The great silence: Just 4 in 10,000 galaxies may host intelligent aliens
If plate tectonics, oceans and continents are rare on worlds throughout the universe, that is.
Alien life capable of communicating across interstellar space might not be able to evolve if its home planet doesn't possess plate tectonics, not to mention just the right amount of water and dry land.
Plate tectonics are absolutely essential if complex life is to evolve, argue Robert Stern of the University of Texas at Dallas and Taras Gerya of ETH Zurich in Switzerland. On Earth, complex multicellular life appeared during a period known as the Cambrian explosion, 539 million years ago.
"We believe that the onset of modern-day-style plate tectonics greatly accelerated the evolution of complex life and was one of the major causes of the Cambrian explosion," Gerya told Space.com.
Plate tectonics describes the process of continental plates, which are buoyed up on a molten mantle, sliding over one another, leading to subduction zones and mountains, rift valleys and volcanoes, as well as earthquakes.
Related: The search for alien life (reference)
The modern-day form of plate tectonics, say Stern and Gerya, only began between a billion and half a billion years ago, in a geological era known as the Neoproterozoic. Prior to that, Earth had what's known as stagnant lid tectonics: Earth's crust, called the lithosphere, was one solid piece and wasn't broken into different plates. The change to modern-day plate tectonics only happened once the lithosphere had cooled enough to grow sufficiently dense and strong to be capable of being subducted — that is, to be pushed under other parts of the lithosphere for a significant amount of time before being recycled back onto the surface where two tectonic plates are moving apart.
The environmental stresses that modern-day plate tectonics places on the biosphere could have instigated the evolution of complex life a little over half a billion years ago, as life suddenly found itself living in an environment where it was forced to adapt or die, creating an evolutionary pressure that pushed the development of all manner of life that existed in the oceans and on the dry land associated with the continental plates. Given that kickstart, life eventually — through no design or evolutionary imperative other than natural selection — ended up evolving into us, the idea goes.
Get the Space.com Newsletter
Breaking space news, the latest updates on rocket launches, skywatching events and more!
"The long-lasting coexistence of oceans with dry land seems critical for obtaining intelligent life and technological civilizations as the result of biological evolution," said Gerya. "But having continents and oceans is not sufficient on their own, because life's evolution is very slow. In order to accelerate it, plate tectonics is needed."
However, there's a problem. Earth is the only planet in the solar system to have plate tectonics. What's more, models indicate that plate tectonics could be rare, especially on a class of exoplanets known as super-Earths, where the stagnant lid configuration could dominate.
Coupled with the need for plate tectonics is the need for oceans and continents. Models of planetary formation indicate that planets covered entirely in oceans dozens of miles deep could be common, as could desert worlds with no water at all. Earth, with its relatively thin veneer of ocean water and topography that allows continents to rise above the oceans, seems to occupy a sweet spot that is carefully balanced between the two extremes of deep ocean planets and dry desert worlds.
Having oceans is crucial because it is strongly suspected that life on Earth began in the sea. Land is also critical, not only for providing nutrients via weathering and facilitating the carbon cycle, but also for enabling combustion (in concert with oxygen) that can lead to technology when harnessed by intelligent life.
If planets with plate tectonics, as well as the right amount of water and land, are rare, then technological, communicative, alien life may also be rare.
"What we have tried to explain is, why have we not been contacted?" said Gerya.
Related: Fermi Paradox: Where are the aliens?
To illustrate this, Gerya and Stern used the Drake equation. Devised in 1961 by the late SETI pioneer Frank Drake, it was intended to provide an agenda for the first-ever SETI (search for extraterrestrial intelligence) scientific conference, held in that year at the Green Bank Observatory in West Virginia, by summarizing the various factors required for the development of technological civilizations, resulting in an estimate of the number of extraterrestrial civilizations that might exist. However, it should be noted that the Drake equation is more of a thought experiment to highlight what we know and what we don't know about the evolution of technological life, rather than an absolute guide to the number of civilizations out there.
