Humans came long after aliens, scientist suggests.

reply to post by DarksideOz


A star faring civilization doesn't need slaves because robots exist.

A star faring civilization doesn't mine gold using slaves because supernovae exist.

0zzymand0s
reply to post by DarksideOz

 

A star faring civilization doesn't need slaves because robots exist.

A star faring civilization doesn't mine gold using slaves because supernovae exist.

Correct.

Star for you.

People who study these issues closely (of which I count you) know that there is little of anything on Earth that an advanced alien would want or need which they couldn't get easier elsewhere.

Most alien invasion, torture, enslavement fiction says more about us humans than about what an advanced alien species with access to resources almost beyond our imagination would likely do.

About the only thing I can see aliens coming here to do would be to download our uniqueness to their memory banks. Perhaps they would digitize copies of our consciousness.

The only things of value in the Galaxy are likely to be unique individual experiences, species histories, culture, art, music and maybe some obscure, species specific technologies.

MADXENOBIOLOGIST
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

Most current mainstream scientific approaches to Extra Terrestrials go from the "Past Civilization" approach. Take SETI as an example. SETI searches for radio signals. Radio signals travel at the speed of light, meaning that if we get a signal from an alien civilization, it's age would be equivalent to the distance from Earth. So, we would actually be looking back in time! So let's say we get a signal from a star 400 light years away. We would actually be looking 400 years in that civilization's past! 400 years is a long, long time. It could mean the difference between a space age, or a nuclear winter. In fact, we could get a radio signal from an extinct species! In this way, SETI's goal is not to communicate, it's to "eavesdrop". In the same way that our TV signals are going into space, may be listened to right now. I mean, for all we know, 40 light years away they could be watching the first season of Star Trek! Of course, SETI goes on assumption that aliens use radio. This may not be the case. IN fact, they may have far more advanced methods of communication then we do. Of course, SETI will respond to this question by saying that aliens would have to develop radio before these advanced methods, but this makes the huge assumption that aliens have the exact same course of technological development as we do, which is a crazy thing to assume.

Would a species invent a laser before discovering fire?

That's basically what you are alleging here. No one in SETI assumes species would have identical paralell developments as us BUT....

There are physical laws which govern the universe we both inhabit.

As such there are prerequisite steps any species will have to learn before going to the next step.

Nature produces fire. Nature also produces radio.

As far as we know, nature does not produce "subspace radio" and if it does it is not easily observed or detected.

I addressed a lot of your critique of SETI in another ATS post so here ya go....

Going macro on all of this....

I've often heard SETI criticized among UFO circles for being "secretive" or even "silly".

Allow me to address these for a moment.

I can see why someone might consider SETI to be secretive if they are not involved in the sciences. Like most scientists, SETI scientists are a patient bunch. It might even be argued that they are the most patient bunch since SETI experiments/observations have been done on and off since Frank Drake (father of the Drake Equation) conducted Project Ozma at the Green Bank Telescope in West Virginia back in the early 1960s.

We live in an 'instant gratification' society.

As a 20 year old, I am just as guilty of this.

With each generation the hunger for information and knowledge about our world and now our universe grows almost in an inverse square to our patience for that information.

To some, like me, our curiosity drives us to the sciences. Perhaps even driving us towards a career within them. That takes a lot of study (and time and effort) and a lot of hard work.

To others it drives them to suspicion and conspiracy. Which since we're all on a conspiracy forum I suspect a lot of us have gone that route. While it takes a lot of time and effort it to really build a credible conspiracy theory based on actual data, few actually do that.

Instead very vague accusations are made (ie: "We Didn't Really Go to the Moon", "NASA Covers Up Life on Mars", "There's a Secret Moon Base on the Far Side of the Moon", "SETI is Secretive and would cover up any signals") often with very little in the way of hard, unassailable evidence to support such statements and in fact the accusations often place the burden of evidence on those who question their conspiracy statement.

So in the interest of Denying Ignorance I would like to point out and debunk a few things used to criticize SETI.....

1. "SETI is Secretive"

The practice of SETI and in fact all astronomy is heavily reliant on observations often from far-flung parts of the world. Confirmation of a discovery in say, the USA may be done in Europe or South America. This means that an awful lot of communication is going on within astronomical circles. And the rule of secrecy is that the more communication there is the less secret the information one is trying to keep secret is likely to be.

