NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you believe in life in space?

Sweden have project to seek planet ho can ahve life.

The university I work at actually has a course on life in outer space, it's called Astrobiology.

Before you assume it's silly, I can assure you that the course is actually very cool (I haven't taken it, but two of my scientist friends have) - it examines the possibility, looking at things such as what could possibly create life (carbon based life? methane based life etc.) and the amounts of the relavant gasses found. From this we can make predictions as to the most likely places to search for life.
It also had guest lecturers that discussed a range of related topics. It was more a general interest subject.

anyway, my opinion as to whether there is life? I figure it doesn't matter.
Either there is life out there, which is pretty amazing, or...
...in all of the universe, life only exists in our tiny corner. We really are unique. That's pretty amazing, too.

I'm willing to bet good money that there is life on mars of some sort right now. Anyone want to give me odds?

Do you believe in life in space?

Sweden have project to seek planet ho can ahve life.

YES
How can there not be. Billions of galaxies each with billions of stars. Even with the remotest of chances there has to be planets with life.


BTW: I dumbed it down, too many numbers.

The prevailing theory [as I understand it] is that every star, from red dwarf on up, has a certain "band" around it where the climate is appropriate for life. While I'm not entirely certain just what the limitations of organic material are in that regard, I think it's pretty safe to say that some other stars out there have got it going on. Whether they know about us yet is an entirely different question: I would highly doubt they do.

The Universe is generally accepted to be somewhere between 8 and 12 billion years old. Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, which means it's about half the age of the universe. For it's first billion or so years, it was utterly lifeless: no one knows how life here came about but there are a myriad of theories.

Given the age of earth in relation to the age of the universe, and the fact that life is probably a fairly rare phenomenon, the human race might actually be one of the first sentient races to come about. Shortly [astronomically speaking], we will be an ancient civilization to someone

Extraterrestrial life that originated on Earth - Yes, it's pretty much a sure thing that bacterial spores or some other lifeform able to withstand vacuum were left on Viking.

Extraterrestrial life not originating on Earth - That's very likely. There's such an infinite span that the probability of this happening is very high.

Life in interplanetary space - That's possible, but less likely than the above.

Intelligent extraterrestrial life not originating on Earth - This is quite possible.

Intelligent extraterrestrial life not originating on Earth that we will be able to have meaningful contact with - This is so very unlikely as to be reaching towards a statistical impossibility. It's not impossible, but it's close enough.

I'm sure there is some kind of life out there. To think that we are alone on our planet is just human arrogance.

Of course, you can look at it this way: can organic matter evolve from non-organic matter? Is it possible as far as we know, do we have a possible hypothesis for it? Please don't scream at me, "Evolution concerns the development of life! That's irrelevant to evolution!" I'm fully aware of that stock reply. However, I was wondering, if one were to assume that all life occurred by natural means (ie, no God, no supernatural intervention etc), that would mean at one point that non-life would have to, by natural means, cross over to life. Does anyone have any hard scientific info on any current thoughts on this? I've looked, but could never find anything but statements that that particular bit of "evolution" (that word is so loaded) is impossible. However, there are always two sides to a story.

Of course, you can look at it this way: can organic matter evolve from non-organic matter?
Maybe (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=b0pd6ca87i312?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Miller-Urey+experiment&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc02a&linktext=Miller-Urey%20experiment), but that doesn't really have anything to do with the topic at hand.

Life is tough and adaptive, and very hard to get rid off. Hospitals put a lot of effort into sterilizing their equipment. So it seems almost certain that if life developed or if it was introduced, it could survive in many places in the solar system.

Bacteria live throughout the earth's crust to the depth of many kilometers, and has been present for perhaps three and a half billion years or so. It is possible that life could have been carried from earth to other locations in the solar system (or vice versa) in rocks blown off the surface as a result of severe meteorite impacts.

One piece of evidence suggesting that there could be life on mars now is small amounts of methane in its atmosphere. One explanation for its presence is that it's the result of biological processes.

The Universe is too big not to have more life in it. Besides, if humans are all this Universe has to offer...

:headbang:

Do you believe in life in space?
Yes, I believe in astronauts!

It's been shown that the chances of life occuring are pretty much infintecimal and I really don't think that the universe is big enough to contain more life. Entropy always increases and another planet somewhere making more and more order in the universe would be really pushing thermodynamics. We're already pushing it as it is just by being here. Although I would like to think that there is other life. It would make humanity a little less special.

It's been shown that the chances of life occuring are pretty much infintecimal.

Let's see. We know of about ten planets, and we are sure that at least one of them has life. Since when have one in ten odds been "infintecimal?"

and I really don't think that the universe is big enough to contain more life.
Space is big. Space is really big. If you thought down the road to the chemist's was a long way, that's just nuts compared to space...

Entropy always increases and another planet somewhere making more and more order in the universe would be really pushing thermodynamics.
Why aren't you dead? How did you metabolize your breakfast this morning? Do you maintain a constant body tempreture independant of your surroundings? Don't you think that's evidence against "entropy always increasing?"

Although I would like to think that there is other life.
Don't worry, there probably is.

It would make humanity a little less special.
I suppose the fact that there are other people in the world makes me a little less special, although I've never really thought about it like that.

Dear Commie Catholics,

My last post was kind of snappy. There are a lot of bad ideas about entrophy floating around. I can hardly blame you if your ideas on the subject don't match my own.

Doesn't the entropy thing only work when you're dealing with a limited amount of energy?

Yeah, throw some sugar crystals in a jar of water and they will dissolve. Going from a more ordered state (crystals) to a less ordered state (single molecules floating in solution). But then throw some ditch water and a piece of stale bread in the jar, seal it tight and put it on your window sill where it can get some sun and you'll have a thriving mini ecosystem. Some jars have been kept sealed like this for a hundred years. What's inside don't look pretty, but it's full of life.

If you didn't eat anything, entropy would increase inside of you until you were no longer able to maintain homeostasis and you'd die after say a month. However, you do eat things, sunlight does enter the jar, planets get light from their star, chemical compounds ooze through water in the earth's crust. All this can be used by life.

There are people who make a big deal about entropy and life. But entropy is just a generalization about observations about matter. And some people seem to insist that living things should act like sugar crystals in water. It's as if they have never observed a flower, or a rabbit, or considered how their own bodies have managed to stay alive for so long.

I liked your question Bjornoya.

(Question was deleted.)

Thanks Phylum, too late for science questions, I'm going to bed.

Extraterrestrial life that originated on Earth - Yes, it's pretty much a sure thing that bacterial spores or some other lifeform able to withstand vacuum were left on Viking.

Extraterrestrial life not originating on Earth - That's very likely. There's such an infinite span that the probability of this happening is very high.

Life in interplanetary space - That's possible, but less likely than the above.

Intelligent extraterrestrial life not originating on Earth - This is quite possible.

Intelligent extraterrestrial life not originating on Earth that we will be able to have meaningful contact with - This is so very unlikely as to be reaching towards a statistical impossibility. It's not impossible, but it's close enough.

My thoughts exactly.

Addition: Thinking that there can be contact reached next year is on border with impossible. On the other hand: internet and mobile communications would seem completely impossible two centuries earlier. I ain't forecasting what next century will bring us.

Thinking that there can be contact reached next year is on border with impossible.

Well, if you are talking about picking up radio waves from another civilization, that could happen at any time. The galaxy is vast and only a tiny portion of stars have been checked for artifical radio signals. On the other hand, the thought of using radio waves for communication might make aliens roll around on the floor and wave their suckers with laughter. Personally I think that alien civillizations are likely only to use radio waves for a very short period. Maybe a couple hundred years. But with the vast number of stars in the galaxy I still think there is a good chance we could pick up some signals with todays technology, if by chance we examine the right stars.

Yes of course there is. There is no way we are the only life forms in the Universe-which we are told is unending. We aren't that tech advanced that we can explore space properly. Personally I would love to live in space, properly-none of that no gravity stuff. Its sad to think I will be long dead before that happens but meh what ya gonna do?

Dear Commie Catholics,

My last post was kind of snappy. There are a lot of bad ideas about entrophy floating around. I can hardly blame you if your ideas on the subject don't match my own.
That was really nice of you to post this follow up. (Appeasing the mods perhaps?)
I just have to say that I can't stop laughing about that reply. I'm afraid to read on, for fear of choking!

My new quote:
Space is big. Space is really big.
-Phylum Chordata

Intelligent extraterrestrial life not originating on Earth that we will be able to have meaningful contact with - This is so very unlikely as to be reaching towards a statistical impossibility. It's not impossible, but it's close enough.
This is dependent on whether they have developed magic yet or not.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology will be virtually indistinquishable from magic."

My new quote:
Space is big. Space is really big.
-Phylum Chordata

Umm, gee thanks... But I actually stole that from Douglass Adams - The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

Which reminds me that I had a dream about a Hitchhikers/Star Wars crossover last night. Anikin Skywalker was telling Obi-wan, "And I have this terrible ache in all the midichlorions down my left side..."

Why aren't you dead? How did you metabolize your breakfast this morning? Do you maintain a constant body tempreture independant of your surroundings? Don't you think that's evidence against "entropy always increasing?"
Are you trying to say that life is counter-entropic? Amazing! :rolleyes:

Are you trying to say that life is counter-entropic? Amazing!

No. It's technically not. It's just that I've heard people use the concept of entropy to prove that they must be dead. Which strikes me as a little silly.

Look at it this way: If there isn't life anywhere else in the universe, then the most powerful being in the entire universe is George W. Bush. Scary idea, isn't it? :eek:

But seriously: While the chances of any given star having a planet able to support life are pretty low, there are so many stars in the universe that it's nearly certain that at least one other planet has beaten the odds. Check out this website (http://www.solstation.com/stars.htm): the stars with asterisks beside them have at least a chance of having a planet able to support life, and that's just the ones within 100 light-years - a very tiny fraction of the entire universe.

:p

Nope. But then I don't believe in life on earth, either.

Do I believe in life in space?
No I don't.
However, I do believe in life on other planets out there in space.

This post written by your friendly neighbourhood pedant.

The size of the universe says nothing about the chances of live existing in a place other than earth, since you don't know what the chances are of life arising in the first place. True, space is big, but the chances of life arising might be infinitely small.

True, space is big, but the chances of life arising might be infinitely small.
That's the kicker, isn't it?

But if we find life elsewhere in the solar system and it is different enough from earth life to show that it developed independantly, then the universe must surely be brimming with life.

The size of the universe says nothing about the chances of live existing in a place other than earth, since you don't know what the chances are of life arising in the first place. True, space is big, but the chances of life arising might be infinitely small.

Here's an interesting ethical dilemma: Do I refute the logical error in the above statement, or do I not waste my time on a futile argument?

Nah, life, however much of it there may be, is too short.

:p

Anyone here ever heard of the Drake equation? It's so simple a physics doctorate could solve it. Here we go...

N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL

The equation can really be looked at as a number of questions:

N* represents the number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy

Question: How many stars are in the Milky Way Galaxy?
Answer: Current estimates are 100 billion.

fp is the fraction of stars that have planets around them

Question: What percentage of stars have planetary systems?
Answer: Current estimates range from 20% to 50%.

ne is the number of planets per star that are capable of sustaining life

Question: For each star that does have a planetary system, how many planets are capable of sustaining life?
Answer: Current estimates range from 1 to 5.

fl is the fraction of planets in ne where life evolves

Question: On what percentage of the planets that are capable of sustaining life does life actually evolve?
Answer: This is the biggie... Current estimates range from 100% (where life can evolve it will) down to close to 0%.

fi is the fraction of fl where intelligent life evolves

Question: On the planets where life does evolve, what percentage evolves intelligent life?
Answer: Estimates range from 100% (intelligence is such a survival advantage that it will certainly evolve) down to near 0%.

fc is the fraction of fi that communicate

Question: What percentage of intelligent races have the means and the desire to communicate?
Answer: 10% to 20%

fL is fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live

Question: For each civilization that does communicate, for what fraction of the planet's life does the civilization survive?
Answer: This is the toughest of the questions. If we take Earth as an example, the expected lifetime of our Sun and the Earth is roughly 10 billion years. So far we've been communicating with radio waves for less than 100 years. How long will our civilization survive? Will we destroy ourselves in a few years like some predict or will we overcome our problems and survive for millennia? If we were destroyed tomorrow the answer to this question would be 1/100,000,000th. If we survive for 10,000 years the answer will be 1/1,000,000th.

When all of these variables are multiplied together when come up with:

N, the number of communicating civilizations in the galaxy. Not the universe mind you, just THIS galaxy. For the number in the whole universe, add one more multiplier at the beginning of the equation, Ng Number of galaxies in the universe.

Reasonable values (by no means certainty) look like this:
N* = 100,000,000,000 (100Billion) Stars in the Milky Way
fp = .3 (30%) Stars with planets
ne = 1 Planet per star that can sustain life (of those stars with planets)
fl = .5 (50%) Fraction of life sustaining stars that actually develop life
fi = .2 (20%) Fraction of life producting planets where intelligent life evolves
fc = .2 (20%) Fraction of intelligent life that communicates via radio
fL = 10,000 years (1/1,000,000) fraction of a planets life during which the communicating civilization survives.

Solving, we get a total of 600. 600 civilizations in the Milky Way alone who are currently communicating via radio.

I believe in math. While the fractions in question are debatable, there is no observational evidence to suggest that any of them approach zero.

- Your friendly lunar colony of Bendis

Any Joe Satriani fan knows that the real question is actually "Is There Love In Space?"

Do you believe in life in space?

Sweden have project to seek planet ho can ahve life.

It is almost impossible to consider a universe where Earth is the only planet with life on it.

Anyone here ever heard of the Drake equation? It's so simple a physics doctorate could solve it. Here we go...

I'll just throw in my two cents and say that the amount of time that alien civilizations emit radio waves for could actually be very short in most cases. We started using radio one hundred years ago, and our grandchildren might be saying things like, "What? Communicate with radio waves? That is so twentieth centuary. Next you'll be expecting me to pick my nose with my finger instead of nanites."

As for advanced aliens using radio waves in an attempt to communicate with primitives like us, well, they might do that as often as we attempt to communicate with bacteria.

So if the average civilization only emits radio waves for about two hundred years and we keep the rest of your figures, that leaves only a dozen or so civilizations for us to detect. Bummer.

Highly likely.

As for advanced aliens using radio waves in an attempt to communicate with primitives like us, well, they might do that as often as we attempt to communicate with bacteria.

So if the average civilization only emits radio waves for about two hundred years and we keep the rest of your figures, that leaves only a dozen or so civilizations for us to detect. Bummer.

That's true, as far as it goes. That presumes the existance of a superior communications medium that we have yet to discover (or even theorize) That's actually very GOOD news. Once discovered, we may very well suddenly be connected to the galactic internet.

Imagine a Borneo tribe that communicates with drums between villages. When you ask a tribesman how he might communicate with a distant village, and he might envision a very large drum. We, poor primitives that we are, will listen for the interstellar drums, but may very well miss the interstellar cellular network. "Can you hear me now? Good... ;)"

Question: why is it always assumed that our civilization is technologically inferior to any of the others that may exist? Given that our sun is nearly half the age of the universe itself [by most estimates], and given how long it takes for intelligent life to evolve, I'd actually venture to say we might be one of the first. If anything, I would put money on the vast majority of extraterrestrial life being [i]less advanced than us.

Question: why is it always assumed that our civilization is technologically inferior to any of the others that may exist? Given that our sun is nearly half the age of the universe itself [by most estimates], and given how long it takes for intelligent life to evolve, I'd actually venture to say we might be one of the first. If anything, I would put money on the vast majority of extraterrestrial life being [i]less advanced than us.

The relative youth of our technology, placed against our history, then placing that in the context of the universes age is what leads to the assumption. In my estimation, there is insufficent data on which to form any opinion regarding our relative level of advancement. We don't know if we're the first to emerge, or the seven millionth, and have no basis upon which to form a cogent hypothesis.

By the way Melkor... Objectivism ROCKS. I'm a practicing objectivist myself. That's what drew me to NS in the first place, to play with ruling as an objectivist government. Unfortunately, the issues presented often don't include an objectivist option.

Of course, you can look at it this way: can organic matter evolve from non-organic matter? Is it possible as far as we know, do we have a possible hypothesis for it? Please don't scream at me, "Evolution concerns the development of life! That's irrelevant to evolution!" I'm fully aware of that stock reply. However, I was wondering, if one were to assume that all life occurred by natural means (ie, no God, no supernatural intervention etc), that would mean at one point that non-life would have to, by natural means, cross over to life. Does anyone have any hard scientific info on any current thoughts on this? I've looked, but could never find anything but statements that that particular bit of "evolution" (that word is so loaded) is impossible. However, there are always two sides to a story.

I didn't take the time to read this thread, so someone may have already responded to this, but here goes:

The process you're talking about is called Abiogenesis, not evolution. Abiogenesis involves complex and eventually self replicating molecules forming out of simple ones, which then organize themselves into more complex life. Most of the steps in this process have been done in lab at some point in time. A google search for Abiogenesis or Richard Dawkins should get you some relevant info.

Question: why is it always assumed that our civilization is technologically inferior to any of the others that may exist? Given that our sun is nearly half the age of the universe itself [by most estimates], and given how long it takes for intelligent life to evolve, I'd actually venture to say we might be one of the first. If anything, I would put money on the vast majority of extraterrestrial life being [i]less advanced than us.

That's actually a good point. While a statistician will give you plenty of reasons why it's unlikely that we're the first intelligent life-form to evolve, there remains the simple, irrefutable fact that somebody has to be first. It could be us.

And let's not forget that humans existed for a long time in a relatively primitive state. Another intelligent species might still be in its equivalent of the Neolithic era, or the Middle Ages. This wouldn't necessarily mean that they're less intelligent than us - just very slightly (in the grand scheme of things) behind us.

Question: why is it always assumed that our civilization is technologically inferior to any of the others that may exist? Given that our sun is nearly half the age of the universe itself [by most estimates], and given how long it takes for intelligent life to evolve, I'd actually venture to say we might be one of the first. If anything, I would put money on the vast majority of extraterrestrial life being [i]less advanced than us.

What we can reasonably theorize: About 300 Million years after the Big Bang stars and galaxies form. The first and second generation stars were big, and burned fast lasting only millions instead of billions of years before going nova, creating and spreading the heavier elements needed for life. Third generation stars (what our best guess ours is judging from amount of non-hydrogen elements in the solar system) are first possible with inteligent life to develope and started devoping as long at 8 billion years ago.

The question is how long will we last. WE have only been inteligent for less than a 5 million years, if we last a billion or 2, that first 5 million is 5% or less. The oldest third generation stars could be 4 billion years older and thus have inteligent life 4 billion years older while we can only have inteligent life about 5 million years younger.

As for our we alone or not, I can't immagine a God that would be happy with just us :p

The relative youth of our technology, placed against our history, then placing that in the context of the universes age is what leads to the assumption. In my estimation, there is insufficent data on which to form any opinion regarding our relative level of advancement. We don't know if we're the first to emerge, or the seven millionth, and have no basis upon which to form a cogent hypothesis.
Yeah, I know. I just want to entertain the possibility that we kick ass :D

By the way Melkor... Objectivism ROCKS. I'm a practicing objectivist myself. That's what drew me to NS in the first place, to play with ruling as an objectivist government. Unfortunately, the issues presented often don't include an objectivist option.
I think you're soon to discover that NS isn't a very hospitable place for us ;).

Still, its good to see a some backup, finally! I think I'm the only Objectivist that posts here regularly.

I think you're soon to discover that NS isn't a very hospitable place for us ;).
Still, its good to see a some backup, finally! I think I'm the only Objectivist that posts here regularly.

I've noticed that society in general isn't very hospitable to Objectivism. The fundamental flaw in Objectivism is that it regards the highest state of humanity as that of a reasoning, rational being. Our society has no such regard, favoring dominance games, religion and emotionalism as prime movers over reason. Once one accepts that humans are not rational, societal antipathy towards objectivism makes perfect sense. To Rand's credit, she did acknwoledge this state of affairs, but went on to create a philosophy for rational humans. I choose to be one of them, but have come to expect less of those around me.

I'm willing to bet good money that there is life on mars of some sort right now. Anyone want to give me odds?
It seems the two robots that the US sent there might have seeded Mars with life. I read an article a couple of weeks back that said the robots weren't sterile and may have brought earth bacteria to Mars.

As Monty Python said

"Pray that theres intelligent life somewhere out in space because theres bugger all down here on Earth"

:D

Nah, there will be some sort of living things somewhere else. Intelligent things? Again, probably. Intelligent things that look remotely like Humans? Not a chance.

The university I work at actually has a course on life in outer space, it's called Astrobiology.

Before you assume it's silly, I can assure you that the course is actually very cool (I haven't taken it, but two of my scientist friends have) - it examines the possibility, looking at things such as what could possibly create life (carbon based life? methane based life etc.) and the amounts of the relavant gasses found. From this we can make predictions as to the most likely places to search for life.
It also had guest lecturers that discussed a range of related topics. It was more a general interest subject.

anyway, my opinion as to whether there is life? I figure it doesn't matter.
Either there is life out there, which is pretty amazing, or...
...in all of the universe, life only exists in our tiny corner. We really are unique. That's pretty amazing, too.


I'm jealous and totally wish that my school had that course when I was in school...

By the way Melkor... Objectivism ROCKS. I'm a practicing objectivist myself. That's what drew me to NS in the first place, to play with ruling as an objectivist government. Unfortunately, the issues presented often don't include an objectivist option.

We're straying from topic, but as long as we're here: I think that part of the problem with objectivism in NS is that objectivism assumes a very limited role for government. Most of the issues on NS are biased towards the assumption that the government is going to do something about the issue. If your response to an issue is "That's not an area where government should be involved", then the objectivist response would likely be the "dismiss" button.

I would like to believe that there is life on other planets. In fact, unless they declared a war (putting it into NS words, them FT, us MT), would be pretty cool.

I mean come on, how many of you would not like to know what one looked like if they existed. Sure, they would have to make first contact; the people who smell of rum and claim there existance would have the last laugh; and yes, we probably won't get to see it in our life times; but all of this put aside, it would still be good.

People say no planets have habitable environments for living organisms, but think of evolution. If you don't believe in evolution (religious for example), my belief is that god has left his brother in charge of the world, slowly in decline, and somewhere he is making another planet, hoping that new one won't fail.

Yes, I would like to believe there is life in space, however unlikely people say it is.

100 percent certain

Anyone here ever heard of the Drake equation? It's so simple a physics doctorate could solve it. Here we go...

N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL

The equation can really be looked at as a number of questions:

N* represents the number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy

Question: How many stars are in the Milky Way Galaxy?
Answer: Current estimates are 100 billion.

fp is the fraction of stars that have planets around them

Question: What percentage of stars have planetary systems?
Answer: Current estimates range from 20% to 50%.

ne is the number of planets per star that are capable of sustaining life

Question: For each star that does have a planetary system, how many planets are capable of sustaining life?
Answer: Current estimates range from 1 to 5.

fl is the fraction of planets in ne where life evolves

Question: On what percentage of the planets that are capable of sustaining life does life actually evolve?
Answer: This is the biggie... Current estimates range from 100% (where life can evolve it will) down to close to 0%.

fi is the fraction of fl where intelligent life evolves

Question: On the planets where life does evolve, what percentage evolves intelligent life?
Answer: Estimates range from 100% (intelligence is such a survival advantage that it will certainly evolve) down to near 0%.

fc is the fraction of fi that communicate

Question: What percentage of intelligent races have the means and the desire to communicate?
Answer: 10% to 20%

fL is fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live

Question: For each civilization that does communicate, for what fraction of the planet's life does the civilization survive?
Answer: This is the toughest of the questions. If we take Earth as an example, the expected lifetime of our Sun and the Earth is roughly 10 billion years. So far we've been communicating with radio waves for less than 100 years. How long will our civilization survive? Will we destroy ourselves in a few years like some predict or will we overcome our problems and survive for millennia? If we were destroyed tomorrow the answer to this question would be 1/100,000,000th. If we survive for 10,000 years the answer will be 1/1,000,000th.

When all of these variables are multiplied together when come up with:

N, the number of communicating civilizations in the galaxy. Not the universe mind you, just THIS galaxy. For the number in the whole universe, add one more multiplier at the beginning of the equation, Ng Number of galaxies in the universe.

Reasonable values (by no means certainty) look like this:
N* = 100,000,000,000 (100Billion) Stars in the Milky Way
fp = .3 (30%) Stars with planets
ne = 1 Planet per star that can sustain life (of those stars with planets)
fl = .5 (50%) Fraction of life sustaining stars that actually develop life
fi = .2 (20%) Fraction of life producting planets where intelligent life evolves
fc = .2 (20%) Fraction of intelligent life that communicates via radio
fL = 10,000 years (1/1,000,000) fraction of a planets life during which the communicating civilization survives.

Solving, we get a total of 600. 600 civilizations in the Milky Way alone who are currently communicating via radio.

I believe in math. While the fractions in question are debatable, there is no observational evidence to suggest that any of them approach zero.

- Your friendly lunar colony of Bendis

I believe in math too. The Drake equation is indeed very simple. Too simple. We do not know what the chances are of life originating on Earth-like planets, on Mars-like planets, heck, on any planet. Simply because we haven't encountered life anywhere else. And even if we found life on Mars it would not tell us much: it's much more likely it would have also originated on Earth (or vice versa) than that it would have originated independently.

I'd like to believe in alien life somewhere out there. Otherwise it would be a very lonely universe.

Do you believe in life in space?

It's not impossible, but the Fermi Paradox would seem to point against there being anything more complex than bacteria. My own guess is that such life in space as there will be will be accomplished by the terraforming we ourselves do.

life in space? of course not

life on other planets? never think about it