Sunday/Universe

Fewer than 600 of the nearly 108 billion people who’ve existed on this planet have seen it from orbit. That rare experience, along with their advanced science degrees, makes astronauts seem uniquely qualified to answer the question: Are we alone in the universe?
Several of them sat at a small conference table in Los Angeles, along with filmmaker Darren Aronofsky, at an event for the series One Strange Rock, which debuts Monday on National Geographic.The film is no David Attenborough stroll through nature. Instead, Aronofsky (of Mother! and Black Swan fame) mainlines wonder, juxtaposing intimate images from Earth with sweeping shots from the International Space Station.
The theme is clear: Life on Earth is miraculous. Out of a nearly infinite combination of possibilities, the conditions were right for single-celled organisms to rise from inorganic material, which evolved sheltered by Earth's magnetic field and ozone, with a bounty of oxygen and water to support them.


"You look at all these systems … and it’s amazing all the things that have to come together to make this grand reality happen," Aronofsky said.

So, having seen the blue marble of Earth from space, do astronauts think there's life on other planets?

It's complicated.
The reason alien life seems likely is the same reason it's so hard to find. The universe is big. So freaking big.

"We've basically proven that every star has planets," said Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield, who has spent 4,000 hours in space. "Then you start doing the math."

The math isn't easy. How many stars are in the universe? Well, that depends on the size of the universe. We're able to observe the cosmic microwave background (CMB), radiation formed around 400,000 years after the Big Bang. It tells us the observable universe goes back around 14 billion years. But there could be something beyond the CMB, or even other universes contained in a massive "multiverse."

Within the constraints of the observable universe, there could be 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (or septillion) stars, according to astronomer David Kornreich. (He conceded to Space.com that the number could be a gross underestimate.)
If every one of those stars has at least one planet, then, well, it seems inconceivable that life wouldn't exist elsewhere.
(from Mashable)

the series and life's lottery

Watched the game last night 'til the 6th. I was astounded to hear the umpires' union had negotiated a deal that forbids umpires from working consecutive series. Regardless of how good an umpire is, he cannot be brought back for the series next year.

These men are clearly Obama voters. Spreading the wealth. Not a surprise the umpiring has been the story of the series for the first time ever. There is a terrible, irrational quality in the thinking of these people; they believe in "life's lottery". It implies that all life is random; places, people and events can be exchanged. Likely this comes from reading a course syllabus on introductory science. Had they read a bit further they would start talking about Heisenberg.

Certainly there are biases in life. There is a wonderful line about George Bush "who was born on third base and thought he hit a triple." But distinctions among people are harder to assess than that. Pujols has certain qualities of vision, coordination and power that differentiate him from me; that differentiate him from the leadoff hitter and the pitcher, too. I would never be able to compete with Jorden or Bettis or Crosby, regardless of my work ethic. Nor could I displace Steven Hawkings, or even hold his attention for a minute.

While I recognize these biases I do not recognize them as unfair. I would love to be a great athlete with lots of money and adoring fans but I do not feel that the fact that I am not is unfair. Nor do I think wealth is unfair. Wealth is one of the truly fair distinctions, differences, in life; somebody earned it. Crosby, Jordan, Sandy Koufax-none of those guys earned their distinctions although they certainly worked harder than any politician to develop them. (Remember, Larry Bird wasn't his high school team's best player, Jean Auel was not her writing group's best writer nor was Turow). Giving a lousy umpire his chance is unfair, unfair to the better umpire who is being passed over, unfair to the hitter and the pitcher who have to accommodate to his erratic calls, unfair to the third baseman who must tolerate his injustices, unfair to the fan who must put the game in the context of his errors and unfair to the game which makes demands on everyone else.

There is no error for the umpire.