?! Well...I'm not you or like you - and evidently your "cage has been rattled" ?! But then ..who really cares what you think?! :-))
We might be alone, there is the key, MIGHT? Then what is flying around earth's airspace. Something is observing our military exercises. Something is interested in our nukes. Your only about 70-80 years behind, look deeper! AND if your religious? God put other creatures out in his universe.
Great crystallization of the back and forth on this almost purely academic discussion. I have been on his side and he addresses the exact arguments and blowback I get for not just accepting the probability of life in the universe. I would add to his arguments that the process of evolution does not favor stable conditions for the formation of advanced and intelligent life but instead, our specific planetary history which makes survival hard has created advanced in complex life forms.
without the asteroid impact at the right time with the correct destruction power ( not too weak; not too much,) Dinosaurs would still be here.and we wouldn't - no intelligent life: according to the story of evolution. the dinos ruled the Earth for 100 million years until that asteroid hit. but I prefer a different theory: there was a creator, a designer. there was no "coincidence of a first self-created microbe" which is our ancestor....... And I don't know who created the creator, dear Mr. Richard Dawkins. but that's ok, we don't even know who created the pyramids and and how they did it. how would I know who created God? I don't like evolution for many reasons, firstly because it is implausible and another reason is that it is based on existing organic life. it takes a first self-created microbe for the false theory of evolution to start..Jesus Christ. why don't people look at here what we know: The Earth is a miracle, in every single aspect. a unique gem. just open your eyes. a sensitive system. a tiny little rock which means everything to us, but for the rest of the universe, it doesn't matter. there are total solar eclipses with a visible corona, we live exactly in the right time window so we can observe these. which is one miracle. every blade of grass is one miracle. we don't even know what life is besides reproducing a system of extreme complexity with < 100,000 processes every second and with a metabolism. that is what we observe, but it is NOT what describes what life is. it is a miracle. that's why we can't create a simple seed which is needed for a plant to grow. we have no clue. but we can choose what we believe,
Fascinating lecture, it's one I've been waiting for a long time. Thank you professor. For what it's worth, I took it over to Center for Inquiry (CFI) Forum, it's become an engaged thread. Dec 16, 9:52 PM - "Why we might be alone" Public Lecture by Prof David Kipping, under philosophy
A great talk and a point that needed to be made. Thanks to Cool Worlds, I feel comfortable in being agnostic about the possibilities for life, as you said. I want to believe, but someone needs to give me a good reason!
@@zdcyclops1lickley190 but that's exactly the reasoning this video argues against? Just because it happened here doesn't mean life has happened elsewhere, let alone that it's ubiquitous or even common. As David Kipping said, the right answer is we don't know.
@@jamesgeary4294 This is what I'm struggling with. My take is all parties are saying "I think"...meaning "we don't know". One person's assumptions (the Fl value) are really no better than someone else's. Given that, there has been a progression of 'likelihood' since the first images from hubble. Q1: Are galaxies rare? A: Seems not. Appears there are trillions (thx Hubble). Q2: There are a lot of stars, are there planets with them? A: Yes. Actually a lot. Around 10 or so planets is fairly common. Q3: Are there a lot of planets in the habitable zone? A: yes. Seems this is also common. We see the transits. Q4: Of these planets in the habitable zone, do they also have similar characteristics to Earth? A: We don't know. But this is what JWT should help with (measuring VRE - vegetation red edge). This video, was all about this 4th question. What's the likelihood that these other planets are indeed similar to Earth? What even constitutes similarity?
Great lecture, I like the agnostic approach to life on other planets. We as humans are unique as one species of 8.7 million species of life that exists on our own planet. Perhaps we are hoping to find intelligent species that have human cognition, or planets to expand our species. Both are extremely unlikely in our lifetimes.
If intelligent life existed on Earth for million years, which is unlikely, we could only find out about other intelligent life roughly a million light years away. More compelling is the idea of intelligent life visiting Earth which would require them to travel 1000s of years in our exact direction, arrive alive, and have us discover them. No chance.
It is best to assume we are alone because aliens won't be able to save us from ourselves. We absolutely must save our planet so it is a waste of time and resources to think about aliens a million light-years away
@@colingenge9999I find it funny that so many of us in our amazing wisdom and knowledge, know that long distance space travel isn't possible. We were monkies in trees not so long ago, and what we know now is probably less than 1% of our reality. The number of ufo sightings with verified radar data is evidence of things beyond our understanding. I've seen something zipping around in the sky at angles before disappearing in a kind of streaking flash, and found many descriptions of the same thing happening around the world. If the long history of ufo sightings and the recent moves towards more disclosure, it's looking pretty definitive that there is something going on that we don't understand. Certainly it's interesting, and I think a valid consideration. Certainly enough in my view to make in depth discussions of us being alone in the universe to be a little bit silly. Not that these ufo things are are aliens, might be previously evolved on earth, from other dimensions/times, who knows.
Contact isn't the only priority though. Just knowing that they exist would be a huge scientific breakthrough, that would resonate throughout human sociology, philosophy, religion, and scientific understanding and interpretation of ourselves. It would be huge. Especially if we find out even something basic about their biology. Just depends on how we would find out about them. If it's a radio signal, then we know they are/were intelligent and made it to the Age of Information, and used similar technology to our own. That would also give us an idea of language and whatever else we can get from the signal. Or if instead of a signal we find a remnant of an ancient civilization, we can figure out the conditions they lived in, to find out if they were carbon based, what kind of environment they inhabited, what they ingested, etc. You may also get cultural information from that, or an idea of their technology, depending on the artifact. But as I said, even if we have no direct contact of any sorts and just suddenly somehow know that intelligence has/does exist elsewhere in the universe, I think that would be enough of a breakthrough in its own right, and would change the way we think about biology cosmologically.
@normzemke7824 not every scientific discovery has to revolve around solving the climate crisis. We shouldn't just stop all astronomy just because "it doesn't save us from ourselves". Science stems from human curiosity, it's not just a means to save ourselves. The search for extraterrestrial life has nothing to do with climate change and I just don't understand how that's relevant
This talk shows typical scientific lack of knowledge, focusing on the external. All truth of life is found within. The external is purely a temporary sensory reflection. Having "hope" that there's life out there is simply a lack of self knowledge, and encourages people to focus on the external, which again leads to a lack of self knowledge. I recommend listening to Barry Long, a legitimate spiritual teacher.
@@michaeltsung9741 Sounds like pseudoscientific nonsense to me. A brief search of Barry Long suggest the same. That's not to say that internal spiritual exploration isn't beneficial or valid. It simply falls outside the realm of logic, and thus is particularly susceptible to charlatans and grifters. It's easy to create "knowledge" when it's not falsifiable or subject to empirical verification.
I think you nailed it. I feel life is a property of matter; however, even if there were 100 million against the odds earths in the universe, we would never know it anyway. Best to use the billion years we have left to good purpose.
I don't get why so many people are so obsessed with whether there is life elsewhere in the universe-which we are highly unlikely to find or interact with (though I'm not denying the watershed nature of either circumstance)-while humans demonstrate daily that they don't value other human life, nor all other life on this pale blue dot that we all occupy-and likely all will die upon, as will our very species, barring a sea change in how we behave towards each other, other life here, and the planet itself.
1/3 of the way through and he hasn't used any science. It's distance and time. calculate the time it takes to get to the nearest possible alien. it's FAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He believes in people having Biases' in believing there is life out there, instead of people trusting science and the law of probability. I don't know why religious people always have to fight science on so many fronts, and now to pretend we are the only thinking creatures in the universe - that is extremely arrogant.
@@mrzoinky5999 I fail to see how saying "earthlings (humans, dolphins, bacteria, and everything in between) are the only current life in the visible universe" is arrogant. Earth's creatures did not get there from their own merit. They did not will themselves into existence while preventing others from emerging, they just happened to survive and become diverse over time.
@@mrzoinky5999 I don't think you understand religious people at all. You're being very arrogant in thinking that all religious people simply pretend we are the only thinking creatures in the universe. The reality is, we have no idea what's going on. All you know is that one day you were here and have memories. That's it. It could all be an illusion. Time may not exist. We may very well be alone. There could be a creator. Who knows? Don't assume that just because someone is religious, they are wrong. You don't know and they simply have faith in something larger. Also, there no such thing as "trusting science."
To save anyone the bother of watching this surprisingly simplistic lecture, it can be boiled down to the simple fact that there is not enough information to know whether there is life elsewhere in the universe.