There have been a few incidents where SETI was tracking a signal they thought was alien only to find out upon further tests or seeking confirmation that the signal originated much closer to the Earth by a satellite or other space craft.

In these cases, word leaked out to the same mainstream media most of us detest and rail against and reporters were calling the observing site. This was due to the kind of communications traffic between observatories I mentioned above.

Beyond this, candidate signals have been discussed in the past as they are now in this thread. While such candidates are interesting they are far from definitive, so they are archived. In this case they were on a public FTP server at the SETI Institute which any one can access free of charge. Hardly the way to keep a secret right?

Someone earlier in this thread said something like "That's because the real communications are classified and kept secret."

Assuming there were actual communications received by SETI it would be incredibly hard to keep them secret because of what I mentioned above and beyond that it would make little sense.

SETI is almost entirely privately funded on donations. This was highlighted in 2011 when SETI had to shut down it's Allen Telescope Array in northern California due to lack of funding.

Finding a confirmed extraterrestrial artificial signal of any type out there would not only serve to keep the cash rolling in to SETI but would earn its discoverers a Nobel Prize and their face on the cover of a ton of magazines and newspapers all over the world.

When ET is found by science, the whole world will know about it probably for that reason alone.

Which brings us to the second accusation....



2. "SETI is Silly"

This has become an oft-repeated allegation based on a misunderstanding of what radio SETI is and is looking for. I have heard UFOlogist Stanton Friedman cutely say SETI stands for a "Silly Effort To Investigate".

Nothing could be further from the truth. Here's why:

Often people not familiar with the details of radio SETI seem to think it is looking for either a deliberate message aimed at us or their version of the 50s TV show "I Love Lucy". Part of this is the way the mainstream media has portrayed radio SETI and part of it is SETI putting forth the "best case scenarios" as a means to stir up interest and fascination with it.

In reality SETI is simply looking for artificiality "out there".

There need not be any "message" present. Though a message or encoded information of some sort would make such a detection almost unquestionable.

What radio SETI actually looks for are very narrowband signals because as far as we know, nothing in nature produces signals narrower than a few Hertz (Hz) wide. If SETI detects such a signal rising and falling each day with a certain location on the sky and with certain characteristics which indicate it originated beyond our planet and solar system, then that will be extremely good evidence for ET>

In part of the characterization of SETI being silly, I've seen comparisons of SETI to a native tribe looking at our modern technological civilization for smoke signals or drum signals as evidence of intelligence.

The premise here being that since we've stopped using smoke signals or signal drums, that our use of radio would be equally primitive to a more advanced civilization out there.

This premise ignores the fact that such a "Search for Intelligent Drums and Smoke Signals" (SIDSS) by a tribe living perhaps on the edge of our modern cities might not uncover us using smoke signals to communicate with them. nor signal drums but what they WOULD discover might be the regular smoke emissions from the smoke stacks of a factory or power plant, or the distant drums from a marching band.

In other words, they would still recognize smoke being emitted at regular intervals over time or the organized drumming during certain parts of the year in which marching bands performed. And if they were clever they'd archive all these detections of smoke and drum signals, complete with dates and times.

At some point the scientists of this tribe might come to the conclusion that there is a very strange tribe off in the distance and that they are not alone.

That is because smoke is a byproduct of physical and chemical processes and certain technology even in our technological society produces it at regular and cyclical intervals. The same goes with sound as a carrier for pulses from things like drums, engine noises, the 'clackity clack' from train tracks, etc.

In similar ways, radio SETI could well uncover something quite different from intentional signals or communication from some advanced technology that emits narrowband radio signals as a byproduct of some other activity some super advanced civilization might be up to.

Do you know the signature of a warp drive? Neither do I.

How about what a microwave beam powering a spacecraft many lightyears away from here?

Or the waste radiation from a zero-point or other exotic physics based energy production facility?

Maybe asteroid protection radar?

And god knows what else might be out there producing detectable signals which have nothing to do with intentional communication.

ie: The alien "smoke stacks" might very well be detected by SETI.

Plenty of things in our modern world generate radio signals without us intending them to use them to communicate.

