Sunday, May 17, 2026

Have We Overestimated the Probability of Alien Life in the Univers?

Once I grasped the sheer number of stars and galaxies in the universe, it seemed almost inevitable that life must be common. It was easy to imagine that the “little green men” of science fiction—or perhaps something larger and more menacing—might inhabit planets orbiting countless stars. Looking up at the night sky felt like looking at a vast collection of potential civilisations we might one day communicate with.

It’s an appealing idea. But is it realistic?

How likely is it that alien life exists on planets orbiting the stars we can see with the naked eye?

My partner, an optimistic soul, dismisses my doubts. To her, it’s simply a numbers game. The Milky Way alone contains roughly 400 billion stars, so it seems unlikely that our Sun and its planets are anything special.

I understand that argument. Statistically, it feels improbable that we are unique. But that intuition may be misleading. If very specific conditions are required for life to begin, for it to persist, and for it to evolve into complex, intelligent forms capable of building technological civilisations, then rarity—not abundance—may be the more realistic conclusion.

It is extraordinarily difficult for simple life to evolve into complex organisms such as animals. It is even rarer for those organisms to develop behaviours that extend beyond survival—beyond eating and reproducing—towards intelligence, culture, and technology. And it is harder still for a species like Homo sapiens to progress from hunter-gatherers to builders of machines capable of exploring or communicating across the stars. Our own history makes this clear: it took nearly 300,000 years for our species to reach that point.

Why emphasise how difficult these steps are?

Because Earth’s history demonstrates just how long and improbable they appear to be.

The Earth formed around 4.5 billion years ago as a molten, hostile world, battered by collisions during the chaotic early solar system. A massive impact—likely with a Mars-sized body—created the Moon and left the young Earth a seething, molten sphere. It took millions of years to cool.

Nearly a billion years later, life emerged. Not animals, but simple single-celled organisms—algae, slime-like colonies, and microscopic cells drifting in the oceans.

For roughly two to two-and-a-half billion years, life on Earth remained single-celled. Then, in what appears to have been a singular event, complexity arose. One cell engulfed another and, instead of digesting it, formed a symbiotic relationship. This partnership—an evolutionary breakthrough—gave rise to more complex cells. It happened, as far as we can tell, only once.

From that point, evolution continued its slow work. Yet it was not until about 500 million years ago—four billion years after Earth formed—that plants first colonised land. Animals followed tens of millions of years later.

And humans? We arrived astonishingly late: roughly 4.4 billion years after the planet formed. We are newcomers on an ancient world.

Even then, technological civilisation is a very recent development. The first crude steam engine appeared in 1712, improved later by James Watt. Radio communication dates back only about 130 years, to experiments by Guglielmo Marconi—a blink of an eye compared to Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history.

All this suggests that the path from chemistry to intelligent, technological life is not straightforward. It is long, fragile, and contingent on many unlikely steps.

Even on Earth, only one species out of millions has developed advanced technology.

And Earth itself may be unusually well-suited for life. It orbits a stable, long-lived star. Of the eight planets in our solar system, only one supports life today. The others are either scorched or frozen, barren worlds.

Habitability requires more than just a comfortable “Goldilocks” temperature. A planet must retain a dense atmosphere to keep water liquid—and that atmosphere must be protected.

Here lies a crucial factor: a strong magnetic field.

Stars emit radiation and charged particles capable of stripping away planetary atmospheres. Even our relatively calm Sun has done this to both Mercury and Mars. Mercury has no atmosphere at all, and Mars retains only a thin remnant of what was once a much thicker one.

Mars likely had liquid water for up to a billion years or more. We can see evidence in its river valleys, deltas, and sedimentary rocks. But as the planet cooled, its internal dynamo shut down, its magnetic field weakened, and its atmosphere was gradually stripped away. Without sufficient pressure, liquid water could no longer exist on its surface.

If this can happen in our own solar system, it raises a sobering point: many planets may begin with favourable conditions, only to lose them.

Worse still, our Sun is relatively gentle. A large proportion of stars in the galaxy—particularly red dwarfs—are far more volatile, producing intense flares capable of stripping atmospheres from nearby planets with ease.

Taken together, these factors suggest that while stars and planets may be abundant, the conditions required for life—and especially intelligent, technological life—are exceptionally demanding.

For all the vastness of the cosmos, we may not be surrounded by thriving civilisations. Instead, life may be rare, fragile, and fleeting.

On this remarkable planet, only one species has crossed the threshold into technology—and even we spent almost our entire existence using simple tools, struggling to survive.