Great video! I've been using these same arguments when discussing this subject for several years now. I just wanted to add one more emotional appeal that I have heard directed at me when I suggest that we might be alone. They call me a "religious nut." Apparently, only religious people think "we are special" and, therefore, alone, while non-religious people do not. And since EVERYONE fits neatly into one of these two categories, if I suggest we might be alone, I am a science-hating religious person! The ironic thing about this emotional appeal is that I am not religious at all and it's actually the other side, as you stated in this video, that is not using science, but instead is using faith, to back up their argument.
You are thinking in black and white. Many religions do not mind that other beings may exist, even the ever-popular Christianity welcomes the concept: “In my opinion this possibility (of life on other planets) exists,” said Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, a 45-year-old Jesuit priest who is head of the Vatican Observatory and a scientific adviser to Pope Benedict. “How can we exclude that life has developed elsewhere” David also assumes that we are the first intelligent beings on Earth, so he can't say it is inconsistent with Earth's history. We don't know how many intelligent species have originated and perhaps exceeded humans. So he cannot use it on his timeline as proof of anything. There is not enough data. Other intelligence may even still be here, we simply don't know. With UAP disclosure we might have evidence, but if not, we have to accept we have no idea either way. If I had to bet money, I would say that we are simply too primitive to know better and detect other intelligence. We are not much smarter nor peaceful than Chimps, if we are to be honest.
@@WhiteChocolate74 We are much more talented at self-destruction. but yeah, that comparison is maybe a little harsh. They are mentally better than us at some mental tasks, like memory (3 min video): ruclips.net/video/zsXP8qeFF6A/видео.html We also are learning about prairie dog language and how they describe threats by judging if people are adults or children, male or female, approaching or leaving, safe or dangerous, some colors, if wielding a gun - with addendums, etc, and could make new words. So maybe we are not as smart as we think, and our assumed position of most important life on earth and the universe is not really a sign of intelligence. More like arrogance. Prairie dog language : ruclips.net/video/-chj4QCCqVQ/видео.html
Mr. Kipping, you have quickly become one of my favorite science educators. Looking forward to your future content with great excitement. I am an electrical engineer that absolutely loves physics and science.
My favourite argument cones from Ellie, the protagonist of one of Sagan's novels, who observed that, if we were alone in the universe, that would be an awful waste of space.
Amazingly well thought out and performed lecture. The kind of lecture that makes you smarter in more than a factual sense. A philosophical lecture more than a purely astronomic one and truly convincing, something rare in a philosophical lecture. 👏
@@sarcastaball Technically, if the universe is infinite in size then there is life out there, even if the chance is extremely low. Any sort of life around us, however, is a different story.
I recall someone did an experiment decades ago where they took a vat of "primordial soup" and zapped it repeatedly with electricity to simulate lightening. When they examined the results they found organic modules that were not there before.
Wow, this may be first video I immediately watched a 2nd time. So well-presented and very thought-provoking to me. Maybe because of my bias in that I agree it is way too early to know if we are likely alone.
We already know we're not alone. Although we haven't seen "them" we have seen and recorded their transportation devises and or drones. I've seen what ever they are, the the military has seen and recorded and even measured what ever they are, for years. We know how fast they are and have some video of what ever they are. I spend a lot of time in the desert near military installations. They seem interested in our military more than our shopping malls. They observed our nuclear program and our air force. They regularly spend time stalking our pilots. We have them on both video and radar.
@@TheBandit7613 If a weird thing hovers around a military base, it's more likely it's a weird thing from the military base than a weird thing from outer space. If a military person says it's not their equipment and it moves in a manner that's impossible, it's more likely that the military person lies about it than it's from outer space.
@@TheBandit7613 You can't say I say it and we will take that . Science doen't believe in your eyes brother , it requires evidence - repeatable on experiment table . Next time you saw something set up a science camp and help them conduct experiment repeatedly . Thank You .
I just read the vital question by Nick Lane, and he gets into the chemistry in a very interesting way, and actually makes quite a good case for a non negligible Fl.
@@prependedprepended6606 , if there's life on this planet there's life on other planets throughout the Universe. They're now estimating there could be up to 2 trillion galaxies.
@@Rocket9944-- We know there are a lot of galaxies. We know nothing of the probabilities of: 1. life originating; 2. life evolving into intelligent forms capable of mastering technology; 3. advanced civilizations lasting a long time.
Wonderful lecture. Thank you, especially, for the green-ball-in-the-urn analogy. I've looked for a way to explain to people that if we happen to be the only intelligent creatures in the galaxy, then naturally we're going to assume that we're the default case. But the green-ball analogy does a nice job of showing this bias for what it is.
This man is a genius in delivering deep scientific concepts in an interesting and thought-provoking manner. In my opinion, he is the next Carl Sagan. Cool Worlds is an amazing channel. As a teacher, I relay a lot of your concepts to my students and they are so engaged and curious. Thank you, David, for your staying unbiased in science and seeking the truth. One of the best science educators alive.
So n=1 is not enough to determine how many balls there are in the bag, but n=1 is enough to determine what average time it takes to develop intelligent life.
I'm the same. I can't imagine the probability of life evolving. From what? What created the spark? And, after the spark the evolution is so fast that mere mutations in DNA due to the suns radiation could not possibly have enough time to create the diversity we see. It's just soooooo amazing. Obviously, Darwin could see the evolution of life. But, the big jumps are not explained in my opinion. For example, the mission link.
@@TrevorStandley Yes, I guess so... Because just with this phrase: "I can't imagine the probability of life evolving", he's already going against all that the lecturer was trying to explain... 🤷🏻♂
@@TrevorStandley Not a 'Christian' one, or a 'Monotheist.' Just a human who looks at things like the flagellar motor and thinks there has to be a designer.. But, I can't deny that the religions and culture of our planet would have influenced my perception.
I disagree, And the reason I disagree is because I have seen a UFO with my OWN eyes ! and this UFO was shown on CBC news in the 80s in Canada ! The Russians showed it to the world flying over Mars as they were mapping Mars ! It was the exact size and shape as I saw flying over Nova Scotia in the early 70s ! Flying from South to North over the Atlantic Ocean ! at high attitude! and it was NOT possible for anything from Earth to go that fast, in the 70s ! And it was GLOWING ! DML.
Well, they had no evidence. Science is about proof, not opinion. It's something most of America doesn't understand, and to those who say they created the atom bomb, they had help from the British, the Swiss and many more countries. Americans do tend to think America is the centre of the universe if we're really honest. 😂
Most everything here is spot on IMO except for one thing: The existence of extremophiles almost certainly increases the odds of life being elsewhere somewhat. It may be less likely for them to have evolved in extreme environments, but the likelihood that they can thrive there opens up the possibility of them being transported through space by natural forces. In which case, they only need to have evolved once in an ideal environment, and could have easily been deposited on may other worlds since that time. (transpermia) 100% agree though that scientists should be agnostic in the absence of more evidence. We know that transpermia might be a possible mechanism, but it is not known for sure if it could actually work that way. But with that said, if someone who had evidence and for sure knew the answer to "are we alone" were to point a gun at your head and ask for your best guess with the caveat that if you guess wrong, they would pull the trigger, what would your guess be? I know for sure mine would be "no. we are not alone" But if someone asks me if I believe in alien life, my answer is always "I don't know, but it is certainly possible"
WOW. A scientist who presents a rational cogent argument and still openly admits we really just don't know when it comes right down to it and we need more info. We could sure use a few more of this type of critical thinking scientist. Maybe even in the pharmaceutical industry.
Развлечения
I know why I’m still alone, I keep watching videos like this instead going out 😂
Lol ! 😂 that was a good one ☝️
Society is overrated.
Touch Grass
So basically this lecture boil down to… we are the top of the hierarchy in the universe … a god ?
you are assuming that you wouldn't be alone if you went out...
Videos like this make me grateful to be alive in the time of the internet.
Lol. and doing a bank transfer worth an amount of 234.93
This talk shows typical scientific lack of knowledge, focusing on the external. All truth of life is found within. The external is purely a temporary sensory reflection. Having "hope" that there's life out there is simply a lack of self knowledge, and encourages people to focus on the external, which again leads to a lack of self knowledge. I recommend listening to Barry Long, a legitimate spiritual teacher.
@@michaeltsung9741 So what is the truth of life?
@@JohnyG29 The truth of life is that I, the reader (not the writer, since the writer is a "you", not an "I") am life itself. I am all life, and all life is in me. However to realise, which is to make real, that truth, requires living the spiritual life, or the divine life. I recommend spiritual teacher Barry Long as a "real deal" teacher, which is a very rare thing, who can act as a guide until such time as you no longer require a teacher. Barry passed in 2003, but left behind a large body of work.
@@michaeltsung9741 Ain't nobody got it figured out, and never will.
Let's be honest here: We're never going to accept that we're alone in the universe, we're going to keep looking for extra terrestrial life for as long as our species exists.
Why should we as humanity accept that we are alone when this assumption is impossible to verify?
We can only falsify it when we find something that is 'alive' (can also be just some type of space bacteria or fungi).
While I agree with your statement, im of the firm belief that what we are "in" is a super-duper advanced holographic simulation (akin to Star Treks "holodeck", but obviously on a much more larger scale, and complexity). With that being said, it could very well be that all that space out there in the universe is a mere "illusion" and doesnt really exist [until/if such a time arises that we are able to physically reach it, then it could very well "pop" into existence, as in the phenomena of manifestation.
The phenomena of manifestation is very real for me, insomuch that I witnessed it on at least 3 occasions during my lifetime. Some would say im a kook, while others think im merely misremembering things...and thats ok. I know in my heart the phenomena is real and exists. Lastly, yes it does make your mind do one huge "Whoa !!! WTF ?!?!?!"
@@highsoflyify Right, we’re so focused on finding _intelligent_ life, that we often forget that there could well be more primitive life out there.
@@Aurochhunter
Let's look at our own planet. How many species did we have since the beginning of life on this earth?
Billions of life forms and only one was able to use tools, books and fire. So it must be VERY unusual to develop this kind of 'intelligence'.
Another factor is the possibility to destroy the own environment or own species with the right tools and weapons. So intelligent life will probably have very short life cycles compared to simple forms (which also have way lower demands to their environment than complex forms of life)
We're still finding new/undocumented species of life here on Earth. Just because we've not seen it, doesn't mean it does'nt exist, because we have plenty of examples proving that assumption wrong. It was once thought that life could not exist in extreme temperatures. Then we found a wide array if life forms thriving on deep sea hydrothermal vents, in temperatures ranging from 400f to 700f. We've also found life thriving in lakes underneath the Antarctic ice sheets.
Finally! Michael Crichton made similar points some years ago (it would take a fiction writer with a scientific mind to sniff out BS so keenly). The compounding of UNKNOWN variables still make them unknown. That popular scientific personalities talk about the Drake equation and other similar notions with such bias has seriously dumbed down the scientific dialogue in our society. We also talk about modeling in other areas in the same way, as if these equations are not speculative but somehow predictive. Kudos to Dr. Kipping for treating science like a process, not a corruptible worldview.
Well Tbf two of his examples weren't scientists
His right about one thing ! Life has a short time ⏲️ to become intelligent life + get to age of modern technology + be able to have the Intelligent to want to leave they're planet. Intelligent life + life may only be around for a short period of time. Universe is a dangerous place.
@@A_Stereotypical_Guy here is the definition of a scientist in its strictest sense:
a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.
"a research scientist"
From this, we can surmise that a scientist need not have a PhD. A person can attain expert knowledge from independent research, without having gone to university and received a PhD.
This would accurately describe Bill Nye, whom has devoted a massive portion of his adult life to the study of more than one field of science. He is respected by professors and the greater scientific community.
So, a scientist he is, a qualified professor with a doctorate he is not.
Absolutely.
What he wrote in 2003: "More recently we have seen the rise of the so-called 'Rare Earth'
theory which suggests that we may, in fact, be all alone. Again, there is no evidence either way."
This is an ignorant person's skepticism. He doesn't know anything, so he doubts everything. Equally fallacious, he plays up correct theories that initially weren't accepted... until there was evidence, but he doesn't emphasize that requirement, as Sagan does at 21:30. So he scorns assertions of likelihood when there is evidence (he doesn't know of) and scorns the establishment for dismissing theories that he deems sufficiently backed by evidence when they aren't. I would be embarrassed to have written with such a tone of playground antagonism for that level of audience (see link), while also betraying an inconsistent standard of empirical support.
Sure, Africa and South America "fit" together, but there also seems to be a face on Mars. Coincidences happen, so evidence needs to be accumulated--such as similar fossils below the time of continental separation and dissimilar species above. When you take pictures from a closer distance and different angles, the facial symmetry vanishes. This evidence takes time to amass. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Or as Feynman tried to teach with his license plate explanation, you can't use the hint that gives you the initial hunch to test that very hunch. Unlikely things happen all the time, so you need to collect _new_ data to see if it supports the hunch. The ubiquity of rare events is why hypothesis testing seems very conservatively structured to the uninitiated.
Feynman's UFO discussion with a "layman" distinguishes whether talk of knowns or talk of likelihoods is scientific. Sure, we don't _know_ that we're not being visited by space aliens, but that doesn't make us unscientific to take sides and say it's highly unlikely. We _can_ talk about likelihood, given what we already know. That is in fact allowed, when there's data. Bayesian reasoning _is_ consistent with the scientific method. Or as Feynman put it, from what he knows about the world around him, reports of UFOs have more to do with the known, irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than with the unknown, rational characteristics of extraterrestrial intelligence. As Christopher Hitchens would point out, one of the rules of oratory is that arguments presented without evidence can just as easily be dismissed without evidence. But that's not what's going on in this case. 100B galaxies of 100B stars cooking for 14B years is what Kipping is taking on, as is the Miller-Urey experiment. Slowly evidence is amassing in the astronomical and biochemical fields on both the ease and difficulty of abiogenesis and convergent evolution of technology-wielding intelligence, and the time to cook up the heavier elements that assist life. The trouble is when people make assertions that "we just don't know" as an excuse to dismiss talk of likelihoods, use of Bayesian reasoning, and evidence that already exists. To do so is just indulging in a false equivalency. And it's especially annoying when it's born of their own ignorance of evidence that already exists (an agnosticism of laziness).
stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf
"Oracle. Are we alone in the universe?" she asked.
"Yes," said the Oracle.
"So there's no other life out there?"
"There is. They're alone too."
very good
I really like this. 👍Very solemn but very much true.
We all will die in future they will too
I prefer to ask ALEXA.
Bingo. We're not alone in the cosmos, just very far away from everybody else.
"Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.”
-Arthur C Clarke
Neither is terrifying. We should learn to deal with either possibility.
@@ungmd21 yes, also the quote is overused lmao
Not really, if we're alone we can seed the galaxy with no external competition. We have each other which is very sufficient
We hv a lot of questions but answers evade us. We know of this one life. Humanity. Us. Whether there is life other than us in another form on another planet with again a different form to sustain that life form we do not know. If they exist they are invisible to us. Are we invisible to them. We are not alone. There are other dimensions in the Universe. What about the trillions of humanity in some other dimension who have finished with their experiences over here. They have moved on. May be they could help us with some answers.
@@mrnrnh8 As Dr Kipping said to conclude, for now we really don't know. You cannot know right now that we are not alone
Brian Cox actually changed course. Respect to Brian 💯
It’s not just that space is vast, but also that time is vast. Perhaps there was once a civilization in our galaxy that sent out radio signals hoping to find other life, but it ceased to exist billions of years before humans discovered how to detect those signals.
This has been exactly my point for decades and it rarely gets discussed. The chances of another civilisation existing in our blink of an eye in time is infinitesimally small, let alone the narrow slice of time we have been aware of the concept.
@@HowardKlein1958 Yes. It is a very well-discussed and known topic.
Remember that time and space are the same thing, therefore when talking about the vastness of space you're also talking about the vastness of time.
we thought we had 5 billion years, now it turns out only 250 million years - panagea
This is based on the rudimentary understanding of physics, time, space, and reality of the psychotic apes making these proclamations.
We would find evidence of their existence in geology
The fact that intelligent life only formed shortly before Earth becomes uninhabitable is really interesting. I'd never thought of it that way.
The planet gets uninhabitable because we ruin it. Without humans the planet stays habitable for 500 million years
The conditions for life that our planet enjoys are so many and so particular, makes you think about how the universe works: it doesn't repeat itself. It is us who give the same label to different things. It would be awesome to find intelligent life somewhere else, but I really don't have any expectations. Just life, not intelligent life, I think it is easier to expect. Or, intelligence without life: is that possible?
We don't even know if intelligent life is a surefire products of evolution anyway, life doesn't need to be intelligent like us to survive, dumb life is acceptable as long as they survive and that's all evolution "care about"
It's not becoming uninhabitable though.
@@uku4171 not currently, but once the sun starts to change in another billion years, it will almost overnight
A true scientist is supposed to think this way. Great Lecture!
Indeed but what is a TV Scientist supposed to say under pressure :)
"Supposed to", the operative term here...he excises the inextricable from his pedestrian comments.
