Historical Arguments and Debates

[Speaker to Animals]

But you are talking about a probability chain, and you really have no idea about how the two phenomena corresponding to the first two probabilities actually work.

If the probability that a habitable planet evolves a biosphere is 0.00000000001 and the probability that any given biosphere evolves a technological civilization is 0.00000002, then you multiply those two probabilities to start the chain. The universe can be twice it's real size and the impact of its size on any probability chain that starts with those numbers is negligible.

And.. the Fermi Paradox suggests the real probabilities are just that low.

[heydaralon]

What if you have a twin that lives on Earth with you? Like, they are identical to you, and even came from the same mother and family? Would the Universe have to be infinite for that to be possible? I saw some twins the other day and freaked myself the fuck out. It was something similar to the Twilight Zone. They were eating at a restaurant and just sitting there eating.

[Speaker to Animals]

In fact, I suspect the probability of Earth's biosphere emerging on its own so incredibly low that it is more likely Earth was seeded either directly by some intelligent agent seeding it, or indirectly by an intelligent agent seeding a lot of intersteller material with engineered cellular life that grows and evolves on asteroids, comets, etc, and spreads across the galaxy to seed habitable worlds by chance.

If we find life elsewhere in our star system, I bet you a donut that it is DNA-based.

[heydaralon]

In fact, I suspect the probability of Earth's biosphere emerging on its own so incredibly low that it is more likely Earth was seeded either directly by some intelligent agent seeding it, or indirectly by an intelligent agent seeding a lot of intersteller material with engineered cellular life that grows and evolves on asteroids, comets, etc, and spreads across the galaxy to seed habitable worlds by chance.

If we find life elsewhere in our star system, I bet you a donut that it is DNA-based.

What are even the other alternatives to DNA based life? Some kind of viral strain or something? From our admittedly limited understanding of life and how it comes about, is there even a viable way for an organism to exist and reproduce without DNA?

[Speaker to Animals]

In fact, I suspect the probability of Earth's biosphere emerging on its own so incredibly low that it is more likely Earth was seeded either directly by some intelligent agent seeding it, or indirectly by an intelligent agent seeding a lot of intersteller material with engineered cellular life that grows and evolves on asteroids, comets, etc, and spreads across the galaxy to seed habitable worlds by chance.

If we find life elsewhere in our star system, I bet you a donut that it is DNA-based.

What are even the other alternatives to DNA based life? Some kind of viral strain or something? From our admittedly limited understanding of life and how it comes about, is there even a viable way for an organism to exist and reproduce without DNA?

There are a few interesting ideas. I can pull down some books on it when I get home.

The problem for me is that I do not think DNA just happens. Or, at least, I think the probability that DNA just magically materializes in a soup of organic chemicals is near-zero.

[Speaker to Animals]

That is to say, the probability that life started here is much more remote than the probability that it came here or was deliberately brought here.

[C-Mag]

So, Fife, through a number on this particular Terra Firma for visitation.

I'd like to be able to, but that Fermi Paradox is a bastard.

What sort of evidence would help us determine if we've been visited by intelligent ET life? I've no doubt that we'll expand the idea of what kind of evidence we can turn up, but as for now I'm stumped.

Assuming the mathematical probabilities are right and ET exists with Interstellar capabilities, determining whether or not they made it to our Earth, Timeline and Reality would rely on typical proof.
~ Historical Record
~ Documented accounts
~ Physical Evidence
Which puts us firmly in Art Bell and Dennis Kucinich territory.


Personally, I find forbidden Archeology fascinating.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Again, drawing from the life experience of exactly ONE primitive planet.

If we were to advance to the point that we could harvest resources at will from the galaxy, the need for competition would eventually be moot. Sure, we could fight for territory/control of those planets, but on that scale, a single world would be insignificant.

A world like ours, to a civilization like that, would be a petri dish. Nothing more.

What resources do you imagine that Earth would hold, that couldn't be found anywhere else in the galaxy? Probably a new interesting bacterium or chemical compound, right?

And what would you do if you found such a place, inhabited by violent apes?

You'd sample everything, test everything, avoid the natives, and then move on. Which is exactly what we're seeing if ,in fact, the alien sightings are real.

How do you know our planet is primitive or would be percieved that way?

Since a large chunk of our innovation as a species is from military conflict and paranoia including internet and space race, there is a good chance that if aliens exist and had tech, their inventions would be created for the same purpose and from the same process.

Also, if we could harvest resources from all over the galaxy, competition would not be moot imo. First off, right now, on our own planet, we have grown enough food for every person on Earth to eat. We have enough land for everyone to spread out and live with a certain amount of property. Poor people in the west have crazy technological gadgets and large amounts of property with luxuries unavailale to even the richest a century before. In theory, we have produced enough to the point where everyone should be content, and above fighting. If you told people in the past of our productivity and inventions of the now, they'd be incredulous. But, we still have wars, geo-political conflicts, political division, bloody street brawls, financial greed and scams, nuclear threats etc. Our standards of living have risen but so have our expectations. I see no reason why this would change if we or some other species invented space travel. We'd simple fight with faster vehicles, and more powerful weapons, over interplanetary resources.

Additionally, in my opinion, it is possible that there are not a whole lot of planets like Earth. Maybe hydrocarbons exist elsewhere but are very rare, and aliens need them for some reason. Maybe our atmosphere is also a rarity in the universe, and thus extremely valuable. Our planet has come about being in just the right conditions and just the right distance from a large star. Maybe there are trillions of Earths in our universe, maybe only 3 or 4. I'm not sure, but aliens might have an agenda for being interested.

