We Are Babies: Why Any Aliens We Contact or Meet Are Likely to Be Very Advanced

a reply to: game over man

Not necessarily.

Necessity is the mother of invention, in this case technology. If it isn't necessary, will technology be developed past a certain point?

In humanities case? Yes. We are, for better or for worse, a curious species. That will not necessarily be the case "out there", some species may be perfectly content without super high level tech. Or, decided that they don't need it, and discard it.

Just because we're incessant tinkerers, doesn't mean everyone else will be. Just because we want to know what's beyond that next horizon, that won't necessarily be the case "out there".

The conjecture that most races "out there" will be more advanced is perhaps correct, but not necessarily so. We don't know. Or I certainly don't.

As I said in the other thread, Jadestar, you seem to be conflating several separate things.

First, there is no guarantee that intelligent life would evolve on an "earth like planet", regardless of it's age.

Secondly, it entirely depends on the history of the planet as to what life would evolve and the complexity. As I said before, the Cambrian explosion only came about because of extreme climatic events before hand, without which, we may well still be a planet populated by primitive crabs and fish.

Thirdly, on such an "old earth", intelligent life may have evolved millions of years ago but was wiped out, much like the Dinosaurs for example, leading to a new evolutionary process such as here on earth which led to the rise of the mammals, meaning that while the planet may be "old", it doesn't follow that the life is.

And lastly, you seem to present certain things as "fact" when they are anything but, such as the number of earth like planets in the Galaxy - post on 1st page about 40Bn earth like planets - is a statistical analysis based on an extremely small data set that they cannot even confirm is accurate. Whilst exoplanets of a similar size to earth have been tentatively identified, there is currently no way to know if they even have an atmosphere, much less harbour life or intelligent life.

In a nutshell, you're presenting as fact a lot of highly speculative assumptions. Yes, I am sure there are civilisations out there that are older, but there are also likely to be some of the same age and some that are younger simply down to the circumstances and history of said planet which may have delayed or otherwise changed evolution of life. And in many cases on life bearing planets, there probably won't be any "intelligence" at all.

a reply to: draknoir2

I dont think it'd be too far of a stretch to see a universal "law", law of nature, in the way thing happen/progress with alien civilizations. There'd be a science to it. Even guidelines.

Like "once they have hit agricultural revolution, typical it takes between x and y year to go to the next phase. Geniuses like Otto Von Braun, Could be simply put, inherent to nature's plan for progression.....plus or minus x years

"Single characteristics changed...."

But we still all come from "here". If we were guided by evolution, natural law, there are going to be certain things concrete likely. All civilizations will have had war. Basic personality traits even, aggression, ect. By natural law have to be there.

Highly intelligent, deep thinking species...tech doesn't have to be spaceships....fire was technologically advanced at one point. Would the forgo even the most basic tech? Why would the progression in tech stop there? Evolution wise, and logically, they'd advance more than likely.

Language and math are technology.

I get what you mean about anthropomophizing, people on ATS do it often with AI, but this isn't Avatar. :p

a reply to: seagull

Well in that case I would say everything on that planet would behave entirely different to Earth. If you believe environment and nature influences culture. Living in the Universe we have celestial bodies and things like shooting stars to observe. Intelligent Life on Earth has used the Stars, Sun, and Moon for many things for centuries, i.e. navigation, story telling, religion, agriculture, etc...varying from culture to culture but sharing similarities too in the meanings and uses of the Stars, Sun, and Moon.

From our exo-planet research we have lots of similarities that are quite common in what makes up a Solar System, i.e. number of planets, stars, gas giants, etc....Why would't Intelligent Life on another planet not look to the Stars and ponder, observe, contemplate, imagine, study, etc...there is no answer other than they're not intelligent enough to do so. IMO there is no way to avoid influence from near by celestial bodies.

