I have been wondering what are other people's views on extraterrestrial life are, here in the trenches of dakkadakka's OT forum. Mine is that there is life elsewhere in the universe but these beings are either too far away, not as space able as believers seem to think or simply do not care about us primitives enough to interact or abduct us.
The abductions people talk about are either sleep paralysis or in some cases just tall tales to fuel the debate of the "are we alone?" question.
Crop circles, people have come forward taking credit for some of the most famous crop circles. Some make crop circle art for a living now days in fact.
The laughable theory of aliens mating with ancient humans to create what we are now: First ROFL , Second if a human mated with a chimp, science tells us nothing would happen because the genetic key doesn't fit the genetic lock.
The alien's built the pyramids around the world: First it's plain insulting, second, ancient hieroglyphs Show how humans built them
Which brings me to the "there is a guy wearing a space suit in that hieroglyph!" or "that's a spacecraft the 'god' is riding on in that hieroglyph," you are looking at these hieroglyphs with the modern eye not with eyes from back then, space suit can be an aura around the head of the god, which is common even today in modern religions. The simple explanation is the best answer .
The geo-glyphs of Peru. Believers say how can we make huge pictures visible from the sky accurately and why? : Once again not giving enough credit to humans from back then. The why is simple, archeologists believe these geo-glyphs were a sacred pilgrimage following the route to commune with the gods. The how is simple planning, practical archeologists (the ones who test ancient ways to make things, to explain how they did it) have made several.
The "star child" skull: maternal DNA says its human

So did I wet your apatite for debate? If so go crazy and debate, discuss and enjoy!

I think there must be something out there, though whether it fits our idea of "life", or is a completely different entity, I wouldn't like to guess.
But aliens building the pyramids and stuff? That's daft.

And as for alien abduction, that's just a symptom of boredom, drunkenness, drug abuse, hallucination or just plain stupid, if you ask me
(Or lies, of course)

I believe in aliens, and I have proof they are real.

Source;

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090605/

Let me just put this here before someone else does



Now that that's outta the way...

Some theories and stories sound real convincing and can make you think, but IMO I don't believe they're coming to earth abducting people and all that stuff. If people really are being abducted and cows are being mutilated, it's other people doing it for their own nefarious reasons.

I do believe aliens exist, because if we exist, and there's a bajillion other planets, then anyone with a brain should be able to figure out that other things exist on other planets too. I just don't think they're coming here to visit us or kill off dinosaurs.

 chapgrimaldus wrote:

Which brings me to the "there is a guy wearing a space suit in that hieroglyph!" or "that's a spacecraft the 'god' is riding on in that hieroglyph," you are looking at these hieroglyphs with the modern eye not with eyes from back then, space suit can be an aura around the head of the god, which is common even today in modern religions.

I watched a documentary... it may have possibly been an episode of Ancient Aliens, no idea... BUT anyhow, there were a couple "archaeologists" who found those alien spacecraft hieroglyphs in an ancient egyptian tomb. But another couple of Archaeologists went in and using technology and whatnot determined that the tomb had had many owners, and some of the more recent ones were.... not as wealthy as the previous ones. The cheapskates had used plaster to cover previous markings, and then had their own made. Well, after 3k+ years, some of it has since chipped, leaving some odd shaped hieroglyphs.


As to the original question... As a whovian, I believe that the galaxy and universe are just too large and crazy to NOT have other life out there. There may indeed be some rather humanoid looking life out there, but I dont buy the Star Trek view on them. As we become more advanced, I would hope that we can officially answer that question. I'd just prefer that answer not be in the form of Daleks, or Angels

Do I believe there is other life out there? Yes.
Do I believe there is other intelligent life out there? Yes.
Do I believe we're ever going to see it in even the distant future or that it interacted with us in the past? No.

I look to the stars every night, watching & waiting to welcome our new interstellar overlords...

Seriously though, I believe alien life exists. I'd hope that it visits, but I doubt i'll live to see it.

-snaps fingers- a part of me was hoping some believer would come in so I can use logic and facts to ground his/her imaginary aliens to make my bread
Wait what am I saying? Use logic and facts against people who wear tin foil hats and claim have seen UFOs or been abducted? That's like me arguing with a color blind person about whether my shirt is green or not
Once again, I'm saying there is life out there but not ET coming here and screwing with us. Main reason for my rage is a debate that went on during my college classes in my major of archeology


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 chapgrimaldus wrote:

Which brings me to the "there is a guy wearing a space suit in that hieroglyph!" or "that's a spacecraft the 'god' is riding on in that hieroglyph," you are looking at these hieroglyphs with the modern eye not with eyes from back then, space suit can be an aura around the head of the god, which is common even today in modern religions.

I watched a documentary... it may have possibly been an episode of Ancient Aliens, no idea... BUT anyhow, there were a couple "archaeologists" who found those alien spacecraft hieroglyphs in an ancient egyptian tomb. But another couple of Archaeologists went in and using technology and whatnot determined that the tomb had had many owners, and some of the more recent ones were.... not as wealthy as the previous ones. The cheapskates had used plaster to cover previous markings, and then had their own made. Well, after 3k+ years, some of it has since chipped, leaving some odd shaped hieroglyphs.


As to the original question... As a whovian, I believe that the galaxy and universe are just too large and crazy to NOT have other life out there. There may indeed be some rather humanoid looking life out there, but I dont buy the Star Trek view on them. As we become more advanced, I would hope that we can officially answer that question. I'd just prefer that answer not be in the form of Daleks, or Angels

It may have been the show "Is it Real?" the history channels ancient aliens show is geared more towards the believers or historically illiterate

Sounds like a good episode of "GhostFacers"......and how many people caught the reference eh...

The way I see it, you have an unfathomably large number of planets in the universe, the probability of NONE of them having the conditions to support intelligent life is pretty small. However, any alien life is probably going to be spread pretty
thin as earth-like planets require very specific conditions and so are going to be rare. Plus if we find any of these planets with telescopes, we're probably not going to see any obvious signs of life (such as how city lights are visible from space)
because we'll likely be seeing the planet millions of years in the past due to the immense distance between us.

Just speculation on my part.

 curran12 wrote:
Do I believe there is other life out there? Yes.
Do I believe there is other intelligent life out there? Yes.
Do I believe we're ever going to see it in even the distant future or that it interacted with us in the past? No.

This is what I think as well, In a universe of nigh-infinite planets and stars, it just doesn't seem possible that we're alone.

But also, by that same token, they're so far away that we may de facto be, anyway.

I do believe that there are other forms of life out there, in some form or another, but I doubt we'll find them any time soon (but perhaps our ability to better predict planets that may already contain life will improve within the next century).

In regards to the Pyramids, I get a little angry when people suggest aliens were involved. I would very much prefer to believe that humans built the Pyramids and did it so well that modern humans can't even acknowledge the engineering as possible for the time.