"Previous estimates for the lower limit of the number of civilizations in our galaxy were rather high," said Gerya.
One of the terms of the Drake equation is fi, the fraction of exoplanets that develop intelligent life (how we define "intelligence" in this context is still debated, but the modern way of thinking includes all intelligent animals, such as chimps and dolphins). Stern and Gerya argue that fi should be the product of two more terms, specifically the fraction of planets with both continents and oceans (foc), and the fraction of planets with long-lasting plate tectonics (fpt).
However, given the apparent rarity of plate tectonics, and worlds that can have oceans and continents, Stern and Gerya find that fi is a very small number. They estimate that just 17% of exoplanets have plate tectonics, and the proportion with just the right amount of water and land is likely even smaller — between 0.02% and 1%. Multiply these together and they give a value of fi as between 0.003% and 0.2%.
Then, by plugging this value into the Drake equation, Stern and Gerya arrive at a value for the number of extraterrestrial civilizations as somewhere between 0.0004 and 20,000. That's still quite a large range, the result of the other terms in the Drake equation not being known well, if at all. However, it is still orders of magnitude less than the value of a million civilizations that Drake predicted in the 1960s.
"A value of 0.0004 means that there could be as few as 4 civilizations per 10,000 galaxies," said Taras.
There are several caveats to all this. One is, as mentioned, that some of the other terms of the Drake equation such as the fraction of planets that evolve life in the first place, the fraction with intelligent life that develops technology and the lifetime of those civilizations are completely unknown. If their values turn out to be extremely high — for example, if civilizations typically survive for billions of years — then the chances of more of them being around now will increase.
Another caveat is that while, in general, life as we know it needs plate tectonics, oceans and land to evolve and thrive, it is possible to imagine scenarios where technological, ocean-dwelling life that never steps foot on land could evolve. However, these would be specific cases, outliers that are the exception to the rule.
There's also a risk of jumping the gun when saying that we haven't been contacted yet. SETI astronomer Jill Tarter is fond of saying that if, the galaxy were an ocean, we'd have searched only a cup's worth of it. While the search has accelerated recently thanks to the ambitious Breakthrough Listen project, the point still stands. We've not searched every star yet, and those that we have searched, we have not listened to or watched for very long. We could easily have missed an extraterrestrial signal.
A final point to consider is that of the "Great Filter." This is a concept first proposed by the economist and futurist Robin Hanson, which suggests that there might be some universal bottleneck in the evolution of all life that prevents technological civilizations from existing. In Stern and Gerya's model, that bottleneck is provided by the lack of plate tectonics, oceans and continents. However, despite their estimate for the number of civilizations being low, it is non-zero, and there is a school of thought that plays into the Copernican principle, which states that Earth should not be treated as special and is just another planet orbiting a humdrum star. Therefore, if life can evolve on Earth, it should be able to evolve on many planets, because Earth shouldn't be special. The question then becomes, At what point does the Great Filter kick in?
Perhaps Stern and Gerya have jumped the gun, declaring that planets with plate tectonics and just the right amount of water and land are rare, before we have the observational evidence to support that statement.
"Of course, it would be ideal to have observational data on how common continents, oceans and plate tectonics are on exoplanets," said Gerya. "Unfortunately, this is far beyond our current observation capacities. On the other hand, the planetary formation process is to some extent understood, and planetary formation models are capable of delivering predictions about what we can expect. Those predictions can be used to evaluate the probability of rocky exoplanets having continents, oceans and plate tectonics."
If Stern and Gerya are correct, then we could very well be effectively alone in the universe. If that's the case, we have an enormous responsibility to shoulder. "We should take all possible care to preserve our own — very rare! — civilization," said Gerya. Otherwise, we could kill ourselves off and render extinct the only technological life in our Milky Way galaxy.
Stern and Gerya's analysis was published on April 12 in the journal Scientific Reports.
Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.
Keith Cooper is a freelance science journalist and editor in the United Kingdom, and has a degree in physics and astrophysics from the University of Manchester. He's the author of "The Contact Paradox: Challenging Our Assumptions in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence" (Bloomsbury Sigma, 2020) and has written articles on astronomy, space, physics and astrobiology for a multitude of magazines and websites.
-
#fixtf2 botacount Didn't we also just find evidence vaguely suggesting Dyson spheres in our own galaxy? We have no evidence, having never encountered a single alien lifeform, to be making significant or factual claims about the nature of the search for alien life. Limiting the scope is good, but for all we know every planet has life buried under the surface in tiny pockets of habitable conditions. But we don't know... We have so many criteria for spotting alien life but none that should actually fully eliminate most planets as potentially home to microbes, which may eventually terraform and evolve like they did on earth. Some scientists talk like we've been observing distant worlds clearly enough to spot a lack of cities on their surfaces, but we really can't even tell that much.Reply -
Unclear Engineer The other side of the uncertainty band would be 20,000 advanced civilizations per galaxy.Reply
What the headline writers choose to focus on is just a matter of their own personal biases.
The article does make a point that we might be extremely rare, and therefore should take care of ourselves. But, I think we are going to want to do that whether we are rare or not.
One thing that seemed to be missing from the article is the potential for something like the Thea collision hypothesis to be necessary for the start of plate tectonics on a planet. If it requires not just any collision, but some small probability combination of masses, velocities and center of mass offsets at closest point, then that could be extremely rare. -
Questioner We have exactly ONE known planet out of thousands detected that will sustain our species which we are rapidly making unlivable.Reply
So what we have yet to find is a single technologically advanced species that is actually intelligent,
if Intelligence requires the capacity of self sustenance. -
Temple
Well saidUnclear Engineer said:The other side of the uncertainty band would be 20,000 advanced civilizations per galaxy.
What the headline writers choose to focus on is just a matter of their own personal biases.
The article does make a point that we might be extremely rare, and therefore should take care of ourselves. But, I think we are going to want to do that whether we are rare or not.
One thing that seemed to be missing from the article is the potential for something like the Thea collision hypothesis to be necessary for the start of plate tectonics on a planet. If it requires not just any collision, but some small probability combination of masses, velocities and center of mass offsets at closest point, then that could be extremely rare. -
Classical Motion That's with the assumption that alien life was DNA life. And an Earth like environment.Reply
Life is much more mysterious than energy, mass, light and gravity. And space, don't forget space.
It's a very unacceptable singularity. Our only singularity. And a slap in the face.
I stay away from it.......in understanding non living matter and physicality. Except for the heavy bias it applies to our reasoning. Things like randomness, probability and chaos. Living behavior products.
Products of choice. An Earth only property.
Addition, multiplication and reduction are life processes, you won't find them on Mars.
Mixing life with star study won't work.
Because of choice, life processes will remain statistical forever. A constant doesn't apply. With choice.
That choice is why we nibble at every tit and tittle of every theory.
Life is choice after choice until a choice is made for you.
Just a Saturday nickle. -
MikeMc This article was total fiction. Just complete, total, guessing. No one could possibly have a clue as to how many planets with intelligent life there are. All of these so-called factors in the article are all unknowable. I wish I wouldn’t have wasted my time reading it.Reply -
Jan Steinman
And I wish you hadn't wasted our time commenting on it.MikeMc said:I wish I wouldn’t have wasted my time reading it. -
Jan Steinman Something rather implausible that is not a term in the Drake Equation, is that some quarter-billion years of solar energy would be stored up, just waiting for a technology-minded species to evolve and exploit it.Reply
I don't see how a technological civilization like our own could come to exist without something similar to the giant "Earth battery" that we've used to get to where we are.