If you believe there is Intelligent Life out there that does not observe the cosmos and just meditates or whatever you propose they do, that would be an interesting discovery. The environment and observable Universe on that Earth-Like planet would have to be extremely different to our planet if the Intelligent Life there would be so inclined to be anti-cosmo observers/ponders/explorers.

Maybe describing Aliens/ET as Intelligent Beings is the wrong word. By using the word intelligent you can always debunk any theories by pointing out, how do you gauge intelligence in the Universe? Who are we to say we are intelligent?

Maybe it's time to start using the phrase, Human-Like Beings, or Non-Human-Looking-Human-Like beings?

I guess in conclusion I believe that if the environment is very similar to Earth, gravity, atmosphere, elements, orbit, rotation, etc...You have a very strong potential for cultural similarities too. Culture evolves over time, but it's roots are in nature.

originally posted by: stumason
As I said in the other thread, Jadestar, you seem to be conflating several separate things.

First, there is no guarantee that intelligent life would evolve on an "earth like planet", regardless of it's age.

Secondly, it entirely depends on the history of the planet as to what life would evolve and the complexity. As I said before, the Cambrian explosion only came about because of extreme climatic events before hand, without which, we may well still be a planet populated by primitive crabs and fish.

Of course. But it happened here. Which means it probably has happened elsewhere. It's not a question of whether intelligent life can develop on an earthlike planet. The question is how frequently does this happen? With billions of earths in our galaxy alone, there are plenty of chances to roll the dice.

Thirdly, on such an "old earth", intelligent life may have evolved millions of years ago but was wiped out, much like the Dinosaurs for example,

Million year old life can't deflect an asteroid?

And even if you are right you'd have to be right in every one of the thousands, or tens of thousands, perhaps even millions cases where intelligent life evolved on a planet around a older star.

leading to a new evolutionary process such as here on earth which led to the rise of the mammals, meaning that while the planet may be "old", it doesn't follow that the life is.

That's not the point. The point is that if we did make contact with intelligent life statistically they are more likely to be from an older planet since they are more numerous.

And lastly, you seem to present certain things as "fact" when they are anything but, such as the number of earth like planets in the Galaxy - post on 1st page about 40Bn earth like planets - is a statistical analysis based on an extremely small data set

Kepler's primary mission was to perform that statistical analysis for that very purpose. The data set is not "extremely small" it's representative of the stars in our galaxy. That star field was chosen for that very purpose. And yeah, 1,000 planets and another 4,000 candidates (90% of which will be confirmed) is hardly guessing.

eta Earth (the fraction of stars which contain an Earth sized planet in the star's habitable or 'goldilocks' zone) has been estimated at between 20% and 40% based on Kepler results. NASA itself uses the 22% figure or 1 in 5 stars like our Sun has a Earth sized,planet in the habitable zone.

Whilst exoplanets of a similar size to earth have been tentatively identified, there is currently no way to know if they even have an atmosphere, much less harbour life or intelligent life.

We do know that Super Earths have atmospheres through transit spectroscopy, and we've actually got cloud maps for a couple larger planets. We also know of water in the atmosphere of one of them GJ 1214b.

As for nearby Earths there is a way and were about to do it. Are you familiar with NASA's TESS and the James Webb Space Telescope?


A big part of what they will be doing is finding nearby Earths and SuperEarths (TESS's mission will look for them out to 200 light years) and these planets will be close enough to measure their atmospheres (unlike most of the Kepler planets) and perhaps even look for biomarkers (signs of life) around the nearest ones.

I realize not everyone keeps up to date on the latest exoplanet research but before you try to call me out, know that I study this stuff on a regular basis, I've done two summer programs at NASA Ames and even held a small scale mockup of the starshade which the astronomical community hopes to fly in the near future with a telescope which will directly image other Earths.

I suggested you do some reading here to see where it's all headed: NASA's Astrophysics Roadmap for the Next 3 Decades

In a nutshell, you're presenting as fact a lot of highly speculative assumptions.

