This has probably been asked a thousand times...


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : SETI@home Science : This has probably been asked a thousand times...

1 · 2 · Next
Author Message
Nexus
Send message
Joined: 4 Sep 06
Posts: 7
Credit: 335,362
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1461650 - Posted: 8 Jan 2014, 2:54:01 UTC

Hi all!

Just a random thought I've had. Bit of a dabbler searcher myself, like most around here I suppose!

Since we're looking for the "magic signal" from any random planet, what are we doing to reach out to them? Surely we should be beaming radio signals in the direction of possible candidates, even if they are currently silent? The big issue is time, as we all know about the speed of light, and as such, the speed radio waves transmit.

Why aren't we actively transmitting 24/7 to any planet <100LY away? Or are we?

I understand that we emit quite a bit of noise on our planet, what with all these radio/tv/mobile/xyz radio waves. But when we find a candidate, surely we should spend at least say 5 minutes a day transmitting to a candidate?

I understand there are huge cost issues to do this, to have a transmitter of hefty proportions will require alot funding. Of which, the people with money, would not want to invest.

TL;DR, why not flip seti on its head, and say to candidate planets "Hi, we're here!"

Nexus
Send message
Joined: 4 Sep 06
Posts: 7
Credit: 335,362
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1461652 - Posted: 8 Jan 2014, 3:01:28 UTC - in response to Message 1461650.

Whoops, sorry for the wrong section, I thought cafe was just to chit-chat :)

Noted!

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13541
Credit: 29,292,206
RAC: 15,103
United States
Message 1461654 - Posted: 8 Jan 2014, 3:07:37 UTC - in response to Message 1461650.
Last modified: 8 Jan 2014, 3:08:05 UTC

If ET were more advanced than us, and more aggressive/predatory, it would probably not be a good idea to start screaming "hey, we're over here!" to the Universe in general.

The ironic thing is that ET may very well be doing the same thing if they're not more advanced than us.

PS - I think your question is relatively appropriate here.

Nexus
Send message
Joined: 4 Sep 06
Posts: 7
Credit: 335,362
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1461656 - Posted: 8 Jan 2014, 3:13:55 UTC - in response to Message 1461654.

It got moved a few minutes after I posted. I had it in the cafe section, which I thought was off-topic. I'm all for other planets who are more advanced than we are to know where we are. Not all aliens are going to be planet-killers (or are they!).

I think one of the big issues of transmitting to other planets (much akin to seti), is return on investment.

Which company would be willing to for out millions of $/£ per year to get a return on investment in a minimum of 40 years! And that's if we transmit at the same time that they have the capability of listening.

Which brings me to another midnight ponder. With all the radio chatter we have on earth, with a dish the size of arecibo, what would be the feasible maximum distance another civilisation could hear us?

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13541
Credit: 29,292,206
RAC: 15,103
United States
Message 1461663 - Posted: 8 Jan 2014, 3:42:41 UTC - in response to Message 1461656.

Even if not all are "planet killers", if even one is and they have the means to arrive here, that would be one too many.

As for your other postulations... most companies can't see past their next quarter financially. There would have to be good evidence to suggest such an investment would be worthy.

Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 1361
Credit: 546,925
RAC: 341
United States
Message 1461665 - Posted: 8 Jan 2014, 3:57:18 UTC

I, for one, am not in favor of blindly sending out radio beacons toward all of the nearby star systems. Some say the radio traffic that we are inadvertently sending in all directions is bad enough. But I have also read that the strength of signal is so weak that it blends into the background radiation just a few light years out. Considering how we humans have treated each other when a more "advanced" civilization has "discovered" new territory I don't hold out much hope for our future if we get found by a more advanced space faring life form.
____________
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required.

Josef W. Segur
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 30 Oct 99
Posts: 4196
Credit: 1,028,990
RAC: 265
United States
Message 1461918 - Posted: 8 Jan 2014, 20:40:48 UTC

The Wikipedia article Active SETI is a good starting point for information about this topic.

Joe

Profile Julie
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 18456
Credit: 3,333,333
RAC: 6,273
Belgium
Message 1462622 - Posted: 10 Jan 2014, 17:09:57 UTC
Last modified: 10 Jan 2014, 17:14:32 UTC

We make quite some noise in the Universe with our radio signals (or -waves). We don't transmit them directly to a certain point but Earth is surely prominent...

If ET were more advanced than us, and more aggressive/predatory, it would probably not be a good idea to start screaming "hey, we're over here!" to the Universe in general.


And that's exactly what we're doing...
____________


rOZZ

Profile PwNz0R
Send message
Joined: 14 Jun 08
Posts: 25
Credit: 731,257
RAC: 0
Norway
Message 1462681 - Posted: 10 Jan 2014, 19:03:49 UTC

I think active SETI is worth the effort.
Just listening never got anyone anywhere, this would be like rather travelling the oceans to discover other continents and people one would just sit there and wayt for the other guys to make the trip.
Now obviously people will instantly say "so please remember what happened last time when different cultures met, the slavery, ethnic cleansing etc".
Firstly I do not believe in the "everyone else is more evil than us" theory because this is some perverted logic. Friendship, communication etc requires trust. Even if there is the RISK of conflict - the potential of developing positive relations and all the benefits from that outweigh the negative scenarios.
Secondly, we are killing each other off here on earth just fine all by ourselves, and we allways will. There will never be peace on Earth, never happened before and probably will never happen in the future. That did not however stop us from advancing technologically and in whatever other way, and should not demotivate us either.

Now for some more pholosophic thoughts - if the ET can actually reach us having received the signal, then they are more advanced and that in itself is a bonus because that will grant us technology we do not have. That is far more likely then them coming here, reading the "war of the worlds" and reinacting that for real "just for the thrill". I do not believe that.
In any case - peaceful or aggressive contact will advance us and our planet. Either technology is boosted due to military necessity - or it is boosted trough friendly contact and exchange. There can not be a different outcome, and nonsense like "well, they could blow the whole planet up, kill all people etc" is just such nonsense with no valid reasoning behind it that it's not even worth considering.

Thirdly - representing outselves as friendly, outreaching, curious species by sending singals to potential ET positions us from a diplomatic standpoint as a good species. If we however hide and assume we are being watched (even though we think we are "below ET radar" but are atcually detected) makes us look as suspicious and cunning, and thus probably aggressive.

Lastly sincer no ET was ever discovered, and since we exclusively build our world wiew by observing ourselves, does NOT in any way make the Galactic Wormpeople of Gamma-Eplsylon 8 evil planet-killing slave traders. We just don't know that, or anything relating to ET for that matter.
I'm sorry, but tecnological and whatever other advances never happened by cowering in one's home.

Profile Julie
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 18456
Credit: 3,333,333
RAC: 6,273
Belgium
Message 1462722 - Posted: 10 Jan 2014, 19:51:13 UTC - in response to Message 1462681.

I think active SETI is worth the effort.
Just listening never got anyone anywhere, this would be like rather travelling the oceans to discover other continents and people one would just sit there and wayt for the other guys to make the trip.
Now obviously people will instantly say "so please remember what happened last time when different cultures met, the slavery, ethnic cleansing etc".
Firstly I do not believe in the "everyone else is more evil than us" theory because this is some perverted logic. Friendship, communication etc requires trust. Even if there is the RISK of conflict - the potential of developing positive relations and all the benefits from that outweigh the negative scenarios.
Secondly, we are killing each other off here on earth just fine all by ourselves, and we allways will. There will never be peace on Earth, never happened before and probably will never happen in the future. That did not however stop us from advancing technologically and in whatever other way, and should not demotivate us either.

Now for some more pholosophic thoughts - if the ET can actually reach us having received the signal, then they are more advanced and that in itself is a bonus because that will grant us technology we do not have. That is far more likely then them coming here, reading the "war of the worlds" and reinacting that for real "just for the thrill". I do not believe that.
In any case - peaceful or aggressive contact will advance us and our planet. Either technology is boosted due to military necessity - or it is boosted trough friendly contact and exchange. There can not be a different outcome, and nonsense like "well, they could blow the whole planet up, kill all people etc" is just such nonsense with no valid reasoning behind it that it's not even worth considering.

Thirdly - representing outselves as friendly, outreaching, curious species by sending singals to potential ET positions us from a diplomatic standpoint as a good species. If we however hide and assume we are being watched (even though we think we are "below ET radar" but are atcually detected) makes us look as suspicious and cunning, and thus probably aggressive.

Lastly sincer no ET was ever discovered, and since we exclusively build our world wiew by observing ourselves, does NOT in any way make the Galactic Wormpeople of Gamma-Eplsylon 8 evil planet-killing slave traders. We just don't know that, or anything relating to ET for that matter.
I'm sorry, but tecnological and whatever other advances never happened by cowering in one's home.



Good standpoint
____________


rOZZ

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13541
Credit: 29,292,206
RAC: 15,103
United States
Message 1462828 - Posted: 11 Jan 2014, 0:40:42 UTC - in response to Message 1462622.

We make quite some noise in the Universe with our radio signals (or -waves). We don't transmit them directly to a certain point but Earth is surely prominent...

If ET were more advanced than us, and more aggressive/predatory, it would probably not be a good idea to start screaming "hey, we're over here!" to the Universe in general.


And that's exactly what we're doing...


But those radio waves only reach so far, so we're not exactly screaming.

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13541
Credit: 29,292,206
RAC: 15,103
United States
Message 1462834 - Posted: 11 Jan 2014, 0:54:13 UTC - in response to Message 1462681.
Last modified: 11 Jan 2014, 0:55:38 UTC

I think active SETI is worth the effort.


As do I. Otherwise I wouldn't be here.

Just listening never got anyone anywhere, this would be like rather travelling the oceans to discover other continents and people one would just sit there and wayt for the other guys to make the trip.


Tell that to the Native Americans.

Now obviously people will instantly say "so please remember what happened last time when different cultures met, the slavery, ethnic cleansing etc".


Undeniable possibilities, even if we don't like the thought of it.

Firstly I do not believe in the "everyone else is more evil than us" theory because this is some perverted logic.


I don't buy into the idea of evil. I buy into the idea that the personality traits of humans are not unique to humans, and there's just as likely a chance that an advanced civilization could be looking for cheap labor.

Friendship, communication etc requires trust. Even if there is the RISK of conflict - the potential of developing positive relations and all the benefits from that outweigh the negative scenarios.


What reason do we have to believe they want to be our friends? Maybe they do, maybe they don't. We won't know until we make contact.

Secondly, we are killing each other off here on earth just fine all by ourselves, and we allways will. There will never be peace on Earth, never happened before and probably will never happen in the future. That did not however stop us from advancing technologically and in whatever other way, and should not demotivate us either.


Agreed. But I don't see how this relates to actively looking for ET, or how it might be dangerous to do so.

Now for some more pholosophic thoughts - if the ET can actually reach us having received the signal, then they are more advanced and that in itself is a bonus because that will grant us technology we do not have. That is far more likely then them coming here, reading the "war of the worlds" and reinacting that for real "just for the thrill". I do not believe that.


Why is it far more likely that they will want to share? I think it's equally likely that they will either share with us or want to enslave/destroy us.

It's a perfect Schrodinger's Cat situation. Until we open the box, we can't possibly know ET's personality, motives, or intent. So until then, ET is both ready to kill us and ready to help us.

In any case - peaceful or aggressive contact will advance us and our planet. Either technology is boosted due to military necessity - or it is boosted trough friendly contact and exchange. There can not be a different outcome, and nonsense like "well, they could blow the whole planet up, kill all people etc" is just such nonsense with no valid reasoning behind it that it's not even worth considering.


Not worth considering? Are you saying that an alien race couldn't possibly be interested in our planet and not it's inhabitants?

Thirdly - representing outselves as friendly, outreaching, curious species by sending singals to potential ET positions us from a diplomatic standpoint as a good species. If we however hide and assume we are being watched (even though we think we are "below ET radar" but are atcually detected) makes us look as suspicious and cunning, and thus probably aggressive.


Representing ourselves and friendly and outgoing could also open us up to being taken advantage of or showing the Universe how naïve we are. Whereas showing ourselves to be appropriately cautious might show that we have concerns and aren't going to just let people walk all over us.

Lastly sincer no ET was ever discovered, and since we exclusively build our world wiew by observing ourselves, does NOT in any way make the Galactic Wormpeople of Gamma-Eplsylon 8 evil planet-killing slave traders. We just don't know that, or anything relating to ET for that matter.
I'm sorry, but tecnological and whatever other advances never happened by cowering in one's home.


Since ET has never been discovered, I don't see how one could immediately dismiss all the equal but possibly negative outcomes. It scares me that people think that ET would just simply welcome us with open arms. Sure, they could, but until we know better, we should proceed cautiously. We don't need to rush into anything expecting friendship and free technology upgrades.

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13541
Credit: 29,292,206
RAC: 15,103
United States
Message 1462865 - Posted: 11 Jan 2014, 2:43:52 UTC - in response to Message 1462834.

I think active SETI is worth the effort.


As do I. Otherwise I wouldn't be here.


Opps... missed the part about "active" SETI. I still have reservations about active SETI.

Profile PwNz0R
Send message
Joined: 14 Jun 08
Posts: 25
Credit: 731,257
RAC: 0
Norway
Message 1462884 - Posted: 11 Jan 2014, 3:46:00 UTC - in response to Message 1462834.

Mr no-name,

I will not quotation-spam you so I will reply to your post as a whole.
Even if we follow the worst case scenario that we KNOW of from events here on earth, which by the way are unique to us because we simply have no other experience, colonization has had a lot of bad sides to put it mildly but even so a Native American that would otherwise die of a simple disease can today be cured at a medical clinic rather than by shaman's useless "magic", and the slaves of yesterday are amongst those who run USA. So even IF the worst came to the worst earth-style so to speak, it is still an advancement in the long run.

Now another fact that you dismiss very easely, in fact you don't even mention it at all, is that almost all colonization-related issues and serious cultural clashes that lead to slavery and mass-murder are a thing of the past in first world nations. So it is then very logical to assume that moral standards advance hand-in-hand with technology, at least in part. It is technology (transport, communication, power etc) that has brought people together rather than tearing them apart.

It is I think a very logical assumption that a species that has the capablity to travel to us is so advanced that it does not need anything from us, since they have the technology to supply themselves with whatever they need and probably have 3-d printers and computer on a whole other level that we can even dream of today.

And again as I said - no advancement has even been made with cowardice and scepticism as a policy. China had once tried to explore the world, and only due to their own leader's ignorance at the time they "lost" their chance, while the Dutch, Portugese, the English etc explored the world with one less competitor. The result is a wholly populated North and South Americas, with multi-million populations and technological and other feats without which we may not even had this conversation today. Even given all evil that took place in the end it is an overall advancement. So I believe we should not be cowards and "live just to live" as we have for thousands of years, with a very brief extraterrestrial tour to the moon as the "culmination" of our advance, but rather reach out and actively seek advancement trough contact.

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13541
Credit: 29,292,206
RAC: 15,103
United States
Message 1462888 - Posted: 11 Jan 2014, 4:25:09 UTC - in response to Message 1462884.
Last modified: 11 Jan 2014, 5:10:43 UTC

I will not quotation-spam you so I will reply to your post as a whole.


That's how I address specific comments. I don't understand why so many people are bothered by it. It's a very common practice on the internet, and is certainly not spamming.

Even if we follow the worst case scenario that we KNOW of from events here on earth, which by the way are unique to us because we simply have no other experience, colonization has had a lot of bad sides to put it mildly but even so a Native American that would otherwise die of a simple disease can today be cured at a medical clinic rather than by shaman's useless "magic", and the slaves of yesterday are amongst those who run USA. So even IF the worst came to the worst earth-style so to speak, it is still an advancement in the long run.


I only mentioned the Native Americans as people who didn't cross the sea but instead met explorers from afar to counter your claim that no one ever got anywhere from just sitting around waiting.

While you may believe that colonization of the US has brought advancement to the Native American people, that may not be the way they see it, and certainly not after the amount of slaughter their people went through to be dragged into this advancement. Should the human race endure the same?

Now another fact that you dismiss very easely, in fact you don't even mention it at all, is that almost all colonization-related issues and serious cultural clashes that lead to slavery and mass-murder are a thing of the past in first world nations. So it is then very logical to assume that moral standards advance hand-in-hand with technology, at least in part. It is technology (transport, communication, power etc) that has brought people together rather than tearing them apart.


That's easy to claim after the colonization has occurred and the natives assimilated into their new way of life forcefully. In fact, I can very much see that happening to the human race. Sure, in the end humans might have all those benefits. But the human race could be a rare species by then.

It is I think a very logical assumption that a species that has the capablity to travel to us is so advanced that it does not need anything from us, since they have the technology to supply themselves with whatever they need and probably have 3-d printers and computer on a whole other level that we can even dream of today.


I never said they wouldn't need anything from us. Perhaps they need cheap labor. Perhaps they just don't like our attitudes. Perhaps they think we're ugly or beneath them. There could be plenty of reasons to either enslave us or destroy us. This is just as much of a possibility as the comments you insist are somehow more likely.

And again as I said - no advancement has even been made with cowardice and scepticism as a policy. China had once tried to explore the world, and only due to their own leader's ignorance at the time they "lost" their chance, while the Dutch, Portugese, the English etc explored the world with one less competitor. The result is a wholly populated North and South Americas, with multi-million populations and technological and other feats without which we may not even had this conversation today. Even given all evil that took place in the end it is an overall advancement. So I believe we should not be cowards and "live just to live" as we have for thousands of years, with a very brief extraterrestrial tour to the moon as the "culmination" of our advance, but rather reach out and actively seek advancement trough contact.


I am not and have not argued to "live just to live". I am arguing against the idea that an alien civilization will, without a doubt, be better for us as a whole. There's no possible way anyone could know that, and it concerns me greatly to hear people talk as if there's no possibility or likelihood for a negative type encounter.

Perhaps in the end for whatever alien life were to visit, it would just be their overall advancement not to care about our so-called human rights and do away with our barbaric species.

I'm all for advancement. I'm all for exploration. I'm all for furthering our understanding of the Universe. But I do not think the dangers should so easily be dismissed simply because people think that aliens somehow want to be our friends without ever having met them.

I admit that all of your suggestions are a possibility. I am only arguing that the opposite is just as equally probable. The adamancy with which some people refuse to see the negative possibilities seem rather naïve or gullible to me.


OzzFan

Profile PwNz0R
Send message
Joined: 14 Jun 08
Posts: 25
Credit: 731,257
RAC: 0
Norway
Message 1462902 - Posted: 11 Jan 2014, 5:56:21 UTC - in response to Message 1462888.

I do not claim to be a spokesperson for anyone, much less the Native Americans because I have absolutely no relations to them, but the fact that none of them use a shaman but have a medical insurance means they prefer the latter, or the fact that modern descendants of the Mayans are not boiling children's hearts or making human sacrifices for whatever religious purposes anymore means that the people have accepted the "new" way of living. Otherwise they would revert (because they do have the freedom to just that) but they are not. In fact I know of no culture that has reverted fully and willingly to whatever way of life it had in the past once it has been presented with the luxuries of modern life.

The issue of slaughter of natives and forced deportation/expulsion is based on the need of conquest, which in that time was a prerequisite of colonisation, and that happened because people could not "make" more landmass they could only steal it from whoever was the weaker.

However again - given that the the ET have the means to travel from another solar system to here which requires an immense amount of technology we do not even fully understand in hypothetical terms - it is extremely unlikely that they would want anything we have so badly they would attack us.
It is like saying that any ordinary average person today, let's say from USA, would have ANY benefit to gain from taking a plane to Africa, then driving xxx miles with a car navigating all the while with his/her iPhone to finally rob a Zulu hunter of his spear. That makes neither sense in any moral way NOR does it make sense in a financial point of view, given that the would-be attacker already has far more worthy possessions and can attain more of the latter in a way much simpler than robbery of someone so far away that the travel itself outweighs the benefits. However one could very likely imagine that the same person would go trough all that hustle to travel to Africa to offer medical or other help - because that would be "no matter the cost" situation where the moral benefit outweighs the cost.
So IMHO such space travel by itself means the ET has more than we do.

Perhaps they need cheap labor. Perhaps they just don't like our attitudes. Perhaps they think we're ugly or beneath them. There could be plenty of reasons to either enslave us or destroy us. This is just as much of a possibility as the comments you insist are somehow more likely.

Or perhaps they want to outsource earth labor to Omicron Persii 8. Makes just as much sense. Are you seriously saying it is likely that someone would travel across the galaxy just to destroy us because for some reason they find our existence offensive? I am sorry this argument is below me. It is like saying we live in Kindergarden Galaxy instead of Milkyway, where hyper-advanced ET travels around beating up alien races "because they look funny". Complete nonsense.

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13541
Credit: 29,292,206
RAC: 15,103
United States
Message 1462911 - Posted: 11 Jan 2014, 6:20:56 UTC - in response to Message 1462902.
Last modified: 11 Jan 2014, 6:54:22 UTC

I do not claim to be a spokesperson for anyone, much less the Native Americans because I have absolutely no relations to them, but the fact that none of them use a shaman but have a medical insurance means they prefer the latter, or the fact that modern descendants of the Mayans are not boiling children's hearts or making human sacrifices for whatever religious purposes anymore means that the people have accepted the "new" way of living. Otherwise they would revert (because they do have the freedom to just that) but they are not. In fact I know of no culture that has reverted fully and willingly to whatever way of life it had in the past once it has been presented with the luxuries of modern life.


It's not a matter of choice in reverting. It is a matter of being forced into advancement whether they like it or not; whether they are ready for it or not. The same could happen to the human race. Sure, we would reap the benefits of advanced technology, but it could also cost our species dearly is the point. Or are you saying that no matter the cost to our own species, the advancement will be to our betterment somehow?

The issue of slaughter of natives and forced deportation/expulsion is based on the need of conquest, which in that time was a prerequisite of colonisation, and that happened because people could not "make" more landmass they could only steal it from whoever was the weaker.


So the same could be true of entire planets. The same conquest motivation that causes colonization could be the same motivation to conquer planets. I don't see how this is any different for space-faring explorers.

However again - given that the the ET have the means to travel from another solar system to here which requires an immense amount of technology we do not even fully understand in hypothetical terms - it is extremely unlikely that they would want anything we have so badly they would attack us.


Why? Why is it so hard to fathom that an advanced civilization could be warlike and looking for more land? How is it "extremely" unlikely for this scenario to be any less true?

It is like saying that any ordinary average person today, let's say from USA, would have ANY benefit to gain from taking a plane to Africa, then driving xxx miles with a car navigating all the while with his/her iPhone to finally rob a Zulu hunter of his spear. That makes neither sense in any moral way NOR does it make sense in a financial point of view, given that the would-be attacker already has far more worthy possessions and can attain more of the latter in a way much simpler than robbery of someone so far away that the travel itself outweighs the benefits. However one could very likely imagine that the same person would go trough all that hustle to travel to Africa to offer medical or other help - because that would be "no matter the cost" situation where the moral benefit outweighs the cost.
So IMHO such space travel by itself means the ET has more than we do.


What makes you think an advanced civilization so much more "moral" than us? What reason do you have to believe that it is unlikely for an alien race to be motivated by greed, fear, pride, envy, profit, or any other trait that would make them conquer us rather than befriend us? Do you believe with advancement comes the shedding of these motivations and traits? Because historically that's never been true.

And yet more advanced civilizations have historically attacked lesser civilizations and enslaved them anyways, even though the only benefit was land and labor. If there's no more land left on your planet, why not go invade another? It's just as likely.

Or perhaps they want to outsource earth labor to Omicron Persii 8. Makes just as much sense. Are you seriously saying it is likely that someone would travel across the galaxy just to destroy us because for some reason they find our existence offensive? I am sorry this argument is below me. It is like saying we live in Kindergarden Galaxy instead of Milkyway, where hyper-advanced ET travels around beating up alien races "because they look funny". Complete nonsense.


And yet that's exactly the thought processes of the people who conquer others. Yes, I am seriously suggesting that it is just as likely for an advanced civilization to have biases, prejudices, hates, and all the other range of emotions and character flaws that causes beings to behave in the negative way they do.

So to suggest the idea that somehow an alien race has advanced so far that they have somehow shed these traits, and state anything otherwise is nonsense is... well nonsense. Technology has never been, and will never be, the solution to biases and prejudices. Most of the time it merely amplifies them.

Profile Julie
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 18456
Credit: 3,333,333
RAC: 6,273
Belgium
Message 1462983 - Posted: 11 Jan 2014, 9:54:51 UTC - in response to Message 1462828.

We make quite some noise in the Universe with our radio signals (or -waves). We don't transmit them directly to a certain point but Earth is surely prominent...

If ET were more advanced than us, and more aggressive/predatory, it would probably not be a good idea to start screaming "hey, we're over here!" to the Universe in general.


And that's exactly what we're doing...


But those radio waves only reach so far, so we're not exactly screaming.



More like 'whispering' then:)
____________


rOZZ

Profile PwNz0R
Send message
Joined: 14 Jun 08
Posts: 25
Credit: 731,257
RAC: 0
Norway
Message 1463140 - Posted: 11 Jan 2014, 16:19:40 UTC
Last modified: 11 Jan 2014, 16:21:02 UTC

Or are you saying that no matter the cost to our own species, the advancement will be to our betterment somehow?


Yes I do. If based on your theory of fear and anger (which I by the day do not believe) then once all that can happen has happened it will be a huge advancement for our species. The benefits completely outweigh the disadvantages.

I don't see how this is any different for space-faring explorers.


Like I said the fact that "you don't see" is not reasoning, it is an unsupported opinion without even a logical basis for it. What I said and still say is this: space travel across such huge distances requires extreme amounts of power and technology. If a species is so advanced that it has that technology it is very likely that they are very advanced as a society and past most of their "childhood problems", and that they most importantly are so advanced that they can CREATE (i.e.: terraform, synthesise any chemical, create any object) whatever they want without the need for conquering anyone.
Like I said back in the days of colonisation it happened because people wanted something - like whale oil, ivory, slaves, rubber, coffee etc things that they did not have and not knowing any other way to get them, using methods socially acceptable at the time. Today we are advanced enough to make synthetic rubber instead of still occupying indochina, and we are civilised enough not to colonise others.
So using this as a basis a very, very advanced species is not very likely to act as some horrid mix of George Bush junior and a mentally disturbed kindergardener - and just attack for unsound reasons.

Now if you can give any logical explanation as to why you think otherwise - you are welcome, because so far you have not give any rationale for why you think that may even happen.

And yet that's exactly the thought processes of the people who conquer others.


Never happened except in Hollywood.
Conquering has never been about hate or view of others, much like terrorism has never happened because of "hatred" of some cherished freedoms. There are always deep, political reasons or financial reasons and benefits.[/quote]

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13541
Credit: 29,292,206
RAC: 15,103
United States
Message 1463171 - Posted: 11 Jan 2014, 17:16:41 UTC - in response to Message 1463140.
Last modified: 11 Jan 2014, 17:45:56 UTC

Or are you saying that no matter the cost to our own species, the advancement will be to our betterment somehow?


Yes I do. If based on your theory of fear and anger (which I by the day do not believe) then once all that can happen has happened it will be a huge advancement for our species. The benefits completely outweigh the disadvantages.


And that would be why I choose to speak up instead of let people like you go unquestioned. It is not my theory that an advanced race will act out of fear and anger. It is my position that we can't possibly know until we've met them, and thus should proceed cautiously and carefully. And most certainly I do not want to see a mass genocide of our species just for technology upgrades. If that's what it takes, then I would rather get there on our own, because I believe we will eventually.

I don't see how this is any different for space-faring explorers.


Like I said the fact that "you don't see" is not reasoning, it is an unsupported opinion without even a logical basis for it.


Agreed. My position is unsupported opinion because we only know of one intelligence in this Universe: ourselves. My point is: so is yours! However, there is most certainly a logic basis for both sides. The fact that you do not see a logical basis for a conquering space race of beings is what I believe to be naïve and gullible.

What I said and still say is this: space travel across such huge distances requires extreme amounts of power and technology. If a species is so advanced that it has that technology it is very likely that they are very advanced as a society and past most of their "childhood problems", and that they most importantly are so advanced that they can CREATE (i.e.: terraform, synthesise any chemical, create any object) whatever they want without the need for conquering anyone.
Like I said back in the days of colonisation it happened because people wanted something - like whale oil, ivory, slaves, rubber, coffee etc things that they did not have and not knowing any other way to get them, using methods socially acceptable at the time. Today we are advanced enough to make synthetic rubber instead of still occupying indochina, and we are civilised enough not to colonise others.
So using this as a basis a very, very advanced species is not very likely to act as some horrid mix of George Bush junior and a mentally disturbed kindergardener - and just attack for unsound reasons.


You can keep repeating what you've said, but it is still unsupported opinion. You can keep arguing that you don't see it to be likely for an advanced race to come all this way just to destroy - but like you said to me, just because "you don't see it" is not reasoning. ;-)

And again, just because they would possibly be more advanced than us, doesn't mean they wouldn't want anything from us or our planet. Being an advanced civilization does not automatically translate into being peaceful and non-prejudiced. Just because you do not see them attacking us for "unsound reasons" does not mean they will not do so.

Now if you can give any logical explanation as to why you think otherwise - you are welcome, because so far you have not give any rationale for why you think that may even happen.


On the contrary. I have given you plenty of examples as to why an alien race might be conquering and warlike. That you refuse to agree doesn't mean there's no rationale or logical explanation. It simply means you refuse to admit there's a danger because you do not want to see that there's a possibility of danger.

And yet that's exactly the thought processes of the people who conquer others.


Never happened except in Hollywood.


Somebody better tell that to the historians then too.

Conquering has never been about hate or view of others, much like terrorism has never happened because of "hatred" of some cherished freedoms. There are always deep, political reasons or financial reasons and benefits.


So man never thought anyone lesser than himself? Enslavement isn't an example of treating people lesser, and thus a form of hate? And terrorism isn't about teaching hatred for a different way of life? Wow. What kind of people do I involve myself with in trying to have decent discussions? Simply wow.



You are either mistakenly or purposefully misrepresenting my position. You keep saying I speak a message of fear and cowardice, and I am trying to tell you my position is merely of caution and carefulness, which is distinctly different than outright fear or cowardice. What worries me most is that you just admitted that you think that even if the human race is brought to the edge of extinction, somehow making contact with an advanced race will be to the betterment or the advancement of our species. This is no way to approach possible contact with another race.

1 · 2 · Next

Message boards : SETI@home Science : This has probably been asked a thousand times...

Copyright © 2014 University of California