Alien Psychology

by Roderick R. MacDonald

  So our nerve cells are good for at least 120 years assuming they remain free from diseases such as CJD or poisoning from say organophosphorus insecticides. In most cases their death is due to lack of oxygen, for example, when the heart becomes diseased or part of the blood system in the brain haemorrhages. Or other tissues may fail, for example, if we develop severe and acute liver or kidney disease, the build up of toxins within the brain after about 7 days prevents the normal transmission of impulses across the synapses—again resulting in death. So most tissues in the body need to be functioning to allow the brain to carry out its job.

  So for people to live for thousands of years all major tissues would require some form of renewal to guard against accidental damage (e.g. the consumption of poisons knowingly or unknowingly) and disease. The problem lies in the replacement of the highly specialised cells that exist within all organs, including the brain. For example, I can't imagine a 4-foot long nerve cell that is in contact with hundreds of other nerve cells reproducing since it would need to de-differentiate before it could do so. Perhaps in the future, a few embryonic cells could be placed at strategic points within all major tissues and be maintained in a state of suspended animation. When required the correct genes could then be activated in sequence to provide the appropriate mature replacement cells.

  To avoid rejection, the embryonic cells would need to be the individuals and could be removed from the fertilised embryo at a very early stage and then duplicated in tissue culture, stored and re-inserted around the body after birth.

  If the person then suffered cellular damage for whatever reason, the appropriate chemical mediators could be given to stimulate the development of the single specific cell type.

  It is possible to further speculate that if the immature, embryonic cells were attached to a small silicon chip by nanotechnology prior to injection, then release from stasis could be by achieved in a number of ways including stimulation by electromagnetic radiation of an appropriate wavelength.

  * * *

  Appendix

  Life in Space

  Twenty years ago, discussing the existence of other planets in the galaxy was a matter of sheer speculation. While we thought our solar system probably wasn't unique, trying to show that other stars had planetary systems was exceptionally difficult mainly because of the enormous distances involved.

  Stars only appear as points of light in the sky. We know that they are massive objects like our sun which is 864,000 miles in diameter. The best telescopes of yesteryear were unable to resolve the stellar images into disks and even today that task is only moderately achievable for a few of the larger nearby stars. It seems to be the case that stars have spots, like sunspots, and violent upheavals in their atmospheres similar to solar storms.

  A decade or so ago, it was discovered by using infrared telescopes that a few young stars had large clouds of dust in a disk orbiting them. The star Beta Pictorus was one such example (which incidentally we now think has at least one planet) and the encouragement to astronomers was that systems like this were probably the precursors of planetary systems. This is good news if you are looking for life elsewhere in the universe; while it may eventually evolve in space environments, life by necessity must form on a planet, probably a planet in a zone of habitation similar to earth's.

  What we mean by a zone of habitation is the distance from the star where temperatures will be of the range suitable for life, and by this, we usually mean where water can substantially exist as a liquid on the planetary surface. Earth is situated within this zone in our solar system but Venus, which has a runaway greenhouse effect dominating its atmosphere, is too close to the sun and Mars, smaller than our planet and further from the sun, seems to be in the clutches of a permanent ice age. Earth has an average distance from the sun of 93 million miles. The habitable zone probably extends ten percent either way, but, if the distance were doubled to 186 million miles, the inverse square law would tell us that only one quarter of the heat would then be received. Half the distance would mean that earth would receive four times our heat. Both situations are obviously unsuitable for liquid water and life.

  Returning to the discovery of other solar systems, although telescopes are still unable to resolve planets going around other stars, highly refined measuring techniques now exist to enable planets, especially large planets, to be detected by the wobble they impart to a star's motion. Technically, planets do not orbit stars; however, both stars and planets revolve around a common centre of gravity and with stars being more massive, the centre is towards them rather than the planets. In many cases, including the sun, the centre of gravity is within the disk of the sun itself. It's rather like a seesaw which has a huge weight on one side and a tiny weight on the other. The fulcrum (balancing point) is quite close to the large weight while the other lighter weight is placed at the end of a long plank. When this seesaw moves up and down, the largest movement occurs in the light weight whereas the heavy weight hardly moves at all. So, by detecting these slight movements in a star, it is possible to infer that something is orbiting it.

  Given that estimates of star masses can be made from other known properties, it's even possible to work out how massive the planets will be. As of January 2001, planets have been confirmed to exist around 51 stars. There were 14 unconfirmed reports, a few esoteric objects orbiting neutron stars and over 20 stars where no planets were found. This is quite encouraging except for the fact that many of the planets are quite large, larger even than Jupiter, and were found close to the primary star. In our system, the large planets are placed further out. It may be that such systems are the first to be discovered because, with a very large planet, the wobble is easier to detect. Detecting an earth size planet is impossible by this method. Perhaps new space telescopes may provide the answer but it is at least hopeful to see that planetary systems, whatever the size, could be quite common.

  What types of stars would be suitable for life bearing planetary systems? Stars are classified according to their spectral designation, which, in a crude sense equates to their colour. The normal sequence is—O B A F G K M. Generally, temperature of main sequence stars decrease from O to M. Stars of type O are large and very bright but they don't exist very long, perhaps only tens of millions of years until they extinguish themselves, usually in a fierce supernova explosion. B and A stars are progressively cooler but they are still too hot and turbulent for life to develop and they don't exist long enough, by earth standards, for life to evolve. At the other end of the scale, the M type stars are usually dim red affairs with a light and heat output considerably less than the sun. One could reason that simply by moving closer to one of these stars, a viable zone of habitation could be found. Unfortunately, the zone would be narrower than zones of larger and hotter stars, leaving little margin of error and, being so close to the primary star, it's likely that the planet's rotation would be captured.

  Captured rotation occurs when the gravity of the star grips the planet so tightly that it doesn't turn round—a cosmic straitjacket so to speak. The moon always keeps the same face towards the earth because its rotation is captured. It wasn't always like that: the rotation slowed over many millions of years while the moon moved further away from earth. Coincidentally, it is even the case that in a very long time, the gravitational pull of the moon will slow down earth's rotation and both will keep the same face to each other. In the inner solar system, the rotations of both Mercury and Venus are greatly retarded by the gravitational pull of the sun.

  If a planet orbited a dim red star within a habitable zone which would be very close to the star, the rotation may be captured and with one side permanently towards the heat, temperatures would be exceedingly high while on the other side, never feeling heat, it would be unbelievably cold. A slight area between each hemisphere may have suitable temperatures but it is very unlikely that life could form on a planet like this. Incidentally, dull stars of this type “burn” for the longest duration—perhaps twenty billion years or more.<
br />
  This leaves the stars of spectral type F, G, and K. The sun is actually a G type star (each spectral type is further divided as well). At about five billion years old, it is in the middle of its life cycle and, as our presence testifies, there is plenty of time for life to form and evolve. F stars are hotter and not as long lived as the sun while K stars are cooler and longer lived. If planetary systems exist around any of these stars within habitable zones, there could be a chance for life to form.

  Another point to consider is that evolution may be a bit quicker on F type stars than G or K. Increased stellar radiation may dictate an increased mutation rate in the genes of any living species, giving rise to more possible variants. As radiation increased, however, the system would become chaotic and eventually the radiation would tend to kill life anyway. However, there could be a case for an F star and a G star born at the same time with life evolving quicker on the former and becoming technically advanced a lot quicker too.

  Another problem with stars is that some are double, triple or even quadruple systems. (some are even more complex) A planet orbiting a double system may not have a sufficiently constant zone of habitation. Orbits in multiple systems are likely to be unstable. Almost half the stars that you see in the sky are double stars or more.

  There are some stars which can be classed as variable. In fact, most stars do go through minor fluctuations in heat and light output but the fluctuations are so slight that they would not have an effect on the viability of life on orbiting planets. However, some stars exhibit quite violent changes and obviously life would have little chance in such environments.

  Look at a picture of a galaxy, the Andromeda galaxy for example, and you'll see a spiral disk formation with the older yellow stars in the central hub and the younger blue stars in the spiral arms. Astronomers classified these stars as being in groups—population 1 and population 2. The latter are actually the oldest type of star, formed shortly after the galaxy itself and have existed for ten billion years or more. They are composed of the lighter elements hydrogen and helium which made up most of the primordial universe. They possess very little of the heavier elements necessary for formation of planets, except gaseous planets like Jupiter, and for the formation of life. Early in the galaxy's history, massive population 2 type stars were born and then died within a relatively short time and in death, the supernova explosions created more of the heavier elements we are familiar with today. Throughout the galaxy, this process continued so that more and more heavier elements came into existence. Stars were then formed from this material, the population 1 type stars, and consequently were able to form planets and hopefully life.

  The elements in our body were produced in stars that existed billions of years ago. Were it not for these ancient supernovae, we wouldn't be here and, as has been said in many books and television programmes on this subject, we are made of star stuff. This, therefore, is another complication and limitation concerning stars that may harbour life in habitable zones. Only a limited spectral type of population 1 stars will be suitable for this purpose.

  Even with all the exceptions listed above, in a galaxy which contains over one hundred thousand million stars, there still remain millions of suitable F, G and K stars which could have planets on which life has gained a hold. Maybe an advertisement should be placed in the cosmic news? Wanted, single middle-aged stars, not too hot and not too cold, with suitable planetary systems. GSOH not essential.

  One of the problems we have in investigating life in the universe is that we only have one real sample to use and that's ourselves. Are we typical or unusual or a complete statistical freak? Are we alone in the universe? Many think that we aren't alone. The huge number of stars, not only in our own galaxy but in the other billions of observable galaxies, make it seem likely that life evolved elsewhere. If only one star in a million in our galaxy had suitable planets, that would still leave one hundred thousand planets!

