We make a mistake by assuming that life forms would likely be at the same scale as us. Larger planets would likely develop life forms appropriate for those planets instead of appropriate for ours.
Uh… being smaller or larger does not really change the laws of physics… if the gravity is too high, no fuel has enough energy density to escape the gravity of the celestial body.
If you need 150kg of fuel to get 100kg worth of matter to escape velocity it does not matter how much fuel you have. It will not ever be enough to leave.
I love how Earthlings assume that all of the variables on other planets would be exactly the same as they are on Earth, leading them to believe they have any idea about what other species might be dealing with on other planets.
It’s cute.
You do know that they couldn’t even estimate the functionality of the heat shield of the spacecraft that just splashed down on our own planet? That they had to literally increase the angle of entry because they couldn’t accurately predict the behavior of a craft on a planet that they’ve been studying for all of recorded time?
Are the laws of physics actually a thing? Clearly. But here’s the thing: The kinds of organisms that might exist on such an object could be absolutely massive compared to us. And for us to assume that we would have an understanding of the laws of physics that would be anywhere near as great as animals that might have brains exponentially larger than ours? And hell, the energy that might be available in such environments? We don’t know what’s in space around these objects, or whether there are any kinds of characteristics which would make unconventional (to us) means feasible to get off of the planet.
For all we know, they could be scientifically a billion years ahead of us and might be able to manipulate time or matter in ways we couldn’t conceive. It hasn’t even been 100 years since humanity learned to harness nuclear power.
No, there are too many variables. Life on such planets could evolve in countless different ways, and the different characteristics of the environment, and the resources on and around the planet provide too many options for us to be wrong.
And before you respond that I am arguing against science, no, it’s actually your opinion that is arguing against science. History is filled with organisms finding unusual solutions for problems that were long deemed impossible to solve. And when people said “Well, I don’t think we have enough knowledge to make such a firm claim,” history is also full of people like you who insisted that there was no way. And history is full of people who walked into the room, picked up the rules as they wrre known to that point, and basically flipped over the game board.
You are literally the person arguing that a scientific process is impossible given environmental variables because they don’t match the laws of physics.
But you don’t understand that you are arguing not for the infallibility of those laws, but for the infallibility of our understanding:
of the laws as we understand them
of the chemical makeup and geography and resources of the planet
And all of that is not even to mention that the estimates of whether the planet itself was capable of supporting life have literally changed relatively recently because humanity developed a better understanding of science.
If I had a nickel for every time someone proudly claimed something to be impossible because it hadn’t scientifically been done yet I would be richer than Elon Musk.
Unlikely? Well, look. I’m not willing to make statements about humans’ accuracy when studying objects that far away. I will acknowledge that it’s not something that would be easy for us to accomplish given our current knowledge, but my humility can acknowledge that that seems to say more about US on this planet than it says about any kind of organism that may have developed on such a planet.
You’re treating scientific uncertainty as if it means “anything is possible.” It doesn’t.
We don’t assume variables on other planets match Earth.
Astrobiology, planetary science, and exoplanet studies are built on the opposite assumption: that most planets don’t resemble Earth. When scientists estimate what life or civilizations could be like elsewhere, they work from measurable constraints (gravity, density, stellar flux, atmospheric composition), not wishful thinking.
For example, we know that:
A planet with 3× Earth’s gravity constrains organism size, structural strength, locomotion, and escape velocity.
A planet with a dense hydrogen atmosphere changes chemistry and energy availability.
A star’s light spectrum dictates photosynthetic possibilities.
These aren’t guesses. They follow from basic physics and chemistry, which apply everywhere.
“They misestimated a heat shield” ≠ “we don’t understand planetary physics.”
Engineering uncertainty in a single atmospheric re-entry doesn’t invalidate the underlying physics. Weather variation, material tolerance margins, and modeling limits don’t erase Newtonian mechanics or thermodynamics. If your argument were valid, airplanes would disprove gravity because turbulence is hard to predict.
Scientific uncertainty does not mean lawlessness.
An organism the size of a mountain on a 10g world can’t simply evolve because “maybe their brains are bigger.” Biology cannot override:
stress limits of matter
metabolic scaling laws
biomechanics
gravity
energy density limits
An advanced species might innovate, but it doesn’t get to ignore basic constraints. A billion-year-old civilization would know more than we do, but they still can’t accelerate to escape velocity without energy, or support infinite mass with finite-strength materials.
Knowledge does not nullify physics.
For all we know, they could be scientifically a billion years ahead of us and might be able to manipulate time or matter in ways we couldn’t conceive
This is pretty much just “We can’t rule out magic, therefore you’re wrong. Science can only operate on what’s known to be possible or what follows from tested theories. Speculating about physics-breaking abilities isn’t meaningful without evidence; it’s equivalent to saying “you can’t disprove dragons.”
When scientists say “a civilization on a super-Earth would struggle to reach orbit,” they base it on:
the planet’s mass and radius → calculates escape velocity
atmospheric density
gravitational load on structures
realistic energy sources
We don’t need to know the exact geology to know that a planet of a given mass requires a minimum amount of energy to launch mass into space. That’s just conservation of energy.
Saying “we don’t know everything” is true.
Saying “therefore any extreme scenario is viable” is not.
Also, of all the millions of species that have evolved on Earth, only one has developed civilisation. We’re an anomaly, not an inevitability. Other planets could be teeming with life, but it’s happy to just chill in the forest/ocean/wherever.
Humanity believes that it has the ability to estimate the intelligence of other animals.
And the way that it does so is always by measuring how well the other species imitate human behaviors.
It doesn’t take into account whether those other animals care to imitate human behavior or whether they know they’re imitating human behavior or whether they want to imitate human behavior. And it most certainly doesn’t understand how well those other animals’ intelligence applies within their own niches. You can’t test animals’ intelligence by testing how closely they behave to human beings when operating mimicking human niches and human goals.
Speaking as someone who’s autistic, I’ve done the research on that. In autistic people, there seem to be a higher number of certain specific neanderthal genes. I’m also very gifted, and work in STEM.
Neurotypical human beings are BLOODY TERRIBLE at recognizing any type of intelligence that is different than neurotypical human beings. It is ASTOUNDING how bad they are at it.
Neurotypical people can’t even recognize the intelligence of autistic people. And good luck determining our goals. Other people think I am stupid when they first interact with me, but that couldn’t be farther from the truth. I’ll just say that revealing too much here would reveal my identity, and I’m not going to do that, but I have a list of accomplishments that I literally couldn’t imagine most neurotypical people accomplishing, and I know many other autistic people who are very intelligent. Does this discount neurotypical intelligence? No, not in the least, and it’s not intended to. But it does demonstrate that Fermi’s Law could be nothing more than humanity’s inability to identify other forms of intelligence. And hell, whether you even consider autistic people to be a different kind of intelligence, that’s not even referencing animals.
What neurotypical humanity HAS developed is not the only civilization, but the only widespread manipulation of the environment in ways that significantly distorted the environment in such a way that their presence was undeniable long after an absence. That’s not the same thing.
We make a mistake by assuming that life forms would likely be at the same scale as us. Larger planets would likely develop life forms appropriate for those planets instead of appropriate for ours.
Uh… being smaller or larger does not really change the laws of physics… if the gravity is too high, no fuel has enough energy density to escape the gravity of the celestial body.
If you need 150kg of fuel to get 100kg worth of matter to escape velocity it does not matter how much fuel you have. It will not ever be enough to leave.
I love how Earthlings assume that all of the variables on other planets would be exactly the same as they are on Earth, leading them to believe they have any idea about what other species might be dealing with on other planets.
It’s cute.
You do know that they couldn’t even estimate the functionality of the heat shield of the spacecraft that just splashed down on our own planet? That they had to literally increase the angle of entry because they couldn’t accurately predict the behavior of a craft on a planet that they’ve been studying for all of recorded time?
Are the laws of physics actually a thing? Clearly. But here’s the thing: The kinds of organisms that might exist on such an object could be absolutely massive compared to us. And for us to assume that we would have an understanding of the laws of physics that would be anywhere near as great as animals that might have brains exponentially larger than ours? And hell, the energy that might be available in such environments? We don’t know what’s in space around these objects, or whether there are any kinds of characteristics which would make unconventional (to us) means feasible to get off of the planet.
For all we know, they could be scientifically a billion years ahead of us and might be able to manipulate time or matter in ways we couldn’t conceive. It hasn’t even been 100 years since humanity learned to harness nuclear power.
No, there are too many variables. Life on such planets could evolve in countless different ways, and the different characteristics of the environment, and the resources on and around the planet provide too many options for us to be wrong.
And before you respond that I am arguing against science, no, it’s actually your opinion that is arguing against science. History is filled with organisms finding unusual solutions for problems that were long deemed impossible to solve. And when people said “Well, I don’t think we have enough knowledge to make such a firm claim,” history is also full of people like you who insisted that there was no way. And history is full of people who walked into the room, picked up the rules as they wrre known to that point, and basically flipped over the game board.
You are literally the person arguing that a scientific process is impossible given environmental variables because they don’t match the laws of physics.
But you don’t understand that you are arguing not for the infallibility of those laws, but for the infallibility of our understanding:
of the laws as we understand them
of the chemical makeup and geography and resources of the planet
And all of that is not even to mention that the estimates of whether the planet itself was capable of supporting life have literally changed relatively recently because humanity developed a better understanding of science.
If I had a nickel for every time someone proudly claimed something to be impossible because it hadn’t scientifically been done yet I would be richer than Elon Musk.
Unlikely? Well, look. I’m not willing to make statements about humans’ accuracy when studying objects that far away. I will acknowledge that it’s not something that would be easy for us to accomplish given our current knowledge, but my humility can acknowledge that that seems to say more about US on this planet than it says about any kind of organism that may have developed on such a planet.
You’re treating scientific uncertainty as if it means “anything is possible.” It doesn’t.
We don’t assume variables on other planets match Earth. Astrobiology, planetary science, and exoplanet studies are built on the opposite assumption: that most planets don’t resemble Earth. When scientists estimate what life or civilizations could be like elsewhere, they work from measurable constraints (gravity, density, stellar flux, atmospheric composition), not wishful thinking. For example, we know that: A planet with 3× Earth’s gravity constrains organism size, structural strength, locomotion, and escape velocity. A planet with a dense hydrogen atmosphere changes chemistry and energy availability. A star’s light spectrum dictates photosynthetic possibilities. These aren’t guesses. They follow from basic physics and chemistry, which apply everywhere.
“They misestimated a heat shield” ≠ “we don’t understand planetary physics.” Engineering uncertainty in a single atmospheric re-entry doesn’t invalidate the underlying physics. Weather variation, material tolerance margins, and modeling limits don’t erase Newtonian mechanics or thermodynamics. If your argument were valid, airplanes would disprove gravity because turbulence is hard to predict. Scientific uncertainty does not mean lawlessness.
An organism the size of a mountain on a 10g world can’t simply evolve because “maybe their brains are bigger.” Biology cannot override: stress limits of matter metabolic scaling laws biomechanics gravity energy density limits An advanced species might innovate, but it doesn’t get to ignore basic constraints. A billion-year-old civilization would know more than we do, but they still can’t accelerate to escape velocity without energy, or support infinite mass with finite-strength materials. Knowledge does not nullify physics.
This is pretty much just “We can’t rule out magic, therefore you’re wrong. Science can only operate on what’s known to be possible or what follows from tested theories. Speculating about physics-breaking abilities isn’t meaningful without evidence; it’s equivalent to saying “you can’t disprove dragons.”
When scientists say “a civilization on a super-Earth would struggle to reach orbit,” they base it on: the planet’s mass and radius → calculates escape velocity atmospheric density gravitational load on structures realistic energy sources We don’t need to know the exact geology to know that a planet of a given mass requires a minimum amount of energy to launch mass into space. That’s just conservation of energy.
Saying “we don’t know everything” is true. Saying “therefore any extreme scenario is viable” is not.
Most of the life we see on Earth isn’t even our size!
Life on earth scales from microscopic bacteria all the way up funguses that have an underground network covering thousands of acres.
The chances of us finding life on another planet is pretty slim, the chance of that life looking like us is astronomically miniscule.
Also, of all the millions of species that have evolved on Earth, only one has developed civilisation. We’re an anomaly, not an inevitability. Other planets could be teeming with life, but it’s happy to just chill in the forest/ocean/wherever.
That’s just blatantly incorrect.
Humanity believes that it has the ability to estimate the intelligence of other animals.
And the way that it does so is always by measuring how well the other species imitate human behaviors.
It doesn’t take into account whether those other animals care to imitate human behavior or whether they know they’re imitating human behavior or whether they want to imitate human behavior. And it most certainly doesn’t understand how well those other animals’ intelligence applies within their own niches. You can’t test animals’ intelligence by testing how closely they behave to human beings when operating mimicking human niches and human goals.
Speaking as someone who’s autistic, I’ve done the research on that. In autistic people, there seem to be a higher number of certain specific neanderthal genes. I’m also very gifted, and work in STEM.
Neurotypical human beings are BLOODY TERRIBLE at recognizing any type of intelligence that is different than neurotypical human beings. It is ASTOUNDING how bad they are at it.
Neurotypical people can’t even recognize the intelligence of autistic people. And good luck determining our goals. Other people think I am stupid when they first interact with me, but that couldn’t be farther from the truth. I’ll just say that revealing too much here would reveal my identity, and I’m not going to do that, but I have a list of accomplishments that I literally couldn’t imagine most neurotypical people accomplishing, and I know many other autistic people who are very intelligent. Does this discount neurotypical intelligence? No, not in the least, and it’s not intended to. But it does demonstrate that Fermi’s Law could be nothing more than humanity’s inability to identify other forms of intelligence. And hell, whether you even consider autistic people to be a different kind of intelligence, that’s not even referencing animals.
What neurotypical humanity HAS developed is not the only civilization, but the only widespread manipulation of the environment in ways that significantly distorted the environment in such a way that their presence was undeniable long after an absence. That’s not the same thing.
Damn. As if the atmosphere wasn’t enough of a hurdle already, they gots dumpys too