>We are indeed small and insignificant, but alone? Doubtful at best.

If we're the only (or even just one of few) intelligent beings (!) in the Universe then our significance is huge.

If we're the only intelligent beings in the Universe, then I argue that intelligence is overrated, thus our significance (except to ourselves) is negligible. Unless you go the route of arguing that without intelligence, there is no significance, and thus our self-significance is all the significance there is, in which case you're right - it's huge.

Here's a YouTube link to the entire Pale Blue Dot bit by Sagan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wupToqz1e2g

Sagan is absolutely amazing. It really does put things in perspective.

> We are indeed small and insignificant, but alone? Doubtful at best.

I often read this, but I have no idea why this should be the case. Since we only have a single data point, we can only really infer that the probability of life naturally occurring on a random planet is greater than zero.

We do know however that there are a finite number of stars in the universe, let's say 10^24. If turned out to be the case that the actual probability of life occurring on a planet was say, 10^-40, then we could very well be alone in the universe.

When looking at the radio bubble image, I immediately wondered if the blue color was chosen intentionally as a reference to the Pale Blue Dot. Great coincident association, at least. Similar sense of the infinitesimal scale we live our lives at. Now, let's see some Electron Microscopy.

Yeah, I chose the color for that reason. Also, it's hard to find a color that stands out on a the extreme light / dark background of a galaxy. It just so happens that pale blue is better than most.