Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 135

Thread: Episode 24:The Fermi Paradox: Where Are All the Aliens?

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,168
    Quote Originally Posted by EvilEye View Post
    Maybe they HAVE sent out that fleet of exploring robots.



    I think they where swallowed by a dog......

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,743
    Quote Originally Posted by EvilEye View Post
    I don't know.

    If I turned on the television and the President was on there telling us that we had been contacted, I'm not sure I would believe it.
    So you're saying there could be no scientific evidence? Everything is "because someone told me so"?

    If they land in my yard, then take off again...maybe.
    So...

    Do you believe in the moon? You obviously haven't been there. So you must assume it doesn't exist, right?

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    926
    I'm saying that if it were something we could recognize as life, then MOST people wouldn't believe it came from outer space without having a religious epiphany.

    Try to tell my 70 year old father that the internet is a useful tool for his business, and no amount of "proof" or "evidence" will ever convince him.

    Try to tell 80% of the world that there is no "higher being" such as a god or gods. You can show them every bit of evidence that suggests you are right, and they will still not believe you.

    People have been put in prison for PROVING that the earth went around the sun, and not vice versa.

    So yes... it is easy to say that it will be difficult for MOST people to believe in the first real contact.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    28,208
    Sure, but for every 1000 fake looking aliens, all you need is one building-sized robotic spaceship hovering over a city firing out laser beams to convince people that it might have come from another world.

    I'll always go back to this argument. The Universe has a lot of worlds, with a lot of opportunities for life to indendently arise. On each of these worlds, the course of life can take a different direction, leading to different kinds of civilizations. Many civilizations might create robotic exploration spacecraft indistinguishable from bananas. But it just takes one to buck the trend to give us the evidence that there's intelligent life on other worlds.

    So where is the evidence?

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by Fraser View Post
    Sure, but for every 1000 fake looking aliens, all you need is one building-sized robotic spaceship hovering over a city firing out laser beams to convince people that it might have come from another world.

    I'll always go back to this argument. The Universe has a lot of worlds, with a lot of opportunities for life to indendently arise. On each of these worlds, the course of life can take a different direction, leading to different kinds of civilizations. Many civilizations might create robotic exploration spacecraft indistinguishable from bananas. But it just takes one to buck the trend to give us the evidence that there's intelligent life on other worlds.

    So where is the evidence?
    I saw a UFO. 7 of them together actually, and from where I was standing, I know that they weren't the Russian craft we were told was re-entering the atmosphere over Florida. (this happened in 1997).

    I wont go into details because it's pointless. The only people that would ever be convinced were those that actually saw it.

    Yes Fraser... If the ship were like the one that totally covered the sky like the ones in Independance day, I might have second thoughts. But we have so much technology today that we could see tons of wierd things in our sky that are from here, that most people don't notice.... Mainly because we don't tend to look UP in the daytime.

    I enjoy this debate with you. Because you are objective. I never once said it wasn't possible. I said that even if it were real, it would still be difficult to convince the masses. It only does take one. But like you said.. "Where is the Evidence?"

    My reply is this.

    Maybe they HAVE come.. but we don't believe it. Evidence abounds.

    Only one?

    How many Project Bluebook cases were left "unsolved"?

    But we dismiss those because of all the other solved ones.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    26
    It all boils down to what you find hardest to believe. If we look for hard evidence, which I do, then it gets at least a little bit easier:
    • 200 billion stars in the galaxy and planet formation quite common:
      – I find it hard to believe we are alone.
    • Millions of people on this planet scrutinizing the skies for centuries and no hard evidence for robots (and I agree, it only takes one such civilization!):
      – I find it hard to believe they are already here.
    • 11 stars within a 10 lightyear radius (116 within 20) make a very poor selection:
      – I find it hard to believe they are anywhere near us.


    • I find it easy to believe they are rare.
    • I find it easy to believe they are not longlived enough, as individuals OR species.
    • I find it easy to believe the void of spacetime is much too large to be overcome.
    • I find it easy to believe there is a science fiction buff in most of us, wishing it were otherwise.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    2

    Thumbs up

    You're absolutely right Anton, I agree with you 100%

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,080

    Question Why is everybody so pessimistic about space travel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Anton View Post
    • I find it easy to believe the void of spacetime is much too large to be overcome.
    Why is everybody so pessimistic about our ability to develop much faster space travel, at a reasonable cost, relatively soon?
    (interplanetary AND interstellar)

    Pamela also refers to this (directly and indirectly) several times during the show itself, I quote just one example:
    "The further you try and go it gets not just twice as hard when you double the distance, but 20 times harder when you double the distance, or 1 thousand times harder when you try and get to the next star.[/SIZE]

    Just consider some facts:
    1) a trip on an intercontinental airplane today is way cheaper (and faster) than a passage on the Titanic was only a century ago
    2) a trip into lower space (see Virgin Galactic) is starting to become easier than the first attempts of transatlantic flight (definitely faster, too)
    3) Even a trip to Mars, though maybe at the very limit of our current capabilities, is probably not a greater challenge than Columbus' or Magellan's voyages a few centuries ago (actually Mars might be easier - we know were we're heading and what will be the challenges once we're there, Columbus didn't know either)



    Based on the historical rate of technological evolution
    (which is actually still accelerating according to most indicators),
    don't we have reason to assume that we might get there relatively soon?

    And not even necessarily at such a huge cost?

    Is that really such a wild speculation?

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by clint View Post
    Why is everybody so pessimistic about our ability to develop much faster space travel, at a reasonable cost, relatively soon?
    Well Clint, if you allow yourself to look at the problem from only one angle and keep out all relevant factors except one (in this case the history of travel), the conclusion may seem simple enough.

    Let me give you an example from the world of sports: Men's high jump world record development! It took 29 years to raise the record from 2 meters to 2.10. It took 19 years after that to reach 2.20, another 13 years to reach 2.30 and then 12 years to conquer 2.40. Now based on this, how long would it take to reach 2.50? Well clearly, less than 12 years!

    It's been 22 years since Povarnitsyn made 2.40 and we are nowhere near 2.50! The last Olympics was won at 2.36. Why?

    Because for many years we were dealing with factors like technique, training facilities, competition and - drugs. Now we are encountering another factor: The limitations of a human body! If through the use of some Chinese wonder drug a human finally makes 2.50, it is highly unlikely that 2.60 will ever be reached (or say 3 meters to make things clear).

    If you find yourself in the early phases of development (like high jump in the first 85 years of the 20th century or the first 500 years of exploration after Columbus) you might come to the conclusion that there is no limit. It's just a matter of time!

    Sorry, but there are always other factors. The speed of light for one. And now we are facing, again, the human limitation: Our inability and - most probably - unwillingness to live in space for many generations.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,799

    I'll Go!

    Quote Originally Posted by Anton View Post
    Sorry, but there are always other factors. The speed of light for one. And now we are facing, again, the human limitation: Our inability and - most probably - unwillingness to live in space for many generations.
    If you make the ship big enough, it doesn't matter. And the generations born on board won't know a planet anyhow. It's a tough approach, but there's probably no other way. Let's have a straw pole; anybody else willing?

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Anton View Post
    • I find it easy to believe they are rare.
    • I find it easy to believe they are not longlived enough, as individuals OR species.
    • I find it easy to believe the void of spacetime is much too large to be overcome.
    • I find it easy to believe there is a science fiction buff in most of us, wishing it were otherwise.
    Oh, too true. And we seem to be having a hard time getting off Earth right now. I think it's pretty clearly established that Space Shuttle type vehicles are not the way to go.
    Last edited by John Mendenhall; 2007-Apr-12 at 05:39 PM. Reason: typo

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Anton View Post
    Let me give you an example from the world of sports: Men's high jump world record development! ... Now we are encountering another factor: The limitations of a human body! If through the use of some Chinese wonder drug a human finally makes 2.50, it is highly unlikely that 2.60 will ever be reached (or say 3 meters to make things clear).
    Thanks for your answer Anton.

    Although I accept that there might be natural limits to technological evolution (such as light speed for travel velocity - as far as we know), I don't quite agree with you human body analogy.

    Stating that a human body can probably never surpass 3 m in high-jump (or let's say 50m to be even clearer) is like saying that Columbus' ships could never have reached the moon. That's obvious!

    However, we can reach the moon (and also can jump 3m (or 50m) high easily - think of bunjee jumping) with the help of new technologies.

    I don't see those upper limits (other than the speed of light, for all we know), Ok, space is vast, but so was the American continent before the railway.

    And I don't see any reason why the rate of technological evolution should - all of a sudden - slow down.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by clint View Post
    And I don't see any reason why the rate of technological evolution should - all of a sudden - slow down.
    Oh, I can see lots of reasons for the rate of technological evolution slowing down or speeding up for that matter. Remember that the time perspective we are talking about now is hundreds or thousands of years while there are serious questions as to whether the earth can sustain its population 50 years from now. Answers to those questions will definitely affect the rate and direction of technological development.

    But - I am not talking about the limitations of technology. In the high jump example, I was trying to compare the technology factor to for instance high jump technique. For decades the development of new technique and training methods was much more important for beating the world record than the limitations of the body. This is no longer the case. We have reached a stage where the human limitation is the main factor. To significantly change that factor (other than with superdrugs) you will have to wait a loooong time for biological evolution to take place.

    My point is that for millenia (and for some time yet), technology development has been a main factor for exploration. When we now talk about going to Mars and further into the solar system, we definitely encounter our own limitations in a major way. And, as Pamela suggested, interstellar travel is a new ballgame altogether. Irrespective of technological development, the human factor will be overwhelmingly dominant.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Anton View Post
    Remember that the time perspective we are talking about now is hundreds or thousands of years while there are serious questions as to whether the earth can sustain its population 50 years from now.
    I agree there can always happen some major catastrophe - or even just some cultural change of direction - to slow us down or stop us alltogether.
    (after the fall of the Ancient Romans, e.g., the rate of technological progress definitely slowed down for about a 1000 years)

    On the other hand, the argument that the earth cannot support any more people or any more progress is very old (remember Mathus?) - and so far everybody who argued that way was proven wrong.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Anton View Post
    ... interstellar travel is a new ballgame altogether. Irrespective of technological development, the human factor will be overwhelmingly dominant.
    Why do you think the human factor will be so much more dominant from now on?
    What are you referring too exactly?
    Please extend on that!

    What biological limitations will stop us from eventually colonizing e.g. Moon and Mars? (other than maybe having to persist for few centuries...)


    (great discussion, by the way )

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by clint View Post
    Why do you think the human factor will be so much more dominant from now on?
    I do believe that the Earth would do fine in supporting its entire population if it hadn't been for us messing it up so badly (and you must tell me about Mathus some time). The reason I mentioned the problems we face on Earth was not to say they cannot be solved but to point out that technology, economy and willpower may need to refocus in a major way - and very soon - in order to save the only planet available where members of the human race can survive without advanced technological support.

    Colonization of the Moon and Mars will certainly be good for science and therefore also for our species but for a period much longer than the next 50 crucial years that I mentioned, it will not support more than a few hundred people compared to the soon to be 9 billion that have to share the Earth.

    As for the human factor slowly becoming the dominant factor, bear with me if I return once again to suck the last drops of insight from my high jump example. If new, fantastic techniques and training methods will finally add a few more centimetres to the world record, it can be compared to Columbus’ ship being developed not only into the Saturn 5 but also into whatever device we will create to take us to Mars (and beyond?) within say the next 100 years.

    But when legs are as long and as strong as they can be, we cease to produce records – the human factor dominates entirely. That can be compared to the fact that the descendants of Columbus some 600 years down the line who have not developed all that much, are now relying more and more heavily on advanced technology each second of their life, even to take a simple breath or to protect against constant life-threatening radiation.

    Building a breathable atmosphere on Mars will most probably take thousands of years and when done, it will leave us with an extra planet much smaller than Earth while already today we would need FIVE Earths to sustain the present world population on a level the western civilisation calls normal.

    Any astronaut can tell us that living on the ISS for 6 months and returning from there is not an easy thing for any human body to endure. And when considering the 2-3 years needed for a return trip to Mars, it is not so much the lack of proper technology that we discuss as the psychological and medical limitations of a human being. Add the extra years needed to go to a Jupiter moon and you multiply the strains subjected to the same old body and mind.

    The sad fact is that while technology rushes ahead and puts Mars within Columbus’ reach, Columbus stays essentially the same!

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    20

    Speculation and its limits

    Fascinating discussion!

    On the one hand, Einstein's stubborn speed of light limit, and the exponential energies needed to achieve even half or a quarter of that speed, do impose a pretty fundamental diminution of the odds of contact with extraterrestrial life any time soon, or possibly at all.

    On the other hand, when it comes to speculation about phenomena so far beyond our current knowledge that we can only guess, then an even more fundamental limitation than the speed of light becomes relevant -- namely, our own cognitive capacity.

    It may be that there is a way to transcend the light-speed limit, but it may require the evolution of an intelligence as far beyond our own as ours is beyond a cat's. I often think of this when observing my own cat, happily self-assured of the complete sufficiency of his mental grasp of reality, utterly oblivious to his inability to solve practical problems that to us are absurdly transparent.

    Even the most impressive achievements of non-human cognitive heavyweights like chimps and dolphins are still distant also-rans in the manipulation of abstract concepts and symbolic communication that human evolution has enabled. And it may be that another hundred-thousand or million years of evolution of human neurocognition is a precondition for transcending the light-speed limit.

    But that's assuming that human mental abilities, however advanced, are even the right kind. It may be that we've already branched off along the wrong path of neural evolution, and in fact the only way to slip through the speed of light barrier is via something like telepathy or other advanced neural capacity toward which dolphins may be well on their evolutionary journey. And if that's the case, then alien intelligences evolved along those lines could be clamouring day and night for our attention, or carrying on a lively exchange with dolphins who are to them as chimps are to us, while we are as deaf and blind to their communications as an intelligent rat is to the text printed on newspaper lining its nest.

    Or not....

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    926
    Quite possibly the cat is MORE intelligent in his bliss than we are in our grasping of knowlege.

    We are so busy trying to figure things out, that the transparent becomes opaque just by asking why.

    Cats don't ask why...they just do it.

    Not only that, but they have trained us to feed and shelter them for free!

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Delysid View Post
    ... when it comes to speculation about phenomena so far beyond our current knowledge that we can only guess, then an even more fundamental limitation than the speed of light becomes relevant -- namely, our own cognitive capacity.
    Yet another limitation! But really, the original question in this thread was: "Where are all the aliens?". Apart from being a very relevant question, it is also an invitation to untamed speculation. And that's fine with me but I had this notion that in a facts-based show it would also be of intrest to enter a quite probable answer to that question, namely the vastness of spacetime separating us. I am convinced that many listeners to the show have never quite realized what distances we are talking about here.

    But this I have noticed before: Since we are still waiting for those cast-iron proofs about the presence of aliens on Earth, it is much more appealing to invent the most fantastic hypotheses explaining why we can't see them though they are already here than to consider a simple fact that might suggest why they are not

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,080

    Biological or cognitive limitations

    Quote Originally Posted by Delysid View Post
    ...but it may require the evolution of an intelligence as far beyond our own as ours is beyond a cat's...
    Biologically, we're not THAT far from a cat.
    We cannot 'hear' radiowaves or 'experience' relativity, etc.

    The basic difference is that we ARE capable of inventing ever more advanced technology that gets us beyond our initial biological (and cognitive) limitations.

    We ARE already way beyond those limits in every aspect of our daily lives.
    And that hasn't slowed down our innovation rate at all - it's still accelerating!!!

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,080

    Sustainability of growth

    Quote Originally Posted by Anton View Post
    ...and you must tell me about Mathus some time...
    Sorry, I spelled him wrong: Thomas Robert Malthus, he published several famous hypotheses on population growth and sustainability, in the 1800s.

    Rough summary:
    Population would continue to grow exponentially (also in the western world), and agriculture would not be able to feed all those people anymore very soon.

    Those theories got very famous in the 19th century and sparked much pessimism about the sustainability of our civilization.

    What most people did not foresee at his time:
    - population growth slowed down very fast in the industrialized world
    - agricultural productivity, in turn, did grow exponentially

    Not saying our planet will support anything, just saying that it depends (on what technologies you have available and how you deal with them)

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by clint View Post
    Sorry, I spelled him wrong...
    We don’t want to repeat Malthus mistakes, do we? And yet, I am under the impression that most people trying to predict the future are proven dead wrong within a few decades. (Ever seen any of those TV-programs from the 1960:ies where scientists and technicians describe what the world will look like in the far distant year 2000?)

    Even though I will most probably run into that trap myself, I am just saying that so will you! We may be alone in the galaxy but if we are not a plausible reason for the aliens not being seen lately might just be that their biology has proved to be as limiting to deep space travel as ours may be. Even their robots have obviously run into serious trouble...

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,188
    Quote Originally Posted by Anton View Post
    We don’t want to repeat Malthus mistakes, do we? And yet, I am under the impression that most people trying to predict the future are proven dead wrong within a few decades. (Ever seen any of those TV-programs from the 1960:ies where scientists and technicians describe what the world will look like in the far distant year 2000?)
    Yep, in most ways we are way less advanced than almost every set of predictions from the 1930-1980 period: Colonies on Mars? traffic jams a thing of the past as our cars fly to work? huge undersea cities? housework done by robots? energy too cheap to meter? farmland returned to nature as food is grown in vats? Tech nirvana seems a little harder to achieve than we've imagined.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anton View Post
    Even though I will most probably run into that trap myself, I am just saying that so will you! We may be alone in the galaxy but if we are not a plausible reason for the aliens not being seen lately might just be that their biology has proved to be as limiting to deep space travel as ours may be. Even their robots have obviously run into serious trouble...
    Yeah, obviously... If it's impossible to build a robot that survives in interstellar space, there's a lot about interstellar space we don't know.

    The idea that heavy, fragile, short-lived, bio jelly bags (like us) are/have ever been transported across galaxies faster than they die is a big stretch, but why no robots? Why no signals? why no "miracles" (unexplainable astronomical observations). The Fermi paradox is a very serious challenge to SETI.

    People plug their guesses into the Drake equation and conclude that our galaxy should have hosted millions or billions of intelligent races before homo first started banging rocks together. And not one of them ever thought it was a good idea to build von Neumann machines? They're all too shy, or their sky is cloudy so they don't realize the universe is there, or they all make some mistake and become extinct. Silly ad hoc explanations abound.

    IMHO the only explanations that make sense are that either we're alone or the natural evolution of intelligence always takes it somewhere else (or the beserkers arrive within a decade or two ).

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1

    My first post - love the show and working through back-episodes

    Quote Originally Posted by Fraser View Post
    So, where are all the robots? Once again, it would only take one intelligent civilization in the Milky Way to get the ball rolling. Not using any kind of super exotic technologies.
    Maybe they're everywhere! This ties in neatly with something I have been thinking about, ie maybe the best way to colonise the galaxy is to spray DNA around the place. So perhaps the "robots" are not technologically-based but biological. DNA is a self-replicating object that contains information and perhaps it was crafted in an alien laboratory as a mechanism to colonise space. And perhaps DNA also contains a "payload" of extra information. I seem to recall that only a small portion of DNA is actively involved in the process of replication and genetic expression and that geneticists refer to the remaining bits as junk-DNA. Perhaps this is a coded message from the alien that created it with the intention being that if intelligence developed from the seeding process it might one day decipher the code and discover the knowledge contained within. Maybe cryptologists should be working on the junk-DNA! Perhaps SETI should be looking in our DNA rather than in the skys!

    Pure speculation of course, but fun!

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,157
    People plug their guesses into the Drake equation and conclude that our galaxy should have hosted millions or billions of intelligent races before homo first started banging rocks together. And not one of them ever thought it was a good idea to build von Neumann machines? They're all too shy, or their sky is cloudy so they don't realize the universe is there, or they all make some mistake and become extinct. Silly ad hoc explanations abound.

    IMHO the only explanations that make sense are that either we're alone or the natural evolution of intelligence always takes it somewhere else (or the beserkers arrive within a decade or two ).
    An easy explanation is that one early species did develop Von Neumann machines and spread throughout the galaxy slash galaxies and they like the universe the way it currently is. They may or may not employ berserkers to keep it that way.

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    16
    Lucas - LOVE your "Duck and Cover" turtle avatar! - great video.

    I highly recommend Something Weird Video's "Atomic War Bride/This is not a test" collection DVD.

    ....................

    As for alien life (must be technologically advanced) and space travel - one can do both (have to in fact), find alien life and travel at the speed of light!

    Simply transmit your DNA via radio............and if some alien has the technology (and interest) to receive it and decode it....................a human will be re-created on the other end.

    of course it will be a baby and have no knowledge of Earth - but it would be an effective way to "colonize" (if said aliens allow it/have interest in dumb lower life forms).

    very effective - almost free and instantanous contact with advance alien life, and limitless (or as limitless as possible - speed of light).

    of course there could be a security risk - transmision of your genome and a homing beacon to boot.

    this method seems self evident - that others are not doing it seems "suspicous" to me.

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    16
    "Can a living organism get anything out of nitrogen, or sulfur?"

    yep.

    http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/archaea/archaea.html

    ..................................

    maybe no more advancement was possible - thus the newer life we have today showed up.

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    28,208
    Quote Originally Posted by timb View Post
    IMHO the only explanations that make sense are that either we're alone or the natural evolution of intelligence always takes it somewhere else (or the beserkers arrive within a decade or two ).
    I agree. Every time I hear a possible suggestion about cloudy skies and non-expansionist aliens, that's fine, but it only decreases the odds a little bit. Expansion of intelligence would be an exponential increase. It would only take one to completely colonize an entire galaxy within a few million years.

    So either we're alone, or there are berserkers. And if there are berserkers, they would have scoured the Earth long ago. So we're alone.

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Fraser View Post
    So either we're alone, or there are berserkers. And if there are berserkers, they would have scoured the Earth long ago. So we're alone.
    Damn, so we're back where we started
    Let's start sending robots...

    Quote Originally Posted by Anton View Post
    most people trying to predict the future are proven dead wrong within a few decades
    I subsribe to that one.
    Fortunately, nature has amazing ways to prove us wrong all the time
    - that's what makes both science AND speculation so much fun!


    Quote Originally Posted by mark.myers View Post
    maybe the best way to colonise the galaxy is to spray DNA around the place
    Interesting idea.
    Especially because there IS this hypothesis that simple organisms COULD
    actually survive in space, travelling inside rocks (after asteroid impacts), right?
    Now here's something that would revolutionize our space industry, let's build rock rockets!!!
    Could this actually work with simple DNA, or would we need an entire organism (like bacteria)? Any ideas?

    Quote Originally Posted by gaffo View Post
    Simply transmit your DNA via radio...
    Hey, I know this movie!!! Wasn't that Jeff Bridges?

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    762
    Quote Originally Posted by Fraser View Post
    I agree. Every time I hear a possible suggestion about cloudy skies and non-expansionist aliens, that's fine, but it only decreases the odds a little bit. Expansion of intelligence would be an exponential increase. It would only take one to completely colonize an entire galaxy within a few million years.

    So either we're alone, or there are berserkers. And if there are berserkers, they would have scoured the Earth long ago. So we're alone.
    I am uncertain that intelligence is some sort of all-overcoming trait. Perhaps the galaxy/universe simply does not contain sufficient potential energy or materials sources for mass colonization. As a result, one might limited in how many places one can travel, even assuming a high level of ingenuity. So these berserkers might exist but feel that it's simply not worth playing the galaxian version of the lottery.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clint
    The basic difference is that we ARE capable of inventing ever more advanced technology that gets us beyond our initial biological (and cognitive) limitations.
    One of the bigger problems with sustained space travel is that of a zero-g environment. As an example, the bone loss of people on the ISS is rather substantial, even with exercise, and they are not there their entire lives. Unless someone is holding out on an artificial gravity generator, the notion of transgenerational space travel needs to wait a bit. Could advanced technology solve this? Perhaps, but it should come first, before we start designing the racing stripes on this rocket. This is in reference to colonization, by the way. Robotic exploration has its issues but biology isn't likely to be one of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaffo
    Simply transmit your DNA via radio............and if some alien has the technology (and interest) to receive it and decode it....................a human will be re-created on the other end.
    Not quite. You are far more than just your DNA - the aliens would need to know how to translate the codons into proteins (they'd need to know what were introns and exons, the non-coding and coding parts of the DNA). They'd also need to know about mitochondrial DNA, the ribosomes, Golgi apparatus, endoplasmic reticulum, cell membrane, and some other tens of thousands of proteins and sugars that would be required just to get one cell alive. Actually, they likely would not even know what the structure of thymine is. I mean, what's the letter 'T' supposed to tell you about it? I am assuming, also that they have an oxygen environment and the pH and temperature are suitable. After all the assumptions they'd have to make, even if they got something alive at the end, it wouldn't surprise me if they stood around wondering how sentience developed in something that is the Earth equivalent of their mushroom.

Similar Threads

  1. Ep 24: Fermi Paradox
    By TDL 76 in forum Astronomy Cast
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2010-Nov-21, 11:53 AM
  2. A solution for the Fermi's paradox
    By m1omg in forum Life in Space
    Replies: 174
    Last Post: 2007-Oct-29, 12:14 AM
  3. Podcast: The Fermi Paradox: Where are all the Aliens?
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2007-Feb-27, 03:43 AM
  4. Is one possible answer to Fermi's Paradox a lie?
    By William_Thompson in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 2005-Dec-14, 06:47 PM
  5. Possible Explanations To Fermi's Paradox?
    By Plat in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 133
    Last Post: 2005-Aug-16, 10:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •