These excellent scientific reports from Mister Derhexerus !
- Distinguished Mister Derhexerus,
It is a delight to read these excellent scientific reports, copied from Daily Galaxy or from other sources, which You have the kindness of sending to some of the various Internet groups that are strongly interested in matters of what might be classically termed as Philosophy of Nature.
In our case, these reports are mainly received through the Science Fiction Classics Yahoo Group, regularly sent to our electronic post address in the mailing list of that group. They were also received through the Hard Science Fiction Yahoo Group, being a member of both, but because each issue of the reports is identical to the two groups, it has been chosen to keep the mailing subscription only to the Science Fiction Classics, while continuing membership in the Hard Science Fiction as reading through Web interface.
You are, Sir, without any doubt the best contributor to both groups. And the two are in themselves of surprisingly high quality. In spite of being nothing less than about ten million Yahoo Groups in existence, it is very difficult to find active and interesting ones. Sadly, the vast majority of them are abandoned, or are rife with spam, or have a ridiculously tiny number or members, who keep a very low activity or nothing at all. The two groups mentioned are the exception rather than the rule. It is a privilege to be member of them.
Your latest report confirms (or at least, it shows that the idea has also been thought by other intelligent minds), what has been suspected for a long time by this Your devoted reader. Namely, that the Fermi Paradox can be perfectly explained if we accept that the complex Chemistry of Life cannot appear in a very young Universe where light chemical elements still predominate. It needs the formation of heavier elements inside stars, the end of such stars, and then a more or less suitable environment in another stellar system, possibly with planets.
That is not necessarily a chauvinistic or provincian narrow minded view, biased by influence of what is known of the appearance of life in Planet Earth. Because life must not be assumed to have followed in other parts of the Universe the conditions that it has encountered in Earth. It must not even be assumed for life to be based on the chemistry of carbon. Other chemical elements have valences as well, and certainly the range of temperature, light, gravity, nutrients, or other environmental conditions, may be much greater than what we can possibly imagine.
It means that life in the Universe is not at all a common phenomenon. It very probably exists, but due to a different origin and evolution, it is not even by far comparable to anything that is known in Earth. The notion of "little green men with antennae in their heads" is of course ridiculous anthropocentrism. It is dubious if we could even recognise as a living being something that initially may appear to us as a non-living physical or chemical phenomenon. Though of course, it can be argued that "non-life" and "life" are in reality two extremes of a sequence in a natural continuum, without a sharply defined boundary between them.
Please, Sir, continue sending these magnificent reports. The author of this letter is at Your disposal, if You think that some form of scientific collaboration might be possible. It would be particularly important to know if other active and interesting Internet groups exist, beside the two excellent Yahoo ones already mentioned. A Confederate Salute.
4th February 2013
P. A. Stonemann