Well if scientists support every viewpoint imaginable, what good are they? I can get that opinion asking my neighbor. At a certain point, "experts" need to give you an expert opinion otherwise they are not experts.
True scientist also thinks of ways to look for life elsewhere, and so we are.
I agree with you completely. Very few scientists (e.g. Richard Feynman) have stressed the danger of expectancy bias and the importance of agnosticism in some specific cases. I am personally an agnostic when it comes to the existence of God and anthropogenic global warming (later conveniently renamed climate change).
I am quite familiar with the Pupin Physics and Astronomy building where Dr. Kipping gives his lectures. I got my PhD degree from Columbia in 1978, and I wish I could be there 45 years later to meet Dr. Kipping in-person.
Key word to take in’WE have no IDEA’ this probably the most accurate statement in human existence.
Why did he then titled the video we might be alone if we don't know?
@@MarkusAvrelius well because obivously, we cant see anybody else around so why would we not be alone xd
@@NoOne4kBecause space, even relatively nearby space, is enormous and beyond imagination. The Rare Earth Hypothesis and the Fermi Paradox are riddled with problems, not the least being circular logic.
To assume that we're alone because our extremely small and limited exploration for life in the cosmos hasn't turned up anything is beyond ridiculous. It would be like taking a thimble full of ocean water and declaring there's no life in the oceans.
That would be a much more accurate title, but I think it's to counter the conventional wisdom that there must be tons of life in the universe.@@MarkusAvrelius
@@Turnoutburndown The title is "Why we _might_ be alone" not "We _are_ alone." I think that the title is accurate.
incredible lecture, professor kipping. a breath of fresh air after hearing so many scientists conclude there has to be life in the universe other than us.
Fresh air? Are you serious? He brings nothing new to the table and spends 25 min telling us what we already know. Of course nobody knows for certain and he criticized deGrasse Tyson as if his comments on entertainment tv were an actual scientific journal. Those who cant do science are quick criticize the ones who do. I am sure Tyson knows the difference between mathematical certainty and personal beliefs. If he cant understand that he was expressing his beliefs and that he was not presenting to actual scientific audience then he needs to self check and rethink his career.
@@davidvega1097 Kipping was being scientific. Tyson forgot he is a "physicist" and was just speaking his mind, which might also amount to nonsense. Tyson should have stuck to the actual science. A few years ago, a team of scientists at The University of Oxford arrived at the same conclusion as Kipping did using Bayesian statistics--that we might very well be alone in the universe.
I sure agree!
After reading The Dark Forest I have no hurry for us to be found, but I believe that there are others, is a statistic posibility too big
@@glennwoodruff2398 he was using what you call no sense to make his conclusion appear valid and make himself look smart. Now just because your a physicists does not mean you can’t be an expert in other sciences. Our brains don’t stop working if it is a subject outside our original study area. Besides this guy and all those statistics came to a whopping conclusion that we just don't know. I understand this as an actual exercise in logic but for this guy to spend 25 min is ridiculous. Now for anyone to publish this conclusion is just plain moronic. These people cant come up with their own things and they take simple things and blow them up just to make them sound smarter than he is. Now Tyson I am certain he know that his claims are not scientific or mathematically valid (I have no doubt he can do the math). Everyone with half a brain knows we just don’t know for sure as of today. Also, speculating on things that may one day be proven otherwise has lead to the creation of wonderful discoveries and inventions. They make me feel like publishing a scientific paper to prove if there is life after death.
Brilliant and also very graspable for any semi intelligent non scientist. Appreciate his agnosticism on the topic…He speaks very clearly and supports a specific point of view…but entirely without arrogance…Thank You for sharing this lecture
At this point of our history the video title alone is sheer gaslighting if on purpose, and dumb ignorant narcissistic egocentristic naive arrogance already. not worth watching. Purpose of these type of statements today is to dumb down the masses deeper into ignorance to keep on controlling and profitting from them.
@@MilkoOfficialChannel Did you watch it? If you did, why are you using an emotional statement?
simple = in this universe , there is no any life form! maybe in another universe ( if it exist )
You opinion of it about being “x” to “z” is a hypothesis and would need to be tested.
Umm, _what_ , @@M4R10_?
Thank you for the work you are doing professor Kipping. I would have loved working in your team. Our world needs more minds like yours to profess reason and expand our knowledge. ❤
Dr. Kipping is a bracing gust of cool logic.
🦉
Well said
He's going to be blushing when life is eventually found on another planet/moon. The size of the universe means elements and environment will reoccur elsewhere.
Most star systems have 2 or 3 stars and have the larger planets inward.
We have never observed alien planets with moons as large as ours.
The circumstances of our system and planet are exceedingly rare.
Additionally, in 6 billion years, intelligent life has only evolved once--another rare circumstance.
@@d.s.5157
@@d.s.5157 He didn't say that life is not common. He said that we have no evidence to compute the probability of life. Discoveries of life would give us more data, but it wouldn't discredit anything said in this video.
Such an informative and well spoken individual. Thank You.
Aderall is bad
Fantastic, thanks for posting this David! Loved watching it.
We may be alone or we may be effectively alone. It is a distinction without a difference...
We aren't alone. The aliens are here, RIGHT NOW. It's a verified fact. The most advanced military in the world verified the footage of non-human technology (see Tictac). This isn't a question anymore! No more "swamp gas" or "it was Venus". The aliens are REAL and HERE. Why do people keep acting like this is a question anymore? Stop living in denial!
We may see light from other long dead civilizations or receive a message that is millions of light years old. That's probably the best we can hope for.
We will almost certainly die with our bubble.
I really liked the way Professor Kip lectures/teaches. He has a genuine smile and its more like he's conversing with you about something so casual, except it's about the universe and scientific equations lol.
Biologists who study early life are probably the people you would want to include in this discussion. While even they don't _know_ how life first began, they know enough to at least give some interesting and illuminating context.
yes the fact that in a planet where there ara conditions to life to arise, had happen (as far as we know) only one time shows its not as common as we tend to think .
I *highly* recommend looking into Dr. James Tour and his incredible insight into the *chemistry* of the origin of life.
@@matiasfernandez5635 We do not know that it only happened once. It could be happening a billion times a day, and we probably wouldn't know it.
It's also somewhat interesting to remember that often times when we talk about how life can begin somewhere, we forget life could look a lot different in different circumstances. It doesn't necessarily have to start on a planet like ours, though obviously we don't have any examples of life like that.
@@eventhisidistaken If it had happend a billion times all together let alone in a day I would think that life on earth would have been more varied then it is. I was under the impression that they claim that everything is related. That would at least mean it was only successful once and may there fore have only started once.
To my knowledge the scientist know quite well what life is made out of but I don't believe they have actually ever managed to actually start new life without a cell of excisting life.
“I don’t know” is often the only honest thing a wise man can say.
very true
And thanks, Professor. Solid reasoning explained in straight forward fashion. You're a terrific teacher.
“We might be alone”. Why would anyone think we are alone?! What we have sampled of the universe is equivalent to taking a cup, dipping it in the ocean, looking at what’s inside the cup and conclude “yep, no life in the ocean”
Bad analogy, if you were to take a cup from the ocean you would discover microplastics among other things that would suggest that there is life however you may question its intelligence.
You literally just watched a video on how one could think we are alone, with very probable arguments.
This would have really impressed me when I was in my early teens.
im 14 and this is deep
@@charwest5892 I believe you.
I’m 63 and it’s deep
I'm 76 and it is interesting but utterly irrelevant to everything real or pertains to nothing.
Your videos always make me think, I love to watch them late at night. This video changed my mind, and I appreciate it.
🥺 This is the kind of thinking that causes us to suddenly make new discoveries. Great idea! 💡
This guys knows his stuff for sure. Impressive.
We are not alone in the Universe, but there is no way we will ever meet.
Any civilization will get to a point of self destruction.
Finally a sane approach to this question. Thanks so much. I am not alone.
I see what you did there :) Now you're definitely not alone :) Incidentally, Kipping is probably among the most brilliant astronomers of our generation, in my very humble view. His papers are remarkably creative. I highly recommend to read them if you're into these things. They should be readable for most people with some basic physics/astronomy background.
Fr man, so happy I found this video! I'm not willing to die on a hill for us being alone but it's always been strange to me how one sided this conversation is. Every other physicist/scientist talks about outside intelligent life as some sort inevitability so it's nice to finally hear a different perspective.
