Slashdot Mirror
Stephen Hawking Thinks Aliens Likely
OMNIpotusCOM writes "Noted astrophysicist Stephen Hawking thinks that alien life is likely, albeit primitive, according to a lecture delivered at George Washington University in honor of NASA's 50th anniversary. It begs the question of if we need to consider a Prime Directive before exploring or sending signals too far into the depths of space."
No it does not. Kindly switch off the television now. If the universe were chock full of alien life that you couldn't miss if you threw a stone, and if we were somehow superior in technology and progress to all of them, then it MIGHT become an issue. But not in your lifetime, bub.
Will they simply laugh at us earthlings; or shake their heads in frustration, wondering "when will we ever learn"?
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
firstly many Scientists have came to that conclusion, Many mathematically proven that even if you call life rare, the sheer number of stars with the possibility of planets in a habitable zone means there is a crapload of civilizations out there.
Hawking has said this before earlier as well. Just because he makes the same statement again instantly makes this news??
Come on the Drake Equation has been around for a long time now guys.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
No, it doesn't. There. Got that out of the way.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
We, as a species, haven't managed to solve the problem of destroying primitive cultures *here* or a thousand other problems that suggest not corrupting alien cultures is something we shouldn't worry too much about.
I mean seriously -- if we think our technology and culture is okay for the entire planet, why should we stop here?
You're absolutely right! We should definitely set hold back on all the space exploration we've been doing. Also, we should set physical limits for our transmissions to "expire" after a certain distance, so we don't send them "too far". In fact, that would be the only responsible thing to do for Masters of the Universe such as us.
An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
A prime directive is a great idea. It provides the 100% certainty that it will not be followed any in instance the plot line requires it.
we should be sure of two things. one, is it friendly? and two, are they willing to share in their probably vast knowledge? if the first is no, then it would have been better to not have found life in the first place. if the second question is no, then we need to prove that we are not as violent as we really are. if the second one is yes, then we should take great care not to turn on them.
If people can get past, can they get future? Best way to confuse a stoner
But...but...the sumbitter managed to insert a spurious Star Trek reference!!! Surely that is newsworthy!
"Aliens being likely" does not mean that it's likely we will ever meet one (or be successful in either sending or receiving any communication).
He is correct, we are primitive. Lets hope that there are smarter aliens out there.
don't you know that?
If people can get past, can they get future? Best way to confuse a stoner
There are more enlightened beings in the universe than us and their prime directive policies keep them from contacting us.
As much as it's noble to not want to interfere with the development of other species on other planets, if they're scanning the skies looking for radio signals from distant worlds, they're probably about as advanced as we are and it's rather conceited of us to assume that we're smarter or better off than these people. And really, any interaction with intelligent beings from other worlds would probably have a profound effect on us as well.
what's that now?
and arrogant to assume that all other life in the universe is more primitive than our own.
52 52'23" W 47 32'07" N
1: I too believe there's alien life. In fact, I have no doubt that there is.
2: I suspect there's no other intelligent/space faring life in our galaxy, but probably there is in other galaxies. (Fermi paradox and Tipler-Barrow arguments both are pretty convincing to me).
For me, #1 means that we should be careful to make sure our spaceships are bug free so we don't contaminate places we land on with life that could wipe out any indigenous life.
For #2, it means that it's impossible for us to ever have a meaningful conversation with other life (assuming I'm right that there's no other intelligent/spacefaring civilizations in our galaxy).
So, I don't think we need to be too concerned with sending out signals. By the time they reach any other life, we'll either be gone, or we will have colonized the entire galaxy, which means we'd likely be safe from extermination. I suspect those are the only 2 realistic probabilities.
Was there a planet that Kirk/Picard/Janeway didn't leave in a fundamentally different state after turning up?
Humans are designed to trade, travel and exploit resources. Then move on when there are too many tourists.
Frankly, I'm surprised there isn't aready a Prime Directive that reads:
"See that blue/green planet with all the space junk and EM noise? You want to leave that one well alone!"
Wouldnt you know that on Drudge Report this morning the top new article heading is "MYSTERY LIGHTS OVER ARIZONA, FLORIDA; RESIDENTS SPOOKED"...
:)
So yes, it must be a slow news day...
The Prime Directive applies when an advanced culture encounters a more primitive one. While I think there is alien life out there, I seriously doubt that we'll find anyone more primitive than us.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Stephen Hawking is a brilliant man who once claimed to be fortunate to suffer from ALS, because it gives him far more time to think and do things that normal people would instead spend on other activities (because they can).
The only problem I have with his statements at GWU is that he is focusing too much on radio waves. He is speculating that since we haven't detected any radio waves, it is unlikely that any intelligent civilization exists close to earth (and by close, I mean in astronomical measures).
