A newish argument about why we haven't encountered other intelligent civilizations:

"But all worlds collide. And now Tim O'Reilly, writing in his online column, joins the ranks of those worried about the challenges of climate change and peak oil. But he throws a great new angle into the mix -- the Fermi Paradox.

The Fermi Paradox is an attempt to wrestle with the question of why we haven't yet encountered any evidence of alien civilizations. Wikipedia defines the paradox as follows:

The size and age of the universe suggest that many technologically advanced extraterrestrial civilizations ought to exist. However, this hypothesis seems inconsistent with the lack of observational evidence to support it.

Such evidence might include radio signals, UFO sightings, or pointy ears. But so far, we got nuthin'.

O'Reilly then references a piece by Nick Bostrom in the current Technology Review, "Where Are They? Why I hope the search for extraterrestrial life finds nothing," which gloomily suggests that one reason why we haven't ever met any other advanced extraterrestrial civilizations is because all such civilizations run into some unsurvivable disaster that dooms the development of space travel as part of the normal evolutionary cycle. Examples cited by Bostrom include nuclear war, nanotechnology run-amok gray goo, germ warfare, or an asteroid strike.

To which list of joyful future scenarios, O'Reilly adds "diminished access to readily available natural resources after a crash of civilization."

In other words, we haven't encountered alien space-faring civilizations because all such alien races that developed the technological capacity for space-flight smacked head on into peak oil and then reverted back to barbarism, or some other form of pre-Industrial Revolution social arrangement."

So in short, it is possible that the high technological part of any civilization is just to short to make it to other stars and intelligent lifes. For humans it can be less than 200 years, which is nothing compared to the age of universe....

Then again aliens might not want anything to do with humans seeing the way they treat each other, animals and their environment. Think about it. Looking across humanities "evoloution" what has been accomplished between the ethnic groups, care for the planet and the animals that live on it.:shrug:

Well, let's see we discover a new animal. Do you think we would let it alone just because we don't agree with the way it behaves? I don't think there are so many alien encounters that they can efford to be picky about it..

I doubt this guy's explanation. I could see it destroying a few civilizations, but it seems unlikely that it would get all of them, or even most. Personally, I think the idea of paranoid, predatory civilizations that hide themselves and destroy any other civilization that they come across seems more likely.

Every time a new civilization pops up in the neighborhood, just throw a chunk of quartz at their planet at near the speed of light and the problem is over. Heck, maybe that's how humans will turn out in a thousand years. It’s not hard to imagine us getting vicious and crazy about that sort of thing.

Or it could be that the universe is really big and we lack the capability to find them.

Or it could be that the universe is really big and we lack the capability to find them.


^ This, and that life on some planets don´t even get past the stage of self awareness.
Look at the dinosaurs. They remained "animals" for a very long time. It was only after the "viva the small ones" that we could finally be able to spring to life.

Also the fact that the time it takes radio waves and even the reflection of earth to reach other solar systems takes huge amount of time.

The only possible way I say we could actually meet/interact with an alien is if we found ways to communicate that far exceeds the speed of light. As our life time is limited I also think that these aliens (if any) have come up with a way to live very long.

whats the assumption here?
is it that all reports of ufo's sighted here on earth are bogus?

secondly
where have we been? other galaxies or just our solar system?
what are seti's search parameters? how much have they covered? a fraction or most?

fermi jumps the gun
what a tard

The assumption was that the timeframe of intelligent life when a spieces can reach out to the stars is very short, like 200 years. Humans are in their 100+ years now, counting from the invention of radio...

So 2 spieces can live relative close to each other in the same galaxy, but if they reach their technological peaks at different times ( and chances are they would) the encounter is not going to happen....

OR, they are here just observing and do not want to communicate with us yet....

The assumption was that the timeframe of intelligent life when a spieces can reach out to the stars is very short, like 200 years. Humans are in their 100+ years now, counting from the invention of radio...

alright
what are the justifications?

That the "intelligent" life will destroy itself soon after it reached the technical ability to get noticed...

I blame Oprah.

That the "intelligent" life will destroy itself soon after it reached the technical ability to get noticed...

ahh
based on yet another assumption
what is the reasoning behind this premise?

I blame Oprah.

stfu

What does stfu mean?

ahh
based on yet another assumption
what is the reasoning behind this premise?


I'd hazard a guess that its because we have made/are making a pretty good stab of it ourselves

What does stfu mean?




A Loaf of Bread
A Jug of Wine
A Book of Verse
and
Oprah on the TV

I'd hazard a guess that its because we have made/are making a pretty good stab of it ourselves


pfft
your turn then
justify the doom and gloom
illustrate how the cons of modern civ outweigh the pros

Who says there is no evidence of higher level civilizations? There is evidence, a lot of great UFO sitings. There is a lot of evidence to support the existence of higher level civilations. The issue is if we are willing to recognize it as such. In order to be a disbeliver, a so called skeptic, you have to ignore a lot of evidence. So there is plenty of evidence to support the existence of higher level civilizations, it it just that we choose not to accept it.
The question is or should be why do they not directly communicate with us? My guess is that they do not want to impede our development as a species...we are too young and too immature.

pfft
your turn then
justify the doom and gloom
illustrate how the cons of modern civ outweigh the pros

not a saying I agree with the assertion - with a few exceptions and the odd blip here and there it seems that we are heading towards becoming more civilised towards each other in the last 100 years - we certainly have the capability to do it though.

I think it more likely that while life may be relatively commonplace on other worlds, the kind of intelligence required for a technological society is vanishingly rare - afterall in a few hundred million years and a few billion species - and thanks to a "lucky" accidental asteroid strike - it has only arisen once here

we are too young and too immature.


oh?
what would constitute adult and mature?
development in general or specifics? tech is obviously lacking tho a work in progress but philosophies? storytelling?

who the fuck do they think they are
better toys maketh not an alien

fuck
this goddamn impulse to worship sky daddies pisses me goddamn off!

oh?
what would constitute adult and mature?
development in general or specifics? tech is obviously lacking tho a work in progress but philosophies? storytelling?

who the fuck do they think they are
better toys maketh not an alien

fuck
this goddamn impulse to worship sky daddies pisses me goddamn off!

the assumption is that any civilization that avoids self-immolation must therefore be tremenously wise, peaceful and beatific.

A big assumption methinks

not a saying I agree with the assertion - with a few exceptions and the odd blip here and there it seems that we are heading towards becoming more civilised towards each other in the last 100 years - we certainly have the capability to do it though.

I think it more likely that while life may be relatively commonplace on other worlds, the kind of intelligence required for a technological society is vanishingly rare - afterall in a few hundred million years and a few billion species - and thanks to a "lucky" accidental asteroid strike - it has only arisen once here


exogenesis is speculation not fact

perhaps you neglect the enormity of the time scales involved?
furthermore is it possible to note, at the very least, small scale and perhaps logical trends with regards to the evolution of our species?

would you perhaps then make the case why reptiles/whatnot should have developed a sentience comparable to ours? is there a biological framework that could support that particular line of evolution?

Syzygys, the reason we do not meet aliens is because aliens as extraterrestrials with millions of years of technology ahead of us are us Gods, meeting aliens would be meeting Gods, this would dramatically alter the natural way of religious evolution within our society.

you!

Syzygys, the reason we do not meet aliens is because aliens as extraterrestrials with millions of years of technology ahead of us are us Gods, meeting aliens would be meeting Gods, this would dramatically alter the natural way of religious evolution within our society.

From where I sit Americans are aliens as are all the hardworking immigrants who do odd jobs for Sandy.

From where I sit Americans are aliens as are all the hardworking immigrants who do odd jobs for Sandy.

perspectives are different for many...true Gods would be Gods for all. Americans would not be aliens to Japanese, who are far more developed than Americans. Sandy would not be God to hardworking immigrants if these immigrants reached a higher than Sandy's status.

A true God is that of a God unsurpassed by others.

perspectives are different for many...true Gods would be Gods for all. Americans would not be aliens to Japanese, who are far more developed than Americans. Sandy would not be God to hardworking immigrants if these immigrants reached a higher than Sandy's status.

A true God is that of a God unsurpassed by others.

The Lord speaks to Sandy. You can't get more developed than that !

The Lord speaks to Sandy. You can't get more developed than that !

your sarcasm is appreciated but inadequate for it mocks Sandy as a character.

your sarcasm is appreciated but inadequate for it mocks Sandy as a character.

Sarcasm ? Ask her and she'll confirm what I say !

than read it again and understand it. If you wish for me to reiterate the points of God that I have spoken here forth, than say so.

And I thought you were joking ! May the god of gods smile kindly on you and your mission to bring knowledge to us heathens.

And I thought you were joking ! May the god of gods smile kindly on you and your mission to bring knowledge to us heathens.

My mission is different than be an advocate of God, for I do not know God as well as you might. ;)

exogenesis is speculation not fact


Agreed - while my post neither addressed the issue of exogenesis, nor multiple instances of abiogenesis directly. I was clear on the fact that the existence of extraterrestrial life - intelligent or otherwise - with a technological culture or not - arising from whatever mechanism you choose to pick - is speculation.


perhaps you neglect the enormity of the time scales involved?


