Everything aliens

On the subject of the demeanor of aliens were they to visit us...

The only evidence we have upon which to base a conclusion is us. Throughout history, technological advancements have always been accompanied by social advancements. With each step in technology, we have become better people as a society. We abolished slavery and developed socially natural, civil, labor and environmental rights. Our social safety nets have increased, as has care for the unfortunate, disadvantaged and marginalized. Given the available evidence, we can only conclude that a more technologically advanced civilization would be better people than we are. They would be more considerate of life and they'd have greater respect for the 'other'. If they're advanced enough to travel the galaxy, they'd be saints compared to us. Thus, the "evil aliens" idea, so popular in fiction, is really just a childish ghost story.

Goshin said:

I had to skim several articles before coming across one that mentioned Pi in conjunction with Gavrinis Island and the tomb. Apparently a computer analysis found patterns that could be interpreted as having to do with Pi, among other possibilities.

If it took computer analysis to reveal it, is it more likely that neolithic peoples encoded it thus on purpose, or by happenstance?

For instance... much was made of how many measurements in Egyptian architecture were consistent with multiples of Pi. Many raised eyebrows wondered if the Egyptians knew something long before it was believed to have been quantified.

The answer turned out to be simple... they measured distances using a walking wheel, a wheel on a stick like modern surveyors sometimes used, which naturally gives whole units consistent to Pi.

Occam's razor suggests the simplest solution is probably correct... of the possible solutions
1. Happenstance involving some building technique, as in the Egyptian example
2. Someone in the ancient world figured out something earlier than we thought
3. Aliens

I put them in order of probability...

Click to expand...

Given Roswell and so many incidents just in my lifetime, all over the planet, what Carter, Clinton and others have said and done, the book of Enoch and so many other documented incidents, why do you assign aliens the last spot instead of the first?

Thoreau72 said:

Given Roswell and so many incidents just in my lifetime, all over the planet, what Carter, Clinton and others have said and done, the book of Enoch and so many other documented incidents, why do you assign aliens the last spot instead of the first?

Click to expand...

Because it is the least likely explanation.

I will grant that Roswell was an interesting incident and there are still some question marks about what happened there, but that doesn't automatically mean aliens. And why, in so many alleged incidents, do we have alien ships crashing? It seems to paint them as remarkably inept for beings that are able to cross stellar distances.

I'm not aware of Carter or Clinton coming out and admitting they had certain knowledge of alien encounters. If they did I missed it somehow.

There are three books of Enoch, none canonical in the West as their provenance is considered dubious. That's the extent of my knowledge of them.

ecofarm said:

On the subject of the demeanor of aliens were they to visit us...

The only evidence we have upon which to base a conclusion is us. Throughout history, technological advancements have always been accompanied by social advancements. With each step in technology, we have become better people as a society. We abolished slavery and developed socially natural, civil, labor and environmental rights. Our social safety nets have increased, as has care for the unfortunate, disadvantaged and marginalized. Given the available evidence, we can only conclude that a more technologically advanced civilization would be better people than we are. They would be more considerate of life and they'd have greater respect for the 'other'. If they're advanced enough to travel the galaxy, they'd be saints compared to us. Thus, the "evil aliens" idea, so popular in fiction, is really just a childish ghost story.

Click to expand...

Maybe. The problem lies in the assumption that aliens are like us, that their development parallels ours, and that their wants/needs/motives/solutions are similar.

That may or may not be the case.

They could be a collective intelligence for whom internal cooperation is natural and easy... but their attitude towards beings not a part of their collective consciousness could be far less benign. They might even have trouble recognizing us as fellow sophonts if our differences are sufficiently drastic. Their position towards our form of life might be indifferent, or even hostile, despite their own relative harmony within their own society.

