Look, I know it’s speculation, but, we are not alone in the universe. We can’t say 100% for sure yet because we have not discovered life outside of earth, yet. However, we don’t need 100% certainty to hypothesize accurately with a high statistical probability of being correct, that life is not just common throughout the universe, but moreover, statistics suggest it’s inevitable. I wrote a hypothesis a while back called “The Inevitable Life Argument” which posits that given the scientific knowledge we have now about ourselves, our solar system, the galaxy, physics, chemistry, biology, evolution, time and space, that we are most probably not alone. Even more, Given the tiny percentage of stars we have studied through Kepler, and finding so many exoplanets within that group, many of which orbit within the habitable zone around their parent star, it’s a very safe assumption to conclude that this is most likely how it is throughout our galaxy and the whole universe. We need more data points, of course, we could always use more data, but given how many exoplanets we found in such a SMALL sampling of the sky, it’s safe to assume every star likely has at least one planet, and likely multiple planets. Understanding this we can use the Drake Equation and other calculations to find the probability of life out there. We must CHANGE Drake’s equation though because it started with the assumption that fewer stars have planets, and we’ve already discovered that that is not true. We must modify the number of stars with planets, and planets which are habitable to find a more accurate number to form a logical argument for the inevitability of life. The Drake equation is not really a part of my hypothesis, and I argue it’s not that accurate at all because it starts with a tiny number of habitable worlds for the calculation, which in my opinion is flawed. I think the Kepler data shows we have grossly underestimated the number of habitable worlds out there and in doing so we have nerfed our own knowledge. Kepler may not disprove the Drake equation because you can simply pick a new number and plug it in to calculate the number of possible civilizations out there. But how many do you pick? What do you start with? Kepler data! Now take that data, assume it’s likely the same across the entire viewable sky, throughout the galaxy, and the universe, and that will give you a much better idea of how much life is out there. Kepler has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that habitable planets (planets with liquid water) are NOT AS RARE as we first thought. This changes everything. Humans, and every other life form on this planet are evidence that life can form independently in our solar system, our galaxy and the universe. Combine that with Kepler data and you must conclude based on that data, that there are many more billions of habitable planets out there in our own galaxy than we ever thought possible. Statistical probability tells me that life in the universe is inevitable, not rare. The universe is teeming with life, most of it microbial. Intelligent civilizations likely develop more often than we think; using the same logic that we assumed habitable planets were more rare than they actually are, we can safely conclude that if we were wrong about that, and the number is much greater, then the likelihood of intelligent civilizations developing also goes up. By how much? I don’t know because I haven’t run those numbers, but…given how wrong we were about the number of habitable planets there are, it’s probably orders of magnitude greater.