And that "Earth battery" is about to go into decline, which may well limit "L" in the Drake Equation to a hundred years or so, at least in our case. -
Unclear Engineer Jan, What are you calling the "Earth Battery"? Because you say it is a "quarter-billion years of solar energy", I am guessing you mean "fossil fuels"?Reply
We really are not "running out" of that, we are just realizing that burning more of it will cause major changes in our climate. And, that will damage our technological infrastructure investments. Which may or may not cause social instability and threaten the existence of our technological capabilities.
Maybe. Not really that clear what in the "L" that will do. ;)
(There is a theory that human technological advancements were spurred by past changes in climate.) -
Jan Steinman
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4534254/Unclear Engineer said:What are you calling the "Earth Battery"?
The evidence contradicts that on both counts.Unclear Engineer said:We really are not "running out" of that, we are just realizing that burning more of it will cause major changes in our climate.
Your latter point first: although climate change is in the news, we really are not voluntarily reducing our consumption at all. In fact, except for a small "blip" during the pandemic, fossil fuel use continues to increase every year, as does carbon emissions.
Rather than displacing fossil fuel, so-called "renewables" are merely boosting our energy-use growth.
And that brings up your former point.
It may be true that a lot of fossil fuel remains available — and will remain — available. But we've used up the "low-hanging fruit," and it costs more and more energy to produce such energy, So that doesn't matter from an economic point-of-view. What matters is the direction of the slope of the curve.
As the "master resource," continued growth in energy use is necessary to maintain economic growth.
The "techno-cornucopians" believe that "green growth" is possible, through the use of renewable energy. But there is no evidence that is possible; so-called "renewable" energy is soaked in oil, from the mining and processing of ores, to the transport of materials, to the fabrication, distribution, installation, and maintenance of wind turbines, solar panels, and hydropower, to the eventual de-commissioning and recycling of these resources — all of these things are utterly dependent on fossil fuel, primarily diesel.
Despite penetration of electric vehicles in the consumer market, diesel runs the world. There is no substitute in mining, long-haul transportation, and agriculture. The energy density is just too great, and electrification of those segments has proven to be impenetrable.
Outside of the few Great Depression survivors, few people alive today know what "negative growth" is like. You can't find a politician or business leader who will talk of "de-growth." This will send shock waves through our economy, technology, and way-of-life.Unclear Engineer said:… that will damage our technological infrastructure investments. Which may or may not cause social instability and threaten the existence of our technological capabilities.
Howard Odum taught us that technology is a form of complexity, and that complexity is simply a form of embedded energy. When the energy growth slope goes negative, technology will, too. Technology will not "save us" from fossil fuel decline.
The entire continued growth of fossil energy has been due to US fracking, which is showing signs of faltering. When that slope turns negative, the entire world's growth in fossil energy will turn negative
Technology has always been backed by growth in energy use. "Past climate change" only supplied the need. We extirpated the mega-fauna in order to endure the last ice age. Energy-rich Europeans "took over" entire continents to continue their energy growth, in the words of William Catton (Overshoot, 1982). We've run out of lands to conquer and people to exploit, and are furiously practising what Catton called "draw down," thus the scientific paper on the "Earth battery."Unclear Engineer said:(There is a theory that human technological advancements were spurred by past changes in climate.)
So, get ready for some interesting changes. Humans don't do well with changes in the direction of curves. We are at our best as economists, when the curve is going upward and onward forever.
But if something cannot continue, it will not — including infinite growth on a finite planet. Willam Rees has shown that we are using close to six planets' worth of resources. We are currently using about 40% more energy than that gathered by all the photosynthesizing plants (so-called "primary production") on the planet.
What could possibly go wrong with that?
I have seen the future, and it is powered by current photosynthesis. I'm just not sure I see any humans in that future.
I've dropped some names for your research, but let me know if you get stuck and need some assistance figuring this out. Politicians and business leaders aren't going to help you!