It should not be confused with a statement that they don’t or as purported evidence to that effect. There are some perhaps wild leaps of reason and fallacies of logic mixed in with sound scientific principles and logic. It’s just something to think about, and up to you to separate sound assumptions from the unsound, and of the unsound, up to you to decide which ones you agree or disagree with. One major assumption is that extra-terrestrials would be bound by at least similar laws of nature that we can generalise from observations here on earth, planets in our solar system, and the heavens in general. Instantaneous telepathic transportation, etc., are not considered (after all, when observed, UFOs don’t generally exhibit properties and abilities unreasonably beyond the scope of our earthly originated physical laws).

Some shapes and patterns are repeated in nature over and over at various scales. Some might call this one of the principles of fractal or chaos theory. Whatever. Take the shape of a tree, for example (looking at it in the wintertime for clarity). The way it’s branches "branch" out into smaller and more numerous branches. Ditto with it’s roots, which have a very different function but similar reasons for being (more surface area). Such a pattern looks the same no matter what scale you look at it. The same goes for the human circulatory system (or most general types of animal). Main arteries branch into smaller and more numerous ones, down to microscopic capillaries. River systems look the same (in reverse); tributaries join to form bigger tributaries, etc. Cracks and fissures in rocks look the same. Many human inventions are the same too. A computer software’s decision branching. A project schedule. An NBA playoff chart. Although it could be argued that the human inventions will naturally reflect human nature at some obvious or not so obvious level, all these examples are largely unrelated. River tributaries are caused for completely different reasons than the branches in software code. They might as well not reside on the same planet. In fact, other planets in our solar system have systems with the same patterns. The farthest super novae observable display similar attributes. One might then expand this concept and conclude that such a pattern is a universal feature.

Evolution on earth displays a similar pattern as well. A map of the emergence of species looks very similar to a tree branch. Of course, the larger branches, being farther in the past, are more fuzzy, but the later ones that are crystal clear are not, and still display the same pattern. The earlier branches may be inaccurate, but the concept is sound. In addition, few would disagree that evolution was "invented" to address cascading levels of limited resources. The universe as we currently understand it is finite--and even if it wasn’t, any particular region is (a planet, a galaxy, a cluster, etc.), and therefore has limited resources. Given that evolution displays the branching characteristics and addresses limited resources quite tidily, one might make the assumption it too is probably a feature of any system of life; i.e. a planet with life. And how would intelligent life come about without evolving? Surely molecules didn’t happen to coagulate in a primordial soup, and out walked an intelligent superbeing.

It is estimated that in Earth’s evolutionary history, species have died at an average rate of one per day since life first arose (which is estimated to have happened relatively shortly after the Earth formed). If mankind vanished from the Earth, it would be but a drop in a huge bucket of extinct species. Mankind is so far the Earth’s best chance at originating or recognising extra-terrestrial contact. Sure, dolphins may be pretty smart, but they possess no technology as we would call it (nor do they need it in their consistent environment), and they also probably wouldn’t recognise or even care about a UFO if they bumped right into it, as long as it didn’t bother them. At this point one must ask why man even has intelligence in the first place--intelligence of a nature that allows us to build spacecraft capable of reaching other planets. Few would argue that natural selection deemed intelligence a "good" attribute. Those who could think their way out of danger or into food lived longer and propagated their attributes more than the non-intelligent. Modifying the environment became one of the trademarks of intelligence; building huts, tools, weapons, etc. Eventually we are where we are today. By now, much of our intelligence is put to use that has little to do with it’s original intention of evolutionary survival. The Coca-Cola polar bear computer-animated commercial is a marvel of technology and human intelligence, but it probably doesn’t contribute to the survival of the species.

To say that mankind is a successful species is just pretentious and has no basis in fact. What is successful? A lot of money? No, a successful species generally recognised as one that lives the longest. The population count at any moment has little to do with overall success. Homo Sapiens has been on this planet a mere blink of an eye compared to the long and glorious rule of many dinosaur species.

How long will we survive as a species? It is quite hard to imagine cockroaches extinguishing themselves ever, much less very quickly. Yet it is easy to envision total world-wide human annihilation first thing tomorrow morning as leader’s fingers all over the world punch little red buttons. Man carries the legacy of his evolutionary past, i.e. instincts of survival that breed emotions such as fear, anger, suspicion, etc. In addition, evolution’s first crack at man had no intention of him/her living in such close proximity and freedom of travel. A virus that might otherwise hurt a species very badly could render ours quite dead. The lifespan of our species in it’s technological age might very well be an infinitesimal, unrecognisable, instantaneous flash in the proverbial pan, even if it comes centuries or thousands of years from now. As one conclusion, by the time an alien race learns of our existence, we will probably have been long dead by the time they get here (assuming that news of our existence as well as their investigative party cannot travel faster than the speed of light). Of course, maybe they just happened to stumble upon us during our species lifetime, or saw potential for life and stuck around to watch.

Other systems of intelligent life might have similar fates as ours. After all, they most likely did evolve from something more primitive. It is doubtful a perfectly logical, sane, gentile, harmonious race spontaneously emerges from the mix that has no emotions of fear, anger, suspicion, etc., subsequently survives predation, and goes on to develop technology. If they are so docile, why would they even feel the urge to develop technology in the first place? Perhaps they learned to leave their primitive instincts behind. Maybe they physically remove old, primitive parts of their own "brain," or maybe they evolved past it. But that still begs the question; why would they then want to investigate other worlds? Is simple and innocent curiosity enough to devote major resources to space flight? Man is curious by nature, but hardly innocently so, and by "innocent" I mean the conscious or unconscious intent is simply knowledge, without a hint of a desire to perpetuate the life of the species or the individual. Curious children are not innocent because they are simply learning about their own abilities and their environment, which make them better able as adults to survive. Sure, there are undoubtedly innocently curious humans, but I can’t imagine the President stating tomorrow that "we are establishing a flat tax of 80% to solely fund planetary exploration; all social programs will be cut" without a pretty darn good reason other than just "because we’re curious." Perhaps "because a gigantic asteroid is on it’s way" would be sufficient.

(The last paragraph is also along the lines of my argument that it would be perfectly human to fear UFOs and react to aliens with hostility, perfectly...whatever...for them to be hostile as well, and perfectly normal to expect the same from each other; we both probably evolved in a world that taught us that embracing a strange new species with open arms is probably not conducive to survival.)

Since we are doubtful about our own species survival, or can’t prove our success yet, we have no basis to assume the success of other forms of intelligent life. If the best we can assume is that any intelligent species’ lifespan is/was a flash in the pan, then the overlap of such species even numbering in the billions might be highly unlikely.

Wishing for or fearing in the existence of UFOs and/or extra terrestrial intelligent life is perfectly humanly normal, but has little to do with whether they exist or not.

J. Rother Collier