Perhaps the universe is full of worlds.

But worlds like ours may be few.



Discussion About The Existence of God On An Internet Forum



20 hours ago, D8veh said:

Hmmm! That's an interesting definition. It works well for natural life on our planet, but it has flaws. A simulation on a computer can meet that definition. What does requires energy mean - consumes energy, requires the existence of energy or what? What if some alien life could exist by trading entropy for energy? It comes back to we don't know what we don't know. In another dimension there could be something that exists on mana, or some type of field we don't have in the world we experience. When you're dreaming, are the beings you interact with alive?

God definitely exists. That's why we have a word for it. The question should be: What is god?

I think about when I play computer games. To the characters under my control or within the simulation, I would be their god. Their existence depends on me. I can control their environment, fortune, safety and health.

If you look back in your life, at some point, the world came into existence. Before that, there was nothing. How did you create it? "God definitely exists. That's why we have a word for it. " 

 We have words for many things which do not exist. Fairies, Goblins, Devils.

People have a capability to imagine things. Especially in times before we had other means to explain our world.

Our forebears invented myths to explain the bewildering circumstances they faced, life, death, the end of personal existence.

Homo Sapiens big brain did not always bring solutions; it also brought intellectual troubles that other creatures do not have.

Voltaire, the French philosopher made up a famous quote in the 1760s -

"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."

It is my opinion, that Voltaire hit the nail very firmly on the head.

As a youngster, I was brought up in a household where religion was never far away. I was a convinced believer until about the age of seventeen. By twenty, I came to the view that the personal God - the shadowy, wise and benign, human analogue, supposedly watching everything we do,and judging us, was a mythological construction. This came about mainly because I was starting to understand the scale of the universe.

At that time, I only knew about our own galaxy, but the scale of it, just blew me away. I realised the idea of some eternal, benign individual, existing in another dimension, and occasionally intervening in our own, was impossible wishful thinking.

The whole construction is almost designed to explain away the fact that there is no evidence at all for such a belief. God is supposed to be invisible, omnipotent, all good, an everlasting force. Nothing can touch him - and yet.... Nobody sees him, he is all good, but allows monstrous evil and pain.

'Ah - but it is mankind that brings the pain,' say adherents....

Then why does he not intervene and stop them?

'Ah - he has given his creation 'free will'. He can not intervene.'

But he is omnipotent. Why not?

We live in a universe with countless billions of galaxies. It is probably infinitely huge, each galaxy containing billions of stars.

Our Sun, is just one star - our planet just a speck of dust, with a sliver of an atmosphere, and a smear of ocean water.

This image taken with the deep field camera on the Webb space telescope, shows a field of view about the same as if you were looking through the bore of a narrow drinking straw. Imagine how many such pictures you would need to take to cover the whole of the space around the Earth! These smudges are not individual stars. There are only two stars from our galaxy in the image. You can spot them because they have diffraction spike artefacts on them. The smudges are galaxies, each of them containing hundreds of billions of stars - and this view is the view through a straw.

This is creation.

This is why I do not believe in a personal God.

We are an upright, smart primate with a brain that seeks closure. We want to know answers to big questions and we answer them with our best guesses. God and eternal life, are just two guessed answers to the questions:

'How did we get here?' and 'Where are we going?'

My answer to these - and like all human theories, it is just my best guess, is that we got here because of the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, and the answer to the second question, is that we return to the dust that we are fashioned out of.

That dust was created in earlier generations of stars than our own, through the process of atomic fusion, in which hydrogen is sequentially fused into heavier elements as stars age and begin to collapse, ultimately being blown into space by super nova explosions when massive stars come to the end of their lives. Ultimately, through gravity, that dust and gas collects into new stars, and into planets.

All the atoms in your body and mine, have passed through stars of earlier generations than we now see.

The dust of the planet passed atoms and molecules of oxygen, hydrogen, calcium and phosphorus into plants. We ate the plants, and we ate the animals that ate the plants, and this is how we grow from a three kilogram, new-born infant, into the 75 or 100 kilogram male, homo sapiens.

I say this is a guess, but it is more than that really, because it is based on empirical fact.

Empiricism - a paradigm which demands that belief is based on actual observation, measurement and testing, is probably the most powerful tool our species ever made. It is the foundation of science, and is what propelled us from the poverty, drudgery, unabated sickness, and misery of the pre-modern world.

The progress of our society over the last three hundred - perhaps four hundred years is entirely due to empiricism.

Look at the idea of God with an empiricist hat on, and you will not get far in finding him.