Stephen Hawking's views on life in the universe

mrk

mrk

Man of Honour
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
105,196
Location
South Coast
I love reading about Hawking's talks and his views on this kind of subject, he gets right in there deep yet manages to explain it in such a way that it is easy to digest for everyone so more pondering and less head scratching can take place :)

Daily Galaxy said:
Stephen Hawking: "Intelligent Life May Not Be An Inevitable Consequence of Evolution"

In his famous lecture on Life in the Universe, Stephen Hawking asks: "What are the chances that we will encounter some alien form of life, as we explore the galaxy?"

If the argument about the time scale for the appearance of life on Earth is correct, Hawking says "there ought to be many other stars, whose planets have life on them. Some of these stellar systems could have formed 5 billion years before the Earth. So why is the galaxy not crawling with self-designing mechanical or biological life forms?"

Why hasn't the Earth been visited, and even colonized? Hawking asks. "I discount suggestions that UFO's contain beings from outer space. I think any visits by aliens, would be much more obvious, and probably also, much more unpleasant."

Hawking continues: "What is the explanation of why we have not been visited? \One possibility is that the argument, about the appearance of life on Earth, is wrong. Maybe the probability of life spontaneously appearing is so low, that Earth is the only planet in the galaxy, or in the observable universe, in which it happened. Another possibility is that there was a reasonable probability of forming self reproducing systems, like cells, but that most of these forms of life did not evolve intelligence."

We are used to thinking of intelligent life, as an inevitable consequence of evolution, Hawking emphasized, but it is more likely that evolution is a random process, with intelligence as only one of a large number of possible outcomes.

Intelligence, Hawking believes contrary to our human-centric existece, may not have any long-term survival value. In comparison the microbial world, will live on, even if all other life on Earth is wiped out by our actions. Hawking's main insight is that intelligence was an unlikely development for life on Earth, from the chronology of evolution: "It took a very long time, two and a half billion years, to go from single cells to multi-cell beings, which are a necessary precursor to intelligence. This is a good fraction of the total time available, before the Sun blows up. So it would be consistent with the hypothesis, that the probability for life to develop intelligence, is low. In this case, we might expect to find many other life forms in the galaxy, but we are unlikely to find intelligent life."

Another possibility is that there is a reasonable probability for life to form, and to evolve to intelligent beings, but at some point in their technological development "the system becomes unstable, and the intelligent life destroys itself. This would be a very pessimistic conclusion. I very much hope it isn't true."

Hawkling prefers another possibility: that there are other forms of intelligent life out there, but that we have been overlooked. If we should pick up signals from alien civilizations, Hawking warns, we should have be wary of answering back, until we have evolved" a bit further. Meeting a more advanced civilization, at our present stage,' Hawking says "might be a bit like the original inhabitants of America meeting Columbus. I don't think they were better off for it."

Posted by Casey Kazan.

This is the third in a three-part series on Stephen Hawking's views on life in the universe.

[via TDG]
 
Last edited:
I don't see what is so amazing about that speech. I'm no famous scientist but i've thought about those theories I think everyone has thought about those theories on their own.
 
Good read, I always like reading Hawkings views on such things because he has a very good way of explaing them.
 
I don't see what is so amazing about that speech. I'm no famous scientist but i've thought about those theories I think everyone has thought about those theories on their own.

The difference is when you or I think of such things and share those thoughts we will no doubt get a bludgeoning by the collective bandwagon whereas when Hawking shares his view the whole world sits up and takes note and then calmly discusses it :D

TDG has sections on his other talks too, I won't post them here as it's offset from the Op's topic a bit but still relevant if anyone does want to have a read :)

Interesting stuff!
 
Last edited:
The idea of there not being many intelligent life forms is an interesting hypothesis but to my mind illogical in such a massive universe.
 
The idea of there not being many intelligent life forms is an interesting hypothesis but to my mind illogical in such a massive universe.

I'm the opposite. I think we will find forms of life but no intelligent life. The more I read and see/hear about utterly chaotic series of events that lead to us the less likely it seems to me.

And given the time frame of the universe, even iif there was they would have probably died out 50billion years before and had all evidence sucked up by the sun.
 
The idea of there not being many intelligent life forms is an interesting hypothesis but to my mind illogical in such a massive universe.

The problem is Logic doesn't fit into it because we have nothing to base it on.

If you drop an apple and it falls to the ground once, then do it again, it is logical to think that they all will.

Unfortunatly we have only see one apple so far, so we can't logicaly say that it is any more likely or unlikely that there is life in the universe.

It is essentialy unknowable and unarguable.
 
Because of the total randomness of evolution leading to intelligence it's unlikely that our galaxy is teeming with intelligent life, more likely life that's not had the luxury of evolving with the random outcome of gaining intelligence.

Look at our planet, millions of species of life yet only humans have developed the intelligence to question life and self evolve. In another talk he goes on even more in this regard saying how humans have surpassed natural evolution and we are now on a path of self evolution where we're not just evolving internally but externally too and with technology being a key part in our next evolutionary path.

There's no reason why in the future a real "Matrix" cannot exist, it most likely will in fact if this trend is followed!
 
Last edited:
It is indeed a very difficult question to answer, and no-one can yet do so with any degree of reliability. In the next decades we will be able to infer the atmospheric composition of extrasolar planets, being able to sense if there is Oxygen there, but even this doesn't make anything certain.
 
what I don't get about the whole other life thing is this:

Why do we insist that all life on other planets/in other solar systems must have water? Just because we do rely on it, does not mean other races/species etc do.

Anyway care to explain?
 
The huge chances that took place in our evolutionary journey to get to were we currently are, and although may be huge, you could argue that the sheer size of the universe makes those numbers look rather small. Even with time brought into the equation. Though to other life forms, time could mean something totally different, remember time does not exist only clocks ;)
 
Because that's life as we know it. Once we find life that does not need water then that will change of course but at the moment how do you search for life that lives off ingredients we have no knowledge of yet? :D

Fly around space playing Marco Polo? :p
 
what I don't get about the whole other life thing is this:

Why do we insist that all life on other planets/in other solar systems must have water? Just because we do rely on it, does not mean other races/species etc do.

Anyway care to explain?
I've always thought the same thing,

Just because we need water, doesn't mean other species must. Isn't that the whole point of Darwin's theories? That animals and plants evolve and adapt to suit their environment?
 
what I don't get about the whole other life thing is this:

Why do we insist that all life on other planets/in other solar systems must have water? Just because we do rely on it, does not mean other races/species etc do.

Anyway care to explain?

I thought there had been life forms based on Nitrogen found in less hospitable locations under water (near volcanic eruptions etc)
Or was i watching speculation :confused:
 
I've always thought the same thing,

Just because we need water, doesn't mean other species must. Isn't that the whole point of Darwin's theories? That animals and plants evolve and adapt to suit their environment?

People have been thinking for some time that water is a universal constant. Seeing as it played such a massive role here on earth it's only natural to assume the same is true elsewhere.
 
People have been thinking for some time that water is a universal constant. Seeing as it played such a massive role here on earth it's only natural to assume the same is true elsewhere.

And you know what they say about assumption. ;)

Surely scientists are not that narrow minded?
 
So is it not possible that planets that have no water that we have dismissed as having no life could indeed have life?

Yes it's entirely possible but we're talking about life as we know it so analysing in depth every planet is going to be a massive waste of resources instead of just analysing what we already know contains life - until our technology and understanding evolves more of course!

As said above, water is a natural constant and can be brought to any planet by a comet or asteroid sparking off a chain reaction of random events! Probably how life formed here too some say :O
 
Back
Top Bottom