One of the most intelligent argments ever!

a reply to: wmd_2008

I really don't see how distance would be a problem for advanced galaxy traversing aliens, that would be something they would of mastered.
The problem is as Carl says, them knowing we are here. Our signalls have only traveled 60-70 light years now, (40 in the clip) . Such a tiny distance in this galaxy, I don't think anyone knows we are here yet.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MarsIsRed

Yes.
I wonder, what points in particular, you find most worthy of discussion.

Hawking is speaking from a fear-based mind-set with nothing to support what he says. He compares the appearance of ET with Columbus? and he's European lol. Why should the default intention always be malevolent? sounds like he bases his ET contact ideas on Hollywood and some sort of "white guilt" issue rather than science. well he actually makes his first error thinking we haven't been in contact with them yet and this would be all new to them. We had better HOPE REALLY HARD that they pay attention to our plight down here and give us a technology upgrade so we can flourish as a species instead of wither away to our devices. Maybe they don't care about us? If they have no other connection with us why should they feel they have to compete with us or be threatened like the Europeans did? Hawking's point is silly and not important on this subject.

a reply to: muSSang
when you talk in terms of "advanced civilizations" why do you think it is proper to limit them to our level of knowledge as far as physics and the laws of nature? you're thinking in our terms and when you talk about them you have to not only go outside our language you have to understand things our minds are not designed for and good luck with that.

originally posted by: muSSang
a reply to: wmd_2008

I really don't see how distance would be a problem for advanced galaxy traversing aliens, that would be something they would of mastered.
The problem is as Carl says, them knowing we are here. Our signalls have only traveled 60-70 light years now, (40 in the clip) . Such a tiny distance in this galaxy, I don't think anyone knows we are here yet.

all they have to do is watch the shows/movies on how we deal with aliens. lol!

no wonder they won't show themselves!

a reply to: MarsIsRed

No second line needed! A great video between, Arthur C Clark, Stephen Hawkins, and Carl Sagan!

Hawking.
It's Hawking

Talk about online 'rule' Nazi's.. The video speaks for it's self.

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: MarsIsRed

Carl Sagan said he does believe in ufos but would not say so publicly because it would put his work in jeopardy.

Is there anyone who doesn't believe that at some time, somewhere a flying object could not be identified by someone?

originally posted by: ObservingYou
Talk about online 'rule' Nazi's.. The video speaks for it's self.

That is the point that was being made.

I don't get the nazi references.
Phage, (aka: "the voice of reason") asked the OP for nothing more than a comment. Why does the OP think the video contains "one of the most intelligent arguments ever" ??
Phage wasn't being rude or condescending in any way. He was simply asking the OP for a comment.

a reply to: wmd_2008

As I see it the main problem we have re Aliens and visits are quite simply the vast distances, for example if we look at the furthest star in our own Galaxy that is around 75,000 light years so if we could see it the light has taken 75,000 years to get to us.

What I'd like to know is, why do skeptics continue to hang on to classical physics when trying to understand interstellar travel? Even the greatest minds on earth now don't use classical physics when theorizing space travel. It's all Quantum now, for the last 100 years. Jeez, even an electron doesn't conform to classical physics when it bounces from orbit to orbit. So let's just ignore that part and carry on refuting interstellar travel.

a reply to: Phage

Your post makes no sense.

The general mindset of the three men seems to be that intelligent life is sparsely distributed in the galaxy. This is suggested by Sir Arthur Clarke's observations about very infrequent visits of extraterrestrials to Earth, and by Prof. Hawking's assumption that we might, and should, avoid the notice of other civilizations in the galaxy.
Dr. Sagan speculates along the same lines, suggesting that the sphere of space reached by our conspicuous radio/television broadcasts-- 40 years radius in all directions, at the time of the interview, had not yet encountered an ET audience.