The enormous timescales are mentioned


furthermore is it possible to note, at the very least, small scale and perhaps logical trends with regards to the evolution of our species?


Indeed - that's why I did


would you perhaps then make the case why reptiles/whatnot should have developed a sentience comparable to ours? is there a biological framework that could support that particular line of evolution?

I certainly would not make that case, in fact that's why the position I stated in my last post was the contrary one.

I see no justification for beleiving that the evolution of intelligence is a given.
Indeed given the considerable amount of time that reptiles were the dominant species - and given that during their peak, environmental conditions were considerably more stable (i.e no regular periods of glaciation) than they have been in the pleistocene, it would seem therefore that the evolution of intelligence and the emergence of a technological culture is a highly unlikely event.

So there's no reason to suspect that we are surrounded by intelligent alien cultures - let alone visted by space brothers.

Which is what I said in my last post - did you not read it or did you just fail to comprehend it?

My mission is different than be an advocate of God, for I do not know God as well as you might. ;)

Your humility becomes you. May you be counted among the blessed

ahh
based on yet another assumption
what is the reasoning behind this premise?


That it almost happened 2-3 times already in the history of the only known intelligent life, humans??

Must be going to the wrong nightclubs?

Must be going to the wrong nightclubs?

Have you tried the Gospel Club in Sandyville. You'll meet weirdos. Is that the same as aliens ?

Agreed - while my post neither addressed the issue of exogenesis, nor multiple instances of abiogenesis directly. I was clear on the fact that the existence of extraterrestrial life - intelligent or otherwise - with a technological culture or not - arising from whatever mechanism you choose to pick - is speculation.


ahh
pardon
the referenced asteroid strike was an instance of extinction (dinosaurs) rather than the seeding of a planet (exogenesis)

is that the case?
the post in question

I think it more likely that while life may be relatively commonplace on other worlds, the kind of intelligence required for a technological society is vanishingly rare - afterall in a few hundred million years and a few billion species - and thanks to a "lucky" accidental asteroid strike - it has only arisen once here


if so, our civ is due to this extinction? on what grounds do you make that assertion??

I see no justification for beleiving that the evolution of intelligence is a given.
Indeed given the considerable amount of time that reptiles were the dominant species - and given that during their peak, environmental conditions were considerably more stable (i.e no regular periods of glaciation) than they have been in the pleistocene, it would seem therefore that the evolution of intelligence and the emergence of a technological culture is a highly unlikely event.


this is the crux of the matter. there seems to be an expectation of a tech civ in other species that persevered for a suitable period of time in favorable conditions. here is how i see it

The thumb, unlike other fingers, is opposable, in that it is the only digit on the human hand which is able to oppose or turn back against the other four fingers, and thus enables the hand to refine its grip to hold objects which it would be unable to do otherwise. The opposable thumb has helped the human species develop more accurate fine motor skills. It is also thought to have directly led to the development of tools, not just in humans or their evolutionary ancestors, but other primates as well. The opposable thumb ensured that writing was possible.The thumb, in conjunction with the other fingers make humans and other species with similar hands some of the most dexterous in the world. (wiki)

that is what allows for intelligence. it is unreasonable to expect a high tech civs should have sprouted simply because a billion other forms of life existed prior to habilis. what would you have a lowly amoeba do? sprout a hand and build a bike?

again evolution appears to be progressive...

it is possible though that a more likely scenario may be that the specialized, precision gripping hand (equipped with opposable thumb) of Homo habilis preceded walking, with the specialized adaptation of the spine, pelvis and lower extremities proceeding a more advanced hand. And, it is logical that a conservative, highly functional adaptation be followed by a series of more complex ones that complement it. With Homo habilis an advanced grasping-capable hand was accompanied by facultative bipedalism, possibly implying, assuming a co-opted evolutionary relationship exists, that the latter resulted from the former as obligate bipedalism was yet to follow. Walking may have been a byproduct of busy hands and not vice versa.(wiki)

we are a logical culmination of our particular species tho definitely not one of necessity

So there's no reason to suspect that we are surrounded by intelligent alien cultures - let alone visted by space brothers.


sorry
statistical equations say otherwise.
suspicion is an emotional consideration.
surrounded and space brothers are debunker/pseudo skeptic speak

i shall consider you the enemy
you have been warned

Many animals, primates and others, also have some kind of opposable thumb or toe:

* Bornean Orangutan - opposable thumbs on both hands and both feet. The interdigital grip gives them the ability to pick fruit.
* Gorillas-opposable on both hands and both feet.
* Chimpanzees have opposable thumbs on both hands and both feet.
* Lesser Apes have opposable thumbs on both hands and both feet.
* Old World Monkeys, with some exceptions, such as the genera, Piliocolobus and Colobus.
* Cebids (New World primates of Central and South America) - some have opposable thumbs.
* Koala - opposable toe on each foot, plus two opposable digits on each hand.
* Opossum - opposable thumb on rear feet.
* Giant Panda - Panda paws have five clawed fingers plus an extra bone that works like an opposable thumb. This "thumb" is not really a finger (like the human thumb is), but an extra-long sesamoid bone that works like a thumb.
* Troodon - a birdlike dinosaur with partially opposable thumbs.(wiki)

billion my ass
now
do you just vomit words into a post?
kinda like....let the letters spew where they may?

