Is it possible that mankind is the highest civilization in the universe?

"Mankind is the highest civilization in the universe", there are several possibilities:

1、 There is no extraterrestrial life.

2、 There are extraterrestrial life but no extraterrestrial civilization.

3、 There is an extraterrestrial civilization, but it is not as high as ours.

4、 There is an extraterrestrial civilization but everyone is the same height.

"Mankind is not the highest civilization in the universe", there are several possibilities (this part has not been expanded):

5、 Extraterrestrial civilizations are higher than the earth, but all civilizations are unable to get out and are trapped in the original galaxy.

6、 Civilizations cannot communicate with each other, hiding and destroying each other. For this part, please refer to three bodies.

7、 Extraterrestrial civilizations are completely different from ours, and cannot be seen, heard, or touched.

8、 The universe is very harmonious, and divine civilizations are everywhere. The big family is waiting for the growth and participation of children on earth.

——————————

The following is an analysis of several cases. It's interesting to analyze.

The analysis is based on existing theories. All laws are universal in the universe, and there is no mythical world. The general argument is to infer the unknown from the known, rather than infer the unknown from the unknown.

1、 Is there any extraterrestrial life

Is the birth of life easy? I should say it's not very difficult. Of course, this is not difficult, but it is based on a large number. As long as an environment similar to that of the earth is formed, life will emerge sooner or later.

Why must it be the same environment as the earth?

Actually, it is not necessary.

Pushing the unknown from the known can also be called science popularization disguised as discussing extraterrestrial civilization. Push the unknown with the unknown. Do you think I'm a diviner?

Simply because the laws of the universe and matter are the same. The universe is big. However, we have only found a very limited number of more than 100 elements, only natural, and more than 90. We often talk about carbon based life. Do other basic life, such as cesium based, strontium based, zirconium based, neon based, oxygen silicon aluminum iron calcium sodium potassium magnesium hydrogen based, exist? I think it must be carbon.

Carbon can form long-chain macromolecules. And this long chain can be woven with hydrogen, oxygen, sulfur, nitrogen, chlorine, phosphorus and other elements. Carbon is the key element of our DNA, protein, starch, enzymes, and even dopamine and endorphins. This is the existence that other elements can not catch up with. Rao: that's right. It's a miracle to have enough parts for carbon based life.

At present, there are not so many possibilities in the visible universe. The matter is the same and the law is the same. The far side of the universe, similar to this side, is infinite repetition.

If it must be thought that there is life based on other elements, it is also possible. It does not affect the reading of this article. Just change the probability of life and civilization in your mind.

As far as human cognition is concerned, the only life that can touch porcelain carbon based life (we and viruses are alike) is silicon-based life (simply understood as computer).

So let's talk about the biggest possibility of carbon based life. If you give up discussing other things as much as possible, you will always feel that you have missed everything.

The earth has an ocean of water. If some people even think that the ocean of gasoline can also form life, can it? It's not impossible. If you replace the water in this article with oil, it will not affect reading at all.

But the adaptability of any life is not omnipotent. Their production conditions are also harsh. The analysis process is different and the result is the same.

And water is more common than oil in the universe. So take water for example.

If I go one step further, I don't want liquid, but want solid to form life directly? It's not impossible.

Water is the manufacturer, transporter and assembler of organic matter. Solids can only rely on wind and geological movement. The time for solid to produce life may be hundreds of millions of times that of liquid. For example, it spontaneously generates PN nodes and forms useful structures (those who do not understand PN nodes can be understood as things that constitute computer brain cells). The time since the birth of the universe may not be enough. Even if they do, evolution is slow.

However, once this kind of life enters the stage of civilization, space navigation and the like will not be difficult for him. After all, I don't need to breathe. Maybe I can sleep without cost.

There is a better way to open this kind of life, that is, we. Let's build machines first, and then give them strong AI. When machines can make machines, we won't have anything to do. We'll stay cool there.

And then spread to other kinds, such as consciousness flow life, nebula life, black hole life, vacuum life, dark matter life, which is a little metaphysical. I won't discuss it if I can't get it back. But I will not shoot them to death, leaving them a chance to live.

And most importantly, most people who study other forms of life are at the same level as top scientists - they can't. There are no serious scientists to study this problem. If you want 100% correct answers, you can finish here without looking down.

In fact, the conclusion of this kind of article is not important. Let's take a look at the right to be popular science. Some thoughts in the article are very meaningful. I also try my best to describe it in easy to understand and accurate language. The data in the text are all verified or calculated by myself. If there is any error, please point it out.

There are three conditions for life: the right star, the right planet, and the probability of creation.

1） , suitable stars:

1. First of all, the star should be in a desolate area. Mainly to prevent supernova explosion. Supernovae can explode with the energy of one enemy of the whole galaxy.

What do you mean?

