It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Stephen Hawking: "Intelligent Life May Not Be An Inevitable Consequence of Evolution"

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 05:56 AM

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by hermantinkly

basically anyone who thinks diffirently from you should just be ignored?

hawking is giving his musings on the fermi paradox. Its an excercise in logical thought. If you dont like thinking critically or logically the subject may not be for you.

Instead of just bashing why dont you come up with reasons why intelligent life is common in our galaxy. Or why the earth hasnt been colonized in the last 500 million years, why we have found no powerfull "beacon" signals or why arnt we swarmed with alien probes.

Intelligent people make counter arguements they dont just bury their heads in the sand.

Your stubborn unwillingness to question anything presented as fact from authority figures is part of the problem, Mr. Yetiman. To that I now turn the tables on you: go and show me proof that the leaders of this world are really human. Go ahead. Take your time. Good luck. Haha. Have you met them? Have you studied their bodies and looked at their DNA under a mircroscope? Were you present when they were birthed? Noooo, you weren't! Ergo, you cannot prove that the leaders are indeed human, can you. So, you need evidence to believe in something like aliens..... but you DON'T need evidence to believe Joe Smartypants from Harvard's Biology department? This my friend, is the ultimate case of selective reasoning.

Just remember that we're but microscopic bugs crawling around on a little spec of mud next to a dot of light we call the sun, surrounded by a sea of a 100 billion stars in this one galaxy, out of a sea of 100 billion other galaxies in an infinite universe. Trying to understand how an ET race would look or even behave would be comparable to trying to explain to an ant why humans comit domestic terrorism.

p.s., most e.t. contact going on is actually happening through human consciousness.

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 06:48 AM

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by kcfusion
Not Really Page. To compare it to your analogy, the chances of pulling 5 straight flushes in consecutive hands INCREASES the more hands you play. So comparing it to the Universe you would have to play bazillions of hands, meaning that you'll probably at least make your 5 straight flushes consecutively many many times!

Not really. You're falling for a phenomenon known as the 'Gambler's Fallacy'. Look it up, many people have gone broke believing it.

Think of it in simple terms where a gambler is waiting for a long string of reds to appear on a roulette wheel. Convinced that a black will soon occur, the gambler begins betting on black, increasing his bets to cover his losses, until a black occurs. The longest run of one colour that I saw on a roulette wheel was 27 reds in a row. It made a few people betting black very unhappy when they started betting after the tenth red or so. Fun to watch.

Cards do not have a memory. Each trial is independent of the trial before it. The chances of obtaining five straight flushes in a row, will be the same for any set of five hands dealt, regardless of what has already transpired.

In any case, comparing known theoretical probability models, such as dealing cards, is not an appropriate comparison to 'guessing' how much intelligent life there could be in the Universe.

[edit on 11-7-2009 by tezzajw]

Agreed however both you and I know that 5 straight flushes in a row would happen more than once over the course of bazillions of hands dealt. That was the point I was trying to make.

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 09:59 AM

Originally posted by yeti101
unfortunately we only have 1 data point for life in the universe. However 1 data point is better than none. To ignore it is just burying your head in the sand.

I'm not ignoring it. I stated that we know that intelligent life does exist in the Universe. Us. Maybe you should get your head out of the sand to see what I typed in my other posts.

Originally posted by yeti101
I would be delighted if the data from earth were diffirent. If it was and it showed tech intelligence is common i would be saying something very diffirent and so would you. You would be on the earth evidence like a fat man on smarties. Your "i dont know answer" would be right out the window even when you still only have 1 data point.

I don't know what you're trying to imply with this paragraph. It makes no sense. We have only one data point, which is Earth. For you, Hawking, or anyone else to try and extrapolate that to make judgements about the rest of the Universe, is pointless.

You use the word 'common' but you don't define what 'common' is. It's a lame cop-out that's using your preconceived notion of how regular something should be found - when you don't know how often it should be found.

The honest, intelligent answer would be to state that 'I don't know how many other intelligent life forms there are in the Universe'. Anything else is likely to be arrogant speculation, which is what Hawking did.

Originally posted by yeti101
I'm sure he would agree that is the case. But it would be a very boring conversation if evrybody just said that wouldnt it? Your only angry becuase his position isnt one you want to hear. If he said ETI is common you'd be nodding in agreement.

Your rush to judge 'anger' in me is unfounded and shows your willingness to make an uninformed emotional judgement about me. Is your implied character judgment about me part of your way to try to support your argument against me?

Again, there are no standards for judging what is 'common' and what is 'rare' with regards to intelligent ET life forms.

Originally posted by yeti101
people take on the fermi paradox all the time. Your saying we shouldnt even talk about it becuase of insufficient data?

Talk about it all that you like. It doesn't mean that because it is 'supported' to some extent, by famous physicists, that it's right.

[edit on 11-7-2009 by tezzajw]

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 10:31 AM
The biggest point that our greatest and brightest minds fail to come to terms with is self induced evolution.

It is so much more than thinking outside the box it is thinking outside the body.

Yes that is right this feeble flesh and bone we call the human machine.

As great as you may THINK it is let me tell you good Sirs and Mams that indeed it is not.

Many would associate exploration with colonization and the necessities of resource acquirement. That is what hawking is pointing out. That a highly advanced species should be colonizing planets as we would in our current state of evolution today. He is missing the point.

You are missing the point.

We eat food to gather energy needed to keep our bodies alive as long as possible. Pretty big priority no matter what we do or where we go. Food and water. But we generate SO MUCH WASTE! We use so very little of what we consume. Horribly inefficient design.

Through genetic engineering it WILL be possible in the future to remove the need to eat food like we currently do. We will develop a optimum food source that can provide all of the necessary energy without creating any waste. No more need to go poopy or peepee.

We WILL be able to genetically reprogram the human body to stop AGING!

Oh yeah boeeey no more dying of old age. In fact no more growing old at all. Live to ten thousand years old or more if you do not die in a flying car crash.

We will be able to have the human genome down flat and prevent disease and birth defect.

It will not be the NEED to fly to planet LB481 and start a human colony. We will not be thinking in these kinds of terms. It will not be as simple as hope to live to 100 and have some children and grandchildren then retire and die. The only need to colonize would be for overpopulation of earth and physical resource gathering. And lets face it who the hell is going to want to work in a mine when you live forever? That type of work will be done with robotics.

That thinking will be considered the dark ages of death. Family will take on a whole new meaning.

Here is where it starts to get interesting.

Imagine if Ben Franklin was still alive right now? Or Tesla? Or DaVinchi? Or Einstein? Our greatest and brightest minds still alive and interacting with each other. And continue to be alive for the next Million years? The contributions to society we could have!

We will truly flourish and excel beyond what we consider to be "alive" or "human" in the future with our understanding of genetics.

To say that life is likely not to evolve elsewhere in the universe because we do not have proof. How sorry of a statement. Has Hawking actually seen the pale blue dot images?

RRRAAAGGGEEE! 50 years of space travel and kids start to get COCKY!

We can barely get a person to the moon! Our method of space transport is very archaic! Load people up into a missle and set off as big of an explosion under there butts as possible and time it so the planets pass near each other at the best possible time.


This is the type of thinking that needs to go the way of the dinosaur.

Putting the human as they currently are 1,000 years into the technological future.

How can someone so easily grasp the concept of super advanced faster than light speed technology but fail to grasp the concept of super advanced humanity? How does hawking not put those two together?

You would think someone is his physical condition would be 100% more interested in human genetics? IDK. Maybe staring at the stars so long it is easy to get lost in it and picture only us stale old badly designed humans?

And if you apply it to human genetics well then you would most certainly apply it to any other highly advanced space fairing civilization.

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 11:32 AM
Stephen Hawking has his limits also. Otherwise, he would be immortal by now inside some android body or computer.

It would seem the odds are against higher advancements happening without intervention and visitation. It may be that probes are sent out to establish this though. So, I think it depends on several factors.

I'm under the impression our own planet is systematically pushed back and dumbed whatever means, even if only by nature and cyclical events. What does he have to say about that?

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 12:03 PM
Hawkings whole premise is based on faulty assumptions.

1. He said UFO's didn't contain aliens. There's no way that he can know this and there's abduction cases, mass sightings, trace evidence, pictures and video that says otherwise.

