Green men and squid.

[JamesKPolkEsq]

Two types of people in this world :

1) People who know there is extraterrestrial life

2) People who can't do math

[Tobbot]

On 12/6/2018 at 7:14 PM, Kitchen said:

 If you look at all of the billions of life forms that have lived on this planet, only we are intelligent.  

 

On 12/6/2018 at 7:14 PM, Kitchen said:

 

It could be one planet in a galaxy can support intelligent life. 

I would contend that we are the only self-aware, with advanced language, and opposable thumbs life on the planet. It seems to me that all these are necessary for our advancements. And...who knows what dolphins or whales will accomplish if given enough time before we $#@+-up them and the rest of the planet. I'm not a scientist of mammals, but I'm pretty sure we're discovering that dolphins/whales are working with languages that are at least as complex as ours. As complex and working with better physics (sonar vs sound traveling through air)

And to the second of my quotes of yours... I totally agree about how fragile life is here on this planet. So I think that one instance of the perfect storm of properties of "intelligence" (from above) per Galaxy is reasonable. However, say we're off by a factor of one or two or 10? When just specalatin about a non-linear combination of complex variables...hell, we could be off by a factor of 10^3 or more! Now consider that their are an estimated 1-2*10^11 observable (to Hubble) galaxies in the universe... I'm sure you'll agree that a repeat of "intelligent" life is possible.

[Tobbot]

On 12/7/2018 at 3:31 AM, Ryan said:

The universe is nearly 14 billion years old.

Humans have been around for 100,000 - 200,000 years

I've always loved Sagan's calendar of life that gives perspective to this. I think he was working with an estimate of 6ish billion years. And with there being something like 50+ definitions of species which totally puts into play more hominids than just H. sapien... therefore 100-200 thousand is off too...

All told, what I'm saying is Sagan's calendar needs a bit of tweaking but still is a brilliant way to bring into perspective just how infinitesimal we are!

[Ken Gargett]

i would suggest that one could debate intelligent life. dogs, chimps, other apes, octopus, crows, many other animals exhibit learning capabilities (and i reckon i could find examples of them all way smarter than anything sitting in the australian parliament at the moment). crocs. they learn very quickly. 

on that basis, the chances of intelligent life elsewhere is huge. 

[Ryan]

7 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

i would suggest that one could debate intelligent life. dogs, chimps, other apes, octopus, crows, many other animals exhibit learning capabilities (and i reckon i could find examples of them all way smarter than anything sitting in the australian parliament at the moment). crocs. they learn very quickly. 

on that basis, the chances of intelligent life elsewhere is huge. 

Describing intelligent life on that basis certainly increases the chances of there being intelligent life elsewhere. And on that basis, there has been intelligent life on this planet for millions of years. I certainly wouldn't disagree with you.

However regarding finding life like that on another planet, it turns it into a sort of "one-way conversation"

None of the other intelligent life on this planet, for example, has yet managed either

A. Getting radio signals into space

or

B. Developing the technology required for life support in space of one or more of the individuals of their species.

On this planet, of the millions of species, we are the only ones looking and (probably) the only ones able to receive signals from outside.

If intelligent life on other other planets is not looking for something off their own world or sending either themselves or their signals off their own world, it makes it much less likely that we would be able to find them.

It's like the difference between looking for somebody in an ocean or looking for somebody in an ocean who has a radio beacon.

[Alexw33]

I was originally of the opinion that the universe is too big for us to be alone, this video raised a few doubts and now I’m not sure.

 

[Tobbot]

2 hours ago, Alexw33 said:

I was originally of the opinion that the universe is too big for us to be alone, this video raised a few doubts and now I’m not sure.

 

I love TED and TED talks, but I don't think he adds anything to this discussion. There are some major logic jumps he goes through in his math at the end mixing in several questions. 

As I see this thread there are at least two questions:

1. Is there other life in the universe at least as advanced as we are?

2. Will we ever make contact with other life that is similarly or more advanced?

This gentleman mixes these two questions so that the math gives the answer his speech needs. And essentially, the word alone mixes these questions. Yes, I agree 100%... it's likely that we never make contact/discover other "intelligent" elsewhere in the universe. And, as has been stated elsewhere in this thread, an alien would either, have to be a complete moron OR have us at such a disadvantage that it is essentially just messing around, to make contact with humans. Same argument applies to other life leaving signs of their presence as is alluded to in this talk.  So, yes, we're alone and likely (imo) to stay that way. Is there other technologically advanced life out there? (Imo) Yes. Is it more advanced or less? (Imo) I think there very well could be several examples on a spectrum of more to less advanced.

To me, the essential point is that humans are infinitesimally infinitesimal, and our brains can't be wrapped around the scale of the universe that we're discovering (these same thoughts apply to a god or God's [again, IMO])... However, it's interesting and entertaining to talk about, so thanks for the TED talk @Alexw33!

[Ken Gargett]

i think that the "intelligent life" on this planet will either destroy itself or the planet long before we are so advanced to contact off-earth life or for them to get to us. if we can avoid that then maybe, down the track, we might have a chance. unlikely during the lifetime of anyone on this forum. but who knows. 

[Tobbot]

I couldn't agree more!

Or we'll give other intelligent life on this planet enough time to work around the whole opposable thumbs thing... and they'll kick us the Teckla (shout out to Brust) out!!!

[JR Kipling]

What if intelligent alien life decided to hide among us by camouflaging themselves to look like something else ? What if they chose an outward form that insured humans would cherish them and take care of them ?

 

What if aliens are here among us disguised as habanos ?!

 

Could explain the issue of tight draws

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[hunterbeav]

What if intelligent alien life decided to hide among us by camouflaging themselves to look like something else ? What if they chose an outward form that insured humans would cherish them and take care of them ?
 
What if aliens are here among us disguised as habanos ?!
 
Could explain the issue of tight draws
 
 
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

As I was reading this I thought .....he's gonna say dogs......
Cigar threw me for a loop!!!

But nice one JR

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Akela3rd]

i think that the "intelligent life" on this planet will either destroy itself or the planet long before we are so advanced to contact off-earth life or for them to get to us. if we can avoid that then maybe, down the track, we might have a chance. unlikely during the lifetime of anyone on this forum. but who knows. 

We can't destroy the planet, it's a planet ie fuffin huge. However, we can destroy the slim surface we live on and the planet wouldn't even notice. Ask it what it thought of us in 100 million years and it'd say 'huh? Dunno what yer talking about, didn't notice'.

Sent from my ActionMan walkie-talkie

[Fuzz]

7 hours ago, Akela3rd said:

We can't destroy the planet, it's a planet ie fuffin huge.

Tell that to bacteria.

[Ken Gargett]

7 hours ago, Akela3rd said:

We can't destroy the planet, it's a planet ie fuffin huge. However, we can destroy the slim surface we live on and the planet wouldn't even notice. 
 

now, i love being pedantic as much as any ex-lawyer but i would argue that it depends on the definition of planet.

i would argue that after we (and quite possibly mother nature, as well, for those who don't wish to put all the blame on us) have poisoned all the water, turned continents into dustbowls, flooded the rest, melted the icecaps and committed endless acts of choking pollution that yes, we will have destroyed the planet. sure, the hulking shell, the lifeless rock, may still be flogging itself on its journey around the sun but that does not mean an "undestroyed" planet.

if i belt my computer out of frustration, not that i ever would of course, there is every chance i will have destroyed it. the computer itself might still exist but it may not ever work again. ergo, i have destroyed it. 

[Akela3rd]

now, i love being pedantic as much as any ex-lawyer but i would argue that it depends on the definition of planet.
i would argue that after we (and quite possibly mother nature, as well, for those who don't wish to put all the blame on us) have poisoned all the water, turned continents into dustbowls, flooded the rest, melted the icecaps and committed endless acts of choking pollution that yes, we will have destroyed the planet. sure, the hulking shell, the lifeless rock, may still be flogging itself on its journey around the sun but that does not mean an "undestroyed" planet.
if i belt my computer out of frustration, not that i ever would of course, there is every chance i will have destroyed it. the computer itself might still exist but it may not ever work again. ergo, i have destroyed it. 

Not pedantry, just a long view. Puts the day in perspective sometimes.

Sent from my ActionMan walkie-talkie

[Ken Gargett]

Just now, Akela3rd said:

Not pedantry, just a long view. Puts the day in perspective sometimes.

Sent from my ActionMan walkie-talkie
 

wasn't being critical. all in favour of a good bit of pedantry. 

[Akela3rd]

wasn't being critical. all in favour of a good bit of pedantry. 

Didn't take it as such. It's one to use on those who get over excited by the whole 'we're destoyng the planet' thing. BTW you didn't destroy the computer, merely damaged it.

