humans are common in the cosmos
oonh
I think that humans (like things) are common in the cosmos, and for
a physics reasons: while the exact solutions to the problems
of living are going to have local variation, there are
very common trends that occur across different sorts of
life on earth.
Quoting wikipedia: "Certain components of the eye, such as
the visual pigments, appear to have a common ancestry that is,
they evolved once, before the animals radiated. However, complex,
yes evolved some 50 to 100 some 50 to 100 times using many
of the same proteins and genetic toolkits in their construction"
I would say, with some simplifying assumptions (land, water, trees,
free swimming segmented endoskeletal organism), you've got
all the ingredients for the domino chain that makes humans.
It's a shame that they're currently outside of our lightcone, but
since we're a crying toddler of a species (no, we haven't hit our
teens yet), it's probably good that we don't meet them until we
stop villifying the other. I would really love to see some
research about how often things like us actually evolve (as opposed
to making sheer speculative shots in the dark like the above).
oonh
fasc...@mad.scientist.com
> I think that humans (like things) are common in the cosmos, and for
> a physics reasons: while the exact solutions to the problems
> of living are going to have local variation, there are
> very common trends that occur across different sorts of
> life on earth.
>
> Quoting wikipedia: "Certain components of the eye, such as
> the visual pigments, appear to have a common ancestry that is,
> they evolved once, before the animals radiated. However, complex,
> yes evolved some 50 to 100 some 50 to 100 times using many
> of the same proteins and genetic toolkits in their construction"
>
> I would say, with some simplifying assumptions (land, water, trees,
> free swimming segmented endoskeletal organism), you've got
> all the ingredients for the domino chain that makes humans.
>
What makes you think that the DNA-RNA device is the only, even the
most likely let alone most efficient, recording scheme for genetic
information?
You're showing your terracentrism, apeboy.
>
> It's a shame that they're currently outside of our lightcone, but
> since we're a crying toddler of a species (no, we haven't hit our
> teens yet)...it's probably good that we don't meet them until we
> stop villifying the other.
>
Do you think they'd evolve to be so effete that just one whiff of the
primitive and manly odor we excrete when working on our internal
combustion vehicles will destroy their civilization?
What do you mean by a "toddler of a species?" Are you in full science
fiction mode, or do you have a evolutionary definition of a species
maturity?
>
> I would really love to see some
> research about how often things like us actually evolve (as opposed
> to making sheer speculative shots in the dark like the above).
>
You should have asked this a month ago. My last interview included an
astrobiologist. I could have asked her.
Still, I think that all research into a topic like this is
extrascientific speculation at this point, and will continue to be
unless we actually discover abundant life elsewhere.
There are currently at least seven million species on the planet which
can be reclassified (depending on what you think a species is, and how
you think particular species should be classified) to bring that
number over an order of magnitude higher.
There has been life for, let's say, three billion years, and hominini
for about six million years; we don't know of any cases of humany
nonhuman species on Earth. We probably wouldn't consider most humans
before thirty or forty thousand years ago very human-like is some
senses, but we'll go with the liberal estimate.
So our best guess is that the likelihood of any planet capable of
supporting life will have something human-like when we find it is no
better than one in ten billion, possibly one in a trillion.
-F
oonh
> On Apr 8, 3:09?pm, oonh <o...@ninehells.com> wrote:
>> I think that humans (like things) ?are common in the cosmos, and for
>> a physics reasons: while the exact solutions to the problems
>> of living are going to have local variation, there are
>> very common trends that occur across different sorts of
>> life on earth.
>>
>> Quoting wikipedia: "Certain components of the eye, such as
>> the visual pigments, appear to have a common ancestry that is,
>> they evolved once, before the animals radiated. However, complex,
>> yes evolved some 50 to 100 some 50 to 100 times using many
>> of the same proteins and genetic toolkits in their construction"
>>
>> I would say, with some simplifying assumptions (land, water, trees,
>> free swimming segmented endoskeletal organism), you've got
>> all the ingredients for the domino chain that makes humans.
>>
>
> What makes you think that the DNA-RNA device is the only, even the
> most likely let alone most efficient, recording scheme for genetic
> information?
>
> You're showing your terracentrism, apeboy.
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23309/
I would be showing terracentrism if I said that the only way for
life to work was the way it works on earth... but I'm not saying that:
the particulars might be different, but the solutions to the problems
of living are going to be the same (or analogous) because the physical
laws there and here are going to be the same.
>
>>
>> It's a shame that they're currently outside of our lightcone, but
>> since we're a crying toddler of a species (no, we haven't hit our
>> teens yet)...it's probably good that we don't meet them until we
>> stop villifying the other.
>>
>
> Do you think they'd evolve to be so effete that just one whiff of the
> primitive and manly odor we excrete when working on our internal
> combustion vehicles will destroy their civilization?
I wouldn't be surprised. It's not as though their hypothetical
technology is going to have radically different laws of physics, what
works here, is going to work there.
>
> What do you mean by a "toddler of a species?" Are you in full science
> fiction mode, or do you have a evolutionary definition of a species
> maturity?
We're still *too* obsessed with wealth and power and blowing each
other up. And with *things*. And our memory is just a little too short.
I'd say that cultural long term memory needs to improve a bit before
we reach preteen stage.
>
>>
>> I would really love to see some
>> research about how often things like us actually evolve (as opposed
>> to making sheer speculative shots in the dark like the above).
>>
>
> You should have asked this a month ago. My last interview included an
> astrobiologist. I could have asked her.
>
> Still, I think that all research into a topic like this is
> extrascientific speculation at this point, and will continue to be
> unless we actually discover abundant life elsewhere.
I don't think it is. Physics makes some very reasonable assumptions
(that have been backed up by evidence) about the universality of
physical laws. And I don't think that it's much a stretch to make
an analogy between parallelism in eye evolution and the evolution
of things like people.
>
> There are currently at least seven million species on the planet which
> can be reclassified (depending on what you think a species is, and how
> you think particular species should be classified) to bring that
> number over an order of magnitude higher.
>
> There has been life for, let's say, three billion years, and hominini
> for about six million years; we don't know of any cases of humany
> nonhuman species on Earth. We probably wouldn't consider most humans
> before thirty or forty thousand years ago very human-like is some
> senses, but we'll go with the liberal estimate.
yes, we know of a couple. chimps, bonobos, and gorillas. we outcompeted
the rest of them. and if humanity were to disappear tomorrow, some
primate species would follow in our footsteps. and historically,
homo habilis, homo sapiens neanderthalensis, the australopithecines
were all humany nonhuman species.
>
> So our best guess is that the likelihood of any planet capable of
> supporting life will have something human-like when we find it is no
> better than one in ten billion, possibly one in a trillion.
We are not equipped to answer this question. Our awareness is driven
by the myopia induced by our light cone.
oonh
whisky-dave
"oonh" <oo...@ninehells.com> wrote in message
news:kqpva6-...@abyss.ninehells.com...
I'm not sure what you mean by physical laws.
Over that past few years we've discovered things that weren't thought
possible.
Such as microbes that can livev in temperatures of greter than boiling
water.
Previous;y humans were thopught to have about 500 differnt types of bacteria
in them,
then we up'd our detection technology and found cloer to 5,000 differnt
types.
We've also found such thing a few KM below the earths surface that don;t
need light
to produce energy IIRC they use hydrogen and these microbes they estimate to
be 10%
of the Earths biomass. There's some other things that live by ingesting and
excreting Arsenic
and that's how they get their energy. Presently we seem to define life as
something that
eats shits and breathes, perhaps that's too limited.
>>> It's a shame that they're currently outside of our lightcone, but
>>> since we're a crying toddler of a species (no, we haven't hit our
>>> teens yet)...it's probably good that we don't meet them until we
>>> stop villifying the other.
>>>
>>
>> Do you think they'd evolve to be so effete that just one whiff of the
>> primitive and manly odor we excrete when working on our internal
>> combustion vehicles will destroy their civilization?
>
> I wouldn't be surprised. It's not as though their hypothetical
> technology is going to have radically different laws of physics, what
> works here, is going to work there.
We've made or discovered the laws of physics.
One of the problems in star trek is the acceleration in that vwe couldn;t
survive, but they have discovered a spore that lives in animal shit in
Africa
that shoots itself 8 feet from it's location, and it's equivalant 0-60MPH
is done in a
millionth of a second or so, which is far faster than anything humans have
even designed.
>> What do you mean by a "toddler of a species?" Are you in full science
>> fiction mode, or do you have a evolutionary definition of a species
>> maturity?
>
> We're still *too* obsessed with wealth and power and blowing each
> other up.
Well I'm waiting for other species to catch up with us personally.
I read an article last night where they have discovered monkeys swapping
meat for sex.
>And with *things*. And our memory is just a little too short.
> I'd say that cultural long term memory needs to improve a bit before
> we reach preteen stage.
No as we've found ways around that using the written and recorded word.
We use the transfer of knowledge that we call education to get around this
problem.
There's also no guarantee that pure memory is the correct way to go anyway.
Surely evolving requires leaving sonme old memories behind.
>>> I would really love to see some
>>> research about how often things like us actually evolve (as opposed
>>> to making sheer speculative shots in the dark like the above).
>>>
>>
>> You should have asked this a month ago. My last interview included an
>> astrobiologist. I could have asked her.
I'd have like to asked so what is all this 'sugar stuff doing floating in
space.'
>> Still, I think that all research into a topic like this is
>> extrascientific speculation at this point, and will continue to be
>> unless we actually discover abundant life elsewhere.
>
> I don't think it is. Physics makes some very reasonable assumptions
> (that have been backed up by evidence) about the universality of
> physical laws. And I don't think that it's much a stretch to make
> an analogy between parallelism in eye evolution and the evolution
> of things like people.
Perhaps that's too limited though.
>
>>
>> So our best guess is that the likelihood of any planet capable of
>> supporting life will have something human-like when we find it is no
>> better than one in ten billion, possibly one in a trillion.
>
> We are not equipped to answer this question. Our awareness is driven
> by the myopia induced by our light cone.
I wonder if we'd call monkeys human like if they had webbed feet and hands,
and the tress they frequented grew underwater and the monkeys had gills.
considering we've only found about 300 exo-planets around just a handful of
stars there could still be millions of human-like beings out there amonst
the many trillion
of suns whuich we can see, letr alone those we can't. Then of course there's
the time frame
perhaps millions of human-like being have existed in the 13 odd billion
years of
this present universe existance, we have know idea of what existed out their
before
the Earth was created[1]. The material of which we are all made (yes even
students)
has come from a previous star or solar system which we have NO idea of what
if could
have been like, there could have been human just like us, before our sun was
formed
[1] excluding religious beliefs
Tim McGaughy
You're assuming that the solutions we currently have are the best and
only solutions.
Assume. Based on a statistical example of exactly 1.
fasc...@mad.scientist.com
> fasci...@mad.scientist.com wrote:
> > On Apr 8, 3:09?pm, oonh <o...@ninehells.com> wrote:
> >> I think that humans (like things) ?are common in the cosmos, and for
> >> a physics reasons: while the exact solutions to the problems
> >> of living are going to have local variation, there are
> >> very common trends that occur across different sorts of
> >> life on earth.
>
> >> Quoting wikipedia: "Certain components of the eye, such as
> >> the visual pigments, appear to have a common ancestry that is,
> >> they evolved once, before the animals radiated. However, complex,
> >> yes evolved some 50 to 100 some 50 to 100 times using many
> >> of the same proteins and genetic toolkits in their construction"
>
> >> I would say, with some simplifying assumptions (land, water, trees,
> >> free swimming segmented endoskeletal organism), you've got
> >> all the ingredients for the domino chain that makes humans.
>
> > What makes you think that the DNA-RNA device is the only, even the
> > most likely let alone most efficient, recording scheme for genetic
> > information?
>
> > You're showing your terracentrism, apeboy.
>
> http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23309/
>
You realize that's not good: if all of the amino acids are necessary
for building a reasonable genetic program and half of the twenty
aren't there, then the probably becomes vanishingly small that life
even begins elsewhere.
And that isn't included in the one-in-ten-billion I estimated before.
I assumed life formed. That might not be a good assumption: why is
life the fastest way to increase the entropy of the universe? The
increase of entropy is the universe's analogy to breeding in
evolution.
>
> I would be showing terracentrism if I said that the only way for
> life to work was the way it works on earth... but I'm not saying that:
> the particulars might be different, but the solutions to the problems
> of living are going to be the same (or analogous) because the physical
> laws there and here are going to be the same.
>
Possibly, possibly.
The solutions formed will in part be determined by the language their
expressed in. If we had a radically different informational basis of
life, the many of the problems we have may not have solutions. Many
of them may not even be problems.
It is very difficult to know without real data.
>
> >> It's a shame that they're currently outside of our lightcone, but
> >> since we're a crying toddler of a species (no, we haven't hit our
> >> teens yet)...it's probably good that we don't meet them until we
> >> stop villifying the other.