  In our solar system, the most likely place that life other than earth will be found is the planet Mars. Even if the life is now extinct, its presence could answer so many important questions and that's why an extensive search by space probes is being made. With the programme now in operation, hopefully within ten to twenty years we will know the answer to the question about life on Mars.

  What will this tell us? The first point is that life would not be unique to earth. If it can independently form on two planets in the same system, the chances of life being found elsewhere in the solar system, such as Jupiter's satellite Europa, and also around other stars, are more favourable. But if there is life on Mars, what type of life will it be? Will it be of similar type to ours?

  Some theories at the moment try to postulate that life began on Mars and was then transferred to earth by meteorites. There is considerable photographic evidence to show that Mars may have been warm and wet in its distant past. It may also be the case that water is locked up, frozen under the surface. After its formation, Mars would have cooled down quicker than earth because it is a smaller planet and it's further from the sun, so there is a possibility that life began here long before it started on earth. Bombardment by large space bodies such as comets and meteors was a lot more common in the early solar system and it is hypothesised that collisions with the Martian surface, for which there is plenty of evidence in the form of craters, threw up tons of material including primitive living organisms. Some of this material achieved escape velocity, which is a lot easier from Mars than earth, and after many thousands of years, this material ended up on our planet and life began.

  There could be problems with this idea. Could ancient bacteria from Mars survive, first the terrible collision with a meteor and, second, the long journey through interplanetary space, bathed in lethal radiation from solar flares and hindered by the vacuum of space? Could life exist in a suspended form for all that time? There are many opinions against such survival but it is interesting to note that a form of bacteria survived three years on the lunar surface. It got there on a Surveyor landing probe in 1967, coming from one of the technicians on earth. Apollo astronauts returned part of the Surveyor to earth in 1970 and the bacteria was found to be alive, surviving a vacuum, extremes of temperature and dangerous solar radiation.

  If life is discovered on Mars, we would need to look at its structure to see if the DNA resembled ours. If the DNA had similar structures using the c, g, t and a groups, then some link to our own life is more than likely. The DNA molecule is a complex double helix composed of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorus atoms. The sides of the “ladder” are linked together by chemical structures called base pairs. These bases are two types—the purines called adenine and guanine, and the pyrimidines, thymine and cytosine. The links are usually a—t or c—g. The links are held together by a relatively weak bonding called hydrogen bonding which can be split up during the process of replication of DNA molecules. Sometimes in this replication, mistakes can occur and a few of these mistakes would lead to a form of mutation.

  The DNA molecule could be different if other bases were used. How good or viable the molecule would be is open to question but the possibilities do exist. Twenty amino acids are important to life, but upwards of one hundred exist. Perhaps other forms of life employ different amino acids. There is also another way in which molecules important for life can differ and that is symmetry. If you look at your hands, they are both virtually identical but one would be unable to replace the other—they are mirror images. Molecules differ in that they can exist in mirror images. The amino acids employed in life are all of the left-hand variety, excepting one, and the others don't seem to exist naturally unless created in a laboratory. Why one form should have biological priority over the other is not completely understood. It's also the case that the DNA helix has a right-handed spiral—no DNA has a left-handed symmetry. Perhaps somewhere else in the universe DNA exists in the right hand form but any reaction between the two forms would be impossible.

  If there is, or was, life on Mar
s and it had a type of DNA different to ours, it would conclusively show that life evolved independently on Mars and earth but for all we know, there may be other replicating type molecules completely different from DNA. Mad cow disease, to give it it's common name, employs primitive replicating molecules called prions and it is suggested that they appeared billions of years ago, probably prior to DNA. They propagate by making copies of each other, almost like a photocopier, and do not replicate like DNA. A more complex prion capable of copying to become the basis of a complex life form is unlikely but not impossible.

  Finally, there is another idea put forward by Hoyle and Wickramasinghe which basically states that the chance of DNA occurring naturally is exceptionally small and could not possibly happen during the allotted time on earth. It would take billions upon billions of years, they say, but the universe is probably no more than fifteen to twelve billion years old, according to the big bang theory. No problem here! Fred Hoyle has been an exponent of the largely discarded steady state theory to explain the universe. This says, in one particular version, that the universe has probably existed forever and is in a state of expansion with new matter being continually created. In this case, life could have appeared at any time in the past, if the past stretches back to infinity, and the life has been propagated through space in the form of bacteria or other molecules. If this scenario is correct, all life, at least locally, will be related and aliens, if we meet them, could be regarded as distant cousins. The main problem behind this idea, attractive as it may appear to some people, is that observational evidence favours the big bang creation rather than the steady state.

  Whatever appearance it takes, life elsewhere in the universe, at least life that can react in a meaningful way with our type of life, has probably evolved using the same principles of evolution that enabled life to develop here, and, it is probably based on a carbon form for which water is an absolute necessity. What happens when two lifeforms meet? When different and separate cultures met on earth, as with the crossing of the Atlantic, we all know what the consequences were. Unfortunately, some of the ethnic groups from the “new world” are not aware of the consequences because they are no longer here, having been wiped off the face of the planet hundreds of years ago.