A perhaps plausible panspermia proposal, partly per Peter's plan
Mark Isaak
overlooked, I tentatively consider a plausible explanation for life on
Earth. (Note, however, that plausible does not imply likely.) As a
Christmas present to Peter, I present it now.
About 4.5 billion years ago, on a planet far, far away, astronomers in a
technological civilization discovered that their sun would expand and
destroy their whole planet in just a couple hundred generations. For a
few years, there is much talk about what to do, but no real action. For
the next 195 generations, there is less talk about what to do, and even
less action.
Then a solar flare kills a few million people, reminding the survivors
that the problem is real, and they get to work. Nobody has found a new
habitable planet to emigrate to, but there are some candidates which,
with a little engineering, might be made habitable.
The plan, then, is to send fast robots to those candidate worlds, where
they will drop a hodgepodge of bacteria, with the hope that some of the
bacteria will survive and begin terraforming (xordaxiforming?) the
planet. Meanwhile, the folks back home are also building huge generation
ships, which will head for those same planets at a much slower pace, to
arrive perhaps tens of thousands of years after the initial probes. With
luck, they will find a planet which has, at least, an atmosphere that
they can breathe. If not, they stay in their ship indefinitely, trying
to terraform the planet from there. Hey, it's better than burning up on
Xordax.
One of those probes arrived at Earth and successfully seeded its cargo.
The following generation ship, for whatever reason, never made it. The
Xordaxian bacteria eventually evolved into us.
This scenario, however, differs from Peter's proposal in two significant
ways. First and most important, the biology with which the Xordaxians
seed the new planets would not be significantly different from their own.
They are, after all, planning to live with it someday. Second, they
probably would not send out millions of probes, because each probe is
useless without a generation ship to follow, and the generation ships
would be *very* expensive. They have to be (a) big enough to sustain an
ecosystem, (b) robust enough to sustain an ecosystem through natural
variations a variety of unforeseen circumstances, and (c) damn near
foolproof. None of that is cheap. It may well take one generation of
resources for each generation ship.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
John Harshman
> I have thought of a panspermia scenario which, barring difficulties I
> overlooked, I tentatively consider a plausible explanation for life on
> Earth. (Note, however, that plausible does not imply likely.) As a
> Christmas present to Peter, I present it now.
>
> About 4.5 billion years ago, on a planet far, far away, astronomers in a
> technological civilization discovered that their sun would expand and
> destroy their whole planet in just a couple hundred generations.
"Rocketed to Earth as an infant when the giant planet Krypton exploded..."
David Hare-Scott
> I have thought of a panspermia scenario which, barring difficulties I
> overlooked, I tentatively consider a plausible explanation for life on
> Earth. (Note, however, that plausible does not imply likely.) As a
> Christmas present to Peter, I present it now.
>
..snippage ...
It's still Xordians all the way down. What is the point?
David
Darwin123
> It's still Xordians all the way down. What is the point?
>
> David
At least it is consistent with a steady state universe. In a
steady state universe, there doesn't have to be an "origin of life."
There doesn't have to be a big bang. UFO aliens always were an always
will be. As it is said in the "Book of Hoyle",
UFO aliens begat them,
Onward and forward, infinitum !-)
David Hare-Scott
" ...bringing amazing powers and in his infant mind the strange
predisposition of his race to wear their underpants on the outside...."
David
jillery
> On Dec 23, 7:13 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > It's still Xordians all the way down. What is the point?
>
> > David
>
> At least it is consistent with a steady state universe. In a
> steady state universe, there doesn't have to be an "origin of life."
> There doesn't have to be a big bang. UFO aliens always were an always
> will be. As it is said in the "Book of Hoyle",
Cite please.
Ron O
There was a science fiction story. It might have been in the 1970's
called "The Big Space Fuck." Just for the heck of it human males from
all over the planet were donating semen to launch into space. If any
of those containers found a suitable planet there would likely be
enough bacteria and enough of a terran biochemical source in the
gallons of semen to let life get a foothold on the planet. It
probably wouldn't hurt if they put a small container of blue green
algae in the load to spice things up
The bacteria could take up bits of the human DNA from the splattered
semen through the normal process of transformation, save the bits of
human DNA for billions of years until life had evolved to the point
where they could put a human together and poof Behe's frontloading
notion would be a scientific reality. Do I have to put a smilie?
Ron Okimoto
Paul J Gans
It seems reasonable, though it does beg one of our friend's
questions. You do not assume that the abiogenesis of life on earth
was impossible. Our friend did. So your panspermy does not "save"
the theory of evolution. It is just another possible scenario that
does not violate anything we know.
There are a couple of problems with all "old-time" panspermy situations.
One has to do with the fact that the panspermists had to recognize
that the earth had a reducing atmosphere at first and that as a result
life had to change the atmosphere. And a result of *that* is that
modern life does not necessariy resemble the original at all.
Another is that we live on a metal rich planet. Several generations
of star formation and destruction were needed to produce the iron
rich system we live in.
In other words, life may have been possible in the first generation
of stars, but I doubt they'd have the materials needed to build
starships or to power them with nuclear fuel.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
If you can build generation ships, then why use fast robots for the
terraforming - just put the generation ship in orbit around your
target planet and go on living inside it while the planet is prepared
for you.
Then again, if you can build really good generation ships, maybe the
one for here just didn't get here yet:
Then again:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutineers'_Moon>
Ernest Major
<da9c8d77-14ab-4bdf...@n10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
"Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org"
<rja.ca...@excite.com> writes
One "solution" for the Fermi Paradox is by the time that they've got
here they've got used to living in generation ships, and aren't
interested in settling planets.
<smiley>
How many bodies in the asteroid belt are generation ships?
</smiley>
>
>Then again, if you can build really good generation ships, maybe the
>one for here just didn't get here yet:
>
>Then again:
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutineers'_Moon>
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Walter Bushell
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
> >If you can build generation ships, then why use fast robots for the
> >terraforming - just put the generation ship in orbit around your
> >target planet and go on living inside it while the planet is prepared
> >for you.
>
> One "solution" for the Fermi Paradox is by the time that they've got
> here they've got used to living in generation ships, and aren't
> interested in settling planets.
>
> <smiley>
> How many bodies in the asteroid belt are generation ships?
> </smiley>
> >
> >Then again, if you can build really good generation ships, maybe the
> >one for here just didn't get here yet:
> >
> >Then again:
> ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutineers'_Moon>
> >
After reaching radio level technology civilizations last on the order of
200 years.
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
Jerry Freedman
Just curious but doesn't panspermia just kick the abiogenesis can down
the road?
Stuart
>
<snip>
Sounds like a Star Trek episode
>
> --
STuart
Stuart
And who disguised as a mild mannered evolutionary biologist..
Aww forget that.. there aren't any
Stuart
Stuart
True, but the first generation of stars didn't last long. Most likely
they tended to
be large, lived maybe a few hundred million years at most, and then
blew themselves
to smithereens . So its probably very unlikely that life evolved in a
Population III solar system.
Stuart
Burkhard
True, but that alone of course does not mean that we are not the result
of directed panspermia. The benefits that the proponents of this model
seem to claim are that either the aliens have a less complex DNA-
equivalent that hence needed less time/was more likely to evolve, and/or
come from a much older planet that hence had more time for evolution.