Btw, I think alien sightings are bullshit. I think they are more interesting when they are looked at as exercises in extreme human psychology. Throughout the last century, non-crazy, often highly rational people have told amazing stories about Alien sightings and abductions, and in most cases it seems they weren't lying. They believe this is what happened. I do not believe they were abducted, but I am fascinated by this phenomenon, and what is shows us about the human mind.

Like I said, at that point, we’d be fighting over entire regions of galaxies - not individual planets.

The equivalent would be Russia invading a cornfield in Nebraska.

A single planet would not even be a concern, on that scale.

And that is the scale that we’re talking about, with a species that can travel above lightspeed, at will. Not only that, but from far enough away that we can’t even pick up their EM emissions over a period of 40-60 years.

And unless there’s only ONE species capable of this, there are several. That probably puts them in conflict with other, comparable groups, not within their own kind.

I cannot fathom how any species would wage interstellar conflict without being mostly unified in its views.

What has always been the one thing that unified our species? An outside threat. Because no matter what, a fellow human is preferable to another species. A tribe member preferable to another tribe, a family member preferable to a stranger.

Suppose that by some miracle we survived this period and developed our own interstellar travel methods. Suppose then, that we came across a primitive world with slimes that hadn’t even reached their moon yet.

Would we land and say hello? Or would we study them from afar? Maybe we’d survey their planet for resources, but why would we concern ourselves with the natives?

[Ph64]

Talk about a strawman...

How is that a straw man?

You said there must be some kind of evolution that is wholly different from the one we know on Earth. I am asking you to postulate how such a thing works without competition and strife. That's not a straw man. I am merely asking you to articulate your point.

I said no such thing. I said that the competition for basic resources could be transcended by technology on the scale of galactic travel and harvesting.

I agree with the premise that "competition for basic resources could be transcended by technology", presuming the species survives to develop that technology it certainly could happen.

That still doesn't change their based instincts, their underlying "DNA" programming (DNA in quotes because that's our planet and we can't know what else might be there).

That's why I brought up Forbidden Planet - the Krell developing the technology to transcend their need for basic resources, the ability to create anything they wanted merely by thinking it into existence... And yet what killed them were their baser instincts, their "DNA programming" if you will. Jealousy, anger, the whole range of emotions/thoughts that go on in all of us even now despite us having a quality of life, via technology, unimaginable to our predecessors. Those things don't go away just because you have infinite resources, amazing technology, our DNA is no different than a hunter gatherer from 100,000 years ago to whom we would seem like gods in what we can do.

You seem to think "technology" is going to change us fundamentally. It hasn't ever done that. It's made us a lot more comfortable, allows us to travel at great speed (and maybe someday we'll develop a stargate or startrek transporter or who knows) - none of it has changed the underlying human being.

Now maybe you want to start editing our DNA to eliminate those things... But then you have to know you can't eliminate hate without eliminating love, etc. You maybe could turn humanity into unfeeling automatons, maybe you think that's a laudable goal? I dunno. Not what I'd want, and not IMHO something any "intelligent" species would want. In fact you probably wouldn't be explorers after such a thing, why bother, you don't have fear of what might be out there with your "advanced tech", but you also have no passion to bother finding out if you've eliminated emotion. The same underlying things that drive a species to survive, to thrive, to learn and advance, to create technology, are the things that drive them to explore, to risk, and to fight. Eliminate one side and you'll eliminate both, and probably lead your species to extinction. Some species that does have those things will eventually wipe you out.

[SuburbanFarmer]

How is that a straw man?

You said there must be some kind of evolution that is wholly different from the one we know on Earth. I am asking you to postulate how such a thing works without competition and strife. That's not a straw man. I am merely asking you to articulate your point.

I said no such thing. I said that the competition for basic resources could be transcended by technology on the scale of galactic travel and harvesting.

I agree with the premise that "competition for basic resources could be transcended by technology", presuming the species survives to develop that technology it certainly could happen.

That still doesn't change their based instincts, their underlying "DNA" programming (DNA in quotes because that's our planet and we can't know what else might be there).

That's why I brought up Forbidden Planet - the Krell developing the technology to transcend their need for basic resources, the ability to create anything they wanted merely by thinking it into existence... And yet what killed them were their baser instincts, their "DNA programming" if you will. Jealousy, anger, the whole range of emotions/thoughts that go on in all of us even now despite us having a quality of life, via technology, unimaginable to our predecessors. Those things don't go away just because you have infinite resources, amazing technology, our DNA is no different than a hunter gatherer from 100,000 years ago to whom we would seem like gods in what we can do.

You seem to think "technology" is going to change us fundamentally. It hasn't ever done that. It's made us a lot more comfortable, allows us to travel at great speed (and maybe someday we'll develop a stargate or startrek transporter or who knows) - none of it has changed the underlying human being.

Now maybe you want to start editing our DNA to eliminate those things... But then you have to know you can't eliminate hate without eliminating love, etc. You maybe could turn humanity into unfeeling automatons, maybe you think that's a laudable goal? I dunno. Not what I'd want, and not IMHO something any "intelligent" species would want. In fact you probably wouldn't be explorers after such a thing, why bother, you don't have fear of what might be out there with your "advanced tech", but you also have no passion to bother finding out if you've eliminated emotion. The same underlying things that drive a species to survive, to thrive, to learn and advance, to create technology, are the things that drive them to explore, to risk, and to fight. Eliminate one side and you'll eliminate both, and probably lead your species to extinction.

I wouldn’t want any of those things eliminated, and I don’t doubt that they’ll always be a part of our species.

Until we meet another one.

My point about technology was that - if we survived to that point - we could effectively eliminate scarcity. At least, on any individual level.

With unlimited energy resources, there’s effectively nothing to fight over with other humans, unless you choose to. Which we might, until we face an outside threat or force.

So, as before, if there’s one species capable of this, then there are no doubt many of them.