@@Retotion What you wise guys overlook is the fact that once we find even the tiniest microbe on Mars, or a moon of Jupiter and Saturn, the whole lecture was nothing more than a waste of oxygen. And with each passing day, we get closer to the cause. Especially now that we're going to start looking at the atmospheres of extrasolar planets with the help of the James Webb Telescope. As soon as we can prove chlorophyll for the first time, the lecture is waste paper again. The deniers of the "plenty of life" theory must refute any evidence. The others only have to successfully complete the proof once...
Don't count on it. In a purely materialist cosmos, the chances of true solipsism becomes significant. The entire universe may exist only in your own mind. But that case only you would actually exist and the rest of us would be figures of your imagination. I think I need another beer.
@Wikileads No, not necessarily. As Professor Kipping said, we simply don't know, so the possibility that alien civilizations exist is as legitimate as the position that we're alone. But when scientists start proclaiming the galaxy is teeming with alien civilizations when there is zero proof of this, and insult people as arrogant or whatnot for not believing a position for which there is zero proof, then this is anti-scientific behaviour. Not the same as insanity but not appropriate either. I can understand what op meant by finally a sane response. Professor Kipping's analysis is a rare instance of evidence based logic and thoughtful even-handed balance amid a massive myriad of emotional reactions. The scientists who let their wishful thinking propel them to enthusiastically premature conclusion arejust one part of this. Think of all the craziness in non-scientific circles, from cults to people brainwashed into believing Democrats are secretly alien lizards under fake human skin.
Great and refreshing lecture with a reasonable conclusion!
wow, excellent logic. wish we could all think this way about all things.
Im a statistician. Always felt we could be alone. I believe the absence of direct evidence makes it more likely that Fl is indeed smaller than the number of stars and we are alone. Note that statistics doesnt apply to whether we are alone. We either are or are not. The statistics only apply to our knowledge of it. Its like the odds of the next card in a deck being a heart. It either is or is not. Once the deck was shuffled, the answer is fixed, only our knowledge of it is pseudo random.
There is plenty of direct evidence. Theres a lot of circumstantial evidence that shows we are not along, and keep in mind that we can convict people on circumstantial evidence for murder. Yeah sure if you ignore that, then yes were alone.
@@Alex-pb1iy Most of the "direct"evidence is mostly by people with psychological problems or the need for attention. Also, the chances of someone being guilty on circumstancial evidence, whether this is right or wrong, is still by far more likely for the crime to have happened than someone claiming to have evidence for an extra terrerestrial. Extaordinary claims really do require extraordinary evidence.
Don't forget 'time'. Most of the starlight we see left it's source 1000s of years ago. So how would we know.
@@Alex-pb1iyYeah there’s ton of evidence out there somewhere in the ether. We just have to be positive and believe just because.
After we find intelligent life we might likely begin asking, "So just the two of us then? Are we alone, just the two of us?" 🤣
FINALLY someone speaking straight about this subject. Thank you.
It's nonsense is what it is
So one of his major arguments is because we don't know exactly how many planets there are we can't make a positive claim that there is life anywhere but earth. What a trash argument in fact all you have to do is look up to see that everything in the universe is repeated constantly over and over and nothing is special and contained to any one area. Besides that you don't have to look any further than our own existence for evidence that alien life exist. In an endless amount of space what happens once will happen over and over. Everything in the universe is repeatable.
@@matthewviramontes3131 yeah. it's distance and time to the nearest alien. Calculate the time it would take to the nearest alien, in the drake equation
Well, his whole take on the Copernican argument is just wrong, and it's surprising that he didn't really think it through. While it is natural to expect that a civilization would show a survivor's bias, that, by itself, doesn't invalidate the argument. You could still imagine what an external observer of the Universe would think if they found us in such a big Universe. They would still update their probability, based on that observation, and conclude that the probability that there's EXACTLY one civilization is much lower than there being at least a few. This is also precisely what you'd think if you spotted a bacterium in an aquarium. It's absolutely irrelevant to your conclusion what that bacterium thinks.
@@plafar7887 Totally agree Plafar.
Somehow I think his arguments, while being eloquently expressed, are based on as many assumptions as many other theories.
No, he is advocating for saying “we don’t know” instead of making assumptions, because the probabilities are not known. He argues that it is unscientific to take things on faith. I agree.
Uh he addresses that uncertainty in many of his videos, u should check ‘em out!
I absolutely agree
This is an incredibly vague and obtuse comment. His main argument is that we don't know, and then he subsequently presents a number of examples debunking the status quo, that there 'must be a universe teeming with life'. Maybe you should elaborate.
99% sure that we are alone.
Extreme arrogance.
@@Adizzle235 I didn't say 101%. Lol
@@atmanbrahman1872 but you did say 99%
You clearly are a the top leading scientist in the world and deserve recognition if your research truly led you to a mathematical precise number of 99% probability that we are alone.
But here you are on a YT comment section…
Great lecture. Dr. Kipping is completely correct. I personally want there to be a Star Trek like universe out there just waiting for us to discover it, but what we've currently observed shows no evidence of that. You can get into as many thought experiments using statistics as you want, but at the end of the day we just don't know. Those thought experiments are important, don't get me wrong, but they prove nothing. This might not be very exciting, but this time we live in is very important. As Obi Wan said in Star Wars, we have "taken your first step into a larger world."
Keep learning everyone!
You literally have no idea what you're talking about and clearly have done zero investigation. But pat yourself on the back and tell yourself you're smart. 🤓
I took a long time for life to become multi cellular, and it took a long time for multi cellular life to become intelligent enough to create technologies and it took a long time for technological life to develop the abilities we have as modern humans. What we have no clue about is how long we can persist after we have developed the ability to wipe ourselves out. Sixty years so far, and counting.
Perspective from emotional bias seems to be a huge problem in science throughout our history. Please keep more of these coming, they’re incredible!
We need more teachers like this
Even “rational” physics is full of emotional bias with respect to its most essential premises.
Pretending is not same as knowing, the scale of the universe is way too much for a human brain to digest .Many issues here ,from basic know how to complex ones .Everything is made out of functional parts , if i exists so can others, kowtowing this issues pretty much requires exploration of all universe ,we can’t duplicate the most basics forms of life meaning we are in a very weak scientific position .
maybe thats the nature of the universe , where perspective and bias always change reality, and thats a good thing because that way we have new things, if everyone saw the universe the same way we'd all act the same way and that would be wierd and probably not lead to all what we have, so much variatey, choice. Even on this planet alone where all life shares some dna with each other, their take on how to express the code is vastly different. I dont think you cant have it both ways - predicability doesnt lead to variety and vice versa. Ultimately i think if we found an equation of the universe that would break the universe as it woudl be exploited and it doesnt look to be , but maybe has been before and the big bang could of been remnants of a past civilization who found the equation for everything and the universe too is evolving to compensate
it's why no one was allowed to ask a question about the vaccine
This is a subject that I've considered for some time. One of the aspects of being in space that rarely gets talked about is that humans begin to deteriorate as soon as they go into space and may well be that why we never see aliens because they are as tied to their planet just like us. And then again there are the impossible distances involved.
dont be stupid, that like saying humans cant breath on water.. therefor we arent meant to be in the swimming pool. Have you seen how fast some of these ufo travel? and the amount of ufo footages alone, already suggest otherwise. I think the probability that we are alone is NIL. its bloody stupid to thikn otherwise ,,,data shows that in our galaxy alone, theres about 300 million potentially habitable planet. Thats just our galaxy. Theres about 2 trillion galaxy.... its just seem so stupid to think were alone otherwise. Its beyond DUMB
> tied to their planet just like us
probably by design, if the universe is infinite there is nothing unique, I don't buy the argument of the video, there is nothing special here.
@@fmeloThere's a lot special here. Kipping does a great job of debunking status quo arguments publicly paraded from mainstream/celebrity scientists or dumb podcasters *Rogan, who love presenting life like it's such a sure thing but ultimately have no more evidence for it than statistical speculation.
Brilliant arguments in opposition to many highly-visible scientists who claim we can't be alone simply and solely because the universe is so vast.
The numbers, however, are very compelling for a reasoned argument, based on statistics, for the likelihood of life elsewhere beyond the Earth or our system. I agree though that there's as yet, no evidence for this logical inference. Emphatically, I'm not talking about emotional 'belief', but rather logical inference.
We live in such an exciting time having access to all of this info etc even back 40 yrs ago so much of this wasn't availiable! Keeping an open mind to everything is so important!
Doesn't matter how much we know today because we won't be here someday soon
@@travelfun3812 Don't know that for sure. Even with Biden in the White House, we can't be sure.
@@jazz4asahel Don't worry! Biden is not an obstacle when it comes to disclosure I think.
