You are not logged in.
Life survives by eating and reproducing; intelligent life like us earthling human's find our food by means of knowledge of ourselves and the universe which is applied to create technology.
Certainly, a revolutionary finding may shift the conclusions, but more and more it is looking like the peacefull galactic conditions we find ourselves in is very rare, and hence, intelligent life is very rare.
Kid's are born natural scientists with natural curiosity and a will to explore the ends of the earth if they could, yet somewhere in childhood, most kid's learn to hate science as a social grace. What's the problem here? Why do we have people like such :
http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/ … 7/148.html
With all the above, scientists must take an active political role which they don't seem to think necessary. It is worthless to create and discover all this knowledge if society destroy's itself purposelly or by blindly by not looking at the true understanding that comes from honest scientific knowledge. I know a good place to start in an analyses of where the problem resides.
Industrial agriculturalism. Modern day industrialism is just the agriculturalism started around 10,000 bc in terms of newtonian science machines. Agriculturalism allowed specialization by freeing up people to do other thing's other than agiculture or hunting, but only a few are allowed to do science, sports, or arts(music, skulptur, and painting); the rest do manual labor; in fact, the majority do manual labor. People come up with ideas from there current perspective, and in an industrial society, the majority of people don't grow up associating science with exploration and adventure; hence fun, but with a few textbooks of math that they'll never need in their later lives. Not only that, but way back in 10,000 bc when all this started happening, people didn't generally know that one could do science, but because figuring thing's out from one's current perspective is alway's the way thing's are figured out, they tried to understand the universe anyways. The first thing's anybody knew was what they themselves made; everything was concieved from there. When they generalized to who(notice the assumption of who) made the lightning strike, their minds were blown away. Think abou it! It is a mindblowing conception! The enormity of a being's powers to create the universe around them and then who created them is a trully astounding thought, but it is wrong in its basic assumptions, but never mind that right now! The point is that this was the only possibility for the current perspective at the time, and with the majority of people not exactly doing science or engineering in a scientific way, it took hold.
Is this necessarilly a bad thing? Well, in today's civilization where businesses, politicians do their irresponsible use of scientific knowledge(with engineers that are just doing it for the money; another issue), it is! I'll guarantee you the person who came up with that post above did not discover and concieve for himself the idea of original sin, but he'll refuse to question it. Why? Because he married a believer who's family are believers, and so nobody want's to rock the boat. Not to mention, he get's pu$$y every night with that believer. Yes, and I'm sure he really does love his kid's who are also now stuck in this social hard place. Everybody loves to laugh about the ufo believers but doesn't dare make the connection with believing in the dominant supernatural religions of today - what a double standard!
The only way to overcome all this is for everybody spend more time alone, and to spend that time searching for how to do science; for everybody to figure out how to survive alone. This will only really happen with nanotechnology transhumans.
Offline
Like button can go here
I hope you feel better.
Offline
Like button can go here
blah, blah, blah
-----------------
Rome wasn't built in a day; it didn't fall in a day either
Offline
Like button can go here
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Offline
Like button can go here
Certainly, a revolutionary finding may shift the conclusions, but more and more it is looking like the peacefull galactic conditions we find ourselves in is very rare, and hence, intelligent life is very rare.
what?
we are finding more earthlike planets every month. are you serious? sorry, dr. fukuyama, but you need to check up on your astronomy news.
Offline
Like button can go here
we are finding more earthlike planets every month.
Link, please!
To my knowledge we are finding lots of gas giants in eccentric orbits but have not yet found ANY earth sized planets - Class M? - in the so-called Goldilocks zone.
Not to mention earth-like with plate tectonics, a largish moon to collect asteroids, a gias giant close enough away to collect asteroids but not too close, and I thought I read a few weeks ago that our entire Sol system is in a rather unusual zone of reduced radiation that does not hold true for the general galaxy.
Maybe we will find these earthlike planets and maybe not.
I believe the cartoon Pogo once answered a question about the existence of alien life as follows (more or less):
I don't know. Maybe yes and maybe no. [New Frame] But, either way, I find the answer to be mighty sobering.
My thoughts exactly!
Offline
Like button can go here
In october we found a planet 10% of jupiters mass. we're getting closer and closer to finding another earth.
the link to the original news site is dead though :angry:
Offline
Like button can go here
I guess it is better to just say, thanks for forfeiting; i win by default.
Offline
Like button can go here
Um, nope, you dont. You havent proven anything. You brushed off the accepted greater possibility of finding life (which is mathematically almost a tautology), and said, Im right. I have not met one person who has said were not likely to find any intelligent life, or that its rare. Nor have I read any credible source saying such.
Modern agriculture is vastly different. Why must we all survive apart? A species working together is vastly superior to a species of individuals.
Offline
Like button can go here
I wasn't talking to you soph.
As for your latest reply; what is your arguement that life is abundant? The abundance of stars? That was alway's a weak arguement; now, scientific evidence is more and more showing that most of the universe is to violent to often for intelligent life to develop. As I put it, "it is going to take a revolutionary finding to change up the conclusions that intelligent life is extremelly rare."
For the rest of your reply, yes, all that other stuff in my post is probably not worth much and very debatable.
Offline
Like button can go here
Hah! That is the proof! In any mathematical formula, I defy you to find any other existence that occurs where there is only a 1 out of a few trillion possibilities. Its simply not possible! It is not a weak argument. This is almost irrefutable proof in itself.
We are bombarded with all kinds of radiation and meteorites-this isnt a utopia either. no, no. you are so off the truth its ridiculous. We dont know enough about the universe to say what "most" of the conditions are, and from what ive read, theyre not all that hostile.
Offline
Like button can go here
you think just because there are trillions of stars, there must be an intelligent technological civilization from each, or most of, them; this is a BIG assumtion! I take it you don't see!LoL Your ASSUMING there's even a habitable planet on any of them. Untill you can tell me how you know there is an earth like planet on any of them, you and I cannot assume there are trillions of E.T.'s about to take us over out there. I hope you see now that just because there are hugh amounts of stars doesn't mean there's hugh amounts E.T.'s out there. Just because there's stars doesn't mean there's an E.T. on any one of them. The existence of a star doesn't not dictate the existence of an E.T. Starting to get it?
Also, If you think a few asteroids here and there in earth's history has been violent, we're in a quiet area of the galaxy which allows our solar system to be a lot less violent.
Offline
Like button can go here
Troll need a cookie?
Wait, you win. Feel better now?
You begin with a rant that makes little sense, and offers no coherent point, and then proceed to act like an ass.
Hmmm, maybe we can find an old friend on this board to give you his debating medals. That seems to be the only thing you're after.
Don't worry, I'll be your friend. You're not alone anymore.
Offline
Like button can go here
you know, just because we cant see across that big body of water, the earth is flat.
youre forgetting one thing: math is profoundly against you. life has evolved many times on this planet alone. if you want to believe that we are the center of the universe, i wont stop you. because what youre saying is no different.
actually, trillions of stars does dictate the existence of an ET. there is no possible way that we are the only planet that has habitable conditions. i defy you to explain to me how this exact point in the universe is the only point that can produce coniditions that melt ice, forming water. your argument is ludicrous, at best.
Offline
Like button can go here
Soph, the math is against all sides of this argument. Sure, we can look at probability and say that there is a great likelyhood of life arising somewhere else in the vastness of the universe, btu that probability is a lot like playing the lottery- you buy a ticket, and there is a probability someone will win, eventually. However, there is no certainty that someone will win.
Yes, life has evolved many times on this planet, but can you explain why? What are the appropriate conditions that allow for this? How repeatable are these conditions? What is the probability that all of the conditions that have produced this terran example will all happen at the same time somehwere else?
Back to the gambling metaphor: Poker. What are the odds you will get a certain set of cards in the deck for your hand? What are the odds that you will get that same set of cards again?
Now, say you play against 10 other players, what is the probability that each player will get the same exact cards from one hand to the next?
We could very well be the only planet that is conducive to life. Part of the problem lies in the fact that we are not entirely certain how life arose, or what is needed to allow life to have a chance to begin with.
we don't have enough information, or data points, to extrapolate accutrately enough to claim either way.
It's like god, what do you believe.
Offline
Like button can go here
But youre assuming with your poker analogy that our conditions are the only conditions conducive to life-what if life could evolve under completely different conditions? I dont think we are the only possible outcome.
Offline
Like button can go here
I dont think we are the only possible outcome.
I can agree with the sentiment, however, you must acknoledge that this belief is not based on any empirical evidence. As of now, the only data we do have is Earth- our experience here.
Life could very well exsist in many different ranges, and there may be many paths available that allow for the development of life. Yet no data exsists to prove this hypothesis. That's the point. That's ultimetly what you are faced with.
You can claim all you want. You can declare that it is a statistcal improbability that we are alone, but all of that is based on conjecture.
Hell, we can't prove that basic life exsists anywhere else yet, so the argument for intelligent life is even less sure.
Can life evolve under different conditions? Show me data that proves it can.
You can't. No one can.
Offline
Like button can go here
we found bacteria on the martian asteroid. theres a weee bitty bit of data right there.
Offline
Like button can go here
A data point that is still in question, and it is the closest there is. Yet even if we accept that basic life may arrise, we have no idea what are the neccessary conditions for intelligent life to arise.
Cosmic bombardment? Disease? Tectonic movement of the plates? Protected enviroments from moons? Gravity conditions? Air composition, which directly affects metobalism rates? Life spans? Sexual reproduction and methods?
This is but a few items related to the rise of our species, and there are a myriad of others.
For millions of years, all we had were some big lizards, and then by chance, they die off and mammals inherit the earth. Does this effect have to be reproduced?
Offline
Like button can go here
do we even know that the lizards wouldnt have become more intelligent given time? I would say we really dont. We cant judge based on todays lizards-they lost their dominance, and possibly, their chance at intelligence.
Another thing. A single substance evolved into so many different creatures (from viruses to humans), how do we know that even that orginal DNA or RNA molecule could not evolve into many, many more creatures? We have 30,000 genes...imagine what kinds of possibilities there are if we were to alter, say 5,000 or 10,000. Im not saying we should, im just trying to communicate a point.
But I would have to disagree with you on the math clark. I cant imagine that 1 star out of trillions could be the only one to foster life. it just, in my opinion, is impossible.
Offline
Like button can go here
The point is that we have no evidence to prove that life can arise on anything other than the conditions here on earth.
Any other claim is mere speculation based on a personal world view (i.e. glass half empty, half full)
If intelligent life can only arise One in a trillion times, then we are simply the result. We can say that with confidence.
To say though that intelligent life occurs more than one in a trillion times, than you are guessing.
Offline
Like button can go here
to say that we are the only intelligent species is guessing as well. we have no definitive data that says we are, so it is conjecture to say that we are. it would be like saying europe is the only landmass because you cant cross the ocean to see north america.
Offline
Like button can go here
For all intents and purposes, we might as well say we are the only intelligent species in the universe. If we have no evidence to disprove this idea, and absolutely no way to prove that other intelligent species exsist, we are effectively the only intelligent species.
If we had no way to cross the atlantic, then Europe as the only land mass would be accurate since there is no way to disprove the exsisting evidence.
Sorry, but that is the scientific model.
If I say there are 8 senses, but we can only measure our exsisting 5 sense, am i right or am i wrong to claim that there are 8?
You have no evidence to support your hypothesis, nor do you have any means to disprove the current evidence which suggests that we are alone in the universe.
We only have evidence that demonstrates we are the only ones. That's not guessing, it's a fact.
Offline
Like button can go here
No, its not. We can obviously say that a european assuming that his was the only landmass was wrong.
We have no data proving we are the only intelligent species. In fact, there is sketchy evidence that we might not be (the WOW! message). To put our head in the sand and say we are the only ones does not make it a fact, it just makes us ignorant of our surroundings.
At one time, people thought the planets were gods, or that the universe revolved around earth. both of these are completely false-yet they could not be proven false at the time. this does not make them facts.
the scientific model involves experimentation. SETI is an open-ended experiment, and we cannot judge its results until it is complete.
There are many coincidences on earth, that could easily be explained factoring in intervention from aliens. now, this does not make them true, but if more evidence is gathered, coincidental evidence can be pieced together to form a coherent picture.
Offline
Like button can go here
You are arguing against the scientific model Soph, not me.
We have a hypothesis that we are the only intelligent species in the universe. The null hypothesis would be that we are bit the only intelligent species in the universe.
Are you with me?
We know we are intelligent. We have evidence we exist.
We have NO evidence that any other intelligent species has exsisted, or ever will.
We can say, with confidence, based on all currently available evidence, that we are the only intelligent species in the universe.
Now, this is a hypothesis based on available information. The conclusion is based on available information. Now, at some point in the future, we may be presented with new data that invalidates our current proven hypothesis. At that time, and not before, we can readjust our ideas and our understanding of the universe.
SETI may very well prove that we are not alone, but untill it does, we ARE alone.
Untill some europeans discovered that Europe was not the only land mass, Europe WAS the onyl land mass.
I don't even want to touch your alien coincdence theory. But I hope you understand what I am explaining to you.
Offline
Like button can go here