_IF_ you think there was not enough time on earth for something of the
complexity of our DNA to evolve, this "could" be appealing.
el cid
It cuts two ways. If life evolves readily, and if panspermy is a
relatively high probability event given life evolving, it makes
sense that after some initial time, most examples of life will
be the result of seeding. Within this set of ifs and assumptions
is the multipliciative effect of N (number of seeded worlds)
times the probability of seeding which, if greater than 1, produces
an exponential growth. I guess that needs to be qualified as
seeding that produces a technological civilization capable of
continuing the process. There's also a speculative features
involved regarding bio-engineered "improvements" in the
seed stock.
In that first perspective, there's an open question regarding
the T_0 which is a lead time to the generation of planets
that are amiable for abiogenesis. Metalicity is a significant
concern and for that one needs to refer back to science that
describes stellar evolution and supernovas and the formation
of population I stars. Note that this goes beyond the relative
abundances of CHNOPS but includes the formation of
Eathlike planets. Iron is the most stable nucleus but it takes
time to form.
In a second perspective, with abiogenesis being extremely
rare, there is a similar chain of ifs that potentially includes
a bioengineering phase that also results in many more
2nd or 3rd generation biosystems.
Problems abound in these speculative *if* chains.
Many think that Sol-like systems with high metalicity
are necessary for anything like the life we see and
are further recent features of our galaxy meaning there
isn't time for abiogenesis + 4 billions years + seeding
Earth + 4 billions years. Others have pointed out that if
a panspermy scenario has occurred, we have the Fermi
paradox to deal with as well as question about the rest
of our solar system which work against some flavors
of panspermy speculation.
But most significantly to me, the assertion that the specific
aspects of Earthly biochemistry are especially implausible
have never been defended with specific reference to
informed biochemisty. Vague incredulity has been alluded
to without any apparent awareness of modern developments
surrounding evolutionary origins of the genetic code.
There is a key challenge in models of earthly abiogenesis
and that is the original sources of high energy precursors
that are capable of driving precellular metabolic synthesis.
A variety of possible chemistries exist but nothing that
deserves a "smoking gun" label as yet. A nice redox
cycle involving volcanism, P, N and O (maybe S) would
be significant but not absolutely essential.
hersheyh
Except that I certainly would find it difficult to imagine a
civilization forming and existing on a planet with the geochemistry
and atmosphere of the early earth. Wouldn't a planet like that be too
young to have generated a technological civilization?
Paul J Gans
>One "solution" for the Fermi Paradox is by the time that they've got
>here they've got used to living in generation ships, and aren't
>interested in settling planets.
I've never been convinced that the Fermi Paradox is real. First,
the universe hasn't been around all that long. Second, other life
forms may exist but is more like a privit hedge than a chimpansee.
Third, we should realize that we may well be looking for the wrong
signals.
Paul J Gans
Sure, but it doesn't hurt to wonder what panspermia might imply.
Paul J Gans
Sure, but you understand what I am saying. Even second generation
stars would not have produced enough heavy metals.
What evidence we have shows that good enough systems might have taken
nine or so billion years to come about...
Paul J Gans
[big snip]
>> _IF_ you think there was not enough time on earth for something of the
>> complexity of our DNA to evolve, this "could" be appealing.
>It cuts two ways. If life evolves readily, and if panspermy is a
>relatively high probability event given life evolving, it makes
>sense that after some initial time, most examples of life will
>be the result of seeding. Within this set of ifs and assumptions
>is the multipliciative effect of N (number of seeded worlds)
>times the probability of seeding which, if greater than 1, produces
>an exponential growth. I guess that needs to be qualified as
>seeding that produces a technological civilization capable of
>continuing the process. There's also a speculative features
>involved regarding bio-engineered "improvements" in the
>seed stock.
I agree with the remainder of your post. I don't disagree with
this part either except for the "...if panspermy is a relatively
high probability event..." part.
My best guess, science fiction (of which I am a great fan) aside,
is that a single panspermy mother ship capable of finding and
navigating to a likely solar system, would not only cost a major
fraction of the world's economic output but would use enormous
amounts of resources. Indeed, I think that it could not be
done either today or in the foreseeable future.
So it may well be that panspermy is not a relatively high probability
event, our mathematical friend notwithstanding.
My best guess is that we would try to terraform Mars first and we
may even decide that such a mission is not feasible.
el cid
*If* practical nuclear fusion is attainable, and I say nothing
about the odds of that happening yet, but if fusion can
be harnessed there's some interesting economics. It
could lead to mining the asteroid belt for metals and
Jupiter for 3He. Given that special technological threshold,
we are not consuming our limited resources but opening
a whole new frontier. And given the appropriate level
of short-sightedness, we could consume them like
kids left alone in the candy store. Then we could build
some much slower than currently advertised ships
to travel to some neighboring systems to attempt
to deliver some surgical strikes of seeding. Not industrial
scale terraforming but seeding a culture. Without such
a breakthrough, the resource issue overrides. With
such a breakthrough, the rules change.
Of course part of that economics involves humans
behaving differently than they have in the past and
differently than their primate ancestry predicts
they will. But maybe power will stop corrupting, all
will share equally, we'll clean up our messes and
then look to the stars.
The ships would have to be much slower than YKW
has speculated because of the major difficulty of
deceleration and dumping the heat load. I ship per
star system. If one imagines in the technology to refuel
and repair you've already imagined the technology to
mine our solar system and autobuild the damned
things so it makes no sense to make them that
much more complex rather than to make more.
Practical fusion power remains dubious. In particular
systems that are so efficient as to more than pay
for creation of the next two etc. Also, to want to seed
other systems, we'd need to think it was actually
a valid scientific idea. As of today, we don't know
whether or not life like ours is probable given the
right starting planet or enough about the density of
appropriate starting planets (for our narrow notion
of CHNOPS life).
There are so many things we don't know about the
how, where and why of our attempting panspermy:
problems we have no solutions for, problems we
have yet to learn about, solutions we've not yet
conceived of, that it is perhaps better named fantasy
than science fiction.
Of course, wild unbridled speculation about technology
outside our grasp may be more attractive to some than
mastering actual science that has been published.
If it's more attractive to some because they simply
find it fun, well more power to them, as long as they
don't try to proclaim their approach qualifies as a
scientific one.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Well, we need to be clear on what "paradox" means - basically just
something to ponder, I think.
According to the Principle of Mediocrity, we assume that the Earth and
the Solar System are typical of planets and star systems, except
insofar as we can determine that they aren't.
The Earth is inhabited by intelligent life.
Therefore, other planets in this and other star systems should be
typically inhabited by intelligent life.
But we do not detect intelligent life on other planets in this or
other star systems.
That's the paradox.
But Wikipedia probably gets it righter.
Steven L.
"Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org"
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:12e2b755-f6a7-4442...@39g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
But *some* planet has to be the first to harbor intelligent life.
Perhaps Earth is it; intelligent life will evolve on other planets in
the future, but not yet.
The principle of mediocrity also involves a paradox. It would be true
if the Universe were truly infinite--the tail of the probability
distribution would tail off to infinity in both directions, like a
Gaussian distribution does. But it isn't infinite, either in time or
space. There is a finite, though vast, number of planets in the
Universe. Hence some planet has to set the pace for all the others to
follow.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
"hersheyh" <hers...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8fa34db1-1933-4bcf...@32g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
The atmosphere of the early Earth was net reducing. The only reason
that it's net oxidizing today is because cyanobacteria evolved and
produced oxygen as a waste gas. That was an evolutionary accident. We
have no reason to believe that the evolution of oxygen-producing life is
inevitable. (Though it's reasonable to assume that all life produces
*some* metabolic waste products; just not necessarily oxygen.)
