Are We Alone in the Universe?

[alang1216]

assuming an alien rice will be logical and compassionate is not logical it is idealistic

It is logical to me. Any world population that developed technology that would get them from their home planet to this one is most likely a population that has learned to live cooperatively, constructively, peacefully. Otherwise it would have destroyed themselves which is the ultimate fate of humankind if we fail to learn to do that given our continuous efforts to develop bigger and better technology that would make our extinction/obliteration possible.

No matter what they are, such an advanced society would have little use for our little ball of rock. There is nothing special about it, even within our own solar system, except us of course.

I don't think we can have any idea what another advanced civilization might want.

Probably true. Unless there is a cohesiveness throughout the universe and beings out there aren't all that different from us--they want food, shelter, purpose, love, happiness. . .

It could be. We have so little information to go on, only what we see on Earth. Maybe there is life throughout the universe, and it's pretty similar to ours. Maybe we are an anomaly, and life almost never occurs. Maybe there is plenty of life, but of a form or with drives that are completely alien to us. So many possibilities, and maybe so many no one has even considered. It makes for a lot of good science fiction, at least!

We may never know for sure but on Earth there is such a thing as convergent evolution, where very different beings, subjected to the same environmental pressures, develop similar forms, e.g., whales and sharks look similar because they both live in water. Aliens may have evolved in an environment similar to ours and therefore they may well, if not look like us, at least act like us. Maybe.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is logical to me. Any world population that developed technology that would get them from their home planet to this one is most likely a population that has learned to live cooperatively, constructively, peacefully. Otherwise it would have destroyed themselves which is the ultimate fate of humankind if we fail to learn to do that given our continuous efforts to develop bigger and better technology that would make our extinction/obliteration possible.

No matter what they are, such an advanced society would have little use for our little ball of rock. There is nothing special about it, even within our own solar system, except us of course.

I don't think we can have any idea what another advanced civilization might want.

Probably true. Unless there is a cohesiveness throughout the universe and beings out there aren't all that different from us--they want food, shelter, purpose, love, happiness. . .

It could be. We have so little information to go on, only what we see on Earth. Maybe there is life throughout the universe, and it's pretty similar to ours. Maybe we are an anomaly, and life almost never occurs. Maybe there is plenty of life, but of a form or with drives that are completely alien to us. So many possibilities, and maybe so many no one has even considered. It makes for a lot of good science fiction, at least!

We may never know for sure but on Earth there is such a thing as convergent evolution, where very different beings, subjected to the same environmental pressures, develop similar forms, e.g., whales and sharks look similar because they both live in water. Aliens may have evolved in an environment similar to ours and therefore they may well, if not look like us, at least act like us. Maybe.

I don't really expect sentient beings from another planet to necessarily look like us. While there are so many humans who have lived and are living on Earth who are honest, caring, gentle, respectful, responsible people, as far as visiting extraterrestrials acting like us? I hope hope hope they have overall learned to do better.

My instincts tell me they most likely have though, or I think with their vastly advanced technology they likely would have destroyed themselves.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Wow, that was some ramble. Do you feel better?

When you try to have a dialogue with someone, and they ignore every point you make, and their final whimpering argument is "what about opposable thumbs" I think it's time to just throw the hammer down on them. That's why I told the poster he had no point, because he wasn't having a discussion, he was engaging in deflection.

Maybe the next election The Democrats should try to run an Evolutionist Possum as President. Not only do they have opposable thumbs, but they have a prehensile tail too. And when they play dead, they sure as Hell would look a lot more alive than Hillary Clinton.

Opposable Thumbs – Uniquely Human? Not hardly.

"Other animals with opposable thumbs include gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and other variants of apes; certain frogs, koalas, pandas, possums and opossums, and many birds have an opposable digit of some sort. Many dinosaurs had opposable digits as well."

"Told the poster he had no point"....do you understand you have only been talking with one poster here?

I have not ignored every point you have made. I have, in fact, specifically responded to multiple points you have made.

You went on to start having arguments with straw men, such as that I denied the uniqueness of man (I did not, and in fact mentioned that man has unique characteristics), or that I cannot agree with my mantra of law of the jungle and survival of the fittest (that is my mantra?). You also threw out some random stuff about not having commandments if humans are a type of animal, and how I should tell whales to evolve to throw harpoons back at man.

If you are trying to have a dialogue, you might want to cut back on the random nonsense.

Good job trying to make evolution about US political parties, by the way!

And to try to direct this back toward the original intent of the thread, do you think that it is possible another intelligent, technological life might exist in the universe?

The original intent of what I posted, was that Man is Unique, and there is more evidence that he was Created rather than was evolved. If that is true then there are two legitimate reasons for why we are not having regular contact with other Sentient Beings.

Meanwhile back on Earth....

Other species have had the chance to evolve, and The Theory of Evolution more or less states that Genetic Dominance is the goal.....it's the whole point....so anyone who wants to simply make logical deductions, need to ask themselves, why the rest of the participants in the Genetic Pool on Earth are Pathetic Losers.

If there is advanced life on other habitable planets they would have made contact by now, if Evolution is the primary driver of life on a planet.

Billions of years is more than enough time for this to happen.

Opposable thumbs or not.

What makes the rest of life on Earth "Pathetic Losers"? There is no "goal" of evolution, it is a description of the changes that happen in life forms over time. If you were to ascribe a goal to evolution, I think it would be to survive and procreate.

If there is advanced life on other planets, why would they have made contact by now? And what does it have to do with evolution? Are you aware that the universe encompasses a vast, vast area? The closest star to our solar system, Proxima Centauri, is over 4 light years away. That means it takes light more than 4 years to get from here to that star. Humanity cannot get anywhere close to the speed of light, and it may even be that matter simply cannot travel that fast. Considering the incredibly vast distances involved and the possible limitations on travel speed, why do you believe that another intelligent life form would have to have made contact with humanity by now?

You were doing great until you got to our ability to achieve the speed of light.

A few months ago we treated some out of town friends to a movie "Space" at the Dynamax Theater at our local Science and Natural History museum. It was a highly instructive teaching of all the newest things we have discovered about space and the relationship of all that we know is in it to Planet Earth. (It was also in 3D which was a real treat for Hombre as he had never seen a 3D movie.)

As you know, I have had a long fascination with possibilities in space travel and have longed for technology that would allow travel at multiple warp speeds such as was envisioned in the "Star Trek" series or the "Star Wars" trilogy while fully realizing this is just wonderful fictitious imagination. Until now.

In the movie they showed a concept of how humankind, with the right kind of technology and machine, could achieve warp speed (speed of light) and beyond. It is entirely possible and plausible. We haven't figured out how to make it happen yet, but it is now obvious that it is on the scientific drawing board as a goal to accomplish.

So, assuming that we Earthlings are probably in technological infancy compared to at least some other civilizations in the universe, and given the large number of unexplained sightings and encounters of UFOs, I think it highly likely that one or more of those civilizations has probably been here. I also think they have also evolved to the point that they intend us no harm because with their superior technology, they certainly could have harmed us.

The Quickest Way From A to B Is ACB

In the unrecognized Fourth Spatial Dimension, the maximum speed is c squared, or a light year in 3 minutes. Light is slowed down in 3D because of the drag by space itself, which is a substance.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I think humans are designed for space as much as any other species.

Maybe but that bar is pretty low. No, our AI will explore and colonize the galaxy, not us. We spent enormous sums to put men on the moon for a few days at a time. For a small fraction of that we've had a pair of rovers on Mars for years. In a few years there won't be anything we can do that our AI can't do faster, safer, and cheaper. Face it, humans are obsolete.

I think some combination may be the most likely scenario, if the technology becomes possible: unmanned ships sent out to do original explorations, followed by human crews to places of particular interest or where some sort of colonization/terraforming seems possible.

Population issues may end up pushing space exploration and human interstellar travel in the future.

That is my vision. Obviously Planet Earth cannot sustain an unlimited population of anything let alone resource gobbling humans. So as we humans learn to live in peace and to value and preserve life, the concept of finding new worlds to explore and populate is very appealing. And I would like to think possible.

NA$A

For millennia, Earth's human population has expanded without running into permanent limits; there's no reason it can't continue that way. For example, if Alaska had the population density of New Jersey, where the people are not packed together like sardines, Alaska would hold 700 million people. The only thing preventing that is advancement in cold-weather technology, which we should put our money in instead of childish Trekkie escapism.

 

[Montrovant]

I think humans are designed for space as much as any other species.

Maybe but that bar is pretty low. No, our AI will explore and colonize the galaxy, not us. We spent enormous sums to put men on the moon for a few days at a time. For a small fraction of that we've had a pair of rovers on Mars for years. In a few years there won't be anything we can do that our AI can't do faster, safer, and cheaper. Face it, humans are obsolete.

I think some combination may be the most likely scenario, if the technology becomes possible: unmanned ships sent out to do original explorations, followed by human crews to places of particular interest or where some sort of colonization/terraforming seems possible.

Population issues may end up pushing space exploration and human interstellar travel in the future.

That is my vision. Obviously Planet Earth cannot sustain an unlimited population of anything let alone resource gobbling humans. So as we humans learn to live in peace and to value and preserve life, the concept of finding new worlds to explore and populate is very appealing. And I would like to think possible.

NA$A

For millennia, Earth's human population has expanded without running into permanent limits; there's no reason it can't continue that way. For example, if Alaska had the population density of New Jersey, where the people are not packed together like sardines, Alaska would hold 700 million people. The only thing preventing that is advancement in cold-weather technology, which we should put our money in instead of childish Trekkie escapism.

Limited resources are a bigger issue in population growth than anything like cold weather technology.

 

[alang1216]

It is our ability to exploit energy resources that limits us. From burning wood to nuclear power, our ability has grown exponentially. I see no reason this won't continue and make us all the richer.

 

[The Original Tree]

The biggest Obstacle is actually Death and Time.

This is why when The End of Days has come, (literally the abolishment of time) and God restores The Earth and Universe, Vanquishing Death & Evil and we then return to The Eternal, that I say The Universe was made for us to Explore and Colonize.

I think this was always meant for us, but we can’t accomplish that until the restrictions of Death and Time are overcome.

Imagine Eternal Man and where we would be today had we not broken The Edenic Covenant....so long ago.

FYI:

Science fiction writers and moviemakers have shown us countless visions of humanity spread out across the Universe, so you might be forgiven for thinking that we’ve already got this in the bag. Unfortunately, we still have more than a few technical limitations to overcome – like the laws of physics as we understand them – before we can start colonising new worlds beyond our Solar System and galaxy.

That said, several privately funded or volunteer initiatives such as the Tau Zero Foundation, Project Icarus and Breakthrough Starshot have emerged in recent years, each hoping to bring us a little bit closer to reaching across the cosmos. The discovery in August (2016) of an Earth-sized planet orbiting our nearest star has also raised fresh hopes about visiting an alien world.

Interstellar spacecraft will be one of the topics discussed at BBC Future’s World-Changing Ideas Summit in Sydney in November. Is travelling to other galaxies possible? And if so, what kinds of spacecraft might we need to achieve it? Read on to get up to (warp) speed:

WHERE WOULD WE GO?

Where wouldn’t we go? There are more stars in the Universe than there are grains of sand on Earth – around 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 – and billions of these are estimated to have one to three planets in the so-called ‘Goldilocks’ zone: not too hot, not too cold.

Proxima b is in the right temperature range for liquid water, which is a useful proxy for habitability

As we’re just starting out, the best contender so far is our nearest stellar neighbour – the triple star system of Alpha Centauri, 4.37 light-years away. This year, astronomers at the European Southern Observatory discovered an Earth-sized planet orbiting Alpha Centauri’s red dwarf star Proxima Centauri. The planet, named Proxima b, is at least 1.3 times the mass of the Earth but has a very tight orbit around Proxima Centauri, taking just 11 Earth days to complete the trip. What has astronomers and exoplanet hunters especially hot under the collar is that this planet is in the right temperature range for liquid water, which is a useful proxy for habitability.

The downside is we don’t know if it has an atmosphere, and given its closeness to Proxima Centauri – closer than the orbit of Mercury around our Sun – it would likely be exposed to dangerous solar flares and radiation. It is also tidally-locked, which means the planet always presents the same face to its star; something that would completely alter our notions of night and day.

HOW WOULD WE GET THERE?

That’s the $64 trillion question. Even at the fastest speeds of our current technology, a quick jaunt to check out Proxima b would see us arriving in around 18,000 years, by which time there’s every chance our Earth-bound descendants would have arrived there well ahead of us and grabbed all the glory. But many smart minds – and deep pockets – are being turned to the challenge of finding a faster way to cross vast distances of space.

Breakthrough Starshot – a $100 million initiative privately funded by Russian billionaires Yuri and Julia Milner – is focusing on propelling a tiny unmanned probe by hitting its extremely lightweight sail with a powerful Earth-based laser. The idea is that if the spacecraft is small enough – and we’re talking barely a gram – and the sail light enough, the impact of the laser will be enough to gradually accelerate the craft to around one-fifth of the speed of light, taking it to Alpha Centauri in around 20 years.

The Milners are counting on miniaturisation technologies to enable this tiny craft to carry a camera, thrusters, a power supply, communication and navigation equipment so it can report on what it sees as it flashes past Proxima b. Hopefully the news will be good, because that will lay the foundation for the next and more difficult stage of interstellar travel: people-moving.

WHAT ABOUT WARP DRIVE?

Star Trek made it all look so easy, but everything we currently know about the laws of physics tells us that faster-than-light travel – or even travel at the speed of light – is not possible. Not that science is throwing in the towel. Inspired by another propulsion system that has captured the imagine of science fiction creators, Nasa’s Evolutionary Xenon Thruster project is developing an ion engine which is hoped to accelerate a spacecraft to speeds up to 90,000mph (145,000km/h) using only a fraction of the fuel of a conventional rocket.

But even at those speeds, we won’t be getting far out of the Solar System within a single generation of spacefarers. Until we work out how to warp time and space, interstellar travel is going to be a very slow boat to the future. It might even be better to think of that travel period as the end itself, rather than a means to an end.

The myths and reality about interstellar travel


ME: Doesn't sound like interstellar travel is going to happen for quite some time. For us anyway. But that's not to say another older race of beings out there somewhere that had a head start on us for a few million years give or take may have figured out a way to create and use worm holes or warp drives (queue the ST music). My personal opinion is that as a species we need to develop ourselves in social, non-technical aspects before we start moving off the planet in numbers. I.E., stop the wars, clean up the place, and ca the BS. We still got some growing up to do, and it could be that one or more advanced species from out there somewhere are keeping an eye on us. Let's hope they ain't Klingons.

 

[Montrovant]

The biggest Obstacle is actually Death and Time.

This is why when The End of Days has come, (literally the abolishment of time) and God restores The Earth and Universe, Vanquishing Death & Evil and we then return to The Eternal, that I say The Universe was made for us to Explore and Colonize.

I think this was always meant for us, but we can’t accomplish that until the restrictions of Death and Time are overcome.

Imagine Eternal Man and where we would be today had we not broken The Edenic Covenant....so long ago.

FYI:

Science fiction writers and moviemakers have shown us countless visions of humanity spread out across the Universe, so you might be forgiven for thinking that we’ve already got this in the bag. Unfortunately, we still have more than a few technical limitations to overcome – like the laws of physics as we understand them – before we can start colonising new worlds beyond our Solar System and galaxy.

That said, several privately funded or volunteer initiatives such as the Tau Zero Foundation, Project Icarus and Breakthrough Starshot have emerged in recent years, each hoping to bring us a little bit closer to reaching across the cosmos. The discovery in August (2016) of an Earth-sized planet orbiting our nearest star has also raised fresh hopes about visiting an alien world.

Interstellar spacecraft will be one of the topics discussed at BBC Future’s World-Changing Ideas Summit in Sydney in November. Is travelling to other galaxies possible? And if so, what kinds of spacecraft might we need to achieve it? Read on to get up to (warp) speed:

WHERE WOULD WE GO?

Where wouldn’t we go? There are more stars in the Universe than there are grains of sand on Earth – around 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 – and billions of these are estimated to have one to three planets in the so-called ‘Goldilocks’ zone: not too hot, not too cold.

Proxima b is in the right temperature range for liquid water, which is a useful proxy for habitability

As we’re just starting out, the best contender so far is our nearest stellar neighbour – the triple star system of Alpha Centauri, 4.37 light-years away. This year, astronomers at the European Southern Observatory discovered an Earth-sized planet orbiting Alpha Centauri’s red dwarf star Proxima Centauri. The planet, named Proxima b, is at least 1.3 times the mass of the Earth but has a very tight orbit around Proxima Centauri, taking just 11 Earth days to complete the trip. What has astronomers and exoplanet hunters especially hot under the collar is that this planet is in the right temperature range for liquid water, which is a useful proxy for habitability.

The downside is we don’t know if it has an atmosphere, and given its closeness to Proxima Centauri – closer than the orbit of Mercury around our Sun – it would likely be exposed to dangerous solar flares and radiation. It is also tidally-locked, which means the planet always presents the same face to its star; something that would completely alter our notions of night and day.

HOW WOULD WE GET THERE?

That’s the $64 trillion question. Even at the fastest speeds of our current technology, a quick jaunt to check out Proxima b would see us arriving in around 18,000 years, by which time there’s every chance our Earth-bound descendants would have arrived there well ahead of us and grabbed all the glory. But many smart minds – and deep pockets – are being turned to the challenge of finding a faster way to cross vast distances of space.

Breakthrough Starshot – a $100 million initiative privately funded by Russian billionaires Yuri and Julia Milner – is focusing on propelling a tiny unmanned probe by hitting its extremely lightweight sail with a powerful Earth-based laser. The idea is that if the spacecraft is small enough – and we’re talking barely a gram – and the sail light enough, the impact of the laser will be enough to gradually accelerate the craft to around one-fifth of the speed of light, taking it to Alpha Centauri in around 20 years.

The Milners are counting on miniaturisation technologies to enable this tiny craft to carry a camera, thrusters, a power supply, communication and navigation equipment so it can report on what it sees as it flashes past Proxima b. Hopefully the news will be good, because that will lay the foundation for the next and more difficult stage of interstellar travel: people-moving.

WHAT ABOUT WARP DRIVE?

Star Trek made it all look so easy, but everything we currently know about the laws of physics tells us that faster-than-light travel – or even travel at the speed of light – is not possible. Not that science is throwing in the towel. Inspired by another propulsion system that has captured the imagine of science fiction creators, Nasa’s Evolutionary Xenon Thruster project is developing an ion engine which is hoped to accelerate a spacecraft to speeds up to 90,000mph (145,000km/h) using only a fraction of the fuel of a conventional rocket.

But even at those speeds, we won’t be getting far out of the Solar System within a single generation of spacefarers. Until we work out how to warp time and space, interstellar travel is going to be a very slow boat to the future. It might even be better to think of that travel period as the end itself, rather than a means to an end.

The myths and reality about interstellar travel


ME: Doesn't sound like interstellar travel is going to happen for quite some time. For us anyway. But that's not to say another older race of beings out there somewhere that had a head start on us for a few million years give or take may have figured out a way to create and use worm holes or warp drives (queue the ST music). My personal opinion is that as a species we need to develop ourselves in social, non-technical aspects before we start moving off the planet in numbers. I.E., stop the wars, clean up the place, and ca the BS. We still got some growing up to do, and it could be that one or more advanced species from out there somewhere are keeping an eye on us. Let's hope they ain't Klingons.

Can something be eternal if there is no time?

 

[Foxfyre]

I think humans are designed for space as much as any other species.

Maybe but that bar is pretty low. No, our AI will explore and colonize the galaxy, not us. We spent enormous sums to put men on the moon for a few days at a time. For a small fraction of that we've had a pair of rovers on Mars for years. In a few years there won't be anything we can do that our AI can't do faster, safer, and cheaper. Face it, humans are obsolete.

I think some combination may be the most likely scenario, if the technology becomes possible: unmanned ships sent out to do original explorations, followed by human crews to places of particular interest or where some sort of colonization/terraforming seems possible.

Population issues may end up pushing space exploration and human interstellar travel in the future.

That is my vision. Obviously Planet Earth cannot sustain an unlimited population of anything let alone resource gobbling humans. So as we humans learn to live in peace and to value and preserve life, the concept of finding new worlds to explore and populate is very appealing. And I would like to think possible.

NA$A

For millennia, Earth's human population has expanded without running into permanent limits; there's no reason it can't continue that way. For example, if Alaska had the population density of New Jersey, where the people are not packed together like sardines, Alaska would hold 700 million people. The only thing preventing that is advancement in cold-weather technology, which we should put our money in instead of childish Trekkie escapism.

Limited resources are a bigger issue in population growth than anything like cold weather technology.

That's for sure. All land area is not equal when it comes to its ability to sustain life. In Kentucky that has well watered pasture and plenty of it year round, the land can sustain about 1 cow per acre with no supplemental feeding. On the high desert of New Mexico, the ratio is generally about 12 cows per section or 1 cow for every 60 acres with no supplemental feeding. In the enormous desert area of ANWR in Alaska there are virtually no resources--little surface water, the land is not arable, little or no wildlife. Not a place anybody would want to live. There is probably some oil to be tapped there though.

But if we crowd several billion people into the most hospital places on Earth, all those places will soon be buildings and pavement and that will further deplete the resources we have. So, I am all in favor of us keeping working on technology for space travel and finding places to move to when we outgrow our wonderful planet. And considering how quickly we are developing technology now, I won't be at all surprised if that is possible within the next 100 years.

 

[task0778]

Maybe but that bar is pretty low. No, our AI will explore and colonize the galaxy, not us. We spent enormous sums to put men on the moon for a few days at a time. For a small fraction of that we've had a pair of rovers on Mars for years. In a few years there won't be anything we can do that our AI can't do faster, safer, and cheaper. Face it, humans are obsolete.

I think some combination may be the most likely scenario, if the technology becomes possible: unmanned ships sent out to do original explorations, followed by human crews to places of particular interest or where some sort of colonization/terraforming seems possible.

Population issues may end up pushing space exploration and human interstellar travel in the future.

That is my vision. Obviously Planet Earth cannot sustain an unlimited population of anything let alone resource gobbling humans. So as we humans learn to live in peace and to value and preserve life, the concept of finding new worlds to explore and populate is very appealing. And I would like to think possible.

