[echelon]

And you have to have multiple low probability events. These probabilities multiply.

We had a good start. A Jupiter to clear the debris, a Theia impact to create tides and contribute to tectonics, a magnetic core, a shielded atmosphere. We had water delivered to us. Maybe even panspermia.

Maybe cell walls and mitochondria are hard. Maybe multicellular is hard. Maybe life on land is hard. Building lungs, rebuilding eyes, having actual energetic gasses on land...

Maybe life is easy, but intelligence is hard. Maybe civilization is hard.

Maybe technology development can only happen on dry land, because aqueous chemistry is hard in water. Sorry mollusks and cetaceans: you'll probably never be able to do chemistry or materials science.

Maybe you need water and carbon and other chemistries aren't robust enough.

Maybe you need lots of fossil fuel deposits to develop industry. And that requires growth without bacteria and decomposers for millions of years, implying a certain order to evolution.

Maybe you need a certain sized gravity well to escape.

Maybe surviving the great filter is hard and still ahead of us. Maybe every species can build tech where a kid in their garage can extinct the entire species by 3d printing grey goo.

There's just so much we don't know about how life could happen. Let alone intelligent life. We don't even know where we're headed.

[HarHarVeryFunny]

> Maybe life is easy, but intelligence is hard

Intelligence has evolved three times independently on earth - dinosaurs/birds (raptors, covids), mammals, and cephalopods (Octopus)

> Maybe you need water and carbon

Maybe so, but Oxygen and Carbon are only behind (albeit far behind) Hydrogen and Helium as the most abundant elements in the universe

[macintux]

My pessimistic side says that the conditions for intelligent life are so implausible that we’re unique, and when we drain the planet dry of easily-accessible fossil fuels we’ve deprived any successor civilization of its opportunity to escape the planet.

Basically I fear we’re the universe’s only shot of appreciating and populating the galaxy (or beyond) and we’re on the brink of throwing that away.

[Shekelphile]

> when we drain the planet dry of easily-accessible fossil fuels we’ve deprived any successor civilization of its opportunity to escape the planet.

There will be no successor civilization to humans. Earth won't be able to support multicellular life in a few hundred million years due to the sun becoming gradually more luminous over time, resulting in higher surface temperatures that will eventually culminate in a runaway greenhouse happening, as it already has on Venus. Due to human-driven climate change effects this event will certainly happen much sooner (<100m years) as well, which is simply not enough time for another intelligent species to evolve after a large-scale extinction event.

Even if life evolving on earth was an incredibly rare event the chance of such circumstances not happening elsewhere even in our own galaxy is infinitely small - there are trillions of planets and 100b+ stars. On top of that there are 100s of billions of galaxies within the observable universe as well.

[delta_p_delta_x]

> Due to human-driven climate change effects this event will certainly happen much sooner (<100m years) as well

No, it will not. Human driven climate change is drastic, but the Earth has seen far worse events than our anthropogenic carbon emissions. For instance, the Chicxulub impactor at the end of the Cretaceous changed atmospheric conditions overnight, and to a much greater degree than whatever we have cooked up. It was the equivalent of detonating the world's entire nuclear arsenal about a million times over.

Sure, it finished off the dinosaurs. But 66 million years later, we, the descendants of tiny rodent-like mammals, are still here, as are the dinosaur's own descendants, the birds.

Additionally, during the Carboniferous about 300 Mya, both carbon dioxide and oxygen levels were considerably higher than they are today, and life actually thrived. I would say that with the increasing luminosity, there will be at least a decent period on Earth where life returns to that sort of diversity. We are actually still only in an interglacial of an ice age—this has effectively sterilised large tracts of our planet by covering them with ice sheets, or locking permafrost into the soil and making them unavailable for large trees.

Let me be very clear: our emissions—if unchecked—will make life very difficult for us as the rising seas and temperatures scatter millions of people out of coastal cities in the tropics further north and south and cause war, division, strife, and discord like we have never yet seen. But actually bring forward the planet's overall demise? Nearly impossible.

Let's not have the hubris to think we puny humans could remotely affect the planet's geological timeline. If we somehow all disappear simultaneously, most direct evidence that we ever lived will disappear with us–perhaps within a hundred thousand to a million years of erosion and weathering. Our emissions will similarly lurch to a halt and will reach equilibrium within a similar time span. That's all it takes to remove our direct creations from the geological record.

[HarHarVeryFunny]

> There will be no successor civilization to humans. Earth won't be able to support multicellular life in a few hundred million years due to the sun becoming gradually more luminous over time

Modern humans have only been around for < 1 millions years, and all the technology we have invented is incredibly recent. 200 years ago we had neither electric light or bicycles.

Over the course of 100s of millions of years, as the sun's increasing luminosity becomes an issue, I'd have to assume we could create some sort of atmospheric solar shield to reflect or absorb a lot of the energy. Of course you can only postpone the inevitable (red giant).

Assuming the evolutionary lineage of our species survives a few hundred more million years (which seems rather doubtful), then it's not going to be homo sapiens any more - we'll have evolved into successor species that may be barely recognizable. If you go BACK in time 100M years, our ancestor was some mouse-like animal.

[HarHarVeryFunny]

As long as we have air and water (i.e. as long as we're alive), then we can make propellants such as Methane or Liquid Hydrogen and LOX, Hydrazine & Dinitrogen Tetroxide (or Hydrogen Peroxide).

[macintux]

None of which are, I assume, as easy/efficient/effective to integrate into a new civilization's tech tree as coal & oil.

[crazygringo]

So? We build nuclear power plants and it's not exactly easy/efficient to extract uranium. Hard things are done all the time.

Having coal/oil is pretty irrelevant in terms of whether a civilization can build spacecraft.

[macintux]

"and when we drain the planet dry of easily-accessible fossil fuels we’ve deprived any successor civilization of its opportunity to escape the planet."

Successor. Whoever comes along after we've done ourselves in.

[crazygringo]

Huh? "We" is the human race, whatever civilization. What point are you trying to make? What I said stands, exactly how I said it.

[HarHarVeryFunny]

What has that got to do with energy dense rocket fuels for getting to orbit ?!

[macintux]

The key phrase was "successor civilization".

[Qem]

> ...when we drain the planet dry of easily-accessible fossil fuels we’ve deprived any successor civilization of its opportunity to escape the planet.

On the flip side, that could also be plausibly a blessing, avoiding them to fall into the same trap of becoming too powerful before they get wise. These comics illustrate it: https://www.badspacecomics.com/post/grounded

[leoedin]

Even on Earth, the only reason humans exist is because the “local maximum” of the dinosaurs was wiped out by a meteor. Perhaps comparably intelligent dinosaurs would have eventually evolved - but it’s not a given!

[3eb7988a1663]

Dinosaurs existed for some 200 million years with no detectable signs of technology development[0]. Presumably, the steady state did not produce a scenario in which the intelligence niche would develop without some other less catastrophic global change event.

[0] Unless that episode of Voyager was right on the mark https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Distant_Origin_(episode...

[HarHarVeryFunny]

Intelligence evolved at least three times on earth - dinosaurs (leading to corvids, but a raptors already intelligent), mammals and cephalopods (e.g. octopus).

I suspect that any evolutionary environment will eventually create enough variety and instability that some generalists emerge, creating a reward for intelligence. The rise in intelligence from early water-bound life to later forms was likely all driven by more complex and diverse environments.

[Qem]

Maybe they didn't produce an intelligent species just because they had not the luck of living in the unprecended time in the history of Earth with both high atmospheric O2 and very low atmospheric CO2 we enjoyed for a while, before we started to burn fossil fuels by the gigaton. See https://www.qeios.com/read/IKNUZU

[TuringTest]

It took several environment-changing events to get our unique kind of intelligence; mammals had to thrive in place of saurs; and then, Africa needed to be split by the Rift and to create the dry savannah.

This forced some apes to climb down the trees and depend on a diet of scavenging for meat, which happened to both increase brain size AND require improved intellect to survive, forcing the evolution of our hypertrophied symbolic brain.

Had this not happened however, other intelligent species could have filled the niche. There's no shortage of other intelligent species in our planet, not just other mammals but octopus and some birds. And then you get hive intelligence, which could equally be forced to evolve into a high problem-solving organism.

[GWBullshit]

You're not wrong, but you're in the wrong place to talk to people about low-probability events and how they multiply. Most Hacker News can't into elementary-school-level probability equations and will instead take the ostrich approach; there was some behavioral scientist dude from Cambridge Analytica who wrote about this and the TL;DR is that most "adults" have infantile minds that prefer various safety blanket mechanisms that society is more than ready to offer them just to do anything to have an excuse to not face the truth of what basic math reveals to more likely than not be true.