@@jutjubow Disclose is this: we're alone, because any intelligence out there would want to stay away from us.
Thank you, I am saying those things for many years now!!!❤😊
Great lecture…. Helped me come out over emotional bias about alien life
I think there is a huge, enormous difference between life and intelligent life and he is treating both the same.
This is a tremendous lecture.
Thank you.
I watched it with my visiting alien friend. He thought the arguments very good indeed as well. ;)
its basic stuff found in the first paragraphs of the first chapter of any decent analysis on the prospects of alien life; and a distraction from the correct best answer we currently have. Astronomers are good at pointing telescopes at stars and looking at spectrographs, but typically bad at logical analysis / reasoning on the prospects of alien civilization. The first law of reasoning for alien civilization is never trust an astronomer's analysis, they have all sorts of screwed up bias and archaic modes of thinking. Astronomers are among the last people to be consulted this on matter.
Ok onto the elephant in the room, the biggest myth of our times, which the naive astronomer didn't address, and has never objectively thought about it in his life and never will:
1. The idea that alien civilization would blast out radio communication, loud and clear, hence our satellite dishes should be jammed with alien radio transmissions.
This myth was created back in the early days of radio communication around the 1920s when most transmissions were sent uncoded. Thinkers at the time assumed radio comm would remain that way practically forever. Today most radio comm is encoded so that it resembles random noise; but it is digital as apposed to analogue, which distinguishes it from natural background noise. However it is easy to convert a digital radio stream into an analogue stream then add a few pseudo noise fx to make it completely indistinguishable from natural background noise, except for those with the encryption keys. This is how aliens communicate.
2. The myth that we can detect the tiniest signals from the other side of the universe. Actually, our best technology ( Nasa Deep Space Network ) can detect synthetic information from a synthetic source from about at maximum 180AU or one light-day away; it is 6 orders of magnitude smaller than the detection sensitivity we'd need to evesdrop info from the nearest star system.
In case you haven't noticed, we can barely detect exo planets directly. If a whole exo planet can't generate enough waves to be detected by our best scopes, its going to be hard to detect an artificial source unless its pointed directly at us, and for us. This leads us onto
3. The idea of convenience that aliens want to communicate with us. In technology they are millions or billions of years ahead of us. It would be like us trying to comm with bacteria in the dirt. What is the purpose? Just to poke the bacteria and do experiments on it.
Any discussion about alien civ should address these points. The astronomer's lecture was conspicuously lacking, like a half man lacking half his body and head.
4. The myth that inter stellar aliens comm using spherical wave broadcasts, this one's again from the 1920s. For interstellar space it is more sensible to use rasers ( radio equivalent of laser ) to aim a coherent beam at a target star system. (a) less power useage, (b) much better stealth; no other star system would detect the signal. The chance that we'd sit between 2 alien star systems and be able to intercept their signals is extremely low, and in these cases, aliens can simply divert signals around the solar system. That we might postcept signals after they pass their target star can be stopped by alien engineering, they can adjust their rasers to difuse enough to be too weak to detect past the target star system and also the target star system can send out an neutralizing wave signal to reduce the signal beyound the receiver.
Show me the astronomer lecture that mentions these points. protip: u can't because astronomers are dumb.
@Jota Efe that astronomer got a big applause, 354K views, 11k likes, and 3447 praising comments in 3 weeks for "neither prooving nor disproving anything." Glad that we give credit where its due.
@@plasmaastronaut Aho.
@@plasmaastronaut RUclips Ph.D. in the room.
Engaging lecture, thanks for posting this!!
A fascinating lecture, thank you ! Food for thought…
More like stupid.
It’s really an “if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?” question. Organized human society is 9,000 years old. Our technological biosignature is 100 years old. Let’s be optimistic and say our technological biosignature will last 20,000 years. That could happen thousands of times across the galaxy with no intelligent species coming into contact with another. 20,000 years is a strobe in cosmic time. A blink of an eye. It’s the dull glow of an occasional firefly against the endless cosmic night.
Yes but if the universe is billions of years old you'd think quite a few galactic civilizations would have become large enough over millions of years for us to notice them? Why dont we pick up their signals or transmission, or their space junk, or their massive superstructures, etc. You'd think e'd find SOMETHING, ANYTHING? It's too quiet... I think we are all alone, just us humans.
If aliens are anything like humans we will probably conquered...im hoping we find nothing
I agree 100% very well written response too.
Wish I could write that well lmao
Early evolution on earth wasn’t big on mammals. But for an asteroid, birds and big lizards might be in charge these days. Would they want to build rockets? How long did it take the monkeys to get from coming down from the trees to going up in the sky? Blink of cosmic time.
@@rumham8124 You do understand that modern humans are a blend of several sapient hominids...right? Humans weren't even the sole sapient creatures on Earth, yet somehow we are alone...that is quite a leap in logic.
Very informative. Thank you Dr. Kipping.
I find this person to be VERY logical in his thinking !
And I watch his channel all the time .
I do not ALWAYS agree with his deduction, but I do MOST of the time !
DML.
"We *might* be alone". Thanks dude, this was the one thing I already knew with 100% certainty before watching the whole lecture.
Then you know very little!
@@GG-hu9dn Given the size of the universe and, therefore, the amount of knowledge there is to know, every human - including you - knows very little. Given the nature of your comments, YOU are nowhere near as intelligent as you believe yourself to be.
@user-cx7kg6ok9b Clearly, you judge others by your standards ?! Well...I'm not you or like you - and evidently your "cage has been rattled" ?! But then ..who really cares what you think?! :-))
We might be alone, there is the key, MIGHT? Then what is flying around earth's airspace. Something is observing our military exercises. Something is interested in our nukes. Your only about 70-80 years behind, look deeper! AND if your religious? God put other creatures out in his universe.
Wow, such a brilliant lecture! Thank you for letting us participate!
Except he is wrong.UFO's and aliens are real.
Many thanks for this classroom. Very informative and interesting.
Excellent talk!!! Thank you.
Great crystallization of the back and forth on this almost purely academic discussion. I have been on his side and he addresses the exact arguments and blowback I get for not just accepting the probability of life in the universe. I would add to his arguments that the process of evolution does not favor stable conditions for the formation of advanced and intelligent life but instead, our specific planetary history which makes survival hard has created advanced in complex life forms.
without the asteroid impact at the right time with the correct destruction power ( not too weak; not too much,) Dinosaurs would still be here.and we wouldn't - no intelligent life:
according to the story of evolution. the dinos ruled the Earth for 100 million years until that asteroid hit. but I prefer a different theory: there was a creator, a designer. there was no "coincidence of a first self-created microbe" which is our ancestor....... And I don't know who created the creator, dear Mr. Richard Dawkins. but that's ok, we don't even know who created the pyramids and and how they did it. how would I know who created God? I don't like evolution for many reasons, firstly because it is implausible and another reason is that it is based on existing organic life. it takes a first self-created microbe for the false theory of evolution to start..Jesus Christ. why don't people look at here what we know: The Earth is a miracle, in every single aspect. a unique gem. just open your eyes. a sensitive system. a tiny little rock which means everything to us, but for the rest of the universe, it doesn't matter. there are total solar eclipses with a visible corona, we live exactly in the right time window so we can observe these. which is one miracle. every blade of grass is one miracle. we don't even know what life is besides reproducing a system of extreme complexity with < 100,000 processes every second and with a metabolism. that is what we observe, but it is NOT what describes what life is. it is a miracle. that's why we can't create a simple seed which is needed for a plant to grow. we have no clue. but we can choose what we believe,
I love your lectures. It would be a privilege to have you as a professor and to learn in your classroom.
Fascinating lecture, it's one I've been waiting for a long time. Thank you professor. For what it's worth, I took it over to Center for Inquiry (CFI) Forum, it's become an engaged thread. Dec 16, 9:52 PM - "Why we might be alone" Public Lecture by Prof David Kipping, under philosophy
A great talk and a point that needed to be made. Thanks to Cool Worlds, I feel comfortable in being agnostic about the possibilities for life, as you said. I want to believe, but someone needs to give me a good reason!
Once the entire Earth had no life whatsoever. No one knows how or why life began. If it happened before it can happen again.
Without watching, why are we alone?
@@zdcyclops1lickley190 but that's exactly the reasoning this video argues against? Just because it happened here doesn't mean life has happened elsewhere, let alone that it's ubiquitous or even common. As David Kipping said, the right answer is we don't know.
@@jamesgeary4294 just because life happened here doesnt mean it couldnt happen somewhere. Same hollow argument on your hollow argument
@@jamesgeary4294 This is what I'm struggling with. My take is all parties are saying "I think"...meaning "we don't know". One person's assumptions (the Fl value) are really no better than someone else's.
