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.
The reason we don't meet aliens
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
- Status
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
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.
do you fucking comprehend? furthermore the wiki is similarly restrained in its claims.
how many samples does fermi have to work with?
you disingenuous *^*^%
that crap has been narrowed down to practically a goddamn handful
your goddamn point has NOT been proven
what?
cite this alleged assertion!
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
Assumptions Assumptions Assumptions, and....more assumptions
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.
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."
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."
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.
Clearly not enough
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."
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."
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
why you dolt!
i was paraphrasing your ass
that was YOUR goddamn expectation
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
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...
/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
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
Last edited:
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.
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
ah :itold:
oh ancient one
i am so unworthy
ah
the first time around you were unsure but decided to troll regardless?
/snigger
you clearly lie
the admission
at no point, within the post in question, was this caveat implied or present
provide quote
ja
they could'nt tighten the bolts. their spaceship kept falling apart on them
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)
sure
lets have a repeat performance of your pseudo scientific babble
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)
errm see above quotes by me
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
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
Last edited:
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
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!
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
the pool from which a tech civ could emerge is small. wiki gave a goddamn list.
a stinking thumb and variables
your "uncommon variables" and unidentified "factors" says nothing at all!
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
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
Last edited:
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
sounds reasonable
i agree
there are however valid objections to this paradox. modifications rather than an outright rejection. please note
- Status