NASA to start UFO investigations...

[Ted Striker 338]

8 hours ago, martin-w said:

That's right, it's literally TWO people.

Yes, but two very qualified people. I saw on the headlines of a very well known newspaper while waiting in a supermarket check out line that agents Mulder and Sculley will be brought out of retirement to perform this investigation.

[Swe_Richard 1,172]

59 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

Have any of them ever visited us? If you can get your head round the distances involved then you start to realise how incredibly unlikely that is.

And IF they have visited us and would like to, we are kind of f##ked to be honest. The civilisation with the tech to do that feat would surely consider us as interesting as I find the nest of ants in the forest. Us researching the phenomenon fot 'air safety' is hilarious at best. When the kid comes with the proverbial magnifying glass you'd better run... 😉

 

[Swe_Richard 1,172]

2 minutes ago, martin-w said:

 

Not a very effective distraction then. I think we are all still aware double digit inflation is a thing. 

 

Well.. I was being diplomatic. Double digit will in the near future surely not be an adequate description. 👽

 

[martin-w 3,235]

1 minute ago, Swe_Richard said:

And IF they have visited us and would like to, we are kind of f##ked to be honest. The civilisation with the tech to do that feat would surely consider us as interesting as I find the nest of ants in the forest. Us researching the phenomenon fot 'air safety' is hilarious at best. When the kid comes with the proverbial magnifying glass you'd better run... 😉

 

 

Not necessarily. If technological life is as rare in the galaxy as some scientists think, then it is indeed precious, and any advanced race that encountered it would find it fascinating and of importance. A  race of conscious being is in reality an example of the universe becoming conscious, for we are indeed part of the universe. Its a non-trivial thing.  

Its not hilarious to study the phenomenon for air safety. These objects are entering areas where military jets train and are passing close to our jets. They may be foreign drones for all we know. To protect pilots and avoid a potential collision we obviously need to learn about the phenomenon. 

[martin-w 3,235]

6 minutes ago, Swe_Richard said:

Well.. I was being diplomatic. Double digit will in the near future surely not be an adequate description. 👽

 

 

If its worse then its even less likely a study of UFO's will mask it from out attention. 

[Swe_Richard 1,172]

1 minute ago, martin-w said:

 

Not necessarily. If technological life is as rare in the galaxy as some scientists think, then it is indeed precious, and any advanced race that encountered it would find it fascinating and of importance. A  race of conscious being is in reality an example of the universe becoming conscious, for we are indeed part of the universe. Its a non-trivial thing.  

Its not hilarious to study the phenomenon for air safety. These objects are entering areas where military jets train and are passing close to our jets. They may be foreign drones for all we know. To protect pilots and avoid a potential collision we obviously need to learn about the phenomenon. 

Oh, come on. You have absolutely no idea what values or incentives would drive those creatures. I said we would be toast 'if they wanted to' which is undeniable. If they don't want to harm us I am pretty sure our petty F35:s are laughable (at best) for their craft to evade us if need be. To think they would be a part of some kind of star federation 'where every life is precious' is.. well.. kind of precious in and of itself. 

[martin-w 3,235]

31 minutes ago, Swe_Richard said:

Oh, come on. You have absolutely no idea what values or incentives would drive those creatures.

 

Exactly! Neither do you! Which was why I said "not necessarily". "Not necessarily" is defined as may or may not be true.

 

31 minutes ago, Swe_Richard said:

I said we would be toast 'if they wanted to' which is undeniable.

 

And I put it to you that they MAY not have the desire to render us a slice of toasted bread. MAY not want to because to survive long enough to develop FTL, they would have to have evolved beyond violent, warlike, self destructive instincts that would have destroyed them long before. It MAY be that life advanced enough to develop faster than light travel, perhaps thousands of years  in advance of us, have survived that long because they have overcome the aggressive, self destructive "great filter". 

 

31 minutes ago, Swe_Richard said:

To think they would be a part of some kind of star federation 'where every life is precious' is.. well.. kind of precious in and of itself. 

 

I never said anything about a Star Federation. But logically, a species that is malevolent, aggressive, territorial, combative,  is unlikely to survive long enough to develop faster than light travel. Logically they would be "likely" to have destroyed themselves. 

Edited June 11, 2022 by martin-w

[Swe_Richard 1,172]

1 minute ago, martin-w said:

 

I never said anything about a Star Federation. But logically, a species that is malevolent, aggressive, territorial, combative,  is unlikely to survive long enough to develop faster than light travel. Logically they would be "likely" to have destroyed themselves. 

Citation needed.

 

[martin-w 3,235]

20 minutes ago, Swe_Richard said:

Citation needed.

 

 

Its actually common sense. Do you believe a species on a planet that is warlike and violent and likes stealing territory would survive long enough to develop FTL? If so, how? I'm not saying it would be impossible, just less likely. We are fully capable of wiping out all life on this planet now. 

In fact the concept is well known to be one of the hypothesized "great filters". Self destruction is a well known "great filter". Benevolent races that have overcome their violent tendencies are obviously less likely to kill each other.

 

 

Quote

Alternatively, the Great Filter might be a consequence of technology itself. Perhaps advanced civilizations usually eradicate themselves via some sort of technology run amok, such as malevolent artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, or a doomsday machine. Humanity is already more than capable of destroying itself via global thermonuclear war. And sadly, it’s possible that such extinction events are virtually inevitable throughout the cosmos.

 

https://astronomy.com/news/2020/11/the-great-filter-a-possible-solution-to-the-fermi-paradox

 

 

Edited June 11, 2022 by martin-w

[Swe_Richard 1,172]

9 minutes ago, martin-w said:

 

Its actually common sense. Do you believe a species on a planet that is warlike and violent and likes stealing territory would survive long enough to develop FTL? If so, how? I'm not saying it would be impossible, just less likely. We are fully capable of wiping out all life on this planet now. 

In fact the concept is well known to be one of the hypothesized "great filters". Self destruction is a well known "great filter". Benevolent races that have overcome their violent tendencies are obviously less likely to kill each other.

Absolutely not. There is nothing 'common sense' about aliens needing to be some kind of benevolent hippies to reach beyond the stars. Nothing what so ever. The link you provided does in no way prove your assertion that a 'hostile' alien race would likely destroy itself before taking to the stars, it is pure speculation and nothing else. We do not know what drives the 1000 IQ ET and how it looks at 'the outgroup'.

But obviously we will never agree on this. So I'm out of this now.

[martin-w 3,235]

14 hours ago, Swe_Richard said:

Absolutely not. There is nothing 'common sense' about aliens needing to be some kind of benevolent hippies to reach beyond the stars. Nothing what so ever. The link you provided does in no way prove your assertion that a 'hostile' alien race would likely destroy itself before taking to the stars, it is pure speculation and nothing else. We do not know what drives the 1000 IQ ET and how it looks at 'the outgroup'.

But obviously we will never agree on this. So I'm out of this now.

 

 

Nowhere did I say this was definitive, nowhere did I say this could be definitively proven. In fact I made an effort to type MAY in caps and  typed "I'm not saying it would be impossible, just less likely". 

I also made sure it was absolutely clear that "self destruction" is regarded as ONE of the possible "great filters" a civilisation MAY face on the way to advanced technological capabilities like FTL. And MAY be one of the answers to the Fermi Paradox.

Of course its speculation, but speculation based on the common sense notion that multiple branches of a species all with warlike destructive tendencies, not able to leave their own planet yet, with only their own species to be at war with and destructive with, would, err, fight each other. 

We don't even know if aliens exist or if they function the way we do, or even if they are carbon based, silicone based or something even more exotic, or even if a super advanced race that's progressed to the technological level of an FTL capable species is biological, may be a machine intelligence, so yes, its always going to be speculation.. 

If you don't agree with me (and many scientists) that a highly aggressive, warlike species, with a natural tendency to kill and destroy each other would be UNLIKELY (not impossible) to survive for a few thousand years longer than we have, in order to learn enough about the laws of reality to develop an FTL system that enables them to traverse countless lightyears at unimaginable velocity... then explain how that is LIKELY rather than my opinion (and many scientists opinions) that it's potentially UNLIKELY? How would they survive? 

It certainly does seem like common sense to me, that for a species to survive for many thousands of years longer than we have (and human self destruction is something that currently concerns us all) that war, violence, and the propensity to self destruct would need to be eliminated. By definition, that implies a benevolent species not a malevolent one. 

Which species is likely to last long enough to develop FTL? Planet A: full of rival nations all with nuclear weapons (or worse) pointed at each other, that hate each other and would like to take their territory? Or planet B: where all nations live in peace and have abandoned their weapons of mass destruction?

 

 

 

Edited June 12, 2022 by martin-w

[Swe_Richard 1,172]

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

 

If you don't agree with me (and many scientists) ...

 

 

Appeal to authority. 

Pray tell, why would I put any credibility in the pontifications of scientists that speak of things of which they obviously can know nothing? Educated guesses from 'scientists' that clearly seem to have been binge-watching way too much Star Trek should be taken as gospel?

But as I said; we will never reach any kind of agreement so this is a futile waste of time.

[martin-w 3,235]

3 hours ago, Swe_Richard said:

Appeal to authority. 

 

Its not an appeal to authority, its an appeal to "expertise". We, by necessity, do it all the time in everyday life. We have to, in fact many of us would be dead if we didn't. If you are ill, you don't ask Bob the builder from down the street, you ask a doctor. If your plumbing breaks down you don't ask Karen the cake maker down the road, you ask a plumber. Not to do so is stupidity. And in this respect nobody was asked by me, rather, they just happen to have the same opinion I have.

 

3 hours ago, Swe_Richard said:

Pray tell, why would I put any credibility in the pontifications of scientists that speak of things of which they obviously can know nothing? Educated guesses from 'scientists' that clearly seem to have been binge-watching way too much Star Trek should be taken as gospel?

 

I didn't personally, I just happen to have the same opinion. But yes, you should consider that an individual with a PhD in a particular field is likely to have a belter understand than you have. And thus, be able top speculate based on the knowledge they have amassed while studying that field, better than you can. Your speculation would be based on ignorance, their speculation would be based on expertise and knowledge of the field. 

The above is nothing to do with the question I posed...

 

Quote

 

If you don't agree with me (and many scientists) that a highly aggressive, warlike species, with a natural tendency to kill and destroy each other would be UNLIKELY (not impossible) to survive for a few thousand years longer than we have, in order to learn enough about the laws of reality to develop an FTL system that enables them to traverse countless lightyears at unimaginable velocity... then explain how that is LIKELY rather than my opinion (and many scientists opinions) that it's potentially UNLIKELY? How would they survive? 

 

Which species is likely to last long enough to develop FTL? Planet A: full of rival nations all with nuclear weapons (or worse) pointed at each other, that hate each other and would like to take their territory? Or planet B: where all nations live in peace and have abandoned their weapons of mass destruction?

 

 

You do realise that the "Doomsday Clock" is currently at 4 minutes to midnight. Do you think WE will survive another 1000, 2000, 3000, years, long enough to become an interstellar species? Do you think its more likely we will if we become less aggressive and warlike and territorial and nudge the Doomsday Clock further back than 4 minutes to midnight? 

 

 

Edited June 12, 2022 by martin-w

[dmwalker 603]

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

the "Doomsday Clock" is currently at 4 minutes to midnight

Those were the good old days. Now, it's 100 seconds to midnight.

[martin-w 3,235]

10 minutes ago, dmwalker said:

Those were the good old days. Now, it's 100 seconds to midnight.

 

Is it? 😯 Good grief.