His assumption is based on nothing but his subjective opinion. This is something he can't possibly know.

2. This ties into number 1. He said we would have been visited and we would see biological lifeforms. The only thinh he can say is that he hasn't been visited. Again, his opinion is subjective.

It's really the Fermi Paradox which again makes no sense because in one breathe you say we haven't been visited and then in the next breathe you say all eyewitness accounts, mass sightings, abduction cases, trace evidence and more is fake or didn't occur based on nothing but a subjective opinion.

I really think that some in science have their head in the clouds. You can't say there's no evidence of visitation and then say any evidence of visitation is false. That makes no sense.

We also need to do more studies on lifeforms in the universe like Plasma Crystals. Of course any evidence of different lifeforms will be dismissed and explained away and then they will ask where's the evidence.

The universe is filled with massive clouds of dust. From past studies, scientists have learned that this cosmic dust can, in the presence of plasma, creates formations known as plasma crystals. An international team of researchers published a study in the Aug.14, 2007, issue of the New Journal of Physics that indicates that these crystals may be more sophisticated than anyone realized. In simulations involving cosmic dust, the researchers witnessed the formation of plasma crystals displaying some of the elementary characteristics of life -- DNA-like structure, autonomous behavior, reproduction and evolution.

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 12:13 PM
reply to post by Extralien

I think too we have to get past this rubbish that our minds are our own. I think most definitely aliens exist and are manipulating life on earth. Humans are taught wrongly that our minds are our own, what garbage.

I think if there where bad alien groups they would e able to manipulate us from afar, as people are energy like everything, and energies can be maipulated, from afar. Who knows the reasons why we had ww1 and ww2, are you people sure that man by himself, and his own free will did this and started something like this. I think there is a strong possibility of alien lifeforms that are bad news to us, and they could be suing us in all sorts of ways, and why should they care if we do harm to each other.

On life form evolving into intelligent beings, i doubt we could of got to human stage with out help. What are all the chances that we would be so perfect in our body shape to exist, and to the masters of the planet. What are the real chances that the eyes, nose and mouth would be in thepositions they are in in animals and us?

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 11:03 PM
reply to post by Extralien

Hawkings discounts UFOs, huh? Like Asimov, Clarke and others, some individuals are so smug in their superior humanist that they refuse to accept the evidence before their eyes.

As for evolution not leading to intelligence, I offer up my constant signature in rebuttal. All it takes is one intelligent civilization Hawkings, just one.

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 11:48 PM
reply to post by TurkeyBurgers

Stephen Hawking is a theoretical physicist so his work doesn't entail much observational astronomy. One documentary categorically states this.
His field is known as Quantum Cosmology, basically (which he helped to establish through his work). I'm guessing you missed a recent thread where he also discusses humans actively participating in creating their own next steps in evolution through genetics.

I don't think he's that far off. Scientists speculate that life on Earth probably began much earlier now, which points to intelligent life having taken even longer to develop here.

posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 05:29 PM
Link to thread of Stephen Hawking discussing our next steps in evolution:

posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 05:54 PM
Hawking really is one of the first human cyborgs, I mean LOOK at him. He talks by quickly typing things into a computer, which then says what he typed in a weird robotic voice. It's absolutely insane to even think about.

But no, he's just a guy, he doesn't know what is out there just like the rest of us are absolutely clueless. Our galaxy is absolutely nothing compared to the entire universe, it's not even a single dot on the scale, or radar, and if life is as common as it probably truly is, then we are just nothing special and aliens don't care to come check us out.

posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 05:59 PM
and XFD I agree with Hawking stating the ridiculous, we can't even get out of our own damn solar system, we can barely even make it to OUR OWN DAMN MOON and back without having half of our species doubt that we even accomplished such a thing.

Humans overate themselves, we are not as good as we like to claim we are. We are not as smart as we would like to think. We are animals that have gotten very lucky, and nothing else.

posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 06:46 PM
reply to post by tezzajw

Not really. You're falling for a phenomenon known as the 'Gambler's Fallacy'. Look it up, many people have gone broke believing it.

This is under the assumption that playing time is finite.

Given infinite amount of time, or at least enough time, it will "almost surely" happen.

Have you ever heard of the Infinite Monkey Theorem?

The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in