>
> > Do you think they'd evolve to be so effete that just one whiff of the
> > primitive and manly odor we excrete when working on our internal
> > combustion vehicles will destroy their civilization?
>
> I wouldn't be surprised. It's not as though their hypothetical
> technology is going to have radically different laws of physics, what
> works here, is going to work there.
>
Do you think that we're going to evolve so that we'll choke to death
on our own BO?
It wouldn't surprise me.
>
> > What do you mean by a "toddler of a species?" Are you in full science
> > fiction mode, or do you have a evolutionary definition of a species
> > maturity?
>
> We're still *too* obsessed with wealth and power and blowing each
> other up. And with *things*. And our memory is just a little too short.
> I'd say that cultural long term memory needs to improve a bit before
> we reach preteen stage.
>
Ah, it's just Star Trek stuff. A shame.
>
> >> I would really love to see some
> >> research about how often things like us actually evolve (as opposed
> >> to making sheer speculative shots in the dark like the above).
>
> > You should have asked this a month ago. My last interview included an
> > astrobiologist. I could have asked her.
>
> > Still, I think that all research into a topic like this is
> > extrascientific speculation at this point, and will continue to be
> > unless we actually discover abundant life elsewhere.
>
> I don't think it is. Physics makes some very reasonable assumptions
> (that have been backed up by evidence) about the universality of
> physical laws. And I don't think that it's much a stretch to make
> an analogy between parallelism in eye evolution and the evolution
> of things like people.
>
Major conflicts include: the contingency of stellar evolution, the
contingency of the origin of life, the contingency of evolution.
The problem is that we just don't have the data on what life is and
how to make it.
There are a lot of guesses out there, mostly bad.
>
> > There are currently at least seven million species on the planet which
> > can be reclassified (depending on what you think a species is, and how
> > you think particular species should be classified) to bring that
> > number over an order of magnitude higher.
>
> > There has been life for, let's say, three billion years, and hominini
> > for about six million years; we don't know of any cases of humany
> > nonhuman species on Earth. We probably wouldn't consider most humans
> > before thirty or forty thousand years ago very human-like is some
> > senses, but we'll go with the liberal estimate.
>
> yes, we know of a couple. chimps, bonobos, and gorillas. we outcompeted
> the rest of them. and if humanity were to disappear tomorrow, some
> primate species would follow in our footsteps. and historically,
> homo habilis, homo sapiens neanderthalensis, the australopithecines
> were all humany nonhuman species.
>
I chose hominids because they're likely to be the only species that
have appeared on earth that have the ability to do something humanly
interesting, like make and record myths and histories--given someone
was around to teach it to them. I think if you go backwards more than
that, this kind of ability is quite doubtful. Certainly, it's not a
trait shared by the existing great apes, so our common ancestor is
unlikely to have it.
One thing we don't know, due to the environmental contingency of
evolution, is that if we were to disappear tomorrow that the great
apes would evolve into something humany. The ecological
superpositions and sequence that allowed us to evolve may never appear
again. Further, the further evolution of the remainder of the great
apes may also have blocked out the possibility of the apes to evolve
mentally forever.
The fact that we don't have evidence of other humany species on earth
means that it's likely that intelligence isn't a "good trick."
Coevolution should produce others, as it's done with dorsal fins and
tiger stripe patterns. There is the possibility that we are the first
to have evolved the kind of intelligence that would make finding
another intelligent species interesting, but that's unlikely.
It seems to me that, in the normal scheme of things, being more human
isn't a very big advantage to a species.
The kind of quibbling that you're doing here, however, could at best
only gain you another order of magnitude. We may not be completely
alone in the cosmos, but we're not going to any intergalactic cocktail
parties any time soon.
Just for future reference, if it's "homo sapiens neaderthalensis,"
then the neanderthals were the same species as we are.
>
> > So our best guess is that the likelihood of any planet capable of
> > supporting life will have something human-like when we find it is no
> > better than one in ten billion, possibly one in a trillion.
>
> We are not equipped to answer this question. Our awareness is driven
> by the myopia induced by our light cone.
>
This is, again, the best guess given what we know.
It's not a good estimate--I wouldn't bet on it being right to within
three orders of magnitude--it's just the best one.
-F
kest
> oonh wrote:
>>
>> http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23309/
>> I would be showing terracentrism if I said that the only way for
>> life to work was the way it works on earth... but I'm not saying that:
>> the particulars might be different, but the solutions to the problems
>> of living are going to be the same (or analogous) because the physical
>> laws there and here are going to be the same.
>
> You're assuming that the solutions we currently have are the best and
> only solutions.
>
>
> Assume. Based on a statistical example of exactly 1.
No, he's really not assuming that based on a single statistical example.
He's drawing a conclusion about it based on observations of the
physical universe and its laws.
k
Peter H. Coffin
Nah. It's a matter of "where conditions are like this, the following
things happen". Where conditions are different, other things happen. If
there's never any liquid water because it's too cold, maybe you end up
with life based on reactions with ammonia instead. J.B.S. Haldane did a
lot of writing about that in the early 1960s. A vaguely remember seeing
some experimentation talked about on Nova or some such program that got
some some spontaneously-forming ammino-acid-like things under lab
conditions, but I don't remember enough details to find a cite. That's
about -> <- this close to creating "life, but not as we know it".
--
63. Bulk trash will be disposed of in incinerators, not compactors. And they
will be kept hot, with none of that nonsense about flames going through
accessible tunnels at predictable intervals.
--Peter Anspach's list of things to do as an Evil Overlord
kest
> You realize that's not good: if all of the amino acids are necessary
> for building a reasonable genetic program and half of the twenty
> aren't there, then the probably becomes vanishingly small that life
> even begins elsewhere.
>
Well, we're 50% better off than if we were starting with *no* amino
acids. The others aren't non-existent...just rarer or harder to
synthesize, and apparently you can start with 10 and evolutionize your
way up to 20, you just aren't at the true 'life' stage yet. I actually
found and read the whole article (have I mentioned lately that I love
the internets?) and while I don't completely understand the whole thing,
not being a biologist, one interesting thing is that apparently one
question is not why do we have more than 10, but why do we have 20 and
not 24, which is some sort of maximum. Their best theory is that there
is a point of diminishing returns. Up to 20, each new widget you add
lets you do lots of new cool things, but then maybe you get some widgets
that do similar stuff to old ones, or actually hinder you in some way.
>
> The solutions formed will in part be determined by the language their
> expressed in. If we had a radically different informational basis of
> life, the many of the problems we have may not have solutions. Many
> of them may not even be problems.
>
Right, but the point of the stuff oonh linked is that the informational
basis of our life is likely to be downright universal. Which is pretty cool.
>
> Do you think that we're going to evolve so that we'll choke to death
> on our own BO?
>
Well, we've been riding a fine line of not destroying ourselves by
overpolluting our atmosphere, which is our own BO if you take it
metaphorically.
>
> The fact that we don't have evidence of other humany species on earth
> means that it's likely that intelligence isn't a "good trick."
> Coevolution should produce others, as it's done with dorsal fins and
> tiger stripe patterns. There is the possibility that we are the first
> to have evolved the kind of intelligence that would make finding
> another intelligent species interesting, but that's unlikely.
>
Yes, the evolution of intelligence does seem to be comparatively rare. I
suspect, though, that it's not just because it's difficult, but because
most of the time it's unnecessary. On the whole 'what will make it more
likely for my genes to be passed on' scale, violence, sadly, is a more
winning option than smarts.
k, who thinks it unlikely that violence will ever get bred out of the
species completely
oonh
>
>> You realize that's not good: if all of the amino acids are necessary
>> for building a reasonable genetic program and half of the twenty
>> aren't there, then the probably becomes vanishingly small that life
>> even begins elsewhere.
>>
> Well, we're 50% better off than if we were starting with *no* amino
> acids. The others aren't non-existent...just rarer or harder to
> synthesize, and apparently you can start with 10 and evolutionize your
> way up to 20, you just aren't at the true 'life' stage yet. I actually
> found and read the whole article (have I mentioned lately that I love
> the internets?) and while I don't completely understand the whole thing,
> not being a biologist, one interesting thing is that apparently one
> question is not why do we have more than 10, but why do we have 20 and
> not 24, which is some sort of maximum. Their best theory is that there
> is a point of diminishing returns. Up to 20, each new widget you add
> lets you do lots of new cool things, but then maybe you get some widgets
> that do similar stuff to old ones, or actually hinder you in some way.
I think the following paper suggests a plausible reason:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0002037v3
>
>>
>> The solutions formed will in part be determined by the language their
>> expressed in. If we had a radically different informational basis of
>> life, the many of the problems we have may not have solutions. Many
>> of them may not even be problems.
>>
> Right, but the point of the stuff oonh linked is that the informational
> basis of our life is likely to be downright universal. Which is pretty cool.
I feel like erring on the side of 'omg, let's not be terracentric', is
in fact kind of terracentric, because it kind of makes assumptions
based on ignorance, rather than on things we are pretty certain are
universals (local variation of fundamental physical constant speculation
aside). Yes, there might be radically different forms of life than us,
but I don't think it's unreasonable to speculate that there might be
environments pretty much like Earth, and once you've got that, it
doesn't seem to me to be too unreasonable to suppose that the specific
problems that living things are solutions to here wouldn't also work
there. IRIX on an mips chip works the same way here as it would halfway
across the galaxy.
I think it's kind of irrepsonisible to causally dismiss the notion that
the cosmos might have other human like things, for a couple of pretty
important reasons: it's more comfortable to suppose that alien
intelligences don't look like us because that emphasizes our special
place in the cosmos (or our opinion of ourselves). To have them look
like us (which is what I'm suggesting here), means that we no longer
have a monopoly on humanity, which is kind of disconcerting if you have
some investment in geographically restricting your definition of
'human'. If being a human being is no longer something that people on
this planet have a monopoly on, then that's one further nail in the
coffin in the 'we're the center of the universe' anthrogeocentrism.
Also, while the 'you're nowhere special' is kind of disheartening, it is
also extremely empowering, because it means that there *are* other
people out there, and dammit, they're going to be dealing with the same
problems of living that we are, and while it is usually depicted as
either us enslaving them or them enslaving us in most scifi, I think
that it's kind of neat that in order to effectively apply social
resources to dealing with travelling on a cosmic scale, one (as a
species) must get over the petty squabbling of it's youth. By the time
that we're mature enough to meet them, we're going to want to trade
solutions to the problems of being human. Maybe they don't have free
energy or hyperweapons, but they might have tasty recipes for soup,
great smelling deodorant, interesting fiction, nice porn, and music.
But I think it really would be the perfect storm for religion: all of a
sudden what is human is no longer confined solely to this world, and all
the stories that imbue a geographic or cultural in-group with humanity
and dehumanize people will instantly get a rather massive dose of
context. Not only would they look like us, but as a consequence of
looking and living like us, they would think like us, and that would be
more disconcerting and troubling to a lot of 'we're special' type
reasoning.
I am going to assert that the presence of other human beings in the
universe argues against the anthropic principle. Only a universe with an
observer is observed. The contrails from that to 'why am I me?' are
pretty evident.
..
I'm not terribly in a waxing philosophical mood at the moment, and I
really don't like doing this shot in the dark theorizing, but the
implications are very sexy.
oonh
Tim McGaughy
> Tim McGaughy wrote:
>> oonh wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23309/
>>> I would be showing terracentrism if I said that the only way for
>>> life to work was the way it works on earth... but I'm not saying that:
>>> the particulars might be different, but the solutions to the problems
>>> of living are going to be the same (or analogous) because the physical
>>> laws there and here are going to be the same.
>>
>> You're assuming that the solutions we currently have are the best and
>> only solutions.
>>
>>
>> Assume. Based on a statistical example of exactly 1.
>
>
> No, he's really not assuming that based on a single statistical example.
Yeah, he really is.
> He's drawing a conclusion about it based on observations of the
> physical universe and its laws.
And exactly how many planets with life on them has he observed?
My point exactly.
Tim McGaughy
HAVE happened". That does not at all mean that the things in question
have to happen or even are likely to happen.
We're the product of a chain of evolution that bottlenecks at certain
points. We have four limbs because that's how the fish happened to
develop when they became amphibians, but we don't know how intelligent
life might have risen if amphibians happened to evolve differently or
even not at all.
That's just going with life based on DNA. Life using other chemical
conditions could easily have far different limitations and advantages.
Tim McGaughy
Gorillas, chimps, dolphins, elephants, ononon. We're not rare, we're
just ahead of the curve.
Nyx
Why do people argue about things they have no hope of proving or
disproving.
There's not enough evidence to prove or disprove anything. So what's
the point?