That it almost happened 2-3 times already in the history of the only known intelligent life, humans??

armageddon?
cite these instances

again evolution appears to be progressive...


Yes- but towards complexity not necessarily towards the kind of intelligence necessary for a technological culture - take cephalopods for example - highly evolved and complex - intelligent to the point they display behaviour only seen in higher ,mammals and primates (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19826531.000-the-secret-language-of-cuttlefish.html )- easily as dexterous as H.sapiens - been around for much longer - and to date has not developed a technological culture.


it is possible though that a more likely scenario may be that the specialized, precision gripping hand (equipped with opposable thumb) of Homo habilis preceded walking, with the specialized adaptation of the spine, pelvis and lower extremities proceeding a more advanced hand. And, it is logical that a conservative, highly functional adaptation be followed by a series of more complex ones that complement it. With Homo habilis an advanced grasping-capable hand was accompanied by facultative bipedalism, possibly implying, assuming a co-opted evolutionary relationship exists, that the latter resulted from the former as obligate bipedalism was yet to follow. Walking may have been a byproduct of busy hands and not vice versa.(wiki)


Count those assumptions!
And yet even if they are correct, there's no reason the add the final and massive assumption that they would obligately lead - not simply to intelligence - which is fairly commonplace in the animal kingdom - but to a technological culture.
Indeed the fact that adaptations that lead to intelligence and/or enable tool use ARE relatively commonplace and yet technological cultures are decidedly singular within terrestrial species would suggest otherwise.


statistical equations say otherwise.
suspicion is an emotional consideration.


Its just healthy scepticism - I've seen the equations and they are LOADED with assumptions - they are an interesting mind experiment for sure , but until we have better data to plug into them I will remain sceptical


Many animals, primates and others, also have some kind of opposable thumb or toe: Blahdy Bladhy Blah Blah yet more Gustavian word salad


Thus neatly proving my point - thanks for that

One point I will concede is that we have indeed only just started looking - but the truth is out there - not down here as you assert

armageddon?
cite these instances

Anytime when the nuclear silos cover was opened due to international criseses. I could list those, but you need to do a little research on your own. :)

Let's throw in the couple of accidents when there was no political crisis just electrical problems and we already have 4-5 occasions when the Earth could have gone astray....

So it seems to me that since humans went nuclear in 1945, we had a chance of blowing ourselves up in about every 15 years....And that my friend is nothing compared to the universe's timetable...

A newish argument about why we haven't encountered other intelligent civilizations:

"But all worlds collide. And now Tim O'Reilly, writing in his online column, joins the ranks of those worried about the challenges of climate change and peak oil. But he throws a great new angle into the mix -- the Fermi Paradox.

The Fermi Paradox is an attempt to wrestle with the question of why we haven't yet encountered any evidence of alien civilizations. Wikipedia defines the paradox as follows:

The size and age of the universe suggest that many technologically advanced extraterrestrial civilizations ought to exist. However, this hypothesis seems inconsistent with the lack of observational evidence to support it.

Such evidence might include radio signals, UFO sightings, or pointy ears. But so far, we got nuthin'.

O'Reilly then references a piece by Nick Bostrom in the current Technology Review, "Where Are They? Why I hope the search for extraterrestrial life finds nothing," which gloomily suggests that one reason why we haven't ever met any other advanced extraterrestrial civilizations is because all such civilizations run into some unsurvivable disaster that dooms the development of space travel as part of the normal evolutionary cycle. Examples cited by Bostrom include nuclear war, nanotechnology run-amok gray goo, germ warfare, or an asteroid strike.

To which list of joyful future scenarios, O'Reilly adds "diminished access to readily available natural resources after a crash of civilization."

In other words, we haven't encountered alien space-faring civilizations because all such alien races that developed the technological capacity for space-flight smacked head on into peak oil and then reverted back to barbarism, or some other form of pre-Industrial Revolution social arrangement."

So in short, it is possible that the high technological part of any civilization is just to short to make it to other stars and intelligent lifes. For humans it can be less than 200 years, which is nothing compared to the age of universe....

An excellent and depressing point.

Alternate energy, and decreased usage, should be our goal. All this high-faluting Star Trek stuff will never happen without new modes of propulsion, either.

Anytime when the nuclear silos cover was opened due to international criseses. I could list those, but you need to do a little research on your own. :)

Let's throw in the couple of accidents when there was no political crisis just electrical problems and we already have 4-5 occasions when the Earth could have gone astray....

So it seems to me that since humans went nuclear in 1945, we had a chance of blowing ourselves up in about every 15 years....And that my friend is nothing compared to the universe's timetable...



cite your goddamn instances
you assume a complete devastation rather than a limited one
you imply extinction of a whole species

show me why that is the only scenario
do it!

the next time you make an unsubstantiated allegation be prepared to back it up. either that or just shut the fuck up

oh?
what would constitute adult and mature?
development in general or specifics? tech is obviously lacking tho a work in progress but philosophies? storytelling?

who the fuck do they think they are
better toys maketh not an alien

fuck
this goddamn impulse to worship sky daddies pisses me goddamn off!

Well if sky daddy worship offends you I suggest you not worship sky daddys. I am not going to waste my time trying to prove something to you or change your emotional attachments.
But to an objective observer, there is a lot evidence to support the existence of extraterrestrial visitation.

Count those assumptions!
And yet even if they are correct, there's no reason the add the final and massive assumption that they would obligately lead - not simply to intelligence - which is fairly commonplace in the animal kingdom - but to a technological culture.



we are a logical culmination of our particular species tho definitely not one of necessity


do you fucking comprehend? furthermore the wiki is similarly restrained in its claims.

Its just healthy scepticism - I've seen the equations and they are LOADED with assumptions - they are an interesting mind experiment for sure , but until we have better data to plug into them I will remain sceptical


how many samples does fermi have to work with?

Thus neatly proving my point - thanks for that


you disingenuous *^*^%

- afterall in a few hundred million years and a few billion species - and thanks to a "lucky" accidental asteroid strike - it has only arisen once here


that crap has been narrowed down to practically a goddamn handful
your goddamn point has NOT been proven

One point I will concede is that we have indeed only just started looking - but the truth is out there - not down here as you assert


what?
cite this alleged assertion!

But to an objective observer, there is a lot evidence to support the existence of extraterrestrial visitation.


are you frikkin insane? that is not the point of contention. neither did i even comment on the original assertion of the same vein. go back and read

do you fucking comprehend? furthermore the wiki is similarly restrained in its claims.


Yet you are not similarly restrained and make wild assertions to the arising of tech civ - I quote:
"there seems to be an expectation of a tech civ in other species that persevered for a suitable period of time in favorable conditions."

Provide me with a convincing citation that isn't full of anthropocentric assumptions and then I might be persuaded to view you as something more than a fuckwitted simpleton.


how many samples does fermi have to work with?

Clearly not enough


that crap has been narrowed down to practically a goddamn handful
your goddamn point has NOT been proven


You provided me with a bunch of anthropocentric assumptions.
There's no good reason why opposable thumbs are a pre-requisite for intelligence, or technological culture - cephalopod tentacles could be equally useful, and evoled some time around the Permian and has been conserved ever since.
Which would seem to utterly disprove your notional conjecture that:

"there seems to be an expectation of a tech civ in other species that persevered for a suitable period of time in favorable conditions."



what?
cite this alleged assertion!

Sure - I'll cite you directly if I may:

"there seems to be an expectation of a tech civ in other species that persevered for a suitable period of time in favorable conditions."

An excellent and depressing point.


polar bears do not exist simply because i do not find any in my own goddamn backyard

every allegation of contact is a lie

galactus rampages thru the universe devouring worlds

- I quote:
"there seems to be an expectation of a tech civ in other species that persevered for a suitable period of time in favorable conditions."


why you dolt!
i was paraphrasing your ass
that was YOUR goddamn expectation


- afterall in a few hundred million years and a few billion species - and thanks to a "lucky" accidental asteroid strike - it has only arisen once here


do you fucking understand? you expect that it should have arisen more than once. it is a goddamn logical extrapolation of your pseudo scientific and wild eyed assertion

jesus christ
i demand this thread be move to pseudoscience
moderator!

/rotfl

hahaaha
just like old times

/wipes tears

moderator!
we have generation ships manned by octopuses

cite your goddamn instances

Oh fuck, just google nuclear annihilation. Otherwise you are going back to my Ignore list...I don't know why I let you out of there...

why you dolt!
i was paraphrasing your ass
that was YOUR goddamn expectation


/sigh!

Then I was clearly bang on the money by descibing you as a fuckwitted simpleton, as that was the exact point I was refuting all along - and qwuite clearly enough for anyone to understand. Your comprehension level and inability to express yourself let you down badly in this thread methinks


do you fucking understand? you expect that it should have arisen more than once. it is a goddamn logical extrapolation of your pseudo scientific and wild eyed assertion


The point I made that you failed to comprehend was that I only expect it to arise more than once - or even just the once - if we accept that the arising of a tech civ is some kind of evolutionary goal - I don't accept that evolution has any direction whatsoever in that regard - other than what the evidence suggests which is evolution towards increasing complexity - no more no less.

Hence the cephalopod example - highly evolved - highly complex - highly intelligent - many adaptations that might be conducive to tech which have been preserved over massive geological timescales, and yet no discernable tech or culture.

I don't therefore regard that it is a given for it to arise more than once or even at all here on earth - or anywhere else for that matter.

I'm not sure how much simpler I can make it for you - you want pictures and large type or something

If you can build ships that travel at half the speed of light (which is certainly physically possible, even if our engineering isn't up to it right now) a technologically advanced species could colonize the entire galaxy in about 200k years. That's a long time on the scale of a human life or even human civilization, but it's nothing compared to the age of the Earth/galaxy. I mean, even a million years is really nothing on this sort of time scale. Heck, the dinosaurs lasted 185 million years. And they didn't appear until about 2 billion years after life started, and about 300 million years after large, complex lifeforms appeared. So if there were even a few civilizations in the galaxy that wanted to colonize and spread out, we would expect the galaxy to already be pretty much full.

Oh fuck, just google nuclear annihilation. Otherwise you are going back to my Ignore list...I don't know why I let you out of there...

cos you are a dimwitted crackpot
now i must query google with the given terms or face ostracism and exile

fabulous and extremely generous
you do sci proud, you fascist pig!
your disingenuous prevarication, your refusal to substantiate claims, has been noted

/sigh!


ah :itold:
oh ancient one
i am so unworthy

Then I was clearly bang on the money by descibing you as a fuckwitted simpleton,


ah
the first time around you were unsure but decided to troll regardless?

/snigger

....as that was the exact point I was refuting all along


you clearly lie

The point I made that you failed to comprehend was that I only expect it to arise more than once........


the admission ;)

....if we accept that the arising of a tech civ is some kind of evolutionary goal - I don't accept that evolution has any direction whatsoever in that regard - other than what the evidence suggests which is evolution towards increasing complexity - no more no less.


at no point, within the post in question, was this caveat implied or present
provide quote

Hence the cephalopod example - highly complex - highly intelligent - many adaptations that might be conducive to tech which have been preserved over massive geological timescales, and yet no discernable tech or culture.

ja
they could'nt tighten the bolts. their spaceship kept falling apart on them

I don't therefore regard that it is a given for it to arise more than once or even at all here on earth - or anywhere else for that matter.


non sequiter
an empty statement that is meaningless without a reference to biological systems. for instance a biological framework conducive to toolmaking would raise expectations (hominids). a biological framework not conducive to toolmaking would lower expectations (microbes)

I'm not sure how much simpler I can make it for you - you want pictures and large type or something


sure
lets have a repeat performance of your pseudo scientific babble

ah
these testosterone fueled, gung ho and macho schoolboys
gotta love em

you clearly lie

nope - you're either just too interested in trolling - or too dullwitted to comprehend a few simple statements.
Such as:
"while life may be relatively commonplace on other worlds, the kind of intelligence required for a technological society is vanishingly rare" (post #19)

I see no justification for beleiving that the evolution of intelligence is a given (post #40)

[regarding progressive eoluion] Yes- but towards complexity not necessarily towards the kind of intelligence necessary for a technological culture (post 47)

there's no reason the add the final and massive assumption that they would obligately lead - not simply to intelligence - which is fairly commonplace in the animal kingdom - but to a technological culture.
Indeed the fact that adaptations that lead to intelligence and/or enable tool use ARE relatively commonplace and yet technological cultures are decidedly singular within terrestrial species would suggest otherwise. (post #47)


at no point, within the post in question, was this caveat implied or present
provide quote


errm see above quotes by me



ja
they could'nt tighten the bolts. their spaceship kept falling apart on them


they seem to be pretty good at dealing with screw threaded items
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO1PnQ-1-pY
and a whole bunch of other behaviours attributed to intelligence:
http://www.thecephalopodpage.org/behavior.php
http://www.thecephalopodpage.org/BermudaGazetteOctopus.pdf


an empty statement that is meaningless without a reference to biological systems. for instance a biological framework conducive to toolmaking would raise expectations (hominids). a biological framework not conducive to toolmaking would lower expectations (microbes)

comparing microbes to hominids is a strawman sonny - are you a creationist in disguise?

