NASA finds distant galaxy shining as bright as 300 trillion suns

[SteveGrabowski0]

I'm hoping there's intelligent life out there in outer space, cause there's bugger all down here on earth.......

 

Can we have your liver?

[Imachoirstarter]

I'm hoping there's intelligent life out there in outer space, cause there's bugger all down here on earth.......

Whenever life gets you down, Mrs Brown

[FakezZ]

You do know that you would literally have to blindly jump to other galaxies because what we can observe happened either thousands or millions of years ago.

Yup. It only makes it even more exciting ^^

[NAP51DMustang]

What's your proof for that.

 

We know that life can exist because carbon bonds form themselves all the time that is why we speculate.

Would like to ask where is your proof that carbon bonds are required for life?

[ZetZet]

Would like to ask where is your proof that carbon bonds are required for life?

Because carbon forms the most types of molecules that we know because of it's four valence electrons. Other alternative could be silicon, but he have no evidence for that.

 

Since we know chemistry should be about the same everywhere in the universe except maybe under extreme conditions it is HIGHLY likely that any life would be carbon based.

[Helly]

You do know that you would literally have to blindly jump to other galaxies because what we can observe happened either thousands or millions of years ago.

 

In this case its billions. That galaxy might not even look remotely the same anymore. Hell it's not even in that location anymore. Anything that far away we have no way of knowing what it looks like now. Very cool to see something that old though

[TroubleKlef]

What's your proof for that.

 

We know that life can exist because carbon bonds form themselves all the time that is why we speculate.

 

Statistics. By sheer numbers, life can not only exist elsewhere, but likely that other species have evolved far surpassed our own achievements.

[Bensemus]

Yup. It only makes it even more exciting ^^

that optimism

[Bensemus]

Very interesting video with more parts coming in future months.

[blackadder]

snip

this have brought up a few times, honestly compared to infinity 14+ billion isn't alot. We have a fair chance of being some of the first. if we find life on a moon or planet in the solar system, the next day is going to be very different than the day before. Probably one of the best cases of knowledge is power.

[Ertman]

How did this really old/distant super bright galaxy discovery end up being a discussion of life in other galaxies and human nature/behaviour? It seems ultimately unrelated to the news story given that we already know there are billions of galaxies out there.

[Kamina]

I hope to be reincarnated in one those galaxies.

[Ertman]

Statistics. By sheer numbers, life can not only exist elsewhere, but likely that other species have evolved far surpassed our own achievements.

that's an assumption that even with numbers has no basis for being necessarily true. While there is a likelyhood that there is more advanced civilizations out there, it is even more likely that we could either be the most advanced or in a large grouping of similarly advanced species. I am not saying you are wrong or that humanity must be the most advance civilization, I am just say that there is no reason, so far, to assume there must be advanced civilizations out there. We may not even be the first species to get this far, but the universe can and is inherently harmful to life.

It depends on many factors including but off the top of my head and not limited to, time (we could have already missed them), element creation and in the right quantities to support the creation of life, location being positive for development of life, development of life beyond single cell, likelyhood of intellegent species evolution and survival, development and evolution of the galaxy and solar systems where life will be created, and many more.

TLDR

No reasonable reason to assume there is advanced life out in the universe.

Not denying the overally likelyhood or plausibility or advanced even significantly more advanced life within the universe.

Many factors that can affect the likelyhood of creation and rise of advanced civilazations.

[Ertman]

If you consider the possibility that natural selection would play a role in the evolution of any intelligent species, then conflict would//could be in their nature as well.

just for fun...

Do you think that a species even the slightest more violent then ourselves would even be around to make it as far as we have, without outside intervention? It seems that violence while useful for surviving in the wild is inherently self limiting to long term survival. Heck, we don't even know if our own species will survive future challenges and extinction level events.

extrapolating. I don't think that a species intellegent enough to master interstellar travel will be anymore violent then we are now, likely less violent. This doesn't mean they will be super friendly or benevolent.

