Not even Earth's own inhabitants can live everywhere on the planet (in fact, we, it's technical civilisation, mostly contend outselves with 30% of it)
Less, actually. The amount of the world that is "industrialized" - as in cities and roads - is roughly 3%. 30% may be liveable but not lived upon.
The chance of life developing is up for debate, so your assertion is your own opinion, not fact. Unfortunately, everything regarding this subject is speculative, so there is no way to rule definitively one way or the other. It can be argued, that any earthlike planet will eventually develop simple life, of which, maybe 2/3 of those planets will develop into complex life. It go the other way that the chances of life developing are incredibly small...the Rare Earth concept.
Actually it's not. Not one single scientific experiment since scientists have tried to create life in a lab has succeeded, and they've been using ideal situations (or some of them that are impossible - the Miller-Urey experiment used impossible atmospheric conditions. for example). It is safe to say that it is a fact that life cannot spontaneously arise. Life can't even be artificially created in laboratories, to any extent I've seen.
By life I mean a full working cell. Scientists have had limited success creating amino acids, but their success in this field is the equivalent of creating a "P" and a "Я" and claiming to have written a complete Encyclopedia Brittanica. Amino acids are required to make life, but they are not themselves life, in much the way that letters are not books.
Alien life might not even be considered life under our definition, we can't know the likeliness as we don't know what other possible configurations that can create viable life, afterall Virae is not considered lifeforms.
This is the best way to go in this discussion.
Something to remember is that while we may only use live on 30% of of our globe, water takes up a lot of space, and where there arn't cities, and other dwellings, there is lots and lots of farmland. we are starting to run low on workable, non-protected land for agricultural production. As population increases, and dwellings take more space, we get LESS land for food production. Which means less food for that rising population. They will have to expand. Either that or continually destroy themselves with bloody wars. And sending them off to try to colonize an inhabited planet solves that problem both ways.
The aliens came to steal metahumanity's soy and krill farming techniques!
The chances for a planet developing life is calculated over a period of a billion years...I'm not aware of any controlled experiments that have had such a period of study. If you know of any, could you direct me to them?
I didn't know of any controlled experiments testing for the absolute radiological decay rates either. In other words - so what?
The problem is that besides not knowing the chances of life developing at all, we don't even know how long it will take assuming it does. Earth is around 4.5 billion years old, and early life arose some 0.5-0.7 billion years after that, and early homo sapiens around ~400-250 million years ago. That is to say, going from planet formation to intelligent life (here defining intelligent life on Earth as "humans") took over 4 billion years, and then from that, it took hundreds of millions of years for us to send messages that could potentially reach space (radio being invented somewhere around ~1880). We can't really make any qualified statement about other planets getting there faster, but we know that it took a long time for us.
The point of this thread is not to debate how long or even whether life could have evolved or not. I could easily go on about this subject for tens of thousands of words, but this is not the proper medium for it.
I know that this is not D&D, so please don't insult me Neraph.
Where did that come from?
Second, the rule set I made up for Psionics has the Psion with a limited set of abilities. Also, without the ability to boost your power with foci, the power level is much lower. I mean think about it: a Mage with Magic 6, a Rating 6 Spellcasting Foci, in a beneficial mana field (in this case +2) will have the ability to cast a effectively Rating 14 Magic.
My rule set would not allow ANY of those shenanigans. There is no Psionic power foci, and no beneficial mana field. Yes there is no drawbacks, but I accounted for them by limiting the number of abilities that a Psion could get to their Psi rating. Psi rating of 2... congrats you have TWO powers and can not learn any more until you raise your Psi rating. Unlike a mage who can spend 5 Karma to learn a new spell.
If anyone wants to take a look at the rule set I made and tell me how I can make it better and more balanced with the current SR rule set, then PM me and I'll send you a copy.
My rule set would not allow ANY of those shenanigans. There is no Psionic power foci, and no beneficial mana field. Yes there is no drawbacks, but I accounted for them by limiting the number of abilities that a Psion could get to their Psi rating. Psi rating of 2... congrats you have TWO powers and can not learn any more until you raise your Psi rating. Unlike a mage who can spend 5 Karma to learn a new spell.
If anyone wants to take a look at the rule set I made and tell me how I can make it better and more balanced with the current SR rule set, then PM me and I'll send you a copy.
1) Spellcasting Foci and Aspected BC do not add on to a Magic Rating.
2) Psionics is still the equivalent of a gun against melee versus normal Awakened. Not to mention the lack of a need to muddle up game mechanics any more - there is literally no need of that mechanic in the game.
