Thursday, October 29, 2009

Rare Earth Hypothesis vs. Reason

As you probably have gleaned from the title of this post, I disagree with the Rare Earth hypothesis-- that is, the theory that the spectacular coincidences and conditions that led to complex (not even necessarily intelligent) life on this planet is so statistically remote that it is extremely unlikely that any other planet in the universe has evolved complex life. The term (and hypothesis) comes from a book by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee.

Now, I have not read this book, and therefore I am not fully versed in their arguments. I plan to read the book and make a more detailed argument, but I wanted to lay down my base hypothesis first. Also, Wikipedia does an ok job at summarizing their argument.

So, before we get to their equation, let's look over some data:
  • It is estimated that there are 200-400 billion stars in the Milky Way Galaxy.
  • It is estimated that there are about 100 billion (1011) galaxies in the universe.
  • Galaxies tend to contain between ten million (107) and one trillion (1012) stars.
Now let's crunch those numbers. With simple math, we can conclude that the average galaxy has 109.5 stars. So, to calculate the total number of stars in the universe we need 1011 * 109.5, which gives us, with rounding, 1020 stars. (That's 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars.) That's a lot. If each star was the size of a tennis ball, stacked up they could reach the moon from the earth (avg. distance) almost 17.5 million times.

Now let's make some guesses. In the famous Drake Equation, it is estimated that half of all stars will have planets. So that gives us a more manageable number of 1010 stars with planets. For the sake of argument, let's say that our solar system is fairly typical, and maybe the average number of planets in a solar system is around 6. I think I am being generous to the Rare Earth-ists here, as a solar system could easily have tens of planets, not to mention life-supporting moons. That gives us 6 * 1010 planets in the universe. Disregarding the Drake estimate of 2 planets per star supporting life, let's say that, I don't know, 1/8 of planets support complex life.

So, we have finally arrived: 60,000,000,000 planets could support life. Sixty billion seems to be far from the estimate of 1. If my estimates have an error of 99.9%, there would still be 7,492,500,000 planets supporting complex life. Of course, some of that may have died off already, and most (statistically) we would never be able to find. (If you read the numbers above, and you're good with visualization, you should already have realized the size of the haystack in which we are searching for a proverbial, uh, 60 billion needles.)


As I have said, I will in fact be making a more detailed argument later. However, I assert that the vast immensity of the universe makes the Rare Earth theory extremely unlikely, statistically. And I haven't even broached the subject of carbon-based vs. non-carbon-based life or the general assumptions of what a 'life-supporting planet' requires.

QED.


Friday, October 9, 2009

Barack Obama Deserves the Peace Prize

I, like many others, was a little surprised by the news that Barack Obama was named the winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. Many people's reaction has been, "But what has he done?"

I will tell you, in the form of the press release from the Nobel Prize Committee:

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

So, in the words of the committee itself, they awarded the Peace Prize to Mr. Obama for making substantial gains in the diplomatic process, giving people hope, and beginning work towards various peaceful goals, including nuclear disarmament.

Let me step away from achievements, for a moment, to answer another fast criticism of this award. Many have pointed out that the nominations for this prize were due to be postmarked by Feb. 1st, 2009, exactly 12 days after the President took office. So, people have concluded (erroneously) that Mr. Obama received this award before taking virtually any steps as President of the United States. I would like to point out to the world that a nomination is only a nomination. Obviously, someone had high hopes for what Mr. Obama could accomplish in this year, and yes, maybe they submitted the nomination for political reasons. However, I assert that the Nobel Prize Committee is not peopled by idiots or fanboys. I have extremely high respect for their organization, and I hope that you do too.

The Nobel Peace Prize, from the will of Mr. Nobel himself, is to be given to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." The Prize committee, in making its decision, was looking into the last 8 months of the presidency, and not the first 12 days. There were very many nominations for this prize, in fact the most nominations ever. I assert that if they believed that Mr. Obama had not made progress promoting "fraternity between nations" etc. they would have picked one of the other 204 nominees. The list is secret for the next 50 years, but I think we can trust there were some good names on it.

So, has President Obama signed a large peace accord, as President Wilson did before winning the 1919 Nobel Peace Prize? No. Did he help to negotiate peace between two major countries at war, as President Roosevelt did to win the 1906 Nobel Peace Prize? No. I believe, however, that he has made great strides in promoting "fraternity between nations," at the least.

In very short order, President Obama changed the foreign policy of the United States from strong-arm unilateralism to broad-based diplomacy. He immediately appointed important envoys and began new peace talks, including being the first President to open meaningful peace talks with Iran, which, although rocky and far from over, have dramatically improved the relationship between our countries. He made steps to bring our country back under the codes of conduct laid out in the Geneva Convention. He restarted nuclear disarmament talks with Russia, this time, unlike his predecessors, negotiating for a stronger reduction. He paid our debt to and reopened meaningful interaction with the United Nations. And he told the world that not only would we not take unilateral actions, but that we also require the aid of other countries in order to move forward towards peace and disarmament.

Perhaps, in this great century, the people need a flashy achievement. The 2009 Physics Prize, essentially awarded for the invention of fiber optic communication, is pretty cool, as well as immediately tangible. Peace, however, is rarely flashy. Peace is shaped through long negotiation, nurtured by building trusting relationships with sovereign nations, and enacted through policy change.

I do not deny the unbelievable work of people who, every day, all over the world, are working in immediately tangible ways to improve life and promote peace. Yes, these people are extremely deserving of praise. When you look at the wording and the purpose of this particular recognition, however, you find a description of the 'big picture.' Without belittling the work of so many, this particular prize exists for a different reason.

The Nobel Prize Committee, and the Nobel Prizes themselves, exist to encourage and inspire as much as they exist to reward notable achievements. Countless times they have been awarded for progress, and progress surely has been made.

Mr. Obama said this morning that he did not feel he deserved the prize. Mr. President, I must respectfully disagree. Your contribution to the global peace process is already irrefutable, brought forth largely from a willingness to talk and to listen, and to treat other nations with their due respect. You have brought hope to not only the millions in your country, but to billions around the world. We see you as a leader who one day may bring to this Earth a new era, and we hope. Where once we saw immovable obstacles, you have changed the international political dynamic to be a place where diplomacy and cooperation can work.

Mr. President, on behalf of myself, and others whose voices may not be heard this day, I thank you for all you have done already, and I look forward to watching you change the world.