That is, hundreds of billions of dollars per dozen! If you have the same proportion of abilities, you can pick 7.4 billion people in the world, and they are on the road at the same time. You don't even need a wheel War (don't get me wrong, it's not their wheels, it's your wheels). After the war, it feels like this earth can be hit dozens more. No king, no ancestor, no saint, no God is enough to describe you. Novels dare not write like this. It's too arrogant.

Generally, supernovae will explode the surrounding stars beyond recognition, and I'm afraid there will be no bacteria left. This safe distance is about 25 light years. At present, the Milky Way explodes a supernova every 50 years (estimated according to observations of the Milky way and extragalactic galaxies).

If they are too close, an explosion can completely eliminate the liquid gas of the surrounding planets, and the chance of life will be lost forever. For example, the largest star cluster in the Milky way, Centaurus ω The star cluster, with a radius of about 80 light-years, has about 10 million stars. Within 25 light years, there are more than 500000 stars. About every 20 million years. 20 million years is a short time. Life evaporated before it was born.

This rule has ruled out the vast majority of stars: the location of the Milky Way near the center, and the major star clusters (star clusters refer to star clusters with more than 10 stars and gravitational interaction between them). Even star associations (organizations with weaker links than star clusters). Basically, we ignore the emergence of civilization.

Our sun is blessed with this because it is located in the desolate area of the Milky way.

To stay away from disputes is to fight.

two

Stars cannot be too big or too small. It is too hot and will soon burn out to become a supernova. There is not enough time for life to evolve. It's too small to be hot. The planet is frozen to ice.

At present, most of the galaxies are red dwarfs, accounting for about 75%. It seems that our yellow dwarf sun is also outstanding among stars. [red dwarf _baidu encyclopedia]

It can't be said that red dwarfs, superstars and SUPERGIANTS can't produce life, but it's a bit difficult.

Red dwarfs are the weakest stars. So its planet must be very close to it to get enough heat. The following dangers may arise:

First, it is relatively close to the red dwarf star and easy to be locked by the tide. Such a planet is always day on one side and always dark on the other. Not conducive to survival.

Second, although the red dwarf looks weak, the young red dwarf is very violent. Several flares a day will instantly increase the radiation by hundreds to tens of thousands of times. Its planet must survive this period of time before life can emerge.

Third, it is too close, and the planetary atmosphere is easily blown out. This paragraph is explained later.

The life span of red dwarfs can reach several trillion years. If they can survive the early stage, it is still good to live there. The sun has a lifetime of only 10 billion years.

3. Then it cannot be a double star or multi star system. In "three bodies", it is said that the environment of the Samsung system is bad, but in fact it is underestimated. First, the possibility of forming planets in a multi star system is relatively small. Because of the mixing of many stars, it is not easy to condense into planets. Even if it is formed, the environment is difficult to adapt.

For example, our sun has a large solar prominence flare, which is enough to have a great impact on the earth. There is a theory that multiple ice ages are also related to solar activity. If the solar system is a double star system, a sun turns around, and the earth is as close to the sun as Venus is to the sun. One by one, the earth was as far away as Mars, frozen to death. Cycle and toss.

The earth and the moon still rise and fall, not to mention the two stars. The two stars will also interact with each other. The tides of stars, prominences and sunspot flares are much more numerous than the sun, and other phenomena we have never seen will have even greater destructive power - even eat or throw away the earth at once.

The three stars in three bodies are also in Centaurus.

Are there many double star and multi star systems? Unfortunately, it is more than we thought, accounting for about one third. [new solution to the ratio of double stars discovered by the National Astronomical Observatory -- Chinese Academy of Sciences] of course, only one third of the conditions are excluded, which is probably the least excluded among all conditions.

Other conditions will not be considered. According to this calculation, of the 140 billion stars in the Milky way, what percentage of the stars are suitable for generating life. Is it estimated that the number of stars suitable for civilization, that is, stars with no supernova explosion around 3.8 billion years, is one thousandth or one thousandth?

2） , suitable planet

Then look at the planets. It's much harder to pick planets than stars.

Not every star can have a planet. For example, in a two star and three-star system, the planet is most likely to be eaten or thrown out. We have already ruled it out, so we will not consider it again. Suppose the remaining stars have seven or eight planets.

1. The distance shall be appropriate.

In fact, the distance condition is relatively easy to meet. Several planets are arranged in a row, and there is always one with the same distance. However, there should not be too much difference. Perhaps the difference is a few percent or more, and the temperature is not appropriate. Ten percent is not enough. Is that exaggeration? Yes, you see, the earth's orbit hasn't moved, but the earth's axis is inclined. It's too hot in summer. It's only a few months, and it's too cold in winter. Neighboring Venus and Mars, one died of heat and the other died of cold. Since ancient times, the earth has also experienced many ice ages, which may be due to the solar power shaking.

(20200823 correction: as reminded by "Fei Junzi" in the comment area, it is mainly the temperature change caused by the change of sunshine angle. Therefore, the distance limit should not be so harsh. If there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the distance can be farther.)

It is also important to let the solar wind blow hydrogen. Otherwise, 97% of hydrogen will not produce life. At the beginning of the formation of all planets, most of them are hydrogen (planets and stars are formed from the same nebula, so the composition is 97% hydrogen). You can't blow it out. If you blow it out, there will be no hydrogen and no water. In the later stage, the geomagnetism had to be lifted up, and the geomagnetic energy prevented the solar wind from blowing away hydrogen. The conditions of Venus are not as good as those of the earth. It has been blown out of hydrogen and the atmosphere is full of carbon dioxide

@Angel wings

Correct as very dense. 90 earth atmospheres on the surface of Venus).

This one, excluding most planets, is still no problem.

Second, it should have a proper size. It's too big, Like Jupiter, it will be full of gaseous hydrogen (the main component of a large planet must be hydrogen, because the attraction is too strong, the hydrogen is absorbed firmly and cannot be blown. Of course, there are exceptions, that is, the large planet is close to the star, and there is a large amount of hydrogen when it is formed, but the stellar radiation blows its gas dry. Of course, the probability is small, and the large planet is generally in the outer orbit. Even if it is inside, there will be no atmosphere due to the large radiation, and it is still not suitable for life.).

As soon as I go downstairs, I will discuss the impact of the size of the planet on life: in fact, the planet does not need to be large, and life is locked on the planet. Can the unlimited stack battery of electric vehicle run infinitely? The answer is No. Because the battery itself has weight. At present, the endurance of electric vehicles will not make great progress before the battery revolution. It's about 1000 kilometers. What Tesla can do is just stack batteries (of course, the price is more expensive than other cars). If it were a rocket, it would not be able to have unlimited stacking speed. Of course, the situation of the rocket is much better, because its weight gradually decreases as it flies. For chemical fuel rockets, there is a limit to the actual speed (depending on the fuel performance and the proportion of the total mass). The bigger the planet, the harder it is to go to heaven. Too big a planet, maybe manned space flight is a luxury.

At present, it is impossible to land on Jupiter and return to earth. Regardless of the fact that gaseous planets are not suitable for landing. Just look at the return phase. According to the fuel liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen with the highest specific impulse, it takes 99.3% of the fuel for Jupiter to take off to earth. Kerosene rocket needs 99.94% of the fuel proportion (0.06% of the remaining mass, can't even make the rocket shell?). And these fuels have to be brought over from the earth. The above is a monopole rocket. The multi-stage rocket is much better, but I can only calculate the single-stage rocket.

Can a nuclear spaceship work?

OK, if I can make it. Nuclear fission is OK. Nuclear fusion? It's not my pessimism. It's hard to imagine how to arrange and combine materials made of more than 90 elements without changing their basis. The strength or melting point is across orders of magnitude. Aeroengines are approaching their limits. Nuclear fusion is successful and miniaturized. I think the materials used to make water droplets in three bodies can do it.

Another point is that when a solid planet is large, its gravitational acceleration is generally large. Living things must grow small. Why? For example, why are there no giant creatures on the earth? Are dinosaurs huge? Not really. The living blue whale is much larger than the dinosaurs in the past (of course, it can't go ashore, nor can it have legs). I mean bigger creatures.

Because the weight of living things is increased to the third power. The area of the feet is increased by the power of 2, so it is not that the thick legs can offset the pressure brought by the height, and it is not possible to have all the legs below the belly. The blue whale uses its belly as its leg and strangles itself to death.

If the planet is too big, the living things will be small, so I'm afraid we can't evolve. It's hard to imagine a group of people the size of ants making tools into the stone age. Small stones have little power. The destructive force of stone also has a relationship of power 3 and power 2. So it's not amazing that ants can lift things several times their weight. Can they start a war with sand? The body is small and the brain capacity is not enough. There are not enough talent points at full level.

The planets cannot be too small. It's too small to absorb the atmosphere. Moreover, it cools fast (any star is contracted and exothermic when it is formed, and the core is hot when it is formed. The heat dissipation of large objects is very slow, such as the rocks formed by volcanic eruptions, which take tens of thousands or even tens of thousands of years), and soon becomes a dead star without geological activities. At that time, the mountain cannot be built. However, the wind and rain energy comes from the sun, and it does not stop. The original peaks and land will soon be completely weathered. Then the earth will be full of sea. It is extremely unlikely that civilization will emerge on the bottom of the sea.

The planet is small and its scale is small. For example, a planet with a radius of 0.7 times that of the earth has an area of 0.5 times that of the earth, and its gravity is only one-third of that of the earth. The individual organisms are large and the living space is small, so the biological scale is insufficient (perhaps only one sixth of that of the earth).

Due to the influence of scale alone, it took the earth 4.6 billion years to evolve civilization, and this small planet would take more than 20 billion years (46 times 6). 20 billion years means no life. The problem of scale will be mentioned below.

The inappropriate size of the planet has a great impact on life. It has a greater impact on civilization.

3. There should be a proper atmosphere. Can methane, ammonia, carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid atmosphere produce civilization? I don't rule it out, but it's unlikely.

4. To have water (or other liquids), it has to be a lot of water, like the ocean. Why is that? The organic matter in the ocean moves fast. It's a platform for assembly. Expect life to be born directly on land? Silicon-based life, for example, doesn't need water. Yes, given enough time, a few trillion years. What about liquids other than water? More responsibly, the odds are small. With all the changes involved, it's hard enough to get all the components of a carbon-based life together with just 90 or so elements, okay? There aren't many other kinds of liquid oceans, you know, this ammonia sea, this carbon dioxide sea, this methane sea of simple molecules.

The original ocean had to have plenty of organic matter. It's a thick soup. So organic molecules have a chance to meet. Otherwise, they were so far away, no one would have forced them together. Of course, this soup is extremely thin compared to the soup we drink. So there has to be some kind of enrichment, a local increase in concentration. Maybe it's an underwater volcano. Organic matter spontaneously forms around black chimneys formed by underwater volcanoes.

How about a puddle that's been stable for 8 billion years? No, not for another eight trillion years. Because there is no scale. Each rich area of the ocean, such as a black chimney, is equivalent to a puddle. Hundreds of millions.

They are simultaneously creating and exchanging goods. So I said lots of water.

Evolution, too, is that these genes in us have been left to us by the efforts of billions and billions of individuals, starting with bacteria.

Most of them, of course, did not turn out any new genes, or did not turn out to be handed down, or were discarded halfway down the line. After all, asexual reproduction, even if good friends mutated genes, also can not exchange and share, like a hundred million generations of single transmission.

The emergence of sexual reproduction greatly accelerated the enrichment rate of good genes.

Man could not have been born without the foundation of large-scale living things. Scale (trial and error) is the whole reason why life has evolved so delicately.

So let's do this problem. Every 20 years, from 250 million years before mammals appeared, counts as 10 million generations. Assuming that every mammal has 2 parents (duh) and 4 grandparents, then a person has 2 to the 10 million, which is 10 to the 3 million ancestors! It's an astronomical number, so it's not actually that many ancestors, but I think it's still a large number. So, we have many ancestors who have accumulated genes for us to be so smart. Every man that is born is the chosen one.

So the secret of the human body is an exquisite whole formed over many billions of years, which is impossible for a few scientists to fully explore in hundreds of years. At present, even human skin is how to heal a broken mouth, can only understand the general. It's not a metaphor. It's a real situation.

Of course, materials are reused. A person has 10 to the 27th atoms, and the earth has 10 to the 50th atoms. That means there are now at least 10,000 atoms in every human body that are the same atoms that made up the first Emperor. (A rough calculation is to assume that his atoms are evenly distributed in the Earth. Considering the biosphere, which is mostly on the surface of the Earth, and the atomic turnover over the emperor's lifetime, the number is much, much higher). Likewise, Newton, Einstein, any dinosaur from 200 million years ago and so on and so forth make you. Of course, the closer you get to the present, the more unevenly distributed the atoms are.

5. Have geomagnetism. No geomagnetic star would have stripped the planet of its atmosphere.

6. Be protected by a big planet outside. In 1994, a comet crashed into Jupiter. Shard G is the most powerful. It smashed into Jupiter at 0732 UTC on July 18 with a force of six trillion tons of TNT (equivalent to 750 times the world's nuclear weapons stockpile). This one piece alone will destroy the human race. It's okay for civilization to go back a few hundred million years. And beyond that, there are countless other pieces that could probably plow the earth several times over.

The asteroid belt lies inside Jupiter's orbit and doesn't seem to need to pass through the planet to get to Earth, so could Jupiter protect Earth from asteroids?

And the answer is yes. Because in order to hit the Earth, the orbit has to become elliptical. As soon as it becomes elliptical, Jupiter is out to take care of it.

As if Jupiter is powerful, but also guard an orbital plane. In fact, interstellar space is emptier than the vacuum created in a laboratory on Earth. Most of the danger comes from the solar system's own "components". They all have similar orbital planes. The only way to hit the Earth from any other tricky Angle is with a two-sided foil. Jupiter is very protective of the Earth.

