Skip to main content

The Possibility of Life - Jaime Green ****

This is a book about extraterrestrial life, and it isn’t all science. For me, that’s what made it such a rivetingly good read, although (speaking as a former astrophysicist) I can’t imagine saying that about any other popular science subject. I’d be very dubious, for example, about a quantum physics primer that contained a detailed account of Ant-Man’s experiences in the Quantum Realm. That’s because quantum physics is real science, with real experimental results and real practical applications – and it doesn’t need a sci-fi take on it to bring it to life. Aliens aren’t like that.

Yes, I know there’s a well-established branch of science called astrobiology – I’ve even written a book about it. But astrobiology deals with the search for extraterrestrial life, not the nature of extraterrestrials themselves, about which there’s no data. Books like mine are interesting for people who want to know how real scientists think and work – how they decide what sort of evidence to look for, and then design instruments to do that – but they can be frustrating for readers who just want to know something about the aliens themselves. Jaime Green classifies my kind of ‘whether or not’ questions about aliens as ‘very boring’ – which I think is a little harsh, though I won’t dispute that the ‘what if’ questions she focuses on instead are by far the more interesting ones.

When I said the book ‘isn’t all science’, I was referring to the fact that it’s a roughly 50/50 mix between science fictional portrayals of aliens and ideas that various scientists – many of them interviewed by Green for this book – have about them. But even the latter tend to be more speculative than scientific in nature. The scientific method depends on consensus, and mature branches of science – such as quantum physics – are based on a very strong consensus. On the other hand, even the most basic questions about extraterrestrial life have no meaningful consensus at all. How likely is it, for example, that an intelligent alien would be roughly the same size and shape as a human being? Green quotes some scientists who say it’s pretty certain they would be, while others consider the idea ludicrously improbable.

With such a lack of consensus, the field is wide open for ‘what if’ type speculation – and that’s what this book is all about. What makes it such a fascinating and enjoyable read is that it’s all intelligent, well-informed speculation – and that applies just as much to the sci-fi scenarios that Green picks out as it does to the views of the scientists she speaks to. It’s also surprising just how many different topics there are to speculate about. The book’s half-dozen chapters progress from the nature of life and the kind of planets it might be found on, through the types of lifeforms that might exist and how they might display intelligence, to the possibilities of alien technology and language.

It’s fascinating to read a book that’s ostensibly on the same subject as one I wrote myself, yet actually has almost no overlap with it. Jaime Green’s book won’t tell you much about how astrobiologists set about searching for alien life, but unless you’re a particular kind of science nerd you’re probably not very interested in that anyway. What most people really want to know is what aliens might be like – and that’s something I’ve never seen discussed quite as brilliantly or entertainingly as here.

Hardback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Andrew May - Subscribe to a weekly digest of all our reviews and more for free here
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Introducing Artificial Intelligence – Henry Brighton & Howard Selina ****

It is almost impossible to rate these relentlessly hip books – they are pure marmite*. The huge  Introducing  … series (a vast range of books covering everything from Quantum Theory to Islam), previously known as …  for Beginners , puts across the message in a style that owes as much to Terry Gilliam and pop art as it does to popular science. Pretty well every page features large graphics with speech bubbles that are supposed to emphasise the point. Funnily,  Introducing Artificial Intelligence  is both a good and bad example of the series. Let’s get the bad bits out of the way first. The illustrators of these books are very variable, and I didn’t particularly like the pictures here. They did add something – the illustrations in these books always have a lot of information content, rather than being window dressing – but they seemed more detached from the text and rather lacking in the oomph the best versions have. The other real problem is that...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more