Bet 30
The first discovery of extraterrestrial life will be someplace other than on a planet or on a satellite of a planet.
Bet 30
Duration ? years (02002-?)
Predictor
freeman j. dyson
Challenger
Peter A. Spark
Stakes $2,000
will go to Project for the Blind, Tibet. if dyson wins,
or The World Wildlife Fund (WWF-US) if Spark wins.
Add your voice to a conversation with the bettors:
Bookmark this bet, and share it with friends:
If extraterrestrial life exists, it might have adapted to living in vacuum and spread widely over cold regions far from the sun. If so, it must grow optical concentrators, lenses or mirrors, to focus sunlight and keep itself warm. The concentrators will reflect sunlight in a narrow beam back toward the sun. If we point our telescopes directly away from the sun, we might see life as bright reflecting points, like the eyes of animals caught in headlights.
I’m betting that the first life to be discovered beyond earth WILL be found on a planet or satellite of a planet.
I believe that the ingenuity and inquisitive nature of man will see us conquer the logistical problems currently associated with space travel and exploration, leading to a new age of discovery. I believe that we will then first discover life* forms existing on a planet or satellite of a planet, in part because we know this is possible so will very probably focus our efforts on this form of discovery, and in part because I think it likely that the conditions that allowed life forms to evolve on our planet, this beautiful rock we call Earth, will have most likely led to a similar parallel evolution elsewhere in the Universe.
I believe we shall overcome the two persistent problems that currently hold this back, essentially related to our curious and perverse dependence on fossil fuels as an energy source, and our current lack of competence with regard creating an environment that can maintain human life over time in a small, closed environment such as our current conception of a space-ship.
We are making astounding progress in dealing with these two key issues already, future generations will look back on our existing forays toward understanding our place in the known universe, and laugh at the crudity of our current proposed solutions, they will have evolved a much more sophisticated understanding of the technologies required to sustain humanity in the universe. This is important because the unintended consequences of that sophisticated technological evolution will benefit us not only in learning to live in harmony with life forms on this planet, but also to the first discovery of life on other planets.
The Dyson family win if we discover life on something other than a planet or its satellite, i.e. on a piece of the flotsam and jetsam of the universe, a comet, asteroid or some such, or as Freeman suggests, in the cold regions far from a 'sun', or perhaps even a ‘space-ship from another planet’.
I’m betting that we shall first discover life in its habitat, a planet, upon which random chemistry, solar energy and gravity have all combined to allow a chemical soup to evolve life. I’m betting this will happen before it discovers us in ours. We may settle the bet next week, it may take ten thousand years or more, history will be the judge. It is potentially a very long bet, and a peculiarly ‘human race’.
* For the purposes of this bet:
1."Life" is defined as a self-replicating cellular organism. 2.The decision as to whether or not what is discovered qualifies as “Life” as detailed above shall be judged by George Dyson or his descendants.
The first discovery of extraterrestrial life will be someplace other than on a planet or on a satellite of a planet.
A team of scientists including Jayant Narlikar and Chandra Wickramasinghe believe they have already discovered extraterrestrial life in the high atmosphere. The scientists have found bacteria in air samples taken by balloons at up to 41 km. The experimenters are already convinced that the bacteria are extraterrestrial because they have unfamiliar DNA sequences, and they are distributed unlike earthly bacteria that might get drefted up would be. Not many others are yet convinced, however.
The evidence could get stronger after this summer, when the particles will be tested for unearthly isotope ratios. If found, those would be strong indicators that the particles are extraterrestrial.
Would extraterrestrial bacteria found in the high atmosphere meet Dr. Dyson's criteria, "not on a planet or satellite of a planet?"
"If we point our telescopes directly away from the sun, we might see life as bright reflecting points, ..." concludes Dyson's argument.
Mankind HAS been pointing telescopes away from the sun for the last 400 years, and we have not observed anything that would indicate the existence of life-forms such as proposed by Dyson. This suggests to me that either this life form does not exist around this particular sun (and there's no reason to assume that, if it exists around other suns, it will be easier to detect than other extraterrestrial life forms out there), or (less likely) we have been seeing them and not recognizing them for what they are (and no reason to assume we will, in the future).
Either way, I would bet against the proposition.
Freeman Dyson's full theory of non-planetary life and how to detect it may be found in a Planetary Society interview at:
http://www.planetary.org/html/news/articlearchive/ headlines/2002/FreemanDyson.htm
There are actually two questions that come to mind here.
1) When you look around the planet what do you see? There are millions of forms of life here. something that has always bugged me is this. When that ant is crawling over your patio furniture looking for food, we assume it is unintellegent, and crush it, or just let it walk by but the point is, maybe we are the ant to something else, sure there is no "Jack and the Beanstalk" foot stomping on the Golden Gate bridge, but maybe that is the problem, maybe it doesnt have feet. maybe we can't even touch it, or see it, or smell it, but that doesnt mean it is not there.
2) To continue off the end of the first, and agree with th post before mine, or at least part of it. Maybe we are looking for the wrong things. I'm not sure that bacteria, even if alien would be considered intellegent life, but maybe it is something like that. It could be a case of looking for the wrong type of life, maybe it's dark matter, or something ethreal that we cannot measure, or photograph.
Anyways, I would have to take the bet. I think the first intellegent life we find, we be much closer to home.
It seems to me that there are some critical needs for any organism existing beyond a protective body, (i.e. a planet or natural satellite). Those primary needs are energy and survivability/durability.
Energy in one form or another described as food in simple terms might be gathered in a biosystem through solar radiation or possibly a more creative method based on thermal or gravitational differences. Regardless, that organism, to be understandable by our biological knowledge would need more than that. For example, while plant life uses photosynthesis to create energy, it also needs additional nutrients and water. Deep sea vent creatures still need other resources besides volcanic hot water. An “exoplanetary” organism would lack many of these supplementary resources. A closed re-circulating biological system may circumvent this issue be it a result of natural development or artificial creation. But the question of how it developed that system remains. Some sort of evolutionary trait seems likely, probably developed over generations while external resources dwindled.
Again, using our own understanding of biology we have to look at how such an organism would develop outside of a protective environment afforded by say, a planet. Durability/survival becomes a huge factor for such a creature’s existence. Durability/Survivability takes into consideration several issues, resistance to environments of space (vacuum, radiation, temperature, availability of food, etc.), reproductive success, metabolic rate/life span, etc. Baring hibernation, this organism has some steep obstacles. If it reproduces sexually then it almost has to be colonial in nature. Even with immense life spans, the vast distances of space would make the search for a compatible mate impractical; proximity to a viable breeding pool would be a necessity. Let’s say it used asexual reproduction instead, simple cellular fission. It’s definitely a solution and probably a likely one. The problem occurs in that there is no variety of organism type, no development, and no evolution of traits that enhance survivability. Without that variety the organisms become increasingly vulnerable to extinction events whether it’s an increase in localized radiation to a toxic byproduct of their own metabolism. Whatever the cause, mixing genetic material allows coping mechanisms to develop. So now you’re looking for a small group of bacteria lucky enough to hibernate on a rock that was never exposed to an environment beyond the bacteria’s capabilities to survive. But how did they get there? Yes we've found questionable evidence on rocks torn from the surface of mars, but was it real trace evidence of life and what side of the arguement does it fall on considering it did come from mars, a planet. Bacteria in the upper atmosphere. The jury's still out on it's origin.
Don’t bother looking for naturally occurring intelligent life. It would be amazing to find an organism on the order of a jellyfish feeding off solar radiation and micro particles of matter brought to it by solar winds or scouring asteroids and meteors for minerals. Amazing but not likely. How long would it take for an organism like that to evolve? Would it be a colony of organisms or a single, multi-cellular creature? What protective environment was stable enough for the millions of years needed for it to evolve to its current form? As for the little green men tooling around the universe in a multi-generational space ship, well, it’d sure be neat.
But none of this answers the actual criteria posed in the bet. “The first discovery of extraterrestrial life will be someplace other than on a planet or on a satellite of a planet.” To qualify for that all we need to do is find a chuck of space flotsam, a rock that was lucky enough to skim through the atmosphere of another celestial body biologically compatible enough to support life. On its atmospheric journey it managed to smack into a few organism like bugs on windshield. And these organisms had to be robust enough to at least hibernate if not live on the rock during its incredibly long journey through space. And we as a species had to be lucky enough to find that rock and decide to test it for life or any chemicals that would indicate its presence. Sure it could happen. Finding it’s the hard part. Will it be the first discovery of ET? Based on our current methods for seeking extraterrestrial life, that’s a good question. We’re planning missions to and surveys of asteroids and comets. We’ve even landed on one, Eros. But are any of the probes we’re sending out equipped to look for life once it’s there. Not really. Currently, astronomers are working to develop equipment and techniques to detect and maybe even view small extra-solar planets. We’ve found lots of gas giants already. How long after the first solid planet is found will it be before we can analyze atmospheres for signs of life supporting gases? It seems to be where we’re looking right now. And if that’s where we continue to look then that’s probably where we’ll find life first, which is the true nature of this bet.
No, while I’m sure that Freeman Dyson is right in presuming life exists outside of planetary confines. I don’t think we’re looking for it there as hard as we’re looking elsewhere. Then again, I’m not a physicist, or a biologist, or an astronomer. As the commercial goes; “All I did was sleep at a Holiday Inn last night and take the tour at Canaveral”. I’m not aware or as informed as he is I’m sure. All I can say is that I hope I’m wrong and we find life all over the damn place. I’m tired of being alone in the universe.
This question has already been resolved, except most of mankind is still unaware. The Frass Meteorite, which I recovered in the winter of '70 - '71, clearly shows that Mars has been very much alive and most probably is still alive today. The evidence is with me in Los Alamos, New Mexico and available for veiwing at any time. Some Mars creatures can be seen at www.marslife.com.
Your friend,
micromike
why must we fight over what happens when in space? space is such an amazing phenomena that it should be appreciated, not argued about. :-( Sorry to ruin your fun, guys.
This bet has been moved from the Arena to On The Record. The participants' arguments will be available on the bet page.
This discussion is to vague and lacks any specifics, when talking about alien life, are you talking about micro organisms or some thing nore advanced, also do not limit your self to thing that the alien will need the sun to survive. You have to remember that life is present in some of the most hositle part of our planets ( do you watch nature programms ) from the extremly cold to the extremly hot, don't limit your thinking to the way in which we extract and use energy, we are the way we are because of our environment. Look to other forms such as absorbing nutrons or some thing like that (I'm no scientist so don't jump all over me for that statement ). All we need is energy and some material, so that when energy is move and divereted through the material it creates what could be defined as behaviour ( does this make computers a life form and therefore mankind a god (i think not!)). How the energy is suplied is another matter, a life form should be able to extract energy from a source and use that energy to create behaviour. In the vastness of space there will be other forms of life, i hope you all find what you are looking for.
"I hope you all find what you are looking for."
Of course one point (probably made earlier in this thread) is that you are more likely to find what you are looking for _where_ you are looking.
At the moment discovery of life off-Earth could plausibly occur a) from extra-solar signals b) from investigations on Mars / Europa. Simply because that is currently where, and how, we are looking.
Freeman Dyson's general view is that extraterrestrial life is likely to more pervasive and far stranger than current search ideas acknowledge. He thinks that life will be found just by new forms of looking---microbes on comets, "freeze-dried fish" from Europoa in orbit around Jupiter, and the like.
"Freeman Dyson's general view is that extraterrestrial life is likely to more pervasive and far stranger than current search ideas acknowledge."
And he may be right, but being right doesn't get any points unless you are shown to be right. In this case if life exists outside of current search parameters then it is likely that it will not be found until _after_ the search parameters are changed.
Of course he may hit it lucky with (for example) bacteria found in the material returned on the Stardust spacecraft. But 'happenstance' results from experiments not looking for life would seem to be less likely than getting postive results from experiments aimed directly at exo-biology.
ex·tra·ter·res·tri·al: Originating, located, or occurring outside Earth or its atmosphere:
A human being located in a Space Ship heading towards the moon, outside the earths atmosphere, is considered by definition a Extraterrestrial. It is already proven that man has already been to the moon (rock samples, photos,etc).
Extraterrestrial life then has already been found in space.
This bet is bad formulated.
The word you are looking for is ALIEN.
Was not the manned probe still in orbit about the moon or a common earth/moon point?
I would like to know one thing: would the receiving of electromagnetic signals, inconciously emitted be a proof of extraterrestrial life? In that case, I thing Mr. Dyson will lose this bet I think that it is more probable that we receive signals from a planet, like those that we have been emiting in the last century. Simply, these signals have much more speed that any spaceship we can imagine.
"would the receiving of electromagnetic signals, inadvertantly emitted be a proof of extraterrestrial life? [...] Simply, these signals have much more speed that any spaceship we can imagine"
True, but the signal strength drops off rather sharply. It is also likely that as civilisations develop there are at last a couple of trends that may combine to reduce likelyhood of detecting EM radiation and recognising it to be of intelligent origin.
1. Increased use of fibre-optics / laser connections.
2. Increased use of compression + encryption software. 'Plain' signals are pretty obviously artefacts, but the more they are compressed and encrypted the closer they resemble 'white noise'.
Nothing occurs in a vacuum, and that's just what is supposed to go on there. Anything found will probably not have originated there, nor be thriving. Life seems to spring up on the edges of chaos, with irritations and battles to be fought, something to bump against, amidst competing needs, at phase changes. I thnk this will be found to be consistant throughout this term of creation.
The fact that evidence of extraterrestrial life has been discovered is not necessarily the discovery of life as it might be extinct, as human (terrestrial life) might be by the time it is discovered.
The other argument is does it have to be an organism (by current definition) as is implied in many or most of the replies?
Vacuums are generally defined by the absence of matter, which still allows the possibility (plausibility unknown) of lifeforms based on other things, such as, say, self-perpetuating electromagnetic fields.
Moreover, vacuums are described by how 'pure' they are, and in known space there's always some matter if you go far enough -- maybe only a few hydrogen atoms per cubic meter, but we don't know how dense lifeforms have to be. Maybe truly huge lifeforms, insubstantial by our standards but still composed of weakly interacting matter, exist where we don't notice them because of their gossamer forms.
I'm not saying it's likely or not; I'm just saying we can't rule it out.
Most extraterrestrial life probably won't be immediately recognized as such by its discoverers. The less similar a life form is to humans, the longer it will take for us to acknowledge its "alive-ness". Hence, I believe the first *recognized* form of extraterrestrial life will have originated on a satellite (as it will likely bear a greater resemblance to ourselves than something that evolved in deep space), other entities previously catalogued may be proven living long after their discovery.
Of course, humans would probably be quicker to acknowledge a highly dissimilar life form if it were to best us in some sort of conflict.
-E-
The thing is: humans will likely (I think) not be the only human-employed beholders by the time we find and identify extraterrestrial life.
The other beholders will be AI systems. Humans are very good at recognizing certain kinds of patterns -- especially those which are similar to patterns we're already familiar with. This dovetails nicely with Emil's observations about the recognition of lifeforms similar to those we're already familiar with.
But computer systems can be very good at recognizing patterns that are not obvious to humans. I expect that future computer systems will be exponentially better still at this kind of thing, and probably as good as humans at recognizing human-familiar patterns.
Further, I personally think it reasonable that, in the future-accessible universe, lifeforms (at least in a broader definition, which I think is only reasonable) will come in a very wide range of varieties . . . even if they somehow don't show up in a large number of different kinds. That is, even if there isn't much out there, what is out there will probably take a wide variety of forms.