We have no real basis for such assumptions. There has been far, far more than enough time for the galaxy to have been thoroughly colonized, even if we wish to limit this to speeds well below that of light.
For all we know, every habitable planet has either been inhabited by an expanding wave of colonization, or set aside to allow the independent development of life thereon. If our own planet was dealt with in the latter way, matters would probably stand just as they do today; with an apparent absence of obvious extraterrestrial life.
Other points of interest raised in the interview:
That violent extraterrestrials would have fought among, and destroyed themselves before they could reach us. That is certainly possible. We seem to have run this gauntlet ourselves very recently. Perhaps some races don't make it through this stage. A better gauge of the situation might be the fact that we appear to have been conspicuously unmolested during our entire tenure on this planet.
The idea that extraterrestrial intelligent life in the galaxy is all so much more advanced than we are that they would have very little interest in us, as per the frequently mentioned 'ant hill' analogy.
It seems reasonable that there would be a continuum of development in the galaxy, ranging from something like our primitive beginnings several million years ago, to cultures millions or even billions of years more advanced than we are. It seems that we would be of the most interest to races nearest our own developmental level, perhaps only centuries or millennia our senior.

Thanks for posting, OP. I for one appreciate it when someone posts a video that they've enjoyed, whether or not they want to comment. T and C's notwithstanding, not everything needs commentary, and oftentimes the video's discussion is deep and complicated enough that any commentary wouldn't do it justice. Not everything needs to be critiqued.

I think I've read the gist of most posts and I'd like to add that although the post is extremely interesting, it is approximately 25 years old and only one of these greats survives. They were superb minds but haven't seen some of the later info we now have and it would appear the frequency of sightings has increased. So it was a superb hypothetical argument at the time by some dearly missed people, even Prof. Stephen Hawking is on the fence these days, but it doesn't add to the modern debate. nostalgic, I would certainly agree! Maybe, in posting it the OP saw something still relevant and assumed we would see it too, you know.

a reply to: MarsIsRed

Here's the full video.
i made a thread with it last year, but the video wont play in it anymore, why i dont know

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: MarsIsRed

Carl Sagan said he does believe in ufos but would not say so publicly because it would put his work in jeopardy.

Is there anyone who doesn't believe that at some time, somewhere a flying object could not be identified by someone?

Sagan is quoted saying

‘I know UFOs are real, but I would not risk my research (College) funding, as you do, to talk openly about them in public.’

I cannot defend his lack of precision in the way he spoke but the substance of what he is saying is obvious; The debunkers explanations are not, in his opinion, valid.

a reply to: charles1952

I'm with you on this one. Intelligent people discussing an interesting subject, but adding nothing new or revealing to it. A couple of moments of rather redundant statements and "Yeah...right...and?" moments thrown in.

a reply to: ColeYounger

he tends to talk in circles sometimes and it can be very annoying but also telling of when he is on thin ice with his ideas

I'd like to see some additional confirmation that Dr. Sagan took one line about UFOs in public, and another, very different one, in private. What we have at present is a long chain of hearsay.
An unidentified writer at 'Zland Communications' says that one Paola Leopizza-Harris told him or her that she recalled that J. Allen Hynek said that Sagan indicated to him that he took a skeptical stand on UFOs to protect his academic-financial standing. That may very well be true, but is far from certain.

About the closest thing we have to that is a known statement made by Dr. Sagan in his younger days. He suggested that extraterrestrials could have a base on the back side of the Moon. That certainly seems to suggest the possibilities of a strong ET interest in Earth, and their frequent presence on our planet.

originally posted by: Ross 54
I'd like to see some additional confirmation that Dr. Sagan took one line about UFOs in public, and another, very different one, in private. What we have at present is a long chain of hearsay.

You are correct to doubt it.

Sagan didn't seem to be shy about it when he wrote a book about it: "Intelligent Life in the Universe."

In that book, Sagan wrote (note, this is Sagan, not somebody in an interview stating "My recollection of it is..." )

...stories like the Oannes legend, and representations especially of the earliest civilizations on Earth, deserve much more critical studies than have been performed heretofore, with the possibility of direct contact with an extraterrestrial civilization as one of many possible alternative explanations.

It seems that Sagan did not take the stance that has been characterized here.

Harte