Car spark plugs, your computer's microprocessor, fluorescent lighting, military search radar, doppler weather radar, planetary radar from places like Arecibo, your microwave oven, etc... the list goes on.

What kind of radio signals might super advanced technology produce as a byproduct of their operation? We don't know, but we should probably be looking for them don't you think?

It hardly seems like a silly premise to look for narrowband radio signals in this context does it?




3. "But...but the Inverse Square Law......"

Of course someone is bound to bring up the "Inverse Square Law" which applies to radio signals.

It basically stat that their intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity.

The problem is that people who use this argument usually are using the relatively weak signals our TV and radio stations on Earth produce.

You see the inverse square law with regards to radio can be applied to rule in or rule out a signal if you know the POWER of the transmitter and SENSITIVITY of the receiving station.

None of us know how powerful an alien transmitter might be.

We do know that our most powerful military radars as well as the planetary radar at Arecibo can be detected many lightyears away directly and on the other side of the Galaxy if such a civilization had a radio telescope at a star's gravitational lens.

Likewise if one of our planetary radars or powerful military search radars were positioned at the gravitational lens of a star many thousands of light years away it would be detectable by our current SETI experiments.

We aren't that far off from being able to journey to our Sun's gravitational lens 550 astronomical units (AU) out. So why would we limit advanced aliens to our meek transmitting capabilities?

Not knowing the space travel abilities of advanced aliens who knows what might be transmitting away out there for reasons which might be unfathomable it hardly seems silly to look for artificial narrowband signals.




4. "They have been looking for over 40 years and haven't found anything......"

This last one seems like it would be a valid criticism. But it underestimates the search space.

Radio SETI's search space is 3-dimensional as shown in this chart:



And as you can see above most of that space has not been covered.

Additionally there are other types of SETI experiments being conducted.



At Harvard they're looking for extraterrestrial laser signals (Optical SETI) other experiments look through infrared space satellite data for evidence of large scale astroengineering of things like Dyson Spheres and Ringworlds (IRAS search for Dyson Spheres, Spitzer Search for Dyson Spheres, WISE Search for Type II and Type III civilizations), future large aperture near-InfraRed ground based telescopes will look for Type I civilization waste heat from population centers on extrasolar planets, other future space telescope experiments may comb through the light of terrestrial exoplanets for the spectral signatures of artificial light.

And that's just SETI looking at electromagnetic signals.

There are also SETI projects to look through Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter data for signs that someone else visited the moon besides us humans. (See: Dr. Paul Davies of ASU)

There are SETI researchers who look at the DNA of humans and other life on Earth for signs of an artificially encoded message with in it.

There are SETI researchers who are looking at ways in which neutrino astronomy data can be examined for signs of signals from neutrinos.

There are SETI researchers who are involved in experiments in interspecies communication (communicating with dolphins and primates, etc).

And on and on... It's a very diverse, interdisciplinary field.

And not at all silly if one examines its full scope.

As for why do any of this in the first place.....

The answer might be simple: Survival

We live in a time when doom porn is popular, hope at an all time low and most have a hard time imagining our post-modern future beyond 50 or 100 years much less 1,000, 10,000 or 100,000 years.

It seems odd but to me it seems people were more hopeful when two superpowers were locked in a Cold War with arms pointed at each other which could wipe out all human life on the entire planet.

We live in a time of amazing discovery, it has been described as a "New Renaissance" in the sciences, astronomy in particular.

We live in a time when more information is available to us for free at our fingertips than any king, dictator, prime minister or president had access to a mere 50 years ago.

And yet people choose to wallow in a constructed gloom and doom paradigm, a future of decreasing returns, a world to be suspect of and feared not embraced and enlightened.

We see false divisions made where none exist, we blow real divisions out of proportion and we turn it all into politics as sports, root for one team, hate the other.

We are in an almost insanely self destructive cycle of NAVEL GAZING.

Perhaps finding that signal, even if it contains -no- information and no message to us breaks us out of that?

Perhaps it would at least give us our hope back and force us all out into the night, to look up, to point to a place in the sky and say, 'at least they made it, maybe we can too?"

Far from being silly, SETI might be the most important science experiment currently being conducted for the long term health of Earth and those who inhabit it.

