Statement on Messaging Extraterrestrial Intelligence/Active SETI

Message boards : News : Statement on Messaging Extraterrestrial Intelligence/Active SETI
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Julie
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 34054
Credit: 18,883,157
RAC: 18
Belgium
Message 1640648 - Posted: 12 Feb 2015, 12:25:54 UTC - in response to Message 1640646.  
Last modified: 12 Feb 2015, 12:27:37 UTC


Now that you mention free speech, I do not want this topic to be trashed by people who feel 'important' and feel 'they have something to say' whilst they have sh*t to say.


Even if it (though it was direct citation of my post) not aimed to me I red-crossed this insult. All participants of this discussion expressed his views on topic, such insults, especially from mod, are completely intorelable on any thread, especially in news.

EDIT: Quite sad, that started as scientific topic degraded to state "ready" for Politics thread indeed. Worth to do so?


I wasn't insulting you Raistmer, not anyone in particular. I just get really nervous, reading this thread. I would like to find some 'clean' information here because after all, this is the news section and it is an important topic.

The rest of your post is a repeat of already refuted arguments.


The above looks like a typical politics quote in my eyes.
rOZZ
Music
Pictures
ID: 1640648 · Report as offensive
Profile Raistmer
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 01
Posts: 6325
Credit: 106,370,077
RAC: 121
Russia
Message 1640650 - Posted: 12 Feb 2015, 12:31:29 UTC - in response to Message 1640648.  


I wasn't insulting you Raistmer, not anyone in particular. I just get really nervous, reading this thread. I would like to find some 'clean' information here because after all, this is the news section and it is an important topic.


Well, this topic (I mean METI topic, not thread) is not quite "precise" in any terms accepted in so called precise science (like physics). Too much should be guessed anyway cause too little we really know. Hence more opinions than solid facts. But some logical conclusions based on common assumption of possible ETI behavior and already known nature laws still possible. And some of them expressed here. No need to be nervous IMHO, have a good day. Just diametrally different views on topic. And thanks god this statement can not ban (and sadly can't promote too :) ) any new METI search anyway.
ID: 1640650 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1640651 - Posted: 12 Feb 2015, 12:32:26 UTC - in response to Message 1640577.  
Last modified: 12 Feb 2015, 12:40:48 UTC

My opinion is not based on feelings, but on the reasoning that: (1) scientists specialized in a topic (any topic) have more knowledge than a layman (they know the literature, they know the physics, they worked a long time on the problems, etc.)


...and quite possibly have fallen into groupthink. Evenso, while I fully respect the sciences and the scientific work accomplished by those dedicated individuals, by no means they should have the only say. Certainly they may be more informed than a laymen, the decision to engage in METI shouldn't rest on the shoulders of so few.

and (2) after half a century of scientific debate, there is not much to add.


The topic truly is more important than specialists and scientists. It is a decision that effects the whole of the human race.

There is no fallacy here, only your assumptions. You assume they are nearby us enough to detect our noise. You assume they are even listening in our direction. You assume there is even other life out there.


These aren't assumptions. I already gave the reasons. They can use spectroscopy to study our atmosphere and detect us. They can use gravitational lensing and see us. Etc.


Again, assuming they're even looking in our direction.

It would be nice if you discuss my arguments instead of continuously saying that it's only my opinion or my feeling or my assumptions.


It would be nice if you would acknowledge that many assumptions on your part have to fall into place before what say can be true. If it helps, I have made many assumptions on my part as well, but primarily in an attempt to indicate to you that we just don't know much of anything, but to throw caution to the wind simply because pro-METI enthusiasts don't seem to care about the possible consequences, or downplay them, is alarming at best.

Again, assuming they are even nearby, or listening in our direction.


If they aren't listening in our direction, they can't detect our METI either. I said it but again you refuse to argue about it: "they will not find our messages by chance".


And if they are listening in our direction but unable to distinguish our local noise from the rest of sapce? Keep in mind we do not know what level of advancement we are talking about here.

Except that my percentage A) wasn't a statistic and B) wasn't made up. I gave my examples of possible scenarios to indicate to you that there is more than just "If we think it is unwise, they will think it is unwise and we'll have a Great Silence".


My sentence was only an analogy, using an often cited kind of sentence.


I'm familiar with the phrase you used about made up statistics, however, it is not an analogy that you used.

If you want a literal one, here it's: your probabilities are made up, you assign equal probabilities to all cases without any reasoning to support your assignment.


Correct, I assigned equal probabilities to each, if only to illustrate on a simple level that there is more than just your claim that "if we think it is unwise to engage in METI, ETI will think the same, and the Great Silence will follow". My simple probability approach was only to illustrate that there are more possible outcomes to the proposed scenario than you wish to acknowledge. But it seems like rather than acknowledging when you may have made incorrect assumptions, or may engage in simplistic reasoning yourself, you simply fall back to:

The rest of your post is a repeat of already refuted arguments.


Coincidentally, I feel the same about your posts.

As a last note, it seems unwise to me that S@H project leaders make statements like this one, that can make some chrunchers leave the project, and that will not contribute anything to S@H progress. Regardless of the signataries being wrong or right, this is a bad strategy for S@H.


Many people said the same thing when the project announced it's support for Net Neutrality, yet the project felt it was important enough to make an announcement on.

It will only be bad for the project on people who feel so strongly in favor of METI that they cannot be reasoned with to see the other side of the equation.
ID: 1640651 · Report as offensive
Profile Raistmer
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 01
Posts: 6325
Credit: 106,370,077
RAC: 121
Russia
Message 1640654 - Posted: 12 Feb 2015, 12:40:06 UTC - in response to Message 1640651.  


Again, assuming they're even looking in our direction.

Either they looking and can spot METI (but then they can spot w/o any METI), or they don't looking then they will not spot it anyway. Or one should imagine that they look with half-opened eyes? ;)

IMO laws of nature based on natural selection created strong enough barrier for any malificent beings (humans including). To rise to interstellar level whole-planet forces cooperation required. W/o such cooperation interstellar endeavors hardly possible. Hence, either malificent barbarians like humans, or advanced civilazation that overcomed "conquer or be conquered" style of thinking...
ID: 1640654 · Report as offensive
Profile Raistmer
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 01
Posts: 6325
Credit: 106,370,077
RAC: 121
Russia
Message 1640656 - Posted: 12 Feb 2015, 12:47:47 UTC - in response to Message 1640651.  
Last modified: 12 Feb 2015, 12:49:37 UTC


And if they are listening in our direction but unable to distinguish our local noise from the rest of sapce? Keep in mind we do not know what level of advancement we are talking about here.

Cause some "negative consequences" are mentioned we definitely look at quite advanced level that technically could do any harm to us. Or this objections to METI are void at all. Hence, we looking at really advanced level, much more advanced than our own civilization. And way to measure that advance only in terms how much terawatt laser they can shot to us... well, I say polite "is not right" :) There are some quantity becoming quality laws in nature exist. Some power level just impossible w/o cooperation.
ID: 1640656 · Report as offensive
Profile Raistmer
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 01
Posts: 6325
Credit: 106,370,077
RAC: 121
Russia
Message 1640657 - Posted: 12 Feb 2015, 12:52:36 UTC - in response to Message 1640651.  

It will only be bad for the project on people who feel so strongly in favor of METI that they cannot be reasoned with to see the other side of the equation.

What another concerns not mentioned in statement itself and analysed in posts above the other side of equation consists of? One need to know in what exactly one needs to be reasoned.
ID: 1640657 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1640658 - Posted: 12 Feb 2015, 12:53:24 UTC - in response to Message 1640654.  

IMO laws of nature based on natural selection created strong enough barrier for any malificent beings (humans including). To rise to interstellar level whole-planet forces cooperation required. W/o such cooperation interstellar endeavors hardly possible. Hence, either malificent barbarians like humans, or advanced civilazation that overcomed "conquer or be conquered" style of thinking...


I don't think you should so immediately discount the possibility of a entire race of conquering beings whom have been able to cooperate with each other because they've eliminated all dissension internally. The idea that the only possible outcome of advanced evolution and technology comes a benevolent race of beings just seems very fanciful to me. It is, of course, possible, but we do not yet know it to be true. I'd rather listen and learn first.
ID: 1640658 · Report as offensive
Profile Raistmer
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 01
Posts: 6325
Credit: 106,370,077
RAC: 121
Russia
Message 1640664 - Posted: 12 Feb 2015, 13:10:20 UTC - in response to Message 1640658.  
Last modified: 12 Feb 2015, 13:11:55 UTC


I don't think you should so immediately discount the possibility of a entire race of conquering beings whom have been able to cooperate with each other because they've eliminated all dissension internally.

To such style of thinking (I mean "conquer or be conquered" one) some different groups in more or less direct contact required IMO. If "they've eliminated all dissension internally" then what would support this style? Just image of possible foe among the stars? Too little to survive for thinking style. Signal pickup could be quite rare event. All other time such race should keep agression inside.... That would lead either to agression dissipation as whole or conflicts inside such civilization itself (on 1-2 generations time scale) while cooperation should last few generations to be productive.
Well, it's all about probabilities of course, but there is some probability that humans encounter some situation on Earth that they could overcome being already in contact with ETI and will not be able to overcome by themselves. Then, not to make contact means death for humans. What probability is bigger...
ID: 1640664 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1640684 - Posted: 12 Feb 2015, 14:20:15 UTC - in response to Message 1640664.  
Last modified: 12 Feb 2015, 14:22:53 UTC

If "they've eliminated all dissension internally" then what would support this style? Just image of possible foe among the stars?


Imagine a small population of planets in a nearby galaxy (or even a distant galaxy). Imagine one race believes themselves to be superior to the rest, and decide they know best. They then use manipulative and/or militaristic tactics to dominate all the others. It doesn't matter to them how they go about it, so long as their interests come out on top. What would support this style? Choose any human trait that supports this style and you'll have your answer.

Then, not to make contact means death for humans. What probability is bigger...


You of course assume that alien life exists at all. There is still a possibility that we truly are unique and there is no other intelligent life. Will not making contact still mean death for humans? Or will we be required to change our lifestyles, our thinking, and our approach to consuming resources of our planet?
ID: 1640684 · Report as offensive
Profile Raistmer
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 01
Posts: 6325
Credit: 106,370,077
RAC: 121
Russia
Message 1640690 - Posted: 12 Feb 2015, 14:51:27 UTC - in response to Message 1640684.  
Last modified: 12 Feb 2015, 15:06:59 UTC

1)
If "they've eliminated all dissension internally" then what would support this style? Just image of possible foe among the stars?


Imagine a small population of planets in a nearby galaxy (or even a distant galaxy). Imagine one race believes themselves to be superior to the rest, and decide they know best. They then use manipulative and/or militaristic tactics to dominate all the others. It doesn't matter to them how they go about it, so long as their interests come out on top. What would support this style? Choose any human trait that supports this style and you'll have your answer.

Humans prove my point more, I think. Because of inability to evolve there is no adequate advancements in interstellar abilities.
Your mechanistical transformation of current human's situation with many countries to many planets (just as most if not all science fiction authors do) is incorrect. Hardly we can do planetary invasion in own solar system with current way of development in viewable future. But you assume interplanetary interaction. So, few different inhabitable planets in the same solar system? Probability is small, indeed. And if not in the same system then again interstellar barrier applies.

2)

Then, not to make contact means death for humans. What probability is bigger...


You of course assume that alien life exists at all. There is still a possibility that we truly are unique and there is no other intelligent life. Will not making contact still mean death for humans? Or will we be required to change our lifestyles, our thinking, and our approach to consuming resources of our planet?