7. Have a moon. Otherwise, there is no high tide, living organisms ashore do not know to delay for hundreds of millions of years. The longer it takes, the greater the chance of accidental destruction. Is it easy to make the moon? If you look at Mercury and Venus, which don't have satellites, the third Earth doesn't really have a moon. The most competitive theory is that when the Earth formed, there was no moon. Later happened to be arranged by fate, a small planet, and the earth collided, which just hit out of the moon. The strongest evidence in support of this hypothesis is that the Earth-moon composition is very close

Some students asked, how so coincidence, once can crash out of the moon. In fact, after the impact, the Earth should be hot, even molten. Material flies up, then some of it falls down, some of it flies out of the Earth's gravity, and some of it becomes the Earth's ring of stars. The ring of stars gradually forms the moon under the influence of gravity. Maybe that's when some comets formed. If we can find it, we can prove the hypothesis.

With the moon may not be able to retain. It also depends on how fast the Earth rotates. The energy of the earth's rotation is transmitted to the moon by tidal forces. The moon's orbit, for example, is now moving 3.8 centimeters outward every year. Multiply that by billions of years, and it's a lot. If the earth turns faster, the moon may have been left behind. (It will not stay away forever. When it is taken over by the sun, it will suddenly and rapidly move away from the Earth. Of course, if the Earth turns too slowly, the moon will fall to Earth, because it will be tidal brake.

Life is born in the sea, but for the environment, who would go ashore to develop? For billions of years now, how many creatures have been stranded on land every day because of the moon? They struggle to survive every day and have to evolve. It's fair to say that the moon contributed a lot.

Having or not having a moon should only delay civilization, not life.

I'm not going to write the other conditions.

These odds, you have to multiply, the more you multiply, the less you get. In particular, these conditions are not isolated. They're connected to each other. The strength of the connection is uncertain.

We're looking at the four equivalent cases above. 1. If the proportion of suitable stars is 1%, and the proportion of suitable planets is 1 in 10,000, the total number of star systems with the suitable star coefficient of 1 in 1 million will be multiplied. So there are about 140,000 life-producing planets in the Milky Way. That's a lot, right? The above data is an estimate, and the size is negotiable. No serious scientist has put much effort into this. They can only guess. You said 1.4 million would do. Because then, there's an even bigger test -- the mystery of creation odds.

3) Chance of creation

There is also the incalculable mystery of how many billions of years it would take for a warm soup of organic matter to form life.

For example, how long can a pile of wood, put in a VAT and shake hard, just shake a castle? One Go, 361 subcombinations, is more than the total number of atoms in the universe. How can a life be more than 361 parts?

There's definitely a fundamental difference between the creation of life and shaking bricks, but those of you who do organic synthesis know that synthesis really is metaphysics.

Creation is the hardest part, because nothing is created. I'm inclined to think we'll be lucky enough to hit the jackpot at 800 million years. The other 140,000 brothers are probably still in the lottery. But after hundreds of millions of years, there are probably hundreds of other lucky people.

The birth process of life is probably inorganic small molecule - organic small molecule - organic macromolecule - biological macromolecule - purine pyrimidine amino acid -DNA protein - composition of life. There is no divine guidance. From building your own parts to assembling your own, you basically rely on ignorance.

How many planets are there in the universe? I don't know, but not an infinite number. The estimated total number of atoms in the universe is 10 to the 80th. It's also very, very big.

So let's do a problem. If A CLASS 60 people, only a kind of seat row method is the most beneficial to the class. So how many ways are there? Shall we try each arrangement for a few days?

Sorry, this number is 10 to the 81. Ten times the total number of atoms in the universe. Your teacher couldn't find the optimal arrangement if the universe exploded 100 more times.

Maybe our universe isn't that big compared to the odds.

In addition to the chemical origin theory accepted by most scholars, there is also the extraterrestrial origin theory. That is, "Life on earth, from heaven." "Life" in space could have evolved as meteorites fell to Earth. Meteorites are fireballs. Can they carry life? Fireballs can't, but there are ice meteorites.

That doesn't explain how life got there in the first place, only how it got there so quickly on Earth.

We look everywhere for extraterrestrial life. Aim for earth instead. It should be said that the ocean soup is thicker and more hospitable than it was in the early days of the Earth. One question is, since the first life formed 3.8 billion years ago, why hasn't there been another batch?

Shouldn't it? It's supposed to keep happening. Maybe the other batches are aliens at all, a completely different kind of life. Unfortunately not.

Maybe there was an accident. Like it's not as thick as it used to be. Or they're born and then they're gone. Or it could be suppressed by modern life. Whatever the accident was, the implication is that life didn't come easily.

Might as well do a generation of experiments: fully sealed glass into all the elements needed for life, placed in the appropriate environment, from time to time to simulate the thunder and rain, waiting for the birth of life. The odds are slim, but what if we're lucky. I believe it will become a national treasure after hundreds of years (only the oldest ones). I think this experiment is already being done.