In my opinion, scientists are taking too much for granted when looking for life. We assume that it is more likely to find life wherever water exists and we constantly assume that the conditions must be earth-like. And regarding the radio waves, I don't understand why an extraterrestrial civilization would even need to use such technology. It is just as likely that they communicate in entirely different ways. After all, hearing and seeing is just one way of living, but not a necessity.
I realize that radio waves occur from more than just television shows, but this is mainly the type of signals we look for since the odds of intended communications from other planets are insanely small.
Full Tilt
"Hello Mr. Alien. Welcome to our planet. Boy, you sure are more advanced than us!"
"Why, yes, we are, thank you. By the way, I couldn't help noticing that many of you still die from cancer."
"'Still die'? You mean you don't?"
"Oh, no, we cured that a long time ago. Same for that crooked politician thing you've got going. And war. Oh, and that thing you call 'Alzheimers', too. And global warming. We don't have any of that. They all turned out to be really simple to fix, in fact."
"Really? that's wonderful. Will you teach us how to solve these things."
"What? No, no, child, your culture isn't ready for all that. Besides, you're so cute the way you are. No, we'll just stay up in our ships and watch you figure it out. It will probably take several more generations, but that's OK, with our advanced medical technology, we will live long enough to see it... unless you wipe yourselves out in the process, that is. He he. You amuse us."
"Asshole"
Insightful and funny are really the same thing, except one has a punch line.
... assume that other life in the Universe is primitive. That way of thinking just reveals our primitive nature in thinking we are still the only form of "intelligent life" in this Great Universe filled with Billions of galaxies just like ours.
Get a big clue, Earth people. They're here and have been longer than you care to learn about.
Continue on with arrogant thinking!
Is still slow. Our radiowaves have barely traveled any distance in intersteller terms.
Ahem, I suspect he is a little more tha noted. He holds the same chair as Sir Isaac Newton did at Cambridge University, worked out how black holes work and is probably the most famous scientist in the world. Even the article says:
America, Home of the Brave.
Honestly, the Prime Directive was the dumbest shit in the show. Any captain worth watching gave it the finger every three episodes. Programs of organized uplift would make much more sense. I mean we'd only hope for the same if somebody better ever finds us. Golden Rule and all that.
How much more proof does one need to understand that there is an intelligent presence in our skies?
http://www.disclosureproject.org/aboutexecsumm.htm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1166743665260900218
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Given that we now have (to the best of our knowledge) accurate estimates as to the size and make up of the Universe, probability wise, this is common sense.
Hawking is a long way past his prime. Once your average Scientist hits 30, their mind will slow down, and it's likely you won't see much groundbreaking research from them.
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
This equation was devised by Dr. Frank Drake (now Professor Emeritus of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of California, Santa Cruz) in 1960, in an attempt to estimate the number of extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy with which we might come in contact. The main purpose of the equation is to allow scientists to quantify the uncertainty of the factors which determine the number of such extraterrestrial civilizations.
There is no page titled "Drake equation".
"D'Oh... I really should have read that book by that wheelchair guy." ~ Homer Simpson on Quantum Singularities
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
They've seen our television.
Not only are the game shows bad, the soap operas moronic, and the news hours obviously paid advertisements, but our shopping network features declasse technology.
From what they can tell, showing up on earth and saying "I am an alien" is a quick way to get a dead-end job in food service.
They're hanging out in the horsehead nebula, periodically manipulating us with botnets comprised of compromised Windows machines.
technical writing / development
The Prime Directive, is a dramatic device, no more. It has no universally applicable elements.
We as a species have not even managed to apply the rules it describes to ourselves yet. The idea that we could apply such a thing to aliens when we can't even agree not to bankrupt poorer nations in the name of banking profits is laughable at best, deeply disturbing at worse.
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
Not going into outer space might mean not having the future version of KFC!
Hawking is a true Man of the People, he knows what the people want, vote this guy for president!
Please.
Scientists Prove Headline Simplification Sometimes Deleterious Headline Intelligibility.
Film 11, Tuned.
"Let's face it, it's a good story. Accuracy would kill it."
Of course there is life on other planets. There is evidence of life previously existing on Mars.
UFOTV: Life On MARS-New Scientific Evidence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u-20g7Bwdw
* "The natural origin hypothesis is disproved at odds of 1000 billion billion to one."
* "The artificiality of Cydonia is established beyond a reasonable doubt."
I agree, since I am one of them. ...Zaphod
Now a couple of reasons why Hawking may be totally wrong.
- 1. We have no evidence that we as a species will ever be able to deploy enough energy or resources to move beyond this solar system. We can already foresee the end of cheap energy, and it is all we can do to lift a few tonnes to low earth orbit. It is quite possible that the Universe is so arranged that almost every possible life form is trapped in its own solar system.
- 2. The period in which we have emitted significant radio waves into space is barely 100 years, and more and more we are moving to very short range low power transmitters. It's quite possible that every civilisation does that and so, except for a narrow window of a hundred years or so, is effectively radio silent. You might pick up a primitive 50s and 60s AM transmitter (think Voice of America and megawatts on a narrow frequency band) but not all those Bluetooth devices.
