And films depict a Universe filled with many cosmic alien species. However, the reality may be completely different. Few of us can look into the night sky and not feel the enormity of space. The seemingly infinite number of stars should, at least in theory, be home to many intelligent civilizations. However, to date, our attempts to identify signs of the existence of extraterrestrial life have led nowhere. The apparent lack of observable intelligent life in the universe beyond, given the apparent, virtually unlimited potential for its development, is known as .

Where is everyone?

Enrico Fermi was a famous Italian physicist. It was he who, among other achievements, created the world's first nuclear reactor. He received Nobel Prize in physics in 1938. In 1950, during a conversation with several other scientists at the Los Alamos Fermi National Laboratory, he posed the famous question: “Where is everyone?”, that is, where are the aliens? Fermi and other scientists quickly realized the seriousness of the issue and began to study the problem at several levels.

Given the age of the Universe, any species that can travel among stars at relatively low speeds should have had plenty of time to spread widely and establish a ubiquitous presence. Of course, to date no answer has been found to Fermi's famous question. But today there is no shortage of theories to explain our apparent loneliness in the Universe.

Possible explanations for the Fermi Paradox can be roughly divided into two groups. Focusing on issues related to hypothetical alien intelligent civilizations and the existence of human civilization here on Earth.

Alien civilizations

When considering an alien intelligent civilization, the key word that should be kept in mind is alien, that is, “not like ours.” It is almost impossible to predict what features the mentality will have, Let alone whether they will even want to think about contact with humanity. So maybe alien civilizations aren't interested in talking to other species in the first place. So a species that isn't actively trying to communicate with anyone might be nearly impossible to detect.

We know that humanity has always been an expansive species. However, an intelligent alien race may simply not be interested in interstellar travel and exploration. They can use crewed spaceships or robotic probes. Or such travel may simply be impossible due to their lack of the necessary technology and the enormous distances between the stars.

People mainly looked for signs of alien life by analyzing radio or optical signals. But our technology may be hopelessly primitive. Or simply be useless for communicating over interstellar distances. In other words, radio may simply be a technological fad. Intelligent aliens may have long since moved on to other technologies unknown to our science, far superior to ours. This means that we are essentially deaf and blind. If we draw an analogy, nowadays few people use Morse code in everyday life, having a cell phone in their pocket. Anyone still transmitting information in Morse code will be waiting a long time for a response to their SOS.

Huge distances

Moreover, while intelligent alien life could theoretically appear in the universe tens, hundreds, thousands, or millions of times, we simply may be too far apart in time and distance to ever make contact. If we became aware of a civilization that existed 100,000 light years from Earth, it would be too far away for us to communicate with it.

Which allows us to estimate the number of intelligent species in the universe, contains a variable known as L. This describes the length of time such a civilization would be able to transmit signals into space. The value of L has also often been used as a value for the duration of the active technological life of an advanced civilization, given the fact that the ideal civilization that we can talk to may have disappeared (due to war, disease or natural disaster) millions or even billions of years ago.

Humanity

When considering humanity in the context of the Fermi Paradox, the first thing to recognize is that opportunity that we are alone in the Universe. Peter Ward, a professor of biology and astronomy at the University of Washington, Seattle, and Don Brownlee, a professor of astronomy also at the University of Washington in Seattle, unveiled the so-called "Rare Earth" hypothesis.

It says that while microbial life may be ubiquitous, complex and intelligent life is likely to be extremely rare in the universe. Ward and Brownlee stated that the conditions under which life and humanity arise on Earth (orbit in a habitable zone near the Sun, presence of liquid water, largely cleared of debris, and presence of large satellite, stabilizing the Earth’s orbit, etc.) may simply be unusual or so rare as to be truly unique.

Another hypothesis is that we live in some kind of galactic backwater. Without the presence of any other life near us. Some even suggest that intelligent alien civilizations are deliberately avoiding us in order to allow us to grow and develop. naturally(this idea is known as the "hypothesis"). A more advanced version of this idea claims that aliens are already here. But they are present among us secretly, thereby excluding any influence on the development of our species.

Is it worth sending signals into space?

It should be noted that communication between intelligent species can be an undeniably dangerous thing. And some scientists say that it is best not to declare yourself at all. Perhaps in other worlds they act precisely according to this principle. And therefore the cosmos is silent. Although it is attractive to think that someone else's intelligence will be benevolent, the opposite can happen. Human history is replete with examples of the interaction of different cultures coming into conflict soon after discovering each other.

Often, as a result of such contact, one of the cultures (usually the less technologically advanced one) becomes, at best, subjugated, and at worst, destroyed.

At present, the Fermi paradox remains unsolved. Its solution may be discovered within our lifetime, or in a thousand years, or never at all.

Pavel Amnuel Science fiction depicts most extraterrestrial civilizations as anthropomorphic to the point of being completely indistinguishable from humans. There are works with non-humanoid characters, but these characters differ from humans most often in form rather than in content (Hall Clement, Vernor Vinge, Orson Scott Card, etc.). Very rare are works where another mind is incomprehensible and contact is impossible (“Black Cloud” by Fred Hoyle, “Solaris”, “Eden”, “Invincible”, “Fiasco” by Stanislaw Lem, “False Blindness” by Peter Watts). The last type of mind seemed the most likely in reality, but, with rare exceptions, far from literature.

Space is a different habitat, a different evolution, a different attitude to reality. Everything is different!

The second circumstance that made us mistrust the descriptions of contacts: the speed of light, which limits the possibilities of interstellar travel. Science fiction writers came up with spaceships flying through zero-, above-, under-, super-hyper- and other spaces, which later received scientific justification in the form of “wormholes”. However, to create an artificial “wormhole” you need so much energy that humanity does not have and will not have for a very long time (perhaps never). And natural " wormholes", if they exist at all, are unlikely to be located near the solar system, so they cannot solve the problem of interstellar flights.
Rice. M. Smagina Fiction about contacts developed in the direction of optimism. Space science fiction paradigm: there are a lot of extraterrestrial intelligences. Space science, on the one hand, confirmed the hopes of science fiction writers, on the other, it certainly rejected them.

Frank Donald Drake, a professor of astronomy and astrophysics at the University of California, Santa Cruz, developed a formula in 1960 to estimate the number of advanced civilizations. In optimistic scenarios, it turned out that only in our Galaxy there could exist millions of civilizations more or less similar to ours.

However, over time, pessimistic assessments of the probability of the origin of life arose, leaving practically no chance for a future meeting of brothers in mind. The probability of the random emergence of a living molecule from nonliving matter is so small that such a process requires a period many orders of magnitude longer than the lifetime of the Universe. In addition to this unlikely chance, dozens of others are needed, reducing the insignificant probability of intelligent life appearing on Earth to almost zero. From article to article, the idea wanders that without the Earth having a massive satellite (the Moon), which stabilizes the tilt of the axis of rotation, life would sooner or later die. And if there were no giant planets in the outer orbits of the solar system, the bombardment of the Earth by comets and asteroids could destroy all life in the first billion years of its existence (there are, however, works in which intense asteroid bombardment is declared to be a consequence of the restructuring of the orbits of gas giants that caused disturbances in the asteroid belt, but it was the bombings that could have contributed to the emergence of life, so everything here is rather vague. — Prim. edit. ). Similar bombings (albeit weaker ones) repeatedly led to the extinction of many species of living organisms. Incredible luck that Homo sapiens survived, although his chances were extremely low.

The emergence of a universe suitable for life is also extremely unlikely. If the value of Planck's constant differed from the current one by a few percent, atoms could not form, there would be no stars and planets. If the cosmological constant (now called dark energy) were slightly different, the Universe would either expand instantly or collapse very quickly. In both cases, life would not have had time to arise. And so on.

Pessimists are sure: for the origin and subsequent development of life on Earth, a coincidence of such a large number is necessary different conditions that the probability of repeating a similar process anywhere in the Universe is practically zero. Cosmologists call this “fine-tuning” and formulate the “strong anthropic principle,” which states that “the Universe is the way it is because we exist in it.”

There are two alternative consequences of the strong anthropic principle.

First: God exists, and his will created the Universe as we observe it. Probability theory has nothing to do with it.

Modern science offers another alternative: our Universe is not the only one. There are many universes with different laws of nature, world constants and initial conditions. No matter how small the probability of the emergence of our Universe, such a Universe certainly present in an infinitely diverse set of worlds.

Modern physics comes to a similar conclusion based on various ideas and theories. The Big Bang inflation model assumes the continuous creation of many universes (chaotic inflation). String theory allows for the existence of an infinite number of worlds, each of which is no less real than the others. The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics assumes the existence of a huge (possibly also infinite) number of worlds - as many as the number of solutions to the Schrödinger equations.

The theory allows for the existence of “parallel” worlds, but no one will ever be able to observe them.

IN last years and this concept seems to be starting to change. Physical experiments bordering on science fiction have been carried out (the Dutch group of Paul Kvyat, the Japanese physicists Tsegaue and Namekata, the Brazilian physicists Adonai and Ottavio), the results of which, in principle, can be interpreted as the interaction of different physical realities.

It's time to propose an idea that is equally crazy for science and fiction. The idea of ​​interworld cosmonautics, which will not require starships and sub-light speeds. Perhaps further research will show that this idea is incorrect, but it has qualities that have always attracted science fiction writers and now scientists. Such ideas, which seem crazy at first, sometimes win and become everyday practice. At one time, the ideas of the constancy of the speed of light and the quantization of electron orbits in the atom looked crazy. The idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun was at one time not only crazy, but also seditious.

Almost all descriptions of contacts with extraterrestrial intelligence are guilty of anthropomorphism and extensiveness. The “power” of the mind is determined by its energetic capabilities. In 1964, Soviet astrophysicist Nikolai Semyonovich Kardashev proposed such a classification of intelligent civilizations.

Type I civilization uses energy comparable to that of its planet.

More developed Type II civilization capable of utilizing the energy of a star.

Type III civilization utilizes the energy of the galaxy.

According to this logic, there may be Type IV civilization, capable of using the energy of clusters and superclusters of galaxies, and Type V civilization, utilizing the energy of the universe.

With this approach, expansionist needs grow to the size of galaxies, and the inherent human need to colonize new “lands,” including through military intervention, extends to all extraterrestrial civilizations.

In my opinion, it is more correct to classify civilizations not according to extensive (energy), but according to intensive (new knowledge) criteria. Reason is the ability to explain the world and the ability to create new knowledge about the universe. And only then - attempts to use this knowledge for practical applications.

Type I civilizations They consider their planet to be the center of the world.

Type II Civilizations They consider their star to be the center of the world.

Type III civilizations They are sure that they live in a unique Universe.

Type IV civilizations They know about many worlds, but have not yet learned to move from one world to another.

Type V civilizations can make contacts with worlds where the laws of physics are the same.

Type VI civilizations make contacts with worlds where the laws of nature are different.

Type VII civilizations capable of changing the laws of physics and creating worlds according to the changed laws.

Possible civilizations VIII, IX and more “advanced” types, about which we currently have no idea.

Once upon a time, people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and was created by God (gods) specifically so that humanity could live on it. Then they realized that the Earth is not the center, and they placed the Sun in the center. Then the understanding came that the Sun is not the center of the universe, but just an ordinary star. The natural thought arose that many intelligent races could exist on many planets around many other stars. Having moved to the next stage of development (type III civilization), people realized that the Galaxy is not the center of the universe; there are billions of galaxies in the expanding Universe. And modern ideas about physical multi-worldliness transfer the Universe into the category of one of an infinite number of diverse universes.

Humanity moves even further away from the non-existent center of the universe, but returns (at a new turn of the spiral) to the understanding that there are an infinite number of intelligent races. The problem, however, is that each civilization is in its own universe.

The existence of life and intelligence is not possible in every universe. An infinitely large number of universes are unsuitable for the development of any kind of life, and only an extremely small fraction of them support the conditions for the emergence of intelligence. But since there are infinitely many worlds, even a very small part of them is enough for there to be an infinite number of universes where not only life is possible, but also intelligence.

Humanity belongs to a type transitional from the third to the fourth.

In just five centuries, humanity has gone through the development path from civilization type I to type III. It is a type III civilization that generates assumptions about many minds in a single Universe, searches for them, does not find them, and begins to think about how unlikely the emergence of mind is. When a civilization moves to type IV (we are already close to this), the vector of scientific research shifts, the main paradigm changes. The mind has already explained why it is alone in this Universe, and understood that communication with other branches of the multiworld is not only possible, but also inevitable. It is then that the long-awaited meeting with another mind will take place, which, most likely, is also unique in its universe.

A natural question arises: if we are the only ones in our Universe and it is almost impossible to detect us among a huge number of star systems in a huge number of galaxies, then how will we, even if we manage to make the transition to another universe, discover “brothers in mind” in its depths?

I don't have a scientific answer to this question. A discovery has not yet been made that will allow our civilization to move to the next, fifth type. But I am confident that such a discovery will be made, just as the discoveries were made thanks to which humanity evolved from the first type to the third.

Let us assume that the classification is correct, the reasoning is correct, and there are no other civilizations in the Universe other than ours. To establish contact with other civilizations, you must first understand, then explain, and then learn how to communicate between different worlds in a multi-world. Is it therefore necessary to abandon attempts to reach distant planets and stars using existing technology?

Of course not. It is impossible to approach a new qualitative leap without going through all the previous stages of development. The faster humanity goes through all the current stages of research and technical development, the faster it will reach a discovery that will change the fate of our civilization.

Therefore, we need to fly, explore space, build colonies on Mars, scientific stations in the orbit of Saturn, send expeditions to Pluto and the Kuiper belt. We need to search for extraterrestrial civilizations in all conceivable ranges of the electromagnetic spectrum. We need to search for Earth-like planets located in the “belts of life” in distant star systems. The more powerful the offensive, the faster humanity will pass this necessary stage and rise to the fourth level of development.

Only when a type IV civilization makes the next Copernican revolution and an infinite number of universes open up for study, will we be able to choose for research worlds that arose “in our image and likeness”, contacts with other civilizations will become possible, probable and certain.

Federal Agency for Education

Moscow Architectural Institute (State Academy)

Department of Philosophy

Essay on philosophy on the topic:

“The problem of loneliness (ethical and philosophical aspect).”

Completed by a student

III year 4 groups

Orozova A.A.

Checked

Lupin A.N.

Moscow, 2009

Introduction 3

Section 1. Section 2.	What is loneliness? Paradox
Section 3.	A look at the problem
Section 4.	Truth and loneliness
Section 5.	Sense of duty and love
Section 6.	A little history. Origins
Section 7.	Loneliness as knowledge
	Conclusion
	Bibliography
	List of cited literature

“Deep loneliness is sublime, but somehow terrifying” 1

Immanuel Kant

Introduction.

This is the main problem of man - no one will ever be able to fully understand him. Existing in his own world, even without realizing it, a person is in constant loneliness.

What is loneliness?

What is loneliness? It is impossible to answer this question unequivocally. You can only try to understand what meaning this definition contains, find the reasons and draw some conclusions for yourself. There are many interpretations of this concept, but they all agree on one thing: loneliness is a complex phenomenon of human existence. This feeling can be either an emotional state or a form of consciousness. It does not exist “by itself”, separately from a person. And every person experiences it sooner or later.

Paradox.

