A person who doesn't even understand the concept of splitting up paragraphs is in no grounds for criticizing someone else as being "unintelligible". Likewise, starting off a debate by accusing the other side of "psychosis"... well, I'll not comment about what that says about you.
. 1. Your understanding of why water is required for LAWKI is wrong. It's principle properties (as far as LAWKI is concerned) are thought to be A. hydrogen bonding and B. solvency.
1) The presence of water inside a cell does not require that a wet external environment was the source of the hydrogen in said water.
2) There are countless solvents in the universe. Out of sheer coincidence over the past two days I've been reading papers on the solvency properties of ionic liquids and carbon disulfide (the latter being common naturally). The studied possibilities of cyanide chemistry on Titan use methane as a solvent. Ammonia is also common in the universe and is an excellent solvent. (if you want to argue against methane and ammonia because they're not polar, you're going to have to defend the concept that solvents must be polar - which in the studied case for Titan, they absolutely don't have to be in order to create some spectacularly complex cyanide chemistry). Carbon dioxide is a superb solvent in its supercritical state. There are lots and lots of common natural compounds that are excellent solvents in widely varying environments. Not environments that LAWKI would survive in, but that's because LAWKI is evolved to the conditions of Earth, utilizing molecules that are stable on Earth conditions for its life processes.
2. The Drake Equation. I'd speculate that if you sat down and studied the equation *critically*, that you'd see it has major flaws, the most serious (imho) is the assumption that each of its terms can be reduced to numerical values and that each term is independent of the others.
Which can be resolved by combining terms. Feel free to present your alternative (many people have); each form nonetheless invariably projects massive numbers of civilizations.
3. The Fermi Paradox also has serious problems. Let's say that interstellar travel is technically impossible
A premise I'll gladly accept.
- that there's no propulsion technology which can transport viable (sufficiently complex) intelligent life across interstellar distances. Then there is no "paradox"
Except that there still is, because even if a civilization evolved only 1% earlier than ours did (a very tiny margin!), it's 138 million years old, and can thus be expected to have been long moving out at relativistic speeds in all directions. The Milky Way's diameter is only 100-180k light years. Even Andromeda is only 2,5 million light years away. Even civilizations having advanced to the point of interstellar travel just a mere 1% earlier than we've reached our current state should be arriving from all over the local group - let alone ones that developed 5%, 15%, 50%, etc earlier. The fact that life tends to spring up wherever there's water is not consistent with the observed emptiness of the universe.
Cosmological distances help keep is apart, but it is also a requirement that life be very rare.
Another problem can be seen if I use the same reasoning to claim that every square meter of the Earth's surface must have been "visited"
The more appropriate comparison, since we're talking about beings that reproduce, and over timescales representing countless generations, is to claim that every square meter of Earth's surface must have been visited by bacteria. And golly gee, it has. Even ignoring the point that bacteria don't have intelligence to guide them.
Finally, you should account for the stupidity of any group of fans of any meme. The *experts* (hopefully, the people who have enough of a background and have carefully thought about the problem of detecting extraterrestrial life, which would include careful and thorough study of the scientific literature) would, I believe, strongly disagree with your assertion that they claim water = life.
There is no broad agreement among scientists about the topic. So your trying to assert that "experts think X" is simply wrong, for whatever value of X you wish to choose. There are some scientists who are very keen on the concept of life being found wherever there's water, and just as many opposed.
LAWKI requires the presence of liquid water
More specifically, LAWKI has evolved to require the presence of liquid water. We know absolutely nothing about what form it was when it began.
Liquid water doesn't require the presence of life.
Tell that to the large numbers of scientists working at NASA who assert otherwise. They've even used "follow the water" as the official name of several campaigns' search for life on other planets. The "follow the water" concept is that wherever water has existed in the liquid state, life is likely to arise. This is a concept I am very much against.
There's so little we know about abiogenesis, that talking about it is practically useless
Exactly my point. Yet so many people - and I'm not entirely sure whether you're among them - keep acting as if LAWKI in its current state must inherently represent the same sort of biological processes as in its earliest state, with the same sort of needs. And the "follow the water" crowd further asserts that wherever water exists, life is likely to arise - as if we have any bloody clue about what conditions led to the first successful hypercycles on Earth.
I note that while I hold out some hope we will discover planets in our local neighborhood (say 500 light years from Earth) which have spectroscopic indications that life might exist, it is almost certain that there is no way for life to be detected at "cosmological" distances
I was very clearly and explicitly referring to other species engaging in interstellar travel. Something that's pretty much a given for any species that's been around even a fraction of a percent longer than we have. How you interpreted the term "encountering" as "detecting" is beyond me.
Another obvious "solution" to the Fermi Paradox, is that IF intelligence must evolve in social emotional animals, then it will inevitably produce a species which will cause it's own extinction
Extinction becomes difficult once you become a multiplanetary species, and almost impossible once you become an interstellar species. Some, some may well find a way to kill all of themselves before reaching that point (although total extinction is a tall order). But if you're in the "follow the water" crowd there should be life evolving at almost every star, often multiple planets per star. Unless you're talking a probability of extinction on the order of 99,99999999999999999999999%, that explanation doesn't cut it.
The assumption that intelligence is a benefit for the long-term survival (say on scales of hundreds of thousands to millions of years) has exactly zero evidence to support it. If it were such a great thing, it would probably already have developed *here* and we'd be covered in scales (or have 6 legs).
I can't even make out what you're trying to argue. Intelligence did evolve here. On many different lines (birds are quite intelligent, cephlapods, other mammals, etc).
If by intelligence you mean sentience, it did evolve here too. Are you trying to assert that it should have evolved instantly with the first life? Since when does evolution work that way?