All in all, life is relatively easy to come by. Every galaxy should have more or less some life, and the Milky Way should have a lot of life. But it's definitely not something that's very common.

There is one more condition to exclude some life/civilization. Where there was or will be life or even civilization on a planet, but when their star dies or we die or whatever, they/we die. We don't have to worry about it, it's the same thing as nothing. And the wrong peak commuting a reason, and we are not on the same bus.

If you're interested, look up the Drake formula.

Two, there is life without the possibility of civilization

After all this, life was born.

Some say that given enough time, life can evolve into civilization. I have no objection. But the problem is "enough" time. There is not enough uninterrupted time.

It took us 3.8 billion years to create civilization. There have been several catastrophes in between, but they've always had a chance, and they've always ended. Yes, not all disasters that can end can leave the seeds of life, and not all disasters can end.

In fact, in another billion years, Earth will be inhospitable to life, due to the slow expansion of the sun. You don't have to wait for the Sun to enter the red giant phase. I'm afraid this one has a beginning and no end.

Why did it take so long to evolve? Couldn't civilization have evolved in 100 million years on other planets? The answer is no. Because of the evolution of life, survival is the first direction, not intelligence.

Cockroaches have been around longer than dinosaurs. They haven't touched the tree in 350 million years. Wisdom is not the goal, which means that wisdom will appear very late. The lateness of the hour means that outages are much more likely.

Any one of thousands of talents, such as teeth, skin, eyes, ears, muscles, and even hair color dropping in contrast, may have a higher priority than intelligence. Life is such a rush.

Even a whole bunch of life (plants, bacteria, viruses, fungi, etc.) have given up intelligence altogether.

Some people tend to call evolution evolutionism. Life is merely a passive adaptation.

What humans see as "degradation" is actually evolving in terms of environmental adaptation.

Biologically, there is no superior or inferior evolution of life. If the environment were to go back to ancient times, perhaps life would become ancient again.

It may even be said that man is no superior to a trilobite. Trilobites have been around for 320 million years, and if it weren't for the mass extinction event it would be king. Humans are, what, a few million years old?

Senior is not senior, do not see wisdom, see adaptability. Intelligence is only one of the tools to enhance adaptability.

The horseshoe crab, the jellyfish, the sponge, these species can go to know. Yes, SpongeBob is alive! And for hundreds of millions of years! And cyanobacteria, which have lived for 3.5 billion years, are the true Kings of the Earth! From birth, they are full of adaptations, and the reason they don't evolve is because they don't need to evolve, and they peak when they start out.

Humans have chosen the hardest and most promising route to adaptation.

Wisdom has been around for five million years. Humans spent most of their five million years in the Stone Age. In other words, there is no absolute advantage to primary intelligence. We can thank nature for five million years of peace. Otherwise the human race would have died early. In fact, it almost went extinct.

The success of life is not judged by the height of wisdom, but by the ability to survive.

It's a fact that no one likes to admit is that although humans are at the top of the biological chain, they are far from being the most successful creatures. Pessimistically speaking, the wisdom of human beings, in the face of huge natural disasters, still than those above the king.

The tiger is the top of the food chain, grow big, will also have many, is not soon extinct? Tigers are not as adaptable as mice.

In the not too comfortable and not too harsh environment, intelligence to play to the advantage. Too bad environment, too comfortable environment, are not conducive to the generation of wisdom.

Humans are less resilient than bacteria. Compared with other living creatures, humans are not particularly well adapted, even inferior, to natural disasters. If a supervolcano or an asteroid were to hit the Earth today, and there would be a 10,000-year night (historically, it would be too easy to create a 10,000-year night), bacteria would still be alive.

Technology, after all, is something else, something that can be taken away. Catastrophes reduce population size, break up industrial systems, and enter a vicious cycle. How big does it take to maintain the current system? Keep at least one firm in each key industry. At least a full medium-sized country. Science and technology are far from the stage where quantitative change leads to qualitative change. Until technology breaks through to the breaking point, human fate will always be crunchy!

A planet with life and no land would not produce civilization. A planet that has always been frozen might have a colony of craters in the deep ocean beneath the ice sheet (unlikely, given its small size), but would never reach the shore. How do you do chemistry experiments in the sea without access to shore? How do you do electrical experiments?

Even if a planet had the same environment as Earth, it could still spend its entire life without being able to produce civilization. Because there might not be enough time. Any big change, delay wisdom for a billion years, intelligent species will never be produced. Before the importance of the moon, its meaning is also to speed up life ashore. The moon used to be so close that gravity was several times stronger. The tides are naturally large. We have a race against time. No one knows at what point in billions of years the end will come.

Complex environments are a must. The complexity of the environment promotes the diversity of life. For example, there is only one ancient continent, surrounded by wet, inland desert; Offshore resources are rich, the deep sea is approximately desert. The emergence of this environmental civilization will also be delayed.

Harsh environment, comfortable environment, intermediate environment, best alternate. A moderate amount of disaster is a must.

Suitable environment to produce large-scale organisms, harsh environment to screen organisms, filter genes.

That's how life develops.

Although development is difficult, it is always a bit arrogant to say that on the large base of the entire observable universe, everyone else is out of luck, and no alien life has developed civilization except Earth.

If you look around the galaxy and say we're the luckiest, it's possible.

There is civilization, but not as advanced as us.

There is little chance of that. The main reason is that after the formation of civilization, it takes a very short time to develop to the same level as the earth civilization. Once in civilization, technology will suddenly accelerate (tech bang). It'll only take 5,000 years to catch up with us. Five thousand years is like an instant.

In this way, human is now the baby of civilization, alien civilization, or you can not find, found is better than Earth. There seem to be few civilizations lower than human beings.

Four. There is civilization, but everyone is the same.

That's a good possibility. Whether it's the galaxy or the universe, there may be one thing that's cutting it off: civilization can't go on indefinitely.

We have been blinded by the 200 years of technological explosion, thinking that if only we were given time, there would be generations of scientists, time after time, endlessly disproving the theories of their predecessors and unearthing the origins of the world. In fact, we probably already know most of the laws of the world. Because the origin of the world is simple. The laws of the universe are not matryoshka dolls. Wormholes and the like may exist forever in the human imagination. There are too few problems that man can solve and too many that he cannot.

Against the laws of science, can not do. For example, humans can't build a perpetual motion machine.

Do not violate the laws of science, may not be able to do. For example, humans can never know how many words Confucius said in his life. Like stopping the rotation of the earth tomorrow.

In the past few decades, it is actually the development of electronic technology (only the development of electronic technology, not the development of electronic theory) that makes us feel that science and technology are changing rapidly. Compare other technologies and theories to electronics, and you can see why, 50 years after the 1969 moon landing, it's still so hard to get to the moon. This is limited by chemical fuel properties, as well as material properties. It is not something that can be solved by the control system (electronic technology).

So can electronic technology take us forward? So far, no. On the chip, it's been exposed to quantum tunneling, and Moore's law breaks down. In correspondence, we're approaching the limit of Shannon's theorem.

Perhaps every hard-born civilization will soon touch the ceiling. Everyone is the same height. Earth civilization, is also the highest civilization.

Yes, Earth civilization is still in its infancy. It still has potential and can develop for some time. But thousands or even tens of thousands of years are ignored.

Some people say that there are so many civilizations in space. But we can't see them. Maybe it wasn't because they didn't want to, because they couldn't get out, and not only couldn't get out, they couldn't even send a signal. Interstellar communication, just think of it.

Signal? What signal has more power than a star? If you were to burn all the resources on Earth together, many light years away, it would look like a star so faint that it would be almost undetectable, and our resources would burn out before a telescope could even find us.

And we, for perhaps the only few hundred years in the life of the planet, are happy to think about it. And then I realized that technology was over.

The laws of the universe are not working with us. They were not created to be used by us.

conclusion

Based on probability, scale, and time:

Life on Earth must not be the only life in the observable universe. Nor will it be the only civilization. But as a rule of law (probably), human civilization is probably the most advanced (strictly speaking, not for another few thousand years) civilization.

Life on Earth is probably not the only life in the galaxy, but it is probably the only civilization, and certainly the highest.

It's basically none of our business. The only thing that matters is that we're probably not going to see aliens in our lifetime.

Well, it doesn't matter if you don't.

The above is

Where did humans come from?

For comparison, let's look at Earthlings.

It's a long story when it comes to Earthlings. It starts with the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. This is the most convincing theory so far, and even if it is wrong, some of the observations will not be wrong. Just as the emergence of relativity does not prove that classical mechanics is wrong.

Let's make this short.

About 200 million years after the explosion, the Milky Way formed.

400 million years after the explosion, 13.3 billion years ago. The first stars began to shine. Hydrogen and helium made up more than 99% of the elements (not counting things like dark matter that haven't been discovered yet), and there were almost no other elements. It's impossible to have life at this point.

The stars in the galaxy revolve around the center of the galaxy. So now someone has done the math based on gravity. They found that the gravitational force of the galaxy's current mass was not enough to bind the star, and the star would be spun away. So there must be some matter that we don't observe that is creating gravity. It's called dark matter.

By dark, we mean that it does not emit, absorb, reflect, or refract light. So there's no way to identify it yet, but it could be passing through our bodies all the time. We are to them what light is to glass.

Five billion years ago, a large number of first - and second-generation supernovae exploded, creating small amounts of all kinds of metals (in astronomy, everything is metals except hydrogen and helium). With the basic materials needed for life to form. The solar system began to form.