[PerfectTemplar]

Stars*

[Trik'Stari]

just for fun...

Do you think that a species even the slightest more violent then ourselves would even be around to make it as far as we have, without outside intervention? It seems that violence while useful for surviving in the wild is inherently self limiting to long term survival. Heck, we don't even know if our own species will survive future challenges and extinction level events.

extrapolating. I don't think that a species intellegent enough to master interstellar travel will be anymore violent then we are now, likely less violent. This doesn't mean they will be super friendly or benevolent.

That makes a lot of assumptions.

 

I'll give you an example, theoretical of course, of how violence could have benefited us (humanity) in the past. Has the US president during world war 2, not picked Eisenhower to be supreme allied commander, and instead picked Patton to be supreme allied commander, and had the US president himself not been a communist, we might have skipped the entire cold war when Patton took the communist USSR out 60 years ahead of time, and perhaps all of the money spent during the cold war, could have been spent on better things, and perhaps the world would have ended up in a better place by today. Who knows, we might've avoided nuclear proliferation.

 

Not arguing capitalism over communism, simply pointing out that at the correct moments in history, it's possible that violence can end up unifying a species, whereas diplomacy ended up dividing it, and we spent 60 years in an arms race. At the right point in time, a willingness to pull the trigger, can be just as effective as passivity. Granted this is all theoretical, and had the US attack the USSR in 1945, who knows what might've happened (remember, we had the bomb, they did not. Not saying we would have used it, but being the only country with it, could have been a huge factor at the time), but we also know what did happen. Eisenhower wanted to play politics, and ended up allowing a government to continue to exist, that in the end, killed almost four times as many people as the nazi's did (counting death camps and gulags, not military actions).

 

In the end, there is an argument to be made for a willingness to take out an enemy when you have the chance, and it being a benefit to the species, as for whether or not that choice is right or wrong? Only history and the victor get to decide that.

 

And of course, the reverse of my argument could be made. With the USSR taking out capitalism at the end of the war, if they had had the bomb instead of the US. Truthfully, we'll never really know. The point is, there is an argument to be made for natural selection.

[SteveGrabowski0]

In this case its billions. That galaxy might not even look remotely the same anymore. Hell it's not even in that location anymore. Anything that far away we have no way of knowing what it looks like now. Very cool to see something that old though

 

Even the closest galaxy, the Large Magellanic Cloud, is about 150,000 light years away. Blows me away the scales of the universe, the enormous Andromeda Galaxy is basically a next door neighbor at 2.5 million light years (the dark matter halos of the Milky Way and Andromeda almost touch) and yet it looks like a tiny speck in the sky if you know exactly where to look (the Magellanic Clouds are obvious though, as long as you're in the Southern Hemisphere). Still, Andromeda actually takes up 3.5 degrees of the night sky, but only the center is luminous enough to actually see even with a telescope without gathering light for a long time.

[Trik'Stari]

Even the closest galaxy, the Large Magellanic Cloud, is about 150,000 light years away. Blows me away the scales of the universe, the enormous Andromeda Galaxy is basically a next door neighbor at 2.5 million light years (the dark matter halos of the Milky Way and Andromeda almost touch) and yet it looks like a tiny speck in the sky if you know exactly where to look (the Magellanic Clouds are obvious though, as long as you're in the Southern Hemisphere). Still, Andromeda actually takes up 3.5 degrees of the night sky, but only the center is luminous enough to actually see even with a telescope without gathering light for a long time.

What's even more incomprehensible is the size of the number googolplex. A number so large it could never actually be completely written out.

[FakezZ]

that optimism

Hahahaha why not be optimistic? The sheer fact that what we see now in the distant galaxies actually happened thousands and millions (depending on the distance) years ago only means that there is a lot more to it "now".

[GoldSrc]

I hope to be reincarnated in one those galaxies.

You will... well sort of.

Some of your atoms will end up being part of something else that's for sure.