Us destroying our livable bit of the planet is like taking the shine off a cricket ball - still a cricket ball, still functions, but doesn't look as good or work as well.

 

Sent from my ActionMan walkie-talkie

 

 

 

[Tobbot]

5 hours ago, Akela3rd said:

Didn't take it as such. It's one to use on those who get over excited by the whole 'we're destoyng the planet' thing. BTW you didn't destroy the computer, merely damaged it.

Us destroying our livable bit of the planet is like taking the shine off a cricket ball - still a cricket ball, still functions, but doesn't look as good or work as well.

 

Sent from my ActionMan walkie-talkie

 

 

 

I, respectfully, disagree. To what extent?... I don't feel qualified to say, but one example pops to mind. This is metabolism via enzymes. Without enzymatic contribution we (and all other life) have no metabolism, or it's so slow that it's effectively zero. There is an incredibly narrow window of temperatures in which enzymes maintain their structure/function. This is just one example of the fragility of life. Once we're outside this/ these window(s), what's next?  Does life/planet/etc. snap back after a short respite?

Am I saying to go hug the next tree you see... absolutely not... maybe just bow to it while maintaining eye contact. (insert catchy emoji)

[Ken Gargett]

5 hours ago, Akela3rd said:

Didn't take it as such. It's one to use on those who get over excited by the whole 'we're destoyng the planet' thing. BTW you didn't destroy the computer, merely damaged it.

Us destroying our livable bit of the planet is like taking the shine off a cricket ball - still a cricket ball, still functions, but doesn't look as good or work as well.

 

Sent from my ActionMan walkie-talkie

 

 

 

i'd disagree and i'd suggest that you actually agree with me, from what you have said.

if i smash up my computer, it is not merely damaged, it will not work and never work again. so i think we can say it is destroyed. 

as you say in the next line - "us destroying..." so according to that, even if it still worked, that was me 'destroying' it. 

but we are being really pedantic now. 

[hunterbeav]

My brain is starting to hurt......but I can't stop reading !!

 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

[Tobbot]

39 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

but we are being really pedantic now. 

For the record, I hope nothing I've said is taken as pedantry.

I'm enjoying the conversation and trying to contribute my $.02.

As a brother from another mother says, "It's hard telling not knowing!" It always cracks me up when he says this and I don't quite understand why.

[Akela3rd]

I, respectfully, disagree. To what extent?... I don't feel qualified to say, but one example pops to mind. This is metabolism via enzymes. Without enzymatic contribution we (and all other life) have no metabolism, or it's so slow that it's effectively zero. There is an incredibly narrow window of temperatures in which enzymes maintain their structure/function. This is just one example of the fragility of life. Once we're outside this/ these window(s), what's next?  Does life/planet/etc. snap back after a short respite?
Am I saying to go hug the next tree you see... absolutely not... maybe just bow to it while maintaining eye contact. (insert catchy emoji)

I get your point but Life is irrelevant to the planetary destruction in this little sideline to the main discussion. The vast majority of planets have no life.

Sent from my ActionMan walkie-talkie

[Fugu]

C'mon guys, semantics! Clearly by "...destroying the planet" it is meant, the destruction of our planet as a living environment. Once life is gone it's pretty secondary to mankind whether or not the blue - or howsoever then coloured - marble is still hovering around in space. 

[Akela3rd]

C'mon guys, semantics! Clearly by "...destroying the planet" it is meant, the destruction of our planet as a living environment. Once life is gone it's pretty secondary to mankind whether or not the blue - or howsoever then coloured - marble is still hovering around in space. 

Oh you killjoy! Yes, destroying the environment of the planet is a very different thing to destroying the planet itself but the same phrase is being used for both - which is my bugbear. I've spent the last two hours on a motorway formulating the perfect repost to Ken and his destroyed/not destroyed computer analogy which I won't now use. But... yes, "as a living environment" is the kicker. My original point, as I said, was to take the word "destruction" literally - on a cosmic scale ie swallowed up by the great big burning ball of gas in the sky that is our sun or a massive meteorite cleaving the planet.And to bring things back on track - what would the alien overlords (or not) make of this conversation?

 

Sent from my ActionMan walkie-talkie

 

 

 

 

 

[Colt45]

Ice ages, meteor strikes, mass extinctions - the planet renews itself. Every once in a while it needs to shed it's skin....