Space is big and there are a lot of planets, I get it.
The odds of life are 1/N. We don't know how big N is, but it might be much larger than the number of sub-atomic particles in the universe. Perhaps N is (10^100000)^10000000000.
I'm, of course, not arguing we should stop searching or having philosophical arguments. (Although, to whomever it may apply, we could stop down voting comments that make objectively true philosophical arguments like postingawayonhns.)
> we could stop down voting comments that make objectively true philosophical arguments like postingawayonhns
(postingawayonhns: "We can at least conclude complex life is exceedingly rare.")
I wouldn't have downvoted a comment like that (or the comment you made). In fact, there's a large part of me that grudgingly agrees with you both. It's sad to think about and worthy of discussion.
I did a quick search because the other part of me - the one that doesn't want to believe we are alone in the Universe - had to find... hope.
The article I linked wasn't just a reply to OP but it's something I, myself, found eye-opening. I wasn't aware about the 3D map and the limited number of stars we've reached at this point. Especially the expected number of star systems we're expected to reach in the next 5,000 years (it's quite low a figure).
It was disheartening but helped hammer home just how vast the Universe is. It also leaves the door open for the hopeful...
My reply was meant to help drive discussion forward. (Downvotes suck and can change the way a message is received).
The odds of life are 1/N. We don't know how big N is, but it might be much larger than the number of sub-atomic particles in the universe. Perhaps N is (10^100000)^10000000000.
I'm, of course, not arguing we should stop searching or having philosophical arguments. (Although, to whomever it may apply, we could stop down voting comments that make objectively true philosophical arguments like postingawayonhns.)