Given that, there has been a progression of 'likelihood' since the first images from hubble.
Q1: Are galaxies rare?
A: Seems not. Appears there are trillions (thx Hubble).
Q2: There are a lot of stars, are there planets with them?
A: Yes. Actually a lot. Around 10 or so planets is fairly common.
Q3: Are there a lot of planets in the habitable zone?
A: yes. Seems this is also common. We see the transits.
Q4: Of these planets in the habitable zone, do they also have similar characteristics to Earth?
A: We don't know. But this is what JWT should help with (measuring VRE - vegetation red edge).
This video, was all about this 4th question. What's the likelihood that these other planets are indeed similar to Earth?
What even constitutes similarity?
Great lecture, I like the agnostic approach to life on other planets. We as humans are unique as one species of 8.7 million species of life that exists on our own planet. Perhaps we are hoping to find intelligent species that have human cognition, or planets to expand our species. Both are extremely unlikely in our lifetimes.
Who CARES if we're "alone." We're so FAR from any other potential life that likely we won't EVER be able to contact them.
If intelligent life existed on Earth for million years, which is unlikely, we could only find out about other intelligent life roughly a million light years away. More compelling is the idea of intelligent life visiting Earth which would require them to travel 1000s of years in our exact direction, arrive alive, and have us discover them. No chance.
It is best to assume we are alone because aliens won't be able to save us from ourselves. We absolutely must save our planet so it is a waste of time and resources to think about aliens a million light-years away
@@colingenge9999I find it funny that so many of us in our amazing wisdom and knowledge, know that long distance space travel isn't possible. We were monkies in trees not so long ago, and what we know now is probably less than 1% of our reality. The number of ufo sightings with verified radar data is evidence of things beyond our understanding. I've seen something zipping around in the sky at angles before disappearing in a kind of streaking flash, and found many descriptions of the same thing happening around the world. If the long history of ufo sightings and the recent moves towards more disclosure, it's looking pretty definitive that there is something going on that we don't understand. Certainly it's interesting, and I think a valid consideration. Certainly enough in my view to make in depth discussions of us being alone in the universe to be a little bit silly. Not that these ufo things are are aliens, might be previously evolved on earth, from other dimensions/times, who knows.
Contact isn't the only priority though. Just knowing that they exist would be a huge scientific breakthrough, that would resonate throughout human sociology, philosophy, religion, and scientific understanding and interpretation of ourselves. It would be huge. Especially if we find out even something basic about their biology. Just depends on how we would find out about them.
If it's a radio signal, then we know they are/were intelligent and made it to the Age of Information, and used similar technology to our own. That would also give us an idea of language and whatever else we can get from the signal. Or if instead of a signal we find a remnant of an ancient civilization, we can figure out the conditions they lived in, to find out if they were carbon based, what kind of environment they inhabited, what they ingested, etc. You may also get cultural information from that, or an idea of their technology, depending on the artifact.
But as I said, even if we have no direct contact of any sorts and just suddenly somehow know that intelligence has/does exist elsewhere in the universe, I think that would be enough of a breakthrough in its own right, and would change the way we think about biology cosmologically.
@normzemke7824 not every scientific discovery has to revolve around solving the climate crisis. We shouldn't just stop all astronomy just because "it doesn't save us from ourselves". Science stems from human curiosity, it's not just a means to save ourselves. The search for extraterrestrial life has nothing to do with climate change and I just don't understand how that's relevant
Very thought provoking! Great work!
And as Arthur C. Clark once famously said "either we are alone in the universe or we are not, and either thought is equally terrifying."
Why?
There’s another possibility: multiverses
Favorite German convertible - that is awesome! May I use it in conversation? :)
@@insomxWe're talking about lifeforms , NOT EXISTENCE.
He said a lot of things. Almost nothing he said was anything more than fiction.
He's great
I respect the honesty of the position: I don’t know.
So good! Thank you 🙏
Thank your for this lecture, Dr. Kipping! You and your family have a great Christmas and New Year!!
This talk shows typical scientific lack of knowledge, focusing on the external. All truth of life is found within. The external is purely a temporary sensory reflection. Having "hope" that there's life out there is simply a lack of self knowledge, and encourages people to focus on the external, which again leads to a lack of self knowledge. I recommend listening to Barry Long, a legitimate spiritual teacher.
@@michaeltsung9741 Sounds like pseudoscientific nonsense to me. A brief search of Barry Long suggest the same. That's not to say that internal spiritual exploration isn't beneficial or valid. It simply falls outside the realm of logic, and thus is particularly susceptible to charlatans and grifters. It's easy to create "knowledge" when it's not falsifiable or subject to empirical verification.
@@michaeltsung9741 All truth is found in Christ, not within.
@@florida8953 true ) 🙏✝️
I think you nailed it. I feel life is a property of matter; however, even if there were 100 million against the odds earths in the universe, we would never know it anyway. Best to use the billion years we have left to good purpose.
It is refreshing to see a science teacher so well rooted in reality!
Alone can mean either "the only" or it can mean "forever out of contact". It's easier to accept the latter than the former...
Not alone for sure ,all this engineering for nothing? We have no idea what’s beyond discernible horizon, not seeing don’t change reality.
I don't get why so many people are so obsessed with whether there is life elsewhere in the universe-which we are highly unlikely to find or interact with (though I'm not denying the watershed nature of either circumstance)-while humans demonstrate daily that they don't value other human life, nor all other life on this pale blue dot that we all occupy-and likely all will die upon, as will our very species, barring a sea change in how we behave towards each other, other life here, and the planet itself.
@@obiecanobie919 What engineering?
@Obie Canobie did you even watch the video you are commenting on??
Some of this from these scientists is deliberate disinformation
great lecture.
this way of thinking is so crucial right now and should be applied to all facets of society.
Exactly. You hit on the most important point of Prof. Kipping's lecture.
1/3 of the way through and he hasn't used any science. It's distance and time. calculate the time it takes to get to the nearest possible alien. it's FAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He believes in people having Biases' in believing there is life out there, instead of people trusting science and the law of probability.
I don't know why religious people always have to fight science on so many fronts, and now to pretend we are the only thinking creatures in the universe - that is extremely arrogant.
@@mrzoinky5999 I fail to see how saying "earthlings (humans, dolphins, bacteria, and everything in between) are the only current life in the visible universe" is arrogant. Earth's creatures did not get there from their own merit. They did not will themselves into existence while preventing others from emerging, they just happened to survive and become diverse over time.
@@mrzoinky5999 I don't think you understand religious people at all. You're being very arrogant in thinking that all religious people simply pretend we are the only thinking creatures in the universe. The reality is, we have no idea what's going on. All you know is that one day you were here and have memories. That's it. It could all be an illusion. Time may not exist. We may very well be alone. There could be a creator. Who knows? Don't assume that just because someone is religious, they are wrong. You don't know and they simply have faith in something larger. Also, there no such thing as "trusting science."
To save anyone the bother of watching this surprisingly simplistic lecture, it can be boiled down to the simple fact that there is not enough information to know whether there is life elsewhere in the universe.
This lecture is the abstract--He, and others, present much more detail in other lectures.
Great video! I've been using these same arguments when discussing this subject for several years now. I just wanted to add one more emotional appeal that I have heard directed at me when I suggest that we might be alone. They call me a "religious nut."
Apparently, only religious people think "we are special" and, therefore, alone, while non-religious people do not. And since EVERYONE fits neatly into one of these two categories, if I suggest we might be alone, I am a science-hating religious person!
The ironic thing about this emotional appeal is that I am not religious at all and it's actually the other side, as you stated in this video, that is not using science, but instead is using faith, to back up their argument.
You are thinking in black and white. Many religions do not mind that other beings may exist, even the ever-popular Christianity welcomes the concept:
“In my opinion this possibility (of life on other planets) exists,” said Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, a 45-year-old Jesuit priest who is head of the Vatican Observatory and a scientific adviser to Pope Benedict. “How can we exclude that life has developed elsewhere”
David also assumes that we are the first intelligent beings on Earth, so he can't say it is inconsistent with Earth's history. We don't know how many intelligent species have originated and perhaps exceeded humans. So he cannot use it on his timeline as proof of anything. There is not enough data. Other intelligence may even still be here, we simply don't know. With UAP disclosure we might have evidence, but if not, we have to accept we have no idea either way.
If I had to bet money, I would say that we are simply too primitive to know better and detect other intelligence. We are not much smarter nor peaceful than Chimps, if we are to be honest.
