In “Is a New Form of Life Really So Alien?” (ScienceDaily, May 8, 2012), origin of life researcher Gerald Joyce offers a surprising admission:
First, from the release:
The idea of discovering a new form of life has not only excited astronomers and astrobiologists for decades, but also the wider public. The notion that we are the only example of a successful life form in the galaxy has, for many, seemed like an unlikely statistic, as we discover more and more habitable planetary bodies and hear yet more evidence of life’s ability to survive in extreme conditions.
But why is the statistic unlikely?
Is it “unlikely” that the recently discovered ivensi is the only lizard that nourishes its young via a placenta? It’s reasonable to guess there are others, but we cannot attach a naked probability to that guess, let alone act as if it must be true.
Any more than we can say that if we find a ten dollar bill on the sidewalk, that means there must be others in the vicinity. There need not be. It could be unique.
Joyce seems to admit as much:
Given that we only know of one life form – our own – we can’t meaningfully estimate the probability of new life arising, either on Earth or elsewhere.
“I think humans are lonely and long for another form of life in the universe,” says Joyce, “preferably one that is intelligent and benevolent. But wishing upon a star does not make it so. We must either discover alternative life or construct it in the laboratory. Someday it may be discovered by a Columbus who travels to a distant world or, more likely in my opinion, invented by a Geppetto who toils at the workbench.”
If this catches on, it will be a new mood in search-for-life studies, and a more realistic one, compared to the constant faux news about newly discovered “habitable” planets that – of course – aren’t really.