"It's also lonely among people..." 3

Antoine de Saint-Exupery

It seems that we feel lonely when we are alone. But even when we are among people, and not just people, but people close to us, we sometimes feel loneliness. This is quite paradoxical. But how is it that a person surrounded by other people feels lonely?

The reason is simple. He may be surrounded by people, but contact with them occurs only formally. After all, whether we like it or not, each of us is fixated on himself, each is selfish. Communication occurs not because a person is interested in understanding the world of another, but because he wants to gain some information, confirm that he is right, talk about himself, about his experiences.

At least take the beginning of any conversation between people: “Today I did this...”, “I thought this...”, and even if a person talks about someone else, he will still express his personal attitude towards this, will remember a story from his life that will somehow be connected with himself. Is this good or bad? This is normal, it is human nature.

So how can a person not feel loneliness if even in a conversation with other people he is still on his own? He opens the door of his world, but, in essence, remains alone in it.

If you create a certain diagram, then, perhaps, it will be clear to compare the model of society with a molecule, which consists of individual atoms (people) connected to each other, but each of which has its own core. That is, people contact each other quite superficially, reserving the right to own their personal world and not let anyone in, nevertheless, reacting to the outside world, accepting its laws and conventional truths. “One could pose the question: is he (man) a social animal by nature or a solitary animal that avoids neighbors? The last assumption seems the most likely” (Immanuel Kant). 4

Or another example: like the stars that shine in the sky, people exist on earth. Although the stars are far from each other, they form constellations. So are we, there seem to be so many of us, and we all seem to be nearby, but in fact thousands of light years lie between us. If one star goes out, the overall picture of the starry sky will not change, but if the opposite happens and only one star remains, the sky will cease to be starry, a lone star will burn in the sky.

A look at the problem.

According to Berdyaev, since people used to live in a small space, this gave them comfort and a feeling of security, and protected them from loneliness. Now, humanity is gradually “beginning to live in the universe, in world space with a world horizon,” 5 which, undoubtedly, creates feelings of loneliness and abandonment to an even greater extent.

This is really so, because when a person understands that he is also part of a huge and unknown universe, and relates himself to it, he willy-nilly realizes how small and defenseless he is. “But a philosopher is a person who has always lived in the universe, always with a world horizon, he does not know a close circle, and therefore the philosopher is initially lonely, just as lonely as a prophet, although lonely in a different way. The philosopher overcomes his loneliness not through life in collective consciousness, but through cognition." 6

There is loneliness with a small L, and there is Loneliness with a capital L. The first loneliness is only a part of the second. And although there is Loneliness in the nature of all people, not everyone sees it or not everyone wants to see it. (This is quite natural, because only a small part of people moves towards the inexplicable, undiscovered; others are satisfied with the simplified model of the world in which they exist. And no one has the right to decide whether this is good or bad, a person’s choice is always his). The problem of loneliness as a social phenomenon can be solved through communication. It is enough for a person to find several points of contact with the interests of another, common views on life and the feeling of loneliness leaves him. “We are all lonely ships in a dark sea. We see the lights of other ships - we cannot reach them, but their presence and similar position to ours give us great comfort.” (Irvin Yalom) 7

Loneliness is more difficult to fight, and maybe not worth fighting at all. Its meaning lies in the fact that a person understands: all people are individual, everyone has their own unique world and no one can comprehend it, since this will go against one’s own self.

"The Master believed: what the whole world accepts as truth is in fact a lie; therefore the discoverer is always alone. - You think that Truth is a formula that can be found in a book. Truth is sold at the price of loneliness. If you want to know the Truth , you need to learn to walk alone." (Anthony de Mello) 8

We can say that all creative people are lonely. They see the infinity of the universe and want to become at least a little closer to it, to some absolute. And this is another way when the feeling of Loneliness becomes a reference point for some kind of action, creation and creation. This may be why philosophers and writers associate the feeling of loneliness with the concept of God. (“And God stepped into the void. And He looked around and said, “I am alone. I will make myself a world.” James Wheeldon Johnson) 9 . And if a person felt the full power of the Universe through Loneliness, did he thereby feel the Creator?

Truth and loneliness.

« When living with people, do not forget what you learned in solitude. In solitude, ponder what you have learned from communicating with people.” 10

Lev Tolstoy

Does a person need someone to understand the truth? Yes and no. If you follow the opinion of the above-mentioned Anthony de Mello, then a person on the path to truth must always remain alone. There is some truth to this. Since truth is subjective in nature, absolute truth does not exist, then a person has no choice but to go in search of it himself. But along this path he has to go beyond the boundaries of his lonely journey. First of all, because of the need for communication. At these moments, a person learns some new information for himself, or becomes convinced that he is right by telling someone about his reasons, which undoubtedly gives a positive impetus to continue working.

What are we afraid of and what are we striving for?

Loneliness can be positive and negative. If negative loneliness is isolation, then positive loneliness is solitude. One should try to avoid isolation, since it is destructive, but develop a love of solitude.

People love “noise and movement,” so for them “prison is a terrible punishment, and the enjoyment of solitude is an incomprehensible thing.” 11 Solitude opens a person’s eyes to the vanity of the world, allows him to see his own vanity, discover something new, and make himself better.

We are afraid of loneliness because we are afraid of feeling useless. A person must have something that needs him. Most likely, this is another manifestation of human selfishness. Parents are afraid of the moment when their children no longer need them. After all, as soon as children become independent, the meaning of their parents’ lives is gradually lost, and thoughts about how to feed, put on shoes, and educate the child are replaced by thoughts about abandonment, uselessness, and loneliness. A void forms in a person, which he somehow has to fill.

We are also afraid to be alone with ourselves, because as soon as a person stops thinking about everyday affairs, idle affairs, global questions arise about existence, about the purpose of man, etc. Not all people are philosophers, so most are frightened by this pool of the unknown, into which the philosopher, and even the artist, writer, musician, in a word, creative people, rush headlong.

And if, as a rule, a person strives to avoid the state of loneliness through constant communication with other people, books, television, then a person who has realized his loneliness tries to know himself, thereby getting to know the world around him.

Sense of duty and love.

But how else can a person fill the void of loneliness within himself? This question, of course, is directly related to the feeling of being needed, indispensable for someone. After all, a person’s life is much easier if love lives in him. It doesn’t matter what it is, be it love for nature, parents, or another person. And then the opposite dependence on love appears—a sense of duty, responsibility to someone. And all this gradually fills a person, leaving very little room for the opportunity to at least sometimes be alone with oneself.

But all this largely satisfies “social” loneliness, the concept of global loneliness, Loneliness with a capital L still remains somewhere inside a person untouched.

A little history. Origins.

Who is capable of looking for an answer to the problem of human existence? The very people who went through the torment of loneliness were able to overcome it, while maintaining the cognitive energy that loneliness gives.

In the history of European thought, the awareness of the homelessness and loneliness of human existence did not arise suddenly or immediately. This process deepened from era to era, and with each step, according to Buber, loneliness became colder and harsher, and it was more and more difficult to escape from it.

The philosopher distinguishes two types of eras in history: the “era of prosperity” and the “era of homelessness.” In the era of modernization, a person feels like an organic part of the cosmos - like in a lived-in home. In the era of homelessness, the world no longer seems to be a harmoniously ordered whole, and it is difficult for a person to find a “cozy place” in it - hence the feeling of insecurity and “orphanhood,” i.e. loneliness.

The sense of well-being is characteristic, for example, of the thinking of the ancient Greeks. It found its most complete expression, as Buber believes, in the philosophy of Aristotle. The world here seems to be a closed space, a kind of “house” where a person is assigned a certain place. A person here is a thing along with other things that fill the world; he does not consider himself an incomprehensible mystery; he is not a guest in a strange and incomprehensible world, but the owner of his own corner in the universe. Within the framework of such a worldview, there are no prerequisites for a person to realize that he is fatally alone.

The first who raised the question of man in a new way - not as a thing among things, according to M. Buber, was Augustine Aurelius (354-430), who lived in an era when, under the influence of the emerging Christian picture of the world, the Aristotelian idea of ​​a spherical unity collapsed world. The place of the lost spherical system was taken by two independent and hostile kingdoms - the kingdom of Light and the kingdom of Darkness. Man, consisting of soul and body, was divided between both kingdoms, became a battlefield between them, and found himself, as it were, in a suspended, homeless position. “What am I, my God? What is my nature?” (Augustine). He calls man a great mystery. It was the era of homelessness that could prompt Augustine to be surprised at the existence of man, who is not like other creatures of the universe and occupies a special position in the world.

However, later Christian faith and thought created a new cosmic home for the lonely soul of the post-Augustinian West. Christianity “settled in”, its world became even more closed than the world of Aristotle, for now not only space, but also time was presented as closed, ending on the day of the Last Judgment. The construction of the Christian "house" was crowned with the teaching of Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), in which the question of human nature no longer seemed a problem.

At the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the New Age, the harmonious picture of the universe trembled again. In the philosophy of Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464), the world was presented as infinite in space and time, and the Earth, therefore, lost its central position. Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) completed the destruction of the medieval scheme, declaring the Earth an ordinary planet in the solar system. The earth's firmament began to lose its role as the unshakable foundation of the whole world: it itself is suspended in unimaginable infinity. Man in this world found himself defenseless before the abyss of infinity.

As a result of changes in worldview that occurred in modern times, the individual “became homeless in the midst of the infinite.” “...The original contract between the Universe and man was terminated, and man felt that he was an alien and a loner in this world.” Since then, “work has been going on on a new image of the universe, but not on a new world house... It is no longer possible to build a human dwelling from this Universe.” The generation that is to develop a new cosmology will have, Buber believes, to renounce any image of the universe and live in an indescribable world (the new image of the world is no image). Einstein's cosmos can be conceived, but cannot be imagined. A person is forced to accept as a fact his homelessness and being lost in the Universe.

Finally, the 20th century, with its global upheavals, completely opened man’s eyes to his homeless, unguaranteed existence. M. Heidegger, who called language the house of being, no longer builds either a cosmic or social “house”. In Heidegger, a person's loneliness is thought of as a blessing, allowing him to be himself. Heidegger's loner seeks communication only with himself.
This is how M. Buber sets out the path that led modern philosophy to the idea of ​​the fatal loneliness of man.

Loneliness as knowledge.

From the previous section it became clear that there were times in human history when people did not see an incomprehensible mystery in themselves, there was no place for a feeling of anxiety in the face of insoluble questions like “what am I?”, “why do I exist?”, “why do I do I exist?" Humanity was simply not ready for such questions. Consciousness must reach some critical point in its development in order to notice the mystery of human existence. Perhaps it is precisely at the moment when a person realizes his loneliness that he comes to these eternal questions.

“When I reflect on the transience of my existence, immersed in eternity, which was before me and will remain after me, and on the insignificance of the space, not only occupied, but also visible to me, space dissolved in the immense infinity of spaces, unknown to me and not knowing about to me - I tremble with fear and ask myself - why am I here and not there, for there is no reason for me to be here and not there, there is no reason to be now and not later or before. Whose order, whose thought destined this for me time and place? (Blaise Pascal) 12

Conclusion.

Loneliness should be perceived as given, without giving it either a positive or negative assessment. This is just another distinctive feature of a person, standing alongside the desire for freedom, selfishness, etc. Just as Schopenhauer found a way out of suffering in asceticism, i.e. through understanding that all people suffer and coming to terms with this, one must see that all people are also alone, that this cannot be taken away from a person.

“Man tries in vain to fill the void, the bottomless abyss with the vain and transitory, to find support in the fragile and finite..” 13 Pascal is more than right in his judgment, but maybe loneliness is not emptiness after all...

Loneliness is space. Someone is trying to fill it inside themselves using the outside world. And someone uses the space inside themselves, filling the space outside their world.

We need loneliness, because the consciousness that you are alone and no one understands you gives the necessary surge of emotions. And this release of energy necessarily brings with it some kind of action, desire. The most important thing is not to miss the moment. After all, when the feeling of loneliness leaves you, thoughts fade away and interest in the big, external world (that is, in a certain convention, illusion) takes over, we temporarily forget about our true desires and possibilities. How much time do we have that we can waste it so frivolously?

Loneliness helps us concentrate on what is most important... The main thing is to learn to use it correctly.

Bibliography:

1. Berdyaev N. A., Philosophy of the Free Spirit, M.: Respublika, 1994.

2. Gagarin A.S. Existentials of human existence: loneliness, death, fear. From antiquity to modern times. Ekaterinburg. 2001

3. Daniel Perlman and Letitia Ann Peploe Labyrinths of loneliness: Trans. from English / Comp., total. ed. and preface N. E. Pokrovsky. – M.: Progress, 1989.

4. Losev A.F., History of ancient philosophy in a summary presentation., M., 1989.

5. Buber M., Two images of faith, M., 1995.

6. Pascal B., Thoughts, M.: Politizdat, 1990.

7. Internet links:

http://hpsy.ru/link/13.htm(Site e existential and humanistic psychologists)

http://cpsy.ru/cit5.htm (quotes about loneliness)

List of cited literature:

1. Quotes about loneliness, http://cpsy.ru/cit5.htm.

2. Somerset Maugham, Luna and Grosh, M.: Pravda, 1982. Transl. - N.Man, S. 42.

3. Antoine de Saint Exupéry, The Little Prince, chapter 17.

4. Quotes about loneliness, http://cpsy.ru/cit5.htm.

5.

6. Berdyaev N.A. "Me and the world of objects", chapter “Self, Loneliness and Society.”

7. Quotes about loneliness, http://cpsy.ru/cit5.htm

8. Proverbs by Anthony de Mello - http://www.sky.od.ua/~serg2002/pri.html

9. Quotes about loneliness, http://cpsy.ru/cit5.htm

10. Quotes about loneliness, http://cpsy.ru/cit5.htm

11. Pascal B., Thoughts. Fr.139. P.113

12. Pascal B., Thoughts, Fr. 205, S. 192

1. Problems loneliness and self-esteem in adolescents

   Abstract >> Psychology

   To society. Philosophical concepts largely determined sociological and socio-psychological approaches to problem loneliness, being developed...

2. Philosophy. Philosophical concepts, categories and global Problems

   Cheat sheet >> Philosophy

   Fear loneliness, repentance. According to Heidegger, philosophical the truth is itself... and lived there for a long time in alone. Then, having thought everything through, he... 39.Global Problems modernity: philosophical Aspects So, FIRST GLOBAL PROBLEM our days...

3. Philosophical Problems life and death

   Abstract >> Philosophy

   They feel like loneliness. A person's awareness of his reasons loneliness doesn't always save... philosophical aspects death and immortality. The third chapter is devoted to the meaning of life, its varieties and problem

Every person has at least once felt the nagging feeling of loneliness, when there are a lot of people around you and no one to talk to. They won't understand. At least it seemed so to you, especially in adolescence. Therefore, instead of solving the problems of loneliness by communicating with friends or making new acquaintances, you closed yourself off even more and enthusiastically began to feel sorry for yourself.

Is this a familiar picture? Moreover, it is believed that in most cases women at any age suffer from loneliness. And all because they are more impressionable, and the psychology of loneliness is close to their spirit. But it is impossible to say that such a feeling is alien to men. Many psychologists are sure that they simply suffer in silence, considering their feelings an unacceptable weakness. What can I say! They are not even ready to admit to themselves that they are lonely, let alone to a specialist at the reception.

