For hundreds of years man has looked to the sky in the hope that someone will visit us from elsewhere. There's an assumption that we must be the poor, unevolved halfwits of the galaxies - that superior species lurk behind every star, and visit us regularly either to exploit and control us, or compassionately to offer us their technology and wisdom.

My question is - what if we're as good as it gets, in the universe? What if humankind, whose evolution on earth has made it a remarkable phenomenon by earthly standards, whose ability to compute and to solve far exceeds any living being since life began on earth - what if those abilities are remarkable on a galactic scale of reference too?

Isn't part of the reason we want so much to believe in aliens that we don't want the responsibility of being the number 1 species in the universe? Isn't the fact of the matter that the challenges we face as a result of our relative ignorance of how the universe works, are overwhelming enough to drive us to crave the intervention of our superiors?

Put simply, the speed at which we have developed into the dominant species on the planet is extraordinary. In galactic terms, on the timescale of the universe, it has taken us less than the blink of an eye to go from amoeba-like creatures at the bottom of the pond to sentient beings with an astonishingly complex grasp of science and technology. Why should we assume that any other species might have developed so quickly, given the general scale of time across the universe?

Question is, assuming my hypothesis is right - and we are as good a life form as the universe has to offer - should that change our attitude to science and technology? Is it time to start confronting the big issues - like what do we do when the sun expands and destroys Earth - rather than hoping for a more developed species to come along and help us out?

LW

Four modes of perception:


a) I am small, he is big

b) I am small, he is small

c) I am big, he is small

d) I am big, he is big.


Your opening post explores viewpoints a) and c).

My viewpoint is d).

Nicely put, skyfloating! Put like that, I must say I find b) quite intriguing as well...there is an assumption in our conscious, I think, that says that someone, be it "I" or "he" must necessarily be big.

A further point - what if there is an absolute limit to possible achievement?

As a species we looked to Gods because we didn't understand how life could be created. Breaking "life" down to chemical processes, understanding DNA, and even creating and manipulating life of our own has destroyed that mystery. The same principle can be applied to particle structure, energy production and even our ability to see back in space/time.

Sure, there is plenty left to examine and to understand - but what if we are closer to the edge of reason than we think? What if there comes a point when we know all there is to know? The point at which we discover not the limits of what we have achieved, but the limits of what we ever could achieve?

LW

Originally posted by LoneWeasel
My question is - what if we're as good as it gets, in the universe?

As good as it gets? And here I've been hoping this is a bad and destructive and as ugly as humanity gets!

Originally posted by LoneWeasel

but what if we are closer to the edge of reason than we think? What if there comes a point when we know all there is to know? The point at which we discover not the limits of what we have achieved, but the limits of what we ever could achieve?

LW

I can only draw analogy to my own private-life behaviour and say that once I reach the limits of expansion I create new horizons.

As to the a,b,c,d analogy I believe all 4 to EXIST and much more...Mr. Pennies wise koan for instance.

However, from ALL that exists I chose option d).

In this analogy that choice is indicative of my desire not to look up there for "help from space brothers" (giving responsibility away), but neither to deny their existence or importance ("I am big, they are small").

My true aversion lies in splitting between "either they dont exist or they do exist and make us look small".

Belief in a universe full of life does not make me feel insignificant.

Originally posted by LoneWeasel
A further point - what if there is an absolute limit to possible achievement?

If there is, its still very very very far away from us. I could spontaneously come up with a few trillion list-items of possible future achievements.

(imo)

I get the point you are trying to make.

We have evolved on a scale that isn't used when explaining the universe.

Since human technology has rapidly increase in the past hundred years, what if another civilization had similar results, but say 5000 years ago? 5000 years is nothing in galactic terms, it is just as possible that we are late to the show as opposed to early.

Now think about this..

What about the theory that there are multiple universes. Perhaps billions? Who's to say? Billions of universes with billions of galaxies containing billions of stars... it makes my brain hurt to think about.

It is sad if we are the only intelligent grain of sand on this ever expanding beach we call a universe..

Originally posted by LoneWeasel
There's an assumption that we must be the poor, unevolved halfwits of the galaxies - that superior species lurk behind every star, and visit us regularly either to exploit and control us, or compassionately to offer us their technology and wisdom.

Hi LoneWeasel , here is my personal conviction [not assumption], nothing more.

When I look how we humans as a whole behave we are indeed poor, unevolved halfwits.

Dozens of Superior species visit us already on a regular base of where some are definitely malevolent and exploit and try to control us, and some are [very, very lucky for us] definitely benevolent and help us in some ways step by step during our history with their knowledge and with bits and peaces of their extremely advanced technology to the level where we are now.
Perhaps they offered us also their wisdom, but obviously we don’t use it then.
Much of the offered technology is put on black shelves and is deep hidden, and much is used to created bigger and better arms for war.
What remains are the things we use and play with today.

Originally posted by LoneWeasel
My question is, what if humankind, whose evolution on earth has made it a remarkable phenomenon by earthly standards, whose ability to compute and to solve far exceeds any living being since life began on earth - what if those abilities are remarkable on a galactic scale of reference too?

Our abilities are definite not remarkable on a galactic scale of reference.

Originally posted by LoneWeasel
Isn't part of the reason we want so much to believe in aliens that we don't want the responsibility of being the number 1 species in the universe?

The way we act as humans on this planet is a guarantee that we never will become the number 1 species in the universe.
But besides that, it is very naive to think we are capable to even come close to the real numbers ones.

Originally posted by LoneWeasel
it has taken us less than the blink of an eye to go from amoeba-like creatures at the bottom of the pond to sentient beings with an astonishingly complex grasp of science and technology.

That is not the way it is happened in my opinion.

Originally posted by LoneWeasel
Why should we assume that any other species might have developed so quickly, given the general scale of time across the universe?

Because, those other species are already here.

Originally posted by LoneWeasel
Is it time to start confronting the big issues - like what do we do when the sun expands and destroys Earth - rather than hoping for a more developed species to come along and help us out?

We already desperately need help in my opinion, and I hope that will happen soon, and that we get it from those who are benevolent to us.
Because if they don’t offer us their help or we don’t accept it this time, we blown our self to Kingdom Con even before the sun began to expand.

But as I said, it is just my opinion.


[edit on 27/3/08 by spacevisitor]

Originally posted by LoneWeasel

I wouldn't ask you to list all trillion - but can you give me some general ballparks of what you mean?

When you ask about "limits to achievement" or that we might be closer to a standstill of progress than we think I responded that "i could think of a trillion other things to achieve/progress on". What I meant is that I think we are not even close to the limits of our development and that the universe is an exciting place.

This is actually why I am opposed to most schools of thought which seek to impose some kind of limitation on what is possible.

Originally posted by LoneWeasel
...Question is, assuming my hypothesis is right - and we are as good a life form as the universe has to offer - should that change our attitude to science and technology? Is it time to start confronting the big issues - like what do we do when the sun expands and destroys Earth - rather than hoping for a more developed species to come along and help us out?

Well, seeing that the humans species will be long extinct by the time the Sun expands (in about 5 billion years), I'm not too worried about it.

The time span between now and the Sun becoming a red giant is about the same amount of time that has past since the Sun was born and the solar system was just a swirl of dust.

EDIT TO ADD:
By that time there could be the rise and extinction of dozens more dominant species on the Earth. The time the dinosaurs ruled the planet 150 million years ago was "just yesterday" compared to the amount of time the Sun has left before it Becomes a red giant.


[edit on 3/27/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]

The ideas that we are not alone in the universe, that we are alone, not alone but the most advanced, not alone with more advanced civilization out there, are all possible and probable. Given the number of stars in this galaxy alone, and the age of those stars says just on average, we may not be alone and there may be older civilizations out there.

But at the same time, the universe is a very dangerous place. Just look at our own planet; we may have had more than one extinction caused by a comic catastrophe. The same may have happened on any number of worlds, preventing the rise of any intelligent life. Or they may have wiped themselves out once they harnassed nuclear or biological weapons. The ideas that we are alone or the most advanced are entirely reasonable as well.

[edit on 27-3-2008 by SaviorComplex]

Originally posted by spacevisitor
When I look how we humans as a whole behave we are indeed poor, unevolved halfwits.

Actually, I think the awareness that we as a species, don't live up to the standards that we wish, and we understand that we have a great deal of work to elevate our deeds to the level of our ideals.....illustrates a great deal of advancement.

Sure, the above quote is in a way an insult to ourselves. But it is also positive in that at least we know it.

I think the OP offers a thesis that is very credible and will be very hard for many people to contemplate.

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by spacevisitor
When I look how we humans as a whole behave we are indeed poor, unevolved halfwits.

Actually, I think the awareness that we as a species, don't live up to the standards that we wish, and we understand that we have a great deal of work to elevate our deeds to the level of our ideals.....illustrates a great deal of advancement.

Sure, the above quote is in a way an insult to ourselves. But it is also positive in that at least we know it.

MrPenny,
When you look with an open view to the condition our Earth is globally in today, the immense pollution of our air, seas, rivers, land and on.
When you look with an open view in what for terrible conditions the absolute majority of humans globally living.
When you look with an open view to all the war activities in so many countries, and those expected.
When you look with an open view to the expectations of our very near future in relation of all above, do you still find that it “illustrates a great deal of advancement”.
And do you still find “it also positive in that at least we know it.
I definitely don’t.

Originally posted by MrPenny
I think the OP offers a thesis that is very credible and will be very hard for many people to contemplate.

I disagree with that.

[edit on 27/3/08 by spacevisitor]

Originally posted by spacevisitor

When you look with an open view to the condition our Earth is globally in today, the immense pollution of our air, seas, rivers, land and on.
When you look with an open view in what for terrible conditions the absolute majority of humans globally living.
When you look with an open view to all the war activities in so many countries, and those expected.
When you look with an open view to the expectations of our very near future in relation of all above, do you still find that it “illustrates a great deal of advancement”.
And do you still find “it also positive in that at least we know it.
I definitely don’t.

Well if your only source of information is the 8 oclock news and websites such as this, then indeed it looks like we are doing bad to 90%.

But if you get outside a lot, travel a lot, experience a lot you will start noticing that not 90% is bad, but only 10%. And you will start to awaken .

The world is not the way the news says it is.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Well if your only source of information is the 8 oclock news and websites such as this, then indeed it looks like we are doing bad to 90%.

But if you get outside a lot, travel a lot, experience a lot you will start noticing that not 90% is bad, but only 10%. And you will start to awaken .

The world is not the way the news says it is.

Well, I really thought I am already awaken, and my only source of information is not just the 8 oclock news and websites such as this, so you absolute misjudge me here.
Unfortunately I don’t have the opportunity or possibility to travel a lot, I wish I good.
I also didn’t say that 90% is bad, but the absolute majority.
So obviously we have a great difference of opinion on these matters.
And honestly I am a bit amazed by what you are saying here.

But despite it all, I hope with all my heart that you are right and I am 100% wrong.

[edit on 27/3/08 by spacevisitor]

Originally posted by spacevisitor

I also didn’t say that 90% is bad, but the absolute majority.
So obviously we have a great difference of opinion on these matters.
And honestly I am a bit amazed by what you are saying here.

Yes I know we agree on a lot of matters...but not on this one

Surprise, surprise.

[edit on 27-3-2008 by Skyfloating]