10^21, 10^22 and 10^23... Whichever number, the point that the parent poster was making doesn't change at all.
>You are implicitly assuming a probability that life can arise.
What are you suggesting? We're all actually not alive? Come on.
Why anger? And will you expand on why this is utter bullshit? In what way does probability not work this way? You are making strong assertions without expanding on why you believe those assertions.
Your assertion also goes against some pretty big names in the field; not that big names are automatically trustworthy, but they do seem to carry more weight than a random HN comment (no offense).
The SETI people making this busted argument are implicitly assuming p, the chance that life arises on a suitable world, is not "too small". And there is no basis for making that assumption.
That is not mathematically rigorous, but it is, from the Bayesian perspective, enough to move the needle.
That is obviously false; zero observations will never cause a Bayesian adjustment.
The argument is generally that scale and probability favor the existence of intelligent life, assuming Earth is not somehow exceptional in the universe.
Assuming Earth is exceptional seems just as problematic.
Welcome to the Fermi paradox.
Why are you holding p fixed and allowing N to increase? You are implicitly assuming N is in that regime where N > 1/p. That's just assuming p > 1/N, and there's no good reason to make that assumption.
The comment that started this thread: "That's 10^22 opportunities to get it right. We can't possibly be alone."