DarksideOz

JadeStar

DarksideOz
Well it would go a long way to explaining the theory that we are genetically engineered slaves. Mainly for gold. And look at "us" all these years later. Working our butts off to earn money [paid slavery], in a system backed by gold. Not the smartest behaviour from an "evolving" species ?

Nonsense "theory".

If one can traverse the stars they don't need slaves. They can easily build whatever they want.

If one can traverse the stars they don't need people mining gold either.

Sounds like more "Ancient Astronauts" bunkdom.

Depends if you want to be closed minded or not.

How do YOU know that they didn't need slaves ? Creating slaves would allow for more time spent traversing the stars ? An open mind will consider this possibility. A closed mind has dismissed any possibility. If they can "easily build whatever they want"..........then what if they want slaves ?

How do YOU know that they don't need gold ? A resource that practically serves no purpose to us other than the stigma attached to it, may be useful to a species that can traverse the stars ?

If you took the time to research some of these issues you would see that many findings have completely defied what we thought was our history, but those findings don't get the media attention they deserve because..............it would re-write our known history. Can't have that now, can we ?

Sounds like YOU have already made up YOUR mind in regards to a topic, and anyone who doesn't see it your way is wrong.
That doesn't exactly comply with the ATS motto of denying ignorance !

Check my major... It's written in blue below my this post.

Suffice to say it's my course of study to study this stuff. Not for fun (though it can be), but because it is my field of study at the university.

Suffice to say, I've probably done more thinking about it with actual hard data than you imagine. I started early. Around 6 years old.

As someone earlier posted...

If you can travel the stars, you don't don't need Earth resources.

If you have robots, you don't need slaves.

If you can get to supernova remnants you can grab all the gold, titanium and precious metals you'd want. If you can't then mining asteroids would be childsplay to an interstellar species.

If you can grow lab meat or synthesize organics/proteins from CHON (Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and Nitrogen) then you don't need to eat animals.

If you can travel the TRILLIONS of miles between the stars there's a good chance you can do the above.

Why?

For the same reasons you suggest....because we can do them in a primitive (to them) way already.

And for the record, I am denying ignorance.

Ignorance about what is out there in terms of resources and ignorance about what is likely.

So much of common thinking on these subjects by people who seldom study them closely is fueled by hollywood sci-fi, snake oil selling UFO/Ancient Alien "theorists" appearing on cringe worthy mainstream TV shows and not rigorous logic, nor scientific study.

Your post fell into that category, unfortunately.

I recognize that Ancient Alien theory has become almost a new religion to some. But that doesn't make it any more credible than it was during Erich Von Daniken's day.

It's just been popularized due to the TV show.

Astrology and Horoscopes are popular too. But few intelligent people take them seriously.

MADXENOBIOLOGIST
reply to post by JadeStar

 

Scientists in support of panspermia rarely say that the meteorites come with the life on board still alive. The general consensus is that instead, the meteor could have brought the ELEMENTS that make life (Phosphorus Hydrogen Oxygen Nitrogen Carbon and Sulfur)

That's not Panspermia.

That's disbursion and is widely accepted.

Panspermia refers to biology. Nor simple elements, or even complex organics.

I think you may have confused disbursion with panspermia.

Panspermia has a very specific definition.

Rosinitiate

My point of this post (fully aware of being off-topic) is lab grown meat would be yet another experience of having to get used to consuming something that can't possibly be good for you. I truly hope I'm dead before they start serving up USDA lab grown beef.

Considering the only criticism of lab meat is that so far, it lacks fat. It probably would be better for you. Also no chance of mad cow or other nasties.

ETA: I was in no way condoning the eating of aliens in my above post!

edit on 4-2-2014 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)

ok. understood.

reply to post by Unity_99


I tend to share this view as well...in fact I posted a thread a while back ago...one of my first decent ones (I think)

Have we done this all Before and Before and Before...?

A smidgen...

As of 13 February 2010, the Earth's population is estimated by the United States Census Bureau to be 6,802,400,000. Source

Based on those theories, our existence is but a mere drop in the bucket.

So let’s do some math…

4,600,000,000 (earth years) ÷ 200,000 (years it’s taken our civilization to be as advanced as we are now) @ 6,802,400,000 (estimated population)

= 23,000 (give or take a few) civilizations that could have reached our current level of advancement or higher (theoretically). I haven’t forgotten the slot for the dinosaurs to have their little run of existence. There are plenty of slots within that equation for them to have had their run.

