• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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?

eohrnberger said:
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.
Click to expand...

A perspective based on facts is not equally valid to a perspective that ignores facts and comes to a conclusion opposite of them.

If you believe that's the same validity, then it's no wonder you're in the "ignore the facts and go opposite" crew.
 
ecofarm said:
A perspective based on facts is not equally valid to a perspective that ignores facts and comes to a conclusion opposite of them.

If you believe that's the same validity, then it's no wonder you're in the "ignore the facts and go opposite" crew.
Click to expand...

I'm ignoring no facts. You've referred to facts, but haven't cited even one of them, or expanded on them, you are just repeating yourself.
 
eohrnberger said:
I'm ignoring no facts. You've referred to facts, but haven't cited even one of them, or expanded on them, you are just repeating yourself.
Click to expand...

You're denying that technological advancements have always been accompanied by social advancements?

This is getting stupid. Good day.
 
eohrnberger said:
With the vast distances and inherent extremely low density of the cosmos, I'm not optimistic about such a message making it to, much less being understood by, another sentient species.

In order to have an environment that can nurture life, you need an rocky planet in the goldilocks zone, with liquid water, a still hot and liquid iron-nickel core below the rocky surface to ward off cosmic radiation and solar flairs and their destruction of life, a stable medium sized sun, with a larger than usual moon for tides, a balanced composition atmosphere that doesn't dive off into greenhouse gas hell, such as Venus, and a number of millions of years of relative environmental stability.

That's one hell of a lot of low probability conditions required for life, much less the development of advanced life. I'm rather dubious that its likely to actually exist, but that being said, the universe is extremely large, so we'd not know as of right now.
Click to expand...

Your requirements for life presumes life as we know it. Which is not necessarily the case. Even on earth we are finding life that doesn't the norm. Lots of it.

With billions of galaxies with billions of stars with trillions of planets it's more probable that life in some form exists elsewhere than it doesn't.
 
ecofarm said:
You're denying that technological advancements have always been accompanied by social advancements?

This is getting stupid. Good day.
Click to expand...

No, I'm questioning whether a moral society is required for technological advancement, leaning more to the position that it isn't required.
 
eohrnberger said:
No, I'm questioning whether a moral society is required for technological advancement, leaning more to the position that it isn't required.
Click to expand...

Just the facts. I'll stick with them. I know there are a million complaints and gripes about the facts. I know evil aliens is way better for sci fi. But I'm gonna stick with the facts.

Technological advancement is accompanied by social advancement all the time.
 
ecofarm said:
Just the facts. I'll stick with them. I know there are a million complaints and gripes about the facts. I know evil aliens is way better for sci fi. But I'm gonna stick with the facts.

Technological advancement is accompanied by social advancement all the time.
Click to expand...

You want to stick with facts. OK.

Are you sure that you aren't equating an advance society with a moral society?
I'm not at all the sure that those two things are dependent on each other, which has been my point all along.

In feudal Japan they had their warrior class, the Samurai. If a serf didn't bow low enough, the Samurai was fully entitled, and expected to behead them on the spot. Brutal. Immoral some would rightly say.

Yet that same society created alloy steel and forging techniques for the Samurai swords, the Katana, that well exceeded any other nation's abilities, approx. 1185–1333.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katana

So, no, being a moral society isn't necessarily connected to being a technologically advanced society, apparently.
 
I should have bet money he'd reduce context, to an individual person if necessary, to find objection to obvious sociological fact.

Tell me, if we have not always advanced socially with technology, how are we here?

This is so stupid. Seriously, good day.
 
ecofarm said:
I should have bet money he'd reduce context, to an individual person if necessary, to find objection to obvious sociological fact.

Tell me, if we have not always advanced socially with technology, how are we here?

This is so stupid. Seriously, good day.
Click to expand...

Again you cite 'obvious sociological fact' and refuse to cite them.

The fact is that societal technological advancement has nothing to do with the morals of that society, but apparently you are hiding indisputable proof somewhere that this isn't the case.

Of the greatest advancements in technology were the Germans leading up to, and during WW II, some would accurately say they set the stage for modern times, yet would you call that society a moral one?

There. I've backup my position now twice, and you have yet to back up yours. Let's see if, if you please.
 
eohrnberger said:
Again you cite 'obvious sociological fact' and refuse to cite them.

The fact is that societal technological advancement has nothing to do with the morals of that society, but apparently you are hiding indisputable proof somewhere that this isn't the case.

Of the greatest advancements in technology were the Germans leading up to, and during WW II, some would accurately say they set the stage for modern times, yet would you call that society a moral one?

There. I've backup my position now twice, and you have yet to back up yours. Let's see if, if you please.
Click to expand...

We're not talking about 20 years. We're talking about interstellar travel. Could people, as a whole, be worse in 20 years? It's lightning strike possible. Could people, as a whole, be worse when we reach interstellar travel? No.

Your problem is of scale and context. You can't see the forest past whatever tree you throw in your way. It's like you're consciously fighting an understanding of the evidence.

And I claimed it's an obvious fact. No sociology is needed to see it. No science at all is required. Just look.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
We're not talking about 20 years. We're talking about interstellar travel. Could people, as a whole, be worse in 20 years? It's lightning strike possible. Could people, as a whole, be worse when we reach interstellar travel? No.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand that this is your position, that any society that is advanced as to have achieved interstellar travel will be like wonderful angles descending from the heavens, and if humans achieve interstellar travel, we'll be the angles descending from the heavens.

That's an awfully rosy picture of an interstellar capable society, one that I'm rather skeptical of. As I have shown, through historic examples, technological advancement has nothing to do with morals. The two are completely different aspects of a society and have no relation or dependency on each other.

You've yet produce a single citation in support of your position that the two are related or dependent on each other, other than the empty claim of ' it's an obvious fact'. If it were such an obvious fact, then the production of a citation should be child's play.

Your problem is of scale and context. You can't see the forest past whatever tree you throw in your way. It's like you're consciously fighting an understanding of the evidence.

And I claimed it's an obvious fact. No sociology is needed to see it. No science at all is required. Just look.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not 'consciously fighting an understanding of the evidence'. Its just that my understanding of the evidence differers from yours, and apparently you don't like that. Well, I'm sorry, but that's tough.
 
jimbo said:
Your requirements for life presumes life as we know it. Which is not necessarily the case. Even on earth we are finding life that doesn't the norm. Lots of it.

With billions of galaxies with billions of stars with trillions of planets it's more probable that life in some form exists elsewhere than it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Fair, but still, in order to biological processes to be able to function, it's not as wide a margin, I'm thinking, further, in order for that life to raise up to become intelligent and technologically advanced. It all adds up to a rather series of remote possibilities.
 
OscarLevant said:
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?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's not the way an expanding universe works.

As far as "sightings" are concerned... I think it is very telling that they have gotten less prevalent with the increase of people armed with cameras in their pockets. If UFO's are real, wouldn't the opposite be true?
 
SoulFire77 said:
Sorry, but that's not the way an expanding universe works.

As far as "sightings" are concerned... I think it is very telling that they have gotten less prevalent with the increase of people armed with cameras in their pockets. If UFO's are real, wouldn't the opposite be true?
Click to expand...


I see more and more people walking around looking at the screen of their phone and not noticing the world around them.

So, if that's it, it makes perfect sense why sightings are down. Another aspect which I think validates this idea that smart phones are reducing sightings because they are taking people's attention away from world around them, is that if there is no such thing as a flying saucer, why then would other phenomena which are not actual UFOs but which would normally result in UFO sightngs, why would those sightings be down? So normal non-ufo phenomena is down, too? That doesn't make sense. No, the only thing that does make sense is that phones are deflecting attention away from the world around us.

In other words, there might be a perfectly valid reason (other than the notion that there is no such thing as a flying saucer from outer space), so I wouldn't hang my hat of denying their existence entirely on that supposition.
 
Last edited:
In my opinion, arguing over the standards of morality is futile to began with. As lightly evidenced by the two views presented, morals are subjective. What is the accepted moral norm by one group is often considered immoral by another and vice versa. On top of that morals are fluid with time, in our own society, things considered moral at one point in time are now looked at as immoral and conversely what was once considered as immoral is often looked at now as being moral.

As to life elsewhere in the universe, I presented my view in post #50 for anyone who might want to look at it.
 
Sabre said:
We have discovered that it appears that the majority if star systems we have been able to observe have planetary systems in place.

So far as we have been able to perceive the known universe is 46.5 billion light years in any direction.

The distance is go great that the galaxy systems we think we see now, may not really exist now.

According to the best estimates of astronomers there are at least one hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe.

If you multiply the number of stars (suns) in our galaxy by the number of known galaxies in the Universe, you get approximately an amount that would be a septillion stars, that’s a 1 followed by twenty-four zeros. Add to that, our galaxy is small in comparison to a great many. Given you have a septillion suns and it appears the norm for them to have planets... I would say the likely hood of intelligent life in another system is 100%.

Using our planet as a litmus test for life, to me, is foolish.. it only defines life as we know it, does not mean many intelligent forms of life could develop under conditions hostile to us, but not them.
Click to expand...

Thinking of the Universe in those terms always makes me feel so insignificant. Just a speck of nothing in the grand view of it all.
 
They are already here and running our world from the 'top' levels.


And no, this is not a joke.
 
Belieth said:
They are already here and running our world from the 'top' levels.


And no, this is not a joke.
Click to expand...

It is, and not a very funny one. We are used to better trolls than you. Try harder.
 
We're still infectious. Racist nazi xenopohobes are the last to be Uplifted. We need to either civilise up, or blow ourselves up before they permit us access to anywhere more than the solar system.
 
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...

Millions eh? :lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom