Interesting NASA paper on why intelligent life has not visited us.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/nasa-scientists-present-theory-about-why-we-havent-met-other-intelligent-life-its-crushing/ar-AA142Jt8?li=BBnbfcL

Noel

 

Yep, as we've discussed before, the most likely great filter is self destruction. The more technologically advanced we become the greater our propensity for self destruction.

I guess first we need to determine how likely technological life is in our galaxy, and it might be quite rare or nonexistent. Given that after simple life appeared on Earth it took billions of years longer for a tech species to arrive. Thus, it appears to be hard. Complex life requires a multitude of fluke occurrences.

Then we have to estimate how many of those technological specied destroyed themselves before they could make their pressence known. And that figure could be any percentage up to 100%

 

 

 

Edited November 14, 20223 yr by martin-w

2 hours ago, birdguy said:

Interesting NASA paper on why intelligent life has not visited us.

It's a bit of a stretch, ascribing human traits to aliens but, if the theory is correct, any aliens who reach Earth will presumably be really nice, friendly folks without a malicious bone in their bodies, assuming they have bones.

Yep, Civilizations are probably the Ulitmate Uninstallers....

Edited November 14, 20223 yr by jcomm

8 minutes ago, dmwalker said:

It's a bit of a stretch, ascribing human traits to aliens but, if the theory is correct, any aliens who reach Earth will presumably be really nice, friendly folks without a malicious bone in their bodies, assuming they have bones.

 

That's something I've thought about a lot. And debated here a while ago where my suggestion was argued against.

But yes, you would think that a species would have to be benevolent, to avoid self destruction, and survive long enough to develop the tech to get here.

 

18 minutes ago, martin-w said:

But yes, you would think that a species would have to be benevolent, to avoid self destruction, and survive long enough to develop the tech to get here.

Given our history up to today do you think we will ever turn benevolent to survive?

Noel

2 hours ago, birdguy said:

Given our history up to today do you think we will ever turn benevolent to survive?

Noel

 

Now here's a thought. If we, or they,  are occupying more than one world, there's more chance of the species surviving.  War on World A but not on world B C and D at the same time. 😁

Who knows what the fate of the human race is, but we certainly need to be shoving the human race further toward the benevolence end of the scale.   

5 hours ago, martin-w said:

but we certainly need to be shoving the human race further toward the benevolence end of the scale. 

Yes, but how?  How do we change the natural aggressiveness of human kind?  We are you know.  Whether we are playing chess, watching a football game, or fighting a war our aggressiveness is displayed in all of it's glory.

We see it in the business world.  We see it the competiveness of the school room.  We see it in sibling rivalry.

In society we divide into classes and the aggressiveness to get ahead even if it means stepping on some else's back.

Not all of us are.  There are plenty of passive people satisfied with where they are, who they are and what they are.  But they are not enough or powerful enough.

I could write an article on this but it would start to delve into forbidden subjects on this forum.  It's best I stop here but I think I have outlined the basics of why we are not more benevolent.

So, the problem is can we develop the means to colonize planets before we destroy ourselves?  I, for one, look around the world and remain pessimistic.  The lion will never lay down with the lamb.

Noel 

 

Edited November 15, 20223 yr by birdguy

6 hours ago, martin-w said:

War on World A but not on world B C and D at the same time.

Or, perish the thought, war between world A and world B.

Edited November 15, 20223 yr by dmwalker

9 hours ago, dmwalker said:

any aliens who reach Earth will presumably be really nice, friendly folks without a malicious bone in their bodies, assuming they have bones.

Who will look at us, scream in horror, and nuke the planet from orbit before we escape the asylum....

Edited November 15, 20223 yr by HiFlyer

   It seems that this conjecture seems rather presumptuous on the part of the NASA team.  It appears to be more of a warning to Earth's population, now numbering about 8 billion, that time may not be on our side in the coming millennia... 

I have never believed in Extraterrestrial Life since the first and last time I ever seriously considered the possibility but there is a whole bunch of main stream positions that I completely disagree with.

Edited November 15, 20223 yr by FBW737

8 hours ago, dmwalker said:

Or, perish the thought, war between world A and world B.

 

Yes but the species still survives on C D and E and F 😁

11 hours ago, birdguy said:

Yes, but how? 

 

Well what do you think the feline master race is here for. 😄

 

11 hours ago, birdguy said:

How do we change the natural aggressiveness of human kind?  We are you know.  Whether we are playing chess, watching a football game, or fighting a war our aggressiveness is displayed in all of it's glory.

 

True, but we are less aggressive as a species surprisingly. Cast your mind back to the middle ages, when you couldn't walk the streets in safety and punishments' consisted of being hung drawn and quartered, and all manner of abhorrent things. Rape, pillage were the norm. Wars were all over the globe and a way of life for many. So e have made progress, hopefully that will continue, hopefully fast enough. 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228340-100-steven-pinker-humans-are-less-violent-than-ever/

 

11 hours ago, birdguy said:

So, the problem is can we develop the means to colonize planets before we destroy ourselves?

 

Yep... very true.  The Moon and Mars looks to be within the near term, so hopefully yes. But of course they would have to be self sufficient. 

7 hours ago, overspeed3 said:

   It seems that this conjecture seems rather presumptuous on the part of the NASA team.  It appears to be more of a warning to Earth's population, now numbering about 8 billion, that time may not be on our side in the coming millennia... 

 

Not sure about presumptuous, speculative yes, because assumptions need to be made. 

 

6 hours ago, FBW737 said:

I have never believed in Extraterrestrial Life since the first and last time I ever seriously considered the possibility but there is a whole bunch of main stream positions that I completely disagree with.

 

Interesting... care to share why?