@chris5240 really? We're not much smarter than chimpanzees?
@@WhiteChocolate74 We are much more talented at self-destruction. but yeah, that comparison is maybe a little harsh.
They are mentally better than us at some mental tasks, like memory (3 min video): ruclips.net/video/zsXP8qeFF6A/видео.html
We also are learning about prairie dog language and how they describe threats by judging if people are adults or children, male or female, approaching or leaving, safe or dangerous, some colors, if wielding a gun - with addendums, etc, and could make new words. So maybe we are not as smart as we think, and our assumed position of most important life on earth and the universe is not really a sign of intelligence. More like arrogance.
Prairie dog language : ruclips.net/video/-chj4QCCqVQ/видео.html
Mr. Kipping, you have quickly become one of my favorite science educators. Looking forward to your future content with great excitement. I am an electrical engineer that absolutely loves physics and science.
24th like
True this is great
respect to you sir
Your description of the timeline actually sounds like a book, play, & movies. I could feel the crescendo. Good teacher!!!
what kind of drugs do you use?
"crescendo"?... I've never heard IT called that one before...😮😁😉
I first liked this video, and now I'm going to watch it.
My favourite argument cones from Ellie, the protagonist of one of Sagan's novels, who observed that, if we were alone in the universe, that would be an awful waste of space.
Fantastic talk!! 👏🏻
A great and fair lecture.
We're not actually alone, but we are effectively alone.
great, loved it
Amazingly well thought out and performed lecture. The kind of lecture that makes you smarter in more than a factual sense. A philosophical lecture more than a purely astronomic one and truly convincing, something rare in a philosophical lecture. 👏
@@pianoman16 Stick to pianos, man. They don't care you're an arrogant twit.
Given distances,we might as well be alone, even if we aren't.
I always try to tell my friends that aliens might not exist lol it’s very hard to explain thank you for this video
It’s still mathematically impossible for there not to be life out there in a universe this vast
@@JustinLodesIt's mathematically possible. As of yet we only have a sample of 1. What do we get when we multiply by 1? Do you remember?
@@sarcastaballHow many solar systems have been searched?
@@adebayostephen7576 We haven't even fully searched the one we're in yet. How come?
@@sarcastaball Technically, if the universe is infinite in size then there is life out there, even if the chance is extremely low. Any sort of life around us, however, is a different story.
I recall someone did an experiment decades ago where they took a vat of "primordial soup" and zapped it repeatedly with electricity to simulate lightening. When they examined the results they found organic modules that were not there before.
Very well presented. I have been an agnostic in so many areas.
Hello 👋 fellow Agnostic!
Wow, this may be first video I immediately watched a 2nd time. So well-presented and very thought-provoking to me. Maybe because of my bias in that I agree it is way too early to know if we are likely alone.
We already know we're not alone. Although we haven't seen "them" we have seen and recorded their transportation devises and or drones. I've seen what ever they are, the the military has seen and recorded and even measured what ever they are, for years. We know how fast they are and have some video of what ever they are.
I spend a lot of time in the desert near military installations. They seem interested in our military more than our shopping malls.
They observed our nuclear program and our air force. They regularly spend time stalking our pilots. We have them on both video and radar.
@@TheBandit7613 If a weird thing hovers around a military base, it's more likely it's a weird thing from the military base than a weird thing from outer space. If a military person says it's not their equipment and it moves in a manner that's impossible, it's more likely that the military person lies about it than it's from outer space.
@@TheBandit7613 You can't say I say it and we will take that . Science doen't believe in your eyes brother , it requires evidence - repeatable on experiment table . Next time you saw something set up a science camp and help them conduct experiment repeatedly . Thank You .
i was like…wait it’s over!!??
I just read the vital question by Nick Lane, and he gets into the chemistry in a very interesting way, and actually makes quite a good case for a non negligible Fl.
We are the proof there is life in the universe.
??? No one is disputing that!
@@prependedprepended6606 , if there's life on this planet there's life on other planets throughout the Universe.
They're now estimating there could be up to 2 trillion galaxies.
@@Rocket9944-- We know there are a lot of galaxies. We know nothing of the probabilities of: 1. life originating; 2. life evolving into intelligent forms capable of mastering technology; 3. advanced civilizations lasting a long time.
@@GH-oi2jf , 2 trillion galaxies, enough said.
Wonderful lecture. Thank you, especially, for the green-ball-in-the-urn analogy. I've looked for a way to explain to people that if we happen to be the only intelligent creatures in the galaxy, then naturally we're going to assume that we're the default case. But the green-ball analogy does a nice job of showing this bias for what it is.
This man is a genius in delivering deep scientific concepts in an interesting and thought-provoking manner. In my opinion, he is the next Carl Sagan. Cool Worlds is an amazing channel. As a teacher, I relay a lot of your concepts to my students and they are so engaged and curious. Thank you, David, for your staying unbiased in science and seeking the truth. One of the best science educators alive.
he's also the one of the handsomest scientists i've ever seen! (no homo)
@@victorchichester6741 exactly beauty with brain 😄
You're a toady.
why not just nuke every planet to make sure.
He's gorgeous!
Very good and solid lecture.
So absurd that so many public intellectuals completely ignore these arguments
That. was. spectacular. Thank you.
Loving this. Please upload more lectures, we all want more David Kipping!!
i don't
He has a RUclips channel called COOLWORLDS
So n=1 is not enough to determine how many balls there are in the bag, but n=1 is enough to determine what average time it takes to develop intelligent life.
I feel like life exists just in a different way than what we understand on our world.
When you say "I feel like" is that the same as saying "I believe"? If so, I would ask you for your evidence.
I love this guy. So succinctly and clearly explains what I've been trying to get across whenever this conversation comes up.
I'm the same. I can't imagine the probability of life evolving. From what? What created the spark? And, after the spark the evolution is so fast that mere mutations in DNA due to the suns radiation could not possibly have enough time to create the diversity we see. It's just soooooo amazing. Obviously, Darwin could see the evolution of life. But, the big jumps are not explained in my opinion. For example, the mission link.
@@GEB-yy3ud you're coming at this from a creationist angle aren't you?
@@TrevorStandley Yes, I guess so... Because just with this phrase: "I can't imagine the probability of life evolving", he's already going against all that the lecturer was trying to explain... 🤷🏻♂
Love this guy? I want to change my sex so I can have his baby.
@@TrevorStandley Not a 'Christian' one, or a 'Monotheist.' Just a human who looks at things like the flagellar motor and thinks there has to be a designer.. But, I can't deny that the religions and culture of our planet would have influenced my perception.
Respect to him for being brave enough to criticize those big names at the beginning.
Lol big names. They are just talking heads. Not really serious scientists. First guy has only a bachelor degree even
I disagree,
And the reason I disagree is because I have seen a UFO with my OWN eyes !
and this UFO was shown on CBC news in the 80s in Canada !
The Russians showed it to the world flying over Mars as they were mapping Mars !
It was the exact size and shape as I saw flying over Nova Scotia in the early 70s !
Flying from
South to North over the Atlantic Ocean !
at high attitude!
and it was NOT possible for anything from Earth to go that fast, in the 70s !
And it was GLOWING !
DML.
I sure agree!
Well, they had no evidence. Science is about proof, not opinion. It's something most of America doesn't understand, and to those who say they created the atom bomb, they had help from the British, the Swiss and many more countries. Americans do tend to think America is the centre of the universe if we're really honest. 😂
Criticizing someone is much different from showing the evidence of why they are wrong. He did criticize but he provided no evidence.
Most everything here is spot on IMO except for one thing: The existence of extremophiles almost certainly increases the odds of life being elsewhere somewhat. It may be less likely for them to have evolved in extreme environments, but the likelihood that they can thrive there opens up the possibility of them being transported through space by natural forces. In which case, they only need to have evolved once in an ideal environment, and could have easily been deposited on may other worlds since that time. (transpermia)
100% agree though that scientists should be agnostic in the absence of more evidence. We know that transpermia might be a possible mechanism, but it is not known for sure if it could actually work that way.
But with that said, if someone who had evidence and for sure knew the answer to "are we alone" were to point a gun at your head and ask for your best guess with the caveat that if you guess wrong, they would pull the trigger, what would your guess be? I know for sure mine would be "no. we are not alone" But if someone asks me if I believe in alien life, my answer is always "I don't know, but it is certainly possible"
WOW. A scientist who presents a rational cogent argument and still openly admits we really just don't know when it comes right down to it and we need more info. We could sure use a few more of this type of critical thinking scientist. Maybe even in the pharmaceutical industry.