On other planets, perhaps no equivalent to cyanobacteria ever evolved,
and as a result, life continued to evolve under a reducing atmosphere.
Even intelligent life.
I see no reason to rule out intelligent life on a planet with a reducing
atmosphere. And hence, they may look at the primordial Earth as
somewhat inhospitable, needing to be tamed--but with air they could
breathe at least.
-- Steven L.
Mark Isaak
Hence the label "plausible" but not "likely".
> There are a couple of problems with all "old-time" panspermy
> situations. One has to do with the fact that the panspermists had to
> recognize that the earth had a reducing atmosphere at first and that as
> a result life had to change the atmosphere. And a result of *that* is
> that modern life does not necessariy resemble the original at all.
>
> Another is that we live on a metal rich planet. Several generations of
> star formation and destruction were needed to produce the iron rich
> system we live in.
>
> In other words, life may have been possible in the first generation of
> stars, but I doubt they'd have the materials needed to build starships
> or to power them with nuclear fuel.
I am not convinced that a high-technology civilization could not develop
in a metal-poor environment. That *we* depend on iron, germanium, etc.
does not mean that they would still be essential to a civiliation which
grew up without them. You can still do a lot with elements up to around
chlorine. We are still learning strange new things to do with carbon.
Mark Isaak
I assume that the Xordaxians, like us, live in an oxygen atmosphere
which, billions of years ago, developed from a reducing atmosphere.
They recognized that Earth's early atmosphere could be changed and sent
microorganisms ahead to change it.
hersheyh
> "hersheyh" <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
You need some mechanism for harnessing the energy of the local star if
you want a real long run for life. You need to generate cycles rather
than dead-end exploitation of a resource (as we will find out with
fossil fuels). Anaerobic fermentation will only get you so far and
then energy sources will become limited to the amount of organics that
are abiogenically produced by solar energy, which is probably too
limited to allow the formation of a major complex civilization. Life
on a planet that can develop a technological civilization will
probably need some sort of photosynthetic system that produces the
energy to generate reduced products of need, like carbohydrates, by
fixing CO2 using solar energy. There are anaerobic photosynthesizers,
but the purple bacteria on earth need an external electron source and
use H2S or thiosulfate. Non-sulfur bacteria use organic donors
(malate or succinate). These sources of external reductants are
constraining and would become limiting to life relative to H2O (the
source of protons in the O2-producing photosynthesis of higher plants
and cyanobacteria and the source of O2), except on a plane with a very
different chemical constitution. There is a reason why one of the
"hints" of life-as-we-know-it that is suggested is free O2 in the
atmosphere.
Halobacteria use a non-chlorophyll based light-driven proton pump,
which produces energy but no reducing power. They need external
organic carbon, as they cannot fix CO2.
Non-H2O based photosynthesis would need some other large source of
reductant, perhaps lakes of H2S, but would be a very different planet
than the early earth.
Paul J Gans
>That's the paradox.
Yes, that's the standard form. But we are looking for radio waves.
Suppose that the radiowave era for life is about a thousand years.
And suppose that only one planet in a thousand has life.
Then the odds that they will usefully detect us (and vice versa)
become much smaller.
>But Wikipedia probably gets it righter.
I'll check that out.
Paul J Gans
All that is true, but the mediocrity principle says that we are
NOT in the long tails of the distriubtion.
Paul J Gans
That's a good point. Graphene, for example, has a lot of very
interesting properties.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
But maybe a sufficiently advanced civilisation can generate its own
heavier element supply by nuclear fusion?
Walter Bushell
Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> Yes, that's the standard form. But we are looking for radio waves.
> Suppose that the radiowave era for life is about a thousand years.
Rather optimistic I think.
> And suppose that only one planet in a thousand has life.
>
> Then the odds that they will usefully detect us (and vice versa)
> become much smaller.
--
jillery
> In article <if84a2$90...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, that's the standard form. But we are looking for radio waves.
> > Suppose that the radiowave era for life is about a thousand years.
>
> Rather optimistic I think.
I can think of three reasons why technological civilizations go radio-
dark. One is that they went extinct. Another is that they lost their
technology. A third is that they replaced their radio transmission
with something better, like fiberoptic.
Walter Bushell
<90d529a5-9b17-46d3...@l17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I can think of three reasons why technological civilizations go radio-
> dark. One is that they went extinct. Another is that they lost their
> technology. A third is that they replaced their radio transmission
> with something better, like fiberoptic.
We are doing the third already, and technology is replacing high power
uses of the spectrum with lower power uses. Extinction or loss of
technology seems likely, here on Earth.
Steven L.
"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:if84m4$907$3...@reader1.panix.com:
Which is a completely unproven assumption at this point.
The Principle of Mediocrity depends on the existence of universal laws.
It works fairly well for astrophysics, because we have strong evidence
that the laws of physics are the same across the Universe. For example,
star and planet formation in the Andromeda Galaxy must have worked
similarly to our own neighborhood (spiral arm) in our Galaxy. Hence
there certainly isn't anything special about the laws of physics that
governed the formation of the Earth and its orbit now.
But we have much less evidence that the Principle of Mediocrity holds
for *astrobiology*, since we don't have universal laws governing
abiogenesis and the evolution of life. You yourself started a
discussion of just what is life. We don't have any universal laws of
all life. We only have laws governing Earth life.
Dawkins said he *believes* that life on exoplanets (if it exists) must
have evolved according to the same laws of evolution we have here on
Earth: Natural selection, ecological niches, the whole nine yards. But
he admits that we haven't yet got a shred of evidence for that belief.
And therefore we can't conclude that Earth life is "mediocre" in that
sense.
-- Steven L.
jillery
>
> jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I can think of three reasons why technological civilizations go radio-
> > dark. One is that they went extinct. Another is that they lost their
> > technology. A third is that they replaced their radio transmission
> > with something better, like fiberoptic.
>
> We are doing the third already, and technology is replacing high power
> uses of the spectrum with lower power uses. Extinction or loss of
> technology seems likely, here on Earth.
So it's a race among them as to which effect mutes us first, in just
100 years or so. Not much window of opportunity for some
eavesdropping ET, is it?
TO paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt, this shows how SETI fails greatly. Not
in principle, because other other intelligent species likely evolved
elsewhere in the Universe. But in practice, because intelligently
modulated EMR is the only thing it can look for (that includes light).
I still support SETI; you can't win if you don't play, and the effort
itself has useful side-effects.
Paul J Gans
>In article <if84a2$907$2...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Yes, that's the standard form. But we are looking for radio waves.
>> Suppose that the radiowave era for life is about a thousand years.
>Rather optimistic I think.
>> And suppose that only one planet in a thousand has life.
>>
>> Then the odds that they will usefully detect us (and vice versa)
>> become much smaller.
And yes, I am being rather optimistic. That's why I'm not
sure that there is a "Fermi Paradox".
Paul J Gans
>On Dec 26, 10:59 pm, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>> In article <if84a2$90...@reader1.panix.com>,
>> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Yes, that's the standard form. But we are looking for radio waves.
>> > Suppose that the radiowave era for life is about a thousand years.
>>
>> Rather optimistic I think.
>I can think of three reasons why technological civilizations go radio-
>dark. One is that they went extinct. Another is that they lost their
>technology. A third is that they replaced their radio transmission
>with something better, like fiberoptic.