NA$A

For millennia, Earth's human population has expanded without running into permanent limits; there's no reason it can't continue that way. For example, if Alaska had the population density of New Jersey, where the people are not packed together like sardines, Alaska would hold 700 million people. The only thing preventing that is advancement in cold-weather technology, which we should put our money in instead of childish Trekkie escapism.

Limited resources are a bigger issue in population growth than anything like cold weather technology.

That's for sure. All land area is not equal when it comes to its ability to sustain life. In Kentucky that has well watered pasture and plenty of it year round, the land can sustain about 1 cow per acre with no supplemental feeding. On the high desert of New Mexico, the ratio is generally about 12 cows per section or 1 cow for every 60 acres with no supplemental feeding. In the enormous desert area of ANWR in Alaska there are virtually no resources--little surface water, the land is not arable, little or no wildlife. Not a place anybody would want to live. There is probably some oil to be tapped there though.

But if we crowd several billion people into the most hospital places on Earth, all those places will soon be buildings and pavement and that will further deplete the resources we have. So, I am all in favor of us keeping working on technology for space travel and finding places to move to when we outgrow our wonderful planet. And considering how quickly we are developing technology now, I won't be at all surprised if that is possible within the next 100 years.

Terra forming, here on Earth. I think over the next 100 years we'll be making huge advances in using what is now not arable land into places where wildlife and even humans can exist. We'll develop edible plants that take in more CO2 and give off more oxygen, and find better ways to turn seawater into fresh, some of it potable. And at the same time we'll be finding faster and safer ways to travel in space too. No rush, we'll get there.

 

[Montrovant]

If we need to work on places for a growing population to live, off-planet might also be a possibility in the future. I don't mean colonizing other planets, I mean massive space stations. It would require some sort of artificial gravity, but it could end up being easier than attempts to terraform/colonize other worlds.

Of course, I don't think any of this is likely to happen in our lifetimes. Doing things like finding efficient ways to make seawater potable seem more likely in the short term.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't think we are alone but I'm in no hurry to meet a technologically superior race that will wipe us out in order to take control of our planet

I think it highly likely we have already met so technologically superior race that has had us under surveillance for some time now. I am pretty sure if their intent was to wipe us out and take control of our planet they would have already done so.

I like to think such an advanced species has already made most of its mistakes and has learned how to live together cooperative and constructively, i.e. is past its predatory stage. They probably would be watching to be sure we also learn that before our technology becomes advanced enough to be a threat to others.

That's a dangerous assumption,

Perhaps. But it is a highly logical one.

assuming an alien rice will be logical and compassionate is not logical it is idealistic

It is logical to me. Any world population that developed technology that would get them from their home planet to this one is most likely a population that has learned to live cooperatively, constructively, peacefully. Otherwise it would have destroyed themselves which is the ultimate fate of humankind if we fail to learn to do that given our continuous efforts to develop bigger and better technology that would make our extinction/obliteration possible.

Or they were forced to learn during warfare. Or they learned in cooperation because dominating others is their mission. Or the learned because they trashed their own planet and want another one.

You assume an alien species will have human qualities.

That assumption is dangerous.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think some combination may be the most likely scenario, if the technology becomes possible: unmanned ships sent out to do original explorations, followed by human crews to places of particular interest or where some sort of colonization/terraforming seems possible.

Population issues may end up pushing space exploration and human interstellar travel in the future.

That is my vision. Obviously Planet Earth cannot sustain an unlimited population of anything let alone resource gobbling humans. So as we humans learn to live in peace and to value and preserve life, the concept of finding new worlds to explore and populate is very appealing. And I would like to think possible.

NA$A

For millennia, Earth's human population has expanded without running into permanent limits; there's no reason it can't continue that way. For example, if Alaska had the population density of New Jersey, where the people are not packed together like sardines, Alaska would hold 700 million people. The only thing preventing that is advancement in cold-weather technology, which we should put our money in instead of childish Trekkie escapism.

Limited resources are a bigger issue in population growth than anything like cold weather technology.

That's for sure. All land area is not equal when it comes to its ability to sustain life. In Kentucky that has well watered pasture and plenty of it year round, the land can sustain about 1 cow per acre with no supplemental feeding. On the high desert of New Mexico, the ratio is generally about 12 cows per section or 1 cow for every 60 acres with no supplemental feeding. In the enormous desert area of ANWR in Alaska there are virtually no resources--little surface water, the land is not arable, little or no wildlife. Not a place anybody would want to live. There is probably some oil to be tapped there though.

But if we crowd several billion people into the most hospital places on Earth, all those places will soon be buildings and pavement and that will further deplete the resources we have. So, I am all in favor of us keeping working on technology for space travel and finding places to move to when we outgrow our wonderful planet. And considering how quickly we are developing technology now, I won't be at all surprised if that is possible within the next 100 years.

Terra forming, here on Earth. I think over the next 100 years we'll be making huge advances in using what is now not arable land into places where wildlife and even humans can exist. We'll develop edible plants that take in more CO2 and give off more oxygen, and find better ways to turn seawater into fresh, some of it potable. And at the same time we'll be finding faster and safer ways to travel in space too. No rush, we'll get there.

And I think you are right. :}

 

[Foxfyre]

I think it highly likely we have already met so technologically superior race that has had us under surveillance for some time now. I am pretty sure if their intent was to wipe us out and take control of our planet they would have already done so.

I like to think such an advanced species has already made most of its mistakes and has learned how to live together cooperative and constructively, i.e. is past its predatory stage. They probably would be watching to be sure we also learn that before our technology becomes advanced enough to be a threat to others.

That's a dangerous assumption,

Perhaps. But it is a highly logical one.

assuming an alien rice will be logical and compassionate is not logical it is idealistic

It is logical to me. Any world population that developed technology that would get them from their home planet to this one is most likely a population that has learned to live cooperatively, constructively, peacefully. Otherwise it would have destroyed themselves which is the ultimate fate of humankind if we fail to learn to do that given our continuous efforts to develop bigger and better technology that would make our extinction/obliteration possible.

Or they were forced to learn during warfare. Or they learned in cooperation because dominating others is their mission. Or the learned because they trashed their own planet and want another one.

You assume an alien species will have human qualities.

That assumption is dangerous.

I assume nothing other than if they wanted our planet, they would now have it; Or if they intended us harm they already would have harmed us.

 

[alang1216]

I think it highly likely we have already met so technologically superior race that has had us under surveillance for some time now. I am pretty sure if their intent was to wipe us out and take control of our planet they would have already done so.

I like to think such an advanced species has already made most of its mistakes and has learned how to live together cooperative and constructively, i.e. is past its predatory stage. They probably would be watching to be sure we also learn that before our technology becomes advanced enough to be a threat to others.

That's a dangerous assumption,

Perhaps. But it is a highly logical one.

assuming an alien rice will be logical and compassionate is not logical it is idealistic

It is logical to me. Any world population that developed technology that would get them from their home planet to this one is most likely a population that has learned to live cooperatively, constructively, peacefully. Otherwise it would have destroyed themselves which is the ultimate fate of humankind if we fail to learn to do that given our continuous efforts to develop bigger and better technology that would make our extinction/obliteration possible.

Or they were forced to learn during warfare. Or they learned in cooperation because dominating others is their mission. Or the learned because they trashed their own planet and want another one.

You assume an alien species will have human qualities.

That assumption is dangerous.

Yet some things are almost certainly universal, like math and logic and the laws of nature.

 

[Skull Pilot]

That's a dangerous assumption,

Perhaps. But it is a highly logical one.

assuming an alien rice will be logical and compassionate is not logical it is idealistic

It is logical to me. Any world population that developed technology that would get them from their home planet to this one is most likely a population that has learned to live cooperatively, constructively, peacefully. Otherwise it would have destroyed themselves which is the ultimate fate of humankind if we fail to learn to do that given our continuous efforts to develop bigger and better technology that would make our extinction/obliteration possible.

Or they were forced to learn during warfare. Or they learned in cooperation because dominating others is their mission. Or the learned because they trashed their own planet and want another one.

You assume an alien species will have human qualities.

That assumption is dangerous.

Yet some things are almost certainly universal, like math and logic and the laws of nature.

And those have nothing to do with behavior and motivation

 

[Foxfyre]

That's a dangerous assumption,

Perhaps. But it is a highly logical one.

assuming an alien rice will be logical and compassionate is not logical it is idealistic

It is logical to me. Any world population that developed technology that would get them from their home planet to this one is most likely a population that has learned to live cooperatively, constructively, peacefully. Otherwise it would have destroyed themselves which is the ultimate fate of humankind if we fail to learn to do that given our continuous efforts to develop bigger and better technology that would make our extinction/obliteration possible.

Or they were forced to learn during warfare. Or they learned in cooperation because dominating others is their mission. Or the learned because they trashed their own planet and want another one.

You assume an alien species will have human qualities.

That assumption is dangerous.

Yet some things are almost certainly universal, like math and logic and the laws of nature.

That does seem logical to us and I am sure there is something in all of us who want that to be so. But there is also that something in humankind that drives us beyond what we know and understand, to create, innovate, and know what is yet unknown. And throughout our recorded history, and no doubt before that, we are continually finding out that what we think we know, we didn't know.

Math has long been the means of universal communication utilized by the science fiction writers though, and I doubt any of us will be surprised if that is not the first means of communication with an extraterrestrial species.

 

[Foxfyre]

Perhaps. But it is a highly logical one.

assuming an alien rice will be logical and compassionate is not logical it is idealistic

It is logical to me. Any world population that developed technology that would get them from their home planet to this one is most likely a population that has learned to live cooperatively, constructively, peacefully. Otherwise it would have destroyed themselves which is the ultimate fate of humankind if we fail to learn to do that given our continuous efforts to develop bigger and better technology that would make our extinction/obliteration possible.

Or they were forced to learn during warfare. Or they learned in cooperation because dominating others is their mission. Or the learned because they trashed their own planet and want another one.

You assume an alien species will have human qualities.

That assumption is dangerous.

Yet some things are almost certainly universal, like math and logic and the laws of nature.

And those have nothing to do with behavior and motivation

I would emphatically argue that they do.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I think humans are designed for space as much as any other species.

Maybe but that bar is pretty low. No, our AI will explore and colonize the galaxy, not us. We spent enormous sums to put men on the moon for a few days at a time. For a small fraction of that we've had a pair of rovers on Mars for years. In a few years there won't be anything we can do that our AI can't do faster, safer, and cheaper. Face it, humans are obsolete.

I think some combination may be the most likely scenario, if the technology becomes possible: unmanned ships sent out to do original explorations, followed by human crews to places of particular interest or where some sort of colonization/terraforming seems possible.

Population issues may end up pushing space exploration and human interstellar travel in the future.

That is my vision. Obviously Planet Earth cannot sustain an unlimited population of anything let alone resource gobbling humans. So as we humans learn to live in peace and to value and preserve life, the concept of finding new worlds to explore and populate is very appealing. And I would like to think possible.

NA$A

For millennia, Earth's human population has expanded without running into permanent limits; there's no reason it can't continue that way. For example, if Alaska had the population density of New Jersey, where the people are not packed together like sardines, Alaska would hold 700 million people. The only thing preventing that is advancement in cold-weather technology, which we should put our money in instead of childish Trekkie escapism.

Limited resources are a bigger issue in population growth than anything like cold weather technology.

Postmodern Fatalism Is an Insult to Intelligence

All resources are products of the human mind. Otherwise, they lie idle and useless and are of no value. "Peak" anything is propaganda from those who want to limit terrestrial development so they can gouge us on prices. Wasting mental resources on outer-space spectacles is part of that diabolical design.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Maybe but that bar is pretty low. No, our AI will explore and colonize the galaxy, not us. We spent enormous sums to put men on the moon for a few days at a time. For a small fraction of that we've had a pair of rovers on Mars for years. In a few years there won't be anything we can do that our AI can't do faster, safer, and cheaper. Face it, humans are obsolete.

I think some combination may be the most likely scenario, if the technology becomes possible: unmanned ships sent out to do original explorations, followed by human crews to places of particular interest or where some sort of colonization/terraforming seems possible.

Population issues may end up pushing space exploration and human interstellar travel in the future.

That is my vision. Obviously Planet Earth cannot sustain an unlimited population of anything let alone resource gobbling humans. So as we humans learn to live in peace and to value and preserve life, the concept of finding new worlds to explore and populate is very appealing. And I would like to think possible.

NA$A

For millennia, Earth's human population has expanded without running into permanent limits; there's no reason it can't continue that way. For example, if Alaska had the population density of New Jersey, where the people are not packed together like sardines, Alaska would hold 700 million people. The only thing preventing that is advancement in cold-weather technology, which we should put our money in instead of childish Trekkie escapism.

Limited resources are a bigger issue in population growth than anything like cold weather technology.

That's for sure. All land area is not equal when it comes to its ability to sustain life. In Kentucky that has well watered pasture and plenty of it year round, the land can sustain about 1 cow per acre with no supplemental feeding. On the high desert of New Mexico, the ratio is generally about 12 cows per section or 1 cow for every 60 acres with no supplemental feeding. In the enormous desert area of ANWR in Alaska there are virtually no resources--little surface water, the land is not arable, little or no wildlife. Not a place anybody would want to live. There is probably some oil to be tapped there though.

But if we crowd several billion people into the most hospital places on Earth, all those places will soon be buildings and pavement and that will further deplete the resources we have. So, I am all in favor of us keeping working on technology for space travel and finding places to move to when we outgrow our wonderful planet. And considering how quickly we are developing technology now, I won't be at all surprised if that is possible within the next 100 years.

How many cows can live on Mars?