[/quote]

Well, of course I assume this. But IMO this is common assumption between pro-METI and against-METI, not? W/o this assumption what we speak about at all? So, yep, assumption. And yep, irrelevant.
EDIT: and to answer your question w/o connection to METI issue. Yes to both. There can be situations where humans die alone w/o being able to make contact. And there are situations when peoples could solve by ourselves. But I mention this because between many situations such one (to die alone) exists. So, to decide to be pro-METI or against METI one should think about possibilities of to die because of making contact and possibilities to die because of not making contact. One should clearly understand that to not make contact means death in some possible scenario too. This not eliminate possibility to be well in many other possible scenarios...
EDIT2: so, it's not as simple as "lets keep silence and we definitely will be OK". It's more complex with possible bad scenarios in both choices (at least those who against METI insists that contact can have bad scenarions too , pro-METI don't think so. So, saying "in both choices" I reasonable account for against-METI position though don't share it).
ID: 1640690 · Report as offensive
Profile MOMMY: He is MAKING ME Read His Posts Thoughts and Prayers. GOoD Thoughts and GOoD Prayers. HATERWORLD Vs THOUGHTs and PRAYERs World. It Is a BATTLE ROYALE. Nobody LOVEs Me. Everybody HATEs Me. Why Don't I Go Eat Worms. Tasty Treats are Wormy Meat. Yes
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 02
Posts: 6895
Credit: 6,588,977
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1640707 - Posted: 12 Feb 2015, 15:34:30 UTC

Now that you mention free speech, I do not want this topic to be trashed by people who feel 'important' and feel 'they have something to say' whilst they have sh*t to say.


So, I Feel Like Shat, Look like Shat, have Shat for Experience/Education, Shat for 'Something to Say', and have Shat for Brains, and What I Say 'is' Important?

Man O Live.

ETI, Come To Me First, ifn Youse Wants Da Skinny.

Or Vape Us.

I Don't Give A Shat.

Yep.

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!
ID: 1640707 · Report as offensive
yo2013
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Mar 14
Posts: 173
Credit: 50,837
RAC: 0
Spain
Message 1640708 - Posted: 12 Feb 2015, 15:38:22 UTC - in response to Message 1640648.  


The rest of your post is a repeat of already refuted arguments.


The above looks like a typical politics quote in my eyes.


I don't see anything political in that sentence.
ID: 1640708 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1640709 - Posted: 12 Feb 2015, 15:42:15 UTC - in response to Message 1640690.  
Last modified: 12 Feb 2015, 15:42:44 UTC

Humans prove my point more, I think. Because of inability to evolve there is no adequate advancements in interstellar abilities.
Your mechanistical transformation of current human's situation with many countries to many planets (just as most if not all science fiction authors do) is incorrect.


Again, I'm not so sure why this is so easy to dismiss. Of course it isn't "incorrect" any more than your assertion is "incorrect". We do not know anything about ETI, all we have are our assumptions of what we think they will be like. While I respect that you disagree with what I am saying, most certainly you don't posses empirical knowledge to waive it off as incorrect.

2)

Then, not to make contact means death for humans. What probability is bigger...


You of course assume that alien life exists at all. There is still a possibility that we truly are unique and there is no other intelligent life. Will not making contact still mean death for humans? Or will we be required to change our lifestyles, our thinking, and our approach to consuming resources of our planet?



Well, of course I assume this. But IMO this is common assumption between pro-METI and against-METI, not? W/o this assumption what we speak about at all? So, yep, assumption. And yep, irrelevant.


But then you miss my point. I am merely trying to take all probabilities into account. Since we have no representative sampling of ETI life outside of our own, some of the statements being made by yourself and others just seem to disregard any possible negative outcome. I'd be more relieved to hear that my concerns are shared and not dismissed out of hand. Any attempt to invalidate what I think are perfectly reasonable possibilities contrary to pro-METI are only going to come across as short-sighted and somewhat arrogant. If the pro-METI crowd wants to convince the world that this is a necessary step for us all to take, the best approach is diplomacy, empathy, and dialog. Not hand-waiving.

EDIT2: so, it's not as simple as "lets keep silence and we definitely will be OK". It's more complex with possible bad scenarios in both choices (at least those who against METI insists that contact can have bad scenarions too , pro-METI don't think so. So, saying "in both choices" I reasonable account for against-METI position though don't share it).


My position isn't that if we keep silent we will be OK. My position is to listen and learn. Observe and learn. When we've built up enough confidence to feel we can reasonably say we're ready, as a whole race, then that will be the right time, IMO.

This is the way intelligent scientists operate, after all.
ID: 1640709 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1640712 - Posted: 12 Feb 2015, 15:46:20 UTC - in response to Message 1640646.  
Last modified: 12 Feb 2015, 15:47:30 UTC


Now that you mention free speech, I do not want this topic to be trashed by people who feel 'important' and feel 'they have something to say' whilst they have sh*t to say.


Even if it (though it was direct citation of my post) not aimed to me I red-crossed this insult. All participants of this discussion expressed his views on topic, such insults, especially from mod, are completely intorelable on any thread, especially in news.


Being that I was singled out by said Mod, I kinda feel that she is implicating me in that sentence. Is this how I am viewed by this Mod? As someone who "feels important" and "feels like I have something to say" while I "don't have anything to say at all"? Because that is quite offensive if true.
ID: 1640712 · Report as offensive
yo2013
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Mar 14
Posts: 173
Credit: 50,837
RAC: 0
Spain
Message 1640714 - Posted: 12 Feb 2015, 15:50:03 UTC - in response to Message 1640708.  
Last modified: 12 Feb 2015, 15:58:03 UTC


...and quite possibly have fallen into groupthink. Evenso, while I fully respect the sciences and the scientific work accomplished by those dedicated individuals, by no means they should have the only say. Certainly they may be more informed than a laymen, the decision to engage in METI shouldn't rest on the shoulders of so few.


More people don't make a decision more intelligent, particularly when almost all the people added are layman on that field.


The topic truly is more important than specialists and scientists. It is a decision that effects the whole of the human race.


No, it doesn't. Since we can't hide, METI doesn't increase the risk. And, again, more people aren't better evaluating risk that less people, if that more people are mostly ignorant of the field.


Again, assuming they're even looking in our direction.


Again, METI also needs that they are looking in our direction. I'm getting bored of refuting the already refuted arguments.


It would be nice if you would acknowledge that many assumptions on your part have to fall into place before what say can be true.


Ok, I got bored. I'll stop here.
ID: 1640714 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1640726 - Posted: 12 Feb 2015, 16:02:32 UTC - in response to Message 1640714.  

...and quite possibly have fallen into groupthink. Evenso, while I fully respect the sciences and the scientific work accomplished by those dedicated individuals, by no means they should have the only say. Certainly they may be more informed than a laymen, the decision to engage in METI shouldn't rest on the shoulders of so few.


More people don't make a decision more intelligent, particularly when almost all the people added are layman on that field.


I think we may have found our first point we can agree on. While more people may not make a decision more intelligent, I still think contact with ETI would be perhaps the most profound thing to happen to our race, and as such, no matter how unintelligent or uninformed the layman is, I think they should still have a voice in the matter.

The topic truly is more important than specialists and scientists. It is a decision that effects the whole of the human race.


No, it doesn't. Since we can't hide, METI doesn't increase the risk. And, again, more people aren't better evaluating risk that less people, if that more people are mostly ignorant of the field.


Of course it increases the risk. Any proactive attempt to reach out to ETI has to have a non-zero impact on risk assessment.

Again, assuming they're even looking in our direction.


Again, METI also needs that they are looking in our direction. I'm getting bored of refuting the already refuted arguments.


As am I. As am I.

It would be nice if you would acknowledge that many assumptions on your part have to fall into place before what say can be true.


Ok, I got bored. I'll stop here.


I was bored several posts ago, but I wasn't about to let your challenges go unanswered.
ID: 1640726 · Report as offensive
yo2013
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Mar 14
Posts: 173
Credit: 50,837
RAC: 0
Spain
Message 1640728 - Posted: 12 Feb 2015, 16:05:27 UTC - in response to Message 1640646.  


Now that you mention free speech, I do not want this topic to be trashed by people who feel 'important' and feel 'they have something to say' whilst they have sh*t to say.


Even if it (though it was direct citation of my post) not aimed to me I red-crossed this insult. All participants of this discussion expressed his views on topic, such insults, especially from mod, are completely intorelable on any thread, especially in news.


Totally agree.
ID: 1640728 · Report as offensive
Profile Julie
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 34054
Credit: 18,883,157
RAC: 18
Belgium
Message 1640750 - Posted: 12 Feb 2015, 16:48:49 UTC - in response to Message 1640708.  


The rest of your post is a repeat of already refuted arguments.


The above looks like a typical politics quote in my eyes.


I don't see anything political in that sentence.


It's a typical sentence, used in a debate.
rOZZ
Music
Pictures
ID: 1640750 · Report as offensive
Profile Raistmer
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 01
Posts: 6325
Credit: 106,370,077
RAC: 121
Russia
Message 1640760 - Posted: 12 Feb 2015, 16:58:53 UTC - in response to Message 1640726.  

...and quite possibly have fallen into groupthink. Evenso, while I fully respect the sciences and the scientific work accomplished by those dedicated individuals, by no means they should have the only say. Certainly they may be more informed than a laymen, the decision to engage in METI shouldn't rest on the shoulders of so few.


More people don't make a decision more intelligent, particularly when almost all the people added are layman on that field.


I think we may have found our first point we can agree on. While more people may not make a decision more intelligent, I still think contact with ETI would be perhaps the most profound thing to happen to our race, and as such, no matter how unintelligent or uninformed the layman is, I think they should still have a voice in the matter.


Well, what is matter is what I would call educated decision.
Trying to give some example:
Let say there is some patient that requires surgery. But, because this is very important patient decision was made to gather much broader consilium than usual, consilium that includes many different peoples to give them chance to participate (cause patient is important one). So, what one say: "I fear blood, so no, no surgery." What another said: "my religion disallows to cut peoples so no, no surgery"... as one can guess patient died in this story...
ID: 1640760 · Report as offensive
Profile Raistmer
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 01
Posts: 6325
Credit: 106,370,077
RAC: 121
Russia
Message 1640769 - Posted: 12 Feb 2015, 17:10:52 UTC - in response to Message 1640709.  
Last modified: 12 Feb 2015, 17:12:40 UTC

My position isn't that if we keep silent we will be OK. My position is to listen and learn. Observe and learn. When we've built up enough confidence to feel we can reasonably say we're ready, as a whole race, then that will be the right time, IMO.

This is the way intelligent scientists operate, after all.


But doing only such we will lose all knowledge from active SETI. So, your view inherently includes negative assesment of possible active contact. Here we differ.
I don't consider myself as specialist in the field to decide can or not can already given reasons be dismissed from both sides. So far I'm (personally) not convinced that danger is real enough. Will look for debates more.

And regarding "intelligent scientists" well I'm smiling reading it. Usual scientific approach is to deconstruct to pieces to see how it works. In all known areas. Physics, biology, geology... Standart procedure to explore metabolism and its regulation is inhibitor treatment that switches off some ways. Not to mention all those particle colliders... Yep, we also catch particles from space, but if we would ONLY catch those high-energy particles, w/o attempt to create own (passive observations versus active scientific search) I'm afraid there would be no Standard Model at all ...
ID: 1640769 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next

Message boards : News : Statement on Messaging Extraterrestrial Intelligence/Active SETI


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.