Before the solar system formed, it was a nebula. Nebulae are extremely thin. Thinner than the human vacuum on Earth. The nebula contains hydrogen that hasn't been used since the Big Bang, metal material from the stars that blew up and residual hydrogen and helium. The atoms in the nebula are constantly in motion. It goes in all directions. As the nebula cooled and contracted, the movements of the dominant forces determined the rotation of the solar system and the orbital planes of the planets. A large number of planets separated and merged in numerous collisions, eventually forming the present eight planets and other asteroids and comets. The asteroid belt may be an example of the big planets' failed struggle. There was supposed to be a big planet there.

4.6 billion years ago, the Earth was formed. Another 800 million years later, life was born 3.8 billion years ago.

Life appeared, but it did not flourish. Life hasn't changed much for more than three billion years.

There were several great ice ages in between. Sometimes the whole earth turns into a ball of ice, even at the equator. The sea is covered with ice thousands of meters thick.

Only 600 million years ago did multicellular plants emerge, then multicellular animals. That is, for nearly five-sixths of life's existence, evolution has been close to static.

As soon as multicellularity appeared, the organism seemed to open its seal.

542 million years ago, Earth entered the famous Cambrian explosion of life. In just a few million years, the ancestors of all kinds of invertebrates were suddenly and simultaneously born! The exact reason is unknown. This is good evidence that creationists are anti-evolution.

450 million years ago, also in the Cambrian Period, the simplest fish were born. Fish are the common ancestor of amphibious reptiles and Suckling birds.

440 million years ago, 85 percent of all species suddenly went extinct. That's because the ice age is back. Global cooling. It was the first mass extinction.

Everything revives after the disaster.

The second extinction, 365 million years ago, wiped out 75 percent of all living things. The Earth's magma spewed and boiled the sea. Should be a small area boiling death, a larger area of heating hot death, poisoning. And then the land is not immune. Then came the acid rain. Dust in the sky blots out the sun. Winter is coming, the last winter in two million years. It took five million years to go from extreme heat to extreme cold, and most species disappeared forever. On the plus side, amphibians developed.

Hundreds of thousands of years of magma, tens of thousands of years of acid rain, years of heavy snow, and two million years of long nights. It's a super plume extinction event.

And then 100 million years without a catastrophic event.

The third mass extinction occurred at the end of the Permian period 251 million years ago. It was the most serious of the five mass extinction events, causing 98% of Marine organisms and 96% of terrestrial organisms to suddenly disappear within 500,000 years. A large number of organisms "evaporated" and almost all signs of life in the whole sea and land disappeared. It was one of the worst extinction events ever. That's when the trilobites as we know them became extinct.

230 million years ago, dinosaurs were born.

Mammals were born 220 million years ago. They are smaller.

The fourth mass extinction. But this extinction is good. What's good about it? The sea level fell and rose again, killing mostly Marine life. That was 195 million years ago, at the end of the Triassic period. An estimated 76 percent of all species, mainly Marine life, were lost in the extinction. There were no obvious signs of the disaster, except that the sea level fell and then rose again, resulting in a large area of anoxic water, so that life in the water was starved of oxygen and died.

Another hundred million years of good times.

66 million years ago, a meteorite hit the Earth, turning it into a purgatory within minutes. This is the fifth mass extinction. The dinosaurs died out. Don't blame the dinosaurs for being fragile. They struggled on for another million years after the disaster before dying out completely 65 million years ago. And it wasn't just dinosaurs. 85% of all species died out.

Only small animals survived.

By coincidence or not, when the dinosaurs died out, primates were born. Primates evolved from mammals in dense jungle environments 60 million years ago.

Over tens of millions of years, until about five million years ago, the apes became hominids. Then it evolved into Homo habilis, Homo erectus, early Homo sapiens, late Homo sapiens and so on.

110,000 years ago, it entered the last glacial age.

Late Homo sapiens evolved about 100,000 years ago.

There were at least six species of humans living on the Earth at that time (and presumably others that have yet to be discovered) : Homo sapiens, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo Heidelbergensis, Homo Denisovans, Homo Floreensis, and Homo Red Deer. We're just one of them.

70,000 years ago, our species was decimated by the harsh conditions that left 2,000 people.Just 70,000 years ago, there were a mere 2,000 people. Now do you know why THE difference BETWEEN PEOPLE (nothing more THAN skin color) is smaller than the difference between dogs (Tibetan mastiff, Chihuahua)? So we're all equal. We're the same species.

The reason there is only one species of human is because our ancestors also crushed or wiped out most of the others.

Humans love creatures that are very different from us and hate animals that are similar to us.

About 40,000 or 50,000 years ago, the evolution of Homo sapiens suddenly accelerated. We learned to carve and paint. There were even primitive religions.