As for abductions and such, I believe that just about all of it is confusion/misconception/propaganda/attention seeking liars. Obviously, I can't rule every thing out 100% of the time (as physics tells us we can't).

Edited for typo.

Of course we aren't out there.

I mean they, of course. What a silly mistake. Proves I am human and not some alien spy.

The Universe being big should have no bearing on proximity of alien life to us as it's all down to chance surely?

It really strikes me as more ridiculous to chime out the blanket statement that "we will never encounter alien life" than to say that "aliens had influence on early human civilisation".

A little interesting way to analyze theories of aliens or any other theory, like say the chupacabra or conspiracies to hide truth, is Occam's Razor which basically says that the theory with the fewest assumptions should be accepted until hard evidence says otherwise. Modern day people seem to ignore Occam's Razor, which is sad, I for one believe in it completely.

Considering the likelihood of any given celestial body having the right mixture of elements that both create and sustain life it is a wonder there is even one in our solar system. The size of the universe has to do with the likelihood of other life sustaining planets because the likelihood of finding another one is pretty small, and finding ones within close proximity to each other would be like winning the lottery jackpot several times in your lifetime.

I get that the more Solar Systems that we have, the more likely there will be other forms of life. What I don't understand is why that happening in close proximity is so wildly unlikely?

Surely it's the quantity, rather than proximity?

 Medium of Death wrote:
I get that the more Solar Systems that we have, the more likely there will be other forms of life. What I don't understand is why that happening in close proximity is so wildly unlikely?

Because the number of things that have to go just right over a sustained period of time is incredibly unlikely for it to even happen once, let alone more than once.

Isn't it things going right on a "Solar System" level though?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstellar_habitable_zone

When I say close i'm meaning within a few hundred lightyears, not terribly close for us but hopefully not out of the reaches of future generations.

I think we're at a failure to understand the numbers at hand. You're right of course to say that it is unlikely in the extreme, and that's from our current understanding of the process, which might be missing a piece of the puzzle to fully appraise.

But the number of solar systems in the galaxy alone is staggering. We might yet find something under the ice of Europa or Enceladus. If we do, we might have to go back to the drawing board for how many times it can happen in a given solar system.

Anyway, in the words of Carl Sagan, its perfectly reasonable to withhold your judgement until more facts come in. Or some such wise way of saying it.

So, the famed detective Sherlock Holmes and his biographer John Watson went on a camping trip. They hiked out into the woods, pitched a tent, had a campfire and made S'mores. Later, they went to bed. In the middle of the night, Holmes turned to Watson and said:

"Sorry to knock you up, my friend, but I was wondering, could you look up at the stars and tell me what you see?"

Watson looked up at the Stars.

"Well, there are untold billions of stars out there. Even assuming that only a small fraction of them are capable of supporting life, and that only a small subset of those actually do currently support life, then it is a fair assertion that we are not alone. Of course, we must assume that, due to the great distances involved, we may never encounter any sign that there are other intelligent lifefo-"

"WATSON YOU FOOL, SOMEONE HAS STOLEN OUR TENT!"



In short, I consider existence well within the realm of possibility, encounter significantly lower, and outdated English hilarious.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be antagonistic... I just want... to... believe...





If we discover any kind of life on a moon within our solar system, either around Jupiter or Saturn, it'd be amazing.

I agree with Calvin's assessment:


I would also think that, if we ever do come in contact with alien life, it will be along the lines of The Day the Earth Stood Still (original version). Where they basically tell us to play nice in the galaxy or they blow up our planet.

 Medium of Death wrote:
I get that the more Solar Systems that we have, the more likely there will be other forms of life. What I don't understand is why that happening in close proximity is so wildly unlikely?

Surely it's the quantity, rather than proximity?

Given that the observable universe is a 46 billion light year sphere around Earth, finding life in a star system in the Galaxy would classify as "close proximity" on the cosmic scale.

However, I am of the opinion that there definitely is (or has been) intelligent life in the universe, but considering the fact that the universe is near 14 billion years old and modern humans have only been around for about 200,000 years, the chances of two roughly equally matched intelligent species evolving independent of each other close enough to make meaningful contact is slim to none.

"Size of the universe". That's a bit of a understatement. The perception on its "size" is a unknown. Most everyone that think on it accidently confine themselves with just the "Milky Way" Galaxy.

 Ahtman wrote:
Of course we aren't out there.

I mean they, of course. What a silly mistake. Proves I am human and not some alien spy.

A likely story...

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I agree with Calvin's assessment:

Spoiler:

I would also think that, if we ever do come in contact with alien life, it will be along the lines of The Day the Earth Stood Still (original version). Where they basically tell us to play nice in the galaxy or they blow up our planet.

That movie would be a best case scenario, imho. If alien life is anything like humans, we're in for a world of hurt if they come a-knockin'. Check out David Brin's (one and only speech repeated many times) on youtube.

You,re in Fort Worth? Heh, I never noticed that.

Is there real life somewhere in the universe, other than Earth? Statistically probable.

Is there intelligent life? Less likely, but still possible.

Have aliens visited Earth? I don't believe it for a second. Willful deceit or hopeful self-delusion, in every case.

I guess those $150 screw drivers and $300 crapper seats the USAF buys is really helping fund Xcom.........

 chapgrimaldus wrote:
-snaps fingers- a part of me was hoping some believer would come in so I can use logic and facts to ground his/her imaginary aliens to make my bread

Here ya go



N (and pretty much all the other values) will vary a lot depending on who you ask, and the original estimate by Drake (and the Order of the Dolphin, which Sagan was part of ) was between 1000 and 100,000,000. for the Milky Way.

On a similar note, Stephen H. Dole adapted the equation to estimate the number of currently humanly habitable planets in the Milky Way. The figure given was above 36 millions.

If they are, we'll be ready:

I hate math, which is apparent since I'm in the major with the least amount of math possible On a serious note about the equation, the values of each very from person to person as you said right? Which means 1 thing to me, the equation in itself may be valid but the values of each letter leave too much open to assumption to be accepted into a valid hypothesis about life on other worlds or "goldielocs planets" (not too hot, not too cold, just right to be able to sustain life as we know it) but that's just my opinion based on my belief in Occam's razor. On a side note, we have only found 1 possible goldielocs planet in 20 years of searching

Yes, they are out there. The universe is too vast to not hold other intelligent species, it would be arrogant to think we are the only ones.

 chapgrimaldus wrote:
On a side note, we have only found 1 possible goldielocs planet in 20 years of searching

I count quite a few ;

The moons around Gliese 876 b & c
Upsilon Andromedae d
HD 28185 b
HD 69830
55 Cancri A
Gliese 581 c (I assume this is the one you are talking about)
Gliese 581 d
Gliese 581 g
HD 85512 b
Kepler-22 b
Gliese 667 Cc, Cf & Ce
Gliese 163 c
HD 40307 g
Tau Ceti e & f
Kepler-69c
Kepler-62e & f

And 20 years of searching is very short. And we've found all of these from here. Imagine what we can find once we have searching capabilities that are much greater than what we have right now.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 chapgrimaldus wrote:
-snaps fingers- a part of me was hoping some believer would come in so I can use logic and facts to ground his/her imaginary aliens to make my bread

Here ya go



N (and pretty much all the other values) will vary a lot depending on who you ask, and the original estimate by Drake (and the Order of the Dolphin, which Sagan was part of ) was between 1000 and 100,000,000. for the Milky Way.

On a similar note, Stephen H. Dole adapted the equation to estimate the number of currently humanly habitable planets in the Milky Way. The figure given was above 36 millions.

As much fun as it is to speculate the sheer number of alien civilizations using the Drake Equation, at the end of the day it is still just speculation.

To quote Enrico Fermi, "Where are they?"

Great post Kovnik, I think the equation makes some pretty big assumptions--but it does illustrate how likely (imo) there is life throughout the universe.

Sadly though, I'm not as optimistic as others about actually seeing them. The speed of light barrier seems to be pretty much a brick wall--and I can't recall exactly off the top of my head--but if memory servers, 40 light years would take something along the lines of 300,000 years to traverse with fairly optimistic technological advancements. So, star travel would take as long or longer than our entire species has been around and I would bet more on us blowing each other up with technology before utilizing it in that manner.



All that said, it's an interesting though experiment. What (should) trouble us the most is--it appears at least from our one example--evolution favors aggressive clamoring for natural resources. Take us for example--even though we are sentient--anytime we have 'explored', in reality we were seeking resources and colonizing. And if the laws of physics actually allowed intelligent beings to travel light years in a manageable time frame, if they showed up--it would be doubtful it was a visit of simple curiosity.


As an aside, I'll post one of the cooler images I've ever seen. This is a matrix of the 'dark' energy and matter in our universe;






...and this is a mapping of clusters of neurons;







So, does information/complexity lend itself to cluster and map---just like our universe seems to cluster information/complex structures/elements around stars? Don't know but it's sure neat to think about




Could be coincidence, could be pointing to some kind of mathematical constant that determines how entropy forms--or? Pretty cool though.

Holy dinosaur-headed Jesus, batman!

I think the likeliest possibility is communication (over a very long period of time).

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
All that said, it's an interesting though experiment. What (should) trouble us the most is--it appears at least from our one example--evolution favors aggressive clamoring for natural resources. Take us for example--even though we are sentient--anytime we have 'explored', in reality we were seeking resources and colonizing. And if the laws of physics actually allowed intelligent beings to travel light years in a manageable time frame, if they showed up--it would be doubtful it was a visit of simple curiosity.

Using game theory, biologists found evolution actually "favors" altruism as opposed to selfishness, which is not evolutionarily sustainable.

I would argue that it is reasonably safe to say that any organism that has evolved to the point that it has mastered the technology required for reliable interstellar travel would not travel to a backwoods star system in the outer suburbs of a nondescript galaxy just to take our stuff.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
As much fun as it is to speculate the sheer number of alien civilizations using the Drake Equation, at the end of the day it is still just speculation.

To quote Enrico Fermi, "Where are they?"

Of course, this entire thread is filled with speculations based on assumptions, with a few scarce badly-understood facts. Asking about aliens forces you into the realm of speculation. The Drake Equation gives the essential numerical data necessary to give an informed guess, and the specific numbers beleived to be correct at a given point by the experts in the field/needing a new grant. That is important data.

You guys should check out Seth Shostak's (S.E.T.I. veteran and popular TV personality in science documentaries) "Confessions of an Alien Hunter" book. I read it when it first came out and it basically discusses, in great detail and with professional accuracy and credibility, exactly what we are talking about in this thread. The Fermi paradox, the Drake equation, the extraordinary efforts of humans made thus far to listen in and contact E.T. It's just a great book written by an authority on the search for extraterrestrials.

It's available in e-format as well for you tech-heads. Honestly, it's a fantastic/interesting read.

Really? IIRC, the game theory studies Dawins/group did showed that Tit for Tat was the most favored trait--which is really just reciprocal/selfish altruism. Again though, IIRC--as I'm on an ipad and am too lazy to Google .


Anyways--I don't think they would specifically make a stop to our planet (although, until we get better at finding planets--it might be such a thing that 'life' is a pretty rare resource others might be interested in if they stumbled across us). Not that I really think that will ever happen.


But it is a good discussion and an interesting thought debate (good aliens vs. colonizing aliens). Spawned a few movies too .

If aliens ever did stumble upon earth, chances are we would be in big trouble. Human history has us treating different cultures with extreme prejudice and extermination, and we are the same species. Imagine an ultra-advanced race finding us and deciding they want something from us. We lose.

It's in our best interest to keep a low profile on the galactic scene. Too late though, we've been shooting our mouths off for too long with radio signals and broadcasts and SATELLITES CONTAINING PLAQUES WITH OUR EXACT LOCATION, PHYSIOLOGY, AND BIOLOGICAL COMPOSITION!!! I'm aware the purpose of those packages was to preserve our legacy in some small way, but it was probably a bad idea. LOL.

Nice post K.O. though its our perception and stop ruining it for us

Though we never know in our life time if there is a Prime Directive (version)

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
Really? IIRC, the game theory studies Dawins/group did showed that Tit for Tat was the most favored trait--which is really just reciprocal/selfish altruism. Again though, IIRC--as I'm on an ipad and am too lazy to Google .


Anyways--I don't think they would specifically make a stop to our planet (although, until we get better at finding planets--it might be such a thing that 'life' is a pretty rare resource others might be interested in if they stumbled across us). Not that I really think that will ever happen.


But it is a good discussion and an interesting thought debate (good aliens vs. colonizing aliens). Spawned a few movies too .

It came from a paper published in August that says selfish behavior can benefit an organism on the short term, but in the long run it would not be evolutionarily sustainable; individuals don't have to survive, just their genes.

If aliens ever did stumble upon earth, chances are we would be in big trouble. Human history has us treating different cultures with extreme prejudice and extermination, and we are the same species. Imagine an ultra-advanced race finding us and deciding they want something from us. We lose.

It's in our best interest to keep a low profile on the galactic scene. Too late though, we've been shooting our mouths off for too long with radio signals and broadcasts and SATELLITES CONTAINING PLAQUES WITH OUR EXACT LOCATION, PHYSIOLOGY, AND BIOLOGICAL COMPOSITION!!! I'm aware the purpose of those packages was to preserve our legacy in some small way, but it was probably a bad idea. LOL.

Some people (Stephen Hawking among them) do think that letting the universe know where we are is a "bad idea" but I agree with Carl Sagan in thinking that a technologically advanced extraterrestrial civilization would also be advanced ethically. Not only would they not be aggressive, we would recognize their technological prowess and respond in kind.

Think about the kind of energy that would be required for reasonably fast and reliable interstellar travel for a moment. Any civilization that can produce and harness that kind of energy would probably be utilizing some kind of stellar megastructure (like Dyson sphere/shell/ring or some other stellar engine) and wouldn't need anything we have to offer on this planet (coal, oil, nuclear fuel, etc.).

 PrehistoricUFO wrote:
If aliens ever did stumble upon earth, chances are we would be in big trouble. Human history has us treating different cultures with extreme prejudice and extermination, and we are the same species. Imagine an ultra-advanced race finding us and deciding they want something from us. We lose.

Any species with the capabilty of travelling to another solar system cannot possibly lack for anything that is on this little planet.

You're all so sure they wouldn't want anything from Earth, even if it were a marginal boost to their needs. To use us as slaves, test subjects, test a weapon out designed to destroy M-class worlds, or to turn our planet into a zoo or amusement park. I hope you're correct, believe me.

 sebster wrote:
Any species with the capabilty of travelling to another solar system cannot possibly lack for anything that is on this little planet.

A light snack on the way to greener pastures? We have significantly better technology than, say, ants; but we don't treat them with altruism just because we don't need anything they have. We have no qualms about wiping them out just because they are a nuisance, or hell, if you're a child, simply because you're bored.


I think I stole this analogy from Contact.

You got it from Avengers. Samuel L Jackson convo with Loki when they first met I believe. Underground Science Lab with Hawkeye taking over by the "Love Tap"

 PrehistoricUFO wrote:
You're all so sure they wouldn't want anything from Earth, even if it were a marginal boost to their needs. To use us as slaves, test subjects, test a weapon out designed to destroy M-class worlds, or to turn our planet into a zoo or amusement park. I hope you're correct, believe me.

A civilization that advanced wouldn't need anything from us, our fuels wouldn't offer nothing to a truly space-faring civilization. If they can get here, they don't need what we have; our resources aren't that special.

A light snack on the way to greener pastures? We have significantly better technology than, say, ants; but we don't treat them with altruism just because we don't need anything they have. We have no qualms about wiping them out just because they are a nuisance, or hell, if you're a child, simply because you're bored.


I think I stole this analogy from Contact.

Yeah, it's from Avengers. The aliens in Contact are the kind I was describing earlier (it was written by Carl Sagan, after all), they don't threaten us and and instead want to help us by giving us the the stepping stones into intergalactic citizenship. There is no reason to assume that we would be a "nuisance" to a technologically superior civilization, especially when their ethics have advanced in pace with their technology.

 Ouze wrote:
A light snack on the way to greener pastures? We have significantly better technology than, say, ants; but we don't treat them with altruism just because we don't need anything they have. We have no qualms about wiping them out just because they are a nuisance, or hell, if you're a child, simply because you're bored.


I think I stole this analogy from Contact.

My point isn't a claim that aliens must be altruistic, but if they're not they're unlikely to expend the resource to come to this little planet. To extend your analogy, no-one would fly to South America just to jump up and down on some ant nests. It's just a really long way to go, and a huge investment of resources, for little purpose.

It would be a tremendous waste of space to have no other life in the universe.

Of course, I think it would also be interesting if there wasn't any.

Can you imagine being so alone?

 xole wrote:
It would be a tremendous waste of space to have no other life in the universe.

Of course, I think it would also be interesting if there wasn't any.

Can you imagine being so alone?

Yes, we've spent the last 200,000 (or 50,000 if you only count our development of behavioral modernity) years doing it.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 xole wrote:
It would be a tremendous waste of space to have no other life in the universe.

Of course, I think it would also be interesting if there wasn't any.

Can you imagine being so alone?

Yes, we've spent the last 200,000 (or 50,000 if you only count our development of behavioral modernity) years doing it.

But we believe there is something beyond us. And we will continue to believe so.

I admit to being quite interested in the Ancient Astronaut Theory and Ancient Aliens is a favorite show of mine. That being said when I ask myself "What do I actually believe?" I am unable to come up with a definitive answer. I do think there is something to it because of the ammount of evidence put forth that at least shows a possibility. If it were only one or two things that could easily be dismissed but this much requires a further look. If the powers that be are so sure they are right then why not investigate and prove the fringe groups wrong.

 xole wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 xole wrote:
It would be a tremendous waste of space to have no other life in the universe.

Of course, I think it would also be interesting if there wasn't any.

Can you imagine being so alone?

Yes, we've spent the last 200,000 (or 50,000 if you only count our development of behavioral modernity) years doing it.

But we believe there is something beyond us. And we will continue to believe so.

Some of us believe that there is life somewhere, but humanity as a whole understands that we are in it alone. Believing something is true is not the same as knowing for fact that it is.
I am a firm believer in the mediocrity principle and I agree that given the vast size and age of the universe, and the fact that all physical laws are consistent with everything we obverse, it is improbable for life not exist elsewhere. However, everywhere we have looked we have found nothing.

As Carl Sagan said:

Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity – in all this vastness – there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

Guys, please don't use the word believe. It implies there's no logic or reasoning involved. Why do you think people believe in God and not think God exists?

Fluxator wrote:
Guys, please don't use the word believe. It implies there's no logic or reasoning involved. Why do you think people believe in God and not think God exists?

How does it imply no logic or reasoning? For instance, if I believe that the sky is blue, because of X, Y, and Z then there is logic and reasoning. If I believe that my vehicle is better than a buddy's vehicle, because it has better fuel mileage, better safety ratings, and a better pricepoint, then there is a certain level of logic and reasoning.

If anything, believe is the much better word to use, as opposed to saying something like "I have FAITH that there are aliens out there" as faith is the belief in something that cannot be proven.

I found this mildly interesting - although the title doesn't seem to have much to do with the article. Stupid hyperbole.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10321227/Alien-life-found-living-in-Earths-atmosphere-claims-scientist.html

 sebster wrote:

 PrehistoricUFO wrote:
If aliens ever did stumble upon earth, chances are we would be in big trouble. Human history has us treating different cultures with extreme prejudice and extermination, and we are the same species. Imagine an ultra-advanced race finding us and deciding they want something from us. We lose.

Any species with the capabilty of travelling to another solar system cannot possibly lack for anything that is on this little planet.

Hot babes.

 WarAngel wrote:
I admit to being quite interested in the Ancient Astronaut Theory and Ancient Aliens is a favorite show of mine. That being said when I ask myself "What do I actually believe?" I am unable to come up with a definitive answer. I do think there is something to it because of the ammount of evidence put forth that at least shows a possibility. If it were only one or two things that could easily be dismissed but this much requires a further look. If the powers that be are so sure they are right then why not investigate and prove the fringe groups wrong.

The whole ancient alien's theories have been proven wrong on many occasions by you know real archeologists. Why is it still a popular theory then you ask, for 1 every time we prove them wrong in something they come back at us with a "well maybe" or simply ignore the fact staring in their faces. Like did you know, the same guys who are spewing out this nonsense are not even history specialists? Many haven't even picked up a history book on the culture they say "that's an alien on that carving!" Why believe some guy with out any credentials to speak of over say Dr. Zieed Hawas (Yeah I know I probably butchered the spelling of his name) the guy who is the major authority on ancient Egypt, they can't even open up a tomb in Egypt with out him supervising. The main problem why this sticks around in popular culture stems from the fact we love to over romanticize our history, or simply think our ancestors where complete idiots based on they haven't invented many things we enjoy today. Don't believe me? Start researching and you will see how many times archeologists put the smack down on the ancient astronauts theory.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Fluxator wrote:
Guys, please don't use the word believe. It implies there's no logic or reasoning involved. Why do you think people believe in God and not think God exists?

How does it imply no logic or reasoning? For instance, if I believe that the sky is blue, because of X, Y, and Z then there is logic and reasoning. If I believe that my vehicle is better than a buddy's vehicle, because it has better fuel mileage, better safety ratings, and a better pricepoint, then there is a certain level of logic and reasoning.

If anything, believe is the much better word to use, as opposed to saying something like "I have FAITH that there are aliens out there" as faith is the belief in something that cannot be proven.

I disagree, I think people use it when there's uncertainty. I've never heard anyone say they believe the sky is blue, that's a rather terrible example to be honest. I suppose believe is stronger than think but it really still implies there's no real proof. Like I said, that's why the majority of people believe in God.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 chapgrimaldus wrote:

 WarAngel wrote:
I admit to being quite interested in the Ancient Astronaut Theory and Ancient Aliens is a favorite show of mine. That being said when I ask myself "What do I actually believe?" I am unable to come up with a definitive answer. I do think there is something to it because of the ammount of evidence put forth that at least shows a possibility. If it were only one or two things that could easily be dismissed but this much requires a further look. If the powers that be are so sure they are right then why not investigate and prove the fringe groups wrong.

The whole ancient alien's theories have been proven wrong on many occasions by you know real archeologists. Why is it still a popular theory then you ask, for 1 every time we prove them wrong in something they come back at us with a "well maybe" or simply ignore the fact staring in their faces. Like did you know, the same guys who are spewing out this nonsense are not even history specialists? Many haven't even picked up a history book on the culture they say "that's an alien on that carving!" Why believe some guy with out any credentials to speak of over say Dr. Zieed Hawas (Yeah I know I probably butchered the spelling of his name) the guy who is the major authority on ancient Egypt, they can't even open up a tomb in Egypt with out him supervising. The main problem why this sticks around in popular culture stems from the fact we love to over romanticize our history, or simply think our ancestors where complete idiots based on they haven't invented many things we enjoy today. Don't believe me? Start researching and you will see how many times archeologists put the smack down on the ancient astronauts theory.

I think it's just another one of those cases in which people look for meanings in things that are totally fictional or made by chance.

I'm in the boat that believes there is life (probably intelligent) out there, but they are too far away/not interested in us.

I watch ancient aliens when I catch it on TV. A lot of what is discussed makes sense, but I'm sure it is mostly just coincidence and unsupported theories (most conspiracy theories can make sense too if put in a logical argument, but don't hold up against questioning).

It is also amusing to start a sentence with: "Ancient astronaut theorists believe...."

I'm whistling the X-Files theme right now.

Yeah I think the word believe has been given a bad rep because of the whole faith versus science thing. But to believe that the theory of gravity is an accurate enough model of the world around us isn't the same as thinking angels* push you down a building when you step off the ledge.

When sufficient evidence has been presented, and the model works suitably well, you can say that you believe in it. Otherwise we fall into the semantic trap that anti-science people, or even YEC spring on science-minded people: you weren't there, you can't say you have direct proof. Which is nothing more than an attempt to level the playing field par le bas.

*generic angels. My intent is not to offend anyone this morning.

The universe is too big for there not to be intelligent alien life out there.

It's also so fething big, that it's highly unlikely to bump into any aliens in a Mos Eisley Spaceport style cantina.

However, people that say aliens built the pyramids and such can suck an egg. WE did that gak. Humans. Humans are very smart*. Even ancient humans.



*Except for the people you see on the "People of Walmart" website.

 kronk wrote:
The universe is too big for there not to be intelligent alien life out there.

It's also so fething big, that it's highly unlikely to bump into any aliens in a Mos Eisley Spaceport style cantina.

However, people that say aliens built the pyramids and such can suck an egg. WE did that gak. Humans. Humans are very smart*. Even ancient humans.



*Except for the people you see on the "People of Walmart" website.

You built the pyramids!? Wow, I never knew people could live so long. Humans aren't very smart, some humans are very smart, some are smart and most are comparable to a goat.

Fluxator wrote:
You built the pyramids!? Wow, I never knew people could live so long. Humans aren't very smart, some humans are very smart, some are smart and most are comparable to a goat.

If you didn't think humans could live so long, clearly you've never talked to Frazz

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 chapgrimaldus wrote:
-snaps fingers- a part of me was hoping some believer would come in so I can use logic and facts to ground his/her imaginary aliens to make my bread

Here ya go



N (and pretty much all the other values) will vary a lot depending on who you ask, and the original estimate by Drake (and the Order of the Dolphin, which Sagan was part of ) was between 1000 and 100,000,000. for the Milky Way.

On a similar note, Stephen H. Dole adapted the equation to estimate the number of currently humanly habitable planets in the Milky Way. The figure given was above 36 millions.

As much fun as it is to speculate the sheer number of alien civilizations using the Drake Equation, at the end of the day it is still just speculation.

To quote Enrico Fermi, "Where are they?"

The Fermix Paradox is a bit of a bear. HOWEVER! We have learned A LOT about how we as a species leave signs and signals in the known universe. The issue that came out is that any given Intelligent Species is only going to be emitting detectable signals for a certain part of their development cycle. Here's the catch. The other intelligent species in any given group has to be at the EXACT SAME point in their own development cycle, assuming they develop technology similar to our own and even using similar principles to have a ghost of a chance of hearing us, or we them for that matter. So it's not as simple as "Where are they?" because it's about as simple as hitting a bullet with another bullet with both rounds being fired at each other from across a continent, when if the bullets don't strike at just the right SECOND, they'll phase right through each other because they're incompatible technologically.

Has anyone heard of the solway firth spaceman?
(if you find an explanation for it you get a years free printing from kodak!)

Aliens?
I see them regularly at Lowes and Home Depot....

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
Yeah I think the word believe has been given a bad rep because of the whole faith versus science thing. But to believe that the theory of gravity is an accurate enough model of the world around us isn't the same as thinking angels* push you down a building when you step off the ledge.

When sufficient evidence has been presented, and the model works suitably well, you can say that you believe in it. Otherwise we fall into the semantic trap that anti-science people, or even YEC spring on science-minded people: you weren't there, you can't say you have direct proof. Which is nothing more than an attempt to level the playing field par le bas.

*generic angels. My intent is not to offend anyone this morning.

Angels are the universe's kindest psychopaths... they let you live to death --Doctor Who

 curran12 wrote:
Do I believe there is other life out there? Yes.
Do I believe there is other intelligent life out there? Yes.
Do I believe we're ever going to see it in even the distant future or that it interacted with us in the past? No.

This in a nutshell.

I think to imagine the universe without the 'lottery' of life developing in other locations at some other point I think is to not understand the sheer scale involved.

However, that same scale (both of time and space) makes it extremely unlikely that we will encounter that life.

There is also, as Carl Sagan has speculated, that life as it has developed has ended in a million times as a million little expanding mushroom clouds throughout the universe. The very same veracity and aggressiveness that evolution has bestowed as life's survival method ultimately ends up destroying it (or at least its 'higher' forms).

Fluxator wrote:
You built the pyramids!? Wow, I never knew people could live so long. Humans aren't very smart, some humans are very smart, some are smart and most are comparable to a goat.

To be more precise, most human brains are, on a global scale, only a few ticks above the other animals we consider intelligent, and are about twice as good at processing data as a Cray-II.

The thing to keep in mind is that we are naturally restricted to processing data which are associated to our sensitive functions, while a non-biological computer can operate on any format of data we can adapt it too. So we don't seem very intelligent when we compare ourselves to the calculating power of a Cray-II, which can accomplish mathematical operations on a scale and at a speed that seems ridiculously godlike to us, but we are incredibly effective at processing, for example, visual data. At any given time, your visual cortex is only directly ''seeing'' a portion of your visual field the size of your thumb at arms lenght (probably smaller than that too, depending on what you are looking at), yet it maintains a visual field about ten thousand times that size. And that's just one type of visual data manipulation our brain accomplish constantly, amongst dozens other operations such as stereoscopic and cyclopic visions, visual quantification, etc..., and that's just one format of data being treated, amongst a few others.

So we are pretty intelligent. Our Sentience Quotient is +13, most animals hover between +9 and +11, which really isn't that much of a gap. But that gap contains what was needed for us to develop technology and language, which are amazing ways to, basically, export the result of one mind's computation into another mind, and thus breaking the limitations of our brains.

Now, Sentience Quotients are only limited by the possibility of a processing unit to accomplish a measurement on a marker. Effectively, that's Planck's constant, and that gives us a Sentience Quotient ceiling of +50. So the interesting implication here is that, inside a 4 to 5 point gap, we go from being able to do what cat and dogs do, to being able to build the atom bomb and travel to the moon. We also almost entirely lose the ability to communicate across that gap. Imagine meeting a specie with SQ +20!

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 chapgrimaldus wrote:
-snaps fingers- a part of me was hoping some believer would come in so I can use logic and facts to ground his/her imaginary aliens to make my bread

Here ya go



N (and pretty much all the other values) will vary a lot depending on who you ask, and the original estimate by Drake (and the Order of the Dolphin, which Sagan was part of ) was between 1000 and 100,000,000. for the Milky Way.

On a similar note, Stephen H. Dole adapted the equation to estimate the number of currently humanly habitable planets in the Milky Way. The figure given was above 36 millions.

As much fun as it is to speculate the sheer number of alien civilizations using the Drake Equation, at the end of the day it is still just speculation.

To quote Enrico Fermi, "Where are they?"

The Fermix Paradox is a bit of a bear. HOWEVER! We have learned A LOT about how we as a species leave signs and signals in the known universe. The issue that came out is that any given Intelligent Species is only going to be emitting detectable signals for a certain part of their development cycle. Here's the catch. The other intelligent species in any given group has to be at the EXACT SAME point in their own development cycle, assuming they develop technology similar to our own and even using similar principles to have a ghost of a chance of hearing us, or we them for that matter. So it's not as simple as "Where are they?" because it's about as simple as hitting a bullet with another bullet with both rounds being fired at each other from across a continent, when if the bullets don't strike at just the right SECOND, they'll phase right through each other because they're incompatible technologically.

That is one possible solution the to paradox but is by no means the reason we haven't detected anyone else yet. There are other ways to explain it as well: we truly are alone (Rare Earth hypothesis), we haven't been looking long enough, we are deliberately not contacted (zoo hypothesis), they lack the technology, they don't know what to say (we would have that same problem because who would "speak for Earth?"), or they are simply too alien for us to understand. There is, of course, one the wildest explanation: the universe is a simulated reality.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Fluxator wrote:
You built the pyramids!? Wow, I never knew people could live so long. Humans aren't very smart, some humans are very smart, some are smart and most are comparable to a goat.

To be more precise, most human brains are, on a global scale, only a few ticks above the other animals we consider intelligent, and are about twice as good at processing data as a Cray-II.

The thing to keep in mind is that we are naturally restricted to processing data which are associated to our sensitive functions, while a non-biological computer can operate on any format of data we can adapt it too. So we don't seem very intelligent when we compare ourselves to the calculating power of a Cray-II, which can accomplish mathematical operations on a scale and at a speed that seems ridiculously godlike to us, but we are incredibly effective at processing, for example, visual data. At any given time, your visual cortex is only directly ''seeing'' a portion of your visual field the size of your thumb at arms lenght (probably smaller than that too, depending on what you are looking at), yet it maintains a visual field about ten thousand times that size. And that's just one type of visual data manipulation our brain accomplish constantly, amongst dozens other operations such as stereoscopic and cyclopic visions, visual quantification, etc..., and that's just one format of data being treated, amongst a few others.

So we are pretty intelligent. Our Sentience Quotient is +13, most animals hover between +9 and +11, which really isn't that much of a gap. But that gap contains what was needed for us to develop technology and language, which are amazing ways to, basically, export the result of one mind's computation into another mind, and thus breaking the limitations of our brains.

Now, Sentience Quotients are only limited by the possibility of a processing unit to accomplish a measurement on a marker. Effectively, that's Planck's constant, and that gives us a Sentience Quotient ceiling of +50. So the interesting implication here is that, inside a 4 to 5 point gap, we go from being able to do what cat and dogs do, to being able to build the atom bomb and travel to the moon. We also almost entirely lose the ability to communicate across that gap. Imagine meeting a specie with SQ +20!

Fascinating. We should get a game on sometime.

