• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why haven't aliens contacted us?

ThoughtEx. said:
View attachment 67234183

:think:

What if, like, because we're aliens to them, their government has covered us up?
Click to expand...

When Thomas Jefferson bough Louisiana, and development, did he bother to communicate with the squirrels? Why then, would alien life bother to communicate with us?
 
Utility Man said:
tumblr_opwwli1G6Y1qzofaho1_500.jpg


;)
Click to expand...

I thought this site was non political.Whats up?
 
More possible evidence we may be among the first ETCs in existence....


The activity-level of Quasars did not decline below 10% of peak maximum, until approximately redshift z~0.5 about 5.5 billion years ago.

If peak-level QSOs effectively “sterilize” their host galaxies, then the Universe has only been “fertile” and life-amenable for a billion years longer than the age of the Earth. And if so, then terrestrial life may be one of the first biospheres to emerge in the Cosmos. Such would have profound implications for, and perhaps largely explain, the “Great Silence” of Fermi’s Paradox.
-Erik Nelson M.S. Cosmology UCalif.
 
yankintx said:
The Aliens have seen who the current leader of the free world is, and decided this planet has not evolved enough.
Click to expand...

You really should sell help for your TDS. It's not healthy to live your life consumed by such petty hate.
 
The aliens that have not figured out FTL haven't found us.

The aliens that have figured out FTL can find more interesting things than us.
 
Hey Goshin. A great and thoughtful post, which took me a few days of consideration. Sorry for the delay.

Goshin said:
Recent research indicates the conditions for life may be more flexible than once supposed, and that planets with such conditions may not be as improbable as some speculations have indicated. But we don't know, for sure, and won't until we can see those little specks much more clearly... in just a few more years with the new TESS and Webb telescopes we may have a much better idea.
Click to expand...

Hmm. Maybe. But still; seems that to find life, much more intelligent life, much more advanced technology intelligent life having built a civilization, yet more reduction in the probabilities as you stack them up on top of one another and even on top of the environmental conditions cited previously. I'm not stating it as impossible, but simply stating that as you stack up all the improbabilities its a factorial equation, moving the probabilities from the remote to the extreme remote as they multiply each other.

But that's "life in general", including simple microbes standing alone. An ETC (extra-terrestrial civilization) is a much more uncertain prospect. For that you probably require advanced life, and big brains, and even then there's something more. Lots of terrestrial animals have big brains, but still don't exhibit evidence of H.Sap. level intelligence.
Click to expand...

As posted above. Agreed.

To be a technological, communicative ETC they'd need advanced communication (such as language), data storage (ie writing), the ability to readily manipulate their environment (opposable thumbs, etc), strong curiosity or equivalent (to explore, experiment, and build new things), to develop to the level of technology that would allow them to communicate with us, or otherwise do things we could detect going on in our stellar neighborhood.

Then, setting "FTL" aside for the moment, they'd need to survive as an advanced civilization long enough for us to detect their signals, or vice-versa. And the signals would need to be strong: people often talk about how we've been sending out RF for over 100 years, but scientists have said we probably couldn't detect equivalent-strength signals coming from Alpha Centauri with our current in-use radio telescopes (too weak).
Click to expand...

Sublight probes like Breaththrough Starshot or the Orion Project probably wouldn't be used except for relatively short range missions of less than 50 LY.

I think we, as intelligent humans, need to realize that without FTL there is little chance to travel to distant anything in the universe, to discover and explore as we have on our own world, in any practical sense or time frame.

People sometimes say "Well SETI has been looking for ET for sixty years with not a peep", but in fact SETI has only been looking at a relatively limited number of stars, and only on an off-and-on basis as they can get telescope time... we could literally have been bombarded with hundreds of ETC radio messages in the past 60 years and missed them all because we weren't looking at that moment, or were not looking in the right direction, or were not listening to the right frequencies.

Space is big. Not just in distance, but also in time scales.
Click to expand...

No doubt. But it seems that you are placing a rather optimistic expectation on the sensing technologies, and the possible discoveries they might bring, than would appear to be reasonable.
 
We haven't seen any definite evidence of Kardashev II or III civilizations in the known universe... but again, the time scales involved make it dubious that we would, in the limited time we've been looking. Some ETC could have started dismantling the core of our galaxy for building materials yesterday, and we might not see it for another 20,000 years.
Click to expand...

True, but we humans aren't even a Kardashev II or III civilization yet either.

But leveling those time scales for the moment, the three most likely explanations for the seeming silence are:

1. Space is just too big, and we haven't been looking long enough or hard enough.

2. We're alone in the galaxy, and possibly the universe, as a technological civilization.

3. We're among the first technological civilizations to develop, or possibly THE first. (First past the "Great Filter" anyway, if there is one.) Any other ETC's that may currently exist are too far away for us to have detected yet.
Click to expand...

Space (the universe) might even to be big as to be unrealistic to think that puny electromagnetic waves would reach far enough, or with enough energy, to have even the most technologically advanced civilizations take notice (even if they are listening to the correct wavelength). It si this incomprehensible vastness, more than anything else, that I think defeats the whole idea.

It's a complicated line of conjecture, but we're accumulating more data every day. I will be intrigued to see what we find over the next decade or two as our ability to look more closely develops.
Click to expand...

Fair.

In the end, I will concede that we can't imagine the innovation that future human generations will bring that might make all these present constraints obsolete and irrelevant, but I taking the vastness of space in balance, I'm taking the position of not being what I perceive as being overly optimistic.
 
OscarLevant said:
I'm a UFO guy. Aliens, if you accept the reportage on it, actually do contact "us', but selectively. They
abduct humans (millions, actually) and subject them to tests, i.,e they are studying us just as we study lower species.

One thing is clear, they do not seem to care about our politics, or "landing on the white house lawn", that sort of thing.
Click to expand...

The only thing that is "clear" is that space aliens do not exist. People get "abducted" by their Prozac and their desperate desire for attention, that's all. The same kind of people claim that the Earth is flat, or that they have a psychic connection with the ghost of their long dead cat, or whatever...
 
eohrnberger said:
Hey Nota.

Well, possibly. If the aliens are that technologically advanced I guess it'd be even money that they might be just as morally advanced as well.
(Note Hat tip to 'The Twilight Zone's' 'To Serve Man' episode - hence even money)
Click to expand...

Not even-money. All the evidence. Social advancements have accompanied tech advances in every example available to us. To believe otherwise is to cast aside the only evidence available. It's a coin flip like the sun rising tomorrow.

Evil aliens is great for sci-fi but has no premise in science or evidence. It's part of the 'fiction'. Granted, anything is possible, but why exclude all the evidence.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Not even-money. All the evidence. Social advancements have accompanied tech advances in every example available to us. To believe otherwise is to cast aside the only evidence available. It's a coin flip like the sun rising tomorrow.

Evil aliens is great for sci-fi but has no premise in science or evidence. It's part of the 'fiction'. Granted, anything is possible, but why exclude all the evidence.
Click to expand...

Realistically, the existence, or lack of existence, of aliens has no premise in science or evidence at this point in time.

Technologically advancement is not dependent or nor a requirement of being morally advanced culture.
The two are independent variables of each other.
 
SoulFire77 said:
The only thing that is "clear" is that space aliens do not exist. People get "abducted" by their Prozac and their desperate desire for attention, that's all. The same kind of people claim that the Earth is flat, or that they have a psychic connection with the ghost of their long dead cat, or whatever...
Click to expand...



Would you accept the idea that, in the universe, there is not one category of anything?

There isn't one fly. There isn't one dog. There isn't one fish, one human, not one rock, one snake, one bird, one cloud, and on and on and on and on.

So, it isn't logical that there is only one planet with life. To assert that there is only one planet with intelligent life flies in the face of nature.

If you accept that there is more than one planet with life, given that there are literally trillions of solar systems, it is likely there are millions, of not billions of planets with life.

If that is true, then What are the odds there is NOT ONE OF THE PLANETS with life who are advanced enough to reach us?


Of the hundreds of thousands of UFO citings, what are the odds that NOT ONE OF THEM are real?
 
eohrnberger said:
Realistically, the existence, or lack of existence, of aliens has no premise in science or evidence at this point in time.

Technologically advancement is not dependent or nor a requirement of being morally advanced culture.
The two are independent variables of each other.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

All available evidence, that being on Earth, tells us that tech advancements are always accompanied by social advancements. 100% of the time. n = 10000000, results always the same.

Sure, we can throw out all available data and make up whatever we want. We can do that with anything. Or we can deal with the facts and draw the only logical conclusion.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Wrong.

All available evidence, that being on Earth, tells us that tech advancements are always accompanied by social advancements. 100% of the time.

Sure, we can throw out all available data and make up whatever we want. We can do that with anything. Or we can deal with the facts and draw the only logical conclusion.
Click to expand...

You are citing a single instance, the development of the human society, as proof positive?
Well, OK, but that's a rather small sample set on which to base that conclusion, isn't it?
 
eohrnberger said:
You are citing a single instance, the development of the human society, as proof positive?
Well, OK, but that's a rather small sample set on which to base that conclusion, isn't it?
Click to expand...

I'm citing all the evidence, facts, available. I'll draw my conclusion based on those, and they are unanimous.

One can base one's conclusion on nothing, and counter to all the evidence, but that's just making crap up.

Which do you think is better? Going with the evidence, or against it based on nothing?
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
I'm citing all the evidence, facts, available. I'll draw my conclusion based on those, and they are unanimous.

One can base one's conclusion on nothing, and counter to all the evidence, but that's just making crap up.

Which do you think is better? Going with the evidence, or against it based on nothing?
Click to expand...

Isn't there only a single instance on which you are basing your conclusion? The single instance of the human race and its society, its morality, and its technological advancement?

Which other instance besides that one are you basing your conclusion? You know of a non-human society that would be a second instance?
 
eohrnberger said:
Isn't there only a single instance on which you are basing your conclusion? The single instance of the human race and its society, its morality, and its technological advancement?

Which other instance besides that one are you basing your conclusion? You know of a non-human society that would be a second instance?
Click to expand...

Evidence and facts being rare doesn't make them safe to ignore. It's all the evidence available. It's unanimous. One can go with it or ignore all the evidence and come to a conclusion counter to the evidence for no reason.

For me, the choice is clear.

1. Accept the unanimous facts.

2. Ignore the facts and make something up that's opposite to them.

Everyone can pick, but I know who I'd associate with.
 
Last edited:
eohrnberger said:
Realistically, the existence, or lack of existence, of aliens has no premise in science or evidence at this point in time.

Technologically advancement is not dependent or nor a requirement of being morally advanced culture.
The two are independent variables of each other.
Click to expand...

Perhaps but then again if you have the technology to wipe yourseves out it is a good idea to have a social system where you try to get along with each other well.
 
ecofarm said:
Evidence and facts being rare doesn't make them safe to ignore. It's all the evidence available. It's unanimous. One can go with it or ignore all the evidence and come to a conclusion counter to the evidence for no reason.

For me, the choice is clear.

1. Accept the unanimous facts.

2. Ignore the facts and make something up that's opposite to them.

Everyone can pick, but I know who I'd associate with.
Click to expand...

What unanimous facts? (facts plural)

You have yet to mention any beyond the sample of one, the case of the human race and its society.

Are you arrogant to think that the way the human race and its society developed is the only way any society can develop and technologically advance?
 
eohrnberger said:
What unanimous facts? (facts plural)

You have yet to mention any beyond the sample of one, the case of the human race and its society.

Are you arrogant to think that the way the human race and its society developed is the only way any society can develop and technologically advance?
Click to expand...

While we only have one Earth, we have countless examples therein of technology advancing with social advancements. Every single time. All samples are the same result. The evidence is unanimous.

I'll stick with the facts and draw my conclusions from them. Others will ignore the facts and make up whatever they want even if it's the opposite of what all the facts indicate.

I guess it's two types of people.

You can keep complaining that we don't don't have a lot of evidence and facts, and using that to ignore them. Or you can accept the facts and come to a rational conclusion.
 
Last edited:
Tim the plumber said:
Perhaps but then again if you have the technology to wipe yourseves out it is a good idea to have a social system where you try to get along with each other well.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But that's not the precise topic that's being batted back and forth here, which is, 'is it possible for an amoral society to also technically advance?'

We have a single instance here, on planet Earth, the human race and its technological development, which happens to coincide with a more moral society.

My position is that it is possible that an amoral society achieve advanced technology, and since we only have a sample size of one, it is my position that we can't discount it as a possibility.
 
ecofarm said:
While we only have one Earth, we have countless examples therein of technology advancing with social advancements. Every single time. All samples are the same result. The evidence is unanimous.

I'll stick with the facts and draw my conclusions from them. Others will ignore the facts and make up whatever they want even if it's the opposite of what all the facts indicate.

I guess it's two types of people.
Click to expand...

So you are saying is that there are many human societies who have all achieved technological advancement independently of each other as a basis for your conclusion.

From my view there has only been a single human society for the last 60 years or so, or more, and it is in this period where the greatest technological advancements have occurred.

Has nothing to do with 'two types of people', but has everything to do with 2 types of perspectives.
 
eohrnberger said:
So you are saying is that there are many societies who have all achieved technological advancement independently as a basis.

From my view there has only been a single human society for the last 60 years or so.

Has nothing to do with 'two types of people', but has everything to do with 2 types of perspectives.
Click to expand...

Since prehistoric times, technological advancement is accompanied by social advancement in every instance.

1. Accept the facts and come to a conclusion based on them.

2. Ignore the facts and come to a conclusion opposite them.

Two types of people.
 
ecofarm said:
1. Accept the facts and come to a conclusion based on them.

2. Ignore the facts and come to the conclusion opposite them.

Two types of people.
Click to expand...

Which isn't cogent to the discussion, other than your attempt to dismiss an equally valid perspective that you don't agree with.

There's people who do this, and there's people who don't do this. 2 types of people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom