Galactic Punctuated Equilibrium: How to Undermine Carter's Anthropic Argument in Astrobiology
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ASTROBIOLOGY Volume 9, Number 5, 2009 ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089=ast.2007.0200 Hypothesis Article Galactic Punctuated Equilibrium: How to Undermine Carter’s Anthropic Argument in Astrobiology Milan M. C´ irkovic´,1 Branislav Vukotic´,1 and Ivana Dragic´evic´ 2 Abstract A new strategy by which to defeat Carter’s ‘‘anthropic’’ argument against extraterrestrial life and intelligence is presented. Our approach is based on relaxing hidden uniformitarian assumptions and considering instead a dynamical succession of evolutionary regimes governed by both global (Galaxy-wide) and local (planet- or planetary system–limited) regulation mechanisms. Notably, our increased understanding of the nature of su- pernovae, gamma-ray bursts, and strong coupling between the Solar System and the Galaxy, and the theories of ‘‘punctuated equilibria’’ and ‘‘macroevolutionary regimes’’ are in full accordance with the regulation-mechanism picture. The application of this particular strategy highlights the limits of application of Carter’s argument and indicates that, in the real universe, its applicability conditions are not satisfied. We conclude that drawing far- reaching conclusions about the scarcity of extraterrestrial intelligence and the prospects of our efforts to detect it on the basis of this argument is unwarranted. Key Words: Astrobiology—Extraterrestrial intelligence—Galaxy: evolution—History and philosophy of science. Astrobiology 9, 491–501. An unflinching determination to take the whole evi- particular form at random epochs with respect to the dence into account is the only method of preservation characteristic timescale of the astrophysical environ- against the fluctuating extremes of fashionable opinion. ment (notably, the Main-Sequence lifetime of the con- sidered star). In the Solar System, t* & tb, within a factor Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern of two. However, in general, it should be either tb t* World (1929), p 268. or tb * t* or t* tb. The second case is much less prob- able a priori in light of the independent nature of these Thunderbolt steers all things. quantities. Carter also dismisses the third option, since in that case it is difficult to understand why the only Heraclitus of Ephesus, On Nature, fragment B64. planetary system known to be inhabited (that is, the Solar System) exhibits t* & tb behavior. On the contrary, one would then expect that life (and intelligence) arose 1. Introduction: Carter’s Argument on Earth, and predict that it arose at other places in the Solar System, much earlier than they in fact did. This he well-known argument against the existence of ex- provides a weak probabilistic reason to believe that traterrestrial intelligence, (ETI) attributed to the astrophys- T t t (in which case the observation selection effect icist Brandon Carter (1983) and developed by various authors b * explains very well why we do perceive the t & t case (e.g., Barrow and Tipler, 1986), can be characterized as follows: * b in the Solar System). Thus, extraterrestrial life and If astrophysical (t*) and biological (tb) timescales are intelligence have to be very rare, which is the reason truly uncorrelated, life in general and intelligent life in why neither has been observed to date, in spite of the 1Astronomical Observatory, Belgrade, Serbia. 2Faculty of Biology, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia. 491 492 C´ IRKOVIC´ ET AL. conjecture that favorable conditions for them exist at ment is inherently flawed. Carter’s argument relies on the many places throughout the Galaxy.1 assumption that there are fixed (or at least well-defined) and roughly known timescales for astrophysical processes. In Carter’s argument (CA) has been given a great deal of addition, it is assumed that the relevant biological timescale attention in discourses related to astrobiology and the Search is well defined, albeit unknown, as well. We reject these as- for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI). It has been assessed sumptions and show below that there is sufficient physical favorably in the monograph of Barrow and Tipler (1986). justification to propose alternatives. These alternatives are Authors as diverse as Maddox (1984), Bostrom (2002), Bar- more complicated than those basic principles that comprise row (2002), Lineweaver and Davis (2003), Davies (2003), and Carter’s argument, but this is in keeping with the many Duric and Field (2003) hold CA in high regard. Astro- achievements of modern astrophysics and astrobiology in biologists McKay (1996) and Livio (1999) regard CA as an recent years. (In addition, Carter requires that the relevant all-important constraint on astrobiological theories (though timescales are independent, but this was criticized by Livio Livio presents an empirical counter-argument, he does not and others and is only a part of our argument here.) The challenge the validity of the reasoning behind it). SETI alternatives encompass (i) external physical forcings acting on skeptics, such as Tipler (1988, 2004), use CA to support the local biospheres throughout the Galaxy and (ii) elements of claim that we are alone in the Galaxy. Lineweaver and Davis complex evolution, namely quasi-periodicity, stochasticity, (2003) mention CA approvingly and note that (i) it applies to change of macroevolutionary regimes, and secular evolution the origin of intelligence rather than to biogenesis (origin of with cosmological time. In other words, the core element of life) and (ii) any finding suggestive of long future duration of CA, the belief that ‘‘the probability of intelligence increases the biosphere will undermine it. monotonically with time’’ (Barrow and Tipler, 1986; see Section However, CA has also been criticized. Two most pertinent 3 below), is a case of special pleading and likely inaccurate on criticisms are those of Wilson (1994) and Livio (1999), the empirical grounds. former mainly from the logico-methodological point of view, In a very limited form, this central argument has been the latter the physical point of view. We use elements of their sketched in Dragic´evic´ and C´ irkovic´ (2003). In brief, we believe criticisms here, but the bulk of the present remarks have not that CA violates the second part of this important methodo- been presented, to date, in the literature.2 Wilson’s criticism logical guideline by failing to take into account timescale cor- is mostly methodological; he argues that Carter is wrong in relations induced by both secular evolution of the Galaxy and restricting the range of possible relations of t and t to the b * sudden catastrophic events. In addition, the issues CA touches three cases listed above and that the fact that we appeared on upon constitute a microcosm of several traditional issues in Earth significantly before the end of the Sun’s main-sequence philosophy of science in general and philosophy of biology in lifetime decreases our confidence in CA. In addition, Wilson particular: issues of inevitability vs. contingence, gradualism points out that the role of anthropic reasoning in CA is very vs. catastrophism, local vs. global influences on the biosphere, minor, almost trivial. In several places, Wilson vaguely al- position of intelligent observers on the ‘‘tree of life,’’ etc., all of ludes to some of the empirical inadequacies of CA (see be- which recur in the study of CA and related topics. low) but refrains from investigating them further. In the next It is sometimes stated that CA offers an example of the sections, we present such an investigation. scientific nature of anthropic reasoning by virtue of its falsifi- The crucial assumption of CA is that there is no a priori ability; it offers a prediction that our current astrobiological reason for correlation between t and t . Livio (1999) pointed * b and SETI efforts will fail and that we will not discover extra- out that this is the main weakness of this argument; processes terrestrial intelligent beings in the Milky Way. Formally that induce correlations between the two timescales, like the speaking, this does indeed make the hypothesis scientific, but oxygenation of the atmosphere on terrestrial planets, under- it can be argued that in this case the meaning of falsifiability mine the argument. Notably, if stellar UV radiation prevents is stretched beyond its reasonable usage. For instance, the the appearance of land life due to high absorption by nucleic statement ‘‘There are no intelligent alien species in the Galaxy’’ acids and proteins, then it is critical that a sufficient ozone presumes our capacity to discriminate between intelligent and layer occur before land life can appear. This, in turn, might non-intelligent aliens with certainty, which can hardly be ta- induce a correlation between the astrophysical and biological ken for granted (cf. Raup, 1992; Lem, 1987). Even if it were, the timescales, since various stellar masses (and thus various timescales for this kind of falsification are outstanding; in fact, lifetimes) will generate different amounts of UV radiation and they are at least equal to the often-cited Fermi-Hart timescale dictate various rates of oxygenization of the atmospheres of for visiting (or colonizing) all stars in the Milky Way.3 Even the hypothetical planets in their respective habitable zones. With most ardent Popperian should pause when faced with such elimination of this essential assumption of independence of a remote prospect of falsification, especially when it is not two timescales, CA is significantly undermined. necessary to doubt the anthropic reasoning itself in order to Here, we question the basic premises of Carter’s argument contest a specific argument with use of many auxiliary as- in an attempt to show that the reasoning behind the argu- sumptions. 1Strictly speaking, this is just half of Carter’s argument in his fasci- nating 1983 paper. The rest concerns the issue of the number of ‘‘cru- 3The qualification is necessary given our inability to determine cial’’ (or ‘‘critical’’) steps in emergence of intelligent observers on Earth decisively, for example, the degree of intelligence and consciousness and possibly elsewhere.