Or, imagine a society much like ours 50 years ago... warring nation-states on the cusp of advanced technology. They detect a radio signal clearly indicating the presence of intelligent life in another solar system. What if the dominant culture views this as a threat and a challenge? A charismatic leader uses their innate touch of xenophobia to preach an ideology of supremacy and manifest destiny to work together to dominate all other intelligences in the galaxy. A century or two later, united in this philosophy, they extend their reach to the stars in search of other species to subjugate.

The point I'm making is that a species may be benign and cooperative among their own kind, but this does not necessarily mean they will extend this benevolence to other species in all cases.

Even persons, organizations, nations or species that are generally benevolent can potentially find themselves in an irreconcilable conflict of interests that could result in conflict.


Also, given that we've only begun to scratch the surface of the what might be involved in interstellar travel, we can't say with absolute certainty that only a species united in planetary-level cooperative harmony could achieve it. Perhaps our own model of physics is skewed in a way we have yet to understand, by our own preconceptions, that some other species might stumble onto at an earlier stage of development which reveals an easier way to get around the galaxy.


It's all speculation of course, but at the moment that's about all we have.

Goshin said:

Maybe. The problem lies in the assumption that aliens are like us, that their development parallels ours, and that their wants/needs/motives/solutions are similar.

That may or may not be the case.

They could be a collective intelligence for whom internal cooperation is natural and easy... but their attitude towards beings not a part of their collective consciousness could be far less benign. They might even have trouble recognizing us as fellow sophonts if our differences are sufficiently drastic. Their position towards our form of life might be indifferent, or even hostile, despite their own relative harmony within their own society.

Or, imagine a society much like ours 50 years ago... warring nation-states on the cusp of advanced technology. They detect a radio signal clearly indicating the presence of intelligent life in another solar system. What if the dominant culture views this as a threat and a challenge? A charismatic leader uses their innate touch of xenophobia to preach an ideology of supremacy and manifest destiny to work together to dominate all other intelligences in the galaxy. A century or two later, united in this philosophy, they extend their reach to the stars in search of other species to subjugate.

The point I'm making is that a species may be benign and cooperative among their own kind, but this does not necessarily mean they will extend this benevolence to other species in all cases.

Even persons, organizations, nations or species that are generally benevolent can potentially find themselves in an irreconcilable conflict of interests that could result in conflict.


Also, given that we've only begun to scratch the surface of the what might be involved in interstellar travel, we can't say with absolute certainty that only a species united in planetary-level cooperative harmony could achieve it. Perhaps our own model of physics is skewed in a way we have yet to understand, by our own preconceptions, that some other species might stumble onto at an earlier stage of development which reveals an easier way to get around the galaxy.


It's all speculation of course, but at the moment that's about all we have.

Click to expand...

Speculation is not all the same. Mine is based on available evidence. Yours is pure fantasy. One cannot favor the latter over the former.

Goshin said:

Maybe. The problem lies in the assumption that aliens are like us, that their development parallels ours, and that their wants/needs/motives/solutions are similar.

That may or may not be the case.

Click to expand...

That's not "the problem". That's the use of available evidence. This is like a detective walking onto a crime scene and saying, "well, the problem is we're gonna use that weapon as evidence".

One cannot ignore available evidence and come to a conclusion based on pure fantasy.

Yes, anything is possible but we should use available evidence in coming to a conclusion.

The choice is evidence, logic and reason or imagination.

ecofarm said:

Speculation is not all the same. Mine is based on available evidence. Yours is pure fantasy. One cannot favor the latter over the former.

Click to expand...

ecofarm said:

That's not "the problem". That's the use of available evidence. This is like a detective walking onto a crime scene and saying, "well, the problem is we're gonna use that weapon as evidence".

One cannot ignore available evidence and come to a conclusion based on pure fantasy.

Yes, anything is possible but we should use available evidence in coming to a conclusion.

Click to expand...

You are entitled to your opinion... but opinion is all it is.

The assertion that starfaring aliens would of necessity be benevolent towards humanity is, in my opinion, a failure of imagination and a sort of provincialism. It's of the same type and order as assuming different cultures are motivated by Western rational materialism, just because we are and because it makes sense to us. "Normalcy bias".


There is even less reason to believe aliens would be similar to humanity in development, society, culture and philosophy than there is to assume they will look like humans, just a little different in superficial ways, like bumpy-head humanoid aliens of Star Trek.

Just considering how very different some Earthly societies are should provide some hint of how drastically different an alien society might be. Their version of "society" might be partly or entirely incomprehensible to us, and assuming it would automatically include benevolence towards a drastically different species is a fairly big assumption.

Even if we assume that an alien society sufficiently advanced for star travel would have to have achieved a far higher level of cooperation, harmony and "justice" among themselves would necessarily translate into benevolence towards humans is a huge assumption. Their attitude towards species alien-to-them could be very different from how they treat their own kind.

We don't know, but given that we can certainly imagine advanced aliens whose nature may not incline them to benevolence towards "aliens" such as us, the possibility of such aliens existing is clearly non-zero.

This is before taking into account conflicts of interest, which can propel even the benevolent into conflict. Suppose stellar travel is hard, and the only adequate motive for sending a ship full of aliens is desperation for a new habitable planet? Perhaps, once here, it isn't feasible for them to move on once they see the planet has an indigenous sophont? Perhaps they are disinclined to share living space with a species as undesirable as humanity?


The possibilities are endless. It always surprises me to encounter someone who sees only one possibility where so many may exist.

Goshin said:

The possibilities are endless. It always surprises me to encounter someone who sees only one possibility where so many may exist.

Click to expand...

It surprises me when someone ignores what I wrote and substitutes a strawman. I wrote "Yes, anything is possible". But we should use available evidence in reaching a conclusion.

Look, I've nothing against your imagination, all fine ideas. But with evidence available, we can't dismiss reality and substitute imagination.

ecofarm said:

It surprises me when someone ignores what I wrote and substitutes a strawman. I wrote "Yes, anything is possible". But we should use available evidence in reaching a conclusion.

Look, I've nothing against your imagination, all fine ideas. But with evidence available, we can't dismiss reality and substitute imagination.

Click to expand...

The problem with your assertion that your view is "reality" is that it is an assumption based on the norms of a single species on a single world. A set of one makes for poor statistical analysis.

Your "evidence" is that if the only example we know of, us, is one way, then it is the same for all examples of intelligent life. That's like finding a starfish on the beach and assuming all sea life is very similar to starfish.

I'm not saying that your assumption doesn't fit "available evidence". I'm saying available evidence is inadequate to support a firm conclusion, let alone one often expressed as an absolute.

20 or so years ago, scientific consensus was that a Jupiter-like planet could not exist in close orbit around a star. It was a reasonable assumption, but it was based on the example of one star system, namely ours. Now, we know that "Hot Jupiters" not only exist, they are apparently fairly common.

Making any broad assumptions about intelligent aliens is similar. It is an assumption based on a single example, and a form of normalcy bias.

ecofarm said:

It surprises me when someone ignores what I wrote and substitutes a strawman. I wrote "Yes, anything is possible". ...n.

Click to expand...

Apologies then, somewhere along the line I got the impression you were asserting an absolute.

Goshin said:

The problem with your assertion that your view is "reality" is that it is an assumption based on the norms of a single species on a single world. A set of one makes for poor statistical analysis.

Click to expand...

No, it's using available evidence. I don't understand why anyone would not want to use available evidence in reaching a conclusion.

Do you have any evidence for your imagination? No. I have evidence for my position. How can you possibly favor the former over the latter?

Just because evidence is limited does not mean we dismiss it and substitute pure fantasy.

Yes, you could be right; aliens could be bad guys. But the available evidence says they will be far more benevolent than us, saints in comparison.

ecofarm said:

No, it's using available evidence. I don't understand why anyone would not want to use available evidence in reaching a conclusion.

Do you have any evidence for your imagination? No. I have evidence for my position. How can you possibly favor the former over the latter?

