<blockquote>
  <p>What is the probability of we are the first ever intelligent life developed all over the universe ?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Thinking on this varies over time and, in view of the subject, and sometimes because of entirely non-scientific thinking.</p>

<p>My understanding is that we think life (e.g. microorganisms) ought to be pretty common, and intelligent life fairly common.</p>

<p>There is a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy" rel="nofollow noreferrer">school of thought</a> that, including dolphins, there's only one intelligent life form on Earth.  YMMV.</p>

<p>There's a good discussion on this subject on the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAoEnV3Zt_Q" rel="nofollow noreferrer">PBS Space Time</a> channel on YouTube.  They had some related discussions <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H55wybU3rI" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttwl_zH_DZ8" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>.</p>

<p>I think overall there is a general view that we expect there to be other intelligent life and (relatively speaking) lots of it.  The questions of why we can't detect it or it doesn't seem interested in us if such life exists are dealt with to some extent in those PBS Space Time videos.  I'd describe the whole problem as an open one at this stage.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Everything starts somewhere, Is there any probability that we are the beginners to be part of intelligent life all over universe?!</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There is a probability we're the first, a probability we're the last, a probability we're the insert-any-number.</p>

<p>I think the general scientific view at the moment is that it would be surprising if we were the first intelligent civilization in the galaxy, let alone the entire universe.  But that's not to say we might not be the only intelligent civilization, just to say that there's always a possibility.  From a scientific point of view there's no reason (at present) to suppose we're unique or the first.</p>

<p>There's not much to say beyond speculation and back-of-the-envelope calculations at present.  And those calculations change wildly depending on who you ask.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-05T12:12:00.357Z
There's not even any definition of what intelligence or life is. It's just a introspective "we know it when we see it" geocentric definition. Considering that your average protein consists of 300 out of 20 amino acids, there are many more possible combinations of proteins than there are elementary particles in the visible universe. That tells me that we are unique. We know from pure mathematics that there never has and never will exist a thing like chlorophyll anywhere in the universe but only here.
LocalFluff
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-05T12:23:29.550Z
There's absolutely no reason to say that nothing like chlorophyll will ever exist anywhere but here.  Something like chlorophyll almost certainly will exist somewhere - it's almost inconceivable that life could exist without something that does this function.
StephenG - Help Ukraine
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-05T15:30:23.230Z
The visible universe is way too small and short lived to ever allow for two proteins to occur independently. Just do the math, 20^300 is the number of amino acid combinations for an average protein. And there are about 400 amino acids that could have been used, life on Earth just never had a chance to try out 380 of them, and the longest protein known is 30,000 amino acids long. Evolution has no roll to play in causing some kind of conformation since it cannot select from that which never exists. Every protein on Earth is unique, that is mathematically proven without question.
LocalFluff
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-05T18:39:27.530Z
Opinion and speculation I fear.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-05T19:12:52.720Z
@localfluff.  You're argument seems to be that the exact substance Chlorophyll cannot exist, but you didn't specify only Chlorophyll, you said like Chlorophyll.  Chlorophyll-like means performing a similar function, an absolutely necessary function for life.  Ergo something like Chlorophyll is almost certain to exist, which is what I said.  That's the difference between your statement and mine.
StephenG - Help Ukraine
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-05T10:25:14.157Z
2017-02-05T10:25:14.157Z
StephenG - Help Ukraine
<p>We know that intelligent life exists on one planet. We do not fully understand the processes by which life (a) starts and (b) becomes intelligent.</p>

<p>Therefore, the probability of these things happening elsewhere ranges from 1 to as close-to-zero as needs to be to ensure we are the first and perhaps only intelligent life in the universe.</p>

<p>Therefore the answer to your question ranges anywhere from zero to one.</p>

<p>A more sensible, informed calculation could arise if we ever create life in the lab or if life with an independent genesis is found elsewhere (in the solar system or beyond).</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-05T21:27:26.260Z
We experience intelligence as a subjective phenomena which is beyond science, which cannot be measured objectively. This problem is even much harder than biogenesis and evolution. No one has any clue at all as to how to make any progress on this ancient mystery. Quantum biology and the suggestion that subjectivity has to do with similarly unobservable quantum entanglement is the best idea I've heard, see Sir Roger Penrose. But that's just a pretty loose idea. 0<p<=1 is a safe bet anyway.
LocalFluff
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-05T18:46:28.587Z
2017-02-05T18:46:28.587Z
ProfRob
<p>What is the probability that we are the first ever intelligent life developed all over the universe?</p>

<p>Everything starts somewhere, Is there any probability that we are the beginners to be part of intelligent life all over universe?!</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-05T12:11:09.330Z
The universe is a very big place and for now, we have no good way of knowing how common life is on other planets.    We don't know if it's 1 in a thousand, 1 in a million or one in a trillion, for each of a few steps along the path from early life to intelligence.    The math for now is unanswerable.    It can't even be estimated in a meaningful way how common intelligent life might be, so, being so uncertain, answers are likely to be too open for opinion or guessing, so this question likely gets closed.   Also, StephenG's answer is very good.
userLTK
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-06T12:48:04.153Z
Zero.  We aren't intelligent.    /// hey, someone had to point that out.
Carl Witthoft
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-06T15:53:47.347Z
@CarlWitthoft at least for those of us who... oh never mind :)
uhoh
<life><early-universe>
What is the probability that we are the first ever intelligent life in the whole universe?
Archi
# What is the probability that we are the first ever intelligent life in the whole universe?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-02-05)

What is the probability that we are the first ever intelligent life developed all over the universe?

Everything starts somewhere, Is there any probability that we are the beginners to be part of intelligent life all over universe?!

**Tags:** life, early-universe
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: The universe is a very big place and for now, we have no good way of knowing how common life is on other planets.    We don't know if it's 1 in a thousand, 1 in a million or one in a trillion, for each of a few steps along the path from early life to intelligence.    The math for now is unanswerable.    It can't even be estimated in a meaningful way how common intelligent life might be, so, being so uncertain, answers are likely to be too open for opinion or guessing, so this question likely gets closed.   Also, StephenG's answer is very good.  
> **username_2**: Zero.  We aren't intelligent.    /// hey, someone had to point that out.  
> **username_3**: @CarlWitthoft at least for those of us who... oh never mind :)  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2017-02-05. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

> What is the probability of we are the first ever intelligent life developed all over the universe ?

Thinking on this varies over time and, in view of the subject, and sometimes because of entirely non-scientific thinking.

My understanding is that we think life (e.g. microorganisms) ought to be pretty common, and intelligent life fairly common.

There is a [school of thought](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy) that, including dolphins, there's only one intelligent life form on Earth. YMMV.

There's a good discussion on this subject on the [PBS Space Time](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAoEnV3Zt_Q) channel on YouTube. They had some related discussions [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H55wybU3rI) and [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttwl_zH_DZ8).

I think overall there is a general view that we expect there to be other intelligent life and (relatively speaking) lots of it. The questions of why we can't detect it or it doesn't seem interested in us if such life exists are dealt with to some extent in those PBS Space Time videos. I'd describe the whole problem as an open one at this stage.

> Everything starts somewhere, Is there any probability that we are the beginners to be part of intelligent life all over universe?!

There is a probability we're the first, a probability we're the last, a probability we're the insert-any-number.

I think the general scientific view at the moment is that it would be surprising if we were the first intelligent civilization in the galaxy, let alone the entire universe. But that's not to say we might not be the only intelligent civilization, just to say that there's always a possibility. From a scientific point of view there's no reason (at present) to suppose we're unique or the first.

There's not much to say beyond speculation and back-of-the-envelope calculations at present. And those calculations change wildly depending on who you ask.

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: There's not even any definition of what intelligence or life is. It's just a introspective "we know it when we see it" geocentric definition. Considering that your average protein consists of 300 out of 20 amino acids, there are many more possible combinations of proteins than there are elementary particles in the visible universe. That tells me that we are unique. We know from pure mathematics that there never has and never will exist a thing like chlorophyll anywhere in the universe but only here.  
> **username_4**: There's absolutely no reason to say that nothing like chlorophyll will ever exist anywhere but here.  Something like chlorophyll almost certainly will exist somewhere - it's almost inconceivable that life could exist without something that does this function.  
> **username_5**: The visible universe is way too small and short lived to ever allow for two proteins to occur independently. Just do the math, 20^300 is the number of amino acid combinations for an average protein. And there are about 400 amino acids that could have been used, life on Earth just never had a chance to try out 380 of them, and the longest protein known is 30,000 amino acids long. Evolution has no roll to play in causing some kind of conformation since it cannot select from that which never exists. Every protein on Earth is unique, that is mathematically proven without question.  
> **username_6**: Opinion and speculation I fear.  
> **username_4**: @localfluff.  You're argument seems to be that the exact substance Chlorophyll cannot exist, but you didn't specify only Chlorophyll, you said like Chlorophyll.  Chlorophyll-like means performing a similar function, an absolutely necessary function for life.  Ergo something like Chlorophyll is almost certain to exist, which is what I said.  That's the difference between your statement and mine.  

---

### Answer by username_6 on 2017-02-05. Score: 3

We know that intelligent life exists on one planet. We do not fully understand the processes by which life (a) starts and (b) becomes intelligent.

Therefore, the probability of these things happening elsewhere ranges from 1 to as close-to-zero as needs to be to ensure we are the first and perhaps only intelligent life in the universe.

Therefore the answer to your question ranges anywhere from zero to one.

A more sensible, informed calculation could arise if we ever create life in the lab or if life with an independent genesis is found elsewhere (in the solar system or beyond).

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: We experience intelligence as a subjective phenomena which is beyond science, which cannot be measured objectively. This problem is even much harder than biogenesis and evolution. No one has any clue at all as to how to make any progress on this ancient mystery. Quantum biology and the suggestion that subjectivity has to do with similarly unobservable quantum entanglement is the best idea I've heard, see Sir Roger Penrose. But that's just a pretty loose idea. 0<p<=1 is a safe bet anyway.  

---