[mrswagbhinav]

[WereCat]

I hope to be reincarnated in one those galaxies.

As a tiny bactery But whatever... you will still be able to at least see new places.

[Guest Strangerbob]

 

 

More Galaxy could mean a planet with life form. If we belive in the big bang then it is very possible that there is some form of life form some where out there. I just feel sorry for them as they dont have someone awesome like me ;(

 

 

This hurt my head. And better be a joke.

[Guest Strangerbob]

I'm hoping there's intelligent life out there in outer space, cause there's bugger all down here on earth.......

 

Comments like these and the likes they get are disturbing.

 

There are lots of intelligent species here on Earth, some even capable of a level of technology (not counting the human animals).

 

Maybe before you try to go find intelligence somewhere else, you should try and understand some of it thats right next to you here.

[Ertman]

That makes a lot of assumptions.

 

I'll give you an example, theoretical of course, of how violence could have benefited us (humanity) in the past. Has the US president during world war 2, not picked Eisenhower to be supreme allied commander, and instead picked Patton to be supreme allied commander, and had the US president himself not been a communist, we might have skipped the entire cold war when Patton took the communist USSR out 60 years ahead of time, and perhaps all of the money spent during the cold war, could have been spent on better things, and perhaps the world would have ended up in a better place by today. Who knows, we might've avoided nuclear proliferation.

 

Not arguing capitalism over communism, simply pointing out that at the correct moments in history, it's possible that violence can end up unifying a species, whereas diplomacy ended up dividing it, and we spent 60 years in an arms race. At the right point in time, a willingness to pull the trigger, can be just as effective as passivity. Granted this is all theoretical, and had the US attack the USSR in 1945, who knows what might've happened (remember, we had the bomb, they did not. Not saying we would have used it, but being the only country with it, could have been a huge factor at the time), but we also know what did happen. Eisenhower wanted to play politics, and ended up allowing a government to continue to exist, that in the end, killed almost four times as many people as the nazi's did (counting death camps and gulags, not military actions).

 

In the end, there is an argument to be made for a willingness to take out an enemy when you have the chance, and it being a benefit to the species, as for whether or not that choice is right or wrong? Only history and the victor get to decide that.

 

And of course, the reverse of my argument could be made. With the USSR taking out capitalism at the end of the war, if they had had the bomb instead of the US. Truthfully, we'll never really know. The point is, there is an argument to be made for natural selection.

Actually I make large but very few assumptions. You make many assumptions that rely on specific incidents, where I am talking about the course of human history with generalizations instead of being bogged down in an argument over semantics.

 

Your thought experiment is inherently flawed and limited.

 

It assumes...

- Going to war with the soviets immediately after WW2 is a greater act of violence (which you partially disprove).

- A long drawn out cold war is more violent then an actual war, even taking into account the proxy wars and deaths caused by the regimes.

- That all the wars during that time frame wouldn't have happened and/or other wars wouldn't have happened and ignores the underlying reasons why these people went to war that has little to do with ideology.

- That if the cold war was avoided by a prolonged WW2, that it would lead to less violence overall and a greater survival of the species.

- That the willingness to kill an enemy and it "being a benefit to the species" and that killing one enemy somehow prevents longterm violence and increases the survival of the species. 

- All the deaths perpetrated during the cold war would have been prevented by killing millions more.

 

It ignores...

- That more than one event would be changed, which could lead to catastrophic outcomes. 

- You are also using examples of rationalization for violence and not the use or causes of violence in your examples.

- That MAD is something that won't prevent a more violent human species from acting in their "nature".

- Underlying causes and repercussions of violence including other supporting tendencies and behaviours.

 

My assumption is large and general. Too much violent tendencies and its supporting behaviours will either halt the progression of technology and/or social structure at a certain level through the decimation of the population and/or never allowing civilization to flourish, or lead to the annihilation of the entire species. And we still have yet to master interstellar travel so we still don't know if we pass the test.