Nyx
oonh
> kest wrote:
>> Tim McGaughy wrote:
>>> oonh wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23309/
>>>> I would be showing terracentrism if I said that the only way for
>>>> life to work was the way it works on earth... but I'm not saying that:
>>>> the particulars might be different, but the solutions to the problems
>>>> of living are going to be the same (or analogous) because the physical
>>>> laws there and here are going to be the same.
>>>
>>> You're assuming that the solutions we currently have are the best and
>>> only solutions.
>>>
>>>
>>> Assume. Based on a statistical example of exactly 1.
>>
>>
>> No, he's really not assuming that based on a single statistical example.
>
> Yeah, he really is.
see, these 'omg life might be radically different elsewhere' points are
true, but terracentric after a while because they assume (implicitly)
that things that work here work nowhere else...
you can't seriously look at image like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field
and say 'omg nothing like us anywhere else at all they might be
radically different we're unique'.
>
>> He's drawing a conclusion about it based on observations of the
>> physical universe and its laws.
>
> And exactly how many planets with life on them has he observed?
>
>
> My point exactly.
That is a disgustingly insular and arrogant point of view.
oonh
Tim McGaughy
> Tim McGaughy <tee...@toast.net> wrote:
>> kest wrote:
>>> Tim McGaughy wrote:
>>>> oonh wrote:
>>>>> http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23309/
>>>>> I would be showing terracentrism if I said that the only way for
>>>>> life to work was the way it works on earth... but I'm not saying that:
>>>>> the particulars might be different, but the solutions to the problems
>>>>> of living are going to be the same (or analogous) because the physical
>>>>> laws there and here are going to be the same.
>>>> You're assuming that the solutions we currently have are the best and
>>>> only solutions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Assume. Based on a statistical example of exactly 1.
>>>
>>> No, he's really not assuming that based on a single statistical example.
>> Yeah, he really is.
>
> see, these 'omg life might be radically different elsewhere' points are
> true, but terracentric after a while because they assume (implicitly)
> that things that work here work nowhere else...
>
> you can't seriously look at image like this:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field
>
> and say 'omg nothing like us anywhere else at all they might be
> radically different we're unique'.
Please point out where I said that.
>>> He's drawing a conclusion about it based on observations of the
>>> physical universe and its laws.
>> And exactly how many planets with life on them has he observed?
>>
>>
>> My point exactly.
>
> That is a disgustingly insular and arrogant point of view.
No, it's realistic. You were expressing the insular and arrogant opinion
that you can tell what life in the universe will generally look like
based on what you see here on one tiny planet.
This is equivalent to flipping a coin and deciding that because it came
up heads, it's most likely to come up heads whenever it's tossed.
Peter Constantine
> No, it's realistic. You were expressing the insular and arrogant opinion
> that you can tell what life in the universe will generally look like
> based on what you see here on one tiny planet.
I don't think it's insular or arrogant to point out that there are
200-400 billion stars in our galaxy and about 80 billion galaxies in the
observable universe. There is nothing unusual or remarkable about our
galaxy or the location or nature of the star about which this tiny
planet orbits.
It is not arrogant to suggest that the conditions that produced life on
this planet are highly likely (probably much more likely than the 50/50
of a coin toss?) to be replicated in many thousands (millions?
billions?) of planets elsewhere in the universe and that the outcomes in
those places could be expected to be generally similar to what has been
observed on Earth.
x
[Next stop: The Drake Equation. Hold very tight please. Ding ding.]
Endymion
> I think that humans (like things) are common in the cosmos, and for
> a physics reasons: while the exact solutions to the problems
> of living are going to have local variation, there are
> very common trends that occur across different sorts of
> life on earth.
>
> Quoting wikipedia: "Certain components of the eye, such as
> the visual pigments, appear to have a common ancestry that is,
> they evolved once, before the animals radiated. However, complex,
> yes evolved some 50 to 100 some 50 to 100 times using many
> of the same proteins and genetic toolkits in their construction"
>
> I would say, with some simplifying assumptions (land, water, trees,
> free swimming segmented endoskeletal organism), you've got
> all the ingredients for the domino chain that makes humans.
Some problems with that line of reasoning:
One, it assumes that the necessary conditions for the formation of
life are common. We just don't know that, partly because we don't know
which conditions are necessary, partly because we don't know how
common they may be. How many planets have active plate tectonics at
this stage in their evolution? We just don't know. But we are pretty
sure Venus doesn't, which means it isn't universal. How many have
magnetic fields to shield their surfaces from lethal radiation? We
just don't know that either. Could life evolve in the absence of
either? Another question we can't even begin to answer.
Two, because evolution is a response to environmental conditions, it
assumes that something like the conditions that took our evolution in
the particular course it followed are universal, which is almost
certainly false. For example, an extinction event caused by something
like a large comet or asteroid collision can only be taken as the
result of pure chance. Had those events in Earth's history taken place
fifty or a hundred million years earlier or later than they did, the
course of evolution might have been enormously different. We didn't
turn out very much like the dinosaurs, so there's no reason to believe
any other reboot of the dominant fauna would either.
Three, addressing the example of the parallel evolution of the eye, it
assumes evolution of form and mechanism along with basic function.
Yes, eyes have evolved several times, but they don't all appear the
same way or work the same way; they have as many differences as
similarities. If a housefly's eye, which uses roughly the same genes
as ours, is significantly different from ours, how much difference
might there be in one based on a completely different genetic pattern?
There are infinite ways nature might solve the same problem - and each
of those choices has unpredictable consequences downstream.
Fourth, addressing the natural presence of amino acids, it assumes
that the others developed to complete the set must be the same ten. If
half the set is found naturally and the other half evolves in response
to local conditions and random influences, the slightest variation in
conditions might produce different results - and a substantial
difference that early in the process is almost sure to have profound
effects a few hundred million generations later.
Fifth, it assumes that our current state of being is not a very brief
transitory stage. Even if there are other beings out there with
similar evolutionary courses, they may be more like our last common
ancestor with chimps than humans, or godlike balls of energy a la Star
Trek.
Sixth, the Fermi paradox. And don't start in with that "more evolved
and mature" or "respect for developing cultures" crap either - is
there anything in our history to suggest that we become *less*
inclined to piss in the snow, sculpt mountains into our own
likenesses, or otherwise put our stamp on every conceivable part of
nature as loudly and on as huge a scale as is technologically
feasible? If the ETs are showing such restraint, they ain't much
human.
Last, and most obvious, it ignores the possibility of intelligent, and
therefore arbitrary, meddling in our design. The Bible tells us that
we are a special and unique creation of God in His own image. Why
would He need to do the same thing elsewhere? Or if we're just a grand
experiment by a much more advanced alien civilization, sure, they
might do a couple more repetitions to verify the results, but it's
likely that most of their experiments would have some of the basic
variables altered.
- Endymion the pink ape
whisky-dave
"Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote in message
news:YoqdnQKkjMjpvn_U...@posted.toastnet...
Interesting that you use the term ahead of the curve, intelligence isn't
necessary for evolution or the success of a species, so I wonder what went
wrong. :)
kest
> kest <ke...@removethedamnspamtrap.nettrip.org> wrote:
>
> I think it's kind of irrepsonisible to causally dismiss the notion that
> the cosmos might have other human like things, for a couple of pretty
> important reasons: it's more comfortable to suppose that alien
> intelligences don't look like us because that emphasizes our special
> place in the cosmos (or our opinion of ourselves). To have them look
> like us (which is what I'm suggesting here), means that we no longer
> have a monopoly on humanity, which is kind of disconcerting if you have
> some investment in geographically restricting your definition of
> 'human'. If being a human being is no longer something that people on
> this planet have a monopoly on, then that's one further nail in the
> coffin in the 'we're the center of the universe' anthrogeocentrism.
>
Is that what 'being human' is? What we look like?
Let's talk in specifics though. In order to have a species we would
count as 'intelligent' you need not just brains (requiring some sort of
live birth at an immature stage, most likely), but also tool using and
building skills - so you would find something that mobilates relatively
vertically, leaving upper limbs (with something like an opposable thumb)
free for tool use - and social groups with language and teamwork.
There's no real requirement that they be fleshy as opposed to scaly or
feathery, I guess, but coldbloodedness or hollow bones might be
limitations. They're unlikely to be insecty - the physics on
exoskeletons is harder.
> they might have tasty recipes for soup,
> great smelling deodorant, interesting fiction, nice porn, and music.
>
All other things being the same, alien cuisine might still be a big
cultural hurdle to get over, and the sexual particulars will probably be
so incompatible as to make porn untitillating.
k
kest
> One, it assumes that the necessary conditions for the formation of
> life are common.
'Common' is a relative term, I think.
We just don't know that, partly because we don't know
> which conditions are necessary, partly because we don't know how
> common they may be. How many planets have active plate tectonics at
> this stage in their evolution? We just don't know. But we are pretty
> sure Venus doesn't, which means it isn't universal. How many have
> magnetic fields to shield their surfaces from lethal radiation? We
> just don't know that either. Could life evolve in the absence of
> either? Another question we can't even begin to answer.
>
What has plate tectonics done for you lately? And given that we aren't
the only planet in our system to have a magnetic field, that's probably
a function of planetary formation, at least under certain conditions
that may be relatively common - certain elements being present in
sufficient quantites, etc.
> Two, because evolution is a response to environmental conditions, it
> assumes that something like the conditions that took our evolution in
> the particular course it followed are universal, which is almost
> certainly false. For example, an extinction event caused by something
> like a large comet or asteroid collision can only be taken as the
> result of pure chance. Had those events in Earth's history taken place
> fifty or a hundred million years earlier or later than they did, the
> course of evolution might have been enormously different. We didn't
> turn out very much like the dinosaurs, so there's no reason to believe
> any other reboot of the dominant fauna would either.
>
But see, that's part of the interesting stuff. Dinosaurs never evolved
an intelligent species. But there is evidence that dinosaur species
filled certain niches...you have the small vegetarian 'rodent'-like
dinosaurs, you have the massive vegetarian 'herd animal'-like dinosaurs,
you have the large predator dinosaurs, the scavenger dinosaurs, and then
the aquatic dinosaurs and the flying dinosaurs... We may be to other
potential intelligent species as an ichthyosaur is to a dolphin.
> Three, addressing the example of the parallel evolution of the eye, it
> assumes evolution of form and mechanism along with basic function.
> Yes, eyes have evolved several times, but they don't all appear the
> same way or work the same way; they have as many differences as
> similarities. If a housefly's eye, which uses roughly the same genes
> as ours, is significantly different from ours, how much difference
> might there be in one based on a completely different genetic pattern?
I kinda wish we'd gotten octopus eyes, myself. They see in true color,
you know. But, you know, notice that, as different as the particulars of
the housefly eye might be, they still exist on its head, and allow it to
see, just like ours.
> Fourth, addressing the natural presence of amino acids, it assumes
> that the others developed to complete the set must be the same ten. If
> half the set is found naturally and the other half evolves in response
> to local conditions and random influences, the slightest variation in
> conditions might produce different results - and a substantial
> difference that early in the process is almost sure to have profound
> effects a few hundred million generations later.
>
If the other ten need to fill equivalent slots and have somewhat similar
function, this may still be trivial.
> Fifth, it assumes that our current state of being is not a very brief
> transitory stage. Even if there are other beings out there with
> similar evolutionary courses, they may be more like our last common
> ancestor with chimps than humans, or godlike balls of energy a la Star
> Trek.
>
This is true. We don't know what might be left to evolve into,
post-singularity or whatnot.
> Sixth, the Fermi paradox. And don't start in with that "more evolved
> and mature" or "respect for developing cultures" crap either - is
> there anything in our history to suggest that we become *less*
> inclined to piss in the snow, sculpt mountains into our own
> likenesses, or otherwise put our stamp on every conceivable part of
> nature as loudly and on as huge a scale as is technologically
> feasible? If the ETs are showing such restraint, they ain't much
> human.
>
Either that or they're broadcasting using some technology we haven't
thought of yet. You think it's impossible that we'll be remotely
similar and yet simultaneously think that if we are we will have both
independently come up with radio waves as a communication mechanism???
> Last, and most obvious, it ignores the possibility of intelligent, and
> therefore arbitrary, meddling in our design. The Bible tells us that
> we are a special and unique creation of God in His own image. Why
> would He need to do the same thing elsewhere? Or if we're just a grand
> experiment by a much more advanced alien civilization, sure, they
> might do a couple more repetitions to verify the results, but it's
> likely that most of their experiments would have some of the basic
> variables altered.
>
Now you're just (as they say in Britain) taking the piss.
k
Jennie Kermode
> What makes you think that the DNA-RNA device is the only, even the
> most likely let alone most efficient, recording scheme for genetic
> information?
I'm inclined to suspect it's not, but it does seem quite
likely that we'll have ten basic amino acids in common with
extraterrestrial life, if only because they're the most likely to
develop. Also, we've found them in meteorites. This helps us to get some
perspective on what we might one day find out there.
> There has been life for, let's say, three billion years, and hominini
> for about six million years; we don't know of any cases of humany
> nonhuman species on Earth. We probably wouldn't consider most humans
> before thirty or forty thousand years ago very human-like is some
> senses, but we'll go with the liberal estimate.
That depends on how one looks at these things. I'd think that,
to aliens, chimpanzees and orang utans might seem very similar to us.
Let's keep in mind that two hundred years ago many white people didn't
consider, say, black people or pygmies to be 'human-like'.
Anyway, we know they'll speak English. We've seen that on TV.
Jennie
NP: 'Let's go Shopping'
--
Jennie Kermode
jen...@innocent.com
www.jenniekermode.com
Satori
> Anyway, we know they'll speak English. We've seen that on TV.
Klaatu barada nikto?
Peter H. Coffin
We've yet to even come up with an SF story about liquid-dwelling
tool-users, as far as I know. The closest I can think of in real-world
example is sea-otters (I think) bashing oysters open with rocks (and the
sea otters aren't really liquid-dwellers entirely), and octopi being
able to figure out how to open jars and other containers, which barely
qualifies as the containers aren't THEIR tools, but ours that they
figured out.
> > they might have tasty recipes for soup,
>> great smelling deodorant, interesting fiction, nice porn, and music.
>>
> All other things being the same, alien cuisine might still be a big
> cultural hurdle to get over, and the sexual particulars will probably be
> so incompatible as to make porn untitillating.
I've yet to run into a cuisine that I didn't end up finding an appeal
with somehow somewhere. Granted we're all human, but if že olde aliens
end up based on semi-similar biochemistries will probably find similar
things appealing.
--
How about an Australian-language version? 'Your program just attempted an
illegal instruction. No worries, mate.'
-- Paul Tomblin
Tim McGaughy
> Endymion wrote:
>
>> One, it assumes that the necessary conditions for the formation of
>> life are common.
>
> 'Common' is a relative term, I think.
>
> We just don't know that, partly because we don't know
>> which conditions are necessary, partly because we don't know how
>> common they may be. How many planets have active plate tectonics at
>> this stage in their evolution? We just don't know. But we are pretty
>> sure Venus doesn't, which means it isn't universal. How many have
>> magnetic fields to shield their surfaces from lethal radiation? We
>> just don't know that either. Could life evolve in the absence of
>> either? Another question we can't even begin to answer.
>>
> What has plate tectonics done for you lately? And given that we aren't
> the only planet in our system to have a magnetic field,
We're the only planet that's not a gas giant that has a magnetic field,
and scientists aren't certain what causes the gas giants' magnetic
field. The mechanics of the fluid dynamics that create magnetic fields
are actually fairly well understood, but the exact materials that
compose the gas giants' cores and generate the fields is a mystery. Some
scientists theorize liquid metallic hydrogen.
At any rate, we're the only 'earthlike' rocky planet in the vicinity
that has a magnetic field. We're the exception, not the rule.
We do know, however, that we can do without that field, at least for a
time, because we have. Earth's magnetic field dies and reestablishes
with a polar reversal every several thousand years. If I remember
correctly, we're about due for one of those polar reversals.
Tim McGaughy
Gort was a robot. Of course he didn't speak english. But Klaatu spoke it
perfectly.
Tim McGaughy
I do remember reading a book in my youth about a civilization that
ventured toward Earth in a multi-generational ship after some sort of
catastrophe. They were rather like dolphins, and wanted to occupy our
oceans once they got here.
In the book Space War Blues, there were little squidlike or octupuslike
creatures who could hook into a nervous system and exert some control
over it. They used this ability to network together and communicate, but
started getting harvested by one of the societies in the book as a way
to revive brain-damaged or brain-dead soldiers and send them back into
battle as 'xombies'.
Star Wars. Jar Jar. I won't continue because I'm not interested in a
self-induced vomiting fit just this moment.
The Abyss.
Panurge
> Do you think that we're going to evolve so that we'll choke to death
> on our own BO?
No. We'll evolve so that we'll be invigorated by its mountain-fresh,
evergreen fragrance!
--
"He who wishes to go beyond it must die."
--Arnold Schoenberg, on Gustav Mahler's Ninth Symphony
Nyx
> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 10:00:12 -0700, kest wrote:
> > oonh wrote:
Dammit. There's one out there. I can't think of the name. It was about
humans observing another planet for some other alien race. They came
across a race of cephalopod types that lived under an ice planet that
had water underneath.
Oh, yeah, it was a Ringworld story. Early days of the Ringworld
universe a Puppeteer (Nessus) sent humans out to research a planet.
Before the Ringworld was actually discovered.
The cephalopods developed rather slowly until they managed to get
above the ice and discover fire. Then they discovered everything else
in a couple of generations. Thus being a possible threat to the
Puppeteers.
Nyx
Nyx
> Peter H. Coffin wrote:
> > On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 10:00:12 -0700, kest wrote:
> >> oonh wrote:
Well, the rest of the Gungans weren't that bad.
But they weren't really aquatic. They just swam a lot. They had an
oxygen environment in their underwater habitat.
Nyx
Satori
Fair enough. They speak English, but can't program their robots
particularly well.
Satori
-Because everybody blames IT.
whisky-dave
"Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote in message
news:slrnguno3p....@abyss.ninehells.com...
>
> We've yet to even come up with an SF story about liquid-dwelling
> tool-users, as far as I know.
There's some of the Xindi from the Star Trek Enterprise series, they seem
to have
ships that contain large aquariums.
whisky-dave
"Jennie Kermode" <"Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrngun6v2.5a1...@laocoon.triffid.demon.co.uk...
> On 2009-04-08, fasc...@mad.scientist.com <fasc...@mad.scientist.com>
> wrote:
>> What makes you think that the DNA-RNA device is the only, even the
>> most likely let alone most efficient, recording scheme for genetic
>> information?
>
> I'm inclined to suspect it's not, but it does seem quite
> likely that we'll have ten basic amino acids in common with
> extraterrestrial life, if only because they're the most likely to
> develop. Also, we've found them in meteorites. This helps us to get some
> perspective on what we might one day find out there.
I was listening to TWIS (This week in Science) and they were saying that all
life on
this planet contained the same 20 amino acids, even though we (humans) had
made more. In fact all life on this planet contained teh same twenty and
that of the twenty,
ten came from earth and the other ten have been found in meteorites as you
said.
>> There has been life for, let's say, three billion years, and hominini
>> for about six million years; we don't know of any cases of humany
>> nonhuman species on Earth. We probably wouldn't consider most humans
>> before thirty or forty thousand years ago very human-like is some
>> senses, but we'll go with the liberal estimate.
>
> That depends on how one looks at these things. I'd think that,
> to aliens, chimpanzees and orang utans might seem very similar to us.
> Let's keep in mind that two hundred years ago many white people didn't
> consider, say, black people or pygmies to be 'human-like'.
> Anyway, we know they'll speak English. We've seen that on TV.
>
> Jennie
In star trek they use the term humanoid life-form but I'm not sure what that
means
unless it's a very loose term meaning a couple of arms legs, legs & one
head.
Other terms are insect like, reptilian, non-carbon based, and non-caporal.
whisky-dave
"kest" <ke...@removethedamnspamtrap.nettrip.org> wrote in message
news:9e3sb6-...@abyss.ninehells.com...
> Endymion wrote:
>
>> One, it assumes that the necessary conditions for the formation of
>> life are common.
>
> 'Common' is a relative term, I think.
>
> We just don't know that, partly because we don't know
>> which conditions are necessary, partly because we don't know how
>> common they may be. How many planets have active plate tectonics at
>> this stage in their evolution? We just don't know. But we are pretty
>> sure Venus doesn't, which means it isn't universal. How many have
>> magnetic fields to shield their surfaces from lethal radiation? We
>> just don't know that either. Could life evolve in the absence of
>> either? Another question we can't even begin to answer.
>>
> What has plate tectonics done for you lately? And given that we aren't the
> only planet in our system to have a magnetic field, that's probably a
> function of planetary formation, at least under certain conditions that
> may be relatively common - certain elements being present in sufficient
> quantites, etc.
I thought it was because we have a molten core of iron that rotates,
even if it rotates at a slightly different speed to the crust.
>
>> Two, because evolution is a response to environmental conditions, it
>> assumes that something like the conditions that took our evolution in
>> the particular course it followed are universal, which is almost
>> certainly false. For example, an extinction event caused by something
>> like a large comet or asteroid collision can only be taken as the
>> result of pure chance. Had those events in Earth's history taken place
>> fifty or a hundred million years earlier or later than they did, the
>> course of evolution might have been enormously different. We didn't
>> turn out very much like the dinosaurs, so there's no reason to believe
>> any other reboot of the dominant fauna would either.
>>
> But see, that's part of the interesting stuff. Dinosaurs never evolved an
> intelligent species. But there is evidence that dinosaur species filled
> certain niches...you have the small vegetarian 'rodent'-like dinosaurs,
> you have the massive vegetarian 'herd animal'-like dinosaurs, you have the
> large predator dinosaurs, the scavenger dinosaurs, and then the aquatic
> dinosaurs and the flying dinosaurs... We may be to other potential
> intelligent species as an ichthyosaur is to a dolphin.
Of course we don;t know whether an intelligence species existed at the time
of the dinosaurs because we haven't found any. It's strange that over such
a long time
nothing evolved that we would consider intelligent in the same way we
consider humans
intelligent. Of course in the future we may well find that artic areas that
previously
were habitable may be unearthed, but with think it unlikely due to oxygen
levels
on the planet at the time.
>> Three, addressing the example of the parallel evolution of the eye, it
>> assumes evolution of form and mechanism along with basic function.
>> Yes, eyes have evolved several times, but they don't all appear the
>> same way or work the same way; they have as many differences as
>> similarities. If a housefly's eye, which uses roughly the same genes
>> as ours, is significantly different from ours, how much difference
>> might there be in one based on a completely different genetic pattern?
>
> I kinda wish we'd gotten octopus eyes, myself. They see in true color,
> you know.
As long as we see black, red, silver and purple :)
>But, you know, notice that, as different as the particulars of the housefly
>eye might be, they still exist on its head, and allow it to see, just like
>ours.
It is strange that the majority of life seems to have two eyes.
There's varying amounts of limbs, fingers and legs, most only have one head,
although I though the octupus had two brains the extra to contol it 'arms'.
We still aren;t sure whether to call viruses (non computer type) life or not
are we ?
>> Fourth, addressing the natural presence of amino acids, it assumes
>> that the others developed to complete the set must be the same ten. If
>> half the set is found naturally and the other half evolves in response
>> to local conditions and random influences, the slightest variation in
>> conditions might produce different results - and a substantial
>> difference that early in the process is almost sure to have profound
>> effects a few hundred million generations later.
>>
>
> If the other ten need to fill equivalent slots and have somewhat similar
> function, this may still be trivial.
>
>> Fifth, it assumes that our current state of being is not a very brief
>> transitory stage. Even if there are other beings out there with
>> similar evolutionary courses, they may be more like our last common
>> ancestor with chimps than humans, or godlike balls of energy a la Star
>> Trek.
>>
> This is true. We don't know what might be left to evolve into,
> post-singularity or whatnot.
I wonder how we'd define these stages i.e we did we change from ape to human
and what's required in able us to 'regress/progress' to the next level.
>> Sixth, the Fermi paradox. And don't start in with that "more evolved
>> and mature" or "respect for developing cultures" crap either - is
>> there anything in our history to suggest that we become *less*
>> inclined to piss in the snow, sculpt mountains into our own
>> likenesses, or otherwise put our stamp on every conceivable part of
>> nature as loudly and on as huge a scale as is technologically
>> feasible? If the ETs are showing such restraint, they ain't much
>> human.
>>
> Either that or they're broadcasting using some technology we haven't
> thought of yet. You think it's impossible that we'll be remotely similar
> and yet simultaneously think that if we are we will have both
> independently come up with radio waves as a communication mechanism???
Even if they are transmitting something we can find the chances that they
are
transmitting while we have the ability to receive is very unlikely.
If teh universe is about 13 billion years old and lets say it took
3 billion years to cool, off and settle down.
That means in 10 billion years we';ver been able to send/recieve
for less than 200 years. Coupled that with speed of transmission
that's under 200 light-years away in a universe which is about 13 billion
light-years across, so a really tiny fraction worse than loking for a needle
in a hay stack
more like looking for gnats bollocks in the sky.
>> Last, and most obvious, it ignores the possibility of intelligent, and
>> therefore arbitrary, meddling in our design. The Bible tells us that
>> we are a special and unique creation of God in His own image. Why
>> would He need to do the same thing elsewhere? Or if we're just a grand
>> experiment by a much more advanced alien civilization, sure, they
>> might do a couple more repetitions to verify the results, but it's
>> likely that most of their experiments would have some of the basic
>> variables altered.
>>
>
> Now you're just (as they say in Britain) taking the piss.
Or the south park one where we're just a reality games show for aliens,
well they' but all these slightly diffent species of humans on the planet
withy differing beliefs and colours, included animals to eat worship and/or
shag
and they watch to see who comes out fighting and wins.
The dinosuars lost out in the first 'phone-in' vote so were eliminated.
I think we might be the next to vote ourselfs out :-)
Or my latest theory, God made us and thought he was all powerful,
but after creating us he couldn't move us to the centre of the universe,
this pissed him off
as he'd dropped us before our final destination, so he decided to spend the
rest
of the day[1] in the pub getting rat arsed.
[1] Remember a day in the Bible can be 24 hours or 1000s or 1000000000s of
years, no wonder he can't tell one day from another.
Peter H. Coffin
> Peter H. Coffin wrote:
>> tool-users, as far as I know.
>
> I do remember reading a book in my youth about a civilization that
> ventured toward Earth in a multi-generational ship after some sort of
> catastrophe. They were rather like dolphins, and wanted to occupy our
> oceans once they got here.
I'd love to read it, if you can remember more details.
> In the book Space War Blues, there were little squidlike or octupuslike
> creatures who could hook into a nervous system and exert some control
> over it. They used this ability to network together and communicate, but
> started getting harvested by one of the societies in the book as a way
> to revive brain-damaged or brain-dead soldiers and send them back into
> battle as 'xombies'.
Does that count as tool-use though?
> Star Wars. Jar Jar. I won't continue because I'm not interested in a
> self-induced vomiting fit just this moment.
Not liquid-dwelling. They were comfortable in liquid but they didn't
LIVE there.
> The Abyss.
I remember the squishy things. I don't remember them using tools.
--
The Web brings people together because no matter what kind of a twisted
sexual mutant you happen to be, you've got millions of pals out there.
Type in 'Find people that have sex with goats that are on fire' and the
computer will ask, 'Specify type of goat.' -- Rich Jeni
Tim McGaughy
Tim McGaughy
> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:40:40 -0500, Tim McGaughy wrote:
>> Peter H. Coffin wrote:
>>> We've yet to even come up with an SF story about liquid-dwelling
>>> tool-users, as far as I know.
>> I do remember reading a book in my youth about a civilization that
>> ventured toward Earth in a multi-generational ship after some sort of
>> catastrophe. They were rather like dolphins, and wanted to occupy our
>> oceans once they got here.
>
> I'd love to read it, if you can remember more details.
Unfortunately, I can't remember its name. It used a twin pair of plot
threads, bouncing back and forth between the alien ship and the
survivors of a cargo ship that got torpedoed during WW2. The aliens had
to deal with growing doubt over where they were going, ending in an
almost religious war over their priorities, and the humans had to learn
to stretch their air and food supply, and were facing pretty certain
death as their improvised underwater habitat became increasingly unviable.
Each group experienced a bit of culture shock when they met, finding
their worlds had been expanded beyond their imaginations.
If you know anyone who's familiar with vintage science fiction, that
might be enough to ring a bell.
>> In the book Space War Blues, there were little squidlike or octupuslike
>> creatures who could hook into a nervous system and exert some control
>> over it. They used this ability to network together and communicate, but
>> started getting harvested by one of the societies in the book as a way
>> to revive brain-damaged or brain-dead soldiers and send them back into
>> battle as 'xombies'.
>
> Does that count as tool-use though?
Depends whether you think of a zombie body as a tool.
>> Star Wars. Jar Jar. I won't continue because I'm not interested in a
>> self-induced vomiting fit just this moment.
>
> Not liquid-dwelling. They were comfortable in liquid but they didn't
> LIVE there.
>
>> The Abyss.
>
> I remember the squishy things. I don't remember them using tools.
They had a huge fricking spaceship, and a large number of smaller
exploration gizmos.
Tim McGaughy
> Tim McGaughy wrote:
>> Satori wrote:
>>> Jennie Kermode wrote:
>>>> Anyway, we know they'll speak English. We've seen that on TV.
>>>
>>> Klaatu barada nikto?
>>
>> Gort was a robot. Of course he didn't speak english. But Klaatu spoke
>> it perfectly.
>
> Fair enough. They speak English, but can't program their robots
> particularly well.
Exactly. Look at Battlestar Galactica.
Endymion
wrote:
> Endymion wrote:
> > One, it assumes that the necessary conditions for the formation of
> > life are common.
>
> 'Common' is a relative term, I think.
Sure it is, but so what? You have no basis for concluding that
conditions on Earth are not unique.
> What has plate tectonics done for you lately?
You mean apart from having profound effects on just about everything
related to the surface environment, most notably weather and the
chemical composition of the atmosphere?
> But see, that's part of the interesting stuff. Dinosaurs never evolved
> an intelligent species. But there is evidence that dinosaur species
> filled certain niches...
First, that assumes that the only characteristics that define humanity
are a function of the niche we occupy, which I think is unsupportable.
A dinosaur that occupied the human niche - intelligent omnivores who
descended from our former arborial habitat and took to wandering on
the savannah - would not be human. An ichthyosaur may have eaten like
a dolphin, but it assuredly didn't act like one at all.
Also, the existence of any specific niche is to some degree a function
of specific environmental conditions.
> But, you know, notice that, as different as the particulars of
> the housefly eye might be, they still exist on its head, and allow it to
> see, just like ours.
No they don't. They see, but not like like us. We live our whole lives
in Plato's cave, and who we are is as much a product of the shadows we
perceive as of the underlying reality they reflect. Change the shadows
by changing the projection mechanism and you change the perceptions,
and thus the minds, of the viewers. Or we can go the Zen route and
discuss whether mountains are mountains.
> If the other ten need to fill equivalent slots and have somewhat similar
> function, this may still be trivial.
That depends on how specific you are with your definition of
"function".
> > Sixth, the Fermi paradox. And don't start in with that "more evolved
> > and mature" or "respect for developing cultures" crap either - is
> > there anything in our history to suggest that we become *less*
> > inclined to piss in the snow, sculpt mountains into our own
> > likenesses, or otherwise put our stamp on every conceivable part of
> > nature as loudly and on as huge a scale as is technologically
> > feasible? If the ETs are showing such restraint, they ain't much
> > human.
>
> Either that or they're broadcasting using some technology we haven't
> thought of yet. You think it's impossible that we'll be remotely
> similar and yet simultaneously think that if we are we will have both
> independently come up with radio waves as a communication mechanism???
I think they'd use radio at some point even if they were profoundly
different from us. The use of radio waves is a matter of fundamental
laws of physics that could be used to transmit any sort of sensory
data. They may not use it for long, but if there are billions of human-
like species out there, the odds of *none* of them are currently (that
is, at a time that would cause the radio waves to arrive here
currently) using radio seem to me to be very low.
Also, I'm not just talking about radio, I'm talking about Mount
Rushmore. Chairface Chippendale, the Tick's arch-nemesis, inscribed
(part of) his name on the moon. The only reason we haven't done
something like that is technological inability. If they're human,
they'll have some sort of 25th century Kim Jong Il to rearrange some
galaxy's spiral arms into a line drawing of his face. If they don't,
they're not much like us.
> > Last, and most obvious, it ignores the possibility of intelligent, and
> > therefore arbitrary, meddling in our design. The Bible tells us that
> > we are a special and unique creation of God in His own image. Why
> > would He need to do the same thing elsewhere? Or if we're just a grand
> > experiment by a much more advanced alien civilization, sure, they
> > might do a couple more repetitions to verify the results, but it's
> > likely that most of their experiments would have some of the basic
> > variables altered.
>
> Now you're just (as they say in Britain) taking the piss.
Now why would you assume that? You might prove that we have evolved,
but you can't prove scientifically that everything about our evolution
was dictated by the laws of nature, or for that matter that the laws
of nature were not themselves created by God or manipulated by other
intelligent beings whose influence we can't detect. Assuming that only
that which we can currently prove or deduce through science is true is
not the same as saying that what can be disproved with science is
false. You're flipping the fundies' premise on its equally invalid
head: just because we don't teach it in our public schools doesn't
mean it isn't true, and Occam's Razor tells us what's *probable*, not
what's *true*.
And elsethread you wrote:
> Is that what 'being human' is? What we look like?
Form is function to a certain extent.
> Let's talk in specifics though. In order to have a species we would
> count as 'intelligent' you need not just brains (requiring some sort of
> live birth at an immature stage, most likely), but also tool using and
> building skills - so you would find something that mobilates relatively
> vertically, leaving upper limbs (with something like an opposable thumb)
> free for tool use - and social groups with language and teamwork.
You don't know any of that. Perhaps they're a hive mind rather than
each individual having a complex brain and intelligent mind. Perhaps
they have 24 legs, 12 of which are used for locomotion, 8 for sex, and
4 for manipulating objects, and the latter four dangle beneath the
horizontal torso, or perhaps they have pseudopods created when they
are needed, used for locomotion or manipulation or any other function,
and reabsorbed iinto the central mass when the need has passed (i.e.,
they're shoggoths). Perhaps they are hermaphrodites, or have five
sexes. Perhaps their larvae develop very differently from our embryos
and hatch from eggs fertilized outside the mother (like many fish), or
reproduce by budding, or perhaps the brood devour the mother from the
inside and so create their own (suitably wide) birth canal. Perhaps
she bites the father's head off after mating. Perhaps they breathe
ammonia, have a metabolism 1000 times slower than ours, and perceive
the world only through detection of gravity and gamma rays.
Any of those things would have profound effects on their minds and
culture, and you can't really say that any of them are incompatible
with intelligence. Perhaps we're just anomalies, freaks in a cosmic
sideshow.
- Endymion
The Drums of Fascinet
> On Apr 12, 12:02 pm, Tim McGaughy <tee...@toast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > kest wrote:
> > > Tim McGaughy wrote:
> > >> oonh wrote:
>
> > >>>http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23309/
> > >>> I would be showing terracentrism if I said that the only way for
> > >>> life to work was the way it works on earth... but I'm not saying that:
> > >>> the particulars might be different, but the solutions to the problems
> > >>> of living are going to be the same (or analogous) because the physical
> > >>> laws there and here are going to be the same.
>
> > >> You're assuming that the solutions we currently have are the best and
> > >> only solutions.
>
> > >> Assume. Based on a statistical example of exactly 1.
>
> > > No, he's really not assuming that based on a single statistical example.
>
> > Yeah, he really is.
>
> > > physical universe and its laws.
>
> > And exactly how many planets with life on them has he observed?
>
> > My point exactly.
>
> disproving.
>
> There's not enough evidence to prove or disprove anything. So what's
> the point?
>
If there really is enough evidence to prove of disprove something,
then what's the point of arguing?
Only a fool would disagree, and why argue with a fool?
-F
~Fianna
> -Because everybody blames IT.
Of course they blame IT. They can't figure out what the hell we do unless
it's broken, which means we're obviously doing that thing that we do wrong.
~Fi
Nyx
John Connor is in the enforcement wing of the IT department.
Nyx
fasc...@mad.scientist.com
Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 2009-04-08, fasci...@mad.scientist.com <fasci...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
>
> > What makes you think that the DNA-RNA device is the only, even the
> > most likely let alone most efficient, recording scheme for genetic
> > information?
>
> I'm inclined to suspect it's not, but it does seem quite
> likely that we'll have ten basic amino acids in common with
> extraterrestrial life, if only because they're the most likely to
> develop. Also, we've found them in meteorites. This helps us to get some
> perspective on what we might one day find out there.
>
> > There has been life for, let's say, three billion years, and hominini
> > for about six million years; we don't know of any cases of humany
> > nonhuman species on Earth. We probably wouldn't consider most humans
> > before thirty or forty thousand years ago very human-like is some
> > senses, but we'll go with the liberal estimate.
>
> That depends on how one looks at these things. I'd think that,
> to aliens, chimpanzees and orang utans might seem very similar to us.
> Let's keep in mind that two hundred years ago many white people didn't
> consider, say, black people or pygmies to be 'human-like'.
>
For the purpose of this discussion, I think human-like should refer to
intellectual characteristics of a certain order, especially those
characteristics that allow for history, and so on. This is why I
chose hominins as a baseline (hominid was a typo)--something likely to
be able to record or mythologize the past; this would also allow for
advnaced concepts like ethicity and genocide, making the aliens much
more human.
I think this is fairest to Oonh, specifically in that the evolution of
a human-like mind so defined is probably much more likely or common
than the evolution of a parallel set of primates, or even a bunch of
people with crabs on their heads.
>
> Anyway, we know they'll speak English. We've seen that on TV.
>
TV is a good source, but it's not authoritative.
The internet tells me that English is the most efficient language in
the universe, and so I suppose only the most advanced aliens will use
it.
-F
fasc...@mad.scientist.com
wrote:
> Endymion wrote:
> > One, it assumes that the necessary conditions for the formation of
> > life are common.
>
> 'Common' is a relative term, I think.
>
It can be, but it's meaningless without a lower bound.
A good lower bound would be: frequent enough such that during the
lifetime of any intelligent species, there is at least a fifty percent
chance of that species identifying existing life from another planet.
If life is less common in the comos than this, then we cannot expect
to discover it.
A niche isn't a real thing, it's a shorthand for exploitable
resources. They are opportunities, not voids. Some species, for
example farmer ants, are even said to "create their own niches,"
creating opportunities where there once were none. If there is grass,
there is an opportunity for something to eat it. Social organization
likely has little to do with this and more to do with protection...the
existence of a school of fish-like beings creates a niche that can be
exploited by shark-like beings, wren-like beings, and human-like
beings, among others.
Don't be fooled by convergent evolution: the icthyosaur's ancestor had
to begin to exploit its niche before it looked like a dolphin, just as
the dolphin's ancestor began to expoit its niche when it was a proto-
hog.
>
> > Three, addressing the example of the parallel evolution of the eye, it
> > assumes evolution of form and mechanism along with basic function.
> > Yes, eyes have evolved several times, but they don't all appear the
> > same way or work the same way; they have as many differences as
> > similarities. If a housefly's eye, which uses roughly the same genes
> > as ours, is significantly different from ours, how much difference
> > might there be in one based on a completely different genetic pattern?
>
> I kinda wish we'd gotten octopus eyes, myself. They see in true color,
> you know. But, you know, notice that, as different as the particulars of
> the housefly eye might be, they still exist on its head, and allow it to
> see, just like ours.
>
Whose to say that they'll evolve heads?
>
> > Sixth, the Fermi paradox. And don't start in with that "more evolved
> > and mature" or "respect for developing cultures" crap either - is
> > there anything in our history to suggest that we become *less*
> > inclined to piss in the snow, sculpt mountains into our own
> > likenesses, or otherwise put our stamp on every conceivable part of
> > nature as loudly and on as huge a scale as is technologically
> > feasible? If the ETs are showing such restraint, they ain't much
> > human.
>
The basic physics would imply that an electromagnetic signal is almost
certainly the way you'd broadcast over a reasonable distance.
>
> Either that or they're broadcasting using some technology we haven't
> thought of yet. You think it's impossible that we'll be remotely
> similar and yet simultaneously think that if we are we will have both
> independently come up with radio waves as a communication mechanism???
>
> <...>
>
> k
Jennie Kermode
> We've yet to even come up with an SF story about liquid-dwelling
> tool-users, as far as I know.
Hal Clement has written about tool users who _are_ liquid.
> The closest I can think of in real-world example is sea-otters (I
> think) bashing oysters open with rocks (and the sea otters aren't
> really liquid-dwellers entirely)
Dolphins have been known to use a variety of tools for things
like opening shellfish, playing games and even cleaning aquariums. Most
of the time, though, they just don't have much reason to do so.
> and octopi being able to figure out how to open jars and other
> containers, which barely qualifies as the containers aren't THEIR
> tools, but ours that they figured out.
Heh. I write on octopus care from time to time and one of the
things I always stress when people want to keep them in captivity is the
importance of having an absolutely escape-proof aquarium. They can
figure out all sorts of uses for seemingly innocuous objects in their
tanks, but figuring out that being outside the tanks will kill them is a
step too far (as, in comparable circumstances, it might well be for us).
Mantis shrimp are probably the most interesting
liquid-dwelling species we know of, in this regard. They're highly
intelligent in at least some ways (these things are always difficult to
measure) and they're inventive in using tools for building and for
escapology; there's some evidence that they also use them to attack
prey.
The thing that strikes me about liquid-dwellers is that most
of them can't see the stars. I tend to agree with James Blish that
that's a big factor in the development of the outward urge.
Jennie
Jennie Kermode
> Is that what 'being human' is? What we look like?
I'd say it's a significant part of being human but a
triviality as regards being a person.
We should, however, always remain aware of the variety of
forms we encompass under our umbrella notion of what a human looks like.
Humans don't necessarily have arms or legs or all the same organs; they
can be found in a variety of colours; they have highly variable amounts
of hair; some adult ones are five times as big as others. The history of
taxonomy shows us that we have often been misled by such factors into
classifying members of other single species as several different species
groups.
> Let's talk in specifics though. In order to have a species we would
> count as 'intelligent' you need not just brains (requiring some sort of
> live birth at an immature stage, most likely)
Why a live birth? Mightn't it be easier to grow a foetus big
enough using an egg? After all, eggs don't have to have rigid shells -
there are other ways to protect them.
> but also tool using and building skills
I don't think that's necessary for it to _qualify_ as
intelligent. It might be necessary for us to _recognise_ that
intelligence, but that would be our failing, not its.
> so you would find something that mobilates relatively vertically,
> leaving upper limbs free for tool use.
Shrimp and ants get along fine walking on six legs or four,
with the front two available when necessary for manipulating objects.
> (with something like opposable thumbs)
Elephant trunks can handle similar tasks. There are various
ways one might design manipulatory appendages; thumbs aren't all that
special. Many species use mouthparts for such tasks. Crows are tool
users (and tool makers) who use their beaks in combination with their
feet to impressive effect. I think the only really important things here
are the ability to grip and the ability to put pressure on the item
being gripped using another (not necessarily identical) body part.
> social groups with language and teamwork.
Again, I don't think this is necessary for intelligence or
even for its development (octopuses, orang utans and mantis shrimps are
fairly solitary, for instance); but it probably is necessary for
technological development to occur with sufficient speed to enable a
species to master its environment and the balance thereof before its own
success destroys that environment.
Basic language is probably not all that unusual. It's abstract
language that's the tricky part, and that requires further specific
developments in cognitive ability (though some evolutionary biologists
believe that the development of language abilities in humans
precipitated these).
So far as teamwork is concerned, I think there's another
factor of great significance, and that's theory of mind. Rats, for
instance, are really smart with regard to many types of problem and are
capable of cooperating, but lack theory of mind. They can sympathise but
not empathise. This limits their capacity for moral development, which
may be necessary for long term social unity (and everything that depends
on that). Of course, rats have one other major problem, which is that
they don't live very long. Maybe if they did, theory of mind would have
time to develop. They keep on learning right up to the end of their
lives, but then that's it, all gone. I think a species would need to
have an average lifespan of eight years or more to be able to develop as
we have.
> There's no real requirement that they be fleshy as opposed to scaly or
> feathery, I guess, but coldbloodedness or hollow bones might be
> limitations.
I think the problems caused by those factors might not be
such a big issue in some types of environment. There are probably all
sorts of other ways their surfaces could look, though - there are
certainly other ways one can provide flexible insulation.
> They're unlikely to be insecty - the physics on exoskeletons is
> harder.
Agreed. Though toughened skin might make them _look_ insecty.
> All other things being the same, alien cuisine might still be a big
> cultural hurdle to get over, and the sexual particulars will probably be
> so incompatible as to make porn untitillating.
I'm sure there'll be a place for it on the internet.
So many stars, so many worlds, so many probable things to eat
and fuck. What fine days may yet lie ahead!
Jennie Kermode
On 2009-04-19, kest <ke...@removethedamnspamtrap.nettrip.org> wrote:
> Endymion wrote:
>> sure Venus doesn't, which means it isn't universal. How many have
>> magnetic fields to shield their surfaces from lethal radiation? We
>> just don't know that either. Could life evolve in the absence of
>> either? Another question we can't even begin to answer.
I raise you radiodurans. There are others, but that's
everybody's favourite. Still, the evolution of more complex life forms
would probably be slower and suffer a lot of setbacks.
> What has plate tectonics done for you lately? And given that we aren't
> the only planet in our system to have a magnetic field, that's probably
> a function of planetary formation, at least under certain conditions
> that may be relatively common - certain elements being present in
> sufficient quantites, etc.
Oh, sure, we're pretty sure that they usually happen, but
Endymion has a point - they don't always stick around.
> I kinda wish we'd gotten octopus eyes, myself. They see in true color,
> you know. But, you know, notice that, as different as the particulars of
> the housefly eye might be, they still exist on its head, and allow it to
> see, just like ours.
Not everything works quite that way. Consider four-eyed
fish, flatfish and crabs. Sure, eyes are in roughly the same place, but
they might not be easily recognisable as such, and fake eye-markings
elsewhere are a strong possibility, making things look weirder.
>> If the ETs are showing such restraint, they ain't much human.
They might just have a lot of more interesting stuff to mess
with than our little backwater world.
>> Last, and most obvious, it ignores the possibility of intelligent, and
>> therefore arbitrary, meddling in our design. The Bible tells us that
>> we are a special and unique creation of God in His own image. Why
>> would He need to do the same thing elsewhere?
Even if He didn't, who's to say it wouldn't happen by itself?
That is, even if there were an intelligent designer out there creating
or directing life in one part of the universe, that's not to say it
couldn't evolve without one elsewhere. Even proving the existence of a
god wouldn't prove the need for a god.
Peter H. Coffin
OTOH, most of the physics on exoskeletons that prohibit large
growth hinge around "you can't have lungs in a hard shell, and
tracheae/spiracles don't support large bodies." Which kind of neglects
that some larger insects already pump their abdomens for active
breathing. It's not that far to lungs from there.
--
Compared to system administration, being cursed forever is a step up.
-- Paul Tomko
Tim McGaughy
> On Wed, 6 May 2009 18:28:12 +0100, Jennie Kermode wrote:
>> On 2009-04-19, kest <ke...@removethedamnspamtrap.nettrip.org> wrote:
>>> They're unlikely to be insecty - the physics on exoskeletons is
>>> harder.
>> Agreed. Though toughened skin might make them _look_ insecty.
>
> OTOH, most of the physics on exoskeletons that prohibit large
> growth hinge around "you can't have lungs in a hard shell,
Doesn't seem to bother turtles.
Yeah, I know. They're endoskeletal. But that doesn't alter the fact that
they do have shells for protection, and inside those shells are lungs.
I've never heard the idea that exoskeletons prevent lungs. I'd always
heard that they just can't get very big without becoming too heavy and
cumbersome.
fasc...@mad.scientist.com
> Peter H. Coffin wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 May 2009 18:28:12 +0100, Jennie Kermode wrote:
> >>> They're unlikely to be insecty - the physics on exoskeletons is
> >>> harder.
> >> Agreed. Though toughened skin might make them _look_ insecty.
>
> > OTOH, most of the physics on exoskeletons that prohibit large
> > growth hinge around "you can't have lungs in a hard shell,
>
> Doesn't seem to bother turtles.
>
> Yeah, I know. They're endoskeletal. But that doesn't alter the fact that
> they do have shells for protection, and inside those shells are lungs.
>
> I've never heard the idea that exoskeletons prevent lungs. I'd always
> heard that they just can't get very big without becoming too heavy and
> cumbersome.
>
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0/constraint_02
-F
TenshiKurai9
> Please excuse the piggybacking - I'm catching up.
>
> On 2009-04-19, kest <ke...@removethedamnspamtrap.nettrip.org> wrote:
>> Endymion wrote:
>>> If the ETs are showing such restraint, they ain't much human.
>
> They might just have a lot of more interesting stuff to mess
> with than our little backwater world.
Oh you know there must be a few hobbyists interested in studying the
lower forms of life like ourselves.
-TenshiKurai9
fasc...@mad.scientist.com
> On 2009-05-06, Jennie Kermode <"Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Please excuse the piggybacking - I'm catching up.
>
> >> Endymion wrote:
> >>> If the ETs are showing such restraint, they ain't much human.
>
> > They might just have a lot of more interesting stuff to mess
> > with than our little backwater world.
>
> Oh you know there must be a few hobbyists interested in studying the
> lower forms of life like ourselves.
>
Are these hobbyists the sort who marry their horses?
-F
Endymion
> On 2009-05-06, Jennie Kermode <"Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Please excuse the piggybacking - I'm catching up.
>
> >> Endymion wrote:
> >>> If the ETs are showing such restraint, they ain't much human.
>
> > They might just have a lot of more interesting stuff to mess
> > with than our little backwater world.
>
> Oh you know there must be a few hobbyists interested in studying the
> lower forms of life like ourselves.
Or con artists who think of something they can swindle or steal from
the rubes that might be worth the trouble.
- Endymion
Satori
Maybe we're not worth the trouble. What would you swindle from
Chimpanzees that would be worth it?
Tim McGaughy
That would kinda be like me hiking into the appalachian mountains in
search of a backwoods village I could steal an 8-track player from.
Not really worth the effort.
Tim McGaughy
All your banana are belong to us.
`una
> Endymion wrote (about what kind of aliens might come here)
> > Or con artists who think of something they can swindle or steal from
> > the rubes that might be worth the trouble.
>
> That would kinda be like me hiking into the appalachian mountains in
> search of a backwoods village I could steal an 8-track player from.
>
> Not really worth the effort.
Wouldn't it be more like opportunists who take over small villages
in order to have that precious metal/stone that was found in the ground
when the natives had no clue it was worth anything?
`una - what if aliens really do need salt water or composite rocks ;)
Tim McGaughy
> Tim McGaughy wrote:
>
>> Endymion wrote (about what kind of aliens might come here)
>>> Or con artists who think of something they can swindle or steal from
>>> the rubes that might be worth the trouble.
>> That would kinda be like me hiking into the appalachian mountains in
>> search of a backwoods village I could steal an 8-track player from.
>>
>> Not really worth the effort.
>
> Wouldn't it be more like opportunists who take over small villages
> in order to have that precious metal/stone that was found in the ground
> when the natives had no clue it was worth anything?
I seriously doubt that there's anything I can find on Earth that I
couldn't find on one of the uninhabited planets with less effort, were I
an advanced being who had just trekked across light-years of space.
whisky-dave
"Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote in message
news:0vOdnYM_XPWHh4_X...@posted.toastnet...
Why not, us on earth study all sorts of things from the life cycle of the
Earth worm
to the migration of birds.
If God created it it's worth studying ;-)
whisky-dave
"`una" <una...@nettrip.org> wrote in message
news:e54ae6-...@abyss.ninehells.com...
Yep that's true humans generally try to exploit anything they can
including each other.
Peter H. Coffin
> That would kinda be like me hiking into the appalachian mountains in
> search of a backwoods village I could steal an 8-track player from.
>
> Not really worth the effort.
I kinda miss 8-tracks. I had a recorder for years, and Radio Shack kept
me in blank cartridges, and I got really good with a primative 4-source
mixing board, a turntable, a cd player, and a cassette player, first
timing a blank playback to know exactly how long a program loop was on
that type of cart, then composing playlists for however long that tape
was. My personal spec was less than five seconds of dead tape for the
program change, and I made it most of the time. Any drunken idiot could
be set free to play with music when it's all on carts. The good ones
were near bullet-proof.
--
186,000 Miles per Second. It's not just a good idea. IT'S THE LAW.
Satori
When I started in radio in 1993, all of our commercials and about 20% of
our music was still on 4-track carts. And the CD players were Denon
"CD Cart" machines that were set up to work similarly to tape carts. In
fact, my first job as an intern in radio was bumping commercials from
reel-to-reel down to cart for play in the studio.
They all got replaced by a computer in about 1998, though.
Nyx
Except labor, which is the foundation of all value....
Nyx
Peter H. Coffin
> When I started in radio in 1993, all of our commercials and about 20% of
> our music was still on 4-track carts. And the CD players were Denon
> "CD Cart" machines that were set up to work similarly to tape carts. In
> fact, my first job as an intern in radio was bumping commercials from
> reel-to-reel down to cart for play in the studio.
>
> They all got replaced by a computer in about 1998, though.
*nod* In about 1993, I was designing an application to do exactly that:
replace a giant cart robot rack with a PC that stowed the same amount of
audio on a hard drive and used about 10% of the power. It would have
handled audio encoding, handled the traffic scheduling with human
tweaking, given an interface to on-air talent to handle break start/stop
on a live basis, and provided complete data out about runs for billing
purposes. By then end of '94, I wasn't close to anyone even close to the
broadcast industry anymore and I dumped by notes on the project.
--
75. I will instruct my Legions of Terror to attack the hero en masse, instead
of standing around waiting while members break off and attack one or two
at a time.
--Peter Anspach's list of things to do as an Evil Overlord
Tim McGaughy
8-tracks were mostly gone by the time I was an adult. I took a tape
apart once, and it was obvious why they didn't even last as long as
cassettes as a commercial format. There's a lot of tape sliding over
tape in those things to accomplish the trick of continuous looping play,
and it just makes me cringe to think of what that must do to the
fidelity over time. I also seem to remember that there was no rewinding.
The one I took apart proved beyond my ability to put back together
properly, and I ended up throwing it away.
Tim McGaughy
We're on the verge of being able to build robot labor. We're actually
already there if the application doesn't require something anthropomorphic.
By the time we can go joyriding around the galaxy, I don't expect that
we'll need clever monkeys for anything. I see no reason to believe
aliens visiting us would, either.
`una
> I seriously doubt that there's anything I can find on Earth that I
> couldn't find on one of the uninhabited planets with less effort, were I
> an advanced being who had just trekked across light-years of space.
Plastic.
Tim McGaughy
I doubt that a civilization capable of star-hopping is going to be
overly concerned about running out of disposable paper clips.
`una
One being's trash is another's treasure.
However, if the elements that are necessary to create plastic
are as easily found in the universe as salt water and dirt,
my point is again moot.
For all we know, they might be running out of paper and be thrilled
to find a planet so rich with trees. Paper clips might be more
important than we think!
`una - amazed by what we take for granted
NightMist
wrote:
Consider what plastic is.
By the time a civilization achieves star-hopping capability any fossil
fuels they had are probably long gone. They probably have a glow in
the dark plastic spider ring from an earth gumball machine in their
crown jewels.
NightMist
--
Legolas is my house elf
Peter H. Coffin
Nah, we can make major plastics out of sugar cane if we want. It's just
usually cheaper to make it out of petroluem than food. When crude oil
costs more than sugar per pound, then you'll see a change.
--
4. Shooting is not too good for my enemies.
Tim McGaughy
Okay, point taken.
But only because of the amusing images it conjures up.
Endymion
I've never bought that. How much value does a turd have after you've
spent 10 hours polishing it? Conversely, if one day you're shootin' at
some food and up through the ground comes a bubblin' crude, how much
labor was required for you to be thusly enriched?
(That doesn't negate the idea that labor is the ultimate *measure* of
value - the turd and the crude are each worth the amount of labor you
can purchase with them, or with the money you get for them - but
that's not the same thing.)
- Endymion
Nyx
> On May 19, 12:55 pm, Nyx <wayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 19, 6:44 am, Tim McGaughy <tee...@toast.net> wrote:
>
> > > `una wrote:
> > > > Tim McGaughy wrote:
>
> > > I seriously doubt that there's anything I can find on Earth that I
> > > couldn't find on one of the uninhabited planets with less effort, were I
> > > an advanced being who had just trekked across light-years of space.
>
> > Except labor, which is the foundation of all value....
>
> I've never bought that. How much value does a turd have after you've
> spent 10 hours polishing it?
That's the wrong kind of labor. But if you put a lot of turds in a
pile and then let them set awhile you can get all kinds of interesting
chemicals out of it.
Conversely, if one day you're shootin' at
> some food and up through the ground comes a bubblin' crude, how much
> labor was required for you to be thusly enriched?
Dude, it's the right kind of labor. Not just any labor. But in that
case the labor was pulling the trigger on the gun. Sure it wasn't a
lot of labor, but it was there.
As George Jetson used to say, "My button pushing finger is sore."
Nyx
Endymion
> On May 22, 11:33 am, Endymion <disintegrat...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 19, 12:55 pm, Nyx <wayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Except labor, which is the foundation of all value....
>
> > I've never bought that. How much value does a turd have after you've
> > spent 10 hours polishing it?
>
> That's the wrong kind of labor.
But it does demonstrate that some labor is unproductive.
> But if you put a lot of turds in a
> pile and then let them set awhile you can get all kinds of interesting
> chemicals out of it.
True. But if the turds get heaped in a pile by some natural process,
the same chemicals are produced with zero labor. They may or may not
require any significant amount of labor to collect them.
> Conversely, if one day you're shootin' at
>
> > some food and up through the ground comes a bubblin' crude, how much
> > labor was required for you to be thusly enriched?
>
> Dude, it's the right kind of labor. Not just any labor. But in that
> case the labor was pulling the trigger on the gun. Sure it wasn't a
> lot of labor, but it was there.
No, that's zero labor. the labor was performed for another purpose and
not wasted (if you hit with every other shot, the labor to harvest one
possum is two shots, not just the one that hit) so there was zero
opportunity cost do discovering the oil.
But let's go further: what happens if Jed is just sitting on his porch
in a rocking chair and he notices that a little oil is seeping up
through the ground naturally? You can't say that sitting on your porch
and looking at the yard is labor in any meaningful sense. At that
point the oil has inherent value before anyone comes and extracts it.
The point of the examples is that the labor theory doesn't work for
natural commodities, which have a portion of their value that's solely
a function of scarcity in nature and independent of the labor required
to extract them.
Rainwater is another example. It waters your crops with literally zero
effort on your part.The value of the crops raised on two otherwise
identical fields with the same amount of labor (i.e., no irrigation)
will vary greatly depending on the amount of rain they receive; that
variation is the portion of their value that is created independently
by the rain, not by any labor or lack of labor on the part of the
farmer. The value produced by the farmer's labor is the value of the
crops from the dry, scraggly field that got little rain.
- Endymion
Satori
> On May 19, 12:55 pm, Nyx <wayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 19, 6:44 am, Tim McGaughy <tee...@toast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> `una wrote:
>>>> Tim McGaughy wrote:
>>> I seriously doubt that there's anything I can find on Earth that I
>>> couldn't find on one of the uninhabited planets with less effort, were I
>>> an advanced being who had just trekked across light-years of space.
>> Except labor, which is the foundation of all value....
>
> I've never bought that. How much value does a turd have after you've
> spent 10 hours polishing it?
That all depends on your reputation as a contemporary artist, and the
skills of your agent. :)
Nyx
> On May 22, 3:38 pm, Nyx <wayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 22, 11:33 am, Endymion <disintegrat...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 19, 12:55 pm, Nyx <wayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Except labor, which is the foundation of all value....
>
> > > I've never bought that. How much value does a turd have after you've
> > > spent 10 hours polishing it?
>
> > That's the wrong kind of labor.
>
> But it does demonstrate that some labor is unproductive.
The statement was that labor is the foundation of all value. Not that
labor = value. You can polish a rock or you can polish a diamond and
at the end one is worth more than the other. Even though you put the
same amount of work into both. But neither is worth anything sitting
in the ground.
>
> > But if you put a lot of turds in a
> > pile and then let them set awhile you can get all kinds of interesting
> > chemicals out of it.
>
> True. But if the turds get heaped in a pile by some natural process,
> the same chemicals are produced with zero labor. They may or may not
> require any significant amount of labor to collect them.
Who said "significant labor"? Any labor at all counts. If a diamond
sits on the ground and is never found, then it's never worth anything.
But the act of recognizing it as a diamonds (knowledge is labor, too,
since it took work to attain it) and picking it up (a small act of
labor, easy to do, but it still counts) is the labor we are speaking
of.
Nyx
Ok, I was typing a response to this but I hit the return key and
google's news interface thought I meant send and it was sent before I
could finish. So here's the rest of the response.
> But let's go further: what happens if Jed is just sitting on his porch
> in a rocking chair and he notices that a little oil is seeping up
> through the ground naturally? You can't say that sitting on your porch
> and looking at the yard is labor in any meaningful sense. At that
> point the oil has inherent value before anyone comes and extracts it.
No, the labor was Jed's recognition that it was oil. Jed's a little
smarter. He had the sense to then drive into town (driving= labor) and
tell someone about it (talking=labor).
See, the problem is you're trying to imply that doing very little work
doesn't count as labor. But it does. Sitting around scratching their
ass is something lots of people get paid for.
>
> The point of the examples is that the labor theory doesn't work for
> natural commodities, which have a portion of their value that's solely
> a function of scarcity in nature and independent of the labor required
> to extract them.
But not really. It's just a story some creepy old redneck is telling
until some educated geologist comes out and looks at it. Isn't it? Or
a lawyer draws up some papers. Both of which count as labor.
Just knowing something and recognizing it is a form of labor. If I
find a Picasso in a garage sale, buy it for a dollar, turn around and
tell someone else who immediately pays me 10 million you would say
that's not labor. But just knowing it was a Picasso was labor, it was
just labor that I did in an art history class in 1987.
>
> Rainwater is another example. It waters your crops with literally zero
> effort on your part.The value of the crops raised on two otherwise
> identical fields with the same amount of labor (i.e., no irrigation)
> will vary greatly depending on the amount of rain they receive; that
> variation is the portion of their value that is created independently
> by the rain, not by any labor or lack of labor on the part of the
> farmer. The value produced by the farmer's labor is the value of the
> crops from the dry, scraggly field that got little rain.
No, the crops, fat and juicy or dry and scraggly, aren't worth
anything if no one harvests them. Unless you're the US Government
paying giant farm corporations not to grow things.
Screwing people is also labor. Otherwise all the lawyers and whores
would have to find another job, huh?
Dude, the reason I don't argue with you more is that it takes forever.
I'm supposed to be searching the web for things that will get me
traffic, for which I get paid, which is my labor. Not this.
Nyx
kest
>
> Wouldn't it be more like opportunists who take over small villages
> in order to have that precious metal/stone that was found in the ground
> when the natives had no clue it was worth anything?
>
> `una - what if aliens really do need salt water or composite rocks ;)
There's a SF story, by Zenna Henderson, where what it turns out what the
aliens need is human hair, and they need it stat. The problem is that
almost everyone on earth's hair in this future is not only short, but
dyed or treated in some way, making it unsuitable for the aliens' needs.
k
TenshiKurai9
> On May 17, 7:30�am, TenshiKurai9 <ten...@abyss.ninehells.com> wrote:
>> Oh you know there must be a few hobbyists interested in studying the
>>
>
> Are these hobbyists the sort who marry their horses?
Maybe I should start bridling-up, just in case. . .
-TenshiKurai9
Tim McGaughy
Wow.
I'm not sure how you meant that, but it certainly did conjure up some
interesting imagery.
TenshiKurai9
(neighs)
-TenshiKurai9
NightMist
http://www.ponyplayranch.com/ecom/ppr_store/index.php
Hey look! Hooves are on sale this week!
*breaks out the riding crop and spurs*
Tim McGaughy
I dunno. This may be why aliens haven't contacted us yet.
Maybe they're AFRAID!
Jennie Kermode
> I doubt that a civilization capable of star-hopping is going to be
> overly concerned about running out of disposable paper clips.
What do we exploit less powerful civilisations for? Cheap
toys, clothes, consumer electronics. What makes us think that
spacefaring aliens would be any different? If they want us at all, it
may well be for a trivial commodity which happens to have value because
it's marketable on an interplanetary scale.
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode
jen...@innocent.com
www.jenniekermode.com
whisky-dave
"Endymion" <disinte...@embarqmail.com> wrote in message
news:28bc1910-26d1-41e3...@e23g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
On May 19, 12:55 pm, Nyx <wayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 19, 6:44 am, Tim McGaughy <tee...@toast.net> wrote:
>
> > `una wrote:
> > > Tim McGaughy wrote:
>
> > I seriously doubt that there's anything I can find on Earth that I
> > couldn't find on one of the uninhabited planets with less effort, were I
> > an advanced being who had just trekked across light-years of space.
>
> Except labor, which is the foundation of all value....
I've never bought that. How much value does a turd have after you've
spent 10 hours polishing it?
Depends how many view it on ebay and what teh post and packing is.
(That doesn't negate the idea that labor is the ultimate *measure* of
value - the turd and the crude are each worth the amount of labor you
can purchase with them, or with the money you get for them - but
that's not the same thing.)
The measure of value is all about how much someone else values it.
- Endymion
Tim McGaughy
> On 2009-05-20, Tim McGaughy <tee...@toast.net> wrote:
>> I doubt that a civilization capable of star-hopping is going to be
>> overly concerned about running out of disposable paper clips.
>
> What do we exploit less powerful civilisations for? Cheap
> toys, clothes, consumer electronics. What makes us think that
> spacefaring aliens would be any different? If they want us at all, it
> may well be for a trivial commodity which happens to have value because
> it's marketable on an interplanetary scale.
What do we want chimpanzees for? That's probably about the same level of
difference between us and a space-faring civilization.
If they want us at all, it's for interesting zoo exhibits.
Endymion
> On May 22, 3:05 pm, Endymion <disintegrat...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But let's go further: what happens if Jed is just sitting on his porch
> > in a rocking chair and he notices that a little oil is seeping up
> > through the ground naturally? You can't say that sitting on your porch
> > and looking at the yard is labor in any meaningful sense. At that
> > point the oil has inherent value before anyone comes and extracts it.
>
> No, the labor was Jed's recognition that it was oil. Jed's a little
> smarter. He had the sense to then drive into town (driving= labor) and
> tell someone about it (talking=labor).
None of those things is labor in the sense economists (whether Marxist
of classical) use the word.
> See, the problem is you're trying to imply that doing very little work
> doesn't count as labor. But it does. Sitting around scratching their
> ass is something lots of people get paid for.
Work is not the same as labor, not everything that people do is work,
and people are paid for many things that are not labor.
> But not really. It's just a story some creepy old redneck is telling
> until some educated geologist comes out and looks at it. Isn't it? Or
> a lawyer draws up some papers. Both of which count as labor.
>
> Just knowing something and recognizing it is a form of labor. If I
> find a Picasso in a garage sale, buy it for a dollar, turn around and
> tell someone else who immediately pays me 10 million you would say
> that's not labor. But just knowing it was a Picasso was labor, it was
> just labor that I did in an art history class in 1987.
No, it isn't. That isn't "labor," and in any case you're just as
likely to recognize it from idle hours spent somewhere other than a
classroom.
If you define the terms loosely enough there is nothing you can say
that isn't true, Obi-wan. From a certain point of view.
> No, the crops, fat and juicy or dry and scraggly, aren't worth
> anything if no one harvests them.
Sure they are. People pay good money for them before they are
harvested, and in many cases before they're planted or the field is
plowed, therefore they have value.
- Endymion
Endymion
> What do we want chimpanzees for? That's probably about the same level of
> difference between us and a space-faring civilization.
Then we're back to the point that if they are as different from us as
we are from chimps, they aren't human.
And we do use chimps for research and entertainment.
- Endymion
`una
> Jennie Kermode wrote:
> > What do we exploit less powerful civilisations for? Cheap
> > toys, clothes, consumer electronics. What makes us think that
> > spacefaring aliens would be any different? If they want us at all, it
> > may well be for a trivial commodity which happens to have value because
> > it's marketable on an interplanetary scale.
>
> What do we want chimpanzees for? That's probably about the same level of
> difference between us and a space-faring civilization.
>
> If they want us at all, it's for interesting zoo exhibits.
Or scientific inquiry.
Not the warm, fuzzy Jane Goodall observation kind,
the lock us in a cage and see how we respond to things that
are unnatural to us kind.
`una - or they just want to see if we are good to eat
Tim McGaughy
> On May 26, 9:53 am, Tim McGaughy <tee...@toast.net> wrote:
>
>> What do we want chimpanzees for? That's probably about the same level of
>> difference between us and a space-faring civilization.
>
> Then we're back to the point that if they are as different from us as
> we are from chimps, they aren't human.
I don't recall having claimed that they would be.
> And we do use chimps for research and entertainment.
Yeah. In zoos.
Tim McGaughy
Perhaps they just want "to serve Man". With a nice chianti.
Nyx
> On May 22, 8:31 pm, Nyx <wayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 22, 3:05 pm, Endymion <disintegrat...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > But let's go further: what happens if Jed is just sitting on his porch
> > > in a rocking chair and he notices that a little oil is seeping up
> > > through the ground naturally? You can't say that sitting on your porch
> > > and looking at the yard is labor in any meaningful sense. At that
> > > point the oil has inherent value before anyone comes and extracts it.
>
> > No, the labor was Jed's recognition that it was oil. Jed's a little
> > smarter. He had the sense to then drive into town (driving= labor) and
> > tell someone about it (talking=labor).
>
> None of those things is labor in the sense economists (whether Marxist
> of classical) use the word.
>
So? I'm not a Marxist or an economist.
> > See, the problem is you're trying to imply that doing very little work
> > doesn't count as labor. But it does. Sitting around scratching their
> > ass is something lots of people get paid for.
>
> Work is not the same as labor, not everything that people do is work,
> and people are paid for many things that are not labor.
>
> > But not really. It's just a story some creepy old redneck is telling
> > until some educated geologist comes out and looks at it. Isn't it? Or
> > a lawyer draws up some papers. Both of which count as labor.
>
> > Just knowing something and recognizing it is a form of labor. If I
> > find a Picasso in a garage sale, buy it for a dollar, turn around and
> > tell someone else who immediately pays me 10 million you would say
> > that's not labor. But just knowing it was a Picasso was labor, it was
> > just labor that I did in an art history class in 1987.
>
> No, it isn't. That isn't "labor," and in any case you're just as
> likely to recognize it from idle hours spent somewhere other than a
> classroom.
Yes, it is labor. Study is work. Work is labor.
>
> If you define the terms loosely enough there is nothing you can say
> that isn't true, Obi-wan. From a certain point of view.
>
> > No, the crops, fat and juicy or dry and scraggly, aren't worth
> > anything if no one harvests them.
>
> Sure they are. People pay good money for them before they are
> harvested, and in many cases before they're planted or the field is
> plowed, therefore they have value.
>
Paying money for something is also labor.
I'm really using it the way the Hebrews define labor. Turning on a
light switch is labor if you do it on a Sabbath. Walking is labor if
you carry your bedroll.
If you really want to counter the argument you should take the
position that information is the base of value. Because polishing a
turd isn't worthwhile, but polishing a lump of quartz is. The
difference being the knowledge of the proper type of labor.
Nyx
whisky-dave
"Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote in message
news:bdGdneO-Qo7RaYbX...@posted.toastnet...
We still use animals, for hunting as a sport, food, pets.
They could also use us for work that requires a certain complexity
even if few of us can design or built complex machinery we could still be
used
for mining and building stuff aliens might need/want.
Even in star trek they still use manual labour to mine dilithuim. :)
What would be more interesting is to guess what sort of aliens are likely to
visit us.
Will it really be those interested in peace and scientific discovery or
would it be
a war mongering race.
If we look at our planet the first rocket engines weren't exactly built
by tree huggin' hippies. If 'we'd lost WWII I think the Nazi's would have
been
first in space and I think they'd have put more money in to weapons and
technology.
Perhaps we'd prefer to believe only nice people invent useful things but
that
might not be true or perhaps nice people can be forced in to building WMDs.
I wonder what the betting odds are for nasty aliens or nice aliens
communicating
in say the next 100 years.
TenshiKurai9
> On Sun, 24 May 2009 17:44:35 -0500, TenshiKurai9
>>> TenshiKurai9 wrote:
>>>> On 2009-05-18, fasc...@mad.scientist.com <fasc...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
>>>>> Are these hobbyists the sort who marry their horses?
>>>>
>>>> Maybe I should start bridling-up, just in case. . .
>>>
>>> Wow.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure how you meant that, but it certainly did conjure up some
>>> interesting imagery.
>>
>>(neighs)
>>
> http://www.ponyplayranch.com/ecom/ppr_store/index.php
>
> Hey look! Hooves are on sale this week!
>
> *breaks out the riding crop and spurs*
(whinies)
-My Pretty Little TK9
oonh
There's a gem of a story idea that I have that works like this: aliens
come, and instead of wanting something, they have all sorts of
unreasonable questions that they want answered, such as "how many
divorced men in St. Louis have at least two pet cats?", "we demand to
know how many books in chinese were published in Ontario between march
7th 1978 and february 8th 1982", and get more outlandish as time
progresses.
oonh
Nyx
Then we would just point them at google and tell them to do their own
homework.
Someone once told me about a science fiction story where it turns out
space travel is really simple. You just had to mix some common
ingredients together. So most intelligent species had developed FTL
travel while they were still in the iron age. Humans had never
developed it because they just never thought to mix those things
together. I ended with the aliens invading Earth and thinking that all
the electric lights they saw were from campfires.
I don't know what story it was. I've never been able to find it. Of
course it's possible I've hallucinated the whole thing. I do that
sometimes. In that case consider this a copyright notice.
Nyx
Nyx
> On 2009-12-21, Nyx <wayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 20, 8:09 pm, oonh <o...@ninehells.com> wrote:
>
> >> There's a gem of a story idea that I have that works like this:
> >> aliens come, and instead of wanting something, they have all
> >> sorts of unreasonable questions that they want answered, such as
> >> "how many divorced men in St. Louis have at least two pet cats?",
> >> "we demand to know how many books in chinese were published in
> >> Ontario between march 7th 1978 and february 8th 1982", and get more
> >> outlandish as time progresses.
>
> > own homework.
>
> > Someone once told me about a science fiction story where it turns
> > out space travel is really simple. You just had to mix some common
> > ingredients together. So most intelligent species had developed
> > FTL travel while they were still in the iron age. Humans had never
> > developed it because they just never thought to mix those things
> > together. I ended with the aliens invading Earth and thinking that
> > all the electric lights they saw were from campfires.
>
> > I don't know what story it was. I've never been able to find it. Of
> > course it's possible I've hallucinated the whole thing. I do that
> > sometimes. In that case consider this a copyright notice.
>
>
> No, this one's real, and quite famous in SF circles. I did a bit
> of Googling unsuccessfully trying to find the title and author,
> then remembered. It's the short story "The Road Not Taken" by Harry
> Turtledove.
>
Thanks!
How about this one. I read a book when I was about 12. It was science
fiction, I think it was published from 1930 to 1950. It was about a
portal to another world. That world had high radiation and children
were never born. Everyone was sterile. It was populated by babies who
came through the portal. One of the adults went back through the
portal and went to Earth, which is where they came from.
Any idea on the name?
Nyx