Click to expand...

Not necessarily "favor". Just pointing out that betting on assumptions based on a single example is not a sure thing.

Even using the example of humanity... yes, we are (at least in some ways) more benevolent overall than our distant ancestors, partly because we have more resources than they did due to better science and technology.

Projecting that concept forward, that in the future we will be more benevolent overall because we will have even more resources and options through technology, is not an unreasonable assumption (and I hope it is true!!).

But it isn't certain or absolute, unfortunately.

Regard the present. Though we have more prosperity and more democratic governments on Earth (for loose values of "democratic"), and less true poverty (ie necessities inadequate to the population), yet we still do have war, poverty, exploitation and crime. Possibly less of all these things, than any given past century, but they still exist.

Projecting into the future suggests "less of" those negatives, but perhaps not "none". And it still relates to our relative benevolence towards our own kind.

While there are some trends towards benevolence towards other species (animal rights, etc) this is still too new and limited of a trend to say for certain if it will continue and expand, and we have yet to test it in the face of something truly alien, not just to humanity but to the entire paradigm of Earthly life.

Nor do we have any certain knowledge of when interstellar travel may become possible for us. If our current understanding of physics remains consistent (which is highly uncertain), and the Einsteinian speed limit remains absolute with no work-arounds (ditto Newtonian rockets), then in-person interstellar travel may remain beyond our grasp forever, or be extremely limited (as in only the nearest stars, and that only with great difficulty).

If that is the case, then intelligent aliens are likely to remain entirely speculative, other than perhaps distant radio signals with question-and-answer turnaround times of centuries or longer.

But, it is also possible that we are just one major breakthrough away from making stellar travel feasible. There are theories on working around the c limit, as yet very hypothetical, as yet not something we can actually do... but they may lead to more workable solutions. Or not. No way to tell right now if it could be 10 years off, or 1,000 or a million or never.

Then there is this be-deviling EM drive. Our physics argues that it should not work, but repeated testing seems to show that something is happening. Some explanations using physical theories deemed "esoteric" have been put forward; some studies hint that the effect might be exponentially scalable with a few modifications. It is a long shot and may turn out to be nothing, but there's a small chance it might lead to a drive capable of significant thrust that might put relativistic travel in our grasp within a generation.

Improbable, yes, but not impossible given the above or some other breakthrough. My main point being we can't say, at this time, WHEN we might achieve stellar travel or exactly how advanced, in technology and perhaps benevolence, we might be at that time.

So we can't really say for sure as regards any hypothetical alien starfaring civilizations either, imo.


It's all highly speculative and hypothetical, of course... but that's all we've got, starting with a single example civilization that hasn't yet reached starfaring capability.

Goshin said:

Not necessarily "favor". Just pointing out that betting on assumptions based on a single example is not a sure thing.

Click to expand...

Fine, as long as you favor the available evidence. Of course anything is possible.

ecofarm said:

Fine, as long as you favor the available evidence. Of course anything is possible.

Click to expand...

Well, frankly, the available evidence, using a conservative standard based on what we currently know, is that we'll probably never meet or communicate meaningfully with aliens ever, if there even are any in our galaxy for popular values of the term "alien".

Going by what we now know, stellar travel will probably always be too difficult to be feasible, other than perhaps small probes sent to very near-by stars.

Nor do we have any hard evidence that there are intelligent aliens out there at all. If there are, communicating with them would be difficult and probably involve waiting decades, centuries or millennia for a reply to a question.

Based on available evidence, that's what we're left with.


But sticking to that makes for boring conversations.

The way humans consider other kinds of life is very anthropocentric and materialistic.