It's not highly speculative when people actually involved in exoplanet research present the same in peer reviewed journals and it is commonly accepted a good "educated guess".

By the way, the fact that we're here talking about this is a data point.

In astronomy if you find one of something you can wisely assume there are billions. That we exists likely means there are plenty of "others" out there as well.

You never find just one of something in the galaxy.

In any event perhaps you or others may find these interesting:





SEE ALSO: Searching for the Archeological Ruins of Alien Civilizations

a reply to: JadeStar

I don't want you to think I am arguing for arguments sake, I just don't believe we have anywhere near enough information to do anything but guess (albeit, an educated one, but a guess none the less).

I think that when we finally get out there, we'll find plenty of old civilisations, plenty of young ones and plenty of earth like worlds where nothing much of note has happened at all. I just don't buy that we're going to be the infants in a Universe of old bastards - that just sounds dull.

I am interested, however, in the "cloud map" you mentioned. I had not heard this was even possible and I'd like to think I follow this stuff quite closely. I knew they were building telescopes to check atmospheres and what have you, but they kept that pretty quiet.

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: JadeStar

I don't want you to think I am arguing for arguments sake, I just don't believe we have anywhere near enough information to do anything but guess (albeit, an educated one, but a guess none the less).

Oh it's ok. Part of science as you well know is to challenge assumptions and I am glad you challenged what seemed like a lot of assumptions.

I think that when we finally get out there, we'll find plenty of old civilisations, plenty of young ones and plenty of earth like worlds where nothing much of note has happened at all. I just don't buy that we're going to be the infants in a Universe of old bastards - that just sounds dull.

A wise man once said, "The universe does not need to conform to our liking." Dull as it may be that may be the case. I think it is dull too but it also is an exciting opportunity for our species when we find out others grew up, others made it, we can too. And yes there will no doubt be younger civilizations than us but it will be very hard in the near term to detect them. Hence why I said, any species we're likely to make contact with is probably going to be much older than us.

I am interested, however, in the "cloud map" you mentioned. I had not heard this was even possible and I'd like to think I follow this stuff quite closely. I knew they were building telescopes to check atmospheres and what have you, but they kept that pretty quiet.

Not quiet, there's just a ton of stuff going on in this realm right now, even as a student it is impossible for me to stay on top of it all. It seems a new team makes a new discovery regarding exoplanets on an almost weekly basis, if not daily.

Well for starters from Earth we've already measured atmospheres there's a good video on that in this old thread i posted on ATS.

"How do they take pictures of exoplanets?" "How do they know that planet has water?" (VIDEO)

Also it is possible in some cases to use a planet transiting the star to measure its atmosphere of the planet by subtracting the spectra of the star from the total light received during a transit(which leaves just the spectra from the planet for analysis). This is called transit spectroscopy.

As for the cloud map of an exoplanet check it out: NASA Space Telescopes Find Patchy Clouds on Exotic World

Also see: A SuperEarth With a Water-Rich Atmosphere

originally posted by: stumason

I think that when we finally get out there, we'll find plenty of old civilisations, plenty of young ones and plenty of earth like worlds where nothing much of note has happened at all. I just don't buy that we're going to be the infants in a Universe of old bastards - that just sounds dull...

True. There is a higher probability that we are normal and average, rather than "special".

There is no reason to believe that we are especially young, nor are we especially old as civilizations go. Obviously, there would be a better chance of coming into contact with a more advanced civilization (because with advanced technology comes with an increased chance of contact), but the ones like us and the ones less advanced than us could still be out there.

If we are not special (and there is no reason to believe that we are special), then there would be just as many civilizations less advanced than us as there are civilizations more advanced than us.

In fact, if we factor in the idea that civilizations may have a finite lifespan (before they destroy themselves by their own hand, or through a natural yet inevitable death), AND factoring in the idea that some civilizations may stagnate and never develop advanced technology, then it may be more likely that civilizations younger and/or less advanced than us may outnumber the ones more advanced than us....

