I'm Futurist Dr. Stan Schatt --Ask Me Anything!

Really enjoying this thread and sorry for the long post below. It is only one question at the start!

What credence would you give to the notion that perhaps we're not alone in the universe but we, currently, are the most technological evolved life-form?

My case for this is pretty much made up on the back of a cigarette packet below and took about five minutes to write and is probably a bit far out and inspired by too much coffee today! Personally I haven't seen any convincing evidence anywhere to show that we're not top dog but much like Fox Mulder I really want to believe!

Taking into account our, as a species, delicate, child like grasp of technology and the potential to destroy ourselves - be it through nano-tech grey goo, AI wipe out, engineered viruses, CERN (or future generations of) creating cataclysms on a local or universal scale and the fact that as a species we've benefited from random chance asteroid strikes and previous mass extinctions and dodged the cosmological bullet ever since; and given the immense size and vastness of the universe and sheer numbers of stars and planets in our galaxy and beyond and beyond... then surely if technological advanced lifeforms were common in the universe then isn't it feasible that at least one of them would have have triggered such a cataclysm already?

The sheer fact that we're still here observing (e.g. the universe is still here) and that there appears to be no observable evidence of any unnatural catastrophes in the observed universe would suggest to me that either we're probably the most advanced life form out here or we're in some kind of simulation where rules prevent such unnatural cataclysms.

Hi Stan --- What's you're opinion on the chance that breaking the speed of light barrier with a starship that has two off board magnetic shields --- is sustainable on into superluminal speeds --- with the right kind of propulsion technology that can attain those speeds without the starship destroying itself from the speed of light barrier?


Thanks,

Erno

I know you have many questions ahead of mine, so it is ok if you do not have time to answer mine. I also apologize for repeating the question if this has been asked already, as I did not have enough time to go through all 7 to 10 pages of this thread.

What is your opinion on New World Order, NWO?

I ask, only because a lot of other scientists seems to all suggest the forming of a One World Government before we can progress from Type 0 civilization to Type I.

So, what's your take on One World Government, which to some, directly translate to New World Order.

a reply to: rickymouse
True, but what if aliens could see auras. The people with the best coffee would not necessarily have the most spiritual auras. In fact, there might be an inverse relationship.

Dr. Schatt, you've been so wonderfully attentive and candid in this thread and I'd like to thank you. I hope they can persuade you to join us again in the near future.
This has been a most interesting conversation.

originally posted by: StanSchatt
a reply to: gosseyn
You bring up an interest point I've never thought about. I guess I see technology as neither bad nor good but simply a tool. Our social institutions sometimes have not made good use of this tool. The problem is that the people who control technology often use it for personal gain rather than altruism. If we use technology to develop a cure for cancer but then a private company patents that particular gene therapy and charges so much that only the very rich can be cured, then that's an obvious case of a disconnect between social institutions and technology where human nature (greed) defeated the altruistic use of technology.

Maybe our technology has outpaced ourselves in the sense that we have the power now to destroy the planet even though we haven't evolved mentally and spiritually to the point where we wouldn't do that. That's the classic description of a civilization at the crossroads between self-destruction and evolution. I think an alien race would see us at that point in our development. As far as General Semantics, I know just a little about it. I believe it has to do with brain training.

Thanks for answering,
But don't you think that it's the system itself which forces humans to be greedy ? I don't think "human nature" equals greed as you said. We live in a social system which pushes us to be greedy, a system which artificially maintains scarcity, a system that we have inherited from past centuries and millennia. My point was we have enough science and technology to produce an abundance of goods in many domains and solve the problem of scarcity, but we don't do it because we are stuck in an ideological loop about ourselves and the world around us (you have proven it yourself by stating that human nature = greed, which is an ideological stance backed by no real science). The problem is the system that we use, and you have given the perfect example : patenting, and copyright laws in general. I can't imagine an advanced alien species - and when I say advanced, I mean not only technologically advanced but more importantly socially advanced - which wouldn't have banned the fact of restraining something as beneficial as a cure for a largely distributed illness just so a handful could benefit from it. And in our current human social systems, this is perfectly legalized. This is where we are not advanced but retarded. I hoped someone like you who analysed science and technology for many years could have seen this and was interested in the social impact of science and technology. Thanks !

originally posted by: router404
The sheer fact that we're still here observing (e.g. the universe is still here) and that there appears to be no observable evidence of any unnatural catastrophes in the observed universe would suggest to me that either we're probably the most advanced life form out here or we're in some kind of simulation where rules prevent such unnatural cataclysms.

I can answer this one, I hope you and Stan do not mind.

We have only been observing the universe in the level of detail possible to detect a large scale (solar system wide) catastrophe around other stars since the 1990s and we have not even approached the ability to detect planetary wide or local catastrophes such as the ones you outlined. That day is coming with the next generation of space and large ground based telescopes in the 2020 and beyond time frame but even then, it will be limited to only the nearest and brightest stars. It would require massive arrays of space telescopes to detect most of what you outlined in detail and further out than our local neighborhood (out to 250-500 light years).

It could also be that we've seen a destroyed solar system but how would it look much different than a massive natural dust disk other than it being around a mature star? So it could be that we have the evidence for that but just do not recognize it as such at this time.

a reply to: router404
Hmmmm. We have led a charmed existence, no question about it. We've had several mass extinctions but not total extinctions. I'm not inclined to see the hand of aliens or God in this, although if you read Robert Sawyer's novel, Calculating God, you'll see that suggestion. Many of the SETI folks make the Fermi argument that if aliens were out there, we surely would have heard.

