It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

How Did Extraterrestrials Survive Their Nuclear Age?

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
How Did Extraterrestrials Survive Their Nuclear Age?

They sent their greedy Dumb ASS warmongering military industrial
Phuchtards to Earth




posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   
I agree, we'll probably never know if there was a past civilization. But evolution does open up the possiblity, and maybe even makes it likely.

We would have to find clues in our oldest civilizations or some great time capsule left behind that was built to ensure it would last ... or maybe something geological ... like the iridium layer being caused by the end of the last civilization instead of an asteroid.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Three Legs
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Well then lets take it out 100,000 years. Populaton would probably be a few trillion. Do you think earth could sustain a few trillion humans, most of which would be rock stupid?


Then you assume that in 100 thousand years we are still exactly the same.

This isn't true.

Just look at how far we've come in the last 500 years.

I don't think earth could sustain a Trillion people either, I don't think our future leaders and citizens will think they can either.

Like I said, move it forward 100k years and you will have a VERY differnent kind of mentality among humans.

We are a progressive species.

~Keeper



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


One more thing. Many of the advancements of our civilization have come from tech to defeat our enemies or at least protect ourselves. Also, many products are created and/or advanced because of competition from other businesses. If all the sudden we decided to not compete then wouldnt development slow, because part of the natural motivation to compete would be lost?



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 




We are a progressive species.


We only really progress externally and it is usually motivated by the desire for mating. For instance, men work to gain money to by things to seem secure so someone will mate with them. Women work to buy stuff to look better so someone will mate with them.

Humans havent really progressed internally at all in the last 500 years. You could actually make a case that we have regressed. We are still motivated by instinct. We might work harder to make it look as though we are not, but we are.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Three Legs
 


No, the idea of profit it what prevents our technology from being available, free to everybody.

Competition is still very healthy.

Violence is not.

You dont' need one to have the other.

Sure war was great to develop weapons. An energy crisis is good to develop energy tech.

All is relative in that sense.

~KEeper



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Three Legs
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 




We are a progressive species.

Humans havent really progressed internally at all in the last 500 years. You could actually make a case that we have regressed. We are still motivated by instinct. We might work harder to make it look as though we are not, but we are.


I would disagree, we've gone from a race that believed we were the center of the universe, that the gods created storms and sickness.

We've developped machinery to make our jobs easier while increasing production and quality.

We've done TONS to advance externally in the last 500 years.

Internally, we've done the same. Look at how many different spiritual beliefs co-exist is relative piece. Look how many differnet lifestyles people live in cities, together?

We've come a long way, to say otherwise is kind of an insult to us. I know were not perfect, but we are getting better.

~Keeper



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 




No, the idea of profit it what prevents our technology from being available, free to everybody.


No, the idea of profit is what allows technology to become cheaper and cheaper as they try to penetrate more markets and make advancements in order to make the product cheaper.

Resources are not free, labor is not free. You need profits to stay in business. If you think this is true why dont you offer the services of your business for free to all of your customers, is it because you are selfish?



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Keeper, I don't agree with your points scientifically, but I salute your optimism in us!



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Three Legs
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 




No, the idea of profit it what prevents our technology from being available, free to everybody.


No, the idea of profit is what allows technology to become cheaper and cheaper as they try to penetrate more markets and make advancements in order to make the product cheaper.

Resources are not free, labor is not free. You need profits to stay in business. If you think this is true why dont you offer the services of your business for free to all of your customers, is it because you are selfish?


The current system relies on profit.

The current system also relies on perpetual debt to fuel the economy.

I said profit was the problem, really the whole economic system is the problem.

You could still have competition and profit, image the "profit" was how many cancer patients your company cured because of a new technology?

~Keeper



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   
they skipped there nuclear age, they didnt pin down their tesla due to greed.

....



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 




You could still have competition and profit, image the "profit" was how many cancer patients your company cured because of a new technology?


So what would be the personal reward for the people who cured the patients? Do you think the good doctors wife will feel more secure to be with him because he came home and said we cured 100 cancer patients? I think not. Its evolution my friend.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Three Legs
 


I'm sorry that you feel that we can't move beyond greed and cannot find satisfaction in helping our fellow man.

It's safe to say that it is people like yourself, with these views, that keep us back.

Perception is all we have and reality is what we make of it.

WE defined evolution, it doesn't have to be exactly like Darwin said it was now does it?

Nice talk, hope everything in life turns out well for you.

~Keeper



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   


How Did Extraterrestrials Survive Their Nuclear Age?

Bit of a broad question there... what 'extraterrestrials'...?

If one single microbe is ever found on another planet/moon other than earth, then it is only logical to assume that life flourishes throughout the universe. Statistically, that would mean there are millions - if not billions - of different extraterrestrial species/races.

From this, we can guess that:

1) There are alien races who had a nuclear age, and it destroyed them.
2) There are alien races who had a nuclear age, and survived it.
2) There are alien races who didn't have a nuclear age.

With regards to race number 2) - how did they survive their nuclear age? Without knowing any information about the race of aliens themselves - their nature, their characteristics, their organization etc - it is impossible to even guess. This is because any 'guess' you may make is only based on your own imagination.

This subject is a non-starter. We might as well discuss what alien pop music might be like...



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Sure we can find satisfaction in helping our fellow human, but we still need to keep the wife happy and secure, plus the rugrats.

Some level of greed is healthy. It is just the natural way of acquiring resources we need to survive and additional resources to make us attractive to potential or current mating partners. We arent really much different from any other animal when you break it down.

You dont need to go by Darwins version of evolution to prove my point. Just observe nature. Watch how animals do things. When lions are in a drought and they get hungry enough they start to eat each other. It is just their nature and we are no different. We are products of evolution whose main goal is to survive and procreate.

[edit on 6-6-2010 by Three Legs]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 
Speculation alert!

We are living on a small planet with limited resources. Perhaps there are planets greater in size than ours? Maybe resources are more plentiful? Growing populations mightn't share the inevitable territorial conflicts we have. They could pass through the stages of City States into nations and hit the 'critical mass' of population size that enables leaps in technology, science and culture. Our critical mass was arguably reached around 3000BC when cities became parts of nations and the global population was in the millions rather than billions.

I'm speculating, not offering probabilities.

In this scenario, technology might advance down a different path to ours. The 'nuclear age' could be ushered in through wholly different motivations to ours. Instead of creating weapons, perhaps the first expression of atomic energy, nuclear fission was simply to harness energy for daily life? I'm not postulating a clichéd 'peace-loving' world, because it appears war is a massive influence on developing new technology. What I'm imagining is a larger world where the justification for nuking a neighbour never became a reality.

Our adventures in space are bogged down in conflict. Even the terminology refers to the 'Space Race.' Competition and strategic advantages justify the budgets. So what could motivate a civilisation to explore space that hadn't already nuked itself or its neighbours? Well, there's scientific endeavor and there's still out-competing the neighbours.

I've considered a larger world. This world could be part of a planetary system that would *probably* feature binary stars and moons. Our moon is barren, but near enough for us to reach out and go there. We'll call it 'baby steps' one day. What if this planet doesn't have a barren moon? What if it has several moons? Maybe one or more has an environment they can work with? Worth visiting maybe?

Another scenario worth considering is intelligent life arising on a moon of a planet too hostile for intelligent life to take hold. There could be a planet with a system of moons that are broadly hospitable. They could be at different stages of technological advancement. In this case, the drive to space age tech could be focused on reaching out to the neighbours.

The motivations for advancing technology to the point where a species can become inter-stellar (if that's possible) needn't be seared in the crucible of nuclear warfare and mutually assured destruction. I'm just throwing out a couple of ideas to think about...no claims!

S&F fo' sho' mofo



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Three Legs
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Sure we can find satisfaction in helping our fellow human, but we still need to keep the wife happy and secure, plus the rugrats.

Some level of greed is healthy. It is just the natural way of acquiring resources we need to survive and additional resources to make us attractive to potential or current mating partners. We arent really much different from any other animal when you break it down.


Agreed on some level those instinctual things have helped us greatly.

Although I think that gender roles as you see them are changing for the better. There are far more woman now who don't subscribe to that " need a strong man" mentality to support them.

I was trying to say that we as humans will move forward in our societal thinking until thins of "instinct" will be a thing of the past.

At least the ones we are conciously aware of.

The basic premise of any species is to reproduce, but in our "special" circumstances and I mean that because we are unique among living things on the planet, we have to look at it from a very special viewpoint.

~Keeper



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 




I was trying to say that we as humans will move forward in our societal thinking until thins of "instinct" will be a thing of the past.

At least the ones we are conciously aware of.

The basic premise of any species is to reproduce, but in our "special" circumstances and I mean that because we are unique among living things on the planet, we have to look at it from a very special viewpoint.


You can try to hide instinct or veil it, but you can never rid yourself of it. It is preprogrammed in your brain. You came out of the womb like that for your own survival. Instincts are gifts.

How and why do we need to look it reproducing from a "very special viewpoint"? What does that mean?



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Three Legs
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Well then lets take it out 100,000 years. Populaton would probably be a few trillion. Do you think earth could sustain a few trillion humans, most of which would be rock stupid?

If we haven't colonized space in 100,000 years, then we deserve to die out for being stupid.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


Well then we are going to die out then. There are no other planets in the solar system that will support us and everything else is too far away.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join