comparing cephalopods - which exhibit advanced communication abilities, tool use and tool adaptation, play, and personality, reasoning abilities and learning - (see above links) - and yet have never developed a tech civ - to H.s who have, is clearly a valid point.
It points to the fact that merely being smart, or having phyogenetic traits that are advantageous to tool use etc(like opposable thumbs), are not enough to ensure the further evolution towards a tech civ - if it were we'd see more of them in a variety of terrestrial taxa.
So there are clearly other factors at play that influence the evolution of our tech - but they are clearly an uncommon combination of factors - otherwise terrestrial tech civs would be expected to be more common.
likewise, it is therefore reasonable to assume that even if complex multicellular life on other planets is common, the chances of that evolving into a technical civilisation are as singularly rare as they are here.

http://web.missouri.edu/~gearyd/Flinnetal2005.pdf

they seem to be pretty good at dealing with screw threaded items
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO1PnQ-1-pY
and a whole bunch of other behaviours attributed to intelligence:
http://www.thecephalopodpage.org/behavior.php
http://www.thecephalopodpage.org/BermudaGazetteOctopus.pdf



that was beyond pathetic
is this an example of quality of citations you would provide when asked to provide references to your pseudo scientific claims?

you goddamn tube!
then...
from 2nd link...

Tool use is sometimes simple and fixed, not always a sign of intelligence, yet its range and flexibility gives us some indication when an intelligent animalis using this technique.

Beck (1980, Animal Tool Behavior: the Use and Manufacture of Tools By Animals) defined tool use precisely. To be a tool user, an animal had to modify, carry or manipulate an item that was external to itself before using it to effect some change on the environment. Mather first noticed octopuses using rocks as tools in a very simple way. Octopus vulgaris in Bermuda, occupying those homes mentioned above, often selected an area that wasn't 'perfect' in terms of size or area of opening. After settling in and clearing out sand, moving small rocks and pulling algae off the rocks, an octopus would often be left with a large entrance. It would go out from the home, pick up small rocks and bring them back to the home, piling them up at the entrance. By Beck's definition, these rocks were tools. When she correlated den opening area with number of rocks, there was a significant relationship—the bigger the hole, the more rocks were brought (Mather, 1994, Journal of Zoology 233, 359-368).

Thinking on the definition of tool use brought us to octopus water jetting.....

am i to extrapolate the construction of a spaceship from this garbage?
you deflate visibly
you prostitute your intellect to maintain a failed proposition
i would be ashamed

comparing microbes to hominids is a strawman sonny - are you a creationist in disguise?


pardon
where do i make the comparison?
cite

you lack comprehension. you make a claim which i assert is meaningless without a reference to something. the examples given were either hominds with which a positive conclusion was reached with regards to the scenario OR microbes which results in an unfavorable result

you erect the strawman, boy!

comparing cephalopods - which exhibit advanced communication abilities, tool use and tool adaptation, play, and personality, reasoning abilities and learning - (see above links) - and yet have never developed a tech civ - to H.s who have, is clearly a valid point.


no
they lack a biological framework to build the infrastructure for a tech civ let alone a spacefaring one. they goddamn live in goddamn water

It points to the fact that merely being smart, or having phyogenetic traits that are advantageous to tool use etc(like opposable thumbs), are not enough to ensure the further evolution towards a tech civ - if it were we'd see more of them in a variety of terrestrial taxa.


the pool from which a tech civ could emerge is small. wiki gave a goddamn list.

So there are clearly other factors at play that influence the evolution of our tech - but they are clearly an uncommon combination of factors - otherwise terrestrial tech civs would be expected to be more common.


a stinking thumb and variables
your "uncommon variables" and unidentified "factors" says nothing at all!

likewise, it is therefore reasonable to assume that even if complex multicellular life on other planets is common, the chances of that evolving into a technical civilisation are as singularly rare as they are here.


the frikkin biblical sense of uniqueness
an insidious manifestation of ancient and deluded superstitions


hey
you indian?
namaste
welcome to sci

now i shall look into the first segment where you try to bamboozle me with multiple quotations. await destruction

a tech civ could not develop in a marine environment - because gustav says so

Cephalopods lack a biological framework for a tech civ - because gustav says so

wikipedia provides a comprehensive list of all species that had the potential to develop a tech civ - because gustav says so

I'm not saying your wrong gustav - merely that you have limited your view to a rather anthropocentric and tautological one.

The point I have been making all along is that one possible reason we are not hearing alien radio signals is that there may simply be very very few of them - indeed there are differeing interpretations of the drake equation (which results from fermi's paradox) that suggest that alien civilisation would indeed be very rare (Sagan's interpretation is way too optimistic in my view and certainly not borne out by any evidence we have so far).

The fact that they may be very few alien civs may be answered by looking at our own world - despite the number of species which have had the potential to develop towards higher intelligence and have had appropriate phylogenetic adaptations, only one has managed it - and even then only by the providence of a large number of rather lucky circumstances, many of which we still don't fully understand (no sky daddy involvement needed)

We are not special at all - neither are we the result of some evolutionary master plan - just remarkably and singularly fortunate

Why should life on other worlds be any different in that regard?

ps - not indian or of indian extraction - my name comes from here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cv1_Bw_sBo

a tech civ could not develop in a marine environment - because gustav says so

Cephalopods lack a biological framework for a tech civ - because gustav says so

wikipedia provides a comprehensive list of all species that had the potential to develop a tech civ - because gustav says so

I'm not saying your wrong gustav - merely that you have limited your view to a rather anthropocentric and tautological one.


nah
to the first...more obstacles due to environment
to the second.....adaptations are possible. yet an intelligent yet non tech civ seems to be a valid projection
to the third...an opposable thumb and modes of communication - a decent voice box and writing

The point I have been making all along ..... just remarkably and singularly fortunate

Why should life on other worlds be any different in that regard?


sounds reasonable
i agree
there are however valid objections to this paradox. modifications rather than an outright rejection. please note

The reason we don't meet aliens is because of Gustav's inappropriate behavior.

thou impertinent folly-fallen flax-wench!
thou foul defacer of God's handiwork!

begone!

nah
to the second.....adaptations are possible. yet an intelligent yet non tech civ seems to be a valid projection


If they don't all end up deep fried as part of a greek meze


to the third...an opposable thumb and modes of communication - a decent voice box and writing


Anthropocentric - who says that hands must be the phylogenetic feature of choice - language need not be verbal - cephalopod signalling is extremely complex, and can even provide simultaneous data streams in varying light wavelengths by manipulating their chromatophores.
Its not limited to that either - they also have a number of postural signals - which is great fun if you know some of them as you can really fuck with them when you dive with one :)
And they are halfway to writing - they already have ink :)

Sorry to get stuck on squid - but it does serve as an example of how intelligent life elsewhere in terms of what it looks like and how it communicates etc could be something utterly "other"
If we limit ourselves to an anthropocentric view of alien life and technology (its just other monkeys out there!) we lessen our chances of finding it



sounds reasonable
i agree
there are however valid objections to this paradox. modifications rather than an outright rejection. please note


Quite - futher study needed - pass the grant application form :D


Not indian or of indian extraction - I come from here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cv1_Bw_sBo

If they don't all end up deep fried as part of a greek meze


ha!

Anthropocentric......


hardly
it does appear that way cos i was being lazy and reluctant to further complicate.
i am a scifi buff.

cheers and welcome to sci

i am a scifi buff.

cheers and welcome to sci

and you

read this - you'll like it( its on-topic too):

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Learning-World-Novel-First-Contact/dp/1841493449/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210881089&sr=1-1

There are dozens of documented cases in which highly trained astronauts track UFOs which follow them for a period of time

Also our moon is unique in that it is tidally locked in such a fashion that the same side ALWAYS faces the earth, this is very peculiar and opens possibility of a base on the dark side of the moon (a perfect staging point for observations and docking, no?).

Add this to the fact that NASA has not been back to the moon in 30 years and discounts ALL records of UFOs and you got yourself a conspiracy theory.

But then again you would think if the aliens wanted us to know they were here, or knew that we knew they were here they would either greet us or kill us depending on their intentions instead of just flying around.

There are dozens of documented cases in which highly trained astronauts track UFOs which follow them for a period of time


A bunch of fuzzy images and some unattributed voice recordings - its easier to be convinced by that if you are a true beleiver - I'm sceptical.
They're interesting, but easily faked


Also our moon is unique in that it is tidally locked in such a fashion that the same side ALWAYS faces the earth, this is very peculiar and opens possibility of a base on the dark side of the moon (a perfect staging point for observations and docking, no?).


Considering the age of the moon (it formed way before there was life on earth) and the emount of energy it would have taken to influence its orbit, I'd say that the idea that its unusual properties are anything but a simple coincidence


Add this to the fact that NASA has not been back to the moon in 30 years and discounts ALL records of UFOs and you got yourself a conspiracy theory.

Or it was the expense and the lack of public interest - and once the russians were beaten to it, the space race was effectively over

There are dozens of documented cases in which highly trained astronauts track UFOs which follow them for a period of time

let's assume they are observing us. In the case of an international disaster which leads to nuclear war, would they be ABLE to stop us or would they WANT to???