My feeling is that the universe is really vast and there lots of considerations when it comes to first contact. If an alien probe came thousands of years ago, who would have noticed? What is races go through an evolution where they eventually evolve beyond the physical --kind of like the Singularity? In that case, would they still have the aggressiveness and drive to seek out other lifeforms? I think the least we have to do is thoroughly explore the neighborhood and see if there are any fossils or other signs of life before we assume we're alone or top dog. I do agree that the odds on avoiding all kinds of catastrophes are low. That's a major argument for going beyond our planet and colonizing so humanity will exist even if the Earth perishes. As far as simulations, that is a valid theory with some math behind it.

a reply to: Erno86
Interesting idea --I don't know whether it would hold up to theory and whether a math model would support it. I'm more in favor of exploring the concept of bending space. That would make distant galaxies much easier to reach. Even with light speed travel, we'd have to freeze people for a very long time.

a reply to: JadeStar
Great answer! I agree. The problem we face is we're very much like natives on an isolated island a couple of thousand years ago without the technology to circumnavigate to the other side of the world, It's a vast universe and we're circling a minor star far from the center of the galaxy. The latest thinking from some scientists I respect is that we should be developing technology to recognize evidence of Class II or Class III civilizations based on how they have altered the stars around them.

a reply to: truthseeker84 I understand the thrust of these scientists' arguments in terms of humanity having a unified set of leaders and military commanders. The problem is that human nature being what it is, I don't see that happening. In fact, the opposite seems to be occurring with the EU threatening to break apart. So even if I grant you the hypothesis that there 's a small cadre of powerful people seeming a NWO, it would be difficult to push people in that direction unless we faced a common enemy.

a reply to: AutumnWitch657
Thanks, I'm enjoying it too.

Thanks Dr.Schatt and Jade Star. I hadn't actually considered the resolving power of current telescopes so take that on board. If only future tech and money could be driven in more peaceful directions like building better apparatus to enable scientists to at least try and observe these types of events or other solar or galactic engineering projects then we might find the evidence we're looking for if visitors aren't ever forthcoming.

I just really, really hope that we're indeed not the first, advanced species and that we don't eventually press the big figurative red button that we shouldn't and end everything and everyone before anything else gets a chance to get started.

a reply to: gosseyn
I think I understand your position. I know Star Trek postulated a world where there was no need for money and where everyone seemed to have enough to eat and a roof over their heads. Of course, it never showed how people evolved to that point. I think you're saying it is the system and not human nature that's the problem. I have a few questions you might want to consider because I don't know the answers. Have we ever had a social system that was totally equitable? If not, how could we "push" people with entrenched interests toward such a system? Humans evolution included a pretty bloody past. We either butchered or assimilated other branches of humanity. In part it has been our natural aggressiveness that has pushed us forward. How or why would that change now so that altruism rather than enlightened self-interest dominates?

Doctor Shatt it's wonderful to have you here and we appreciate you taking time out of your busy schedule to do so.

It is said that all things vibrate at a certain frequency. With the spectrum of light, we humans can only "see" x amount of such (of which you've mentioned in a prior posting). My query is this (and although are multiple questions, they are all inked together;

Is it possible that there is an cohabitation of entities (or objects/things) here on Earth that we would not be aware of because of the frequency vibrating differently (an out of phase wave-link of sorts]?

If that query has merit, are you aware of any type of experiments (or research) that would follow that train of thought? Are you aware of (or heard of) any humans that may have accidentally been able to be a part of (or experienced) a vibrational frequency change or overlap?

I thank you in advance for your response and thanks once again for your participation on ATS!

a reply to: router404
I share your hope. Unfortunately the idealism of the 60s that pushed us into space has turned to an age that puts all kinds of limitations on space exploration. It probably would take a discovery such as something artificial on a nearby moon or planet to generate the public pressure to fund more peaceful exploration of space.

a reply to: StanSchatt
Hello Dr. Schatt

What technologies do you see trending? Robotics? Home Automation? Xbox One? Does Microsoft have a future or is their day over? Oh, and do you think Bigfoot is an alien?

I think I have a question no one has touched on yet. What do you have to say about the economics of the future?

I think back to all of the movies and TV shows of the 50's and 60's which portrayed future life as a life of leisure where machines did everything for us, and there was little work to be done. The problem is that those shows never asked the question of how people earned a living. If income still comes from work, then what are we to do as a society when we no longer need the contributions of all who are able, to provide for all who are wanting?

We're already seeing some of this today with our extremely high real unemployment rates, and people simply dropping out of the work force. Technology has reached the point where working is an obsolete concept for many of us yet the entire history of a monetary system has resulted in money being a result of work.

How do we resolve this question as a society when technology will only advance and eliminate more jobs?

a reply to: JohnnyAnonymous
If beings existed outside our spectrum, we couldn't see them, but we probably would see some signs of them via our instruments if they were made of matter like we are.

I believe that everything that's alive vibrates at certain frequencies. All this talk about auras is probably based on that concept. While we are generally not aware of this except for the few "spiritual" folks who apparently can see auras, what if aliens vibrated in different frequency ranges. If that's the case, we might visit a planet and not really be able to see them even though our instruments might record something.

originally posted by: StanSchatt
a reply to: router404 Many of the SETI folks make the Fermi argument that if aliens were out there, we surely would have heard.

You won't find many SETI folks making that argument. They are usually arguing the opposite. We've only began to tackle the Fermi Paradox.

This is the amount of Sky, Frequency Space and Sensitivity of all of the SETI experiments:



And that's just the radio spectrum. We haven't even scratched the surface in other wavelengths. While Radio SETI is 50 years old, Optical SETI is only about 15. Infrared SETI, only about 5.

So you can see the analogy of dipping a bucket in the water at the ocean, seeing no fish in it and concluding that there's no life in the ocean holds true.

Enrico Fermi was a very smart man but I think he may have underestimated the task of finding detectable signatures of intelligent, technological civilizations.