
When Are the Intelligent Aliens? - evo_9
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/?p=203#.UdBLMKa9LCR
======
exratione
Obligatory talking points associated with the Fermi Paradox:

\- It takes a very short time in comparison to the age of the galaxy for a
single self-replicating probe to result in a descendant probe visit to every
star. A few million years. This means that you cannot really argue plausibly
that all civilizations fail to do this - it would take trivial effort for just
one faction within just one advanced civilization to set this underway. It's
quite clearly the case that we will do it when we can.

\- There is a proposal I recall reading that suggests all colonization/self-
replicated expansion is patchy in a sort of fractal way. You're always going
to get sparse frontiers and empty real estate.

\- The Great Filter.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter)

\- The Simulation Argument (Bostrom variant).
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis)

\- The Drake Equation
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation)

\- Where are the macrostructures? We don't see Dyson spheres or other evident
macroscale engineering. Everything we can see so far looks natural. This is
more troubling than an absence of detectable communications. There are any
number of ways we can think of for interstellar communication networks to
exist and yet be undetectable by us at the moment, and then there are no doubt
all the ways that we can't think of.

\- Agents responsible for the Fermi Paradox through suppression of nascent
intelligence are a popular science fiction trope. First one to the top kills
off the rest as they turn up. (Berzerkers, Wolves, etc). It makes for good
plotting, but in reality this suffers from all the same issues as economic
monopolies and monocultures - i.e. without some sustaining outside influence
they are fragile and short-lived, prone to defection, being undercut, and out-
innovated from a blind spot. So it's not plausible to suppose that we are
randomly in a period of suppressive monopoly.

~~~
ChuckMcM
This is a good summary. One of the missing pieces is we don't know what the
minimum set of combinational factors are to create "advanced" civilization.

The scare quotes for advanced here are that two incompatible definitions for
civilization quality compete for the nominative "advanced." In the current
context advanced means we've developed machines that carry us into space, we
can create habitats to survive in even when our surrounding habitat is
inhospitable and we leverage natural resources to create excess food. An
alternative context for "advanced" is that your civilization exists in balance
with the other processes on the planet, you don't create anything that that
wouldn't be created by natural processes inherent in the system, and your
resource utilization is at a rate that does not exceed its replenishment rate.
Further you explicitly do not use any resource that is not naturally
replenished.

In the context of that dichotomy, the question might be "Why didn't the
Dinosaurs develop space flight?" They lived on the planet for millions of
years before we got here, there is evidence that their cognitive capacity was
at least as large as ours, and some species had the ability to manipulate
matter at least as well as our paleolithic ancestors did. So why didn't they
build giant Dinosaur cities, grow Dinosaur food, and build institutions of
higher learning? Depending on your timeline we went from struggling ape to
SpaceX in 3 - 5 million years. They had 165 _million_ years to figure it out.
Why were they even _on_ the planet when the asteroid hit, and/or why didn't
they do something about it before it hit? Using Dinosaur lasers or something.

Depending on how you count we've gone through 5 to 7 nearly total extinctions
on this planet. What made this last one special? What is the key set of things
that have to be true in order for life to go from being intelligent to
manipulating everything around it in its environment to serve the will of that
intelligence?

They are complex questions. Great fun to contemplate on camping trips, while
under the influence, and when you've run out of other 'safe' conversational
starters.

~~~
bane
Right, we simply don't know the conditions to generate a advanced
civilization. We're certainly not it (yet) -- at least in terms of the
characteristics we're expecting space-faring extraterrestrials to have.

There might be billions of worlds full of dinosaur analogs running around
happily eating and growling till their star burns out...and that might be all
that you can expect out of life in the general case when it happens.

"Why didn't the Dinosaurs develop space flight?" Why don't we? Again, in
absolute terms of the characteristics we're requiring of an alien
civilization, we're not really any closer (in measurable absolute terms) to
visiting Vega than a struggling ape is. The furthest distance a human has ever
traveled off of the Earth is very slight navigational/rounding error when
going to another Star.

~~~
ChuckMcM
I think you don't give us enough credit :-) We have developed enough
technology to leave the planet and walk around on our Moon. We are, perhaps
within a decade, going to have that capability again but with a much higher
level of base technology. While it would be unlikely for Dinosaurian
satellites to have remained in orbit for millions of years, anything they left
on the moon would still be there.

 _" There might be billions of worlds full of dinosaur analogs running around
happily eating and growling till their star burns out...and that might be all
that you can expect out of life in the general case when it happens."_

This is the essence of the Fermi paradox I believe. (And I've ordered a copy
of the book mentioned below, it looks intriguing) So what hypothesis could
support billions of iterations of 'life' evolving into the multicellular form
we see today and in our past, and so few evolving technology?

I totally agree it is a somewhat useless question to ponder but I can't help
it.

~~~
bane
> So what hypothesis could support billions of iterations of 'life' evolving
> into the multicellular form we see today and in our past, and so few
> evolving technology?

Probably just a function of environmental input and enough generations
optimizing along directions that matter more for species propagation than a
large, energy burning cognitive organ. Keep in mind, it appears that Human
level intelligence seems to have (so far) only evolved maybe a handful of time
maximum in planetary history...and AFAWK only along a fairly specific
mammalian family line that happened to live on part of the planet with fairly
specific thermal/environmental and energy availability properties.

On a planet slightly warmer than the Earth, the dominant species might be
selected to have heat management organs we're not even aware of; or a planet
with more landmass vs. ocean, the ability to handle dry climates; or a planet
with two moons and higher gravity an efficient metabolism and ambulatory
system...some kind of reptilian slug perhaps?

Are savannas necessary to culture space faringness? Or could a planet with no
moons, shotgunned with equally dispersed Guam sized islands provide the
necessary conditions?

It's useless, but an incredibly fun thought experiment.

~~~
edyoung
I quite like Geoffrey Miller's theory that the human brain is primarily the
result of sexual selection rather than natural selection - the hominid
equivalent of the peacock's tail.

~~~
chii
i find that theory to be unlikely to be true, because its usually not the
smart guys but the buff guy that gets the prettiest girls (at least, that is
the cultural belief).

~~~
wcfields
Product of our culture more than anything. We'd all be buff if we barely ate
and were outdoors/hunting all the time.

------
kabdib
My favorite is: We're first. Assuming we make it out of the solar system and
so on, then just imagine the practical jokes we get to play on future
civilizations: Whoopee cushions crafted out of gas giants, mysterious "ruins"
that have no bloody purpose at all, ancient stone tablets that end with
"Assuming a spherical cow in a vacuum..."

Some archeologist, 20 millions years hence: "Oh god, not /these/ forerunners
again."

It wouldn't be all bad, being first.

~~~
noonespecial
I used to wish for this every single Stargate episode. Stargate needed a race
of Q's.

------
6d0debc071
Our radio emissions aren't that visible, there is a horizon, so to speak,
where your radio signals attenuate to be indistinguishable from background
radiation. For our TV transmissions I _believe_ this to be no more than a
handful of light years. As tech has been increasing we've been putting less
power into our transmissions and thus reducing that horizon. Even high powered
military radars aren't typically banging away into the sky in the same way
they used to.

Then you've got the fact that the env for coms has been becoming increasingly
hostile anyway. Long term quantum computing is pretty much a certainty, and
when that happens quantum encryption seems like it's going to be the only
workable form of coms for anything you want to keep quiet. Even if you assume
that in the West it'll only be places like NSA and GCHQ and so on who have one
- China's going to have one too, and do you really think they're not going to
use it against commercial systems? People will have to move to quantum
encryption - you're just not going to be able to do business without it.

So, I wouldn't expect us to keep using the airwaves very much. I expect the
future of airwave use to be primarily relatively short ranged point to point
transmissions.

The visibility for radio transmissions, even if humans survive a million years
isn't, I think, going to be a million years, I'd expect it to be more like
100. Thus - though I don't know how they calculated their number - I'd make
the back of the hand odds that someone examining our planet randomly would
pick us out not 1 in 5,000 but, instead, 1 in 50,000,000.

And since we're not going to get 50,000,000 civilisations within the handful
of lightyears before our signals have attenuated down to the background... I'd
put the odds heavily against anyone seeing us on that basis.

Whether someone will pick up the composition of our atmosphere and aim a more
powerful beam in our direction I don't know. But it makes it ... something
that the other civilisation would have to decide to do. And then you're
dealing with - does it actually make sense to let other civilisations know
that you exist? What are your potential gains when balanced against the risk
of relativistic weapons and the like?

~~~
VLM
Kraus's famous classic 'radio astronomy' textbook had some comments about this
topic toward the end. If I recall correctly it was a couple light years for
analog NTSC. Nice stable transmitter, satellite disciplined carrier freq
toward the end, and the doppler as the earth rotates of a zillion signals
gives the little green men something interesting to think about. Planetary
radar, IF aimed directly at the target, had much better range, but analog NTSC
television had much better coverage over the whole sky.

The radio detection of the earth by broadcast analog NTSC TV carriers has
already ended. The article author specified it as a million years. We got
about fifty instead. If the LGM are watching our analog TV carriers and the
SNR is less than 20 dB or so, there is no way they'll see digital as a
discrete signal, nor will they likely randomly guess the correct signalling
types/codes.

The meta issue is as a species we're really good at thinking our time is
special. 100 years ago watching a spectrogram of analog AM video carriers
would have been unthinkable futuristic not even rational to discuss, 25 years
ago it would have been a pretty good idea, today its ancient nothing but
static, no body would do something so anachronistic.

This misbelief in the importance of your time is closely related to one of the
funniest atheist arguments, which is so intellectually unthinkable its rarely
discussed. Even the slightest gaze on religious history of the species shows
that before the birth of a prophet or whatever, people really thought they had
it all figured out almost as well as after. Because this mis-design-pattern
has repeated itself with pretty much all religions in the past, I'm sure it
will happen again in the future, so simply deciding to believe in nothing
until the true prophet is born in 100000 years is the most rational decision.
In fact over 100000 years we'll probably have about 100 prophets, all of
which, however temporarily, being considered the last word in religion... Its
sometimes called the patience atheist argument, or a few other things... Why,
everyone knows the best and most important and most correct culture to ever
exist, in the past, or more importantly in the future, is now, of course.

------
JulianMorrison
My analysis: the time period in which a civilization goes from "present" to
"owning the observable universe, rearranging the stars" is short. The first
civilization sees an empty sky. The second sees red-glowing stars tapped for
all their negentropy, Shkadov thrusters rearranging them, and probes whizzing
from star to star, disassembling them for usable mass and building
computronium.

My conclusion is, if you don't see that, you're the first.

~~~
maaku
And if you did see that, you were damn lucky to be born at just the right time
to see it before you get annihilated by the oncoming intelligent matter
transformation.

~~~
JulianMorrison
Yeah, because the probability that a _random_ alien would recognize "humans
would rather not be reassembled into somebody else's compute substrate" as
ethically relevant is slim.

~~~
lukifer
Hybrid Theory: Reconnaissance nanobots are dispatched to the planet which is
to be disassembled, soaking up every piece of data imaginable. The planet is
then converted into computronium, which as a background thread, runs one or
more simulations of that planet's hypothetical future, in order to extract any
possible scientific value from the developments of the native species, or just
as a simple curiosity.

If this is true, we were likely destroyed a long time ago, and we now live in
one of those simulations. Any cosmic activity outside of our solar system is a
mere fuzzy approximation, and even if we develop interstellar travel
technology, we'll hit some sort of "Truman Show" wall if we try to leave our
imaginary sandbox.

Makes you curious to keep watching the Voyager probes, does it not? :)

------
skreech
Considering how many life forms are on this planet, and how few of them who
provide decent conversation, what are the chances of discovering Vulcans or
Wookies? Most life we eventually discover might be more exciting to
entomologists.

~~~
bionerd
> Most life we eventually discover might be more exciting to entomologists.

You say it like it wouldn't be fascinating just by itself. About 70% of
Earth's surface is covered by water and more than 90% of the ocean still
remains unseen by human eyes. We don't even know what incredible creatures
could be living deep in the ocean let alone on another planet!

Oh and by the way, even the fact that we can't have a "decent conversation"
with other species doesn't mean they are not intelligent (whatever that
means). Most people would considered dolphins stupid but it seems that they
could be communicating with each other using some kind of sono-visual language
and maintain quite complicated social structures.

~~~
skreech
Didn't mean to sound condescending - it would be very fascinating, especially
if we would find evidence of common ancestry and other similarities. Wouldn't
exactly be the cantina in Mos Eisley, though.

However, as you point out, we live in the middle of an enormously rich biota
need not stare at the stars to find new life forms. That's quite amazing.

------
hga
The way I view it, _by definition_ someone has to be first.

We just don't know enough about all the variables, such as noted by others in
this discussion the probability of evolving to sentience, to state with any
confidence that we can't be the first in our galaxy or the portion of it that
we're looking at.

~~~
VladRussian2
>The way I view it, by definition someone has to be first.

no :). That is the beauty of this Universe - global full order of things on
timeline isn't possible. Specifically space-like separated events don't have a
preferred order, i.e. given 2 space-like separated events A and B, both
statement - A precedes B and B precedes A - have the same validity, basically
it is meaningless to talk about their timeline order.

~~~
Cookingboy
Just because they are space separated events does not mean you cannot give
assign them chronological order. Can't you just simply refer to a literal
universal chronological reference point (i,e Big Bang) and then achieve
successful ordering of events? For example: Civilization A achieved space
flight x time units (whatever time units, such as Planck time unit) after Big
Bang, and civilization B achieved space flight y time units after Big Bang?

~~~
VladRussian2
>For example: Civilization A achieved space flight x time units (whatever time
units, such as Planck time unit) after Big Bang, and civilization B achieved
space flight y time units after Big Bang?

as long as special relativity is applicable, for space-like separated events A
and B, there exist frames of reference such that A is at x time units after
Big Bang and B is at y in one frame of reference, and A is at y and B is at x
in the other frame, ie. in reversed order.

~~~
Cookingboy
Yes, but for any such reference frame if you know the distance between the
observer and A and B, then after observing both A and B you can still deduct
the true chronological order. But I get the parent's point now, for our
purpose of observation there is no point figuring out this "true
chronological" order anyway since a civilization could have achieved space
flight 100,000 years after Big Bang but is at a distance so far away from us
that the information may NEVER reach us due to universe expanding.

------
RexRollman
I have no doubt that there is other intelligent life somewhere in the
universe. That said, with the vast distances involved, I suspect that we will
never encounter them.

------
pervycreeper
Intelligence may not be adaptive from the gene perspective. One can see a
large number of plausible reasons this might be the case by observing human
society and humanity as a whole. If it is in fact true, appearances of that
trait would likely be rare and short lived across the universe.

~~~
regal
The other great apes are quite intelligent and occupy the top spots in their
ecological niches. Bottlenose dolphins pass the mirror test for self-awareness
and appear to have individual names [1], and are at the top of their
ecological niche. Elephants pass the mirror test and are at the top of their
ecological niche. Octopuses are surprisingly intelligent for invertebrates,
and are among the top predators in their niches. In the blink of an ecological
eye, intelligence has started showing up at the top spots of the food chain
across a diversity of different niches. Just because we haven't seen it before
(e.g., the top dinosaur intelligence, the genus Troodon, only had a brain-to-
body mass ratio comparable to modern birds [2]), doesn't mean it isn't
adaptive - only that it took a while to evolve. Life existed for a pretty long
time on Earth before it started running around on the land, too. Doesn't mean
running around on the land is maladaptive.

[1] [http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/02/dolphin-
names/](http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/02/dolphin-names/) [2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troodon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troodon)

~~~
SpoonFed
What about a captive isolated environment that "forces" adaptation such as,
tool use in birds & other animals.

It would suggest cognitive thought or at least, competence is a "mutation"
forced upon the life-form by environment(s).

Time would only play a miniscule, but essential part in that process until the
life-form figured out time doesn't seem to matter too matter.

------
emperorcezar
I would guess that most civilizations don't use detectible radio
communications for very long. Look at us now. Everything is going over the
internet. I doubt that these signals travel much from Earth before dissipating
to the point of being undetectable.

------
gentooman
Perhaps the emergence of life itself _is_ The Great Filter. I hope it is.

------
lovemenot
The Fermi paradox is useful in that it shows us that something must be wrong
with Drake. It is more likely to be something wrong in one or more of the
assumptions, than with the empirical facts. I think the problem is with
notions of "advanced" and "intelligent". When it comes down to it, that really
just means like present humans. There is nothing inevitable nor qualitatively
special about technology. It is just one particular evolutionary advantage
which has helped one particular species on one particular planet. Dwelling on
why there seems to be nobody else out there exactly like us is just
narcisistic; a super-sensitive kid pining for their one-true-and-never-met
soul-mate, when they are surrounded by potential lovers. These hypothetical
advanced aliens seem like the scholastic pinhead angels of this age of reason.
Having said that, life in general is utterly amazing. I have no evidence for
this, but I imagine that if and when we humans discover extra-terrestrial
life, we will find that some living organisms on this earth have already
"known" about it for eons.

------
showerst
Maybe I'm projecting too much human behavior on unknowns, but we've pretty
much come to the conclusion that we when run into an uncontacted tribe of
humans, we try to stay completely hands off.

Perhaps we shouldn't discount the possibility that's a universal evolutionary
stage, and that there's just some sort of 'prime directive' type thing keeping
any life from contacting us yet?

~~~
croikle
Or perhaps the best move is to hide. With such a large range of time, almost
any species you encounter will be either incredibly primitive (thus not so
interesting, and not receptive to your signals), or tremendously advanced, and
a serious existential threat. Faced with this choice, it's quite rational to
avoid looking for the neighbors.

This doesn't really apply to the self-replication wave, but it is an argument
against active SETI.

------
swamp40
I think the problem is that we are scouring the radio waves while every
_really_ advanced society uses quantum entanglement for communication.

------
TerraHertz
Same old invalid assumption error as is _always_ made, and which underlies
thinking the Fermi Paradox is a paradox. A mistake so universally made by
humans that it's probably an instinctive cognitive bias - assuming
'intelligent life' implies 'intelligent species' and nothing else.

The truth is, technology is incompatible with species. As soon as a race
becomes able to competently engineer genes (or whatever serves to encode their
form) suddenly there is no more 100% cohesive 'species', but also a number of
self-engineering unique entities. Who's interests typically conflict violently
with the remaining original species. When one or more of these entities
survive they eventually become space faring individuals, wholly transcended
from their original species-derived intellectual nature and physical form. Of
course there are many pitfalls, and in some cases the outcome is 'everyone
dies'. But in NO case, can a technology wielding species ever do so for more
than a very brief period.

Space is full of intelligent life. All of whom are immortal, universe-roaming
individuals, none of whom have any kind of species-survival related
instinctive thought habits. There are no interstellar empires, no expand and
conquer instinct-driven behavioral rubbish. Only Travelers.

And most certainly, from moral principles deriving from the fundamental nature
of information, intelligence and fun, NO passing of significant information to
any instances of embryonic planet-borne life forms. No more than you'd
consider poking a fetus with a pointy stick. Horrible idea, nothing useful
could come of such actions.

Btw, the 'Grays' are open-source gene-ware, manufactured intelligent semi-
independent remote manipulator/observer peripheral units of visiting
Travelers. They are not 'species', rather a range of production models. When
they do interact with humans they lie about their nature and origin, since
humans are not supposed to be handed the truth. It would interfere with
humans' natural progression towards transcendence (or self annihilation.) The
only thing that matters is that the human 'story' remains uninfluenced by
exposure to external truth. But there's nothing wrong with you working it out
for yourselves.

Here's a little story:
[http://everist.org/texts/Fermis_Urbex_Paradox.htm](http://everist.org/texts/Fermis_Urbex_Paradox.htm)

------
hcarvalhoalves
I find the definition of intelligent life, specially as given by astronomers,
amusing. Looking for a second carbon-based lifeform, in a planet identical to
Earth, beeping out on the radio spectrum, in the same time frame as us? How
cute.

Meanwhile, we miss a bigger definition of life right under our noses.
Unfortunately reductionism is ingrained in science.

~~~
tree_of_item
Well, don't keep us in suspense. What definition would you use?

~~~
hcarvalhoalves
Certainly one that doesn't put lifeforms in a lifeless universe like actors in
a stage.

Astronomers should be the first to propose that, since they know how the
carbon molecules in them can be traced back to a nebula, just like
mitochondria can be traced back to a life form from Earth's early days. The
parallel is obvious to me.

The Gaya hypothesis, for instance, gives a saner view of how the biota and
biome are the same thing, and still, gets dismissed as New Age stuff. And
that's talking just about Earth, mind you. Expand the theory to the entire
Universe and you will be ridiculed by Dawkins himself, even though this
"hunch" is persistent.

Many past thinkers had a gut feeling about this, with less data than we have
today. Read about "Anatta" (Buddha's concept of "not self"). Or read about
"Tao" (Lao Zi's concept that has surprisingly parallel to what we now call
"Big Bang" and how nature works out of pure probability). This is all
surprisingly insightful knowledge, made out of pure intuition.

But because post-illuminism abolished holism, we end up looking for analogous
of humans with radio antennas, Dyson spheres, among other increasingly
ridiculous things, and _that_ gets called science. Meanwhile, ideas like
Universal Darwinism are ignored.

Well, that's why I find that amusing.

------
bane
We're actually not even clear on what conditions are necessary to generate
intelligence capable of interstellar travel (or even interstellar
communication)...humans aren't even really capable of it.

There might be billions of rockballs in the galaxy with life and intelligence
at some level, maybe even up to the level of say a dolphin or a dog or even a
chimpanzee on the high end. This might be the status today, or for the last
hundred million years and the next hundred million. But those planets (and
other orbs of lifebearing rock) aren't going to be sending spaceships our way
anytime soon.

But let's suppose there's a million space capable intelligences spread out
equally in the Milky-Way...what's the probability of them giving our
particular system any interest whatsoever? The Drake equation is a fine
estimate for the number of civilizations, but not for the probability that
they'll contact us.

------
sampo
So we are getting close to the possibility of detecting (with some kind of
specrometry) an exoplanet with an atmosphere with a chemical composition that
is far from thermodynamical equilibrium.

It would be a thrilling feeling to know that there, maybe 20 or 100 light-
years away, is such a planet, hosting at least microbial or algal life.

~~~
samatman
I'm not convinced we know enough to do this. A planet in the right temperature
with a high-oxygen atmosphere might just be low-carbon and high pH, such that
the entire surface is oxidized and glassy and the liquid water carries a pH in
the 12s.

What's great is, we're about to get a whole lot more data with which to do
astrochemistry.

------
ccera
Aside from the catchy title and the mention of recent planet-finding
successes, this article doesn't say anything that hasn't been said by
literally hundreds of other people. (And actually, I'd be amazed if this
author is the first to come up with the clever "When are..." formulation.)

------
snowwrestler
Spectrum is finite. We're using ours more efficiently now by chopping it up
into smaller and smaller sections of the Earth, and by digitally encoding,
compressing, and in some cases encrypting our signal.

As a result we're sending a lot less stray analog RF out into the universe.
And the stuff we are sending looks a lot more like noise.

------
derekp7
Nevermind life outside our planet, why isn't there other non-related life on
our planet (independant biogenesis)? From what I gather, evidence at the
molecular level (things like molecular chirality in various cellular
structures) point to all life being related.

~~~
killerswan
Probably: our relatives ate them all! There's basically no corner of our
planet, from the hottest volcanic ocean vent to the coldest ice at the poles,
to the highest clouds in the air, where our relatives don't live.

Of course, it has taken us about 1/4 the lifetime of the entire universe to
get this far, so YMMV. :D

~~~
derekp7
The reason I don't buy that line of reasoning is: The Lions eat the Gazelles,
yet there are still Gazelles out there. Also, Gazelles and Zebras share the
same land, and one hasn't starved the other of resources. And I don't think
that is is just because they came from the same single-celled ancestors that
make them able to share the same space. In the same way, I would expect other
independent biogenesis lifeforms to still be represented (or new ones popping
up periodically).

------
Gravityloss
If you were an ultra advanced entity capable of interstellar travel, what
would you do with earth? Or if there were many of you? Could you spend time
here without bothering the wildlife, like civilized tourists? :)

------
thirsteh
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPl10L40pBM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPl10L40pBM)

------
ExpiredLink
> Life seems to have been an easy chemistry experiment.

What an absurd idea!

