Extraterrestrials

[EHocking]

What is so wrong with that EHocking!?

It was your contention that TV news, channels and sport aren't utter BS.

What do you watch on TV that is so great!?

Who said great, we're talking about veracity.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Yeah, I realize that it came off more harshely than I intended after I wrote it. The consequences of posting during my lunch hour, while also dealing with other issues. My appologies.

Don't worry, I didn't take it as being harsh. Nor did I mean my reply to come across as harsh. That's the vagaries of communicating via a medium that doesn't convey tone of voice or facial expressions for you.

My point was merely that as things stand right now, there's no real data one way or another about the evolutionary advantages of intelligence.

Absolutely. I completely agree. But that doesn't stop us thinking about what conclusions to draw nonetheless. I know that the sample size is so ridiculously small that to even have an opinion is stupid in the extreme, but that doesn't stop me from having one nonetheless. I don't think it's a problem as long as you acknowledge that your opinion is almost entirely baseless and regard it as incredibly easy to discard.

Others will find ways to prolong their species' lifespan (meaning the lifespan of the species, not necessarily of the individual members).

This is something I'm not sure I can see. That requires a certain long-sightedness which I can't see as being intrinsic to any species. Perhaps if we're talking about an intelligent version of those jellyfish that can apparently make themselves young again instead of dying?

Still others may arive at some sort of stasis--the more industrialized countries on Earth have lower reproductive rates, after all.

This is also true. As I said, all the things I mentioned as potential pitfalls for our species are also mitigated by other factors. But, again, we're talking about the extreme short-term. What's it going to be like in 100 years? In 1,000? Will reproductive rates still be low? Will the industrialised countries still be the big fish that they are now? Will the Earth be dominated by luddite theocracies with low standards of living? The Middle East was the centre of learning and science while Europe was still in the Dark Ages and look how that turned out. There's no reason to assume that standards of living or of knowledge will continue to get better or even stay the same.

What I'm trying to get at is that I don't think it pays too much to focus on specifics - the environment, nuclear weapons, overpopulation, etc. I'm just using them as examples of where our intelligence has created potential pitfalls for us. The central point, I think, is that our intelligence only mitigates our tribal, aggressive, short-sighted, animal side to a certain degree. At base we are still little mammals who metaphorically look over their shoulders nervously when they see long grass twitch, who bare their teeth when they see a stranger, and who make sure that their community's children get all the resources.

I think the best example is the environment. Not as an example in and of itself, but as an example of behaviour. It's one thing to know that the planet has some problems caused by carbon emissions. You can be both terrified and angry about it...but you'll probably still own a car. And that's what I'm talking about. You can know the problem is very real, but it still seems sort of abstract because it's a global problem and one that operates on a slow timescale, compared to a human lifespan. And that's what I mean that, as creatures, we're not really equipped to deal with problems that big or consequences that long in time. And it doesn't matter that there are individuals who can and do act how their intelligence tells them they should, as a species we don't.

And the point with nuclear weapons is kind of the opposite, if I can contradict myself and still try to make the same point. We've developed a weapon whereby it only takes a relatively few individuals to act irrationally and it can have consequences for everybody. I mentioned North Korea. You have a country that has weapons that could cause lots of people to die slowly and painfully, and the man in charge already thinks he's an immortal god.

So where we're at is a situation where it would take lots of people acting in an unnatural way (or, at least, a way that's counter to our animalistic natures) to mitigate the harm from our intelligence, but where it can take a very few people to cause a great deal of harm. It strikes me that the risks of this level of intelligence far outweigh the benefits, on a species level. After all, you only have to have Armageddon once to wipe the species out. You have to avoid it each and every single time to survive. And we've kind of headed in that direction a few times in a few different ways over the last 100 years already.

Again, this is all conjecture and I could easily be wrong. But I just don't see it as offsetting our animalistic traits enough for the benefits to outweigh the dangers. And I can't see it being very different for an alien intelligence.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

What do you watch on TV that is so great!?

Neighbours, Doctor Who, Misfits, Being Human...all sorts.

Also, a thought just occurred: We're basing all of our ideas off of detecting things from Earth. The 3k lightyear radius brought it to mind--if we colonize other systems, that radius increases and so do our odds of finding other intelligent life. The statement "It's vastly unlikely" is good for local (say, Solar System) guestimates, but not for space-colonizing-species guestimates. We still have no clue what those odds are, however.

See, I also don't think space-faring in the sense of getting individuals outside of a solar system is at all likely. If at some point in the future we learn that something like, say, warp technology is possible, I'll revise that opinion but, for now, I can't see it happening.

 

[USEagle13]

It was your contention that TV news, channels and sport aren't utter BS.Who said great, we're talking about veracity.

Ok point me into the direction of ethical greatness then

 

[carlitos]

I think that extraterrestrials are out of this world.

 

[Stray Cat]

Pfffffft I have you "smoked" on this one.

Obama cigarettes

Obama first president to be in video game while in office

Sorry, I don't see the relevance here.... are cig ads good now?
Or just the one's on WooTube?

As for for the Video Game ad.... so what?

Let's bring the thread back on track with some Extraterrestrial stuff eh?

 

[EHocking]

Ok point me into the direction of ethical greatness then

Critical thinking.

You're unlikely to find much veracity in sports broadcasts, religious programs or syndicated media news. Critical thinking will at least arm you with the potential to winnow out the mendacious.

 

[Dinwar]

Absolutely. I completely agree. But that doesn't stop us thinking about what conclusions to draw nonetheless. I know that the sample size is so ridiculously small that to even have an opinion is stupid in the extreme, but that doesn't stop me from having one nonetheless. I don't think it's a problem as long as you acknowledge that your opinion is almost entirely baseless and regard it as incredibly easy to discard.

Fair enough. This would be a short thread if anyone thought otherwise! My take on this topic is slightly different, I think. Because we're limited to one datapoint, all we can really say is what this one species did. To determine the odds of encountering another intelligent species, my method is to determine the range of possible options. Once we find aliens, we can begin to fill out which are more likely. I'm defining a probability space (in subjective and very vague terms, but still...) without really bothering to determine which areas will be occupied and which won't. It's a biase of training--morphospace analyses constantly show that the total potential number of morphologies is less than the number of actual morphologies in any species and in any area. Without more data than we have, we can't really say why one probability-space possition should be filled and another not, however, and therefore I'm not going to try.

This is something I'm not sure I can see. That requires a certain long-sightedness which I can't see as being intrinsic to any species. Perhaps if we're talking about an intelligent version of those jellyfish that can apparently make themselves young again instead of dying?

Like I said, I'm not saying that they'll increase the span of individual lives (though that's not implausable); what I mean is that an alien species could conceivably attempt to prevent their species from going extinct. Extinctions happen for a number of reasons, most of which can be mitigated. A cosmopolitan species can't be destroyed by local or regional events. An omnivorous species can't be wiped out by the extinction of any single other species (though the extinction of a suite of species may still do the trick). A species enhabiting multiple planets can't be wiped out by any individual stellar catastrophy. It's not impossible that an alien species would see all of this and decide, as a whole, to prevent extinction. Unlikely? Maybe. Depends on the species. But it's not impossible, and as we're discussing the nature of species which we have no evidence for I take the view that whatever isn't impossible is up for discussion.

What I'm trying to get at is that I don't think it pays too much to focus on specifics - the environment, nuclear weapons, overpopulation, etc. I'm just using them as examples of where our intelligence has created potential pitfalls for us.

I understand, and am attempting to do the same. Unfortunately, the fact that we only have one datum limits the ability to discuss this in general terms. What I'm getting at is that while some species of alien may indeed wipe themselves out, others may go an entirely different route--and until we know more about any aliens it's really impossible to assign probabilities to this question. Sure, humans have almost blown ourselves into extinction a handful of times--but these aliens would not, by definition, be humans, and may not have the same reactions to similar events that humans have.

Again, this is all conjecture and I could easily be wrong. But I just don't see it as offsetting our animalistic traits enough for the benefits to outweigh the dangers. And I can't see it being very different for an alien intelligence.

Is the glass half-empty or half-full? You see near-misses and say "We'll never survive--look how close we've come to destruction!" Others could look at the exact same dataset and say "We'll always survive--look at how we've dealt with every single event that could have destroyed us!" I am, essentially, taking the middle of the road on this--some sentient beings will likely blow themselves up, some will likely not, and many will likely never have the chance to do either.

See, I also don't think space-faring in the sense of getting individuals outside of a solar system is at all likely. If at some point in the future we learn that something like, say, warp technology is possible, I'll revise that opinion but, for now, I can't see it happening.

I disagree. I think it's very likely, provided we survive long enough and don't degenerate into theocracy. If nothing else, our sun will, at some point, destroy our world. Earth has an expiration date. If we're not off it by then, we die. Sure, it'll be millions of years before things get uncomfortable, but once we colonize other planets in other systems (or build the ships to do so, at any rate) our species will survive such an event. And while humans may never do so, I find it difficult to believe that in all the vastness of the cosmos there is no species of aliens, anywhere, where a leader has had a similar idea and acted upon it.

And I should note that I really wasn't making an argument; it was more of an observation. It's something that I don't think people generaly consider, but which never the less would influence the equation. As we're still more or less Earth-bound, it really doesn't matter at this point.

Ok point me into the direction of ethical greatness then

As a response to the statement you quoted, this is nearly nonsensical.

And I'd like to point out that many sports commentators are less accurate than random chance. If you flip a coin to determine what team to bet on you'll come out further ahead than if you listen to the best sports commentators. And honestly a bunch of guys sitting around running their mouths about subjects that are irrelevant, when I know they have no idea if half of what they say is anything close to true, isn't exactly my idea of good television.

 

[bruto]

ok point me into the direction of ethical greatness then

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Like I said, I'm not saying that they'll increase the span of individual lives (though that's not implausable); what I mean is that an alien species could conceivably attempt to prevent their species from going extinct.

And what I'm saying is that unless the species in question is incredibly long-lived compared to us then they're likely to be just as short-sighted as we are. Evolutionary pressures didn't favour long-sightedness in us because the problems which are extinction level events aren't immediate ones. Immediate problems were finding shelter for the night, keeping the wolves away from the children, etc. Lowering carbon emissions so that the ecology will start to improve in 40 years time just isn't on the same level. We're geared towards the immediate survival of our own genes and those genes which are closely related to ours. Our understanding of evolution tells us that any alien species of comparable intelligence will most likely be the same.

I disagree. I think it's very likely, provided we survive long enough and don't degenerate into theocracy.

But how? Our current understanding of physics doesn't really allow for interstellar travel. Unless we learn some new physics, I'm sticking with what we know is or is not possible.

 

[Cuddles]

The way I look at it is this. Firstly, while for some species intelligence is a trait which facilitates survival, we've got enough stupid species which do perfectly well on this planet to make it perfectly clear that it's not necessary.

Certainly not necessary, but clearly beneficial for at least some species.

Dinosaurs were thick as molasses and they ruled this planet for many times the length of time we've existed.

"Dinosaurs" is not a species. Most dinosaurs were likely no more intelligent than most other animals, although I don't believe there's any evidence that they were particularly stupid. However, that does not rule out some species of dinosaur being much more intelligent than others. It's like looking at a cow and concluding that all mammals are stupid.

We know that in this planet's history that it's only happened the once.

We know no such thing. We're still not completely decided if there's only one species currently at that level of intelligence (I think most people agree that species like dolphins and chimpanzees are both quantitatively and qualitatively lower intelligence, but there is still some debate), let alone what may have existed at other times. We're reasonably sure that we're the first technological civilisation to arise, but we don't have anywhere near enough information to conclude we're the only intelligent species to arise. We have no evidence of others, but we certainly can't rule them out.

Furthermore, our level of intelligence would seem to be something of a threat to long-term survival.

Firstly, you have no idea if that is the case. The only evidence we have says that intelligence hasn't made us extinct yet. Secondly, and more importantly, it's completely irrelevant. Whether intelligence causes long term problems has no bearing on whether it arises in the first place.

And who can say what position an extraterrestrial intelligence like ours could be in - what if their version of the Cuban Missile Crisis had gone a different way?

Like I say, doesn't matter. They have to exist to get to the Cuban missile crisis in the first place, and that's all the question was.

For me, the chances that our possibly brief, brief span in this universe will coincide with the possibly equally brief, brief span of a comparable species takes the high probability of intelligent life existing somewhere at some time and turns it into a low probability of intelligent life existing somewhere right now.

The basic point is that space is big. The observable universe contains around 10²² stars, a significant proportion of which likely have planets, and that's only a fraction of the actual universe (we don't know exactly how big it is, but we can put a lower bound on it). And organic molecules seem to pop up almost everywhere they possibly could. Even if the chance of life forming is low and the chance of it developing intelligence even lower, there's just so many opportunities for it to happen. The problem is simply that it would be virtually impossible for us to notice it even in this galaxy, let alone anywhere else.

 

[Dinwar]

Our understanding of evolution tells us that any alien species of comparable intelligence will most likely be the same.

No, not really. The aliens will have evolved in a different environment, by definition. This means they will be different. And you're trying to apply evolutionary principles to psychology. While not impossible, I don't think we know enough to make predictions about psychologies using those methods. I mean, the very fact that you mention long-term threats implies that not everyone is blind to them, and in ten years who knows whether we'll be fixing them or not.

But how? Our current understanding of physics doesn't really allow for interstellar travel. Unless we learn some new physics, I'm sticking with what we know is or is not possible.

Put people like me, who agree that our species needs to leave this system in order to ensure long-term survival, onto a large number of ships. Send those ships into space. The issue isn't whether we can do it or not, but rather whether we're willing. And I'm not saying do it right now--like I said, we've got a few billion years. Start by colonizing Mars and other planets/moons here. Once we're used to the idea of a system-wide civilization (but not necessarily waiting until ALL the kinks are worked out), use what we've learned to send people to other systems. Sure, it's a one-way trip--but it's neither impossible nor without value. Like I said, right now a single random event can (and eventually will) destroy us all. Once we colonize other planets around other stars, that'll no longer be the case.

 

[catsmate]

You're surprised by this?

 

[NateHevens]

My turn: I'm only going to repeat most people, but:

Our Universe is ridiculously huge. The amount of planets in just the part of the universe we can see is an unfathomably large number. I don't see how it's probable that we humans are the only intelligent life form in the universe. That honestly doesn't make sense just on sheer size alone. I could believe it to be the case for our galaxy, and I would even accept the idea ranging out to our closest neighboring galaxies, but no way are we the only intelligent life in the whole of our universe. The sizes and numbers are so vast that even ridiculously rare still works out to huge numbers.

So:

I think there are definitely single-cell and simple ETs, perhaps even in our own solar system. I think complex ETs, ranging from larger bacteria all the way to what we'd probably identify as "animals" may exist somewhere in the Milky Way.

I would say we are definitely the most advanced form of life on our solar system. Although at today's technological level it'd be hard to prove, I'd say we are likely the most advanced/intelligent species in the Milky Way, and perhaps the same is true when including our closest neighboring galaxies.

But in our entire galactic neighborhood? In the part of the universe we can see? In the entire universe. No way. I really do think there are other lifeforms at least as intelligent as us, if not more so.

But we've never been visited. I'd say that if an extraterrestrial species is so advanced that they can travel such distances so quickly (however they do it), they very likely don't give a crap about us or our planet. Maybe they're trying to figure out how to leave our universe and visit others (if they haven't already). Or maybe they're trying to figure out how to travel into different dimensions.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

We're still not completely decided if there's only one species currently at that level of intelligence (I think most people agree that species like dolphins and chimpanzees are both quantitatively and qualitatively lower intelligence, but there is still some debate)[...]

Is there? Actual, proper, widely-happening academic debate? Can you link to any examples?

We have no evidence of others, but we certainly can't rule them out.

Isn't having no evidence for something a very good reason to rule it out? Assuming something doesn't exist unless there's a reason to assume it does exist is a cornerstone of both sceptical and scientific thinking.

Firstly, you have no idea if that is the case.

Hence my use of the word "seem", my several posts containing paragraphs of explaining why I've come to the conclusions I have, and the many times I've used the qualifiers that we are all indulging in conjecture that's on incredibly shaky ground. If you really need me to re-state all these points I will, but it seems something of an exercise in futility to me when I quite emphatically and without prompting conceded the point you just made in the very post that you're replying to.

Whether intelligence causes long term problems has no bearing on whether it arises in the first place.

I've never even so much as vaguely implied that it does. I have no idea where you're getting that from.

Like I say, doesn't matter. They have to exist to get to the Cuban missile crisis in the first place, and that's all the question was.

What question? Not the question in the OP. Not any question you asked me in reply to my initial post in this thread.

The basic point is that space is big. The observable universe contains around 10²² stars, a significant proportion of which likely have planets, and that's only a fraction of the actual universe (we don't know exactly how big it is, but we can put a lower bound on it).

[...]

Even if the chance of life forming is low and the chance of it developing intelligence even lower, there's just so many opportunities for it to happen. The problem is simply that it would be virtually impossible for us to notice it even in this galaxy, let alone anywhere else.

I agree with all your premises here. I just disagree with your conclusions, for reasons that I've already gone in to at length. Reasons which, for the most part, you've either ignored or declared to be irrelevant and then gone on to address things I didn't say.

And organic molecules seem to pop up almost everywhere they possibly could.

Do they? We only have evidence of them cropping up once. I hope we'll get that mission to Europa and I hope that they'll find something there, but until they do we've only the one datapoint.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

No, not really. The aliens will have evolved in a different environment, by definition.

But not that different. One thing that scientists seem to agree on is that any planet which harbours alien life will be rather similar to Earth. It'll be a somewhat similar environment with somewhat similar creatures (they're likely to be carbon-based, to have DNA, etc.), evolving through the same process. Look at all the instances of parallel evolution on this planet.

I see no reason to suppose that alien life wouldn't be somewhat recognisable.

And you're trying to apply evolutionary principles to psychology. While not impossible, I don't think we know enough to make predictions about psychologies using those methods.

Once more, for the record: conjecture upon conjecture.

I mean, the very fact that you mention long-term threats implies that not everyone is blind to them, and in ten years who knows whether we'll be fixing them or not.

As I said before, some people being aware of long-term problems isn't enough to mitigate them, as some require everybody to fix them, and others can be caused by very few people in and of themselves. Furthermore, it's one thing to be aware of these long-term problems, and it's another to do something about them. For example, I am aware of environmental issues and yet I'll usually leave my computer on when I go out to work or go to bed. Because the environmental problem, even as I understand it intellectually, still seems like something far away and far off. And my little extra bit of carbon footprint can't matter all that much, right? Right?*

*Of course it does. It all adds up.

Put people like me, who agree that our species needs to leave this system in order to ensure long-term survival, onto a large number of ships.

What kind of ships? Headed where? Using what technology?

I've yet to read any suggestion for interstellar travel that is plausible when it comes to physics as we currently understand it. As I've said, I'll revise that opinion if new thinking arises, or if I can be shown to be wrong. But, as I currently understand the state of play, interstellar travel simply isn't viable.

 

[Dinwar]

But not that different. One thing that scientists seem to agree on is that any planet which harbours alien life will be rather similar to Earth.

I'm not one of them. Check out the Hadean sometime--when life arose. Or the Ediacara, when complex life became common. These are worlds as different from our Earth as Venus or Mars.

I see no reason to suppose that alien life wouldn't be somewhat recognisable.

Recognizable, yes. Respond to long-term evolutionary threats the same way we do? Too little data to tell.

As I said before, some people being aware of long-term problems isn't enough to mitigate them, as some require everybody to fix them, and others can be caused by very few people in and of themselves. Furthermore, it's one thing to be aware of these long-term problems, and it's another to do something about them.

My point is, either your conclusion or mine are equally supportable by the data. In our species, yeah, many ignore long-term threats. However, there are indications that this will not always be the case. In our species, it could go either way. In some alien species it'll go one way, in others it'll go the other. There's simply no justification for concluding that one is more likely than the other.

I've yet to read any suggestion for interstellar travel that is plausible when it comes to physics as we currently understand it.

What speeds are you talking about? As I said, if you're talking about round trips to the Megalantic Clouds over the summer, yeah, it's beyond us. I'm not so sure about a ship designed in terms of generations. And I have seen designs that appear perfectly feasable, at least in terms of engineering (it's the cost and the one-way ticket that cause most to reject this).

And when the choice is between building these ships and the Sun consuming the planet, I have a feeling there'll be at least a subset of the population willing to live in a spaceship for a while. Certain death has a way of driving people towards high-risk activities.

Do they? We only have evidence of them cropping up once. I hope we'll get that mission to Europa and I hope that they'll find something there, but until they do we've only the one datapoint.

I highly recommend reading Bad Astronomy. The author is an astronomer, and has pointed out repeatedly over the time I've been reading his blog that sugars, amino acids, and other organic molecules have been found pretty much all over space. Numerous examples of organic mollecules in metiorite fragments have been documented as well. We have plenty of records of non-terrestrial organic material.

 

[Cuddles]

I agree with all your premises here. I just disagree with your conclusions, for reasons that I've already gone in to at length. Reasons which, for the most part, you've either ignored or declared to be irrelevant and then gone on to address things I didn't say.

Jesus Christ dude, calm down. It's just a friendly discussion which everyone has already agreed is nothing more than pure speculation. I haven't ignored anything you said, I just don't agree with you. No need for the hissy fit.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I'm not one of them. Check out the Hadean sometime--when life arose. Or the Ediacara, when complex life became common. These are worlds as different from our Earth as Venus or Mars.

]

And yet there's no life on Venus or Mars. One thing that certainly seems to be necessary is liquid water, and that in and of itself narrows the possibilities down a great deal.

Respond to long-term evolutionary threats the same way we do? Too little data to tell.

Once more with feeling: conjecture upon conjecture.

However, there are indications that this will not always be the case.

Are there?

There's simply no justification for concluding that one is more likely than the other.

Let's take a step back and look at what I was originally saying. I'm not saying that it's impossible for an intelligent species to last for a reasonable amount of time, I'm saying that there are reasons to suppose that our level of intelligence may be a threat to long-term survival. This makes the number of intelligent species who will survive long-term likely to be fewer than if it wasn't.

As for the justification that one is more likely than the other, I repeat that you only have to have Armageddon once, whereas you have to avoid it every single time.

What speeds are you talking about?

Any speeds.

I'm not so sure about a ship designed in terms of generations. And I have seen designs that appear perfectly feasable, at least in terms of engineering (it's the cost and the one-way ticket that cause most to reject this).

I'd love to see a design for a plausible generational starship. How, for example, would a ship that size avoid being dragged down and/or impacted by all the space debris that something with that amount of gravity would accumulate?

I highly recommend reading Bad Astronomy. The author is an astronomer, and has pointed out repeatedly over the time I've been reading his blog that sugars, amino acids, and other organic molecules have been found pretty much all over space. Numerous examples of organic mollecules in metiorite fragments have been documented as well. We have plenty of records of non-terrestrial organic material.

Fair enough.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Jesus Christ dude, calm down. It's just a friendly discussion which everyone has already agreed is nothing more than pure speculation. I haven't ignored anything you said, I just don't agree with you. No need for the hissy fit.

What "hissy fit"? I'm honestly completely bemused by your responses to me in this thread.

But it does seem clear that you're not interested in a "friendly discussion" with me, so I won't bother correcting your mis-statements in this post, or responding to you again in this thread.