For renewing my subscription to
Scientific American, I recently received the offprint collection
"The Frontiers of Space" which includes articles on Mars and
our favorite moon, Europa. I highly recommend both the
collection and a subscription to this fine old magazine, which could
use your support (I've noted a thinning of the magazine over
time).
But, that's not why I'm writing
to you. In the collection is an article by Ian Crawford entitled
"Where Are They?", subtitled "Maybe we are alone in the
galaxy after all". I found this article thought provoking
to say the least. Crawford uses the SETI results to date to
suggest that we have already eliminated much of the Milky Way galaxy
as a source of advanced civilizations beyond or equal to our own
capabilities. I found this result shocking. I think this
group already suspects that we will find single-celled life will be
ubiquitous; multicellular life perhaps less so. The disturbing
point, ala Stephan Gould, is how very contingent and unique our
evolution may actually be, and the irony is that SETI, and not all the
religions you may or may not subscribe to, may be bringing that point
home. Examples: per Crawford, the Dinosaurs had about 150
million years to evolve, there were probably brainy ones, many had
upright postures and free hands, but no tool makers (none found yet,
anyway). Dolphins are smart, so are many whales, but no
"civilizations" have evolved from them as we would define
them. If Homo weren't around, would even a close relative like
the chimpanzees start a civilization? Maybe, maybe not.
Perhaps we should focus attention on what has really made us
different. My suspicions are that the rise of modern
civilization has also been a contingent process. A little more
pestilence here, a little less effort expended there, and you and I,
dear friends, are not communicating via computers, let alone
colonizing the galaxy.
Just some musings. Feeling
a bit lonely, and looking forward to your reply.
Gary