Therefore, I think it likely that many ETs will be very strange to us. And, further still, it seems likely that some, if not many, will be more easily recognized for what they are by AI systems than by humans -- especially at first contact.
So if powerful AI systems are developed, which I think likely, and if those systems are employed in exobiology, which I also think likely if any exploration is conducted, then I think it pretty likely that ETs will first be detected by those AIs, and that ETs which might have otherwise escaped human notice will likewise be detected by AIs.
Of course, technologically advanced ETs may be very good at controling whether or not we recognize them. That's a whole other issue, though.
Since I think that WE are ET's, Dyson has won.
While i think that it is possoble for e.t.s to live in this maner i beleive that it is much more likly that we will find them on their own planet or one that they have settled. There are just to many other ways to heat a space habitat.
Since I think that WE are ET's, Dyson has won.
It seems to me that, if we're ETs, somehow, then Dyson has theoretically lost the bet, since he predicted that ETs would first be discovered "someplace other than on a planet".
We surely have discovered ourselves, at least in a physical sense, and here we are on a planet.
I agree w/Dyson's position, not because we are (or will become) so sopisticated as to be or become able to define what we're looking for in e.t. life, target search systems & methodology to that definition, and make the discovery, but because, in our general fumbling about in space, we will happen on life forms that we do not and/or cannot anticipate. It's a bit chauvinistic to presume that there would be any similiarities between the circumstances of life as we experience it (in kind, nature, location, or requirements) and other possibilities to generate life.
In terms of this particular bet, since there is so much more non planet or satellite "stuff" out there, I agree that it's more likely we'll first discover life in that realm rather than on the very few planets/satellites that we'll be able to explore in the same time frame.
I agree with the part of Freeman Dyson's argument that indicates ET life will be found away from planets or other habitable zones, but am agnostic on the part that says we should look for huge solar concentrators orbiting distant stars (or even further out in the Solar System) for that life.
I feel that we'll most likely find extraterrestrial life going about its everyday business - that could be collecting the energy needed for life in Dr. Dyson's solar concentrators, or it could be that we detect a minute occultation or lensing of starlight caused by ships using condensed matter or other forms of warp drive (as in the Alcubierre warp drive, which MIGHT be made workable this century by means of condensed-matter gravity modulation).
To put it concisely, I think that an advanced extraterrestrial race will know how to travel between the stars in comparatively little time, and that this is how we will detect them. We may detect less advanced ET life as they might detect us - by the radio "noise" that we make right now. We should also be looking for Dyson spheres and other means of collecting solar energy on the grand scale.
I found the terms of the bet to be striking:
--"Life" is defined as a self-replicating cellular organism.
This is a tremendously biased assumption. Self-replication makes sense in the context of an environment of competing organisms, but life elsewhere might take a form more closely akin to our planet's biosphere. That is, it may take the form of a indefinitely continuing homeostatic system. It might not be divisible into components which are individually self-replicating.
The assumption of "cellular life" is also biased. It is true that all life as we know it is cellular -- but all life as we know it is found on our planet. The fundamental requirements for life are a far-from-equilibrium environment allowing homeostasis and reduction of entropy. The situation of a planet orbiting a star in what we think of as the "life zone" is just one of a potential infinity of such circumstances that might harbor life in the universe.
The bet itself is very hard to call -- I strongly agree with Freeman Dyson that life is likely to exist other than on a planet. I suspect this holds for the majority of life in the universe. However, I am doubtful of our ability to recognize such life. Perception is a creative act. We only see what we know how to see.
(Aside: Although there have been no new posts here for three years now, surely it's in the nature of a Long Bet to revisit the discussion in the years and decades ahead.)
Well i dont think that ET will be found at all. WE ARE ALONE IN THIS UNIVRSE. There are none other worlds. Its a waste of time and money trying to look for something that is not there. Therefore i disagree to the bet in terms of finding ETs on places other that planets and for that matter, i disagree on finding them anywhere at all.
Please sign in to comment.