We should, although we'll be mostly playing mirror matches ^^.

Wha?

 gossipmeng wrote:
I'm in the boat that believes there is life (probably intelligent) out there, but they are too far away/not interested in us.

I watch ancient aliens when I catch it on TV. A lot of what is discussed makes sense, but I'm sure it is mostly just coincidence and unsupported theories (most conspiracy theories can make sense too if put in a logical argument, but don't hold up against questioning).

It is also amusing to start a sentence with: "Ancient astronaut theorists believe...."

I doubt the "not interested" aspect. Distance is the issue as to why there hasn't been "first contact" yet. I imagine we're still hundreds, if not thousands of years, before we cross that gap.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
Wha?

I play Dark Angles and Merovingia too.

I'll have a small Nid force ready by January, I hope.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 chapgrimaldus wrote:
-snaps fingers- a part of me was hoping some believer would come in so I can use logic and facts to ground his/her imaginary aliens to make my bread

Here ya go



N (and pretty much all the other values) will vary a lot depending on who you ask, and the original estimate by Drake (and the Order of the Dolphin, which Sagan was part of ) was between 1000 and 100,000,000. for the Milky Way.

On a similar note, Stephen H. Dole adapted the equation to estimate the number of currently humanly habitable planets in the Milky Way. The figure given was above 36 millions.

As much fun as it is to speculate the sheer number of alien civilizations using the Drake Equation, at the end of the day it is still just speculation.

To quote Enrico Fermi, "Where are they?"

The Fermix Paradox is a bit of a bear. HOWEVER! We have learned A LOT about how we as a species leave signs and signals in the known universe. The issue that came out is that any given Intelligent Species is only going to be emitting detectable signals for a certain part of their development cycle. Here's the catch. The other intelligent species in any given group has to be at the EXACT SAME point in their own development cycle, assuming they develop technology similar to our own and even using similar principles to have a ghost of a chance of hearing us, or we them for that matter. So it's not as simple as "Where are they?" because it's about as simple as hitting a bullet with another bullet with both rounds being fired at each other from across a continent, when if the bullets don't strike at just the right SECOND, they'll phase right through each other because they're incompatible technologically.

That is one possible solution the to paradox but is by no means the reason we haven't detected anyone else yet. There are other ways to explain it as well: we truly are alone (Rare Earth hypothesis), we haven't been looking long enough, we are deliberately not contacted (zoo hypothesis), they lack the technology, they don't know what to say (we would have that same problem because who would "speak for Earth?"), or they are simply too alien for us to understand. There is, of course, one the wildest explanation: the universe is a simulated reality.

Then there's the "Super Predator" explanation, and a wide variety of others. I'd say what I outlined is probably one of the more likely ones in general.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Then there's the "Super Predator" explanation, and a wide variety of others. I'd say what I outlined is probably one of the more likely ones in general.

The "superpredator" idea attempts to say why we can't find anyone now, but also has the possibility of us being alone now and humanity becoming the galactic apex predator in the future. Your suggested solution to the paradox is really no more likely than any other (except for maybe the 'they are already here' silliness). Equally as likely is that if there is extraterrestrial life and they are/were broadcasting, our instruments simply aren't sensitive enough to pick it. Even our largest and most sensitive radio telescope (the Arecibo Observatory) could only detect a civilization such as no more than 0.3 light years away. The closest star system to us the Alpha Centraui (α Cen AB-C) system which is a little over 4 light years away. If there was a civilization there with comparable technical prowess, and there most likely isn't, we wouldn't be able to detect their background radio noise.

The answer is yes. They're out there. Each one of us is being prepared for a good probing. Bring your astro-glide.

 djones520 wrote:


I doubt the "not interested" aspect. Distance is the issue as to why there hasn't been "first contact" yet. I imagine we're still hundreds, if not thousands of years, before we cross that gap.

Ohh come now, you should no by now that time is made up of timey wimey, wibbly wobbly... stuff. The reason why there hasn't been first contact is because of A) the Silence B) the MIB have wiped our memories of contact and C) We're just not important enough yet to warrant the Doctors attentions.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Then there's the "Super Predator" explanation, and a wide variety of others. I'd say what I outlined is probably one of the more likely ones in general.

The "superpredator" idea attempts to say why we can't find anyone now, but also has the possibility of us being alone now and humanity becoming the galactic apex predator in the future. Your suggested solution to the paradox is really no more likely than any other (except for maybe the 'they are already here' silliness). Equally as likely is that if there is extraterrestrial life and they are/were broadcasting, our instruments simply aren't sensitive enough to pick it. Even our largest and most sensitive radio telescope (the Arecibo Observatory) could only detect a civilization such as no more than 0.3 light years away. The closest star system to us the Alpha Centraui (α Cen AB-C) system which is a little over 4 light years away. If there was a civilization there with comparable technical prowess, and there most likely isn't, we wouldn't be able to detect their background radio noise.

Which would all be the solution I basically just said in my original post. Even if the Galaxy is teeming with life the windows required for any two given technological civilizations to be able to detect each other are incredibly small.

Sorry for the bit of lack in response time, my net went out for a day or so, but while I was thinking over this thread and playing Mass effect 3. I would LOVE LOVE LOVE for all the races in it to be real and be able to talk or bone one of em Maybe a Volus lol jk. Anyways fun comparison between ME3 and the real world. There was this scare a while back about the "trumpets" blowing around the world, which those of you who don't know this phenomenon check it out on google or youtube but while playing ME3 I noticed the reaper "BRRRAAAWWWWWMMMM" sound, sounds just like those "trumpets" maybe the reapers are real and we just aren't advanced enough to be harvested . As you can probably tell I am in an air head, light hearted mood haha

This is the sort of question in which either answer leads to one half of the human race loosing all hope.

welshhoppo wrote:
This is the sort of question in which either answer leads to one half of the human race loosing all hope.

How so?

Because Religious people will watch as their entire creationist theory falls to the ground.


And non religious people will fall to the ground as they realise religious creationism was right all along.

Hopefully they are or its a bit of disapointing Universe

We better pray there's intelligent life somewhere up in space 'cause there's bugger all down here on Earth *slam*.

Pretty sure life exists on other planets, God created the heavens...... And I think, if all the amazing life here on earth is anything to go by, then space in its infinate vastness will be as teaming with amazing life and other stuff as this earth is.

Will I see it and find out for sure...... Definitely some day.....:-)

welshhoppo wrote:
Because Religious people will watch as their entire creationist theory falls to the ground.


And non religious people will fall to the ground as they realise religious creationism was right all along.

The existence of extraterrestrial life would neither prove of disprove creationism. If the Rare Earth hypothesis is indeed correct (even though we would never know for absolute certainty if was) and life on Earth is indeed unique, that doesn't prove that a god is responsible for life. If there is extraterrestrial life, that also doesn't "disprove" creationism (facts and logic already do that) either. For instance, the Catholic Church's official stance is a belief in theistic evolution (biological evolution is real but was set in motion by God) and has declared that the existence of extraterrestrial life is not in conflict with faith because there is no limit on God's creative freedom.

Fluxator wrote:
Guys, please don't use the word believe. It implies there's no logic or reasoning involved. Why do you think people believe in God and not think God exists?

The current models we study in cognitive science/philosophy of mind pretty much always present knowledge in a probabilistic form. The most basic functional neuronal structure we know of, the perceptron, works more or less that way.

So the knowledge that the sky is blue is, in effect, the very strong beleif that the sky is blue. It seems very counter-intuitive, and the first time my teacher introduced me to that notion, it was really hard to swallow, but there's a whole serie of problems that can't be solved without it.

Linguistic analysis is interesting when it comes to epistemology, but you have to be careful, as it is easy to take colloquial specificities for a proof of an argument's integrity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
For instance, the Catholic Church's official stance is a belief in theistic evolution (biological evolution is real but was set in motion by God) and has declared that the existence of extraterrestrial life is not in conflict with faith because there is no limit on God's creative freedom.

There's few things more satisfying than arguing with a militant atheist who maintains that the Church denies the validity of the Big Bang theory or evolution.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
There's few things more satisfying than arguing with a militant atheist who maintains that the Church denies the validity of the Big Bang theory or evolution.

There's few things more satisfying than arguing with a militant theist who creates a straw man argument and pretends that "liberal" creationists are the only creationists.

(Notice that the context here is "religion", not "the Catholic Church", and there are plenty of religions with claims about how the world was created that would be utterly demolished by the discovery of intelligent life elsewhere. Well, even more utterly demolished than they already have been.)

While the implications on religion regarding the discovery of alien life is an interesting (and inevitable) tangent---keep it polite and topical--rather than just an argument over the existence of God.

Lets hope they turn up soon and kindly donate the secret of immortality, efficent space travel and clean energy

 Mr Morden wrote:
...and clean energy

Clean energy is like Soylent Green... it's soooo good, but it's really covering a much, MUCH darker secret

Give me the other two and I don't care that much

Eh if such a thing happened (unlikely imo but fun to think about) I would hope for 2 things, awesome space travel and hot alien chicks

Is there life on other worlds in the universe? Given the size on the universe and the length of time it’s been around I’d say it’s almost inevitable it either exists right now or has at some point. In fact it’s probably happened many times.

Is this life intelligent? Well this is less likely, but still very probable. Even if the ratio of non intelligent to intelligent life is millions to one I still think it’s very likely to have happened on other worlds than this one.

Will we ever make contact with such life? Possible, but I certainly wouldn’t bet on it. In universal terms we have existed in only the blink of an eye and can only sent signals a tiny distance.

Have Aliens ever visited us in the past, built the pyramids and regularly abducted and ‘probed’ people? Not a chance in hell.

I think i have two entirely different mindsets about alien life that is advanced enough to contact us.

On one hand, I subscribe to the idea that any civilization advanced enough to travel the stars has evolved their ethics accordingly. Otherwise they would have never survived past the point of society that we are at right now. Either you become a "Starfleet/Star Wars age" race, or you blow yourselves up through war, in effect.

But......I have another worry that fits with the first point. What if (very likely) there are galactic civilizations who are so old that they are jaded and/or fanatically ignorant towards the "Starfleet" age of their race, and have actually gone backwards morally but kept the advanced technology? I call this the "40K Imperium" era, where they can travel the stars and effect great technological wonders, but are morally debased/ religiously fanatic, or just plain xenophobic to the extreme, and so are dangerous to everyone they meet.

The latter of the two are the ones I am worried about finding us and simply destroying us for our resources.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
The latter of the two are the ones I am worried about finding us and simply destroying us for our resources.

Destroying us for our resources makes no sense. The time and energy requirement to haul any meaningful resources across interstellar distances makes it completely pointless, and even if you propose some physics-defying warp drive or whatever the resources on a planet are pretty limited compared to the resources they could harvest from the rest of our solar system while ignoring us entirely.

The real reason to interact with another civilization is to destroy them before they become a threat to you. And for that you don't send interstellar cargo ships to loot and pillage, you just send a swarm of relativistic kinetic weapons to destroy any potentially habitable planets.

Peregrine, the Xul, a species presented as a Superpredator does just that to take us down a peg. Actually they do one better. They toss an asteroid at us from our own belt.

I think its more likely if contact with an alien race happens, they have peaceful intentions, dumb hillbillies who run the government shoot at them (also the regular gun toting hillbillies) they get pissed off and start killing. It's not our problem though, we will be long dead before any contact with aliens occurs, at least IMO

 Peregrine wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
The latter of the two are the ones I am worried about finding us and simply destroying us for our resources.

Destroying us for our resources makes no sense. The time and energy requirement to haul any meaningful resources across interstellar distances makes it completely pointless, and even if you propose some physics-defying warp drive or whatever the resources on a planet are pretty limited compared to the resources they could harvest from the rest of our solar system while ignoring us entirely.

The real reason to interact with another civilization is to destroy them before they become a threat to you. And for that you don't send interstellar cargo ships to loot and pillage, you just send a swarm of relativistic kinetic weapons to destroy any potentially habitable planets.

The problem is that any race that can travel such great distances but have devolved morals can likely wipe out a civilization as an after thought. And if they are mining the rest of a solar system, why miss that other planet? Or if you are that advanced, why not kill them all with some simple-for-you method, rather than eliminate any possible extra attention you might have to apply to eliminate the feeble attempts they make to try to thwart you?

Or if they are Dalek-esque religiously xenophobic, they might feel the need to kill us off while strip mining the other planets, just for completeness's sake.

At the very least, they would likely meet us like every advanced human society has met natives after migrating to a new land.

In other words, for every Federation that is likely out there, there are probably Romulans.

Off topic, but has anyone else gotten a hankering to rewatch the X-Files from this thread?

I've always figured that if an alien civilization advanced enough to actually go interstellar, let alone any further distance, exists then they're so far advanced technology-wise that they very well might not recognize us as actual life. Kind of like we don't really pay attention to spiders and ants unless they really annoy us.

I'm not a rocket expert, but I'm almost done with an aerospace engineering degree and have studied a lot about space travel tech in my spare time. The more you learn about it the more you realize how ludicrously hard it is to get any kind of significant space presence out there.

Also, here's a cool page for people who like to speculate on such things: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/weirdastronomy.php

If we are really lucky its the Culture

Well if there is aliens life. The Russians aren't ready to fight.
http://rt.com/news/russian-space-troops-aliens-631/

Anyone here read Calculating God by Robert Sawyer?

An alien race in the book has a very good idea to make sure there are no threats to its survival.