If both of these are correct, the chance that we will detect another civilisation is extraordinarily small even if they are extremely common. In fact, the growing knowledge of carbon chemistry - graphenes and so on - and clays suggest that there are many opportunities for substrates to arise that might hold together primitive organics long enough for life to get a start. It's a subject which is getting increasingly interesting; if you take enough surface area and spread enough small molecules over it for long enough under enough variations of conditions, something is more or less bound to happen. Recent research also seems to suggest that there could be planets around smaller and so longer-lived stars which might have conditions suitable for the formation of life for much longer than the Earth will. Our own planet may be a lot less than optimal. In which case life is likely to be very common indeed, but the low energy environments in which it evolves may make it quite unsuitable for expanding from one star to another.And why should it? The belief that there is something special about the human race which justifies its long term existence is as "religious" as any theistic religion, and no more defensible.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Thats because he's smart.
The days of the digital watch are numbered.
The other person first rule and the Ladies first rule. (And I think there's something stronger about the Ladies first rule when there's a queen on the English throne, at least traditionally.)
You have to consider where we are..
We are in a large galaxy, in an infinitely sized universe, in an infinite length time period.
In our infinitely sized universe, we are one of an infinite number of number of galaxies.
In those galaxies, there are a finite number of stars (oh my gosh, that's limiting). Assume our galaxy may be average, with over 200 billion stars. Assume the average star has 8 satellites, and at least 4 are in an orbit close enough to the star to sustain life as we know it.
Just in our galaxy, that makes our little star 1 in 400,000,000,000.
Now, multiple the number of planets that may hold life by infinity.
But, why should we believe that all life has a common starting point (please don't bring up theology in this discussion). There is an infinite time line that life and even civilizations could have come and gone.
I seriously doubt that we are the lone intelligent life in this galaxy. There may have already been civilizations that have come and gone, or that haven't even started yet.
In the universe? It's incomprehensible that we could be alone. We had dumb luck on this planet, and I'm sure it's happened elsewhere too.
The question for encountering aliens would be...
If they exist now, how far away are they? I doubt they're parked behind the moon, waiting for an invitation. Maybe we're so far away from them, that no matter how much noise we make, we're undetectable. From the other side of the galaxy, we're just a faint dot. From galaxies over, they could only theorize that we're here.
It's perfectly possible though that this same conversation is happening in another galaxy, and someone there would say "but we're the only ones. There is no other life.", and we'll continue not to find out.
I think our best chance for a kick start into advancing ourselves would be to start exploring. In time, I suspect we would find artifacts of civilizations which have passed close to here before, and that may give us a bit more information on where to go and how to find others.
For now, we haven't made any serious progress off this rock, and the current social and political environments aren't pushing for the serious advancement of our own space travel to find out.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
If you make contact with an alien culture you're potentially interfering in their development, and their culture might be destroyed or radically changed by the alteration. But if you don't, the economy suffers.
I don't just mean in terms of bigger markets, either. We tend to look on globalization as a bad thing when it comes to primitive cultures, but that doesn't mean they look at it that way. They may worry sometimes about losing hold of the way things were, about change, but that doesn't mean they don't want modern medicine and running water.
Granted, that doesn't necessarily mean they want everything else in our society... but a Prime Directive without exceptions is really a pretty terrible thing. It's seeing two kids on a street and knowing one of them's about to get hit by a car, and not warning them about it. Alien technologies--or our technologies for aliens--may well save lives and give new ways of doing things.
Economics and morality are sometimes on the same side.
Surely its Bill Gate's fault. in a perfect world everyone would wear star trek jumpsuits and run lunix. except the borg.
What if alien TV transmissions consist entirely of little white dots running around on a black background saying "Shhhhhhh" non-stop?
"We don't appear to have been visited by aliens... Why would they only appear to cranks and weirdoes?"
What?
I think the main issue here is probably not going to be 'does it exist', but more whether we'll even recognize it as life once (if) we find it.
The amount of lifeforms found on earth itself that were considered impossible (think the whole ecology based around life based on sulphur energy without any influence from the sun), is quite large already.
Our preconception of how life 'should be' or should look like is quite certainly going to be an enormous hindrance in actually considering life to be 'life' if we ever do encounter it.
Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
First contact protocol:
Anonymous stealth mission
Objective: How do they taste?
It's possible that there is other life elsewhere, and nearly a certainty that it exists elsewhen.
We just need to work out how to get there after it exists and before it's "Best if eaten by" date.
how it was he had come to live in his mother's basement, existing on hot pockets, energy drinks and anime pr0n...
Power does not corrupt - power attracts the corrupt.
From TFA...
"The discovery of the New World made a profound difference to the old. Just think we wouldn't have had a Big Mac or KFC."
He says that like its a good thing.