We don't really understand life on our own planet. We're just coming out of the age of Christiandom, hierarchical thinking, and Darwinian categorization. We've only just begun to understand the sentience in life systems on Earth. I think that, for starters, what we consider to be "intelligent" life is extremely narrow. Maybe that's because most humans right now are artificially separated from nature and our senses have been blunted. Humans cannot reproduce forest ecology, for example. We haven't even begun to understand it. The way that life systems interact with one another, building complex relationships that cannot be reduced to categories, and that we cannot reproduce in labs, is quite telling of our state of progress. And we want to look for life on other planets??

The other thing to consider is that if we live in a universe of multi-dimensions then the universe may be teeming with non-material lifeforms who aren't limited by space and time. They could travel anywhere and everywhere. We already have models to show that extra dimensions don't operate according to our limitations. What if material-based life, like us, is the exception rather than the rule?

Sapiens are the first mammals we know of to develop intelligent egos, but it doesn't mean that all life evolves this way. Consider that evolution is about random convergence and not pre-determined best outcomes. The fact that intelligent egos emerged from random convergence does not mean it will do so elsewhere. There many be intelligent life out there that completely lacks ego, or mind, or has a consciousness that we can't even fathom. All other animals on our planet do not have our form of ego. It doesn't make us better, it makes us different. So while we use our egos to project signals and physical objects into space, other kinds of life that are advanced might not even notice or care because it doesn't even interface with their kind of consciousness. It would be like sending a math equation to a dolphin. They are sentient, but do they even care?

Meanwhile, all kinds of non-material life could be visiting us and existing parallel to us, but we lack the faculties to interact with it.

Northern Light said:

The way humans consider other kinds of life is very anthropocentric and materialistic.

We don't really understand life on our own planet. We're just coming out of the age of Christiandom, hierarchical thinking, and Darwinian categorization. We've only just begun to understand the sentience in life systems on Earth. I think that, for starters, what we consider to be "intelligent" life is extremely narrow. Maybe that's because most humans right now are artificially separated from nature and our senses have been blunted. Humans cannot reproduce forest ecology, for example. We haven't even begun to understand it. The way that life systems interact with one another, building complex relationships that cannot be reduced to categories, and that we cannot reproduce in labs, is quite telling of our state of progress. And we want to look for life on other planets??

The other thing to consider is that if we live in a universe of multi-dimensions then the universe may be teeming with non-material lifeforms who aren't limited by space and time. They could travel anywhere and everywhere. We already have models to show that extra dimensions don't operate according to our limitations. What if material-based life, like us, is the exception rather than the rule?

Sapiens are the first mammals we know of to develop intelligent egos, but it doesn't mean that all life evolves this way. Consider that evolution is about random convergence and not pre-determined best outcomes. The fact that intelligent egos emerged from random convergence does not mean it will do so elsewhere. There many be intelligent life out there that completely lacks ego, or mind, or has a consciousness that we can't even fathom. All other animals on our planet do not have our form of ego. It doesn't make us better, it makes us different. So while we use our egos to project signals and physical objects into space, other kinds of life that are advanced might not even notice or care because it doesn't even interface with their kind of consciousness. It would be like sending a math equation to a dolphin. They are sentient, but do they even care?

Meanwhile, all kinds of non-material life could be visiting us and existing parallel to us, but we lack the faculties to interact with it.

Click to expand...

Where do we draw that line we call "sapience"? There's a blurry one, just here on Earth, let alone among alien lifeforms with whom we have less in common that we do a potted fern.

The possibility of intelligence without individual awareness has been made, though it is hard to imagine. Self-awareness without human-level intelligence is easier to imagine, though a subject of dispute.

Some animals, like the few apes that do sign language, seem pretty darn smart... though debate still rages in scientific circles as to how much they really understand what they're doing, and how much of it is imitation.

We don't yet understand how our own consciousness and intellect work to any great degree, either, which complicates things. We're not sure if complex abstract thought is even possible in the absence of language sophisticated enough to think such thoughts in.

We may find a better dividing line in the future, but at present a rule of thumb might be "if it has language of some kind capable of communicating abstract information, it is probably sapient". By this definition, the sign-language apes may not count, as the language they're using isn't their own, and their own methods of communication seem relatively unsophisticated in comparison.


All subject to debate of course.

Northern Light said:

The way humans consider other kinds of life is very anthropocentric and materialistic.

We don't really understand life on our own planet. We're just coming out of the age of Christiandom, hierarchical thinking, and Darwinian categorization.... snip...

Meanwhile, all kinds of non-material life could be visiting us and existing parallel to us, but we lack the faculties to interact with it.

Click to expand...

Is there any real difference between "non material life" and "spirit beings without bodies"? While I get there's a different mindset involved, functionally there seems to be little difference between a non-material lifeform that physical sense cannot normally perceive, and a spiritual being other than semantics.

Goshin said:

Where do we draw that line we call "sapience"? There's a blurry one, just here on Earth, let alone among alien lifeforms with whom we have less in common that we do a potted fern.

Click to expand...

Hard to say... but we're assuming that sapience must look like us, i.e. have language and be on a technological path. What if an advanced race never developed technology, or at least not machine-like devices that we create? What if they're already trying to communicate with us by some other means and our mode of tech is simply incompatible?

Our human develops were based not just on survival but also on competition with the environment and each other. We are still competing to this day. What if an intelligent species evolved that did not have this competitive spirit? They may have had an entirely other mode of development that is completely unlike ours.

As humans trying to reach out to the cosmos with technology, we are basically only looking for other species that have tech like us. That severely limits the scope of what we can find, though admittedly we don't have much else to go on right now.

Goshin said:

The possibility of intelligence without individual awareness has been made, though it is hard to imagine. Self-awareness without human-level intelligence is easier to imagine, though a subject of dispute.

Click to expand...

In a telepathic species, it's easy to imagine. If we lack telepathic ability then we might assume they are non-sapient.

Goshin said:

Some animals, like the few apes that do sign language, seem pretty darn smart... though debate still rages in scientific circles as to how much they really understand what they're doing, and how much of it is imitation.

Click to expand...

This seems like the blind leading the blind, to be honest. We don't even know what consciousness is or where it comes from so how do we go about qualifying it in others?

Goshin said:

We may find a better dividing line in the future, but at present a rule of thumb might be "if it has language of some kind capable of communicating abstract information, it is probably sapient". By this definition, the sign-language apes may not count, as the language they're using isn't their own, and their own methods of communication seem relatively unsophisticated in comparison.

Click to expand...

Apes use a lot of body language, like most animals. Arguably you can't create an advanced society with that, but look at something like dolphins... linguistics and scientists have found that their language has its own syntax and vocabulary, but we lack the understanding to translate it. Does that make dolphins lesser than us?[/QUOTE]

Goshin said:

Is there any real difference between "non material life" and "spirit beings without bodies"? While I get there's a different mindset involved, functionally there seems to be little difference between a non-material lifeform that physical sense cannot normally perceive, and a spiritual being other than semantics.

Click to expand...

"Spirits" is a biased term that I'd prefer not to use here. There are a wealth of anecdotes and personal experiences where people experienced consciousness being separate from the body. We may not even need a body to be aware. If that's true then that opens up a whole host of possibilities for life in the universe.

It's not spiritual or supernatural. They're just other kinds of life that reside outside of our sensory threshold... kind of like the infrared spectrum. (Theoretically, of course.)

If consciousness can exist outside of materialism, then it may not have time-space limitations, and may therefore be able to go anywhere in the universe.

Goshin said:

Because it is the least likely explanation.

I will grant that Roswell was an interesting incident and there are still some question marks about what happened there, but that doesn't automatically mean aliens. And why, in so many alleged incidents, do we have alien ships crashing? It seems to paint them as remarkably inept for beings that are able to cross stellar distances.

I'm not aware of Carter or Clinton coming out and admitting they had certain knowledge of alien encounters. If they did I missed it somehow.

There are three books of Enoch, none canonical in the West as their provenance is considered dubious. That's the extent of my knowledge of them.

Click to expand...

Different strokes, and certainly I am biased because I have watched probably every single episode of Ancient Aliens, but it seems to me that visits by aliens is the most likely explanation.

As to the books of Enoch, and being raised Roman Catholic, I see their removal way back whenever it was as a sign of censorship, for which the church and other authority structures are known. Nihil Obstat
and Imprimatur were tools of censorship that may still be in use for all I know, and tell the reader that the book and its thoughts and ideas are approved by the church. If they are not present, the book might present things like heresy, ideas the church sees as threatening.

Enoch and its talk of The Watchers hinted at what we call aliens. Indeed, some measurements offered for certain structures amounted to a sort of blue print for a landing area/structure for something that might be described as a space ship. That the church would eliminate that book from its bible means something IMO.

I'm also biased because maybe 15 years ago I witnessed for all of 5 or 10 seconds one night what could only be described as a very fast moving and very well lit craft of some sort that was not of this earth IMO.

The hypothesis put forth by the Human Genome Project back in about 2004 was the clincher for me. After years of work in decoding the human genome, they hypothesized that a portion of the human genome, what in years gone by had been described as "junk DNA" back in the 60s, was extraterrestrial in nature. Clearly a hypothesis likely not provable with our knowledge base today, but interesting considering the source.

Thoreau72 said:

Different strokes, and certainly I am biased because I have watched probably every single episode of Ancient Aliens, but it seems to me that visits by aliens is the most likely explanation.

As to the books of Enoch, and being raised Roman Catholic, I see their removal way back whenever it was as a sign of censorship, for which the church and other authority structures are known. Nihil Obstat
and Imprimatur were tools of censorship that may still be in use for all I know, and tell the reader that the book and its thoughts and ideas are approved by the church. If they are not present, the book might present things like heresy, ideas the church sees as threatening.

Enoch and its talk of The Watchers hinted at what we call aliens. Indeed, some measurements offered for certain structures amounted to a sort of blue print for a landing area/structure for something that might be described as a space ship. That the church would eliminate that book from its bible means something IMO.

I'm also biased because maybe 15 years ago I witnessed for all of 5 or 10 seconds one night what could only be described as a very fast moving and very well lit craft of some sort that was not of this earth IMO.

The hypothesis put forth by the Human Genome Project back in about 2004 was the clincher for me. After years of work in decoding the human genome, they hypothesized that a portion of the human genome, what in years gone by had been described as "junk DNA" back in the 60s, was extraterrestrial in nature. Clearly a hypothesis likely not provable with our knowledge base today, but interesting considering the source.

Click to expand...

I've had a couple of UFO sightings myself, using the term in its original meaning of "unidentified". At the time, I was very excited and at least somewhat speculative that I'd seen something extraterrestrial. Upon much reflection, I am pretty sure one was a stealth fighter and the other an unusual meteor.

I haven't read Enoch; perhaps I will if time and opportunity permits. The dna thing, I heard about that but I think it was a theory held by very few scientists... I'll need to look back into it.

There was a time when I was into the whole ancient astronauts theory, and must have seen "chariots of the gods" several times. I'll go so far as to grant that ETI's would be one possible explanation, but again I have to consider that a low-probability theory because many simpler explanations could also fit.

Maybe they are watching; perhaps they'll make themselves known when we pass some significant milestone like planting a colony on Mars. But for the time being I have to consider it unproven and relatively improbable.

DasTrev said:

I'm making this thread to just talk about aliens. Express your ideas or tell stories about aliens.
To get everything started, I personally believe aliens are real, in my eyes there's no way they're not real. Infinite universe with infinite planets, stars, nebulas, etc. There has to be intelligent alien life, we can't be the only intelligent living beings in the universe.

Click to expand...

I don't know. How come even now, we have nothing?
All these planets, some even look like earth - and yet nothing thrives, or even exists.

Even if they find evidence of a life-form in some obscure planet - compare that to earth that's teeming with life, living the way we do! It's getting too crowded on earth!

Gotta ponder that.

Sure we can imagine there could be life in another system, or nebula - but finding them, that's the problem. They're too far, far away. Maybe a hundred years from now, they'll find life....we won't be here, though.

tosca1 said:

I don't know. How come even now, we have nothing?
All these planets, some even look like earth - and yet nothing thrives, or even exists.

Even if they find evidence of a life-form in some obscure planet - compare that to earth that's teeming with life, living the way we do! It's getting too crowded on earth!

Gotta ponder that.

Sure we can imagine there could be life in another system, or nebula - but finding them, that's the problem. They're too far, far away. Maybe a hundred years from now, they'll find life....we won't be here, though.

Click to expand...

Actually we will probably find strong signs of life within ten years, as new technology comes online for imaging Earth-sized worlds circling other stars, and spectro analysis of their atmospheres for chemical signatures typically produced only by life forms.


As for "aliens", as in intelligent technological aliens not so different from humans, I very much doubt there are any in "near" interstellar space due to a lack of evidence.

Maybe we will find, in time, that we are alone in the galaxy as an intelligent, sapient, technological species. It wouldn't surprise me that much, given the lack of signs to the contrary.


If it turned out there was no life at all on exo-planets, that would be utterly shocking and hard to even believe. At least a hundred billion stars in our galaxy, of which at least eighteen billion should be potentially hospitable for hab planets... many of which are expected to have 1-3 planets in the lifezone, a fair percentage of which ought to be of a size, mass and composition to possibly host life. Water, we now know, seems to be rather abundant in the universe, as is carbon... and at least basic prokaryote life is believed to have originated on Earth about as soon as conditions for such life were possible.

In a broader sense, I find it hard to believe all those stars and worlds are out there just for nighttime window-dressing...

Goshin said:

I've had a couple of UFO sightings myself, using the term in its original meaning of "unidentified". At the time, I was very excited and at least somewhat speculative that I'd seen something extraterrestrial. Upon much reflection, I am pretty sure one was a stealth fighter and the other an unusual meteor.

I haven't read Enoch; perhaps I will if time and opportunity permits. The dna thing, I heard about that but I think it was a theory held by very few scientists... I'll need to look back into it.

There was a time when I was into the whole ancient astronauts theory, and must have seen "chariots of the gods" several times. I'll go so far as to grant that ETI's would be one possible explanation, but again I have to consider that a low-probability theory because many simpler explanations could also fit.

Maybe they are watching; perhaps they'll make themselves known when we pass some significant milestone like planting a colony on Mars. But for the time being I have to consider it unproven and relatively improbable.

Click to expand...

If you could see it, it must not have been very stealthy, eh? Though I have always spent a lot of time gazing at the night sky, including in airplanes, my sighting from the ground was the only thing I've ever seen.

I think the biggest difference between you and me on this issue is the matter of assigning probability. We are exact opposite in that department. I think they are here, have been here, but we are conditioned for whatever reason and by whomever to pretend we are alone in this cosmos. Just as when young we are conditioned to believe in Santa Claus and other such fantasies, we are conditioned to exclude the idea of others.

Has history deliberately been written as it has? Was Pi discovered by humans long before Pythagoras? Only time will tell.

Goshin said:

Actually we will probably find strong signs of life within ten years, as new technology comes online for imaging Earth-sized worlds circling other stars, and spectro analysis of their atmospheres for chemical signatures typically produced only by life forms.


As for "aliens", as in intelligent technological aliens not so different from humans, I very much doubt there are any in "near" interstellar space due to a lack of evidence.

Click to expand...

If it happens in our lifetime - that'll be so exciting! Just to see what they look like....if there's any similarities at all with us.

With the new tech coming out - it's science fiction come to life! BabyX. Backpack jets. Laser weapons.
LOL. I think of the movie Alien. Who knows....there could be alien monsters, too!