Extraterrestrials

[LarianLeQuella]

The only intellectually honest answer at this point in time is: "I don't know (yet)."

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

Really, mate. Y so srs?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Really, mate. Y so srs?

Ask Cuddles. I have no idea what's happened here.

 

[EHocking]

You're surprised by this?

I was, these days, more and more, I despair.

 

[Dinwar]

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.

Not really. There's a moon where, if I'm not mistaken, methane behaves in the way we expect water to here on Earth. It forms ice, lakes, weather, etc. From what I've read there seems to be no good reason to rule out life forming in such an environment. And until we find extraterrestrial life we cannot say what's necessary for life. I mean, we can't even DEFINE "life", so trying to say what's necessary for it is pretty much a waste of time at this point. Water is necessary for most Earth-like life, sure, but not all, and I'm not a fan of the argument "This is what we know of; therefore, this is what exists."

Once more with feeling: conjecture upon conjecture.

If that's your response, what's the point of discussing this? I mean, you've made a statement, one which is theoretically testable. The test hasn't been run. We're left discussing probabilities. If you're not willing to do that, what's the point of this discussion?

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.

Not exactly a compelling argument. There's really no data here, just mere speculation. I mean, if they colonize multiple planets prior to their Armageddon, then watch a world nuke itself into the Cambrian (or equivalent geologic period), I'm sure that would be something of a warning to the other critters with nukes. Some would take it as such, some wouldn't. Armageddon happened, the species survived. If we're going to limit ourselves to mere speculation, I can come up with just as many ways in which organisms wouldn't kill themselves as ways in which they would.

Also, you're building this on an unsupported foundation--that intelligence is detrimental to long-term survival. That's not been tested yet (we can't know why we'll go extinct until we do), though ample data seem to suggest otherwise (wiping out diseases isn't exactly a bad thing in terms of selective advantages). You're a pesimist, and that bias is coloring your view of the situation. And no, I'm not an optimist--if someone said intelligence was an advantageous trait, with the same quality of argument you're presenting, I'd argue against them too.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Not really. There's a moon where, if I'm not mistaken, methane behaves in the way we expect water to here on Earth. It forms ice, lakes, weather, etc. From what I've read there seems to be no good reason to rule out life forming in such an environment.

I'd be interested in more information on that.

Water is necessary for most Earth-like life, sure, but not all[...]

What Earth-like life doesn't require water?

[...]and I'm not a fan of the argument "This is what we know of; therefore, this is what exists."

Well, I'm not sure I've ever even seen a plausible mechanism suggested by which life that's not like life on this planet could exist. Again, if I am shown data which contradicts my assumptions I'll re-evaluate my conclusions. But I have, for example, recently seen a New Scientist article in which scientists (I don't have the issue to hand and the article doesn't appear to be on its website, so I can't be more specific as to which scientists or what their fields were. I can say that it wasn't irrelevant fields, though.) said that it was their belief that life on other planets would have to be rather similar to life on this planet.

My conclusion doesn't seem unreasonable to me. But, as I've said, in the face of new evidence, I will, of course, re-assess.

If that's your response, what's the point of discussing this? I mean, you've made a statement, one which is theoretically testable. The test hasn't been run. We're left discussing probabilities. If you're not willing to do that, what's the point of this discussion?

The statement I was responding to was you saying that there was too little data to determine how an alien species would deal with a situations that we are facing. That's not discussing probabilities, that's saying that the probability I was advocating was merely conjecture, something I have made very, very clear from the off that I'm aware of.

Not exactly a compelling argument. There's really no data here, just mere speculation.

Conjecture upon conjecture...

I mean, if they colonize multiple planets prior to their Armageddon, then watch a world nuke itself into the Cambrian (or equivalent geologic period), I'm sure that would be something of a warning to the other critters with nukes.

Okay. So that's one scenario in which one species might have pause for thought. But, again, there's no reason to assume that that would actually be the case. I mean, you could say that watching Hiroshima would put people off nuclear weapons, but look at North Korea. You could say that the Cuban Missile Crisis would put people off nuclear weapons, but look at India. Again - seeing things in the short-term, and tribally.

Sure, the first generation of extra-extraterrestrials might hold back on the nukes. But what about their kids? What about when the southern countries start looking at the resources of the northern countries? What about when that fanatical leader of that rebel group gets his hands on one?

History hasn't demonstrated that any atrocity prevents people from working towards repeating that atrocity. Remember "the war to end all wars"? 21 years later the same countries were doing the same thing all over again.

Also, you're building this on an unsupported foundation--that intelligence is detrimental to long-term survival.

Conjecture upon conjecture. You really, really don't need to keep repeating that I'm basing my arguments upon conjecture.

That's not been tested yet (we can't know why we'll go extinct until we do), though ample data seem to suggest otherwise (wiping out diseases isn't exactly a bad thing in terms of selective advantages).

This is a good point. Medicine and sanitation are two ways in which our intelligence has helped us to survive. I would see this as kind of the counterpart of my North Korea example upthread - where it takes relatively few people to make a big impact on the world, this time positively.

I'm not sure, however, how much of a big difference all of this has made to our survival in terms of the species. After all, for a species to survive it only needs its individual members to survive to child-bearing age. We did that just fine before we had medicine and sanitation, and plenty of species in the wild do just fine without it altogether. It's increased life-span, reduced infant mortality, improved standards of living immeasurably, etc. but I remain unconvinced that it's increased the long-term survival of the species as a whole.

You're a pesimist, and that bias is coloring your view of the situation.

I'm honestly not a pessimist. I can understand how I could seem it from this conversation, but you'll have to trust me on this one.

 

[kalen]

Do the crew members of the ISS count as extraterrestials?

 

[Dinwar]

I'd be interested in more information on that.

I'll see what I can find.

What Earth-like life doesn't require water?

They're called lithophiles.

Okay. So that's one scenario in which one species might have pause for thought. But, again, there's no reason to assume that that would actually be the case.

See, this is why your stock response "Conjecture upon conjecture" annoys me. You dismiss out of hand any proposition I make which contradicts your biases, no matter how reasonable it is. However, when I state that your arguments aren't guaranteed you retreet to the statement "Conjecture upon conjecture". Let's be clear: There's little reason to believe that ANY of the situations we're describing would actually be the case--INCLUDING your prefered scenarios where sentient beings blow themselves into oblivion. You can continue to pile "conjecture upon conjecture", and build houses of cards supporting your a priori conclusion that sentience is detrimental--or you can look at the data objectively. Your choice. Let me know when you decide.

 

[Cuddles]

Ask Cuddles. I have no idea what's happened here.

Dude, I posted a perfectly polite response in which I disagreed with some of your points. In reponse to that, you went off on some bizarre rant about how I was ignoring all your points and how it would be terribly boring and futile for you to bother even trying to say anything. I have no idea what your problem is, but I'm not the one that's caused the problem here. It was all perfectly friendly until you started having a go at me for no apparent reason.

 

[halohms]

I believe life is inevitable given the right conditions that happened on the early earth. Life will not be similar. Life evolved here on earth the way it did because of evolution and the events that occurred at those unique times. The evolution of RNA and DNA is unique to earth. Similar mechanisms would have to evolve elsewhere but will definitely not be the same.

I like the "Contact" movie scenario. Sure hope we do not become the food for another civilization.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I'll see what I can find.

Thanks.

They're called lithophiles.

The only data I can find on lithophiles says that they require water to live.

You dismiss out of hand any proposition I make which contradicts your biases, no matter how reasonable it is.

I didn't dismiss anything out of hand. I read what you posted, considered it, came to a conclusion of my own, then posted that response. That I didn't find your argument convincing doesn't mean I didn't consider it. In fact, I included 3 paragraphs of reasoning why I didn't find your argument convincing. That you snipped that reasoning out of your reply doesn't mean that I didn't present it.

However, when I state that your arguments aren't guaranteed you retreet to the statement "Conjecture upon conjecture".

Because we started this conversation with that established, so you continually trying to use it as an argument against the things that I say is redundant.

See the difference between the two things you're describing. I rebutted your argument by outlining why I didn't think your reasoning would hold, using examples from the real world where things haven't played out as you said they could, and pointing out that I'm unaware of things ever playing out the way that you've posited they might. You've rebutted some of my arguments by essentially saying "that's just your opinion", even though that it's just my opinion was established in my second post in this thread, 40 posts, 1 page and 2 days ago.

I made a counter-argument and explained my reasoning for coming to the conclusion I had. You've tried to dismiss my arguments out of hand.

Let's be clear: There's little reason to believe that ANY of the situations we're describing would actually be the case--INCLUDING your prefered scenarios where sentient beings blow themselves into oblivion.

Yes. Conjecture upon conjecture. I know. We've thrashed this out more than once. Please stop telling me it as if I didn't know.

You can continue to pile "conjecture upon conjecture", and build houses of cards supporting your a priori conclusion that sentience is detrimental--or you can look at the data objectively. Your choice. Let me know when you decide.

It's always a mistake in a debate to assume that you're neutral and the person you're debating against is just too biased to see the truth. It's a shame we seem to have got there.

We've been going round in circles for a while now. I'm getting tired of repeating myself, we seem to have descended into the fruitless "arguing about arguing" stage (both this post and the post it's replying to have a larger percentage of their wordage dedicated to how the other person is debating than to the actual topic we're supposed to be debating), and it looks like you've decided that I'm an intransigent pessimist, blinded by his biases, so I'm not really sure that there's anything more constructive to be gained from this discussion. Shame, because I was enjoying it.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

Most TV is and always was utter BS and except for the news, church channels, and sports I do not watch it anymore.

most of the news is faux too. I suggest a mythbusters marathon.

 

[EHocking]

most of the news is faux too..