Exactly. And the latter is more likely than the first two.
They may be looking for our signal in a form we've not discovered
yet.
jillery
They could be posting "We Are Here" Kilroys throughout the philotic
web, wondering why we don't read our pmail.
Mark Isaak
I have gone to a couple talks by people from the SETI Institute in the
last few years. They are quite aware that, realistically, they are
looking for civilizations that want to be found.
Burkhard
They went through all the effort to arrange the stars of the milky way
to spell out "Howdy" in trans-galac, and think we are too snobbish to
reply.
Walter Bushell
<9388a351-928d-4490...@30g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
Pmail is what dogs use.
jillery
>
>
>
>
>
> jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 27, 12:37 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >On Dec 26, 10:59 pm, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > >> In article <if84a2$90...@reader1.panix.com>,
> > > >> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > Yes, that's the standard form. But we are looking for radio waves.
> > > >> > Suppose that the radiowave era for life is about a thousand years.
>
> > > >> Rather optimistic I think.
> > > >I can think of three reasons why technological civilizations go radio-
> > > >dark. One is that they went extinct. Another is that they lost their
> > > >technology. A third is that they replaced their radio transmission
> > > >with something better, like fiberoptic.
>
> > > Exactly. And the latter is more likely than the first two.
> > > They may be looking for our signal in a form we've not discovered
> > > yet.
>
> > They could be posting "We Are Here" Kilroys throughout the philotic
> > web, wondering why we don't read our pmail.
>
> Pmail is what dogs use.
Maybe that's why they're pissed off.
Richard Clayton
It's possible humans are an exception: We may be oddball xenophiles in a
universe full of sapients who are (by our standards) xenophobic
paranoids. Other thinking beings may have nothing to say to a species
that isn't dangerous and isn't particularly convenient as either slaves
or food.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling
jillery
wrote:
I suspect the reason is more demoralizing that that. IIUC the genetic
difference between chimpanzees and humans is something like 1 or 2
percent. Some fraction of that is responsible for the difference in
our brains which is responsible for our technology and culture. Now
imagine some extraterrestrial intelligence just that bit more advanced
to us as we are to the chimpanzee. Why would they care to talk to us?
Paul J Gans
That is true. All it says is "that's the way to bet".
>The Principle of Mediocrity depends on the existence of universal laws.
Ok.
>It works fairly well for astrophysics, because we have strong evidence
>that the laws of physics are the same across the Universe. For example,
>star and planet formation in the Andromeda Galaxy must have worked
>similarly to our own neighborhood (spiral arm) in our Galaxy. Hence
>there certainly isn't anything special about the laws of physics that
>governed the formation of the Earth and its orbit now.
>But we have much less evidence that the Principle of Mediocrity holds
>for *astrobiology*, since we don't have universal laws governing
>abiogenesis and the evolution of life. You yourself started a
>discussion of just what is life. We don't have any universal laws of
>all life. We only have laws governing Earth life.
Of course we do. Abiogenesis involves the operation of basic
chemistry and that follows universal laws. There is a chemical
reason why our form of life is based on carbon, just for example.
Evolution, most simply put involves (1) imperfect replication
and (2) imperfect survival due to differences in environment
and that imperfect replication.
Clearly (1) is based on chemistry. That's what happens when
chemistry takes place. You don't just get the intended product,
you get all possible products in widely varying proportions.
And (2) is a result of that chemistry. If one individual is
faster than another, it will have a higher chances of avoiding
a predator and so a higher chance of replication.
It really is (basically) that simple. Creationists don't believe
this. But they can't tell you why.
>Dawkins said he *believes* that life on exoplanets (if it exists) must
>have evolved according to the same laws of evolution we have here on
>Earth: Natural selection, ecological niches, the whole nine yards. But
>he admits that we haven't yet got a shred of evidence for that belief.
>And therefore we can't conclude that Earth life is "mediocre" in that
>sense.
Dawkins was doubtlessly thinking in the same vein as I did above.
I think he's quite right, even if the life form is not carbon
based.
Paul J Gans
Right. I've been thinking that the striations in exposed
mountainsides are graphic writing by the 300 foot tall
beings who landed here millenia ago. They move very slowly
and slump with age. We are quite aware of them. We think
them non-sentient, but let geologists study them.
Paul J Gans
I'm glad to hear that.
And by the way, I do NOT think the effort is wasted. You never know...
Paul J Gans
>> On Dec 27, 12:37?pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> > jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >On Dec 26, 10:59?pm, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>> > >> In article <if84a2$90...@reader1.panix.com>,
>> > >> ?Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >> > Yes, that's the standard form. ?But we are looking for radio waves.
>> > >> > Suppose that the radiowave era for life is about a thousand years.
>> >
>> > >> Rather optimistic I think.
>> > >I can think of three reasons why technological civilizations go radio-
>> > >dark. ?One is that they went extinct. ?Another is that they lost their
>> > >technology. ?A third is that they replaced their radio transmission
>> > >with something better, like fiberoptic.
>> >
>> > Exactly. ?And the latter is more likely than the first two.
>> > They may be looking for our signal in a form we've not discovered
>> > yet.
>>
>> They could be posting "We Are Here" Kilroys throughout the philotic
>> web, wondering why we don't read our pmail.
>Pmail is what dogs use.
Dogs are aliens? Who knew?
Richard Clayton
Possibly for the sane reason we took the considerable trouble to talk to
chimps. Still, that depends on the aliens being the same sort of
curious, chatty, social organism as we are, and we have no reason to
assume that is necessarily the case.
Steven L.
"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:90d529a5-9b17-46d3...@l17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 26, 10:59�pm, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > In article <if84a2$90...@reader1.panix.com>,
> > �Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, that's the standard form. �But we are looking for radio waves.
> > > Suppose that the radiowave era for life is about a thousand years.
> >
> > Rather optimistic I think.
>
> I can think of three reasons why technological civilizations go radio-
> dark. One is that they went extinct. Another is that they lost their
> technology. A third is that they replaced their radio transmission
> with something better, like fiberoptic.
I can think of a fourth reason.
They became isolationist and no longer wished to communicate with any
other planets. Although this reason might be the rationale for your
third reason.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:418ce749-bcf7-4d0d...@y23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
If an alien civilization is interested in communicating with other
civilizations, they will preserve EMR for that purpose and continue to
operate transmitters and receivers, even if they don't use that
technology for anything else.
That is the basic underlying assumption of SETI: That alien
civilizations don't wish to preclude communication. They will either
communicate deliberately or allow radio noise to leak off their planet
into space.
If, OTOH, they're isolationist and stop all interstellar communication,
then SETI will have to wait till we can send actual probes into
interstellar space.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ifais7$paa$4...@reader1.panix.com:
I don't agree.
*If* an alien civilization is genuinely interested in communicating with
other civilizations, they will realize the need to adopt the lowest
common denominator of interstellar communication--something they can be
fairly sure that most other civilizations will have.
An advanced alien civilization that uses ultra-advanced
"Hyper-Mega-Neutrino-Wormhole" communication will realize that many
other civilizations may not have discovered that yet, and they will go
back to their history books to find more primitive means of
communication like radio with which to contact other civilizations.
It's hard to think of an alternative to electromagnetism that we can be
fairly sure that all civilizations will have discovered at some point in
their development. EM is ubiquitous; a planet without light or heat
won't have evolved an intelligent species.
How advanced an alien civilization is less important than whether that
civilization wishes to communicate with other civilizations that are
less advanced--like our own.
-- Steven L.
jillery
I don't see the two situations as analogous. In your case, "we"
attempt to communicate with chimps in an effort to better understand
communication among ourselves. Chimps are our biological relatives,
and their abilities and limitations provide insight into our abilities
and limitations. I don't see how you could say the same about
communicating with extraterrestrials.
JTEM
"Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-orig...@moderators.isc.org"
> Well, we need to be clear on what "paradox" means -
> basically just something to ponder, I think.
That's not what "Paradox" means.
Personally, I'd say that Fermi's so-called "Paradox" is in
error. It's based on a number of assumptions, any one of
which, if false, renders the entire exercise completely
useless. One assumption is concerning the amount of
time it would take for a technological species to arise. This
itself seems to be at least partly based on another
assumption -- that all regions of the galaxy are equally as
likely to produce life. If even this ONE assumption is
discarded (which it is by many) than Fermi is barking out
his ass.
Another assumption that Fermi makes is that aliens
would have to be like us. Aliens, according to Fermi,
MUST set themselves to exploring the galaxy precisely
the same way that Europeans did during the age of
exploration.
Wait. So Fermi's aliens can't be like us, and not like
humans in general, but like Europeans exclusively,
and only then as Europeans appeared during the age
of exploration.
After all, quite UNLIKE what Fermi claims, we've had
the technology to reach Mars for decades now, but
never once stepped foot on it.
Finally, Fermi ignores the limitations of light speed.
A separation of only a few light years, traveling at
the speed of light, represents more than the
separations which led to all the different ethnic &
racial groups here on earth.
Think about it.
People could easily walk from, say, Whales to
Scotland in far, Far, *Far* less time than it would
take to travel even a fraction of a light year, but
that distance (i.e. "Time") between Scotland &
Whales was enough to account for two distinct
ethnic groups... languages... national identities.
Simply by colonizing a stellar neighbor you are
creating a new, separate ethnic group, if not a
new race... eventual species.
A barrier.
But, most of all, Fermi lacks a motive. There is
simply no reason for any species to spread
across the galaxy as Fermi suggests.
Paul J Gans
I don't think so, especially if they've discovered longer range
and more efficient communication methods.
Or perhaps they are watching the skies looking for large bonfires.
>If, OTOH, they're isolationist and stop all interstellar communication,
>then SETI will have to wait till we can send actual probes into
>interstellar space.
If we ever do that.
Paul J Gans
>I don't agree.
You are assuming that they discovered technologies in the same
order we did. That's not necessarily true.
>It's hard to think of an alternative to electromagnetism that we can be
>fairly sure that all civilizations will have discovered at some point in
>their development. EM is ubiquitous; a planet without light or heat
>won't have evolved an intelligent species.
Perhaps they spent their first 100,000 years being more mathematical
than we are and as a result are far ahead of us in theory. And so
they built their first communication devices using the "obvious"
methods to do so.
>How advanced an alien civilization is less important than whether that
>civilization wishes to communicate with other civilizations that are
>less advanced--like our own.
Bonfires. Build large bonfires.Bonfires. Build large bonfires.Bonfires. Build large bonfires.Bonfires. Build large bonfires.Bonfires. Build large bonfires.Bonfires. Build large bonfires.Bonfires. Build large bonfires.Bonfires. Build large bonfires.
>-- Steven L.
Richard Clayton
I think at least part of the motivation of learning to communicate with
chimps, gorillas, and orangutans was to find out how they see the world
and what they have to say. Certainly it can teach us quite a bit about
ourselves and our own brains, but note we're also trying to communicate
with cetaceans, who are much more distant relatives and probably won't
provide the same sort of insight into our own brains. SETI itself is
built around our hopes that there are things out there worth talking to,
and they'll want to talk to us.
The point I keep trying to make is that's a very human attitude. It may
be foolishly naive to assume a typical sapient would be interested in an
organism that is neither particularly dangerous nor particularly useful.
jillery
And I made the point that's a perfectly good point to keep on trying
to make.
JTEM
jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> IIUC the genetic difference between chimpanzees
> and humans is something like 1 or 2 percent.
Let's just say that the difference isn't large.
Then again, for just about every bone in the human body
you can either find a corresponding bone in a Dinosaur,
or identify where/when it evolved away. In many ways
all vertebra life on earth is far, Far, *Far* more alike than
it is different.
> Some fraction of that is responsible for the difference
> in our brains which is responsible for our technology
> and culture.
Okay.
> Now imagine some extraterrestrial intelligence just that
> bit more advanced to us as we are to the chimpanzee.
This makes no sense. It's a given that any alien that could
reach us is more "Advanced" technologically than we are,
and that any alien is going to be far more separated from us
than we are from Chimps (even if Panspermia is correct).
....what isn't necessarily true is that either of these, or
both together amount to "Superior" intelligence.
A species could be intellectually inferior to humans and
still be more advanced than we are, if they were a much
older species. Or, heck, maybe if they simply didn't have
the periodic super volcano, bolide or other environment
warping, civilization cracking event that appears to have
plagued earth's history.
Richard Clayton
Would you mind restating that somewhat less obscurely?
Glenn
I saw a movie where bugs just shot shit out their ass and that
traveled all the way to Earth. Shit may not reproduce here though.
jillery
> jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > IIUC the genetic difference between chimpanzees
> > and humans is something like 1 or 2 percent.
>
> Let's just say that the difference isn't large.
>
> Then again, for just about every bone in the human body
> you can either find a corresponding bone in a Dinosaur,
> or identify where/when it evolved away. In many ways
> all vertebra life on earth is far, Far, *Far* more alike than
> it is different.
>
> > Some fraction of that is responsible for the difference
> > in our brains which is responsible for our technology
> > and culture.
>
> Okay.
>
> > Now imagine some extraterrestrial intelligence just that
> > bit more advanced to us as we are to the chimpanzee.
>
> This makes no sense. It's a given that any alien that could
> reach us is more "Advanced" technologically than we are,
> and that any alien is going to be far more separated from us
> than we are from Chimps (even if Panspermia is correct).
In this context, there is no assumption that the aliens have reached
us, or we them. The contact is assumed long distance and batch mode.
> ....what isn't necessarily true is that either of these, or
> both together amount to "Superior" intelligence.
>
> A species could be intellectually inferior to humans and
> still be more advanced than we are, if they were a much
> older species. Or, heck, maybe if they simply didn't have
> the periodic super volcano, bolide or other environment
> warping, civilization cracking event that appears to have
> plagued earth's history.
If they are intellectually inferior, in what relevant way would they
be more advanced than we?
Walter Bushell
Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
But what if we find Berserkers?
jillery
You wrote:
"That's a very human attitude", I think referring to a desire to
communicate. I agree.
You wrote:
"It may be foolishly naive to assume a typical sapient would be
interested in an organism that is neither particularly dangerous nor
particularly useful." I agree.
I only added that humans aren't communicating with chimps to find out
how their day went. "We" are testing them for our own benefit, a
benefit not likely derived from ET's.
Better?
Walter Bushell
Richard Clayton <richZIG.e....@gmail.com> wrote:
Somebody to do the boring jobs no one of normal intelligence can stand?
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8avOiTUcD4Y>
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-orig...@moderators.isc.org"
>
> > Well, we need to be clear on what "paradox" means -
> > basically just something to ponder, I think.
>
> That's not what "Paradox" means.
Okay then, "a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory
or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth."
If everything true is reasonable, then a paradox is a reasonable truth
when all applicable factors are taken into account, but not reasonable
upon first casual reflection.
Thus, it is chosen, or designed, to provoke more careful thought.
Real estate. Or, perhaps, material wealth, to bring back; but it is
unlikely that you could get to any foreign star system and back again
before somebody back home invents something as good as what you went
to get. But as for simple matter, someplace to live, they aren't
making any more of the stuff.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Hey! Aliens! We have porn!
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> >> In article <if84a2$90...@reader1.panix.com>,
> >> > Suppose that the radiowave era for life is about a thousand years.
> >>
> >> Rather optimistic I think.
>
> >dark. One is that they went extinct. Another is that they lost their
> >technology. A third is that they replaced their radio transmission
> >with something better, like fiberoptic.
>
> They may be looking for our signal in a form we've not discovered
> yet.
I think I must have mentioned here before my own belief that a
planet's industrial wasted energy radiation is more likely to be
detected than its communication system - particularly nowadays when
communications signals are carefully designed to degenerate to
unusability just at the greatest range where they are required.
Or maybe, there will be a surge of energy use during commercial breaks
in soap operas that can be detected by observers in other star
systems. But it will be much harder to tune in and watch the show.
Especially if it's on a scrambled pay channel.
Richard Clayton
Much, thank you.
Sorry, I suppose I've become paranoid from spending too much time
arguing with creationists, who, for some reason, like to be cagey about
exactly what they believe... :)
Richard Clayton
ATTENTION PEOPLE OF EARTH:
WE DEMAND MORE PICTURES OF THESE "SUICIDE GIRLS."
NO BLONDES.
JTEM
jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > A species could be intellectually inferior to humans and
> > still be more advanced than we are, if they were a much
> > older species. Or, heck, maybe if they simply didn't have
> > the periodic super volcano, bolide or other environment
> > warping, civilization cracking event that appears to have
> > plagued earth's history.
>
> If they are intellectually inferior, in what relevant way would they
> be more advanced than we?
You mean other than the way I just spelled out? I could
try paraphrasing it for you...
Think of a high school student of below average intelligence. Next,
think of a third grader who is well above average. Despite being
kind of an idiot, the high schooler has YEARS of life experience
over the third grader, plus many years of schooling. Plus there's
simply things that come with age. The high schooler, for example,
likely knows how to drive, while the third grader may "Drive"
nothing more complicated than a bike.
Think of it as problem solving. Just because a species isn't as
intellectually as "Smart" doesn't mean that it can't solve problems,
or even the same problems that we solve. It may take them longer.
It may require more effort for them. But if they were an older
species they not only could have solved all the problems that we've
solved, but quite a few that we haven't tackled yet.
Paul J Gans
> jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> IIUC the genetic difference between chimpanzees
>> and humans is something like 1 or 2 percent.
>Let's just say that the difference isn't large.
>Then again, for just about every bone in the human body
>you can either find a corresponding bone in a Dinosaur,
>or identify where/when it evolved away. In many ways
>all vertebra life on earth is far, Far, *Far* more alike than
>it is different.
Exactly, which is what makes common descent so obvious
an idea.
Paul J Gans
>In article <ifbgrt$j5l$8...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 06:20:51 -0800, jillery wrote:
>>
>> >> On Dec 27, 8:48??am, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >>> In article
>> >>> <90d529a5-9b17-46d3-bd9c-7c40e593c...@l17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
>> >>>
>> >>> ??jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> > I can think of three reasons why technological civilizations go radio-
>> >>> > dark. ??One is that they went extinct. ??Another is that they lost
>> >>> > their technology. ??A third is that they replaced their radio
>> >>> > transmission with something better, like fiberoptic.
>> >>>
>> >>> We are doing the third already, and technology is replacing high power
>> >>> uses of the spectrum with lower power uses. Extinction or loss of
>> >>> technology seems likely, here on Earth.
>> >>
>> >> So it's a race among them as to which effect mutes us first, in just 100
>> >> years or so. Not much window of opportunity for some eavesdropping ET, is
>> >> it?
>> >>
>> >> TO paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt, this shows how SETI fails greatly. Not
>> >> in principle, because other other intelligent species likely evolved
>> >> elsewhere in the Universe. But in practice, because intelligently
>> >> modulated EMR is the only thing it can look for (that includes light).
>> >>
>> >> I still support SETI; you can't win if you don't play, and the effort
>> >> itself has useful side-effects.
>>
>> >I have gone to a couple talks by people from the SETI Institute in the
>> >last few years. They are quite aware that, realistically, they are
>> >looking for civilizations that want to be found.
>>
>> I'm glad to hear that.
>>
>> And by the way, I do NOT think the effort is wasted. You never know...
>But what if we find Berserkers?
Or folks with the ability to turn garbage into gold?
jillery
NP. For me it's people who think attitude is a valid alternative for
reason. Put the two together and you have what qualifies as T.O.
caliber material. Unfortunately.
jillery
> On Dec 28, 5:00 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > IIUC the genetic difference between chimpanzees
> > > and humans is something like 1 or 2 percent.
>
> > Let's just say that the difference isn't large.
>
> > Then again, for just about every bone in the human body
> > you can either find a corresponding bone in a Dinosaur,
> > or identify where/when it evolved away. In many ways
> > all vertebra life on earth is far, Far, *Far* more alike than
> > it is different.
>
> > > Some fraction of that is responsible for the difference
> > > in our brains which is responsible for our technology
> > > and culture.
>
> > Okay.
>
> > > Now imagine some extraterrestrial intelligence just that
> > > bit more advanced to us as we are to the chimpanzee.
>
> > This makes no sense. It's a given that any alien that could
> > reach us is more "Advanced" technologically than we are,
> > and that any alien is going to be far more separated from us
> > than we are from Chimps (even if Panspermia is correct).
>
> In this context, there is no assumption that the aliens have reached
> us, or we them. The contact is assumed long distance and batch mode.
Your welcome.
jillery
Thank you.
jillery
> "jillery" <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:418ce749-bcf7-4d0d...@y23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 27, 8:48 am, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <90d529a5-9b17-46d3-bd9c-7c40e593c...@l17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I can think of three reasons why technological civilizations go radio-
> > > > dark. One is that they went extinct. Another is that they lost their
> > > > technology. A third is that they replaced their radio transmission
> > > > with something better, like fiberoptic.
>
> > > We are doing the third already, and technology is replacing high power
> > > uses of the spectrum with lower power uses. Extinction or loss of
> > > technology seems likely, here on Earth.
>
> > So it's a race among them as to which effect mutes us first, in just
> > 100 years or so. Not much window of opportunity for some
> > eavesdropping ET, is it?
>
> > TO paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt, this shows how SETI fails greatly. Not
> > in principle, because other other intelligent species likely evolved
> > elsewhere in the Universe. But in practice, because intelligently
> > modulated EMR is the only thing it can look for (that includes light).
>
> civilizations, they will preserve EMR for that purpose and continue to
> operate transmitters and receivers, even if they don't use that
> technology for anything else.
>
> That is the basic underlying assumption of SETI: That alien
> civilizations don't wish to preclude communication. They will either
> communicate deliberately or allow radio noise to leak off their planet
> into space.
>
> then SETI will have to wait till we can send actual probes into
> interstellar space.
There are two modes of transmission SETI seeks. One is the case you
describe here. where ET transmits specifically for the purpose of
being heard. This is similar to what we did at Arecibo in 1974. This
was entirely symbolic, as it was broadcast for 3 minutes in the
direction of globular cluster M13. So about 25,100 years from now, if
there exists a learned ETI with the capability of intercepting that
signal, and provided its antenna array is pointed in the right
direction at the right frequency for those critical 3 minutes, it
might "see" something interesting.
The other case is where EMR "leaks out" as an unintended side-effect
of local communications. IIUC SETI pins its hope more on the latter
than the former. Even if SETI is a case of several people on one
party line waiting for somebody to talk, it's the only game in town.
Eric Root
This is, in fact, a common schtick and an example of human
exceptionalism in SF: aliens attack Earth with advanced technology;
we learn how to duplicate their tech and defeat them, since we are
innately smarter.
Eric Root
Walter Bushell
<88582026-01e0-4375...@t35g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> > But, most of all, Fermi lacks a motive. There is
> > simply no reason for any species to spread
> > across the galaxy as Fermi suggests.
>
> Real estate. Or, perhaps, material wealth, to bring back; but it is
> unlikely that you could get to any foreign star system and back again
> before somebody back home invents something as good as what you went
> to get. But as for simple matter, someplace to live, they aren't
> making any more of the stuff.
Yes, species do not have motivation.
Corporations and other organizations act like they have motivations as
much as humans do. (So operationally they must be considered conscious
-- just because we can see their mechanisms should not mean we consider
them to lack consciousness.)
Steven L.
"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ef02f849-fdcf-49d3...@z9g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 27, 5:05 pm, Richard Clayton <richZIG.e.clayZIG...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On 27-Dec-10 2:09 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 06:20:51 -0800, jillery wrote:
> >
> > >> On Dec 27, 8:48 am, Walter Bushell<pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > >>> In article
> > >>> <90d529a5-9b17-46d3-bd9c-7c40e593c...@l17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > >>> jillery<69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>> I can think of three reasons why technological civilizations go radio-
> > >>>> dark. One is that they went extinct. Another is that they lost
> > >>>> their technology. A third is that they replaced their radio
> > >>>> transmission with something better, like fiberoptic.
> >
> > >>> We are doing the third already, and technology is replacing high power
> > >>> uses of the spectrum with lower power uses. Extinction or loss of
> > >>> technology seems likely, here on Earth.
> >
> > >> So it's a race among them as to which effect mutes us first, in just 100
> > >> years or so. Not much window of opportunity for some eavesdropping ET, is
> > >> it?
> >
> > >> TO paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt, this shows how SETI fails greatly. Not
> > >> in principle, because other other intelligent species likely evolved
> > >> elsewhere in the Universe. But in practice, because intelligently
> > >> modulated EMR is the only thing it can look for (that includes light).
> >
> > >> I still support SETI; you can't win if you don't play, and the effort
> > >> itself has useful side-effects.
> >
> > > I have gone to a couple talks by people from the SETI Institute in the
> > > last few years. They are quite aware that, realistically, they are
> > > looking for civilizations that want to be found.
> >
> > It's possible humans are an exception: We may be oddball xenophiles in a
> > universe full of sapients who are (by our standards) xenophobic
> > paranoids. Other thinking beings may have nothing to say to a species
> > that isn't dangerous and isn't particularly convenient as either slaves
> > or food.
>
> I suspect the reason is more demoralizing that that. IIUC the genetic
> difference between chimpanzees and humans is something like 1 or 2
> percent. Some fraction of that is responsible for the difference in
> our brains which is responsible for our technology and culture. Now
> imagine some extraterrestrial intelligence just that bit more advanced
> to us as we are to the chimpanzee. Why would they care to talk to us?
That's not a good argument.
We teach sign language to chimpanzees.
We study dolphins and play with them.
We even try to get parrots to mimic our words and phrases.
Indeed, we tend to select the *more intelligent* species on Earth
(albeit none as intelligent as we humans) for further psychological
study and even for emotional bonding.
Still, I agree with you that aliens may (for their own inscrutable
reasons) not be interested in communication with other species. They
could be true isolationists, for example. But there's no logical reason
not to be interested in less intelligent species. We humans have tried
hard to communicate with dolphins, chimps, dogs, cats, and even birds.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
"Richard Clayton" <richZIG.e....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ifblu8$tfv$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> Possibly for the sane reason we took the considerable trouble to talk to
> chimps. Still, that depends on the aliens being the same sort of
> curious, chatty, social organism as we are, and we have no reason to
> assume that is necessarily the case.
The question is why are humans so curious.
It comes from our primate ancestors, of course. And reinforced by our
own history as hunter-gatherers. That incentivized us to develop more
powerful weapons and also to learn about the prey we were seeking.
A species that got all its energy from photosynthesis from the intense
energy of its primary star--intelligent mobile plants, as it were--would
have never had a hunter-gatherer stage. And its psychology would be very
different. It might not even care to develop technology at all--which
means it probably would never develop science either. It would be
limited to what we call "the liberal arts"--mathematics, philosophy,
etc.
-- Steven L.
Richard Clayton
Of course. Relentlessly curious, highly social opportunistic omnivores
seem to make a solid platform for evolving a technological species — and
after all, we know it has happened at least once. But while it's fun to
speculate, it's dangerous to generalize from a sample size of one.
On the other hand, even terrestrial plants compete for sunlight and
space, and I imagine the strong evolutionary incentive to compete would
apply to any species, anywhere in the universe — if you aren't
interested in out-reproducing your competitors, you'll gradually
disappear from the gene pool. But that, too, is based on our single data
point; I suspect the universe will, as usual, be stranger and more
wonderful than we imagine.
jillery
> "jillery" <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > difference between chimpanzees and humans is something like 1 or 2
> > our brains which is responsible for our technology and culture. �ｿｽNow
> > imagine some extraterrestrial intelligence just that bit more advanced
>
> That's not a good argument.
Ok, let's see yours.
> We teach sign language to chimpanzees.
>
> We study dolphins and play with them.
>
> We even try to get parrots to mimic our words and phrases.
>
> Indeed, we tend to select the *more intelligent* species on Earth
> (albeit none as intelligent as we humans) for further psychological
> study and even for emotional bonding.
I've seen people talk to goldfish and walls. So that's not even good
evidence.
> Still, I agree with you that aliens may (for their own inscrutable
> reasons) not be interested in communication with other species. They
> could be true isolationists, for example. �ｿｽBut there's no logical reason
> not to be interested in less intelligent species. We humans have tried
> hard to communicate with dolphins, chimps, dogs, cats, and even birds.
ISTM people who do as you say do so for reasons other than engaging
them in meaningful dialog. OTOH if your argument is that ET's might
establish communication with us for the same reason we "communicate"
with chimps, that goes back to my original point that ET intentions
toward us might be less than flattering.
TomS
<f9711d0e-f3a9-477e...@c39g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, jillery
stated..."
>
>On Dec 29, 9:08 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> "jillery" <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> We teach sign language to chimpanzees.
>>
>> We study dolphins and play with them.
>>
>> We even try to get parrots to mimic our words and phrases.
>>
>> Indeed, we tend to select the *more intelligent* species on Earth
>> (albeit none as intelligent as we humans) for further psychological
>> study and even for emotional bonding.
>
>I've seen people talk to goldfish and walls. So that's not even good
>evidence.
To dice or bowling balls. Not to mention politicians.
--
---Tom S.
Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold,
with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead
The Crime of Galileo (1976) by Giorgio De Santillana, p. 167
Bob Berger
Or maybe god had a critter parts catalog with a very limited selection.
TomS
Berger stated..."
Or that the designs are meant to serve very similar purposes.
If we want to follow the intentions of our designers, then we should
act like monkeys.
jillery
> "On 29 Dec 2010 11:24:39 -0800, in article <ifg1tn02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bob
> Berger stated..."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <ifeaf1$aj...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans says...
>
> >>JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>�IIUC the genetic difference between chimpanzees
> >>>> and humans is something like 1 or 2 percent.
>
> >>>Let's just say that the difference isn't large.
>
> >>>Then again, for just about every bone in the human body
> >>>you can either find a corresponding bone in a Dinosaur,
> >>>or identify where/when it evolved away. In many ways
> >>>all vertebra life on earth is far, Far, *Far* more alike than
> >>>it is different.
>
> >>Exactly, which is what makes common descent so obvious
> >>an idea.
>
> >Or maybe god had a critter parts catalog with a very limited selection.
>
> Or that the designs are meant to serve very similar purposes.
>
> If we want to follow the intentions of our designers, then we should
> act like monkeys.
Another excellent point.
Christopher Denney
> In article <ifeaf1$aj...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans says...
Or he only ordered from the clearance section. ( ALL PARTS MUST GO,
BUY NOW! 7 day sale, subject to availability, no rain checks)
JTEM
Eric Root <eric1r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is, in fact, a common schtick and an example
> of human exceptionalism in SF: �aliens attack
> Earth with advanced technology; we learn how to
> duplicate their tech and defeat them, since we are
> innately smarter.
One huge problem here is that nobody has taken any
time to define "Smarter" or "Intelligence."
Even here, dealing with a single species, it's not always
so cut & dry. Think of the stereotypical auto mechanic
who may be able to barely write his own name, but break
down a complicated transmission...
Undoubtedly, just as humans are "Intelligent" in many
different ways, so too would any aliens, only the differences
might even be more pronounced. So, yeah, it is extremely
likely that humans would be "Smarter" IN SOME REGARD
than any aliens, though whether or not in any truly
meaningful sense -- as far as competition goes -- is anyones
guess.
Jeffrey Turner
> Steven L.<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>> "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org"
>> news:12e2b755-f6a7-4442...@39g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>
>>> Paul J Gans wrote:
>>>> Ernest Major<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One "solution" for the Fermi Paradox is by the time that they've got
>>>>> here they've got used to living in generation ships, and aren't
>>>>> interested in settling planets.
>>>>
>>>> I've never been convinced that the Fermi Paradox is real. First,
>>>> the universe hasn't been around all that long. Second, other life
>>>> forms may exist but is more like a privit hedge than a chimpansee.
>>>> Third, we should realize that we may well be looking for the wrong
>>>> signals.
>>>
>>> Well, we need to be clear on what "paradox" means - basically just
>>> something to ponder, I think.
>>>
>>> the Solar System are typical of planets and star systems, except
>>> insofar as we can determine that they aren't.
>>>
>>> The Earth is inhabited by intelligent life.
>>>
>>> Therefore, other planets in this and other star systems should be
>>> typically inhabited by intelligent life.
>>>
>>> But we do not detect intelligent life on other planets in this or
>>> other star systems.
>>>
>>> That's the paradox.
>
>> But *some* planet has to be the first to harbor intelligent life.
>> Perhaps Earth is it; intelligent life will evolve on other planets in
>> the future, but not yet.
>
>> The principle of mediocrity also involves a paradox. It would be true
>> if the Universe were truly infinite--the tail of the probability
>> distribution would tail off to infinity in both directions, like a
>> Gaussian distribution does. But it isn't infinite, either in time or
>> space. There is a finite, though vast, number of planets in the
>> Universe. Hence some planet has to set the pace for all the others to
>> follow.
>
> All that is true, but the mediocrity principle says that we are
> NOT in the long tails of the distriubtion.
Does it matter? We've been sending out space probes for less than 50
years, and making radio waves for about 80? Most of which probably
dissipate to undetectable within a few light years. If we were trying
to detect us from space I reckon it would be highly unlikely unless we
were very close by. We don't broadcast to be heard, why would we expect
others to? I think SETI is a complete waste of time.
--Jeff
--
"We can have democracy in this country,
or we can have great wealth concentrated
in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
--Louis D. Brandeis
Jeffrey Turner
>
> Possibly for the sane reason we took the considerable trouble to talk to
> chimps.
Mmm, bush meat.
Father Haskell
> Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >One "solution" for the Fermi Paradox is by the time that they've got
> >here they've got used to living in generation ships, and aren't
> >interested in settling planets.
>
> I've never been convinced that the Fermi Paradox is real. First,
> the universe hasn't been around all that long. Second, other life
> forms may exist but is more like a privit hedge than a chimpansee.
> Third, we should realize that we may well be looking for the wrong
> signals.
>
> --- Paul J. Gans
Earth is on everyone else's shitlist.
Paul J Gans
>In article <ifeaf1$aj7$4...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans says...
>>
>>JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> and humans is something like 1 or 2 percent.
>>
>>>Let's just say that the difference isn't large.
>>
>>>Then again, for just about every bone in the human body
>>>you can either find a corresponding bone in a Dinosaur,
>>>or identify where/when it evolved away. In many ways
>>>all vertebra life on earth is far, Far, *Far* more alike than
>>>it is different.
>>
>>Exactly, which is what makes common descent so obvious
>>an idea.
>Or maybe god had a critter parts catalog with a very limited selection.
That's possible, but it goes against the creationist axiom that God
can do anything. But originality seems limited.
TomS
<ifgojj$8mt$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans stated..."
The standard creationist "explanation" is that common construction is
an indication of a common designer.
There seems to be no limit to the depth of stupidity than can - or
must - be expounded in defense of creationism.
John S. Wilkins
Just today I picked up a signal that translates as "I say we nuke them
from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
John S. Wilkins
> "On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 01:51:47 +0000 (UTC), in article
> <ifgojj$8mt$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans stated..."
> >
> >Bob Berger <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >>In article <ifeaf1$aj7$4...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans says...
> >>>
> >>>JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>??IIUC the genetic difference between chimpanzees
> >>>>> and humans is something like 1 or 2 percent.
> >>>
> >>>>Let's just say that the difference isn't large.
> >>>
> >>>>Then again, for just about every bone in the human body
> >>>>you can either find a corresponding bone in a Dinosaur,
> >>>>or identify where/when it evolved away. In many ways
> >>>>all vertebra life on earth is far, Far, *Far* more alike than
> >>>>it is different.
> >>>
> >>>Exactly, which is what makes common descent so obvious
> >>>an idea.
> >
> >>Or maybe god had a critter parts catalog with a very limited selection.
> >
> >That's possible, but it goes against the creationist axiom that God
> >can do anything. But originality seems limited.
> >
> >
>
> The standard creationist "explanation" is that common construction is
> an indication of a common designer.
But not an omnipotent and omniscient one...
>
> There seems to be no limit to the depth of stupidity than can - or
> must - be expounded in defense of creationism.
--
Paul J Gans
I've blamed the Republicans for a lot, but that's going a bit
far...