>>11126183>>11125429>You still cannot claim [intelligent life is very rare, and that humans might be the only intelligent life in the universe].Just as you cannot claim that it isn't the case. Of the planets we know of, only one is known to support life as we know it - or indeed any life at all. Of the life we know of, out of 1.3 million species, only one has what we can call intelligence, and has attained extra-planetary capabilities. These capabilities are currently extremely limited.
This is what we have observed.
We cannot base fact on such a limited sample, but we ALSO cannot overlook the possibility that it is true. It's not a coin-toss, it a roll of the dice. An unknown number of dice, each with an unknown number of sides, when we don't even know what we're rolling for.
The existence of extraterrestrial life demands that, because it exists here, it MUST exist elsewhere. We have not seen this. Because we have not seen it, we must conclude one of several things: it is rare, it is hidden (or otherwise undetected), it doesn't exist (yet), or it has stopped existing. We have no idea which is the case, but is has lead to our seeing an absence of other life across all channels. Again, this is not enough to demand that Earth is the only intelligent life in existence, but going from what we know, it is plenty to suggest that it is, if nothing else, rare.
>Planets with large moons are likely relatively common, as with all of earth's qualities when you have 10^24 planets.Except we have no idea if this is true, nor do we have any data to support this. In our galaxy, Kepler claims 40 billion earth-sized planets, orbiting the habitable zone, out of a total of 100 billion. This is where that 40 billion comes from: not you, but an actual study of our galaxy. The important part is that we have no idea if those planets could support life in any capacity. At all. Not the 40 billion, the 11 billion orbiting sun-like stars, nor any of the 10^24 universal possibilities.
