I know, that is why I said not to use it (it is often the 'go-to' for people. You said it doesn't take much to get a self-sustaining reaction going. I was just saying you might want to throw in some specifics. I know all about catalytic and autocatalytic RNAs, but that doesn't address your initial comment about the relative ease of starting the aforementioned reaction.^misantropia^ wrote:Won't do. It's not the best example either; he only managed to create simple amino acids which you can't really compare to complex cellular life. A better one might be the catalystic properties of RNA but admittedly, it's debatable if bare strands of RNA can survive in a primordial soup.tnf wrote:PS: You might want to give some specifics on what "much" is in regards to starting a self-sustaining chemical reaction that might spawn life. And don't use Miller's experiment.
To answer Fermi's question: what makes you assume they're still here? How long can a civilization survive before it collapses? Artifacts, remnants? Space is big... where to start looking?
Regarding Carter's stance: life on Earth didn't evolve particulary fast. It took nearly two billion years before more complex life emerged. Intelligent life taking time to develop is not really an issue: our sun has entered the second part of it's life after five billion years but an average red dwarf can burn for a hundred billion years (their cycles are more stable too).
Obviously red dwars have long, long lifespans... There are also arguments against them being good candidates for supporting planetary life - but there have been some data to the contrary - although none of it is absolutely convincing. The debate is obviously on ongoing one (do a google search if you are interested). So, don't know that the simple fact that these stars are 'stable' (and obviously much, much cooler) for longer timespans means we should eliminate the time issue in regards to the evolution of 'intelligent' life - we have another issue to deal with entirely in their case.