If we talk about territorial divisions, then in megacities the problem of loneliness is felt more strongly. Long distances do not allow people to meet as often as we would like. And a huge crowd of people is not conducive to emotional communication. Everyone is running somewhere, in a hurry, jostling with elbows in the crowd and not even looking back to apologize. A huge faceless mechanism absorbs people. And the person himself does not notice how he stops communicating with his family (no time), coming to family holidays (far away), preparing home-cooked food (why, if the restaurant tastes better). Men and women live as if by inertia. And one fine moment they look around, and there is no one nearby. This is loneliness. The numerous colleagues with whom you spent most of your time move on with their own lives. Your family has become unaccustomed to you, and you simply have nothing to talk about. Empty words about the weather and politics can kill time, but not loneliness.

In small towns the situation is better. But this also has its problems. For example, a person who suffers from loneliness may not seek professional help to overcome it. We are not talking about dating services, but about psychologists. After all, in order to get rid of a problem, it is necessary to determine the cause of its occurrence. How, tell me, can a man complain that his wife doesn’t understand or hear him when the psychologist is his wife’s friend? Or a guy who is in his teens cannot go to a psychologist? In a small town, everyone knows each other, so there is no opportunity to meet someone new. How can you still get rid of the feeling of loneliness? Let's figure it out.

Loneliness and human uniqueness

Oddly enough, loneliness is our whole life. Man came into this world alone. He will leave him alone. But it is very difficult for people to realize this fact. They created the institution of marriage, a social society, set up multi-storey buildings where it is impossible to hide from each other. And all in order to be close to someone. If primitive people gathered in communities in order to make it easier to hunt, then modern woman It costs nothing to carry a carton of milk from the supermarket. But at the same time, she so wants to have a family, friends, acquaintances, to feel loved and needed. And a freshly killed mammoth on the threshold of a cave has nothing to do with it.

In order to understand what the essence of the feeling of loneliness lies, you need to trace the entire path of development of this psychological phenomenon. Let's go back to cave times. At first, primitive people did not feel lonely. They went hunting, burned fires and were happy with life. And this continued until one of them realized that man is very different from inanimate nature. That human skin is not at all the same as, for example, the surface of a stone. The primitive thinker was shocked. Only decision What came to his mind was to elevate a body unlike him to the rank of a deity. We should not blame our ancestors for stupidity and cowardice. They acted very carefully - they tried to make friends with what was unfamiliar to them. But the key concept here is not fear or cunning, but awareness of one’s own uniqueness.

Loneliness in childhood

As soon as a person began to understand that he was not like the same mammoths, the first feelings of loneliness began to arise in him. And out of habit, he elevated organisms unlike himself to the rank of deity. Here it is - one of the main mistakes of humanity and the main problem of loneliness. We like to put everyone before ourselves. Nature is like that. If our ancestors sinned with this, then what can we say about us?

Tell me, who do people pray to today? To Jesus. To a person. Let us consider that we have reached the boundaries of awareness of our uniqueness. At first there was inanimate nature, then animals, and then man. People realized that they were different from others and... started to feel lonely. Because if he is different, not like everyone else, then no one will be able to understand him. Moreover, you should not think that loneliness is an innate quality.

When a person is born, he does not realize that he is alone. The baby is quite happy (with proper care). His parents adore him, his grandmothers idolize him. As soon as you cry, you are wearing a clean diaper, and your mother is carefully giving you milk. What kind of loneliness can we talk about? But the point is not in excessive care for the child, but in the fact that he does not yet feel like a person. When a baby learns to speak, he calls himself “we” and speaks about himself exclusively in the third person. He's in society. And as soon as the pronoun “I” slips into the conversation, you can be sure that the first brick to the feeling of loneliness has been laid.

This quality will worsen in those children whose parents decided to realize all their dreams and aspirations in their own child. Mom didn't become a ballerina? The daughter is dragged to dance lessons every day, despite the active protests of the child himself. Did your dad want to become a surgeon? Since childhood, a profession he doesn’t like is forced on his son. And if the child begins to resist, moral blackmail is used. Parents begin to remind the child of all the benefits that they gave him. Don't you want to go to the dance? Bad girl. I'll take your new bike and give it to the neighbor girl. She is obedient.

The peak of such blackmail is the statement that the intractable child will be exchanged for another, good one. Tell me, will such a baby feel lonely? Of course it will. He sees that his parents do not understand his desires and aspirations. And most importantly, they do not realize its uniqueness. The worst thing is that childhood problems are laid deep in the subconscious and shape future character. The girl, who never became a ballerina in her teens, becomes withdrawn. She rightly believes that if she was not understood own mother, then what to say about strangers. No, the girl does not completely interrupt communication with the world. She communicates, makes friends with her peers, but does not reveal her soul to anyone. And she feels immensely lonely.

By the way, in adolescence the problem of loneliness is especially acute. Absolutely no one understands you: not your parents, not your friends, and especially not your teachers. Added to this are distorted impressions about your appearance - and that’s it! You're a loser with absolutely no one to talk to. And even after overcoming this difficult period, there will be scars on the soul that will always remind you of adolescence.

Women's loneliness

In addition, the psychology of a woman’s loneliness is very often associated with the absence of a man. Have you noticed that a divorced girl very often calls herself lonely even though her child is sleeping in a stroller next to her? And when they start telling her that she is not alone, the woman begins to project her loneliness onto the baby: “nobody needs us.” The girl means that she and the child are not needed ex-husband, but the projection turns out to be so wide that it covers all of humanity.

What is the problem with such a painful female desire to have a family? No, this is not a far-fetched need, as men like to talk about it. This behavior is inherent in nature. Look at the kids in kindergarten. While the boys are running around the playroom with slot machines, the girls are playing daughter-mother. They cook soup in a plastic saucepan, swaddle dolls, and put tiny clothes in lockers. They already dream of a white veil and a handsome husband. So what can we say about grown-up girls?

Let's assume that Wedding Dress I managed to put it on. And the wedding ring on your hand says that life was not lived in vain. But where does this oppressive feeling of loneliness come from? It seems that my husband is nearby, and my children are growing up. Such is female psychology - loneliness often arises in people surrounded by family and friends. And quite justifiably. Very often, families live as if by inertia, not interested in the mood, thoughts and actions of those who are under the same roof with them. Woman lovingly preparing dinner, choosing best dishes from a cookbook, and in response he hears the usual “thank you.” There is an instructive joke on this topic: the mother of the family put an armful of hay on the table in front of her husband and sons, and when the men began to be indignant, the nurse said: “How else could I know that you see what you eat?” Did this woman feel lonely? Without a doubt.

By the way, very often a woman dooms herself to forced loneliness. This usually happens after an unsuccessful romance, when the relationship ended very painfully for the girl. She was abandoned, humiliated, she was hurt. Instead of adequately overcoming these difficulties, it turns on defense mechanism, who finds the reason and, generalizing, says that men are evil. And the woman no longer tries to build her personal life, believing that everything will end the same as last time.

As a result, she becomes even more unhappy than before. Since fear prevents her from creating relationships, and her entire subconscious yearns to love and be loved, the woman lives contrary to her desires. And, in the end, she has to restore not only her ability to trust men, but also to recover from loneliness. But if the reason is not in the other half of the person? What if someone is clearly lacking communication? Let's look at the problems of social loneliness.

From loneliness to self-improvement

Ask yourself a question: why do people around you not want to communicate with you? Maybe they are not interested in you? Or are you fixated on one topic that people get tired of talking about for the hundredth time? This sometimes happens to young mothers who are ready to discuss their newborn baby all day long. How he eats, how he sleeps, how he holds his head. And if for the first time your unmarried friends willingly listen to your enthusiastic speeches about your child’s achievements, then after a week they begin to withdraw from communication, citing some problems. Don’t think that these same problems don’t exist, and that your friend came up with them in order to get rid of you. They are. And not at all from your interlocutor, but from you. You have ceased to be interesting to people. Stopped developing. And this is where the problem of your loneliness lies.

