And that's not what life wants, the complete and utter ruination of the planet.
All living things must remain in balance, or equilibrium, it's known as homeostasis.
Your wrong, ecosystems are a product of evolution and are balanced for the most part. They are what guide adaptations, one of the principles of evolution.
It sounds like, from this article, that the universe is predisposed towards evolving life, just not merging it on planetary scales.
There's a reason why aliens haven’t visited Earth yet, say scientists
The Fermi paradox questions why aliens have never visited Earth despite the Universe being so old and so vast that races should have evolved interstellar travel and come calling by now.news.yahoo.com
According to a new hypothesis posed by Dr Wong and Dr Bartlett: “We propose a new resolution to the Fermi paradox: civilizations either collapse from burnout or redirect themselves to prioritizing homeostasis, a state where cosmic expansion is no longer a goal, making them difficult to detect remotely.
“Either outcome — homeostatic awakening or civilization collapse — would be consistent with the observed absence of (galactic-wide) civilizations.”
The pair argue that the general principles of life are universal and that although the emergence and evolution of life on other planets remains speculative, it may be inevitable.
Already disproven. There are known particles that travel faster than light.
In an infinite universe, nothing is impossible. That there is life on earth proves that life can exist. And life here has existed for a long time. Maybe life started here first. Maybe it started somewhere else after. And maybe meteors didn't hit the reset button in those other places like it did here.
You're talking about particle entanglement, or light pushed through cesium vapor. Neither is actually FTL travel because neither information nor anything with mass can travel FTL. There are no practicle applications.
If life, from simple singular cellular to complex organisms, can exist here on Earth in a variety of different environmental conditions, it is probable that life can exist elsewhere under similar conditions. Given the sheer size and age of the universe, is is quite probable that exolife exists somewhere.
This is true. However, logically speaking, we cannot say that life definitely exists elsewhere. The possibility that the earth is unique remains. If we do find life elsewhere we may than extrapolate that life may exist in many places.
No, we cannot. Neither can we say exolife does not exist elsewhere.
Given that life exists in many different places and environments on Earth, we can simply scale it up and say exolife probably exists in many places in the universe too. But not with absolute certainty-yet.
We agree, just looking at it from different direections.
What do you base that on? Considering the sheer distance between stars, finding exolife, nevermind actually contacting it, is a daunting task and limited by our current technology.
Numerical probability leads me to think we are not alone.
Pure conjecture. For all you know, there might have been an intelligent species which bombed themselves back the the proverbial stone age. Or maybe there were intelligent species that went extinct when their host star went nova., ect.. We can speculate all day. We can't even peer too deeply in our own galaxy, nevermind galaxies that are millions or billions of light years away.
Not yet anyway. But that's why we're searching.
Mere assumption. You cannot possibly know that with certainty.