We must assume that the estimates of the terms included in Drake's Equation are reasonable and well balanced against the
knowledge we possess in those areas. With increasingly powerful telescopes in all wavelengths and with increasingly higher
resolution, we can see further and better into the universe.
We can thus estimate with great accuracy the values of:
R*
= how often new stars are formed in our galaxy per year
ƒp
= how many of these (star systems) have planets, and...
ne
= number of planets per such system that lie within the "habitable zone"
The two factors with the absolute most built-in uncertainty in the estimate, besides
ƒl
(the proportion of planets within
the habitable zone that develop life) but we will return to that term, is
ƒi
in (the proportion of planets that develop life
also evolve into intelligent life) an
L
(the time that such a
civilization remains 'radio-active' and thus the time with which the civilization is thus detectable at all).
Why is it not
ƒl
= the proportion of planets
within the habitable zone that develop life, is it also subject to great
uncertainty? It may be. However, it is believed that life is either extremely rare or common. That is, that term is either
close to zero (0) or 'not close to zero'. And the general consensus is that it is believed in the latter and note that even
a proportion of let's say 10-20% (0.1 – 0.2) is considered a high proportion, or probability, for life to arise on the
habitable planets.
It is believed that life, even if that life remains as single-celled bacteria-like life, is relatively common and that the
term is then clearly distinct from close to zero. The great uncertainty therefore lies in the factor that estimates the
development of intelligent life.
Since this was originally written, another interesting article has been published about the Drake Equation where
ƒl
is
addressed in a new way. Feel free to read about that article
here.
But, even if one relatively conservatively estimates the two factors with the greatest uncertainty, one arrives at a
number (N) that is so large that there is some reason to exclaim with Enrico Fermi "Where is everyone?". The quantity
N is therefore so many that we should easily discover them. Where is the error then? If the N of the left-hand side is
estimated too high, then one of the factors of the right-hand side must also be estimated too high, that is, either
ƒi
, the probability that life will also
become intelligent or
L
, how long a time span that civilization is
technologically viable.
We have already discussed the Drake Equation and that it obviously should not be seen as an exact measure of the number
of places in our galaxy that not only achieve consciousness or intelligence but also become technologically advanced
like us. Drake's equation does not even assume that there is any other life besides our own civilization. Since we only
have our own civilization as "measurement data" and not really a clue about how common life is, we must of course take
into account that the Drake equation is just guesses, qualitative ones, but still just guesses. What the equation does
is that it functions as a way to put the question on the table and create a debate around questions and probabilities
around, life, how, when, where, it arises. But also how long and whether it achieves intelligence.
The Drake Equation is thus not seen at all as a comprehensive equation and the terms are both incomplete and uncertain
and Physicist Sara Seager has, for example, proposed a modified variant that takes into account the proportion of planets
that exhibit a spectral signature of so-called 'Biogas'. This means that in a spectrum (analysis of the light
emitted/reflected from a planet) one sees traces of gases and molecules that are considered essential for the emergence
of life.
When this is written, a similar discussion is underway regarding Venus where 'Phosphine' has recently been found which
is considered to be the result of active organic life.
The reason why we still attach importance to the equation is because the term
L
must be included in any modified version of the equation that is considered the "best".
Since we have two factors with the largest margin of error
ƒi
and
L
, the fault probably lies in one of these, so
...either intelligent life is very unique or
...such civilizations are simply not particularly long-lived on average.
That is, the estimate we get of N (which is obviously too high) is due to our estimate that L is too high.
Drake explicitly urged us to create debate about life and the evolution of universal such and we choose to see it from
the possible aspect or the risk that we (universal life, we) on average do not manage to survive very long. If we follow
that idea, there is an inherent property of life that, once it achieves a certain measure of technological standard, it
acts in a way that is so fundamentally unsustainable that it relatively quickly sends its civilization down to a societal
standard where they are no longer "radio-active". And that this property is thus inherent in intelligent and technological
life, wherever it arises.
L
is not the lifespan measured in years for a civilization
or life
per-se but the lifespan for how long the corresponding civilization remains technological or 'radio-active'.
So, if it were the case that the average lifespan for technologically advanced life seems to be universally low, it does
not automatically mean that we will exterminate ourselves. Only that we will stop being 'radio-active'.
However, we had another factor that was fraught with great uncertainty,
ƒi
= how many of the planets that develop
life also evolve to intelligent life. The error, or why we cannot detect traces of intelligent/technological life,
which we should if N is correctly calculated, could absolutely be due to that factor being misestimated (or, more
crudely, any of the terms involved could be misestimated). It thus does not have to have anything to do with
misestimating how long a technological civilization stays technological, i.e.
L
..
But should we really take a chance on that?
If we really think about it and analyze our world and quickly glance at our history, doesn't it seem possible that
our civilization actually has excellent credentials to collapse on its own accord?
We think that we should, just to be on the safe side, consider that this could be the case. Suppose that the way we
live does not work so that we can continue to live with the standard we are used to.
The internationally known physicist Carl Sagan, who is remembered for us 70s people for his fantastic, both book and
TV series in the 80s, 'Cosmos', thus devoted a large part of his life to considering Drake's term
L
L. He saw signs in
both our history and our present that led him to take a strong stand on environmental and sustainability issues, as
well as against our nuclear armament and our enormous arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Like us, he wanted us
to consider that the very term
L
is the limiting
factor in the equation and that we should thus start acting and
following all the compass needles that point
away from a situation that can lead to climate catastrophes, war and the
collapse of civilization.
ALL conflicts, ALL armament, ALL deforestation of rainforests, ALL polarizing ideals, ALL prejudices, ALL online
hate and ALL short-term use-and-throw consumption, originates from an indecent person's
easily offended and affirmation seeking personality and that person's compensatory actions. The rest of us,
decent people, must start standing up for decency. We must, before it's too late.