It is far easier for people here to believe in little green men than God. It might be even more assuring the first exist and second doesn't for many.
If SH had come out and said God exists people would brand him scooters.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
However, because alien life might not have DNA like us, Hawking warned: "Watch out if you would meet an alien. You could be infected with a disease with which you have no resistance.
I am surprised by this quote, and maybe a bit elevated that Hawking is not perfect and doesn't know everything.
It is unlikely that any truly alien life can infect or even eat us. Viruses work because they evolved to work on earth-bound DNA structures. Few viruses can infect multiple species. Chimps are 98%~99% exactly the same as human and few viruses can infect both. A truly alien virus infecting us would be like one of our viruses infecting gasoline or some other organic compound. (Assuming aliens are organic)
Similarly, the "chain of life" where compatible proteins and compounds are consumed by predators (yes we prey on plants, they just don't defend themselves all that often.) is more narrow than you would think as many plants and parts of animals are poisonous. The notion that an alien biology would have any sort of compatibility is, on the surface, absurd.
All that being said, if an alien species was able to eat us or vice versa, or infect us, it would probably support the notion that life on earth was caused by cosmic panspermia.
I just wish they weren't taking my job.
Nuke them from orbit. It is the only way to be sure.
Plans to recognize alien signals are all based on finding redundancies in the transmission. But from the point of view of an alien signal engineer all redundancies are opportunities to save energy and transmission time by adding compression! The more compression you add, the more your signal looks like random noise. Also the aliens might be using spread spectrum techniques which make a signal even more difficult to detect.
Think of it, the FCC is already starting to require TV signals to move to digital in order to save bandwidth that can be resold to the cell phone companies. How long will it be till the FCC requires that these signals be compressed? Our signals are already becoming more difficult to detect.
Probably in the natural technical evolution of any species there is only a very small window where the species is smart enough to use radio energy for communication but not smart enough to use enough compression to make its signals look like random noise.
Thus our SETI efforts are looking for a needle in a heystack and failure only indicates that species in a transitional phase like us is very rare.
Stephen Hawking should have thought of this.
No, we don't know any such thing.
Current life technology is based ultimately on oil- or coal-derived fuels and there is no realistic prospect that we will have enough of these to support a serious space program. Point me in the direction of a single alternative technology that will provide the kind of energy required.
Even assuming such a technology, consider the effect on the atmosphere of launching through it the quantities of stuff needed to build a base somewhere that could act as a resource centre for further advance. Even the dumbest politicians won't support a project that would probably wipe out life on Earth.
The fact is that our civilisation runs on oil and coal - still. Every improvement in utilisation has been incremental; there have been no serious technical breakthroughs for over 100 years (gas engine, gas turbine and Diesel are all over 100 years old.) Our current civilisation is dependent on using up irreplaceable fuels. All the proposed technical fixes - nuclear, wind, wave - are either heavy plant (nuclear) or low energy density (wind and wave.)
Given the relationship between star size and longevity (it's inverse) we can safely say that the more likely a civilisation is to be around long enough to develop technology, the more likely it is to run out of energy before going anywhere.
"It means that the first species capable of colonizing the galaxy, WILL colonize the galaxy before any other life can get a chance to evolve" - again untrue unless seen from hindsight. The capability to expand beyond your own planet is useless if the nearest planets do not have the resources to permit further expansion. If you don't understand that, learn some military history and you will start to understand the problems of supply logistics. As Winston Churchill once remarked in WW2, when someone criticised the Egyptian government "It takes 20 Egyptians to keep one British soldier in the front line." For space colonisation, I suspect the numbers are more like millions to one.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Your sentence almost works, but saying "I bought a soda for me and my wife" is just as factually incorrect as "I bought a soda for the Easter Bunny to share with me". I think you really meant to say "I bought myself a soda", because that sentence contains no references to mythical or nonexistent beings.
Remember where you are, man.
"Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix"- Kieren O'Shaughnessy
because chances are that if they are more advanced than us, they will exploit us in some way.
And if we are more advanced than them, we will exploit them.
I think it's more likely that, in an evolutionary time-frame, we'll colonize our solar system (and beyond), and extra-terrestrial humans will evolve in different directions and become the "aliens".
but a Prime Directive without exceptions is really a pretty terrible thing.
I always assumed that the Prime Directive was (in theory) so strict because it was (supposed to be)based on bitter experience, i.e. that even very limited intervention in very specific circumstances involving pre-space travel cultures was almost invariably disastrous (e.g. you would always end up being regarded as some sort of super beings or gods, and that this would typically sap the will of the contacted species to develop along its own path and cause stagnation and cultural death.)
I can't imagine it would do the human race much good if we knew that just about every scientific achievement we could possibly make in the next thousand years was sitting there already on a plate for us. If the 'aliens' didn't give us the technology we'd (collectively) come to resent and later hate them (think of all the people dying unnecessarily because they won't give us this or that medical breakthrough). We (or our military at least) would become obsessed with stealing that technology, possibly causing a fatal conflict.
If the aliens did give us the technology we'd probably be reduced to the level of infants playing with 'powerful magic' (since we wouldn't have the capacity to understand technology a thousand years in advance). We'd come to resent our infantile status (and any limits which were put on our technology use for our own safety).
Assuming that it is impossible to travel faster than light and nearest habitable planets are hundreds to thousands of lightyears away. Why would aliens waste their time coming here? I can give you one very good reason: colonization. If they came, it would be the beginning of the end for us. They don't need to fly thousands of years through space to 'study' or 'meet' us. They would come out of necessity. One possible reason could be that their planet has been exhausted or has become inhabitable for another reason.
Hoping to find friends from desperate aliens is just wishful thinking. Would we save a primitive alien civilization in it's entirety in the same situation? No. We would preserve it but not save it. We would drive it into reservations like the Americans (or should we call them illegal immigrants) did with Native Americans.
The Drake Equation: N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL Where N* is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live.
This serious-looking equation gave SETI an serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. As for aliens causing Global Warming, read about the Science here.
Many mathematically proven that even if you call life rare, the sheer number of stars with the possibility of planets in a habitable zone means there is a crapload of civilizations out there.
Just as the number of planets and start can be very large, the chances of life can be very close to zero. We can make estimates about the number of planets and stars.. but how do you make an estimate on the chances of life arising?
I don't believe we know enough at this point to make any kind of decent stab at this, other than to say it's not zero (since we obviously exist).
AccountKiller
Is this a guess? Hasn't this guy ever been in a fucking Wal Mart? That place makes the Star Wars cantina look like a Protestant congregation.
Planets don't have much resources. If you want fuel, there are plenty of gas giants. Materials are better gathered from moons and asteroids with low gravity.
The only thing the Earth could offer a species capable of traveling between stars is information, and the most efficient way of gaining that is through trade.
Rather than a "non-interference" decree, we should be broadcasting MAYDAY in all directions. Odds are disturbingly high that within the 1000 years it would take for such a message to reach an space-faring civilization, and for that civilization to in turn visit us, the human race will have managed to permanently trap itself in Earth's gravity well by destroying its industrial infrastructure, irradiating the majority of the food supply, and/or salinating its most productive croplands. Not 100%, but say... 40%. There are some kinds of Dark Ages that you don't build your way back out of. Our industrial capacity is currently built on MILLENIA of stored energy reserves left over from the Big Bang and prehistory. If we had only solar energy to rely on, we'd have a pathetically feeble spacefaring ability.
So which intelligent species is more likely to survive: one that has a "prime directive" and doesn't interfere with other civilizations or one that views other planets as ripe for the taking.
Federation Man: "Our Prime Directive instructs us not to interfere with the development of your culture."
Alien: "Good because, our culture is adequately developed already and our Prime Directive says we can assimilate you and take all of your resources.
Guess who wins. If its not obvious think about the history of Native Americans.
http://xkcd.com/384/
I just type my sig in the reply form...
To find out why, read The Killing Star... If you can find a copy :p
As long as we pose no threat they'll ignore use.
Seriously, if there are lifeforms intelligent enough to know us without us knowing them they are intelligent enough to stay away from us. Besides why waste the advantage anyway? The fact is we aren't even capable of getting along with ourselves; so how could we with aliens? Not worth it, period.
Unexplained UFOs spotted over Phoenix, AZ and St. Augustine, FL! What better way to illustrate the truth of Hawking's statements.
I, for one, welcome our new, yet still anonymous alien overlords.. (oblig)
I always knew this guy was pretty smart.
I am continually amazed by Stephen Hawking's hubris. How the hell does he know at what stage of development some alien life form is? To presume that they would be primitive is pure conjecture. He is such and arrogant prick. He is just an angry, twisted, mangled, remnant of a human being. If ever there was a troll, it would be STEPHEN HAWKING!
Hey. It worked in the Middle East.
Have gnu, will travel.
Misusing "begs the question" is actually worse than mixing up the case of pronouns. Mixing up "I" and "we" just doesn't sound right. Misusing "begging the question" can lead readers to make incorrect inferences.
It is often correctly pointed out that phrases and words change their meanings over time, and that ultimately no harm is done as long as the reader is aware of whether the modern or antiquated sense is being used by the writer. However, it is seldom noted that this process is not accomplished at a single instant. This means that there is a considerable period in which deliberate or accidentally misleading use can occur.
It is not even the case that "beg the question" has flipped meanings; it is still in common use in its original sense. A close analogy would be the use of "literally" to mean "very", a sense in which it may well be heard more frequently than in the standard one. "Literally" still means "not in a metaphorical sense". However, we know when an overheated sportscaster says that a linebacker "literally tore off the quarterback's head," he doesn't mean that, in plain fact, the quarterback's head has parted company with his torso.
The misuse of "begging the question" is likewise detectable by common sense. In the standard sense, if question A begs the question B, then an answer must be determined for B prior to raising A. The classic example is "Have you stopped beating your wife?" The incorrect ("colloquial" if you will) sense of the phrase means exactly the opposite: by asserting that B is a natural thing to ask after you have an answer for A, you logically don't need an answer to B before you consider A.
This isn't just a usage quibble; the non-standard use of "begging the question" is potentially much more harmful than "literally"/"very", because it can sometimes mask an attempt to assert two incompatible things at the same time. This most often occurs in an argument against something in which a writer is not forthright about his actual justifications.
As an example, consider this: "The committee report says we only have half as many math elementary school math teachers as we need. This begs the question of whether we can afford them." The speaker is not claiming any burden of proof other than that if we are thinking about doubling the number of math teachers we'll certainly want to know how much it will cost. However, he is also asserting it is meaningless to consider the question of whether more teachers could raise math performance until a budget debate has taken place, an assertion that carries a much higher burden of proof.
Really, it is the habit of reflexive verbal amplification that has to be watched. It is usually just harmless posturing, but it can also easily mask an attempt to twist words so that they support a conclusion that is unjustified by their semantics.
It is not so much the case that bad writing ought to be derided, as it is the case that it should be distrusted. Clear thought is seldom expressed in sloppy writing, but sloppy thought often is.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Right or Wrong. It's reality. Hence, Star Trek trumps Star Wars.
You'd have to be pretty egotistical to believe that Earth is the only life sustaining planet in all of the mind-bogglingly huge, ever-expanding universe.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
I love how scientists always make the 'albeit primitive' qualifier when they talk about alien life. Given the infinite nature of the universe, I'd expect a couple of these alien life forms to be equal or even 'superior' to us. I just hope we find Endor before we find the Borg collective... I think the Ewoks would be a little easier to deal with during first contact. :D
Okay, the universe is 13.73 B years old. It's 92 B light-years wide. Assuming the universe is a sphere, the volume of the universe is 4/3*pi*46^3 = 407513 B cubic light years.
.09% of the universe.
Let's assume that some alien race was sufficiently evolved right after the big bang to start sending out radio waves at the speed of light, and they never stop. They would need to be within the volume of space around us defined by the age of the universe: 4/3*pi*13.73^3 = 10836 B cubic light years.
This is about 2.7% of the universe, so we'd hear any alien civ that started sending out radio waves at the big bang and happened to be in the same small neighborhood of the universe as us.
Of course, in reality it would take billions of years for the universe to cool enough for any civ to evolve enough to send out radio waves, in which case we'd only hear them if they are *really* close to us. Let's say some alien civ started sending out radio waves when Earth was formed 4.5 B years ago. Then the neighborhood would be 4/3*pi*4.5^3 = 381 =
So it's no surprise that we haven't heard anything yet. In fact, the odds of hearing anything are extremely small if you assume that other races have evolved at the same rate as us... We've only been sending out radio waves for a couple hundred years.
Can anyone correct my back-of-the-envelope computations? How does the math change as the universe expands?
One thing I've been thinking about. FTL travel doesn't guarantee they'll make it here. We run into plenty of stuff here right in our own solar-system/planet/backyard that ends up being rather fatal, so why should the universe-at-large be any different? I'm sure there are plenty of ways to die, from singular, to collective, to whole-fricking-species death.
So not only do they have to make it here, they have to do so safely.
Now to add to that, any species that manages to do so is going to have a fairly hefty survival instinct. That means they're likely either going to be your option-1, or:
3) Careful, somewhat paranoid, and probably smart enough to do some from-the-distance observation for a really long time, rather than jumping into interaction with a race with a penchant for making pretty much any new technology into a weapon.
Because yeah, I'm sure that there are scary things out there in the universe, but I'm not entirely sure that others might not regards us humans as one of them...
Let's not overlook the blatant usage error; "begs the question" is not the same as "raises the question."
Allright. My first reaction to the summary was: 50 years later and we are still having the same "is there any intelligent life out there" wondering? :).
Not only they have crashed or landed multiple times in our deserts, not only our scientists have confirmed panspermia to be a reality, not only are millions of people who know by personal experience that extraterrestrials are visiting, but, what are we waiting for? that our governments "officially" recognize this reality to believe in it? How many brainwashed individuals will not believe even if one of this called ET were to stand in front of them?
Think about the possibility that these beings are actually friends (read Ami, child of the stars) instead of Alien vs. predator. Think about the networks we could build, the code we could produce, the powers we could unleash...
We have developed a model of science and technology evolution called open source based on good will of individuals sharing because they want to. Can we then, develop new ways to extract energy from anything else but oil? Can we make cars run with water? Can we, can we?...
"The end of times" is approaching, it will be an end for all those circumstances that we do not want in our lives, and those in power (the military, industry, war machinery, etc.) have their days counted. Think about it like a day not far away in the future living without RIAAs or GEZs, without software patents, with transportation that do not pollute, without contaminated food and water, without governments destroying foreigners and its own people alike. Think about living without wars, with peace, and you will feel these days are long overdue. If these are our wishes let`s dream about them, and work that this may become a reality. Let`s send a clear message to the people beyond our earth: We had enough, now observe how do we re-engineer ourselves, and any help is welcome
Actually, without going too much into details, some things make so much and evolved independently so many times on Earth, that they make sense when you think of it.
Or even better explained: they make sense when you
A) want an alien at least evolved enough to hold a conversation with. Bacteria are exciting for biologists, but an alien you can actually make contact with, has damn good reasons to indeed look kinda like us.
B) take evolution and RL constraints into consideration. It's easy to imagine giant amoeba creatures, or sacs of gas floating on Jupiter, but those tend to either (I) have blatant disadvantages that natural selection would discriminate against, or (II) they're bloody impossible. E.g., a cell is really just a drop of sea water in a lipid membrane, and evolved from some aminoacid chains which originally started replicating in plain sea water without a membrane. And from there it's been baby steps towards any complex organisms. It was first just bacterial films, then some "worms" which were just a toroidal bacterial film and "sponges" which were just a bacterial colony with holes in it, and so on. Most fantasy extraterestrial forms proposed, like those giant gas sacks, it's not clear how they'd evolve in the first place.
But anyway, that in mind, I'll say that, for example:
- to start with the easy part, any creature of any complexity above "bacterial colony" will have specialized cells for specialized tasks. Simply because it's a huge advantage to. Cells on your skin need to largely insulate you from the uncontrolled outside world, while cells inside need to allow a freer flow of nutrients, for example. As an added bonus, specialization also means that each cell only needs a smaller set of proteins and reactions to do its job, which reduces its energy and nutrient needs and also the number of things that can go wrong.
So basically this rules out any ideas some may have about sentient amorphous blobs.
- almost any creature has either bilateral or radial symmetry, simply because it saves on DNA. Your left side is largely a mirrored copy of your right side. It also has advantages like that it's easier to swim or walk when your left and right legs/fins/tentacles are the same length. And having redundant organs is an advantage by itself too.
- any complex creature will have _some_ sensory organs, because again it's a great advantage to. Even some of the most primitive cells can detect changes in the environment, and react to them in one way or another. Some unicelular organisms already have light sensors. Over time some stuff will remain rather distributed, but high-bandwidth stuff like eyes, it makes sense to have a small number and complex/high-res, rather than photosensitivity all over your body. Other stuff tends to work _because_ it's a single structure instead of a widely distributed array, e.g., hearing. Etc. Basically given enough time and evolution, see the previous stuff about specialization: a lot of things will get concentrated and specialized.
- almost any complex creature will have a mouth at one end and an arse at the other end, simply because it all evolved out of some ultra-primitive worms which were just a thin tube that pushed water from one end to the other. And evolution works in baby steps, small changes to what already existed. Even the exceptions tend to be actually really built the same way. E.g., gasteropods have a funkier configuration, but start as the above described tube anyway: later a diagonal muscle twists them into an different configuration.
- neurons (or whatever the alien equivalent is), are inherently slow, compared to transistors. They're chemical things, just because they evolved out of other cells, and that's how cells work. They don't have to just transmit the signal, they actually have to produce chemicals to excite the next neuron's receptors, and then neutralize those so the next one doesn't keep firing for ever. Again, _because_ they evolved from other cells, which are just a complex chemistry run
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Another issue: Even if they're transmitting, how hard are they doing it, and how hard are we listening?
.1 HZ and 22 Terrawatts of EIRP! That, at least to me, indicates a rather extraordinary amount of effort. For a spherical transmission you're talking about 22k nuclear plants. Heck, even with a very directional transmitter, effectively aiming it at us, you're still looking at putting at least one huge power plant behind it.
I mean, if you look at thei figures for the SETI project and how far away they'd be able to detect another planet with identical transmission patterns to the earth(well, in the past a number of years equal to their distance).
It's well under a hundred ly. Heck, 'I love lucy' doesn't make it past Pluto in recognizable strength! source.
Oh yeah, you can get 720 light years of range - while transmitting at
Even for smaller efforts, you're talking a LOT of power.
I'm a bit surprised that I haven't seen the old equation(I'm paraphrasing it)
X1 chance of a solar system having planets
X2 chance that a solar system with planets, having planets in the zone suitable for life
X3 chance that the planet in the zone has the right composition to support life
X4 chance that life developes
X5 chance that, life having developed, that intelligent life develops
X6 chance that, intelligent life developing, that they become a technological civilization capable of using radio, and either transmitting to be found or listening hard enough to hear us.
Put all that together with stuff we're finding out about how relatively rare a solar system like ours is and even the vast amount of stars tends to make the odds of one being in our detection zone very, very small.
Far enough out, as a matter of fact, that I figure that if lightspeed is indeed a hard limit, if we don't find a method to accellerate like in most SciFi, that 10% of LS for a ship is being optimistic.
In such a scenario I figure that by the time a civilization is good enough to travel between stars to colonize other systems it's beyond the need or want for planets.
I don't read AC A human right
My guess is if there's other intelligent life, they are just like us, are more technologically advanced than we are and live in the equivalent of our 1690's because they like it.
Also, since they have time travel capabilities, they would have seen our Austin Powers movies and, when it comes time for the Revolutionary War, they'll skip it so they don't give Americans just a gaping opportunity to poke fun at British people.
we won't ever meet one because our totalitarian government has suppressed anything to do with them and will continue to do so as long as the government exists
We have a well understood and well observed mechanism for getting from primitive life to more complex life. We don't have a well understood mechanism for abiogenesis. So it's interesting that Hawking thinks that abiogenesis is commonplace but that complex life forms are not.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
We don't understand the universe entirely yet - how can we have the unmitigated ego to say FTL is impossible?
We don't know what the dark matter is. We don't know where the dark energy is. We don't understand the Pioneer anomaly. In short, there's a lot we don't know about the nature and the structure of the universe and travel through it. But somehow, with all these gaps in our knowledge we're so sure FTL is impossible?
Nonsense.
The only thing we are certain of is that we don't know it all yet. So FTL could still be out there. Saying it's impossible is foolish.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I remember a story that I read long ago in a compilation of Sci-Fi short stories where we were visited by a group of aliens that thought they were going to subjucate us, believing that they were superior because they had FTL travel. They leave their spaceship to face the primitive earthmen... with their muskets. It seems theat to them and most other races that FTL travel was so easy that they never had to develop weapons of mass destruction, tanks, and other weapons of war. The story ended with the aliens lamenting that they had just give us, a warlike planet of much superior weapons, the keys to the galexy.
If something hard to us maybe easy to them, the oppisite may be true too.
Fear the power of NTie!
The chances of hearing 'decimate' used correctly anywhere have been decimated in the last 50 years.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You can have FTL travel. What I really want is to travel faster than death.
Well, the method of action for most bacteria and viruses is not to 'eat' our DNA. Instead, they take control of the cellular machinery and processes within our cells to reproduce.
No, only viruses do that and they do it out of necessity because they have no cellular machinery of their own. Bacteria and fungi absolutely can 'eat' our DNA along with whatever nutritious compounds we happen to be made of.
Therefore, alien bacteria, fungi and viruses (if such ecological analogues exist) have to be attuned to our DNA.
This is just not true, any more than a mushroom needs to be attuned to the DNA of horse crap in order to consume it.
For alien symbiotes to reproduce within our bodies, they need to be able to utilize our mitochondria, nuclei, and membrane proteins. How can an alien species possibly be expected to make use of a complex set of machinery that they were never exposed to?
How about by just being able to make use of the basic nutrients found in our bodies? I don't think tapeworms are attuned to human DNA, yet there are many people who have tapeworms.Putting moderation advice in your
Intelligence brings with it an element of self destruction. Life is rare, and intelligent life is rarer, but sustainable intelligent life is rarest, if not impossible. The further science takes us, the easier it will become to destroy ourselves, and it will only be a matter of time before someone or something kills us all, be it on purpose or by accident.
This would be the case for any intelligent life, so the chances for two surviving species to then meet would be pretty difficult even if alien life is considered a given.
Anyone with some least bit of common sense knows this..... at least i do.
I am sorry. Another misinformed "+5 informative" post.
Complete abuse of the term "mathematically guaranteed". This is the exact same fluff that got people to believe aliens drew crop circles.
to do what? to do WHAT? stop scaring me. when is it happening and should i bring my towel?
That's not what 'begging the question' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_begging means. I think you mean 'raises the question'. I wouldn't mention it normally, but this is Slashdot and if I can't talk about logical fallacies here, where can I?
They might think you've gone mad Stephen. Next you will be saying say God may exist.
Aliens, likewise, think that Stephen Hawking is likely.
Please stop the rampant misuse of "begs the question"
But what if we find each other equally tasty? So the aliens are something like crabs or lobsters, so when you boil them with some butter... Nomnomom... Mmmm... Likewise, crab or lobster like things probably wouldn't really have any issues with nibbling on a human carcass.
Would we institute an (culinary) exchange program of the less desirable members of our species which would also act to preserve the peace?
New message to alien friends:
Earn up to 1 billion Osrapian Koolas a Spurtian dual moon cycle! No prior experience required! Reply to this radio burst to find out more, or visit http://rapeyourface.com.earth/
Which also means we have to setup a TTLD system, a Top-Top Level Domain inter-planetary domain name system, with a 25 light year time to live value.
Task Mangler
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They had you draw lots and then the 9 winners beat the loser to death with their bare hands?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'