What to do? Many young mothers will now begin to talk about the fact that they have a catastrophic lack of time to study, otherwise they would be happy to learn something new and interesting. But is it? What’s stopping you from taking your baby for a walk with a new book? While the child sleeps in the stroller in the air, you are improving. And this can be not only a romance novel, but also a textbook on psychology or a self-instruction manual on English language. You must do everything possible to become a useful and interesting interlocutor.

The psychology of loneliness is very multifaceted and combines a number of diverse human problems. That is, loneliness can be experienced by a young mother, the director of a large enterprise, an old pensioner, and even a minor student. The reasons are different for everyone. The consequence is one. And in order to get rid of loneliness, you need to determine what type of psychological problem has overtaken you.

Types of Loneliness

1. Cosmic loneliness

   It can be encountered at any age. Here a person feels a break in connections with nature and space. But these are just his feelings. In fact, he is losing touch with himself, and this is a much more complex problem than the absence of an interlocutor. Cosmic loneliness is observed in those people who do not live their lives, sacrifice themselves for the sake of others, whose talent does not develop.

   This can be either an obedient child who fulfills the will of his parents despite his own needs, or a housewife who dreamed of becoming a leading economist, but in the end devoted herself to her family. To overcome such a problem, self-realization and defending your own point of view are necessary.

2. Cultural loneliness

   This feeling arises if a person’s personal values ​​do not fully correspond to the values ​​of society. A similar problem is faced by dissidents, emigrants, and people who have experienced profound social changes. Cultural loneliness was very common among older people during the collapse Soviet Union. The country began to live in a new way, but part of society did not want to accept these changes. This type of loneliness is especially acute for people in adulthood and old age.

3. Social loneliness

   When a person is forced to break off contact with a certain group that he would like to join. This could be work (a woman was sent on a well-deserved rest) or college (a student was expelled for unsatisfactory behavior). In this case, a person feels not only lonely, but also exiled and unworthy. He withdraws into himself for a long time, over and over again experiencing his collapse in his soul, mentally replaying the situation, going through options that, in his opinion, could save the situation.

   Often the feeling of social loneliness is exacerbated by those who are close to the collapsed person. Colleagues continue to call and cheerfully tell us that the company is thriving. Students invite an expelled friend to a party, where they actively discuss the past session. Solution: Did you get fired? Are you suffering? Then sever all ties with your previous place of work so that nothing reminds you of the fiasco. You can even change your route so you don't have to drive past your old job every day.

4. Interpersonal loneliness

   Here the reason is a break in connections with other people. For example, a person has no friends. Or there are people near him whom he cannot trust. Many in in this case contact a dating service or start communicating with strangers on the street. However, if you do not determine the true cause of interpersonal loneliness, you will not be able to build new relationships. To overcome it, seek help from a psychologist and delve into your memory. Most likely, you are hindered by an old inferiority complex. Get rid of him, and new friends will appear on their own.

When is loneliness good?

Are there people who consciously accept loneliness as a behavior pattern? Of course. These are introverts. Inward-looking people who do not need communication to feel happy and self-sufficient. Naturally, introverts do not adhere to complete solitude. They have family and friends. But in general they lead a rather secluded lifestyle. Moreover, they can only recover one on one with themselves.

When does loneliness become destructive for them? When the connection with a loved one breaks, and at any age. For example, a woman had a fight with her best friend. Or the husband filed for divorce. The suffering is exacerbated by the fact that introverts are very reluctant to let strangers into their lives, and value those whom they consider close to very highly. This makes the losses more significant than for a sociable extrovert. To overcome the resulting stress, an introvert needs time and, of course, healthy solitude.

Changing our attitude towards loneliness

No matter how strange it may sound, psychologists do not consider loneliness as main problem– the essence lies in people’s attitude towards this feeling. Example: a woman raised her children, married them off and now feels uncomfortable in an empty apartment. She misses communication and children's voices. She's lonely. To smooth out the feeling that has arisen, the woman begins to often visit the children’s new families and call them in the evenings. Naturally, young people may not like such close attention. A conflict arises.

And what, according to psychologists, should a woman do to overcome her loneliness? Find yourself a new hobby. Join a club of similar interests and make friends with people like her. Look at how older people behave in the West. They communicate a lot, travel, throw parties where there is no place for loud music and strong alcoholic drinks. Guests listen to old records and talk about knitting or fishing. They are happy and do not burden their children with their problems. So try to love your loneliness, find positive sides is that you are in this moment alone, and life will get better.

Discussion 2

Are we alone in the Universe?

For the evolution of living organisms from the simplest forms (viruses, bacteria) to intelligent beings, huge intervals of time are required, since “ driving force” such selection are mutations and natural selection - processes that are random in nature. It is through a large number of random processes that the natural development from lower to higher forms of life is realized. From the example of our planet Earth, we know that this time interval apparently exceeds a billion years. Therefore, only on planets orbiting sufficiently old stars can we expect the presence of highly organized living beings. Given the current state of astronomy, we can only talk about arguments in favor of the hypothesis of the multiplicity of planetary systems and the possibility of the emergence of life on them. Astronomy does not yet have rigorous proof of these most important statements. In order to talk about life, we must at least assume that fairly old stars have planetary systems. For the development of life on the planet, it is necessary that a number of general conditions be met. And it is quite obvious that life cannot arise on every planet.

We can imagine around every star that has a planetary system, a zone where temperature conditions do not exclude the possibility of the development of life. It is unlikely to be possible on planets like Mercury, the temperature of the part illuminated by the Sun is higher than the melting point of lead, or like Neptune, whose surface temperature is -200°C. However, one cannot underestimate the enormous adaptability of living organisms to unfavorable environmental conditions. It should also be noted that for the life of living organisms it is much more “dangerous” high temperatures, than low, since the simplest types of viruses and bacteria can, as is known, be in a state of suspended animation at temperatures close to absolute zero.

In addition, it is necessary that the radiation of the star remains approximately constant over many hundreds of millions and even billions of years. For example, a large class of variable stars, whose luminosities vary greatly with time (often periodically), should be excluded from consideration. However, most stars radiate with amazing constancy. For example, according to geological data, the luminosity of our Sun has remained constant over the past few billion years with an accuracy of several tens of percent.

For life to appear on a planet, its mass should not be too small. On the other hand, too much mass is also an unfavorable factor; on such planets the probability of the formation of a solid surface is low, they are usually gas balls with a density rapidly increasing towards the center (for example, Jupiter and Saturn). One way or another, the masses of planets suitable for the development of life must be limited both above and below. Apparently, the lower limit of the mass possibilities of such a planet is close to several hundredths of the Earth’s mass, and the upper limit is tens of times greater than the Earth’s. Very great importance has the chemical composition of the surface and atmosphere. As you can see, the limits of the parameters of planets suitable for life are quite wide.

To study life, you must first define the concept of “living matter”. This question is far from simple. Many scientists, for example, define living matter as complex protein bodies with ordered metabolism. This point of view was held, in particular, by Academician A.I. Oparin, who worked extensively on the problem of the origin of life on Earth. Of course, metabolism is the most essential attribute of life, but the question of whether the essence of life can be reduced, first of all, to metabolism is controversial. Indeed, in the inanimate world, for example, in some solutions, metabolism is observed in its simplest forms. The question of defining the concept of “life” is very acute when we discuss the possibilities of life on other planetary systems.

Nowadays life is not defined through internal structure and the substances that are inherent in it, and through its functions: a “control system”, which includes a mechanism for transmitting hereditary information that ensures safety to subsequent generations. Thus, due to the inevitable interference in the transmission of such information, our molecular complex (organism) is capable of mutations, and therefore of evolution.

The emergence of living matter on Earth (and, as can be judged by analogy, on other planets) was preceded by a rather long and complex evolution of the chemical composition of the atmosphere, which ultimately led to the formation of a number of organic molecules. These molecules subsequently served as “building blocks” for the formation of living matter.

According to modern data: planets are formed from a primary gas-dust cloud, the chemical composition of which is similar chemical composition The sun and stars, their original atmosphere consisted mainly of the simplest compounds of hydrogen - the most common element in space. The majority of the molecules were hydrogen, ammonia, water and methane. In addition, the primary atmosphere must have been rich in inert gases - primarily helium and neon. Currently, there are few noble gases on Earth, since they once dissipated (evaporated) into interplanetary space, like many hydrogen-containing compounds.

However, it seems that plant photosynthesis, during which oxygen is released, played a decisive role in establishing the composition of the earth's atmosphere. It is possible that some, and perhaps even a significant, amount of organic matter was brought to Earth during the fall of meteorites and, possibly, even comets. Some meteorites are quite rich in organic compounds. It is estimated that over 2 billion years, meteorites could have brought to Earth from 10 8 to 10 12 tons of such substances. Also, organic compounds can arise in small quantities as a result of volcanic activity, meteorite impacts, lightning, due to radioactive decay some elements.

There is fairly reliable geological evidence indicating that already 3.5 billion years ago the earth's atmosphere was rich in oxygen. On the other hand, the age of the earth's crust is estimated by geologists at 4.5 billion years. Life must have arisen on Earth before the atmosphere became rich in oxygen, since the latter is mainly a product of plant life. According to a recent estimate by the American planetary astronomer Sagan, life on Earth arose 4.0-4.4 billion years ago.

The mechanism of increasing complexity of the structure of organic substances and the appearance in them of properties inherent in living matter has not yet been sufficiently studied, although Lately There have been great advances in this area of ​​biology. But it is already clear that such processes last for billions of years.

Any no matter how complex combination of amino acids and other organic compounds is not yet a living organism. One can, of course, assume that under some exceptional circumstances, somewhere on Earth a certain “proto-DNA” arose, which served as the beginning of all living things. However, this is unlikely to be the case if the hypothetical “proto-DNA” was quite similar to modern DNA. The fact is that modern DNA by itself is completely helpless. It can function only in the presence of enzyme proteins. To think that purely by chance, by “shaking up” individual proteins - polyatomic molecules, such a complex machine as “praDNA” and the complex of protein-enzymes necessary for its functioning could arise - this means believing in miracles. However, it can be assumed that DNA and RNA molecules evolved from a more primitive molecule.

For the first primitive living organisms formed on the planet, high doses of radiation could pose a mortal danger, since mutations would occur so quickly that natural selection could not keep up with them.

Another question that deserves attention is: why doesn’t life on Earth arise from nonliving matter in our time? This can only be explained by the fact that previously existing life will not provide the opportunity for a new birth of life. Microorganisms and viruses will literally eat the first sprouts of new life. The possibility that life on Earth arose by chance cannot be completely ruled out.

There is one more circumstance that may be worth paying attention to. It is well known that all “living” proteins consist of 22 amino acids, while over 100 amino acids are known in total. It is not entirely clear how these acids differ from the rest of their “brothers”. Is there some deep connection between the origin of life and this amazing phenomenon?

If life on Earth arose by chance, it means that life in the Universe is a rare (although, of course, by no means an isolated) phenomenon. For a given planet (such as our Earth), the emergence of a special form of highly organized matter, which we call “life,” is an accident. But in the vast expanses of the Universe, life arising in this way should be a natural phenomenon.

It should be noted once again that the central problem of the emergence of life on Earth, the explanation of the qualitative leap from “non-living” to “living”, is still far from clear. No wonder one of the founders of modern molecular biology Professor Crick at the Byurakan Symposium on the Problem of Extraterrestrial Civilizations in September 1971 said: “We do not see a path from the primordial soup to natural selection. One may come to the conclusion that the origin of life is a miracle, but this only testifies to our ignorance.”

The exciting question of life on other planets has occupied the minds of astronomers for several centuries. The possibility of the very existence of planetary systems around other stars is only now becoming a subject scientific research. Previously, the question of life on other planets was an area of ​​purely speculative conclusions. Meanwhile, Mars, Venus and other planets of the solar system have long been known as non-self-luminous solid celestial bodies surrounded by atmospheres. It has long become clear that in general terms they resemble the Earth, and if so, why shouldn’t there be life on them, even highly organized, and, who knows, intelligent?

It is quite natural to believe that the physical conditions that prevailed on the terrestrial planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars) that had just formed from a gas-dust environment were very similar, in particular, their initial atmospheres were the same.

The main atoms that make up those molecular complexes from which living matter is formed are hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and carbon. The role of the latter is especially important. Carbon is a tetravalent element. Therefore, only carbon compounds lead to the formation of long molecular chains with rich and variable side branches. Various protein molecules belong to this type. Silicon is often called a carbon substitute. Silicon is quite abundant in space. In the atmospheres of stars, its content is only 5-6 times less than carbon, that is, it is quite high. It is unlikely, however, that silicon can play the role of a “cornerstone” of life. For some reason, its compounds cannot provide as much variety of side branches in complex molecular chains as carbon compounds. Meanwhile, the richness and complexity of such side branches is precisely what provides a huge variety of properties of protein compounds, as well as the exceptional “information content” of DNA, which is absolutely necessary for the emergence and development of life.

The most important condition for the origin of life on the planet is the presence of a sufficiently large amount of liquid Medium on its surface. In such an environment, organic compounds are in a dissolved state and favorable conditions can be created for the synthesis of complex molecular complexes based on them. In addition, a liquid environment is necessary for newly emerged living organisms to protect them from harmful effects. ultraviolet radiation, which at the initial stage of the planet’s evolution can freely penetrate to its surface.

It can be expected that such a liquid shell can only be water and liquid ammonia, many compounds of which, by the way, are similar in structure to organic compounds, due to which the possibility of the emergence of life on an ammonia basis is currently being considered. The formation of liquid ammonia requires a relatively low temperature of the planet's surface. In general, the temperature of the original planet is very important for the emergence of life on it. If the temperature is high enough, for example above 100°C, and the atmospheric pressure is not very high, a water shell cannot form on its surface, not to mention ammonia. Under such conditions, there is no need to talk about the possibility of the emergence of life on the planet.

Based on the above, we can expect that the conditions for the emergence of life on Mars and Venus in the distant past could, generally speaking, be favorable. The liquid shell could only be water, and not ammonia, as follows from an analysis of the physical conditions on these planets during the era of their formation. Currently, these planets are quite well studied, and nothing indicates the presence of even the simplest forms of life on any of the planets solar system, not to mention intelligent life. However, it is very difficult to obtain clear indications of the presence of life on a particular planet through astronomical observations, especially if we are talking about a planet in another star system. Even with the most powerful telescopes, under the most favorable observation conditions, the size of the features still visible on the surface of Mars is 100 km.

Before this, we only identified the most General terms, at which life can (not necessarily) arise in the Universe. Such a complex form of matter as life depends on a large number of completely unrelated phenomena. But all these arguments concern only the simplest forms of life. When we move on to the possibility of certain manifestations of intelligent life in the Universe, we are faced with very great difficulties.

Life on any planet must undergo a huge evolution before becoming intelligent. The driving force behind this evolution is the ability of organisms to mutate and natural selection. In the process of such evolution, organisms become more and more complex, and their parts are specialized. Complications occur in both qualitative and quantitative directions. For example, a worm has only about 1000 nerve cells, while humans have about ten billion. Development nervous system significantly increases the ability of organisms to adapt and their plasticity. These properties of highly developed organisms are necessary, but, of course, not sufficient for the emergence of intelligence. The latter can be defined as the adaptation of organisms for their complex social behavior. The emergence of intelligence must be closely connected with a radical improvement and improvement in the ways of exchanging information between individuals. Therefore, for the history of the emergence of intelligent life on Earth, the emergence of language was of decisive importance. Can we, however, consider such a process universal for the evolution of life in all corners of the Universe? Most likely no! Indeed, in principle, under completely different conditions, the means of information exchange between individuals could not be longitudinal vibrations of the atmosphere (or hydrosphere) in which these individuals live, but something completely different. Why not imagine a way to exchange information based not on acoustic effects, but, say, on optical or magnetic ones? And in general, is it really necessary for life on some planet to become intelligent in the process of its evolution?

Meanwhile, this topic has worried humanity since time immemorial. When talking about life in the Universe, we always meant, first of all, intelligent life. Are we alone in the boundless expanses of space? Philosophers and scientists since ancient times have always been convinced that there are many worlds where intelligent life exists. No scientifically based arguments were given in favor of this statement. The reasoning, essentially, was carried out according to the following scheme: if there is life on Earth, one of the planets in the solar system, then why shouldn’t it be on other planets? This method of reasoning, if logically developed, is not so bad. And in general, it’s scary to imagine that out of 10 20 - 10 22 planetary systems in the Universe, in an area with a radius of tens of billions of light years, intelligence exists only on our tiny planet... But maybe intelligent life is extremely a rare event. It may be, for example, that our planet, as the abode of intelligent life, is the only one in the Galaxy, and not all galaxies have intelligent life. Is it even possible to consider works on intelligent life in the Universe to be scientific? Probably, after all, with the current level of technological development, it is possible and necessary to deal with this problem now, especially since it may suddenly turn out to be extremely important for the development of civilization...

Finding any life, especially intelligent life, could be of great significance. Therefore, attempts have been made for a long time to discover and establish contact with other civilizations. In 1974, the automatic interplanetary station Pioneer 10 was launched in the United States. Several years later, she left the solar system, completing various scientific tasks. There is a negligible probability that someday, many billions of years from now, highly civilized alien beings unknown to us will discover Pioneer 10 and greet him as a messenger from an alien world unknown to us. For this case, there is a steel plate inside the station with a pattern and symbols engraved on it, which provide minimal information about our earthly civilization. This image is composed in such a way that intelligent beings who find it will be able to determine the position of the solar system in our Galaxy and guess our appearance and, possibly, our intentions. But of course, an extraterrestrial civilization has a much better chance of finding us on Earth than finding Pioneer 10.

The question of the possibility of communication with other worlds was first analyzed by Cocconi and Morris in 1959. They came to the conclusion that the most natural and practically feasible communication channel between any civilizations separated by interstellar distances could be established using electromagnetic waves. The obvious advantage of this type of communication is the propagation of the signal at the maximum speed possible in nature, equal to the speed of propagation of electromagnetic waves, and the concentration of energy within relatively small solid angles without any significant scattering. The main disadvantages of this method are the low power of the received signal and strong interference arising from vast distances and cosmic radiation. Nature itself tells us that transmissions should occur at a wavelength of 21 centimeters (the wavelength of free hydrogen radiation), while the loss of signal energy will be minimal, and the probability of receiving a signal by an extraterrestrial civilization is much greater than at a randomly taken wavelength. Most likely, we should expect signals from space on the same wavelength.

But let's say that we have detected some strange signal. Now we must move on to the next, rather important issue. How to recognize the artificial nature of a signal? Most likely, it should be modulated, that is, its power should change regularly over time. At first, it should apparently be quite simple. After the signal is received (if, of course, this happens), two-way radio communication will be established between civilizations, and then the exchange of more complex information can begin. Of course, we should not forget that answers may not be obtained earlier than in several tens or even hundreds of years. However, the exceptional importance and value of such negotiations should certainly compensate for their slowness.

Radio observations of several nearby stars have already been carried out several times as part of the large OMZA project in 1960 and using the telescope of the US National Radio Astronomy Laboratory in 1971. A large number have been developed expensive projects establishing contacts with other civilizations, but they are not funded, and very few actual observations have been made so far.

Despite the obvious advantages of space radio communications, we should not lose sight of other types of communications, since it is impossible to say in advance what signals we may be dealing with. Firstly, this is optical communication, the main drawback of which is the very weak signal level, because despite the fact that the divergence angle of the light beam was brought to 10 -8 rad, its width at a distance of several light years will be enormous. Communication can also be carried out using automatic probes. For obvious reasons, this type of communication is not yet available to earthlings, and will not become available even with the beginning of the use of controlled thermonuclear reactions. When launching such a probe, we would be faced with a huge number of problems, even if we consider the time of its flight to the target to be acceptable. In addition, there are already more than 50,000 stars less than 100 light years from the solar system. Which one should I send the probe to?

Thus, establishing direct contact with extraterrestrial civilization on our part is still impossible. But maybe we should just wait? Here we cannot fail to mention the very current problem UFO on Earth. There are so many different cases of “observations” of aliens and their activities that have already been noticed that in no case can one unequivocally refute all this data. We can only say that many of them, as it turned out over time, were inventions or the result of an error. But this is a topic for other research.

If some form of life or civilization is discovered somewhere in space, then we absolutely, even approximately, cannot imagine what its representatives will look like and how they will react to contact with us. What if this reaction is, from our point of view, negative. Then it’s good if the level of development of extraterrestrial beings is lower than ours. But it may turn out to be immeasurably higher. Such contact, given a normal attitude towards us from another civilization, is of the greatest interest. But one can only guess about the level of development of aliens, and nothing at all can be said about their structure.

Many scientists are of the opinion that civilization cannot develop beyond a certain limit, and then it either dies or no longer develops. For example, the German astronomer von Horner named six reasons that, in his opinion, could limit the duration of the existence of a technically developed civilization: 1) the complete destruction of all life on the planet; 2) destruction of only highly organized beings; 3) physical or spiritual degeneration and extinction; 4) loss of interest in science and technology; 5) lack of energy for the development of a very highly developed civilization; 6) the lifetime is unlimited; Von Horner considers this last possibility completely incredible. Further, he believes that in the second and third cases, another civilization can develop on the same planet on the basis (or on the ruins) of the old one, and the time of such “resumption” is relatively short.

From September 5 to 11, 1971, the first international conference on the problem of extraterrestrial civilizations and communications with them was held at the Byurakan Astrophysical Observatory in Armenia. The conference was attended by competent scientists working in various fields related to the complex problem under consideration: astronomers, physicists, radiophysicists, cybernetics, biologists, chemists, archaeologists, linguists, anthropologists, historians, sociologists. The conference was organized jointly by the USSR Academy of Sciences and the US National Academy of Sciences with the participation of scientists from other countries. At the conference, many aspects of the problem of extraterrestrial civilizations were discussed in detail. The issues of the multiplicity of planetary systems in the Universe, the origin of life on Earth, and the possibility of the emergence of life on other space objects, the emergence and evolution of intelligent life, the emergence and development of technological civilization, the problems of searching for signals from extraterrestrial civilizations and traces of their activities, and the problems of establishing communications were discussed in detail. with them and also possible consequences establishing contacts.

Literature

• 1. Shklovsky I.S. “Universe, Life, Mind” 1976
• 2. Siegel F.Yu. “Astronomy in its development” 1988
• 3. Efremov Yu.N. “Into the Depths of the Universe” 1984
• 4. Gurshtein A.A. “The Eternal Secrets of the Sky” 1991