View Poll Results: Will aliens be hostile or friendly

Voters
80. You may not vote on this poll
  • Friendly

    42 52.50%
  • Hostile

    25 31.25%
  • We are alone

    13 16.25%
Page 10 of 30 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 296

Thread: Will aliens be friendly or hostile?

  1. #91
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Will aliens be friendly or hostile?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kali View Post
    Kandahar, if you ever see a flying U.F.O. Your whole thought process will change on this whole subject.
    That's what all the religions of the world tell me, but it's never happened.

    If I saw a UFO, I would assume it was just that: an unidentified flying object. I have no idea what kinds of aerial military technology our government has up its sleeve...but I would lean toward that conclusion long before the thought of little green men ever popped into my head.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  2. #92
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Will aliens be friendly or hostile?

    Quote Originally Posted by Onion Eater View Post
    Specifically, Earth had to be in a circular orbit around a star of the right type (Earth-like planets can only occur after a star has blown up and re-formed several times, with each cycle creating heavier and heavier elements.) in the habitable zone. We haven't found any planets that meet any of these conditions.
    And what percentage of the planets in the universe have we explored?

    Quote Originally Posted by Onion Eater
    Furthermore, we know from the example of Venus that planets our size accumulate an atmosphere so thick that they experience a runaway greenhouse effect.
    No, we know from the example of Venus that Venus accumulated an atmosphere so thick that it experienced a runaway greenhouse effect. Obviously that's *not* a given conclusion for all planets of that size, since Earth has no such runaway greenhouse effect despite being approximately the same size. Greenhouse effect has to do with the chemical composition of a planet's atmosphere, not the size of the planet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Onion Eater
    Also, we know from the example of Mars that planets smaller than ours do not have enough gravity to retain their atmosphere.
    While it's true that smaller planets don't tend to retain their atmosphere, Mars does indeed have one (as does Titan). It's not until you get down to the size of Mercury or the Moon that the gravity becomes so weak that it can't hold an atmosphere.

    Quote Originally Posted by Onion Eater
    So is there a correct size to steer between these two extremes? No. All planets are uninhabitable, either because they lack atmosphere or they have too much.
    How do you figure? It's oversimplifying things to state that the size of the planet controls the thickness of the atmosphere, but even if we used that theory, what's to stop us from finding a planet smaller than Venus but larger than Mars that fits your criteria for a "correct size"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Onion Eater
    But what about Earth, you ask? Well, we were on the way to being like Venus when we were hit by a Mars-size planetoid that blew off our excess atmosphere and created the moon. Without this chance occurrence, there would be no life on Earth.

    And quite a chance occurrence it was too! The planetoid struck us a glancing blow, circled completely around the sun and hit us again, this time squarely, sticking its core to ours, which is why Earth wobbles today. It is also why we have plate tectonics. Would it have worked had it hit us squarely the first time? No. Blowing the atmosphere off without shattering the planet cannot be done with a square initial blow. (Physicists have simulated various sized planetoids hitting Earth at various angles.) Lining up that shot is about as probable as my hitting you in the forehead with a deer rifle from a mile away.
    This is highly speculative. First of all, it's not entirely proven that a collision with another planetoid formed the moon at all (although I would say that that's the most likely theory). The rest of it is ENTIRELY unproven...there's certainly no consensus that we were hit by a planetoid, which then circled the sun and hit the earth again. It's EXTREMELY unlikely that any planetoid-sized object could survive a collision with the earth...even a glancing one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Onion Eater
    Is the universe a big enough place for this series of events to occur twice? Actually, the universe is not as big as one might think. The farthest parts of the universe are just hydrogen and a few of the lightest elements. Also, there are sources of x-rays around that basically smite whole galaxies and even neighboring galaxies with radiation that no life form could live in.
    There are hundreds of billions of galaxies. Even if 99.99% of them have X-rays, high radiation, or the improper mixture of elements, there would still be billions of galaxies...each with hundreds of billions of stars.

    And all of this assumes that some form of life cannot thrive on worlds with runaway greenhouse effects, thin atmospheres, X-rays, high radiation, or elements other than what we're accustomed to on earth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Onion Eater
    So, short answer: Not bloody likely, though not completely impossible either.
    I think it's highly likely that some form of life exists (or existed) on at least one other world within our own solar system. Mars once had atmospheric/surface conditions similar to Earth; conditions on Titan today are similar to what they were when life began on Earth.

    And if we find life there, then it's everywhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by Onion Eater
    But even then, given those extreme odds, what is the chance that large multi-celled creatures will evolve? It took a long time for multi-cellular life to arise on Earth and the chance of all life being wiped out during that time (large meteor, nearby super-nova, etc) is quite high.
    Complexity tends to increase over time. You're right, perhaps there are many worlds where very primitive life forms emerged...and then for one reason or another, they never really evolved into complex life forms. But the sheer number of worlds would indicate that some of them probably have more complex life forms.

    Quote Originally Posted by Onion Eater
    Without any examples (other than our own) of planets with life, it is hard to estimate these odds, but they are not good. If we find life on other planets, it is much more likely that it is going to be blue-green algae, not little green men.
    I think it's much more likely that it's neither of those things, but rather something that is entirely unfamiliar to us. Even your point about unicellular-vs-multicellular life would likely be moot...who says that life has to be based on cells at all?

    Quote Originally Posted by Onion Eater
    What is the chance of multi-cellular organisms developing intelligence? Nobody know why intelligence developed on Earth - the dinosaurs' history is millions of times longer than mammals' history and the dinosaurs never became intelligent - so it is pure speculation to guess the odds of other multi-cellular organisms being intelligent. But it seems unlikely. Intelligence is certainly not a guaranteed result of evolution. It is not even a likely result of evolution.
    Intelligence is one of many traits that makes survival more likely, just like sharper teeth or faster feet. Over time, it is likely that a planet with diverse life forms would harbor at least one species that acquires a high level of intelligence. Even on Earth, the intelligence of the dominant life forms has steadily been increasing over time (even before the existence of mammals).

    Quote Originally Posted by Onion Eater
    Okay, even making the huge logical leap that intelligent life exists elsewhere, what is the chance that they will come here? And bring enough ordinance to wipe out our planet like a nest of termites?

    Short answer: None. The distances are just too great.
    I won't speculate if any of them would come here, because that requires even more assumptions into the motives of creatures that are probably much more advanced than us and probably have nothing in common with us.

    But as for the distances, it seems plausible that a sufficiently advanced civilization could overcome these things. Even humans can do primitive cryogenics, or build primitive computers to do our bidding. It seems unlikely that an intelligent alien species couldn't overcome these barriers if they were determined to do so.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #93
    Educator Onion Eater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Scottsdale, AZ
    Last Seen
    07-13-16 @ 08:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    753

    Re: Will aliens be friendly or hostile?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    And what percentage of the planets in the universe have we explored?
    Just over zero percent - the same as the percentage of cod fish in the ocean that we have tagged. Yet we know to within plus or minus 1% how many cod fish there are in the ocean. How? We catch a few hundred, tag them and release them. Then we come back later and fish until we've caught a few hundred more. If most of the second batch are tagged, then we know that there are few fish out there and we are repeatedly catching the same ones. If few of the fish in the second batch are tagged, then we know that there is a large population that the tagged ones disappear into.

    We've found a few hundred planets now and the fact that none of them meet any of the conditions for life, while not conclusive, is not particularly hopeful either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    It's oversimplifying things to state that the size of the planet controls the thickness of the atmosphere, but even if we used that theory, what's to stop us from finding a planet smaller than Venus but larger than Mars that fits your criteria for a "correct size"?
    It is not really an oversimplification. Barring catastrophic events like collisions, gravity is really the only thing that determines how much atmosphere a planet has.

    When I say that there is no correct size, I mean that the atmosphere of a young planet with lots of volcanoes is either increasing or decreasing, depending on how much gravity they have. In the former case, they will eventually have a runaway greenhouse effect and, in the latter case, they will eventually have a trace atmosphere.

    But "eventually" needs clarification. Tiny objects like Titan cannot hold gas molecules for more than a few days; they just drift off into space and are replaced by new eruptions. Large objects like Venus can hold gas molecules forever; they just keep accumulating. But middle-sized objects like Mars can hold gas molecules for a while - possibly a billion years in Mar's case - so the question that divides us is: Can advanced life evolve in only a billion years? It took a lot longer than that for it to evolve on Earth.