...In other words, maybe civilizations in general are a common thing, but for some reason or another, not many of them make it to be "very advanced", and the ones that do may eventually die.


So sure -- I believe that probably were ET civilizations that began long before humans existed or before the dinosaurs roamed the Earth -- maybe even before our solar system existed. But it is also possible that many of those older civilizations are no longer around.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Exactly, we don't have any other test cases to compare it to. So we cannot know what the standard is.

It's a given that Earth's homo sapiens have an innate ability too explore the unknown --- and that it's a good possibility for that to be true for other humanoid species, on other habitable star systems as well.


"Just give me a tall ship and a star to steer her by.



Quote: James T. Kirk quoting John Masefield's poem --- "Sea Fever"

The Earth may be young at 4.5 billion years old, but we as a race are younger, what 100,000 years or so?
That's absolutely nothing in terms of geological time.
I bet some races are ancient.

originally posted by: Erno86
It's a given that Earth's homo sapiens have an innate ability too explore the unknown

Ability and desire are not the same

--- and that it's a good possibility for that to be true for other humanoid species, on other habitable star systems as well.

"Just give me a tall ship and a star to steer her by.



Quote: James T. Kirk quoting John Masefield's poem --- "Sea Fever"

Why would you assume that other intelligent life forms would be "humanoid"? Maybe in the Star Trek-verse.

If they reach us first, they are probably more advanced. And I am telling you, they will.

originally posted by: Dr X
The Earth may be young at 4.5 billion years old, but we as a race are younger, what 100,000 years or so?
That's absolutely nothing in terms of geological time.
I bet some races are ancient.

Correct...

And it's interesting I started this thread days before this discovery and story appeared yesterday:

Planets orbiting Kepler 444 suggest there’s ancient life in the Milky Way

a reply to: JadeStar

wow interesting link,
I'd missed that discovery!
Thanks for sharing.

a reply to: JadeStar

Aye, just seen that news myself. Apparently, by the time our Earth had formed, these planets were already older than our planet is today! Staggering when you think about it.

With the amount of stars that explode & asteroids that collide with planets & moons, it's a wonder humans are even still around making technology. If we don't make some absolutely mind blowing technology in the next 10 years, we might not even make it that far. Much less give any crazy smart aliens a chance to get to us.

a reply to: JadeStar

Was a link I saw on slashdot that I think is relevant.

science.slashdot.org...

"A new study confirms the potential hazard of nearby gamma-ray bursts. It quantifies the probability of an event near Earth, and more generally in the Milky Way and other galaxies over time: "[Evolved] life as it exists on Earth could not take place in almost any galaxy that formed earlier than about five billion years after the Big Bang." This could explain the Fermi's paradox, or why we don't see billion-year-old civilizations all around us."

The article link,

journals.aps.org...

"Possible Role of Gamma Ray Bursts on Life Extinction in the Universe"

Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 231102 – Published 5 December 2014, Tsvi Piran and Raul Jimenez

A sufficiently advanced species with above-fusion levels of power, would feasibly be able to master dimensional travel. When the "big bang > big crunch" comes into play, wouldn't it make sense to jump dimensions to safety and then move back home when it's all settled again

So who's to say there aren't species' that have been around longgg before the current existence of this universe ;-)

You're thinking a few billion years more advanced would be incredible. Imagine a species older than all of existence...

Really though, there is no 'meaning of life' it just goes on & on. In an infinite sheet of universes, no matter how much you learn or achieve, New knowledge and achievements await.

Wouldn't it be nice if there were a utopia planet created for beings with high levels of consciousness to just spend a lifetime at ease and relaxing in paradise? Shame it all went to pot really..

a reply to: Eunuchorn

There is an inbuilt need in all living beings to "go forth and multiply". it is this need that, no matter where In the universe those beings are, They strive to travel among the stars.

All it takes is for one species to master it and then every star you look up at, might have a planet that is inhabited by distant relatives of the first true master space farers and life bringers