Indeed, it is a fascinating theory.

JadeStar

0zzymand0s
reply to post by DarksideOz

 

A star faring civilization doesn't need slaves because robots exist.

A star faring civilization doesn't mine gold using slaves because supernovae exist.

Correct.

Star for you.

People who study these issues closely (of which I count you) know that there is little of anything on Earth that an advanced alien would want or need which they couldn't get easier elsewhere.

Most alien invasion, torture, enslavement fiction says more about us humans than about what an advanced alien species with access to resources almost beyond our imagination would likely do.

About the only thing I can see aliens coming here to do would be to download our uniqueness to their memory banks. Perhaps they would digitize copies of our consciousness.

The only things of value in the Galaxy are likely to be unique individual experiences, species histories, culture, art, music and maybe some obscure, species specific technologies.

edit on 4-2-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)

You call it "alien invasion, torture, enslavement fiction", but then claim to know enough of the facts to say that an advanced alien would not want or need which they couldn't get easier elsewhere ? What if it wasn't easier to get elsewhere ? How do you know that our "uniqueness" isn't easier to get elsewhere ?

"About the only thing I can see"..............but what if there is more to see than just what YOU can see ?

It doesn't bother me at all if you don't agree with this theory, and I have never once said that I believe in it 100% either. I've seen enough in human behaviour to know that even if this theory was to be revealed as 100% truth with facts and evidence to back it up, there would still be 50% that still deny it because it just doesn't fit into THEIR way of thinking. But I can say that some discoveries made in recent times have put a lot of credibility towards this theory, as crazy as it may seem to others.

reply to post by JadeStar


I'm not "Anti SETI". In fact, I donate monthly. I've just wondered why they don't try to look for other methods of communication But I definitely think it's an important scientific organization, and one of the best current ways of looking for signs of alien civilizations. However, like any other thing that searches for alien life, it is forced to assume it follows similar patterns to what we have on Earth, because it's the only thing we can really look for. If it's so completely ALIEN in nature, we wouldn't even know what to look for at all. Searching for aliens is something full of possibilities, all of which are cool scientific possibilities. I just like to use this argument when people throw the FERMI paradox at me upon mention of my belief in the existence of extra terrestrial life. After all, you can't say you found nothing when we don't necessarily know what might be out there. I'm sure there are many carbon based civillizations/species that probably do use radio. I'm just saying, if they were on a completely different evolutionary trajectory, then we don't really know what signs of it might be out there.

Just a thought.

reply to post by Phage


Yes. That is one of the reasons why I think extra terrestrial life is so probable: the elements that make life on Earth are incredibly common. In fact, the element that binds our DNA nucleotides together, hydrogen, is the most common element in the universe. So much so that in the early years of SETI, they would look for signals that were operating on the hydrogen frequency of the electromagnetic scale, because they said that since hydrogen was the most common element, it would be the most likely to be the one the ETs were using.

reply to post by JadeStar


I agree. Unless the whole world goes vegan, the only environmentally proper stake will be lab grown. I personally think it's ethically good. After all, it's far better to use lab grown meats then meats that were the result of animals getting slaughtered. Of course, the anti science anti progress neo luddite types are against it, because I assume they really like forests getting burned to make space for animals getting killed.*

*Of course, all of this is incredibly hypocritical of me...cause I just downed a double cheeseburger, and I enjoyed the hell out of it.

reply to post by JadeStar


Yeah, the notion of alien invasion for our resources is kinda ridiculous when you think about it. I mean, they would easily be able to get those resources in much higher concentrations and quantities in these super novas and element-rich gas giants/densely packed asteroids then they would ever find on Earth. And on said asteroids there wouldn't be any angry natives with nukes, so much easier.

Actually, invading the Earth for it's resources would be kinda like beating up a fat kid for his ice cream when your one block away from a 31 flavors.
You could have had a much easier time if you just payed for a scoop of ice cream. Not only that, but you wouldn't have to go through the inconvenient process of beating up a fat kid. And once you get the ice cream, it would be covered with his drool.* And all of this is completely ignoring the horrible ethics involved with said operation.

*by this I mean that when the aliens arrive, much of Earth's resources have already been used by the humans, in the same way that the fat kid probably licked his ice cream.

The great Carl Sagan once said that aliens would probably not be violent because in order to reach the levels of space travel necessary for interstellar transit, they will have matured as a civilization. He's right. If your still killing things with that level of technology, I would think you would have wiped yourself out by then. Which is why, when we make first contact I doubt it will be cause they have anything against us. I mean, if all of those space civilizations are as violent as us, than the universe must be a bleak place. I'm an optimist. I think the universe is teaming with space faring civilizations, and I doubt they have anything against us. (unless they're cosmically close enough to get MTV!:lol

reply to post by JadeStar

Thanks for clearing that up.

reply to post by MADXENOBIOLOGIST

What I find interesting about it is that it might indicate that DNA could be a "universal" mode of life. Not that it necessarily indicates that there would be any more than that most basic similarity between life on other worlds, but it could provide clues as to what to look for in life as we don't know it.

reply to post by Phage


Yes. The probability for carbon based life (or life as we know it) is incredibly high by itself, just looking at how common those elements are. Then when you factor in other POSSIBLE forms of life like silicon based, or amonia based. These types would be able to live in conditions comparable to hell. This means that in addition to "habitable planets" that the Kepler telescope has found, there may be thousands of other alien life (perhaps intelligent), living on these planetary hells.

When you factor all this in, it becomes increasingly clear that the Universe is teaming with life. And chances are, some of that life evolved intelligence.

JadeStar

DarksideOz

JadeStar

DarksideOz
Well it would go a long way to explaining the theory that we are genetically engineered slaves. Mainly for gold. And look at "us" all these years later. Working our butts off to earn money [paid slavery], in a system backed by gold. Not the smartest behaviour from an "evolving" species ?

Nonsense "theory".

If one can traverse the stars they don't need slaves. They can easily build whatever they want.

If one can traverse the stars they don't need people mining gold either.

Sounds like more "Ancient Astronauts" bunkdom.

Depends if you want to be closed minded or not.

How do YOU know that they didn't need slaves ? Creating slaves would allow for more time spent traversing the stars ? An open mind will consider this possibility. A closed mind has dismissed any possibility. If they can "easily build whatever they want"..........then what if they want slaves ?

How do YOU know that they don't need gold ? A resource that practically serves no purpose to us other than the stigma attached to it, may be useful to a species that can traverse the stars ?

If you took the time to research some of these issues you would see that many findings have completely defied what we thought was our history, but those findings don't get the media attention they deserve because..............it would re-write our known history. Can't have that now, can we ?

Sounds like YOU have already made up YOUR mind in regards to a topic, and anyone who doesn't see it your way is wrong.
That doesn't exactly comply with the ATS motto of denying ignorance !

Check my major... It's written in blue below my this post.

Suffice to say it's my course of study to study this stuff. Not for fun (though it can be), but because it is my field of study at the university.

Suffice to say, I've probably done more thinking about it with actual hard data than you imagine. I started early. Around 6 years old.

As someone earlier posted...

If you can travel the stars, you don't don't need Earth resources.

If you have robots, you don't need slaves.

If you can get to supernova remnants you can grab all the gold, titanium and precious metals you'd want. If you can't then mining asteroids would be childsplay to an interstellar species.

If you can grow lab meat or synthesize organics/proteins from CHON (Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and Nitrogen) then you don't need to eat animals.

If you can travel the TRILLIONS of miles between the stars there's a good chance you can do the above.

Why?

For the same reasons you suggest....because we can do them in a primitive (to them) way already.

And for the record, I am denying ignorance.

Ignorance about what is out there in terms of resources and ignorance about what is likely.

So much of common thinking on these subjects by people who seldom study them closely is fueled by hollywood sci-fi, snake oil selling UFO/Ancient Alien "theorists" appearing on cringe worthy mainstream TV shows and not rigorous logic, nor scientific study.

Your post fell into that category, unfortunately.

I recognize that Ancient Alien theory has become almost a new religion to some. But that doesn't make it any more credible than it was during Erich Von Daniken's day.

It's just been popularized due to the TV show.

Astrology and Horoscopes are popular too. But few intelligent people take them seriously.

edit on 4-2-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)

Where do I start with that rubbish ?

For your information, I have never once received, watched or listened to ANY information on this subject on mainstream TV. I always try to use logic in my decision making process and always start my research with an open mind and as unbiased as possible. I have also seen scientific study used in the explaining of this theory. But it's the classic case of "but your science doesn't agree with my science". I also know enough to know I can safely say that science isn't always right, and I've heard from many people, with majors and more I might add, that the only thing truly holding back science, is the arrogance and self-righteousness of most scientists. Does your major prove all you are saying right beyond doubt ?

Don't get me wrong, science has done many great things for humankind, but many scientists have sometimes used [or been used] by their positions and held humankind back. One only has to look at the pharmaceutical side of science to know that science can't always be trusted, and isn't always final. And its no different on the religious side of things. People looking after personal agenda's instead of the many. Suppressing information that may question, or even prove wrong, the status quo.
So many "debates" in todays scientific and religious worlds are so pointless and are only happening because of peoples reluctance to accept that THEIR theory was wrong. Instead of putting great minds together, we bash them together until we all have headaches. But if you want to have a good laugh, sit a scientist down that believes 100% in evolution with a priest that believes 100% in creation...............who's right and who's wrong ? We would actually ALL know that answer by now if it wasn't for the real history being manipulated and altered due to arrogance, agenda's, greed and self righteousness. One doesn't need a major to work that out

reply to post by MADXENOBIOLOGIST

When you factor all this in, it becomes increasingly clear that the Universe is teaming with life. And chances are, some of that life evolved intelligence.

I won't go quite that far. But I agree that the likelihood of both is great.

But the Universe, in spite of encouraging the origination of life, is a pretty hostile environment filled with random events which can erase something so frail. Anything which could survive the long term would seem to be somewhat formidable, whether or not that survival was based on intelligence. Unless it was just very lucky.

As likely as it is they have been here, it's just as likely they aren't any more.

0zzymand0s
reply to post by DarksideOz

 

A star faring civilization doesn't need slaves because robots exist.

A star faring civilization doesn't mine gold using slaves because supernovae exist.

Ahhhh, of course. The robots !

Why spend valuable star faring time making robots when you can have humans with more range of movement and able to make on the spot decisions that a robot may not be able to ? And why make robots when you can have human slaves that make new slaves amongst themselves, raise them, feed them, cloth them, and then more future slaves. Do you know where they got the minerals to make the robots ? Do we know who did the work before the robots, or was the concept of slave labour and robots thought of at the same time ?

reply to post by DarksideOz


Chances are, if you have the technology to travel the stars, you also have the technology for far more efficient robots than any humans. Not only that, but robots can handle any heat or any radiation, they don't need any life support like us meat bags. So it would make much more sense to use robots, cause they would be able to work in far more dangerous conditions. And chances are, if your mining a planet's resources, it would have to be very dirty work. Meaning you'd want a workforce to handle it. Not only can robots handle it, they can handle it and not complain or, rather problematically, revolt.

Of course, many science fiction universes (such as Frank Herbert's classic Dune or the excellent Mass Effect video game series) portray galactic societies where robots revolted, so artificial intelligence is outlawed.
This is entirely possible but:
1. nasty, warlike civilizations that invade probably wouldn't play by "the rules".
2. If you have to use science fiction tropes to back up your theory, then chances are it's on thin ice.

DarksideOz

0zzymand0s
reply to post by DarksideOz

 

A star faring civilization doesn't need slaves because robots exist.

A star faring civilization doesn't mine gold using slaves because supernovae exist.

Ahhhh, of course. The robots !

Why spend valuable star faring time making robots when you can have humans with more range of movement and able to make on the spot decisions that a robot may not be able to ? And why make robots when you can have human slaves that make new slaves amongst themselves, raise them, feed them, cloth them, and then more future slaves. Do you know where they got the minerals to make the robots ? Do we know who did the work before the robots, or was the concept of slave labour and robots thought of at the same time ?

If aliens came to earth it wouldnt be for mining makes no since everything they could want is in the asteroid belt and alot easier to get to if you can travel through space. Be a huge waist of resources to try to enslave a planet destroy it on the other hand easy. Sit in space bombard it with asteroids .