    There is no correct size that retains an atmosphere, but not a crushing one, for the three billions years that it took advanced life to evolve on Earth. If you agree that it takes that long for advanced life to evolve, then you must invoke catastrophy theory to explain the existence of an atmosphere, but not a crushing one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    This is highly speculative. First of all, it's not entirely proven that a collision with another planetoid formed the moon at all (although I would say that that's the most likely theory). The rest of it is ENTIRELY unproven...there's certainly no consensus that we were hit by a planetoid, which then circled the sun and hit the earth again. It's EXTREMELY unlikely that any planetoid-sized object could survive a collision with the earth...even a glancing one.
    Maybe twenty years ago, but today there is a consensus. And, incidentally, the planetoid didn't survive. Its mantle, if it had one, was stripped off like the jacket of a hollow-point bullet and it's core plunged through the Earth and stuck to our core. The Moon was formed almost entirely from Earth debris.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    There are hundreds of billions of galaxies. Even if 99.99% of them have X-rays, high radiation, or the improper mixture of elements, there would still be billions of galaxies...each with hundreds of billions of stars.
    "The stellar disk of the Milky Way galaxy is approximately 100,000 light-years (9.51017 km) in diameter, and is believed to be, on average, about 1,000 ly (9.51015 km) thick. It is estimated to contain at least 200 billion stars and possibly up to 400 billion stars, the exact figure depending on the number of very low-mass stars, which is highly uncertain.

    "The Andromeda Galaxy is a spiral galaxy approximately 2.5 million light-years away." - Wikipedia

    We only have to consider the Milky Way. Any discussion of what exists in other galaxies is entirely academic. The nearest one, Andromeda, is 2.5M ly away. Even if a spaceship achieves 10% the speed of light, it would take 25 million years to get there and it would be a one-way trip. Humans certainly will not be around 25 million years from now and, even if they are, how will they know that their ancestor's spaceship had arrived?

    Of course, there are many people who assume - and find it so obvious that it hardly needs proof - that every race of little green men is in possession of an amazing, super-duper, zip-around-the-universe technology that requires nothing more complicated than hitting the "warp drive" button on their ship's control panel. But that is pure speculation. The reality is that it takes an infinite amount of energy to reach light speed and a darned lot to reach 10% of light speed. The U.S. Government would have to sell 25% of itself to finance the construction of even one 1000-pound ship that could go that fast. It's not like you're Hans Solo and you're just going to pick up a used ship on e-bay, hit the warp-drive button and - Presto! - you are on the other side of our 100K ly wide galaxy.

    Within this galaxy, the very low-mass stars won't work, so we only have to consider the 200B stars that we can see. I don't have statistics - I'll try to find some - but, of those 200B stars, there are probably no more than a few hundred thousand with a habitable zone where liquid water can exist and which have heavy elements like iron to form rocky planets.

    Of those, it appears that the great majority either have gas giant planets in very close circular orbits or in wide elliptical orbits, either of which would preclude having small rocky planets in circular orbits.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Intelligence is one of many traits that makes survival more likely, just like sharper teeth or faster feet. Over time, it is likely that a planet with diverse life forms would harbor at least one species that acquires a high level of intelligence. Even on Earth, the intelligence of the dominant life forms has steadily been increasing over time (even before the existence of mammals).
    Actually, no, it is not. Sharp teeth are always an advantage in a fight, but intelligence is not. Intelligence makes humans slow. Have you ever fought a dog? You may think, from past boxing experience, that you are fast, but the dog will make you look like you are stuck in mollasses.

    Also, a big brain is very expensive. Compared to a similar-sized carnivour, like a wolf, we have to eat a lot of meat just to keep our brains functioning. A malnourished person's biggest problem is not the weakness in his limbs but the loss of his intelligence - without enough food, it is very hard to concentrate.

    You are wrong that "the intelligence of the dominant life forms has steadily been increasing over time." The dinosaurs in the Cretaceous were no smarter than those in the Triassic after 200M years of evolution. If "intelligence is one of many traits that makes survival more likely," then why aren't there other intelligent animals today? Dog lovers like to think that their sheep dog is "as smart as a person," but that is just not true. Our species produced physicists like Einstein and chess masters like Kasparov. To compare a sheep dog's intelligence to a human's is nonsense; it would make more sense to compare his strength to a tiger's. Anyway, sheep dogs were bred to be smart; that did not occur naturally.

    The fact is, nobody knows why humans became intelligent. The existence of intelligence flies in the face of everything we know about evolution.

    The Phanerozoic eon lasted for 500,000,000 years and, until 100,000 years ago, there was no intelligence. Then there was exactly one intelligent species. If the Phanerozoic eon where a day, then humans accomplished in 0.72 seconds what the dinosaurs did not accomplish in 23 hours and 59 minutes.

    Why did this one intelligent species arise? Nobody knows. There is no reason to think that it has happened elsewhere.
    Last edited by Onion Eater; 12-29-08 at 04:19 PM. Reason: spelling errors
    Is the following quote reckless in the extreme? Then read my 2008 paper about monetary theory:
    http://www.axiomaticeconomics.com/in...e_collapse.php
    Quote Originally Posted by JP Hochbaum View Post
    No tax raises needed, just have the federal government spend the money into existence.

  4. #94
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Will aliens be friendly or hostile?

    Quote Originally Posted by Onion Eater View Post
    Just over zero percent - the same as the percentage of cod fish in the ocean that we have tagged. Yet we know to within plus or minus 1% how many cod fish there are in the ocean. How? We catch a few hundred, tag them and release them. Then we come back later and fish until we've caught a few hundred more. If most of the second batch are tagged, then we know that there are few fish out there and we are repeatedly catching the same ones. If few of the fish in the second batch are tagged, then we know that there is a large population that the tagged ones disappear into.
    I'm afraid I don't understand your analogy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Onion Eater
    We've found a few hundred planets now and the fact that none of them meet any of the conditions for life, while not conclusive, is not particularly hopeful either.
    Most of the planets we've found are of the Jovian gaseous supergiant variety, not the small rocky Earthlike variety. This is unsurprising, since it's a lot easier to detect large planets than small planets.

    However, even in our own solar system, we have several other worlds that are "near misses" for life-suitable conditions, if not actual worlds harboring life. Mars and Titan are both very very close. Europa and Enceladus are close as well, although not as close as the other two.

    Quote Originally Posted by Onion Eater
    It is not really an oversimplification. Barring catastrophic events like collisions, gravity is really the only thing that determines how much atmosphere a planet has.
    Look at the debate over climate change. Certain compounds - such as carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, sulfuric acid, and water - cause the greenhouse effect much moreso than other compounds like nitrogen do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Onion Eater
    When I say that there is no correct size, I mean that the atmosphere of a young planet with lots of volcanoes is either increasing or decreasing, depending on how much gravity they have. In the former case, they will eventually have a runaway greenhouse effect and, in the latter case, they will eventually have a trace atmosphere.
    Then what is your explanation for why the earth hasn't had a runaway greenhouse effect? If there was a catastrophic collision with another planetoid 4 billion years ago, it is unlikely that it's effects would be enough 4 billion years later to overcome Earth's Venus-like gravity and produce the perfect atmosphere.

    Quote Originally Posted by Onion Eater
    But "eventually" needs clarification. Tiny objects like Titan cannot hold gas molecules for more than a few days; they just drift off into space and are replaced by new eruptions.
    Titan's atmosphere is very similar to the primordial Earth atmosphere when life was formed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Onion Eater
    Large objects like Venus can hold gas molecules forever; they just keep accumulating. But middle-sized objects like Mars can hold gas molecules for a while - possibly a billion years in Mar's case - so the question that divides us is: Can advanced life evolve in only a billion years? It took a lot longer than that for it to evolve on Earth.
    Again, if this is correct, why couldn't there be a planet smaller than Venus but larger than Mars that meets your criteria?

    Quote Originally Posted by Onion Eater
    There is no correct size that retains an atmosphere, but not a crushing one, for the three billions years that it took advanced life to evolve on Earth.
    I don't see any evidence for this at all. Venus' greenhouse effect is caused primarily by the chemical composition of its atmosphere; gravity plays only a peripheral role. Venus' atmosphere is approximately 95% carbon dioxide, compared to Earth's atmosphere which is only 0.04% carbon dioxide.

    Quote Originally Posted by Onion Eater
    If you agree that it takes that long for advanced life to evolve, then you must invoke catastrophy theory to explain the existence of an atmosphere, but not a crushing one.
    Only if I agreed with your theory that the greenhouse effect is entirely a function of a planet's gravity, rather than atmospheric composition. And only if I understood why you thought there couldn't be a "correct size" even if your theory was correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Onion Eater
    Maybe twenty years ago, but today there is a consensus. And, incidentally, the planetoid didn't survive. Its mantle, if it had one, was stripped off like the jacket of a hollow-point bullet and it's core plunged through the Earth and stuck to our core. The Moon was formed almost entirely from Earth debris.
    Like I said, the planetoid-collision theory is the most likely hypothesis or the formation of the Moon. But there's certainly no consensus that this planetoid survived the initial collision, circled the sun, and collided with the earth again to perfectly regulate our atmosphere for the next 4.6 billion years.

    Quote Originally Posted by Onion Eater
    We only have to consider the Milky Way. Any discussion of what exists in other galaxies is entirely academic.
    This thread is entirely academic since we haven't encountered any aliens yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Onion Eater
    The nearest one, Andromeda, is 2.5M ly away. Even if a spaceship achieves 10% the speed of light, it would take 25 million years to get there and it would be a one-way trip. Humans certainly will not be around 25 million years from now and, even if they are, how will they know that their ancestor's spaceship had arrived?
    This makes several assumptions about extraterrestrial space flight: A) They couldn't travel faster than 10% the speed of light, B) We are ignoring time dilation effects for the occupants of the spacecraft, C) There are no entities that could survive for 25 million years.

    Quote Originally Posted by Onion Eater
    Of course, there are many people who assume - and find it so obvious that it hardly needs proof - that every race of little green men is in possession of an amazing, super-duper, zip-around-the-universe technology that requires nothing more complicated than hitting the "warp drive" button on their ship's control panel. But that is pure speculation.
    If we encounter intelligent extraterrestrials, in all likelihood they WILL be in possession of technology that is millions of years more advanced than ours. The reason for this is because we have only had technology for a few hundred millennia: the blink of an eye by cosmic standards. Therefore I think it's highly likely that intelligent extraterrestrials will be much more advanced.

    Quote Originally Posted by Onion Eater
    The reality is that it takes an infinite amount of energy to reach light speed and a darned lot to reach 10% of light speed. The U.S. Government would have to sell 25% of itself to finance the construction of even one 1000-pound ship that could go that fast.
    See above. It's unlikely that intelligent extraterrestrials are on anything close to technological parity with us. Even humans can theorize about spacecrafts to travel extremely fast. Since no laws of physics PREVENT travel at that speed, it's very likely that some civilization has figured it out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Onion Eater
    Within this galaxy, the very low-mass stars won't work, so we only have to consider the 200B stars that we can see. I don't have statistics - I'll try to find some - but, of those 200B stars, there are probably no more than a few hundred thousand with a habitable zone where liquid water can exist and which have heavy elements like iron to form rocky planets.
    OK, well a few hundred thousand is still a lot of worlds for a cosmic zoo. And that's just in this galaxy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Onion Eater
    Actually, no, it is not. Sharp teeth are always an advantage in a fight, but intelligence is not.
    Intelligence can help you avoid fights that you can't win in the first place. Or it can help you figure out which fights you can win. Or it can help you set traps so that you don't have to spend as much energy catching prey. Etc, etc. If it wasn't an advantage, humans would've died out long ago, as we don't have any deadly bodily parts at our disposal and aren't particularly fast.

    Quote Originally Posted by Onion Eater
    Intelligence makes humans slow. Have you ever fought a dog? You may think, from past boxing experience, that you are fast, but the dog will make you look like you are stuck in mollasses.
    What does that have to do with intelligence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Onion Eater
    Also, a big brain is very expensive. Compared to a similar-sized carnivour, like a wolf, we have to eat a lot of meat just to keep our brains functioning. A malnourished person's biggest problem is not the weakness in his limbs but the loss of his intelligence - without enough food, it is very hard to concentrate.
    This is true. However, the fact that we DID evolve intelligence indicates that the extra food expenditure is worth it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Onion Eater
    You are wrong that "the intelligence of the dominant life forms has steadily been increasing over time." The dinosaurs in the Cretaceous were no smarter than those in the Triassic after 200M years of evolution.
    The dots on this graph represent species of the era. Cretaceous-era species were indeed smarter, on average, than Triassic-era species. However, the real growth in intelligence came during the Paleozoic and Cenozoic eras, rather than the Mesozoic.


    Quote Originally Posted by Onion Eater
    If "intelligence is one of many traits that makes survival more likely," then why aren't there other intelligent animals today?
    Because our ancestors killed them off.

    Quote Originally Posted by Onion Eater
    Dog lovers like to think that their sheep dog is "as smart as a person," but that is just not true. Our species produced physicists like Einstein and chess masters like Kasparov. To compare a sheep dog's intelligence to a human's is nonsense; it would make more sense to compare his strength to a tiger's. Anyway, sheep dogs were bred to be smart; that did not occur naturally.

    The fact is, nobody knows why humans became intelligent. The existence of intelligence flies in the face of everything we know about evolution.
    Again, being intelligent allows for a wide range of abilities to catch prey more easily and avoid being prey for something else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Onion Eater
    The Phanerozoic eon lasted for 500,000,000 years and, until 100,000 years ago, there was no intelligence. Then there was exactly one intelligent species.
    This is an oversimplification. Intelligence is not a light switch that is either on or off in all living creatures. Species have a wide range of varying levels of intelligence, and humans happen to be the most intelligent.

    As for there being only one intelligent species, this is incorrect. Neanderthals are the best-known example of a species of comparable intelligence (although they aren't the only example). However, they were killed off by the Cro-Magnons who did not appreciate the competition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Onion Eater
    If the Phanerozoic eon where a day, then humans accomplished in 0.72 seconds what the dinosaurs did not accomplish in 23 hours and 59 minutes.
    The dinosaurs were not around for that long. They were only around for 8 hours of that day...and they had the disadvantage of preceding us. If there had been no K-T event, it's not unreasonable to speculate that some species of dinosaur (or whatever would've naturally succeeded dinosaurs) would be intelligent by now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Onion Eater
    Why did this one intelligent species arise? Nobody knows. There is no reason to think that it has happened elsewhere.
    The fact that we DID evolve intelligence contradicts your theory that it isn't an evolutionary advantage.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 12-29-08 at 09:11 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  5. #95
    Educator Onion Eater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Scottsdale, AZ
    Last Seen
    07-13-16 @ 08:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    753

    Re: Will aliens be friendly or hostile?

    Thank you Kandahar for an interesting exchange of ideas.

    I have, so far, been writing these replies mostly off the top of my head, with some references to Wikipedia. However, as the subject is of interest to me, I have decided to write a more thoroughly researched paper.

    I will PM you when I get a first draft so that you can review it - probably in a month or two. When I get a final draft I will post it on my website, Axiomatic Theory of Economics by Victor Aguilar: Home, in the "Non-Economic Documents" section, which already contains a paper on cryptography and one on casino blackjack. At that time I will also start a new thread here at Debate Politics to discuss it.

    Again, thank you Kandahar and other discussants for helping me clairify in my head ideas that I had only intermittently thought about before.

    p.s. If aliens arrive before I have completed my paper and lay our planet to waste like a big round termite nest, I will probably have to consider a revision.
    Is the following quote reckless in the extreme? Then read my 2008 paper about monetary theory:
    http://www.axiomaticeconomics.com/in...e_collapse.php
    Quote Originally Posted by JP Hochbaum View Post
    No tax raises needed, just have the federal government spend the money into existence.

  6. #96
    King of Videos
    dirtpoorchris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    WA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,008

    Re: Will aliens be friendly or hostile?

    Quote Originally Posted by Onion Eater View Post
    Thank you Kandahar for an interesting exchange of ideas.

    I have, so far, been writing these replies mostly off the top of my head, with some references to Wikipedia. However, as the subject is of interest to me, I have decided to write a more thoroughly researched paper.

    I will PM you when I get a first draft so that you can review it - probably in a month or two. When I get a final draft I will post it on my website, Axiomatic Theory of Economics by Victor Aguilar: Home, in the "Non-Economic Documents" section, which already contains a paper on cryptography and one on casino blackjack. At that time I will also start a new thread here at Debate Politics to discuss it.

    Again, thank you Kandahar and other discussants for helping me clairify in my head ideas that I had only intermittently thought about before.

    p.s. If aliens arrive before I have completed my paper and lay our planet to waste like a big round termite nest, I will probably have to consider a revision.
    Thats awsome.

    We need to find ways to hook into the universe's natrual gravity lines when they connect in a perfect connect the dot's type of way and then find a way to somehow "change" the vessal so that it rather be at the furthest gravity point we wish.
    Last edited by dirtpoorchris; 12-31-08 at 02:54 PM.
    I'm Finding it Harder to be a Gentleman, White Stripes ~ "You think I care about me and only me. When every girl needs help climbing up a tree."

  7. #97
    Familiaist


    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Last Seen
    11-16-16 @ 09:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    7,470

    Re: Will aliens be friendly or hostile?

    To me, that's an absurd question.

    I am guessing by "alien" you mean some sort of entity that by our definition is alive; that it makes energy by a means of deconstructing a vital source/element; that it requires a certain substance to maintain life. Probably something that has some resemblance of inhabitants of our own planet. I think if you are trying to apply our definition of "life" to the Universe then you surely don't understand the vastness, and baffling complexities of the Universe (I sure as hell don't).

    I am guessing that you are looking for a life-form that has the same principles we do. That "war", "hostility", "love", "peace", applies. That it follows a similar super-organismic pattern as we do (think ants... an entire colony working together and, thus, acting as a single super-organism made up of smaller multi-cellular organisms... now look at how humans work together in this near super-organism way). That there must be some sort of hierarchy within this alien society (that it even has a society). That this society has similar ambitions as we do-- to explore, to seek, and to make sense of.

    I am guessing you suggest that these things live in the same dimensions as us. That on their homeworld they are subject to gravitational limits. That their planet rotates on a similar plan as ours, so that they have a similar idea of time and space, or that they even have any idea of time or space, or that they have any ideas to begin with.

    I think the possibilities of us finding some bipedal being, as one sees in sci-fi movies and tv shows, is laughable. The conditions for their evolution would have to be disgustingly similar to ours, and in our universe you don't see much uniformity in that field. For our planet to be even slightly closer, or further away from the sun, we'd see a dramatic difference in the results of our own species.

    To reply to your question,

    I think we would not know an alien life-form if it flew right into our faces.
    But I've seen Independence Day, and I can sleep easier knowing that Will Smith has a plan to save the World.
    "I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al-Qa'ida." -- Lord Hoffmann

  8. #98
    Banned Iriemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    12-19-15 @ 10:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,405

    Re: Will aliens be friendly or hostile?

    We'll be able to get a clue about their behavior from their book: "How to serve man".

  9. #99
    Familiaist


    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Last Seen
    11-16-16 @ 09:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    7,470

    Re: Will aliens be friendly or hostile?

    Quote Originally Posted by Iriemon View Post
    We'll be able to get a clue about their behavior from their book: "How to serve man".
    haha That works in two ways: "How to serve man [as an entree]" and "How to serve man [as an ever-pleasing slave]"

    If some intelligent alien life-form that was capable of getting a book published visited our planet I doubt they'd be writing it about humans. More than likely they'll be writing it about the true masters of our world... you know.. ants. They might see our petty civilization quarrels as something so primitive that it could easily be over looked.
    "I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al-Qa'ida." -- Lord Hoffmann

  10. #100
    King of Videos
    dirtpoorchris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    WA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,008

    Re: Will aliens be friendly or hostile?

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Enemy View Post
    haha That works in two ways: "How to serve man [as an entree]" and "How to serve man [as an ever-pleasing slave]"

    If some intelligent alien life-form that was capable of getting a book published visited our planet I doubt they'd be writing it about humans. More than likely they'll be writing it about the true masters of our world... you know.. ants. They might see our petty civilization quarrels as something so primitive that it could easily be over looked.
    YouTube - Twilight Zone: To Serve Man
    I'm Finding it Harder to be a Gentleman, White Stripes ~ "You think I care about me and only me. When every girl needs help climbing up a tree."

Page 10 of 30 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •