Slashdot Mirror


SETI Is 50 Years Old; No Sign of ET

EagleHasLanded writes "The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence is 50 years old next month, and still no sign of intelligent alien life. Paul Davies of the Beyond Center (also Chairman of the SETI Post-Detection Taskgroup) says it's time to re-think and expand the search for ET."

454 comments

  1. Too short a window by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are in far too short a window in cosmic terms. A million years here, a million years there, adds up.

    1. Re:Too short a window by davaguco · · Score: 1

      I think if I were an advanced civilisation I would use neutrinos to communicate, at the very least (or possibly some other thing we haven't discovered yet). Very easy to get these light particles across a galaxy without them being stopped by other matter or energy.

      --
      Please google and research "peak oil" a bit. You will discover this crisis is a lot worse than they have told you
    2. Re:Too short a window by naplam33 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Whatever it is ETs would use, current SETI is like indians from the 1500s trying to eavesdrop our current communications by looking for smoke signals. Not going to happen.

    3. Re:Too short a window by muckracer · · Score: 1

      > Whatever it is ETs would use, current SETI is like indians from the 1500s trying to eavesdrop our current communications by looking for smoke signals.

      Well, as cute as it sounds in regards to communication...if the middle-age indians were looking today for smoke signals don't you think they'd find PLENTY of evidence of life based on smoke-emanations (they just happen to be industrial etc.)? That's perhaps exactly what was meant in TFA: look for life in all its possible ramifications and consequences. Using all sciences, not just radio et all.. I mean, if the martian rovers would send us a picture of footprints in the red sand tomorrow, we wouldn't need radio signals either to form a pretty strong belief that something's up (there).

  2. Patience! by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We are trying to find signs of intelligent life off the Earth. Give it some time, people. And try to become civilized yourselves.

    1. Re:Patience! by gmuslera · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why don't start trying to find signs of intelligent life on Earth? Intelligence don't have to mean technology, and some species right here (dolphins? whales?) could be as intelligent or more than us, but while we see intelligence as use of tools we will keep ignoring them.

    2. Re:Patience! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, I'm trying to find signs of intelligent life on the Earth, and I haven't been very successful either.

    3. Re:Patience! by rickkw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If by means of intelligence, we are talking about lifeforms that invent religion, and would dedicate their lives killing each other because it's god's will, then no, dolphins and whales don't fit the bill. If this is how intelligent lifeforms should be, then any extraterritorial beings that are like us but are (more) intelligent probably don't exist anymore.

    4. Re:Patience! by madmarcel · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Just to clear up this common misconception:

      Whales are not as intelligent as you may have been led to believe, in fact quite the opposite...ask any marine biologist.

    5. Re:Patience! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Call my logic strange, but that implies that if they are not technologically advanced, then they are edible?

    6. Re:Patience! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because we know that there is other intelligent life on earth, the big question is if there is life on other world

    7. Re:Patience! by eihab · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why don't start trying to find signs of intelligent life on Earth? Intelligence don't have to mean technology, and some species right here (dolphins? whales?) could be as intelligent or more than us, but while we see intelligence as use of tools we will keep ignoring them.

      We are already doing that though. The way I see it, we all have an "itch that we scratch". I'm into computers and my wife on the other hand is into anthropology/history.

      As a species, I think we're doing pretty good. We have researchers in all sorts of fields. It's true that I don't care so much about the past, and as far as my wife is concerned, HTML5 doesn't mean anything.

      But collectively we're actively seeking knowledge and forms of intelligence to enhance our lives, be it our ancestors, map/reduce, or dolphins in the ocean.

      I appreciate SETI as much as I appreciate Jane Goodall, and in some sense they're both doing the same thing only in different contexts.

      So, to sum it up (tl;dr): We are already doing that, and we will keep doing it :)

      --
      If you can't mod them join them.
    8. Re:Patience! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't start trying to find signs of intelligent life on Earth? Intelligence don't have to mean technology, and some species right here (dolphins? whales?) could be as intelligent or more than us, but while we see intelligence as use of tools we will keep ignoring them.

      Why don't you start by trying to find the many journal articles and research studies that have been done on dolphin intelligence instead of assuming the entire body of human scientific effort has ignored them since the dawn of man? Seriously, this made it to +5?

    9. Re:Patience! by gox · · Score: 1

      Search for intelligence is guided by human norms. I really don't think intelligence is the focus here. Finding extra-terrestrial intelligence would be a significant leap philosophically, and this is what it's all about. I'm sure almost all of us value life and intelligence, even of other species; but all foreseeable advances are ethical, with no direct effect to our individual lives. And we're already neck-deep in this effort. On the other hand, proof of ET intelligence would have metaphysical and epistemic consequences which would effect every one of us, and also could change how we value things that are more local (possibly not in a way you would like though).

    10. Re:Patience! by novae_res · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, there are different kinds of intelligence, not just the iq test/problem solving kind. Emotional intelligence is widely seen among elephants, whales, and dolphins. Besides if you're just looking for that kind, then look no further than the corvidae genus of birds which display some remarkable problem solving feats.

    11. Re:Patience! by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      At least human males don't kill their stepchildren.

      But maybe lemmings have invented religion and that's why they kill themselves.

    12. Re:Patience! by eihab · · Score: 1

      P.S.: Watch this instead of reading the Wikipedia article. I hope you'll come to appreciate Dr. Jane a bit more.

      --
      If you can't mod them join them.
    13. Re:Patience! by lijkert · · Score: 1

      Actually, dolphins do use tools, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool_use_by_animals Of course, they don't use EM transmitters and receivers to look for others like them in the far reaches of the universe. We, on the other hand, can and should.

    14. Re:Patience! by quisxt · · Score: 5, Informative

      [citation needed] --cordially, a marine biologist

    15. Re:Patience! by BikeHelmet · · Score: 1

      Elephants have demonstrated accurate long term memory, though. I wonder if there's some great intelligence there that's remaining untapped - perhaps limited by their lack of handy appendages.

    16. Re:Patience! by averagegeek · · Score: 1

      ...and some species right here (dolphins? whales?) could be as intelligent or more than us, but while we see intelligence as use of tools we will keep ignoring them.

      And then a giant, log-shaped alien probe will destroy us all.

    17. Re:Patience! by Theswager · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Language allows humans to communicate effectively, the Neanderthals had larger brains and more advanced tools than the Homo Sapiens at the time, but the Homo Sapiens had a more advanced ability to vocalize made possible by a more complex Larynx. Humans out-competed these smarter hominid species in no small part due to communication, so I do accept your premise that intelligence is more than technology. Intelligence is a purely human concept, because of this the human notion of intelligence ought to be what humans value (ya know, because where all human and such). Just having a large capacity for cognitive processing is not enough to constitute the intelligence that humans value. Our intelligence is all about intellectual evolution made possible by infrastructure. Writing allows people to solidify their ideas for the next generation so that knowledge is not lost when the brain dies. Farming allows for humans to have a small minority provide food for an entire society to survive and have surplus, thus allowing other members of society to focus on improving other parts of society for themselves and the next generation. You can sit in the comfort of your home with plentiful food and a controlled temperature at your computer tying out asinine comments on the good ol' global communications network because of the infrastructure of knowledge and technology built by countless human lives before you. All while the dolphins that people are so irrationally fond for (don't get me wrong dolphins are cute and there is no reason that we need to be killing them) spend every day of their lives searching for their next meal in a harsh environment . Do you think that dolphins ponder their existence? Or even have cognitive processes which extend beyond survival and mating? They don't have time to because they need to search for their next meal or die. This is because no matter how intelligent dolphins get their body lacks the ability to build anything significant. Even if Dolphins had more advanced brains than we do (which they do not) it would not matter because humans can write and build. In the realm of humans biological evolution is irrelevant because our intellectual evolution moves at a much quicker pace and has enabled fantastic progress in a short time life expectancy has more than tripled from 20 in the Neolithic to about 67 today. Dolphins on the other hand have been doing pretty much the same things for a very long time and they will most likely keep doing that for a while.

    18. Re:Patience! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check out the site for Project Camelot. Actually go to their You Tube account and you will find an extensive amount of interviews that are mind-blowing. I spent about 2 weeks watching every single interview. It was fascinating. Also look into the Disclosure Project. Another good source for understanding the truth about ETs.

    19. Re:Patience! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more intelligence ? how to measure it ? how you say man is more intelligent than a tree ?

    20. Re:Patience! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Whales are not as intelligent as you may have been led to believe

      Whales (toothed whales in particular) are among the most intelligent animals known. A possible 2nd to humans even.

      in fact quite the opposite

      Very wrong! The simplest whales have about the same mental capacity as a dog (which is nowhere near dumb on the scale of animal intelligence).

      ...ask any marine biologist.

      When you ask a marine biologist for information; make sure his last name isn't Costanza.

    21. Re:Patience! by fm6 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I recently heard an interesting theory about pachyderm intelligence. They're the largest survivors of the early phase of the Holocene extinction event. Before this event, there were impressive megafauna on every major land mass outside Antarctica. There are various theories as to what happened to this megacritters, the most popular being that they their long reproduction cycles made it impossible for them to keep up with hunting by humans..

      So why did elephants survive when their cousins the woolly mammoths and various superbirds (I particularly like giant grazing ducks) did not? The theory is that elephants co-evolved with humans. As our ancestors got smarter and better at hunting, elephants got smarter and better and not being hunted. It wasn't until humans left Africa and started hunting megafauna that had no experience with them that the extinctions began. All these other animals simply didn't have time to evolve the way elephants did.

      Which is too bad, really. Think of all the friends we could have had. Once they forgave us for eating them, of course.

    22. Re:Patience! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post seemed interesting at first, but I couldnt read it... how bout some paragraphs?

    23. Re:Patience! by telomerewhythere · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At least human males don't kill their stepchildren.

      [citation needed]

    24. Re:Patience! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Why don't start trying to find signs of intelligent life on Earth?

      Doesn't exist. Here's the authoritative citation: Monty Python's 'Galaxy Song':

      "And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space,
      'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth."

    25. Re:Patience! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humans slave away their entire lives. Dolphins play away their entire lives.

      I think the dolphins have the better idea.

    26. Re:Patience! by Bananatree3 · · Score: 1

      Dolphins also don't have hands or anything but their fins,teeth and echolocation as tools. If dolphins had hands, watch out!

    27. Re:Patience! by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, the good old 'science can only do one thing at a time' fallacy. Do you really think marine biologists are not studying dolphins, or that radio astronomers are in any way preventing the work of biologists? Real life isn't like Civilization, society doesn't work on a single technological advance at a time.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    28. Re:Patience! by Surt · · Score: 1

      Dolphins can barely recognize themselves in a mirror. I'm not sure we're going to get a lot of eloquent communication out of them.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    29. Re:Patience! by Surt · · Score: 1

      We've found every likely intelligent species on earth at this point, and none of them are likely to last much longer, so we really need to find something new to kill.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    30. Re:Patience! by kd5zex · · Score: 2, Informative

      You are edible as well; my friend....

    31. Re:Patience! by Schemat1c · · Score: 2, Informative

      But maybe lemmings have invented religion and that's why they kill themselves.

      Snopes to the rescue!

      --

      "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
    32. Re:Patience! by ashitaka · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't you mean "[cetacean needed]"?

      --
      If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
    33. Re:Patience! by daveime · · Score: 1

      Presumably ET stole the links to the websites :-(

      http://projectcamelotportal.com/

      http://www.disclosureproject.org/

    34. Re:Patience! by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Funny

      When they start keeping us a pets and making us do tricks for their amusement, then we can talk.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    35. Re:Patience! by nospam007 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Whales are not as intelligent as you may have been led to believe, in fact quite the opposite...ask any marine biologist."

      Japanese marine biologists?
      They think they are more tasty than intelligent.

    36. Re:Patience! by Captain+Hook · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I wish I had mod points

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    37. Re:Patience! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Costanza, haven't they ran out of you yet?

    38. Re:Patience! by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Funny

      Of course dolphins are more intelligent than us: we've achieved so much (wars, the wheel, and so on), while all the dolphins have done is muck about in the water having a good time.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    39. Re:Patience! by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      Elephants ... lack of handy appendages.

      What exactly do you think a trunk is?

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    40. Re:Patience! by Haxamanish · · Score: 1

      Yeah, when you're done with that stuff, you're ready to understand all of this..

    41. Re:Patience! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The Mirror Test seems to back this up.

      WASHINGTON -- If you're Happy and you know it, pat your head. That, in a peanut shell, is how a 34-year-old female Asian elephant in the Bronx Zoo showed researchers that pachyderms can recognize themselves in a mirror _ complex behavior observed in only a few other species.

      The test results suggest elephants _ or at least Happy _ are self-aware. The ability to distinguish oneself from others had been shown only in humans, chimpanzees and, to a limited extent, dolphins

      That self-recognition may underlie the social complexity seen in elephants, and could be linked to the empathy and altruism that the big-brained animals have been known to display, said researcher Diana Reiss, of the Wildlife Conservation Society, which manages the Bronx Zoo.

    42. Re:Patience! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      in a short time life expectancy has more than tripled from 20 in the Neolithic to about 67 today.

      Life expectancy is a tricky metric; it's an average. Two thousand years ago, half of all children in the Medeteranian died before the age of five. This really brings the average life length down a lot.

      Two hundred years ago the average life expectancy was about 40, but there were still plenty of people living a hundred years, while al lot of young women died in childbirth along with their babies; back then, bearing a child was damned dangerous. Unlike today there were more widowers than widows.

    43. Re:Patience! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I recall, the intent was to look for evidence of large scale broadcasts. But if we look at what has been done here on earth -- with the shift to optical and short-range wireless and a de-emphasis on analog TV, we should hardly be surprised. I suspect our radiated signature has become much quieter over the last 50 years -- so why should anyone else persist in doing something that we are phasing out ourselves?

    44. Re:Patience! by muckracer · · Score: 1

      > Dolphins can barely recognize themselves in a mirror. I'm not sure we're going to get a lot of eloquent communication out of them.

      The dolphin to the other:
      "Look, now they have reached the stage where they start to discover and test their environment. That's quite an advanced skill given their limited mental abilities! Interesting..."

    45. Re:Patience! by juasko · · Score: 0

      This is just bull. Humans made these exticnt due to emigrating from Africa. That's just so sad, that some actually belive that. If the humans moved outside africa they sure did not do this in huge numbers to cover the rest of all continents and to hunt down all other animals. Sure humans have made some animals extinct, but that is only a hobby humans have had for a few couple of hundread years. Reasons why mammoths are extinct isn't due to human hunting or other animal hunting the reason is far different. Arcelogical evidence shows us somthing totally different reason. Just make some research and view the whole scope not just one single event here or there.

    46. Re:Patience! by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      Maybe that message could had been moderated insightful. We measure progress, civilization, intelligence on our own terms, using ourselves as the universal measuring rule, and just enjoying life and having fun is a better plan.

      What if there is plenty of intelligent life out there, that just don't take progress as we do? We aren't searching for intelligence, we are searching for technological civilizations following our path of development. Probably that should be added to Drake equation.

      Maybe space is a dead end, with many practical physical obstacles for exploration and maybe communication to anywhere outside solar systems, and most intelligent species out there stop fiddling around it after certain point of their advancement, and maybe by now their way of life could be not so different from dolphins at first sight.

      Suppose that we manage to go to Pandora, and instead of cat-eyed blue humanoids we see something that look and at first sight live like dolphins here. Would we even care if they could be an intelligent life form? And that without taking into account that the "intelligence" in the movie was mostly the planet itself.

      Finding intelligent life elsewhere in the universe will a revolution. But maybe we need a revolution already to be able to recognize them as intelligent first.

    47. Re:Patience! by wooferhound · · Score: 1

      But an elephant can't use it's trunk to build a radio transmitter to contact SETI and tell them that they exist. And an elephant probably wouldn't have any interest in doing that either. Plus somehow, I don't think an elephant has the intelligence or motivation to to research and develop the electronics it would take to make a functioning transmitter and receiver. Then I want to know what they have to say ?

      --
      We are Dead Stars looking back Up at the Sky
    48. Re:Patience! by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      Here's an example for ya: Dolphins will not jump out of tuna nets (which only extend up to the surface, but not above) to save their own lives. The things clearly know how to jump, and love doing it, but are unable to recognize when they are being trapped, or if they do, how to escape.

      Meanwhile hollywood loves to portray the things with near-human intelligence.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    49. Re:Patience! by yariv · · Score: 1

      And this idea explains Indian elephants? Not to mention many other large herbivores that still exist...

    50. Re:Patience! by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      It sounds like you are saying elephants survived because they were given the time to evolve, not because they were smarter than other animals.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    51. Re:Patience! by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      How often do you use this civilization line?

    52. Re:Patience! by BikeHelmet · · Score: 1

      I thought the pun made it clear. And the plural form.

      If you can demonstrate an elephant using its trunk to create fire or build a tool of some sort, I'll concede to your point.

      Until then...

    53. Re:Patience! by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      As often as I feel is warranted. I can't count the number of times I've heard the "we should focus on problems at home" line...

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    54. Re:Patience! by fm6 · · Score: 1

      You're oversimplifying. They survived because they got smarter. They got smarter because they had time to evolve.

    55. Re:Patience! by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Sure, there are still large mammals, but not as many as there used to be. And some really impressive species died off just as humans arrived.

      I'm not sure how Indian elephants are supposed to fit into this. The fact that they're useful domestic animals might be a factor.

    56. Re:Patience! by fm6 · · Score: 1

      That assumes that self-awareness and intelligence are the same thing. It used to be assumed that self-awareness was a uniquely human attribute, but animal behaviorists no longer buy it. You can find indications of self-awareness in flies.

    57. Re:Patience! by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      If you can demonstrate an elephant using its trunk to ... build a tool of some sort, I'll concede to your point.

      Elephant tool use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_intelligence#Tool_use

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    58. Re:Patience! by BikeHelmet · · Score: 1

      Yes, and crows use cars to crack open nuts. Lots of animals use tools - but do they build them?

      Without the ability to build them, your options for manipulating your environment are rather limited.

  3. Fermi Paradox anyone?? by Mr804 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    1. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by VinylRecords · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Fermi Paradox is woefully shortsighted. How long did it take modern human to actually explore other continents and find out that other intelligent human life was inhabiting a large patch of land on the same planet? Decades? Centuries? Whatever the plural of millennium is? It took ages for humans to even begin to explore our own planet. Every single day we find new species, new small islands, new pockets of underwater ocean life.

      If we can't even complete a species list on our own planet how can you expect us to even begin to understand how to contact (theoretical) alien life that exists far outside of our immediate grasp? For all we know a planet just like our earth, or earth in its infancy, or like our earth but at its end cycle, may exist somewhere out there. We have no way of being able to immediately confirm that though. And we might not ever.

      Carl Sagan even wrote that we should be open to the idea that an intelligent life form could have visited earth in the past.

      url:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_astronauts#Scientific_consideration

    2. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by msevior · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You miss the point of the Fermi Paradox entirely. Given that humans have only been in existence on earth for 200K Years, why is it that no aliens have colonised Earth *before* we got here? It would take only one expansionist alien culture to exist in the billions of years the galaxy has existed before us and the Earth and the entire galaxy would have been well and truely colonized already.

      I mean some relatively straight-forward extrapolations of humans shows *us* colonizing the galaxy in a few million years.

      Basically the Fermi paradox says, they are *no* other intelligent civilizations in the galaxy otherwise we would have had dramatic evidence on Earth.

      Still I see no particular harm in continuing to look. If something were found it would be a monumental breakthrough.

    3. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by afabbro · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You miss the point of the Fermi Paradox entirely. Given that humans have only been in existence on earth for 200K Years, why is it that no aliens have colonised Earth *before* we got here? It would take only one expansionist alien culture to exist in the billions of years the galaxy has existed before us and the Earth and the entire galaxy would have been well and truely colonized already.

      I mean some relatively straight-forward extrapolations of humans shows *us* colonizing the galaxy in a few million years.

      ...assuming some sort of FTL travel, which is a pretty far-fetched extrapolation.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    4. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by Obyron · · Score: 1

      Whatever the plural of millennium is?

      That would be "milleniums."

      --
      --Obyron
    5. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The other possibility is that there are other intelligent civilizations in the galaxy (maybe even a lot of them), but they never got here because it's just too far, or because civilizations fall too quickly. In that case, we would have a good chance of discovering them through SETI (given enough time), which would be the only kind of contact we'd ever be likely to have.

    6. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by Obyron · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's taken us this long to be here. Who's to say there's not another intelligent species out there who is just now coming into space travel, but is already depressed because the Xorblat Paradox says searching for alien life is probably a waste of time. The Fermi Paradox is still incredibly short-sighted. It's very hard to draw meaningful conclusions from negative evidence, otherwise we'd have put this whole "God" thing to rest a long time ago.

      --
      --Obyron
    7. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by riboch · · Score: 1

      No, the plural is millennia.

      --
      GO BLUE!
    8. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by Gerafix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are many possibilities. One possibility is that a rogue Artificial Intelligence, perhaps just a civ that jumped to machines, is sweeping through the galaxy searching for technologically advanced lifeforms and razing them. Or the machines spread beacons throughout the galaxy to detect advanced lifeforms and once detected the machines send out ruthlessly efficient constructs to cure the system from the disease that is life.

    9. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      no that is taking into account slower than light exponential expansion

    10. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      WHOOSH!

    11. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by novae_res · · Score: 0

      Which comes from the latin mille/milia. Milia passuum - a thousand paces (a roman mile).

    12. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      ...assuming some sort of FTL travel, which is a pretty far-fetched extrapolation.

      A few million years isn't that far-fetched, considering the galaxy is only about 100,000 light years across. You'd have to do your colonization pretty aggressively, but it could certainly be done in a few million years with only fractional c travel.

    13. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by MousePotato · · Score: 3, Interesting

      or perhaps; they are intelligent, out there, have sufficient grasp of the huge distances/difficulties involved and decided not to waste their energies on 'travel' to focus on their own planets and civilizations...

    14. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by dissy · · Score: 1

      Or the machines spread beacons throughout the galaxy to detect advanced lifeforms and once detected the machines send out ruthlessly efficient constructs to cure the system from the disease that is life.

      The only flaw with that if the machines in question were capable of such an act, they would be life too.

      Perhaps you meant organic life...

    15. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by aronschatz · · Score: 2, Funny

      We should probably name this.

      Let's call them... "Reapers."

    16. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by therealgabacho · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Is it possible that we're one of the first planets to evolve advanced technology? Maybe someone can better explain the math to me. Universe is apx 14 billion years old. The sun, approximately at mid-life is 4 billion years old. Creation of heavy (including organic) elements requires supernova of massive stars at the end of their life. It seems like there can't have been that many generations of suns before the formation of our planet. Is my math crazy?

    17. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by melikamp · · Score: 1

      I mean some relatively straight-forward extrapolations of humans shows *us* colonizing the galaxy in a few million years.

      This is an expensive proposition. In light of our current understanding of physics, we would have to build a very expensive embryo-ship that could travel for (hundreds of?) thousands of years just to reach the next door neighbor. We will need to put everything that we need there: the entire ecosystem will have to be present, at least in seed form. We have options: if we are willing to wait, we just ship the DNA information and a small army of self-reproducing terraformers. If we don't want to wait millions of years while a planet of choice is terraformed, we will have to ship a complete space station that can survive on starlight and interplanetary debris. I cannot even imagine how much fuel you will need to drag this baby out of the Sun's gravity well.

      The right approach, I think, would be a combination of the two options. Take nearby systems right away, and send super-light embryos to as many of the other ones as you can afford. The latter should carry enough brainpower to detect habitable planets, and bring some sturdy terraformers. Something like algae. Sprinkle it on planets and wait.

      May be that is what happened to our system :) In which case someone will eventually show up and ask for rent.

    18. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love how this is modded insightful.

    19. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      How does rehashing the Mass Effect storyline get modded as +4 Insightful?

    20. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by Alcohol+Fueled · · Score: 1

      Whatever the plural of millennium is?

      Millennia.

      --
      Ah am not a crook! (\(-__-)/)
    21. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by telomerewhythere · · Score: 1

      May be that is what happened to our system :) In which case someone will eventually show up and ask for rent.

      Yeah, his name is Jesus. (please realize this is a joking correlation between your post and common belief of many 'Christians')

    22. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      The universe is a vacuum, and a sterile one at that. Because life is an exception rather than the rule, it only makes sense for it to fill in an otherwise empty void. It serves no purpose to eliminate the universe of life. However, it does serve a purpose for life to get rid of life as a means of predator/pray survival.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    23. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by loom_weaver · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Another possibility is that any life-form capable of colonizing other planets annihilated itself before it could do so. Chilling but quite plausible.

    24. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 1

      That was the point. If there's even one species that "wastes" its energies on travel, they would have taken over the galaxy.

      --
      Responsibility is an addiction
      Virtue is a temptation
      Community is a cartel
    25. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 1

      This is an expensive proposition. In light of our current understanding of physics, we would have to build a very expensive embryo-ship that could travel for (hundreds of?) thousands of years just to reach the next door neighbor.

      We could reach our nearest neighbor in way less than that. As a ship accelerates, people and robots on the ship would see the rest of the universe speed up, and shrink in the direction of travel of the ship. This makes the trip much shorter for those on the ship.

      I cannot even imagine how much fuel you will need to drag this baby out of the Sun's gravity well.

      Uranium is the fuel of the future.

      --
      Responsibility is an addiction
      Virtue is a temptation
      Community is a cartel
    26. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by Boronx · · Score: 1

      While you dismiss it, the Fermi Paradox becomes more and more relevant as we continue to look and find nothing.

    27. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by giorgist · · Score: 1

      Amm ... that is the point ... you are thinking that the plural of millenia is a long time. Well ... in the context of the life of the universe there should be billions of civilisations that have had billions of years past the space flight technology stage. Where are they ?

    28. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by cyn1c77 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You miss the point of the Fermi Paradox entirely. Given that humans have only been in existence on earth for 200K Years, why is it that no aliens have colonised Earth *before* we got here? It would take only one expansionist alien culture to exist in the billions of years the galaxy has existed before us and the Earth and the entire galaxy would have been well and truely colonized already.

      I mean some relatively straight-forward extrapolations of humans shows *us* colonizing the galaxy in a few million years.

      Basically the Fermi paradox says, they are *no* other intelligent civilizations in the galaxy otherwise we would have had dramatic evidence on Earth.

      Still I see no particular harm in continuing to look. If something were found it would be a monumental breakthrough.

      Even more importantly, why does everyone think Fermi's paradox is well posed?

      There's also a really simple explanation: The astronomical distances separating Earth from other stars require astronomical amounts of energy and/or astronomical amounts of time cross. Maybe accessing this amount of energy and time is just too improbable for any civilization. We could play some games with the Drake equation and "prove" this, but we'd be extrapolating into bullshit-land. Of course, that is where the current Drake equation parameters are anyway.

      But even if this barrier could be crossed, consider advanced aliens that develop the means access such a large amount of energy and to travel such great distances. Let's say that life is so common that they are able to come across millions of other life forms. Chances are, those life forms will be much more primitive than they are. After you have "discovered" a few million primitive life forms are you really going to visit them all? Or would you rather use your time more efficiently, and ignore the life forms that are much less primitive that you and only visit the ones that are near or above your level of sophistication? When was the last time you talked to the ants in your backyard on the way to hang out with your girlfriend?

      I am guessing that even advanced aliens don't have infinite time and energy at their tentacle tips. They're not going to waste their time with us. We can barely get to low earth orbit on a good day.

    29. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Well ... in the context of the life of the universe there should be billions of civilisations that have had billions of years past the space flight technology stage.

      You are assuming that there has been sufficient heavy elements in the universe for billions of years to create a human-like species that manages to work out a way to do FTL travel. And in this incredibly large universe, said life form decided to take an interest in one unremarkable arm of a fairly unremarkable bar spiral galaxy where we happen to live.

      Space is big. There's plenty of room for such beings to have a massive interstellar empire somewhere else. That somewhere else being so far away that we're just now seeing their home star form.

    30. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Fermi Paradox is woefully shortsighted. How long did it take modern human to actually explore other continents and find out that other intelligent human life was inhabiting a large patch of land on the same planet? Decades? Centuries?

      Which is to say, in galactic terms, it was instantaneous. Heck, we went from Homo erectus to the moon instantaneously. If it takes us 5 million years (a figure so large compared to human history that imagination fails) to figure out how to leave our solar system, and get bored enough to try, we've still used 0.1% of the lifespan of the Earth, let alone the galaxy. People seem to get easily impressed by the immense size of the galaxy, but have more trouble grasping the immense age of it.

      Since you like Sagan, consider his "cosmic calendar"--map the history of the galaxy to the present day on the scale on a year. Leave off the first generation stars, if you want, since they don't have heavier elements if you want, it doesn't matter--we have so much time to spare that tossing aside a few billion years makes no difference.

      The amount of time we're talking about to get from intelligence to insterstellar travel, even at mind-bogglingly slow pace above, is a few hours. Self-replicating probes moving at 1% the speed of light traverse the galaxy in a few hours more. On a galactic timescale, we live in a pretty small neighborhood. If you really think life with human-like intelligence is common--so common there are many civilizations currently existing--there should be dozens now, and there should have been dozens billions of years ago. The "where are they" question becomes pressing. It's like remaining convinced you live on a busy street, even though from January 1, through to noon on December 31 there has been one single car, and it's yours. The credibility of your estimates start to look way off; calling your critics short-sighted doesn't accomplish much.

      There are, of course, multiple explanations that allow intelligence to exist--maybe most intelligence doesn't develop technology, or intelligent species always self-destruct rapidly, or they are so unlike humans that they don't strive for anything. But all this sort of belies the assumption of SETI or even the Drake equation as its usually pitched. It makes our specific type of intelligence possibly unique.

      The coolest idea, of course, is that we are a galactic preserve, protected in a gaalxy teeming with life. Goody story, but I can't quite buy it for reasons that are a corollary to the ones above. My personal speculation is that we'll find basic life fairly common, but 'eurkaryotic' or 'multi-cellular' (or whatever the equivalents would be) rare--it did take our planet a long time to stumble into both of those innovations.

    31. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by OrangeCatholic · · Score: 1

      I'm perfectly willing to believe that we're ahead of the curve. A lot of high-energy events had to subside for us to get the nice, stable planet we live on. Hell, it took 200m years of dinosaur nonsense before our species propagated out of it. 200m years on a galactic time scale isn't chump change, either.

      The other thing to consider is whether any intelligent species made the jump to sustainability. Our 6000 years of culture is a mere blip. We're going to have to figure out how to survive for 100,000 years (as a culture) before we have a chance of making contact. And the earth will go through dramatic changes in that time. Even the Sahara was plentiful 6000 years ago. Oh yeah, and there was that ice age.

      Short way of putting it, the deck is really stacked against anyone doing this. We're blessed for what we've accomplished so far. One comet could ruin everything.

    32. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by avilliers · · Score: 1

      It's taken us this long to be here. Who's to say there's not another intelligent species out there who is just now coming into space travel, but is already depressed because the Xorblat Paradox says searching for alien life is probably a waste of time. The Fermi Paradox is still incredibly short-sighted.

      Common sense, actually. No spacefaring species at all for the last 2 billion or 10 billion years or so (depending how you want to score), and then another "just now coming into space travel," within a few thousand years. As a hypothesis, this is weak--and violates Occam's razor. If you propose, as a solution to Fermi, that there was no spacefaring life for 9.999950 billion years, then it's far simpler to assume that there is no other spacefaring life for the last 0.000050 billion years as well.

    33. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by OrangeCatholic · · Score: 1

      You need to go at least 0.9c to get any appreciable time dilation (2x).

      As objects speed up, they also get more massive. The equations appear to be the same, so at 0.9c, you would be twice as massive. Sure that won't slow you down, but you'll need some serious engines to keep up with the increase in mass. Eventually, the engines will stop working, and you'll reach the speed limit of your design.

      http://www.phy.olemiss.edu/HEP/QuarkNet/time.html

      I'm sure somebody has worked this out for various mass of spaceships and continuous engine thrust. It would be interesting to read.

    34. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by OrangeCatholic · · Score: 1

      You want to be modded for missing a joke?

    35. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 1

      I don't think it works that way. It gets more massive to observers looking at the ship. Let's say the ship's engines provide a constant 9.8 m/s^2. I think that as the ship reaches the speed of light, to the observers on the ship, they will still be accelerating at the same rate (assuming the engine gives the same thrust). To the rest of us, the ship will be getting more massive, running slower, and acceleration will be much slower. I don't think there's a "speed limit" of a design as a result of how much thrust it can provide. There's only a speed limit because you run out of propellent. If you pretend it's unlimited, you can go as fast as you want, according to observers in the ship. This really is rocket science, and I hope there's an actual rocket scientist around here :).

      --
      Responsibility is an addiction
      Virtue is a temptation
      Community is a cartel
    36. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by PaladinAlpha · · Score: 1

      It's too odd an hour to do the calculations, but I believe since the mass varies precisely with the dilation, a given amount of thrust will always "accelerate" your dilation by the same amount in final observable intervals... I.E. a given thrust x will speed up "outside time" by y years/sec. Also, massiveness shouldn't prevent the engines from working in a vacuum, only slow them down -- but as noted this should not retard their efficiency since the curve itself is exponential.

      I'll do the numbers later, unless someone cares to jump in?

    37. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One possibility is that a rogue Artificial Intelligence, perhaps just a civ that jumped to machines, is sweeping through the galaxy searching for technologically advanced lifeforms and razing them.

      Reapers!

      Seriously, though, what space giveth, time taketh away. Why can't we be the first?

    38. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by Herve5 · · Score: 1

      This not to say potential alien life may just have a different inner clock than ours, and for instance find us 100 times too slow to even talk too.

      More generally, I find our current defintion of "aliens" incredibly human-like (same molecules, same "habitable zone", same **thinking**...)

      Indeed I trust only a few years from now, our SETI-thing will be considered as silly as, some centuries ago, "angel's sex" discussions within the religious sphere in the Middle Ages, or the definition of green-skinned martians everyone commonly had just a couple of years ago...

      Definitely not an occasion of pride :-(

      --
      Herve S.
    39. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by VShael · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, your math is fine.

      If it hadn't been for asteroidal impacts wiping out the dinosaurs, some avian/lizard like creatures from Earth could have colonised this galaxy by now.
      The fact that the galaxy hasn't been colonised by some earlier evolved species from another star, has only three (that I know of) explanations.

      1) The good neighbour hypothesis. The galaxy is colonised, but they are advanced enough to be beyond our perception threshold, and they leave young species like ours alone.

      2) The hostile neighbourhood hypothesis. The galaxy is not conducive to long term sentient life. Either because of natural disasters (periodic galactic core eruptions) or some fundamental flaw with intelligent species. (Like the catch-22 of "A survival instinct is necessary, yet it's what ultimately drives species to war over diminishing resources, and die off." Thus, the survival instinct has a built in limitation which kicks in as technology and our destructive ability, increase.)

      3) The "Here-it-comes" hypothesis. The galaxy is being colonised, by a species that is anywhere from 100 to 500,000 years ahead of us in development. But their colonisation wave hasn't reached our part of the galaxy yet. When it does, we'll sink beneath the wave.

      If anyone can posit a 4th, which isn't some sub-set of those 3, I'd like to hear it.

      In any case, if any of those options were true, I'm not sure SETI would be useful unless it gave us some advance notice of the oncoming colonisation wave. Not that we could do anything to prevent our extinction.

    40. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by VShael · · Score: 1

      I'm not doing the maths, but I seem to recall reading the maths somewhere, that showed something crazy, like circumnavigating the universe in 52 years or something. Just saying, that if you do start working the numbers out, and get something you think is nuts, you're probably right.

    41. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by gtall · · Score: 1

      All stars are not like the sun. Massive stars "burn up" their fuel much quicker and go supernova.

    42. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by imakemusic · · Score: 1

      So maybe the reason that we can't find intelligent life in space is...we haven't got there yet.

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
    43. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by daveime · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't see why not.

      If it has taken us this long to develop to the stage we are currently at, it is reasonable to assume that under similar conditions, life (similar to ours) on other plants would occur in roughly the same timeframe.

      I'm not convinced that Occams Razor is applicable when talking about intelligent life and the ability to travel the stars.

      If the simplest solution is usually the most likely, then the whole fact that we've only achieved space travel in the last 50 years out of 4.5 billion years age of the earth (0.000001 %) negates the principle.

      99.999999% of the evidence up to this point suggests (by Occam) that we should never have left the trees and walked upright. But here we are, arguing over funding for the next moon mission.

    44. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by daveime · · Score: 1

      More relevant as in 0 years of looking compared to 50 years of looking, out of a timescale of 4.5 billion years ?

      The Fermi Paradox is the mother of all hedge bets ... it's unlikely that it will ever be proved "wrong" but in a universe of infinite probabilities, must ultimately be false.

    45. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by dkf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If it has taken us this long to develop to the stage we are currently at, it is reasonable to assume that under similar conditions, life (similar to ours) on other plants would occur in roughly the same timeframe.

      But 1% less time, not an unreasonable amount of error, would put them 100 million years before now (using a guess for the current age of the galaxy). Even if we go with just the age of the earth as the major factor, that error is 45 million years. That's a long time in which stuff can happen (for comparison, modern humanity has only really been going for half a percent of that). Given all that, and the immense size of the galaxy, where is everyone? That's the core of the Fermi Paradox.

      There's huge unknowns as yet. We don't actually know how many earth-like planets there are out there (because we can't yet search for them in a useful way). We don't know what proportion of them host life (no data except Earth, which doesn't help). We don't what proportion of those host intelligence. We don't know what proportion of intelligent life is actually able and interested in communication with us (we do know that for most of the time that humanity's been about, we couldn't build radios and a lot of cultures just haven't been interested in the outside world). It's even possible that there are lots of civilizations out there that don't use normal radio to communicate (lasers would be harder to detect) and which have agreed to leave us alone until we reach out to them far enough. We just don't know.

      Right now, SETI is like a drunk looking for his house keys under a lamp post. Except more so. I hold more hope for the scientists who are trying to figure out things by attacking the whole problem from the other end; for example, we now that there are lots of planets out there (even if we can't yet find the kinds that we're interested in).

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    46. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Technically, due to the whole speed of light thingy, often we are looking for signs that intelligent life existed thousands or hundreds of thousands of years ago. Civilisations could have blinked out of existance long before our capacities to collect their signals were up to speed. Or they exist right now, but their signals won't arrive for another century or so.

      Actually, we only need to look at our own example of how well we've been advertising our existence. The switch to digital and satellite broadcasting has severely cut down on the number of signals we've been sending into the void. Things like Arecibo are mere blips, in the hopes that the other radio antenna is listening at that moment and not sweeping a different sector. By the time they look at our solar system again our signals may not be discernable against the background noise of our sun.

      And yes, maybe Professor Sagan was right, but on the time scale that Lovecraft used: our planet may have been visited by intelligent life, but it could have been during one of the great die-outs, and they moved on with little more than a note to check again in a few millenia, and forgot about this rock.

    47. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by Xemu · · Score: 1

      Given that humans have only been in existence on earth for 200K Years, why is it that no aliens have colonised Earth *before* we got here?

      They did 75 billion years ago, colonizing Earth using DC-8s to travel here as Scientology scripture tells us.

      --
      Tell your friends about xenu.net
    48. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by Haxamanish · · Score: 2, Informative

      It seems like there can't have been that many generations of suns before the formation of our planet.

      The sun is a third generation star:

      The sun is a relatively young star, a member of a generation of stars known as Population I stars. An older generation of stars is called Population II. There may have existed an earlier generation, called Population III. However, no members of this generation are known. The remainder of this section refers to three generations of stars.
      The three generations differ in their content of chemical elements heavier than helium. First-generation stars have the lowest percentage of these elements, and second-generation stars have a higher percentage. The sun and other third-generation stars have the highest percentage of elements heavier than helium.
      The percentages differ in this way because first- and second-generation stars that "died" passed along their heavier elements. Many of these stars produced successively heavier elements by means of fusion in and near their cores. The heaviest elements were created when the most massive stars exploded as supernovae. Supernovae enrich the clouds of gas and dust from which other stars form. Other sources of enrichment are planetary nebulae, the cast-off outer layers of less massive stars.

      NASA Sun Worldbook

    49. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by Captain+Hook · · Score: 1

      personally I think life lasting very long in the center of the galaxy if it could even start there is lower than the possibility of life starting and lasting in the spiral arms at the edge of the galaxy. Higher Star Density towards the center increases the changes of an energy burst from a Supernova occuring nearby, or a passing object distrubing an asteriod belt sending more debris into the habital area of a star system which reduces the period of time a species would have to develop to the point where it could get out of the first star system.

      If my gut feeling (and thats all it is - I'm not even going to call it a theory) is right, then intelligent life could well have started in multiple places and survived but about as far away from each other as possible.

      Of course my gut feeling is countered by the arguement that that would mean the spiral arms should be loaded with life if those are the areas which provide the greatest stability and therefore any civilisations should be really near to us.

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    50. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      If anyone can posit a 4th, which isn't some sub-set of those 3, I'd like to hear it.

      4. We won the Galactic Lotto, and are the first intelligent race to evolve into a technolgical society.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    51. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by melikamp · · Score: 1

      Except that my scenario is actually rational: I was describing what we realistically could have done if we wanted to populate other star systems. There is no stretch to suppose that someone is already doing it.

    52. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by melikamp · · Score: 1

      As an aside, I do want to believe in abiogenesis. If life can arise from chemistry, then it almost certainly did so on other planets with similar conditions, and we have much to explore.

    53. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If there's intelligent life out there, they'll have to be within 150 light years from us for them to find us, and the reverse would be true as well. Plus, any civilizations that use technology not based on radio will be invisible to us.

    54. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by master_p · · Score: 1

      What about us humans? maybe we are the dramatic evidence we are looking for.

    55. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that humans have only been in existence on earth for 200K Years, why is it that no aliens have colonised Earth *before* we got here?

      We *are* their colony.

    56. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by VShael · · Score: 1

      If that were true (and like all lottery wins, the odds are against it) I'd be more inclined to include that in the hostile-neighbourhood hypothesis. We've had several near extinction events over the course of Earth's history, which has delayed the introduction of sentient life by (possibly) anywhere up to 60 million years. If we're first, then other planets must have equally catastrophic histories. Which kind of sucks for life's chances.

    57. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      If that were true (and like all lottery wins, the odds are against it) I'd be more inclined to include that in the hostile-neighbourhood hypothesis. We've had several near extinction events over the course of Earth's history, which has delayed the introduction of sentient life by (possibly) anywhere up to 60 million years. If we're first, then other planets must have equally catastrophic histories. Which kind of sucks for life's chances.

      We keep finding more evidence of big rocks hitting Earth in the past. In spite of that...

      We've made no real preparations to deal with the next Extinction Level Event (yes, I watched Deep Impact again recently). It is very likely that if we detected an asteroid on a course to collide with Earth in ten years, we'd be able to do nothing to stop it.

      There is no real reason to believe that any hypothetical aliens live in a "nicer" solar system than ours, or that they can plan for the future any better than we can.

      So, yeah, we live in a hostile environment, and any other intelligent species out there lives in an environment at least as hostile. "Kind of sucks for life's chances" is a pretty decent way of looking at it.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    58. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by muckracer · · Score: 1

      > Given that humans have only been in existence on earth for 200K Years, why is it that no aliens have colonised Earth *before* we got here?

      Who says they didn't? Maybe we are the aliens we keep lookin' for. Bummer! :-P

    59. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It's not the idea of acceleration, it's the energy involved. Given a magic gizmo that we could set to accelerate a ship at 1G without further ado, we could travel to other stars. Any interstellar trip would take years, but we could reach other galaxies in a few decades (as observed by the travelers). It's not necessary to include relativity to find the time from the ship's point of view; just do the Newtonian calculations and all the relativistic stuff cancels out. (From our point of view, it's also pretty simple. Take the light-speed time and add two or three years.)

      Thing is, acceleration is the addition of kinetic energy, and that requires an energy source. Assuming some way of 100% efficiently transforming mass into kinetic energy, the fuel requirements for sustained 1G interstellar travel would be ridiculous. Uranium would be orders of magnitude less efficient (unless you had "Skylark Three"-style mass-to-acceleration converters). Without some way of gaining acceleration without having to carry energy, such travel is effectively impossible. (The question of keeping the ship safe from impacts from protons and cosmic dust at high relativistic speed is left as an exercise for the reader.)

      Barring any really weird breakthroughs in physics, I'd expect interstellar travel to take place at 1% of lightspeed at best. (That's still extremely fast, 3000 kilometers per second.) Generation ships are a possibility, in the form of self-contained worldlets, but there are other possibilities: extremely long lives, some sort of hibernation, robots set to recreate the race at the destination.

      Given that, it's possible that interstellar explorers wouldn't be all that interested in planets. If your family has been living on a huge spaceship for thousands of years, it's probably a really nice place, and you might want to hang around asteroid belts and the like and avoid the local gravity wells.

      Therefore, one possible solution to the Fermi paradox is that intelligent beings that are capable of starfaring tend to avoid planets. There could be thriving interstellar civilizations in the Solar System, provided that they're using communication methods and the like we can't detect. It doesn't seem all that likely to me, but it's possible.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    60. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      The Fermi Paradox is the mother of all hedge bets ... it's unlikely that it will ever be proved "wrong" but in a universe of infinite probabilities, must ultimately be false.

      If the Fermi Paradox is the mother of all hedge bets, then what you just said is the father of hedge bets.

      And afterall, somewhere in an infinite number of infinite probabilities, I'm right.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    61. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by Obyron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      By that logic and "common sense," it's easier to assume we don't exist.

      --
      --Obyron
    62. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by dubbreak · · Score: 1

      Be careful.. unless you want to disappear in a puff of logic.

      --
      "If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
    63. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's taken us this long to be here.

      A few hundred thousand years is "long"?

    64. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it has taken us this long to develop to the stage we are currently at, it is reasonable to assume that under similar conditions, life (similar to ours) on other plants would occur in roughly the same timeframe.

      OK, so a hypothetical roughly Earth-like planet that was formed at the same time as our Earth, might have an industrial civilization about nowish - give or take a few million years. Sounds reasonable.

      What about a roughly Earth-like planet that was formed, say, 50 million years earlier? Or 200 million years? Or 500 million years? Or a billion years? How many billion planets like that have formed before the Earth in our galaxy alone? Why are we not seeing those guys anywhere? Surely millions of years should be enough to colonise a galaxy for at least some of the more enterprising races?

    65. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      I guess I haven't played Mass Effect, I thought he was ripping off Alistair Reynold's Revelation Space series. But then, I thought that Alistair Reynolds was ripping off Jayge Carr's short story Lungfish. And I'm sure that Mr. Carr was just as guilty of ripping someone elses (Von Neumann's?) ideas as well. Just goes to show, there's very few new ideas to be had.

    66. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      I mean some relatively straight-forward extrapolations of humans shows *us* colonizing the galaxy in a few million years.

      Basically the Fermi paradox says, they are *no* other intelligent civilizations in the galaxy otherwise we would have had dramatic evidence on Earth.

      Surely some species has to be 'the first', presuming that type of colonization is technologically feasible - why shouldn't that be us? Moreover, it might just be coincidence; the universe is huge, and we might just happen to be in one of the more poorly populated galaxies. I don't really buy the Fermi Paradox.

    67. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by Obyron · · Score: 1

      A few hundred thousand plus the several billion years the universe has been in existence beforehand.

      --
      --Obyron
    68. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there is another civilization out there that happens to be EXACTLY on the same level as us, it strongly implies that life is fantastically abundant (and thus all over the place), because otherwise having two civilizations arrive at PRECISELY the same moment of their history simultaneously after BILLIONS of years of development would be improbable to the extreme.

      After all, there are lots of things that affect the development of life and intelligence, and over time they add up: a 0,1% difference in the speed of development during the course of a planet's history will offset the emergence of intelligence by millions of years.

      And of course there have been life-potential solar systems for billions of years before ours.

      Therefore, if there are other intelligent species out there, they are very much more likely to be millions of years ahead of us (or behind, but then you'd have to do away with the 'intelligent' bit) than at the same level.

    69. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by Samrobb · · Score: 1

      And I'm sure that Mr. Carr was just as guilty of ripping someone elses (Von Neumann's?) ideas as well.

      As far as I know, the classic "machines killing everything" stories are Fred Saberhagen's Berserker series. His first Berserker collection was published in 1967. "Lungfish" didn't appear until 1982, so it's a good bet that Mr. Carr was inspired by Saberhagen.

      --
      "Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
    70. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by Obyron · · Score: 1

      I understand all that, and still fail to see why Fermi's Paradox somehow proves that there's no intelligent life in the universe, especially given that relativistic speeds are theoretically unobtainable, so it would surely take a very long time indeed for us to ever make contact. Fermi's Paradox gives people who already believe something a sense of smug superiority, and people who disagree one more thing to ignore. It does not and cannot prove anything, because it does not seek to prove something. Fermi's Paradox is not verifiable, which means it is unscientific.

      --
      --Obyron
    71. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by telomerewhythere · · Score: 1

      To me, it is interesting to ponder what finding DNA/RNA life extra-solar system would mean. That would really stand science on its head I think. Not much naturally goes between star systems as I understand it.

    72. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      How about there exists some other species that is rather xenophobic and not interested in colonizing the galaxy, but at the same time realizes that letting some other species colonize the galaxy and become immensely powerful could threaten their existence? Therefore, they periodically sweep the galaxy and wipe out any potential competitors before they take hold.

    73. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by daveime · · Score: 1

      Yes, and they had to arrive here precisely in a window of perhaps 10,000 years where there was already evidence of (developing) civilization here on earth.

      They might have already been and gone, and decided to make another road trip in another 50 million years to see if we've developed any further.

      There's two distinct events with timescales in millions or billions of years, that have to coincide within a 10,000 year period when we would have been developed enough to appreciate it / communicate with them anyway.

      We may never meet the other peoples of the galaxy(s), but I'm damn sure they are out there.

    74. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by stigmerger · · Score: 1

      The negative result could just as well imply that very few civilizations survive long enough to develop space travel. Whether that is because space travel is hard, or because survival is hard, is left as an exercise for the reader. Two useful data-points: (1) Human population has roughly doubled in the past half-century. (2) The excrement level has risen high enough to change the climate. Maybe it's like that on all planets where life evolves. Otherwise, wouldn't there be ... Meanwhile, it also seems likely that life elsewhere evolves in competition. One indicator of intelligence in such a universe might be *not* sending beacons out to places where you don't know what might be listening. Listen first, then talk. Maybe others see it that way, too.

    75. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by VShael · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that would definitely fall under hostile-neighbourhood.

    76. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I interpreted "hostile neighborhood" as there was just some fundamental problem that makes the galaxy non-conductive towards sentient life. A hostile yet reclusive species would require a galaxy that is conductive for long term sentient life (otherwise, the reclusive species could not exist - at least for long), yet, could also allow for an apparent empty galaxy.

    77. Re:Fermi Paradox anyone?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're missing the point of what a paradox is. The paradox doesn't say one thing, but points out two contradictory things, both seemingly correct.

      In any case, even if there are a number of sentient intelligent space-faring civilizations out there, the chances of them visiting every single planet in the Galaxy is just ridiculous. I don't see why we should be surprised that we don't see aliens everywhere in our own tiny dot in the Galaxy..

  4. Think of the dangers, though. by Korey+Kaczor · · Score: 1, Funny

    It's already hard enough to live on this planet without being irritated by terrestrial life. What makes you think we'll find intellient life on other planets, if we can't even find it on our own?

    Just remember the most irritating person you've ever come across? What if we come in contact with aliens, only to find out they're even worse? Maybe they don't have decent indoor plumbing on their planet, and put the used toilet paper in the trash cans instead of inside the toilet?

    I'm thinking that we should stay hidden.

    1. Re:Think of the dangers, though. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Being a pessimist is easy.

      Saying "I told you so" when something goes wrong isn't backing up prophecy, it's being an asshole.

      Try being an optimist once in a while, you might be happier.

    2. Re:Think of the dangers, though. by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 3, Funny

      Saying "I told you so" when something goes wrong isn't backing up prophecy, it's being an asshole.

      I just knew you would say that, you dick.

    3. Re:Think of the dangers, though. by vadim_t · · Score: 4, Interesting

      SETI is a detector, not an emitter.

      If you're worried about any possible aliens' intentions, then SETI is precisely the right approach. You'd want to know if something is coming our way, and get at least some idea of what it might be like.

      It also seems unlikely we can affect our visibility much. On one hand, we're absolutely tiny compared to other things happening in the universe. Any amount of energy we could send into space for instance is a drop in the bucket compared to what the Sun outputs. Anything we emit is unlikely to be received unless somebody is already looking in our direction for some other, more visible reason. But, on the other hand, if somebody is really looking, and capable of getting here, they almost certainly can figure out there's something here, and there's no way we can become quiet enough to pretend there isn't.

      At this point we can barely get off this rock. If anything shows up, they almost certainly vastly surpass us just from the fact that they can travel all the way here. So if there's anything to do about that the best plan would seem to be to try to figure out if anybody is coming, and if they are use that information to come up with a plan.

    4. Re:Think of the dangers, though. by OrwellianLurker · · Score: 1

      My life philosophy is "plan for the worst, hope for the best, and expect the most likely."

      --
      'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' - Mao Tse-tung
    5. Re:Think of the dangers, though. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they don't have decent indoor plumbing on their planet, and put the used toilet paper in the trash cans instead of inside the toilet?

      We have had Korean homestay students who do exactly this and couldn't seem to fathom what was wrong with storing your shit and paper in a box.

    6. Re:Think of the dangers, though. by Cryacin · · Score: 1

      He is an optimist. Just like Murphy.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    7. Re:Think of the dangers, though. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " I have a cunning plan" - Baldrick

    8. Re:Think of the dangers, though. by aonic · · Score: 1

      When I moved to Taiwan, I found that there are trash cans next to every toilet, for that specific reason. Apparently a while ago their plumbing just couldn't handle toilet paper and the older generations still have the habit of trashing it.

      It's really gross, but you don't need to leave this planet to find that.

    9. Re:Think of the dangers, though. by telomerewhythere · · Score: 1
      Much of Latin America too.

      The mother-in-law of my sister-in-law lived in a house near Utica NY and the septic system couldn't handle TP either. There is a story that another of my sisters-in-law visited and directly went to bathroom. Flushed the TP and promptly clogged the system. The men had to go out and dig up frozen ground in Upstate NY winter night just to un-clog the whole sewer system.

      Ha ha. I wasn't there, but had a good laugh when I found out about it.

    10. Re:Think of the dangers, though. by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      My life philosophy is "plan for the worst, hope for the best, and expect the most likely."

      I tried that, and all I got were these twelve chairs!

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    11. Re:Think of the dangers, though. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      All because you don't know how to use the three shells.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    12. Re:Think of the dangers, though. by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 1

      Being a pessimist is hard. Optimism is everywhere. People are obsessed with "positive thinking", it's just a waste of time. A pessimist is either right or pleasantly surprised.

      --
      Responsibility is an addiction
      Virtue is a temptation
      Community is a cartel
    13. Re:Think of the dangers, though. by OrangeCatholic · · Score: 1

      >What if we come in contact with aliens, only to find out they're even worse?

      This was the point of the TV show Roswell.

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0201391/

      Also Battlestar Galactica, if I'm following it properly (never easy).

  5. They are there invisibly by headkase · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As we ourselves transition to all digital-communications and the associated low-transmission-power-levels we will fall off the radar for other civilizations detecting us too. That little blip of 100 years of analog full-blast will not been seen by anyone else either. This is in addition to the numbers associated with space: it is big, fricken' big and long in time. The last civilization anywhere near enough to us to be detected probably went extinct around 100 million years ago and in another 2 million years until humanity goes extinct the next civilization close enough to pick us up probably won't develop technology for another 60 million years... Missed in the night. But imagine in your mind an alien on an alien world because those same numbers say that it is a logical certainty that they exist.

    --
    Shh.
    1. Re:They are there invisibly by Gerafix · · Score: 1

      Two million years? Pretty generous don't you think? I give us about two years if our current scientific understanding of calenders is to be believed.

    2. Re:They are there invisibly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Counterpoint:

      If ANY civilisation made it to the space travel phase, then then our galaxy the milky way should be colonized in 1, 10, or 100 million years as it is 100,000 ly across, so these times are for 1%, 0.1% and 0.01% of lightspeed travel assuming worst case scenario of outer rim origin.

      Of course this still leaves the options

      • Interstellar travel is harder still, or even impossible as everything gets obliterated beyond the oort cloud
      • Civilisations have a tendency to self destruct
      • They are here and they don't want to interfere
      • We truly are the first!

      If we are not the first, I would love to read the discussions of the species that eventually did find out they were the first!

    3. Re:They are there invisibly by maxume · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is a classic variation of the old standard "I'm stupid, laugh" gag.

      You might think you are making fun of the silly new age nonsense, but you aren't doing a very good job of it.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:They are there invisibly by hedwards · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's always so odd, since from a scientific stand point we still aren't really that much closer to really understanding things like quantum entanglement or the force which causes people to believe that they're subjective reality is more real than somebody else's subjective reality.

    5. Re:They are there invisibly by maxume · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's nothing subjective about pretending that the Maya calendar ends in 2012, it is pure stupidity.

      You might as well imagine that our calendar predicts the end of the world in 9999.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:They are there invisibly by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Informative

      That little blip of 100 years of analog full-blast will not been seen by anyone else either.

      Every time a SETI article comes up somebody posts this problem about detecting radio leakage and then somebody else has to post that SETI isn't looking for accidental leakage - they admit that they're only looking for intentional beacons.

      I guess it's my turn.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    7. Re:They are there invisibly by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      As we ourselves transition to all digital-communications and the associated low-transmission-power-levels we will fall off the radar for other civilizations detecting us too.

      Until we start to seriously exploit the electromagnetic spectrum and the power levels start to rise again. How about wireless power transmission, continent wide wireless internet with enough bandwidth to give every client a full HD video feed, radar for everything which moves and online negotiation between vehicles, just for starters.

      I don't think our global peak emitted power will drop for long.

    8. Re:They are there invisibly by novae_res · · Score: 1, Funny

      That assumes there is anything out capable of even listening. Life, and consequently intelligence, could well be unique to this planet, for we have yet to even find an exoplanet with the right conditions. The sheer number of known variables that must coalesce before eukaryotes can exist is staggering, let alone thinking about those unknown factors. I have a sinking feeling life isn't quite as abundant as we presume it to be.

    9. Re:They are there invisibly by bakes · · Score: 1

      ... their subjective reality is more real than somebody else's subjective reality.

      That's crap.

      --
      Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!
    10. Re:They are there invisibly by avilliers · · Score: 1

      But imagine in your mind an alien on an alien world because those same numbers say that it is a logical certainty that they exist.

      Those numbers say absolutely nothing, certainly not with "logical certainty".

      If you could quantify how likely intelligent life is to evolve over a given time on some star, you could then use the numbers you toss about to estimate the probability of alien life at some time. You basically have a denominator but no numerator, and you're claiming you know the value of the ratio. You don't.

    11. Re:They are there invisibly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least we won't have to endure NHL 2013!

    12. Re:They are there invisibly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      imagine in your mind an alien on an alien

      Color them blue and suddenly we have a very sexy bit of exploration to do...

    13. Re:They are there invisibly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That the Mayan calendar ends in 2012 is not generally disputed, and is reasonably verifiable. The crazy comes with believing that the world will end when the Mayan calendar does.

      Yes, yes, I know that's what you meant.

    14. Re:They are there invisibly by maxume · · Score: 1

      No, I meant that the Maya calendar doesn't end in 2012. They would begin another long cycle. This article is well cited:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_phenomenon

      The idea that people who counted days in groups of 144,000 would all of the sudden freak out after 13 of those groups is just silly, they would have started the 14th.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    15. Re:They are there invisibly by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      Until we start to seriously exploit the electromagnetic spectrum and the power levels start to rise again. How about wireless power transmission, continent wide wireless internet with enough bandwidth to give every client a full HD video feed, radar for everything which moves and online negotiation between vehicles, just for starters.

      I don't think our global peak emitted power will drop for long.

      Even your continent wide wireless will likely involve transmitters of very low power. Just a lot of transmitters, and most of those transmitters will be have their maximum power projected in an arc of greater than 180. (If you looked at a cross section, most of the power would be projected from 181 degrees to 359 degrees in order to focus the power towards the people using it on the ground)

      As a result, the RF waves being generated would be highly attenuated even before they reached space. They would be transmitted, absorbed by the air along the path, vegetation, ground, and further attenuated as they passed through the atmosphere of the planet. How strong would they be then? (I'd guess a minimum of 30% absorbtion from the atmosphere alone) We are also moving away from broadcast style transmission and focusing more and more on LOS style transmissions. Many of todays satellites don't broadcast isometrically, and often contain many 'beams' which cover a specific geographic location. As a result, less power is needed.

      Then consider the issue with frequency allocations. You can't just pump more power into a frequency band and reach more devices, at least, not without stepping on adjacent or harmonic frequencies. While advances in technology help to reduce these side effects, we are probably going to see a lot more advance in directed RF rather than increased RF power.

      I have no doubt that our emissions may increase as a sort of aggregate measure in total power, but I would still expect to see a general decrease in lost or wasted energy that escapes into open space.

      Caveat: I've touched on RF in my work, but not even close to the levels as someone who is a true RF engineer. My terminology may be off (And if it needs corrections, I welcome it) However I believe the general concepts regarding an increase in directed RF as opposed to broadcast RF and increased attenuation for higher frequencies are sound.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    16. Re:They are there invisibly by jc42 · · Score: 1

      There's nothing subjective about pretending that the Maya calendar ends in 2012, it is pure stupidity. You might as well imagine that our calendar predicts the end of the world in 9999.

      Actually, it's even stupider than that. On the critical day in 2012, the Mayan calendar's high-order digit merely goes from 12 to 13 (in their base-20 numbering system). So it's more like predicting the end of the world on the first day of 2999, because the 2 changes to 3.

      Of course, we did have a lot of silly predictions about the recent overflow from 1999 to 2000. But that was mostly based on a very credible problem with computer handling of dates, and it turned out that the message got out soon enough that a few billion dollars were spent paying people to hunt down some thousands of bugs and fix them beforehand. Even then, some Y2K bugs did pop up, and as predicted, they were mostly in business software written in COBOL. But I don't recall any actual predictions on the order of the end of the world; it was mostly just predicting that the computer field would be really embarrassed on the Big Day.

      The real worry with the Mayan calendar is when the all three digits of the date reach 19, and they'll need another digit in their date. But that won't happen for quite a few millennia. (Or is it milleniums?) Of course, there will probably still be a lot of 20th-century COBOL code still in use by the business world then ...

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  6. Expanding their search is a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Focusing their search for intelligent life on Washington DC was doomed to failure.

  7. After 50 years? by cosm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    50 years out of 13.75 ±0.17 billion years? People need to study orders of magnitude before they get on SETI's case about not finding anything exciting. As with most scientific institutions of our day, the general populace/government's don't seem to care unless they see whizbangpops REAL-SOON-NOW.

    --
    'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    1. Re:After 50 years? by ilguido · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People need to study orders of magnitude [youtube.com] before they get on SETI's case about not finding anything exciting.

      Better not: they'd know that SETI is useless and a waste of money.

    2. Re:After 50 years? by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 2, Funny

      Better not: they'd know that SETI is useless and a waste of money.

      Can you justify that statement?

    3. Re:After 50 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand your ratio. I can detect the existence of stars even if I look just 1 second out of 13.7 billion years. Why not aliens?

    4. Re:After 50 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Better not: they'd know that SETI is useless and a waste of money.

      Can you justify that statement?

      Can you justify that it isn't?

    5. Re:After 50 years? by ilguido · · Score: 1

      What's the purpose of something that has an infinitesimal probability of success? If you really want to know if there are alien civilizations, wouldn't you use all that money for finding a viable method to discover alien life rather than insisting on treading a neverending path?

    6. Re:After 50 years? by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 3, Funny

      Can you justify that it isn't?

      It's more fun than the lottery. Your turn.

    7. Re:After 50 years? by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why couldn't an advanced civilization try to ping us every 1000 years or so and see if anyone responds? It's not like it has to be stray TV signals. To me it seems a reasonable thing to do if we start discovering Earth-like exoplanets, sure we'll try more often at first but it's not like we're going to ask "Has intelligent life evolved now?" every five minutes. Narrow beam, high power, simple signal, the kind that should be easy for SETI to detect if there's a big enough antenna pointing in the right direction at the right time. But if they're run by people like you, I suppose nobody will be there to listen...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re:After 50 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But yet people are ready to declare global warming as truth with only 50 years of data....

    9. Re:After 50 years? by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1

      That... doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. How is searching for evidence of life or the artifacts of a technological civilization outside of the purview of SETI? What Davies is saying nothing new. The only thing that is new is that we now have the technology to image extra-solar planets.

      As for probabilities, a low probability is as much the result of Drake equation wankery as a high probability. The payoff is incalculably huge, the cost is relatively minor, so even an infinitesimal probability is good odds.

    10. Re:After 50 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your logic is both circuitous and confounding.

      Is your newsletter distributed in the form of a Mobius strip?

    11. Re:After 50 years? by jonadab · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've got a better idea. Why don't we take the money we've been spending on SETI, and put it toward a research program that produces some information occasionally.

      I'm not asking for information with proven immediate practical value. Pure research can prove to be valuable later, in unanticipated ways. I understand that. But that's assuming that there's actual *research* going on.

      Scientific research is constructed so that you find out *something*, even if it isn't what you'd hoped the answer would be. That's the scientific method. Even if your experiment fails, you *learn* something from it. SETI, however, is not set up that way. SETI is designed up to keep on promising, year after year, decade after decade, that maybe *next* year we'll find [the desired answer -- and there is only one result SETI is interested in finding]. No premise is tested and proven, disproven, or revised. Ever.

      Calling SETI science is intellectually dishonest. SETI is politics, and a boondoggle.

      (Granted, it's not a very BIG boondoggle, because it's not all that MUCH money. But every penny of the money spent on it is wasted.)

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    12. Re:After 50 years? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Can you justify that statement?

      Easily. You just need to pick the right value for B_s.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    13. Re:After 50 years? by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 1

      This is silly - SETI have contributed a great amount to science - just do a google scholar search for SETI. The actual search is not an scientific experiment - I don't know what made you think it was - its more akin to a scientific survey. You go in, and find things that are of interest and then you study them. Just like hunting for extra-solar planets, or deep sea dives or any number of other scientifically beneficial activities. All of these don't test premises but gather primary data for further study. So lets think more and rage less.

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
    14. Re:After 50 years? by SetupWeasel · · Score: 3, Funny

      It costs more than a dollar.

    15. Re:After 50 years? by SetupWeasel · · Score: 1

      What has SETI contributed to science? Seriously, I'm curious.

    16. Re:After 50 years? by Aphoxema · · Score: 1

      The payoff is incalculably huge [...]

      Unfortunately, I can't agree with that. Discovery of extra-solar life would be exciting and novel, but as far as the fate of Humanity is concerned it wouldn't be terribly useful. Should we discover evidence of distant, sentient life in our galaxy, we will not be able to practically communicate with them because causation is a whore. Relativity is a punk ass bitch that pretty much dictates that we'll never leave our system. The only hope we can have is what we currently accept as truth in conventional physics are wrong.

      --
      "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    17. Re:After 50 years? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Well if you're going to play the Deep Time card, then you're going to have to deal with the Fermi Paradox, which points out that any aliens out there have had plenty of time to drop by for a visit.

    18. Re:After 50 years? by telomerewhythere · · Score: 1

      But would not an intelligent ET have continuous (or near continuous) pinging? OTOH, if ET is anything like Humanity, maybe they're hiding too...

    19. Re:After 50 years? by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Discovery of extra-solar life would be exciting and novel, but as far as the fate of Humanity is concerned it wouldn't be terribly useful

      It would be far more useful than any religion or political ideology has ever been in demonstrating the futility of internecine war and in encouraging the development of high technology.

    20. Re:After 50 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didnt they come up with seti@home... I think that was one of the first mass distributed work programs, and it spawned things like folding at home and such. which have contributed to many areas of science.

    21. Re:After 50 years? by thePig · · Score: 1

      By the same logic, even if you give them say 500 more years, we should not expect them to find anything since 500 out of 13.75 billion years is again nothing.
      I am all for science, and even approve of SETI. But I am not sure whether this is the correct argument for it.

      --
      rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
    22. Re:After 50 years? by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

      But SETI might actually come through with a win for me.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    23. Re:After 50 years? by OrangeCatholic · · Score: 1

      The purpose of internecine war is to exterminate internecine people. In other words, war justifies itself.

    24. Re:After 50 years? by OrangeCatholic · · Score: 1

      Terrible examples. Those programs burn cycles without outputting any data for the user. Worst programs ever. And I'm sure we would have invented distributed computing without seti.

      Better examples, please.

    25. Re:After 50 years? by gtall · · Score: 1

      Unless they are very close, say within several light years, then it wouldn't be an exciting conversation even if aliens found other aliens.

      Alien #1: Hey, anyone home?

      Alien #2: (15 years later) Yup. What are you doing tonight?

      Alien #1: (15 years later) Oh I don't know...maybe catch a new nova, how about you?

      Alien #3: (15 years later) Uh....Alien #2 popped his clogs...who are you?

    26. Re:After 50 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why couldn't an advanced civilization try to ping us every 1000 years or so and see if anyone responds?

      You mean, like the Wow signal?

    27. Re: After 50 years? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Narrow beam, high power, simple signal,

      ... 1/r^2 ...

      Has anyone calculated how powerful a signal would have to be before SETI's equipment could detect it?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    28. Re:After 50 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if they're run by people like you, I suppose nobody will be there to listen...

      That sounded very much like "Stop reading Slashdot, get back to work, you lazy bastard!"...

    29. Re:After 50 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better not: they'd know that SETI is useless and a waste of money.

      If they understand orders of magnitude, they might know that Paulson's 800 Billion bank bailout or the $ 1 trillion (and counting) Iraq/Afghan wars could have funded SETI for more than 150,000 years which is a respectable percentage of our life as modern humans. That the costs

    30. Re:After 50 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      distributed.net was up and running way before seti@home

    31. Re:After 50 years? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      The lower bound is 2x4.3 years = 8.6 years round trip and possibly much longer, so it won't ever be much of a conversation. But once you have it bootstrapped, you can say things like "tell us about the forms of life on your planet" and biologists would have year long orgasms looking at their version of National Geographic. Many, many hard sciences are like that and pretty much all the soft ones will want to know whether our behavior is universal or not. Not to mention that many scientific problems are hard and not solved in a day or two. Maybe one of their medical geniuses can say "Oh, uncontrolled cell growth like cancer? We figured that out, as a token of good faith and humanitarianism (or would that be alientarianism?) we will give this to you. You just..."

      In fact, it's quite possibly better if interstellar travel is impossible or at least very, very hard so neither of us feels immediately threatened by the other. Everybody gets paranoid if they think alien ships could warp into orbit any time and blast us away. I hardly think that is limited to alien species, but doubt also work both ways. You don't want to try an assault only to piss off some very powerful races with weapons they casually forgot to mention or share.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    32. Re:After 50 years? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      Problem is that we're not even sure a civilization would use The electromagnetic spectrum to communicate. With the discovery of Neutrino's that travel at the speed of light and go through all matter without effecting it (We only detect them when two Neutrino's collide and cause beta waves or something) - it seems like that would be an ultimate mode of communication. If we find a way to master those kinds of particles it's likely we'd ditch Cables, wifi, and all that stuff altogether. Now, if we manage to pull that off in the next 300 years, how long does that means radio has been around? So - how long would Aliens be using Radio?

    33. Re:After 50 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless they are very close, say within several light years, then it wouldn't be an exciting conversation even if aliens found other aliens.

      Alien #1: Hey, anyone home?

      Alien #2: (15 years later) Yup. What are you doing tonight?

      Alien #1: (15 years later) Oh I don't know...maybe catch a new nova, how about you?

      Alien #3: (15 years later) Uh....Alien #2 popped his clogs...who are you?

      There might not be much conversation on a personal level, but think about on the civilization or species level. If any of them are as interested in the possibilities of other intelligent species as some humans demonstrably are, then even a century time lag wouldn't stop us from exchanging things like historical and scientific data, as well as opinions on philosophical, economic, and political systems.

    34. Re:After 50 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      May be when they ping us, we thought they are noise ;-p

    35. Re:After 50 years? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but that win could also be a massive lose if they come with hostile inte(*Yc[NO CARRIER]

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    36. Re:After 50 years? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      They did. It was at around 1200AD, and we didn't have the tech to pick up EM waves in that wavelength. Aurora Borealis was damn pretty, though.

      The next one is in 2200. SETI is out of business due to budget cuts for the mass exodus and rebuild after North Korea and Iran decided to decimate the northern hemisphere, and come 3200 I'm fairly sure that there will be so few natural resources left on the place that all but the most efficient scavengers will be long gone.

      Hypothesising is fun!

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    37. Re:After 50 years? by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      The problem is that any sufficiently advanced civilization, who has 'been around long enough' to still be surviving, will have learned that it's far more prudent to hide your presence than advertise it openly until you know the intentions of any hypothetical new other civilization you might run into. And there's a Darwinian aspect whereby those species stupid enough to go around sending "here we are!" signals, are precisely those species who are most at risk from those with bad intentions who like to obliterate naive little civilizations and are smart enough to hide so that they can sneak up on them.

      If you come across an alien life form, your first thought will probably 'does this thing want to kill me or is it friendly'. Chances are, the alien is thinking the same thing. Then you'll be thinking, 'well in case it's not friendly, it might be most prudent if I shoot first'. Then the alien will be thinking that too. Then your next thought will be, 'this alien is probably thinking the same thing as I am, therefore it's probably going to decide to shoot first 'just in case' - I'd better shoot first then'.

      Presuming other alien civilizations exist, variations of this must play out across the universe every time new contacts are made.

      Of course, you have an advantage if you can learn all about some other species before you make contact, but it still doesn't necessarily help you; an alien visiting earth might encounter friendly people, it might encounter violent people ... it'll possibly be the same if we meet aliens, some may want to kill us, others may want to befriend us, and there'll be the same doubts and arguments about whether or not we can be trusted etc. that they might have if they encountered us.

      Given that advertising your presence and location is highly naive, a more advanced unfriendly civilization may use advertising its presence to set a 'trap' to entice another group to attack it, thinking it is naive. If you come across such a beacon, you anyway won't know if it's a trap or not.

      I rather doubt that advanced civilizations though, who have any inter-alien-species experience, would ever purposely advertise their presence and location by anything like radio-waves. Of course they'll need to communicate, and that will involve unintentional signalling, but they will make attempts to hide that. Unless they're very confident they can beat anything that comes along. In our case, we've beamed our presence through naivety, but we're talking about incredibly short timespans here ... we might be a lot smarter about all this in just another 100 or 200 years --- long before that beam of naively sent out signals reaches anyone of interest out there.

  8. Here I am! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You were looking in the wrong place. I've been here on slashdot!

  9. Do we really want to find them? by garcia · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Seriously? We can't handle the various cultures we live in relative close proximity too, do we really need to bring other races here to see the embarrassment we call Earth?

    1. Re:Do we really want to find them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humanity is a failed experiment.

      We must contact whatever species which started our evolution and demand that they either:

      a. Fix things around here
      b. End the experiment

      Either way, there will be a lot less pain, hate, and suffering on this spinning little rock.

  10. It's like violence by oldhack · · Score: 1

    "... says it's time to re-think and expand the search for ET."

    SETI obviously is not using enough XML. What you need is...

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  11. maybe they're smarter than we are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe any civilization that's made it through the industrial and electronic ages and all the social, military, population, and environmental upheavals that come along with it, has learned that you don't, like, broadcast your presence information to everyone in the friggin' universe.

  12. Obligatory Bill Hicks... by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

    But what if the ET's are just a bunch of hillbillies?

  13. Fast reading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn I thought the title said YETI is 50 years old;no sign of IT.

    I need new contacts.

  14. Of course by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 4, Funny

    Looks like ET's spam filter is working just fine ;)

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:Of course by zebadee · · Score: 1

      Maybe we just need to cycle our subject line more often...............or encourage more people to join SETI to increase the size of the botnet!

    2. Re:Of course by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      Maybe we just need to cycle our subject line more often...............or encourage more people to join SETI to increase the size of the botnet!

      Maybe we should simply try pimping them Viagra and Rolexes. It may be novel enough to interest them ;)

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    3. Re:Of course by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of the old Greg Egan novel "Quarantine," where the rest of the universe gets so tired of us poking around observing them and spamming them with garbage transmissions that they put a giant curtain around our entire solar system.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  15. We are the only ones by zaax · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Look how difficult it was to get here in the first place. We are the First Ones.

    1. Re:We are the only ones by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      Look how difficult it was to get here in the first place. We are the First Ones.

      Actually, that was a premise behind a ST:TNG episode, as well. The ancient race that seeded itself on Earth, Vulcan, Kronos (sp? or am I a pa'tak?), Romulus, and so on searched the whole galaxy and found no intelligent life. It was only the later evolved races (hu-mans, klingons, etc.) that could therefore discover each other and the biological connection they all shared.

    2. Re:We are the only ones by jonadab · · Score: 5, Funny

      > We are the First Ones.

      No, actually, we're the Last Ones Standing.

      See, humanity was the first race to develop time travel, in the late thirty-seventh century by your calendar, during the Third Great Intergalactic War. We knew that if we didn't act it was only a matter of time before one of the other races would develop or get ahold of the technology and use it against us. So we went ahead and sterilized the other races' homeworlds in the distant past, before they developed any significant technology. War over. We win.

      Once the word of what we'd done started getting out to the civilians, there was hell to pay, of course. But as far as I'm concerned there's no question. I don't have to worry that my grandkids will be wiped out because a Xenthasi Accelerator generates a supernova and wipes out their home star system, or that some Rtulmrachan Overlord will drop a galaxy-sized black hole in their immediate neighborhood, or that the Uiola will tear down our whole local group and re-use the matter to build the Largest Entertainment Mall in the Universe. We won.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    3. Re:We are the only ones by IICV · · Score: 1

      The first ones in 15 billion years, over the entirety of the universe? Not bloody likely.

    4. Re:We are the only ones by avilliers · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Look how difficult it was to get here in the first place. We are the First Ones.

      I realize Slashdot loves the ET thing, but who modding the parent as a troll? Really? For suggesting we're alone and tosssing in a sci-fi cliche?

      Beyond that, I don't even think it's a ridiculous suggestion on the merits. Life itself seems to have risen quickly, but it did take life a long time for any intelligence to appear on Earth--billions of years with life, but no technology and no intelligence. That certainly suggests it's not inevitable. It might really be a one in a billion fluke--we don't know.

    5. Re:We are the only ones by bazorg · · Score: 1

      what level of scientology is that?

    6. Re:We are the only ones by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      The first ones in 15 billion years, over the entirety of the universe? Not bloody likely.

      So, how unlikely is it? Just looking at our only data (life on Earth) It took us several Billion years just to reach a stage where we could actually produce RF emanations.

      How many Billion years did it take before there was even an area in the Universe that wasn't effectivelly sitting next to hundreds of other high-output stars, supernova, plasma jets, quasars, or other 'area clearing' things. It took a while for the universe to cool to a state where solar systems could form and have a reasonable expectation of stability for a period long enough to generate life.

      So we know it took a few billion years for the Universe to reach a state where life could theoretically begin to develop, and we know it probably would take a few billion years for life to become sufficiently complex to a point where we could feel comfortable stating that if it were to develop intelligence, it might survive long enough to reach an RF emitting stage.

      As a result, we only have a narrow window in which it was possible for life to have developed BEFORE us. And then it would have to have developed intelligence (not a guarantee) and survived long enough to reach a technological equivalence to us, if it ever would. Intelligence is no guarantee of technological advancement, especially if it develops in a typically solitary species (The Mountain Lion, even if it became intelligent,

      That we are the first, is not impossible.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  16. I think expectations are too high... by rotide · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I see lots of posts that seem to miss the point. The mere _finding_ of an ET would be _dramatic_ for our civilization. Think of all the things that would change (not all religious).

    If we can ever _prove_ we're not alone out here, I honestly believe it could sway the attitudes and priorities of many governments. I mean, honestly, if we know there is another alien life out there, that we could potentially communicate with, how many stupid squabbles would end?

    Right now, we only worry about ourselves because, well, that's all there is to worry about. The prospect of learning from another civilization, or even just being afraid and try to "defend" ourselves from them (sad, but you never know what spin governments would put on a finding like that) could be utterly revolutionary.

    Then again, so many people would dis-believe due to religious and/or conspiratorial reasons would probably be mind boggling.

    1. Re:I think expectations are too high... by Dan+East · · Score: 1

      Just out of curiosity, which religions are incompatible with the existence of extraterrestrial life? To my knowledge, such an issue is not addressed by most religions, and is compatible with most beliefs. Scientology expressly revolves around the concept of aliens, but Scientology is a tax dodge, not a religion.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    2. Re:I think expectations are too high... by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 5, Insightful

      even just being afraid and try to "defend" ourselves from them (sad, but you never know what spin governments would put on a finding like that)

      Government spin? That's the primary purpose for which we should be looking.

      Where does this idea of the peaceful alien come from? There has never been mutual cooperation between civilizations or species competing for the same resources. Among civilizations, it has always resulted in destruction or subjugation of the less technologically advanced civilization. We need to be keeping our ears open and our mouths shut.

    3. Re:I think expectations are too high... by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Ultimately none of course. If religions would be disbanded because they are incompatible with science or simple truths, we would have rather less religions (if not none).
      Religions die out if people start to believe in other religions, by force or not.

    4. Re:I think expectations are too high... by rotide · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm sorry you feel everyone is out to get you/us, but are we searching just to conquer an ET? Or are we doing so just for the sake of doing it and for whatever benefits/truths can be made from such a discovery?

      Maybe they want our resources, maybe we make good eats or maybe we make good batteries, I don't know. Could they want to find us just to kill us for one reason or another? Of course it is possible, but there is no reason to not look.

    5. Re:I think expectations are too high... by Gerafix · · Score: 1

      Wow, being optimistic is nice once in a while but you're taking it pretty far. Do you honestly believe the average Homo sapien gives a damn about whether or not we are on the only habitable planet? Seriously. Think about it for a second. Most people care about one thing. Money and sex. Okay, two things, money, sex, and ruthless efficiency. Okay, three things, money, sex, ruthless efficiency and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope. Well anyway I'm quite certain most people would waive off the discovery like it was news of a bit of bad weather and go down to the local strip mall for another pair of $300 sun glasses and complain about the price of gas for their SUV with their bimbo friends over a $10 cup of coffee.

    6. Re:I think expectations are too high... by HBoar · · Score: 1

      Interesting point -- I can't give any examples of explicit incompatibilities with the existence of ET life (although I have little knowledge of religion), but plenty of religious types seem to THINK that their religion states states that ET life does not exist. My guess is it's like the only-child faced with the prospect of a new sibling -- Their god gives them so little attention as it is, they don't want another 'child' vying for his/her attention!

    7. Re:I think expectations are too high... by vadim_t · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Where does this idea of the peaceful alien come from? There has never been mutual cooperation between civilizations or species competing for the same resources. Among civilizations, it has always
      resulted in destruction or subjugation of the less technologically advanced civilization. We need to be keeping our ears open and our mouths shut.

      I think that if anything can show up here and say hi they probably don't need anything from us. Unless they come from Proxima Centauri they can probably find whatever they need much closer, and sending anything from here back wherever they came from is probably mind boggingly expensive in energy expenditures.

      For instance take the lack of interest in mining asteroids or the moon. We probably could if we had a good reason to, but it's so expensive it's not worth it.

    8. Re:I think expectations are too high... by afabbro · · Score: 1

      I think your expectations are too high. Discovering that life exists elsewhere would change nothing. If we discovered life close enough that we would interact with it beyond sending multi-year radio postcards, then perhaps. But the likeliest scenario is that we'll pick up some stray signals from a civilization so far away that at best we'll be able to send messages and hope our children can read their responses.

      That is not going to change anything.

      To take one admittedly flawed example - Marco Polo came back to 14th century Italy and told stories of an advanced civilization "far away" but close enough to reach out to. Nothing changed.

      At best, a SETI discovery will result in some ThinkGeek T-shirts of the signal.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    9. Re:I think expectations are too high... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we can ever _prove_ we're not alone out here, I honestly believe it could sway the attitudes and priorities of many governments. I mean, honestly, if we know there is another alien life out there, that we could potentially communicate with, how many stupid squabbles would end

      Maybe you could give us some examples?
      Signs of alien life aren't going to create more potable water, create peace in the middle east, settle the falkan islands dispute, or stabilize oil prices.

    10. Re:I think expectations are too high... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      I see lots of posts that seem to miss the point. The mere _finding_ of an ET would be _dramatic_ for our civilization. Think of all the things that would change (not all religious).

      Yeah! Like... uh... I can't think of anything.

      You know what? I think one of the most accurate alien contact movies is District 9, in which contact with aliens changed... well, basically nothing at all.

      (Also: what religions are incompatible with alien life? Out of curiosity? Islam perhaps?)

    11. Re:I think expectations are too high... by jonadab · · Score: 0

      > The mere _finding_ of an ET would be _dramatic_ for our civilization

      On the contrary, it would have no practical impact at all. Zilch.

      Bear in mind, even if we knew for certain that there were intelligent and technologically advanced aliens in a certain star system, there is ZERO chance we'd be able to communicate with them to any significant extent. With a multi-year communication lag, we wouldn't be able to communicate meaningfully with them even if they spoke English and used the same kinds of communications technology we do -- all of which is ridiculously unlikely in the uttermost extreme, even by comic-book standards.

      There would be arguments, but there are arguments about extra-terrestrial life now. No change there.

      > I honestly believe it could sway the attitudes and priorities of many governments.

      Don't be so naive. Human nature does not change just because some additional information is thrown into the mix. Look at everything we've already learned over the last couple of millennia, and yet human nature is just the same as it always was. When Columbus publicized the existence of what we now call America, did the attitudes of European governments change dramatically? The only real change was *which* land they wanted to fight over, and even that very small change only happened because the newly discovered land was reachable, which an alien planet wouldn't be.

      But this is really neither here nor there anyway, because we're not talking about a research program that has the potential to actually find anything out. We're talking about SETI, a program that listens to the radio waves coming from stars. If there were any intelligible or demonstrably-non-natural radio signals coming from the stars, they would have been noticed anyway, without SETI. There aren't any. But SETI keeps listening anyway, because SETI is not interested in *finding* anything.

      I'll say that again, because it bears repeating: SETI is not intended to *find* anything. The program is not scientifically but politically motivated. They don't intend to find anything. They just want to keep stringing people along, promising that maybe *next* year the program will do something of value. But it won't. Ever.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    12. Re:I think expectations are too high... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      It's not so much that a particular religion states that aliens don't exist as much as it is the creation of some contradictions in certain religious premises. For example, there are some pretty damn huge contradictions that would appear to arise in orthodox Christianity if the existence of intelligent alien life that can make what we would identify as conscious moral decisions is ever proven. Such contradictions are probably not insurmountable, but they would require a significant reevaluation of some of the church's claims by its followers.

    13. Re:I think expectations are too high... by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 1

      Most religions posit the earth as the centre of events in the universe. The creation stories (AFAIK) don't tell of other places and intelligent life being created at the same time - so it would be a bit troubling that they left important parts out of the narrative. However as the other poster mentioned - most would just roll with it and start a war by trying to convert them :|

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
    14. Re:I think expectations are too high... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean, honestly, if we know there is another alien life out there, that we could potentially communicate with, how many stupid squabbles would end?

      Or for a more pessimistic view, if the ETs are close enough to matter, the squabbles will get worse as all the sides try to get this new power to back them. Imagine every terrorist group in the world trying to convince ETs who don't know any better that their cause deserves military support. "We're not that 'God's Bloody Sword Of Conquest' group you may have heard about, at least not anymore, we're, umm, the Lemurian People! A whole race suffering under fierce secular liberal oppression! Could you drop an asteroid on Manchester for us? Thanks!"

    15. Re:I think expectations are too high... by BikeHelmet · · Score: 1

      Where does this idea of the peaceful alien come from? There has never been mutual cooperation between civilizations or species competing for the same resources. Among civilizations, it has always resulted in destruction or subjugation of the less technologically advanced civilization. We need to be keeping our ears open and our mouths shut.

      Right. On Earth.

      We base all our assumptions on what we know about 1) Humans and 2) Earth.

      As soon as you go into space, that all changes. Or maybe it doesn't. But assuming it doesn't is a flawed way of going about it.

    16. Re:I think expectations are too high... by SetupWeasel · · Score: 1

      It is foolish to assume that there is no other life in the universe. It is also foolish to assume it is only a matter of scanning the skies with a radio telescope to find it.

      There are a lot of these "What if?", pie-in-the-sky arguments for SETI, but the hard truth is that it may be impossible for us to detect intelligent life with current instruments, and we have nothing we can do if we were to find that life.

      I'd like someone to tell me the SETI endgame. Let's assume we can detect a signal. Then what? We can't communicate with them. We can't visit them. It wouldn't be likely that they are broadcasting information we could really use, and even if they were, it probably wouldn't be strong enough to decipher.

      SETI is a foolish waste of money. People argue that it is like winning the lottery, and it is worth the cost to play. I say that the chances aren't significantly better paying a dollar for a number than they would be simply finding the winning number discarded in a gutter.

    17. Re:I think expectations are too high... by mrsurb · · Score: 2, Informative
      Indeed, the Vatican has addressed this recently and the Pope's chief astronomer doesn't see a contradiction between the existence of intelligent extra-terrestrials and Catholic belief

      Dislaimer: I am not a Roman Catholic but a Reformed Christian. However I broadly agree with this conclusion.

    18. Re:I think expectations are too high... by SoUnDsLiKeWhEn · · Score: 0

      don't think Al Qaeda gives a fuck about ET

    19. Re:I think expectations are too high... by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree with the parent post. ET may not be friendly at all.

      they can probably find whatever they need much closer, and sending anything from here back wherever they came from is probably mind boggingly expensive in energy expenditures.

      I'm sure that's what the Spanish thought in 1492 too. The human race is the most intelligent on Earth. But when you think about it, are actions are someone irrational. What makes you think ET wouldn't have irrational behavior as well?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    20. Re:I think expectations are too high... by Lloyd_Bryant · · Score: 1

      Right. On Earth.

      We base all our assumptions on what we know about 1) Humans and 2) Earth.

      As soon as you go into space, that all changes. Or maybe it doesn't. But assuming it doesn't is a flawed way of going about it.

      Sorry, but "On Earth" is the only dataset we have from which to extrapolate. There is a *possibility* that going into space will change everthing, but there's no *evidence* to that effect.

      I have to agree with the GP - in nearly every instance where there have been "discoverers" and "discovered", in the long term the "discovered" have gotten the short end of the stick. As such, I hope we are the "discoverers"...

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
    21. Re:I think expectations are too high... by Kitkoan · · Score: 1

      I see lots of posts that seem to miss the point. The mere _finding_ of an ET would be _dramatic_ for our civilization. Think of all the things that would change (not all religious).

      If we can ever _prove_ we're not alone out here, I honestly believe it could sway the attitudes and priorities of many governments. I mean, honestly, if we know there is another alien life out there, that we could potentially communicate with, how many stupid squabbles would end?

      Right now, we only worry about ourselves because, well, that's all there is to worry about. The prospect of learning from another civilization, or even just being afraid and try to "defend" ourselves from them (sad, but you never know what spin governments would put on a finding like that) could be utterly revolutionary.

      Then again, so many people would dis-believe due to religious and/or conspiratorial reasons would probably be mind boggling.

      Only problem is, you seem to believe that people would treat aliens as friendly equals. History shows that it won't be anywhere as clean and simple as that. You do mention that we might just be afraid and try to 'defend' ourselves from them.

      The biggest problem from the start is humanity as a species only got to the level we have not because we are kind to each other and learned from each other, but because we kill any and everything we fear. Humans have been traced to the rise of mammals and at the time surviving with the mega-fauna. While some mega-fauna do survive, most of them are gone and the majority being the ones that would kill humans. Some died of natural selection, but the common belief is that most are gone because we killed them. Fear of the unknown causes people to panic and panic leads to violence. We started near the lower ranks of the food chain. Now we have no equal at the top of the chain.

      This show of history is also not limited to humans verse animals that cannot be reasoned with. We have the burning times where people killed 'evil witches', slavery of different people (black slavery is the most commonly thought of, but others like Herbrew slaves to the Egyptions, ect...), KKK killing minorities, acts of genocide, other acts/groups of racism/religious intolerance, ect...

      Now lets take a whole species that in theory can be communicated with, might be a threat, and is truely unknown in abilities. Combine this with an inability to truly understand their underlying motives to interact with us and see how people act. History makes me lean toward one hell of a mob-like answer.

      Then again, always a chance I'm wrong and it can become a wonderful and peaceful outcome. You never know.

      --
      Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
    22. Re:I think expectations are too high... by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      To take one admittedly flawed example - Marco Polo came back to 14th century Italy and told stories of an advanced civilization "far away" but close enough to reach out to. Nothing changed.

      Counterexample: The Apollo program resulted in some pictures of Earth from the moon. The Earth looking like a pretty small little ball in the vastness of space. The current broad acceptance of the environmental movement came from those simple pictures - we as a species realized that our home planet isn't eternal. Some care should be taken to keep it habitable.

      These are the kind of events that cause all of humanity to stop and gaze in wonder. And it does indeed result in very large changes.

      Like your admittedly flawed example lead to the colonization of the Americas in order to facilitate trade with that advanced civilization, as well as what we now call the 'age of exploration'.

    23. Re:I think expectations are too high... by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      (Also: what religions are incompatible with alien life? Out of curiosity? Islam perhaps?)

      Virtually all religions include a bit in their creation myth where humans were created as some sort of 'special' creature. Some think that finding intelligent life elsewhere in the universe would cause a theological crisis since it proves humans aren't special....personally I think the especially devout will just insist we're superior to the aliens.

    24. Re:I think expectations are too high... by OrangeCatholic · · Score: 1

      >The mere _finding_ of an ET would be _dramatic_ for our civilization. Think of all the things that would change (not all religious)....how many stupid squabbles would end?

      It already happened. It's called Climate Change.

      You think there aren't people who want to kill ET? You should watch Avatar.

    25. Re:I think expectations are too high... by afabbro · · Score: 1

      I disagree that the environmental movement or acceptance of it came from the big blue marble pictures. Environmentalism was alive and well in the modern sense before 1969 ("Silent Spring" was published in 1962).

      I would say that the space program pics (and the deep field pics, etc.) make for some open-mouth wowing by those who see them. However, 90%+ of humanity have not (I doubt 75% of Americans have) and the vast majority of humans would not grasp the significance of, say, the Hubble deep field photos.

      The statement that we were in contact with extra-terrestrial life would be understood far more universally. But it would be unifying/revolutionary only if it was non-abstract. Seeing an alien, reading correspondence, etc. is non-abstract. A message sent that we think our grandkids might possibly be able to reply to is too abstract.

      Second, the commenter I replied to was suggesting that many "petty squabbles" would be put to an end and there would be a general uniting on humanity. If we discovered a wormhole in the asteroid belt with an advanced civilization (good or ill) on the other side of it, then yes, I agree. But sending radio postcards? No, not enough.

      I'm not saying there would be NO impact, just that it would not be revolutionary.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    26. Re:I think expectations are too high... by okmijnuhb · · Score: 1

      How many stupid squabbles would end?
      None.
      How many stupid squabbles would begin?
      As many as there are space creatures.
      You think mankind will stop being stupid just because he's discovered life beyond planet Earth?
      Based on reality, I can make a long list of stupid mankind scenarios.

    27. Re:I think expectations are too high... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed totally.

      And totally logical from one point of view. Here i am an interstellar alien. i got ships and technology and all kinds of neat stuff.
      Do i go out in the universe and meet new people and help them along and give them stuff? And be all like 'wow, other life exists! cool!'

      Can you see US doing that? Hell no, we're greedy!
      We'll go out and take anything intresting that we can find from the universe, planet, or species. When we find a new species what do we do... Capture a dozen of them for study and potential exploitation as a resource.

      Everything is either a threat or a resource to us. And why wouldn't it be the same for any other species in the universe?

    28. Re:I think expectations are too high... by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And I think that anything that does show up here would do so for a purpose, and most likely one that we really wouldn't like.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    29. Re:I think expectations are too high... by bkeahl · · Score: 1

      As much as I'd like for the discovery of life "out there" directly improving our lives, I'm afraid we can't underestimate human-kind's ability to be short-sighted. Think of every petty dictator who would like to have an "in" with the technology of an advanced alien civilization. You know, how many soldiers could one man with a "phaser" kill?

      Yeah, I know, a big stretch from an intergalactic hello to actual physical contact. But, I can see the mad dash by would-be-world-dictators to get plans for the new ultimate weapon in return for being the "Governor" of a new colonial planet of the alien culture.

      I don't by the expansion of consciousness argument. If we're going to have an enlightened view of sharing our universe with aliens we'll need to end our squabbles so we don't sound like savages when we communicate with them. Your concern about needing to "defend" ourselves against aliens would probably be our first response. Actually, it's probably a legitimate function of government to initiate steps to protect us from an attack, wherever it comes from. Just so long as neither they or us accidentally misunderstand a "hello" for a "you're momma's ugly and dresses you funny" :). Interestingly, many Christian Conservatives I know are comfortable with the idea of life "out there". Those who are more versed in the Bible have pointed out that certain language in Genesis (I think) would leave one to infer there are other planets with life on them. Just so long as they aren't red with pointed ears and a spade tail things ought to go swimmingly with them!

    30. Re:I think expectations are too high... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean, honestly, if we know there is another alien life out there, that we could potentially communicate with, how many stupid squabbles would end?

      Let me see...none? Why would they? So many people's fertile imaginations have been stimulated with this idea, that it's easy to _imagine_ wars ending here. But what about our reality on earth would change? Would we suddenly find more energy/resources? No. Would our level of wisdom about how to live change? No. Would people's ingrained tendencies to be religious disappear? Probably not. Due to distances, we wouldn't even be able to communicate with the alien civilization in real-time.

      Yes, such a finding would change the priorities of astronomers, and give astrobiologists their first reason to continue working, but nothing for the common man would change.

    31. Re:I think expectations are too high... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where does this idea of the peaceful alien come from?

      It comes from the same place that the idea of the malevolent alien comes from. The human psyche... or more precisely it comes from humans anthropomorphizing something that's not only non-human, but completely alien (and more to the point, unknown). It makes completely unwarranted assumptions about the motivations of alien life, and even something as reasonable as "competition over resources" turns into humor when it is looked at with a bit of detachment and taken to an extreme: an interstellar bypass constructed by the Vogon fleet.

    32. Re:I think expectations are too high... by dgriff · · Score: 1

      The prospect of learning from another civilization [...] could be utterly revolutionary.

      Would the people who first decoded that incoming stream of useful information have the right to patent any resulting inventions? Who would own the copyright on the alien messages?

    33. Re:I think expectations are too high... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, because finding intelligent life on other continants totally united all of europ together as they set aside their petty differences to enter the larger world... nevermind.

    34. Re:I think expectations are too high... by lawpoop · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm sure that's what the Spanish thought in 1492 too.

      Are you kidding me? They were looking for a better trade route to India, to avoid sailing all around Africa.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    35. Re:I think expectations are too high... by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      I disagree that the environmental movement or acceptance of it came from the big blue marble pictures. Environmentalism was alive and well in the modern sense before 1969 ("Silent Spring" was published in 1962).

      While it existed, there wasn't widespread acceptance.

      The statement that we were in contact with extra-terrestrial life would be understood far more universally. But it would be unifying/revolutionary only if it was non-abstract. Seeing an alien, reading correspondence, etc. is non-abstract. A message sent that we think our grandkids might possibly be able to reply to is too abstract.

      We're not talking about communication. Just the discovery that "we are not alone" would be significant enough to make some widespread changes. Some like to guess at what those changes would be, but I don't believe we can know what will happen - it's too revolutionary.

    36. Re:I think expectations are too high... by cpghost · · Score: 1

      Where does this idea of the peaceful alien come from?

      And where does the idea of a hostile alien come from? Maybe we can divide Humanity in three camps: those who believe aliens are hostile until proven otherwise, those who believe aliens to be friendly until proven otherwise, and those who don't believe aliens exist -- and won't believe it even if they saw them (quoth Comical Ali: "there are no US tanks in Baghdad!" -- oh, and where those tanks actually friendly or hostile? Hmmm...).

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    37. Re:I think expectations are too high... by muckracer · · Score: 1

      > If we discovered life close enough that we would interact with it beyond sending multi-year radio postcards, then perhaps. But the likeliest scenario is that we'll pick up some stray signals from a civilization so far away that at best we'll be able to send messages and hope our children can read their responses.

      Why does it have to be postcard-style back-and-forth communication with, as you seem to imply, little actual content? It could be a continuous stream which, after the first initial contact/delay, would provide more than enough material and information to work with...

    38. Re:I think expectations are too high... by metamatic · · Score: 1

      Where does this idea of the peaceful alien come from? There has never been mutual cooperation between civilizations or species competing for the same resources.

      Unless there's something major we don't understand about the laws of physics, we're not going to be competing for the same resources.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    39. Re:I think expectations are too high... by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      If we can ever _prove_ we're not alone out here, I honestly believe it could sway the attitudes and priorities of many governments.

      Government, schmoverment --- what would be far more exciting is the potential it would have to dramatically change our species' direction for private individuals and companies and explorers etc.

    40. Re:I think expectations are too high... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I cant speak for Hindu's, Muslims, or other religions but the Bible doesn't say anything about life on other planets. Since the lack of evidence should never be used as evidence in and of itself, i would say the there are no conflicts between the Bible and extraterrestrial life. At the same time, i would say that there currently is no rational reason (aside from personal preference) to believe that they do exist either. In the end, if evidence is found that they exist, there really isnt any scriptural reason to deny it. Then again religious people, and non-religious people, tend to hold to their personally preferred beliefs with much vigor. Even if they are irrational. Thats just human nature.

    41. Re:I think expectations are too high... by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Actually, we are basing these assumptions after observing every single "alive" thing on this planet, plants included, that destroy each other in order that their species succeeds. Thinking that a species from another planet is going to magically be different means ignoring what we know about every living creature.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  17. Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd settle for some signs of intelligent life here on Earth! Deciding not to destroy the planet we depend on would be a great start. So would refraining from killing people for believing in a different fairy tale.

  18. Maybe... by hargrand · · Score: 1

    ... we listen in vain?

    1. Re:Maybe... by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      ... we listen in vain?

      Nah, you're confusing SETI with marriage. A common mistake.

  19. The aliens aren't using radio... by Rocky · · Score: 3, Funny

    They're using subspace communications, or ansible, or ultrawave.

    or semaphore...

    --
    "I'm an old-fashioned type of guy. I worship the Sun and Moon as gods. And fear them."
    1. Re:The aliens aren't using radio... by HBoar · · Score: 1

      OR maybe they have a series of tubes connecting their hydraulic computers, in which pressure waves are used to transmit data.

    2. Re:The aliens aren't using radio... by Gerafix · · Score: 1

      Never underestimate the bandwidth of a truck full of internets.

    3. Re:The aliens aren't using radio... by Lloyd_Bryant · · Score: 2, Informative

      They're using subspace communications, or ansible, or ultrawave.

      or semaphore...

      Not entirely sure why this was modded "Funny" - it's a very valid point. Just because electromagnetic radiation is the best tool we have for long-range communications does not mean that other, more advanced civilizations aren't using something that we don't even know how to detect (Gravity wave telegraphy? Quantum entanglement semaphores?).

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
    4. Re:The aliens aren't using radio... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Surely that's Quantum Entanglement Morse Code... 0 for dot, 1 for dash, and 01 for... Oh.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  20. Listening to the Heavens by Kris+Thalamus · · Score: 1

    Given that any intelligent god that wasn't born on earth would be (by definition) an extraterrestrial intelligence, do any religious people expect SETI to one day contact one of the gods or find evidence for their existence?

    1. Re:Listening to the Heavens by tftp · · Score: 1

      Given that any intelligent god that wasn't born on earth would be (by definition) an extraterrestrial intelligence ...

      A god may be[1] an ET, but not every ET has to be a god.

      [1] Some gods are postulated to reside on Earth or inside Earth, see Greek gods for example.

  21. I hope something is found in my life time by mrflash818 · · Score: 1

    "It took ages for humans to even begin to explore our own planet. "

    I agree. I think it will take a long time of searching, and a large region of sky surveyed, before we find anything.

    I hope we do find something that is confirmed as 100% made by ET in my lifetime, because maybe it would help people, globally, to find better ways to coexist and direct their energies.

    --
    Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
    1. Re:I hope something is found in my life time by thoughtspace · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unless the ETs blew the shit out of each other.

  22. Differing levels of civilization by ezratrumpet · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We generally view the Stone Age tribes still lingering in the world as worthy of monitoring from a distance. Perhaps we occasionally intervening with some sort of sustenance or relief if it won't really mess them up, but all in all, we leave them alone rather than turn their world upside down.

    With that in mind, how would a civilization sufficiently advanced to travel here from Alpha Centauri view our civilization?

    "Mostly harmless."

    "We'll give them a little longer. When they manage to visit the rest of the neighborhood - maybe when they're able to travel to another planet in their little solar system - we'll say hello. As long as we use short words and simple sentences, we might be able to help them understand speed-of-light travel."

    "Okay. But if they start shooting those cute little firecrackers at us, I'm throwing a marble [read: black hole] into the middle of their little planet."

    1. Re:Differing levels of civilization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, it's going to take a while...

      Let's say, humans evolved to the equivalent of modern form and on average no smarter or dumber... Was roughly what? 40,000 years ago?
      And we had fire not long after that, if not at the start... (Previous hominids aren't all that dumb either.)
      Then about 10,000 years ago humans figured out that with those marks you used to make pretty pictures, you could also put ideas into more abstract symbols. Then that way a lot of information could be passed down or delivered to others without having to remember it all. That was a pretty big jump.
      Another big one was somewhere around 5,000 years ago when humans figured out certain pretty or interesting rocks would melt if you put them in a fire that was hot enough. And that the resulting materials could be made into different things. It doesn't seem like much, but it's a really big deal.
      Then somewhere around 1,000 to 500 years ago (depending on if you ask the Chinese or Europeans) printing was invented. So the availability of knowledge made a huge leap.
      Then just a little over 100 years ago, we figured out electricity had some uses...
      Somewhere just over 60 years ago... the first solid-state transistor...

      And it's really not terribly much more than that 50 year window that SETI has been active in which we have actually been able to produce the electronics that could produce and detect the kind of signal SETI is looking for.

      If other intelligent life is out there and comparable to us in ability (able to alter environment) and capability (friable metals and other chemical resources available), then that really gives a 50,000 year window give or take a few to be certain we're alone in the neighborhood. Provided they'd want to talk to us of course, they might even be ahead in the game. SETI has only spent 1/1000th of the observation time required to find a detectable signal as produced by modern humans since evolving into existance. Only loooong term thinking (generation spanning) will give the project a fair shake at working.

  23. Request Denied by BeerDiablo · · Score: 1

    Is this akin to having a Myspace/Facebook friend request ignored?

    1. Re:Request Denied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even worse... THEY'RE MADE OUT OF MEAT!!!

      http://www.terrybisson.com/page6/page6.html

  24. LOL by mrflash818 · · Score: 1

    :)

    --
    Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
  25. Antenna not big enough? by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 1

    Question, what kind of antenna would we need to build in order to detect a TV or FM radio transmitter on another planet with similar strength and radiation pattern as common commercial radio TV and Radio transmitters on this planet, if they were located on the other planet. What about other common transmissions of ours as well?

    I think at some point that SETI assumed that a ET civilisation would eb generating a signal stronger than we normally produce in day to day activities and pointing it at this solar system. It could be that there may be lots of civilisations out there but simply none are doing that. S

    So how big of an antenna would it take for, lets say, a civilisation on a remote solar system planet to detect the day to day RF activity on this planet?

    1. Re:Antenna not big enough? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Depends entirely on how far away your planet is, of course. Read up on the inverse square law.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:Antenna not big enough? by Vellmont · · Score: 1

      Here's a calculator someone cooked up that might be able to answer the question.

      http://www.satsig.net/seticalc.htm

      If you run with the default numbers (Aerocibo sized receiver+transmitter) the range is around 23 light years. The real numbers are going to be a bit different however, since our transmissions are usually not directional, but the transmit power is also higher.

      --
      AccountKiller
    3. Re:Antenna not big enough? by HBoar · · Score: 1

      So how big of an antenna would it take for, lets say, a civilisation on a remote solar system planet to detect the day to day RF activity on this planet?

      As I understand it, an impossibly large one. And it still wouldn't work. It just gets lost to the background noise of the universe at any real distance...

    4. Re:Antenna not big enough? by tftp · · Score: 1

      So how big of an antenna would it take for, lets say, a civilisation on a remote solar system planet to detect the day to day RF activity on this planet?

      Other people already commented on the physics of RF. But that could be dealt with - by building antenna arrays in space, for example.

      A far tougher problem is the propagation delay. You could one day receive first feeble AM broadcasts from a planet 500 light years away, and the next day people from that planet show up in their FTL ships.

      A more practical approach, if your civilization is really interested in monitoring other star systems, is to seed the galaxy with self-replicating probes that position themselves within target systems and wait for activity. If anything happens, they report back through FTL channels. Of course if FTL is really impossible then the whole idea is pretty pointless, and remote civilizations will never contact each other.

    5. Re:Antenna not big enough? by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 1

      We should have an open mind about FTL but, i dont know if we have a clue about how to practically do that.

    6. Re:Antenna not big enough? by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 1

      There may be a civilisation out there that is creating an intentional high powered signal, but maybe not, for the same reasons we do not. That is, we are too afraid that we might open the pandoras box. There might be civilisations out there that, for instance, have global warming and other environmental problems, and knowing of another planet somewhere could inspire them to hostally take that planet.

    7. Re:Antenna not big enough? by east+coast · · Score: 1

      A civilization that has any real chance to reach us with a spaceship would be able to not only deal with global warming easily but they'd also have no problem finding us with or without all the radio wave jazz.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    8. Re:Antenna not big enough? by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Of course if FTL is really impossible then the whole idea is pretty
      > pointless, and remote civilizations will never contact each other.

      You assume they are short lived and impatient.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    9. Re:Antenna not big enough? by Dalambertian · · Score: 1

      I recall doing this calculation in one of my astronomy classes. The prof concluded that Aricebo could capture signals from a planet on the other side of our galaxy if it knew where to look. That was a rough estimate (I forget whether the galaxy is opaque to radio) but it would explain why we are looking at all.

  26. earth like planets by agwis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm too lazy to look up the links, or the names of the projects, but I understand within the next few years focus is being placed on locating earth like planets (close to our same size, orbiting a similar star at roughly the same distance we are ours, etc.). I just assumed when I read about this the first time that SETI would be very interested and excited to be given locations of planets that actually have a decent chance of supporting life (as we know it) rather than just randomly focusing on a particular area. This should be exciting times for SETI and their followers but I'm surprised there isn't any mention of it in the interview.

    I hope SETI is going to be all over this as locations of earth like planets are announced and that that is what Paul Davies means by "time to re-think and expand the search for ET"!

  27. Maybe intelligent life is impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps the existence of intelligent life is just not compatible with the laws of physics in this universe.

    After all, after billions of years there still isn't any on this planet.

  28. they are doing it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    do you really think that et will use radio waves to contact one planet to another no they will use something called quantum physics to communicate to each other instantly instead of years what i think we should do is to wait for the technology to come out and create a telescope using that technology

    1. Re:they are doing it wrong by HBoar · · Score: 1

      Great Idea, with the small exception of the fact that you'd need to travel to the said far off planet first with an entangled particle. At which point it would be pretty clear whether there was life there or not.

  29. still looking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am 58 years old and still looking for signs of intelligent terrestrial life.....

    1. Re:still looking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus H. Christ, will someone with mod points start modding these fuckwits 'redundant' already? The slop that passes for wit these days on slashdot is nauseating.

  30. So? by mingbrasil · · Score: 0

    If we can't even find Osama bin Laden, why do you think SETI would be able to lead us to ET?

  31. Obligatory XKCD... by denzacar · · Score: 4, Funny
    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Obligatory XKCD... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

      best xkcd ever!

    2. Re:Obligatory XKCD... by WraithCube · · Score: 1

      They have identified our signal, but the problem is that nobody wants meet meat.

    3. Re:Obligatory XKCD... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like this one. Be sure to hover your cursor over the red button below the comic for the punchline.

    4. Re:Obligatory XKCD... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Made better. (warning: NSFW)

  32. The problem is time by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 4, Informative

    The problem's basically one of time. Think about this: the first radio transmission on Earth was in 1866. That's 144 years ago. That means that any alien civilization more than 144 light-years away from Earth can't see us in the radio bands. They'd have to be inside the bubble formed by our first radio transmissions to even have a chance of spotting us using the methods SETI does. And that bubble isn't a sphere either, it'll eventually have an inside surface as well as an outer one. We're getting more and more efficient, wasting less and less power beaming radio waves off in all directions. Eventually we'll be broadcasting so little that we won't be detectable at any reasonable distance. Anybody inside that inner surface won't be able to see us either. That'll leave probably a 250-300 light-year thick zone moving steadily outwards that any race looking for us will have to be in to see us by looking for radio transmissions. They won't have to just be looking for us, they'll have to be looking for us during the 3-century period when they're in that zone. Look too early or too late and we're invisible to them.

    And the same applies to us: we can look all we want, but if we're not in the radio-transmission zone for another species they'll be invisible to us.

    1. Re:The problem is time by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Informative

      > ...the first radio transmission on Earth was in 1866...

      I think you mean 1886 (and that transmission by Hertz was very low power and wideband).

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:The problem is time by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Informative

      They'd have to be inside the bubble formed by our first radio transmissions to even have a chance of spotting us using the methods SETI does.

      No, SETI is looking for intentional beacons, not accidental leakage.

      In your terms, our SETI-style space-time bubble is a very very very thin shell from the one (or was it two?) times we actually beamed out a signal. Actually not a shell, because it was directional. Interestingly the small handful of candidate signals fit this pattern.

      Personally, I think until we're unafraid enough to light up a real beacon, any more advanced society won't pay us any attention. We're panicky and prone to irrational behavior, which probably makes us uninteresting peers. It seems none of us will live long enough to see humanity get over itself, though perhaps we can push it a bit in that direction.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:The problem is time by Ricken · · Score: 0

      What if we blow up the sun? Would that send them a clear enough message?
      http://www.bash.org/?744067

    4. Re:The problem is time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that and decades worth of high-power radars directed into space for the purpose of detecting ICBMs.

    5. Re:The problem is time by houghi · · Score: 1

      That would asume alien life is looking for and aware of inteligent life. Next it would asume that they have studies us AND understood what we are about. Half of the time we don't even know these things ourselves.

      And I would think that any form of life would be interesting. If we find some sort of bacteria on Mars, we will be extremely interested. I am sure that anybody interested in exploring the universe will be interested in us.

      It could well be that they are just not interested in exploring the universe.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    6. Re:The problem is time by digitalchinky · · Score: 1

      We are getting more 'noisy' not less.

      Radar, been around for a tad over 100 years now in various forms. These days the world is bathed in it. Not only that, but near on every Radar spills radiation out in to space with a narrow high energy lobe, generally in the kilowatt range, some higher, some lower. Most of this is unintentional, but some of it is done on purpose.

      For sure we are figuring out better ways to pack information in to limited amounts of spectrum, but, and this point seems to escape most people, this efficiency in conveying information does not mean we are using less radiated power to achieve the end goal. That analogue television station that was pumping out a megawatt still needs to pump out about the same amount of power for its digital transmission to maintain the same coverage area.

      The Clark belt, littered with geo-stationary satellites. Every functional satellite has many (many) thousands of signals present on each transponder - just about every single one of those signals also has a corresponding uplink. This is done using a very narrow beam width, a pencil beam if you will. Uplink power is generally anywhere from milliwatts through to kilowatts. A lot of that signal spills past the satellite. This isn't going away any time soon.

    7. Re:The problem is time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't matter. Advanced technology will allow aliens (and fairly soon - and by that I mean in the next hundred years or so - humanity as well) to look at planets on the other side of the galaxy and use spectroscopy to see which ones have oxygen. Oxygen isn't stable, it's a clear indication of life. That doesn't mean life always creates oxygen, but if there *is* oxygen, *something* must be refreshing the supply. That said, oxygen (among other similarly unstable elements) have been present on our planet for billions of years. If there are advanced aliens in this galaxy, they've already cataloged our planet as "potentially containing life" since before we evolved. They've *also* had enough time to get here. I'm not saying aliens walk among us, but it's a pretty interesting thought.

    8. Re:The problem is time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Eventually we'll be broadcasting so little that we won't be detectable at any reasonable distance. Anybody inside that inner surface won't be able to see us either. That'll leave probably a 250-300 light-year thick zone moving steadily outwards that any race looking for us will have to be in to see us by looking for radio transmissions. They won't have to just be looking for us, they'll have to be looking for us during the 3-century period when they're in that zone. Look too early or too late and we're invisible to them." - by Todd Knarr (15451) on Sunday March 14, @07:44PM (#31476460) Homepage

      Great point Todd: To add to it, I've heard that as we steadily begin to use more & more satellite based communications, that "beam" transmission "downward/inward" into the Earth's atmosphere (vs. pell-mell outward), we'll be creating less & less of a detectable "bubble" as you called it.

      This made a LOT of sense to me, and might explain why there are no signs out there of "intelligent life" (what a 'wide-open term', lol, considering WE call ourselves that, & yet we kill one another for shit like ca$h or power at the drop of a hat) out there... their "spheres of detection" are only there, for so long (probably passed us by before we were even in existence quite possibly)... I think you know WHERE I am going w/ this one (same place as you are really, just expanding on what you stated).

      APK

      P.S.=> Former "TEAM MICROSOFT" SETI member here - I actually don't regret having done SETI for so long either (I started in 1999 on a PC, when it first opened to the public actually - took a break for a few years, & went back iirc, circa 2004-2007 iirc again)...

      I did it for years, @ the end for "TEAM MICROSOFT", & I even got to #13 on their charts, & then? Then, I moved onto other things (the more immediately beneficial distributed projects that deal in cancer protein folding (FOLDING @ HOME) etc./et al, over time)... why? More immediately useful data I felt actually - for the benefit of mankind. The main gain I felt SETI provided, was sort of a "STELLAR CARTOGRAPHER" type benefit (since no "E.T.'s" have actually ever been found, yet that is, via SETI), & hopefully?? The data from SETI will help point our first star-travellers to Suns that MAY actually HARBOR what we call "intelligent life" (i.e., imo, technological civilizations).

      Still, SETI was fun! I even used it as a "performance benchmark" @ one point, using the character-mode/DOS prompt/tty console model set into HIGH CPU PRIORITY & the whole 9 yards. It actually acted as a "decent gauge" of processing power I felt, because as I moved onto more powerful systems over time? I definitely saw speed increases, confirming my purchases on being superior on this type of processing @ least, no less!

      (Another nice thing was that SETI sent my name on some plaque in some exploration satellite off to some other distant place in the cosmos - I thought that was pretty cool also!)... apk

    9. Re:The problem is time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're getting more and more efficient, wasting less and less power beaming radio waves off in all directions. Eventually we'll be broadcasting so little that we won't be detectable at any reasonable distance. Anybody inside that inner surface won't be able to see us either.

      You're forgetting about radar. There are some very powerful radars out there and some are aimed outwards.

  33. At the most, a SETI search could have detected intelligent, broadcasting in cleartext life at a range of 50 light years. That's not terribly far. And halve that if we're sending out a message and waiting on a return.

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    1. Re:Sigh by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > At the most, a SETI search could have detected intelligent, broadcasting in
      > cleartext life at a range of 50 light years.

      How do you figure that?

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:Sigh by shermo · · Score: 1

      Yes! That's why whenever I look at the sky I can only see 133 stars.

      http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/50lys.html

      --
      Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
    3. Re:Sigh by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1

      You'd be wrong.

      You assume because they are detecting for 50 years they can only get signals from 50 light years away, but that is false.

      A signal could have travelled for a thousand light years and still be detected if it travelled past a spot 50 light years out less than 50 years ago.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    4. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you understand.

      The range at which SETI can detect signals from other civilisations has nothing to do with the 50-year mark.

      If someone 1500 lightyears away sent a message from their homeworld 1475 years ago that was powerful enough to reach us, we would have hopefully been able to detect it.

  34. is there space fade that is like rain fade? by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    is there space fade that is like rain fade? or other stuff that makes some stuff show up as something that is too broken up to be any thing that looks like something from ET.

    Or are we just looking at the wrong band?

  35. This Must be a Government Program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We've been at it for 50 years with no results, the solution is obvious; expand the program.

  36. Imagine the arguments a discovery would create! by agwis · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A significant number of the population doesn't even believe we landed on the moon. Should SETI ever detect artificial radio transmissions then the arguing, debates, and conspiracy theories that would abound are unfathomable!

    We can't even agree that we landed on the moon. How are we going to convince the world when we discover an ET version of 'Star Trek'? ;)

    1. Re:Imagine the arguments a discovery would create! by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > A significant number of the population doesn't even believe we landed on the
      > moon.

      So What? Their opinions are of little importance.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:Imagine the arguments a discovery would create! by vikstar · · Score: 1

      I wish it were so, but in a democracy, everyone's vote counts the same.

      --
      The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
    3. Re:Imagine the arguments a discovery would create! by Kjella · · Score: 1

      And some people believe in the flat earth and that holocaust didn't happen and the endless evidence that earth is older than 6000 years is God's practical joke (and I don't mean evolution, take a poll among geologists or astronomers or those studying cave paintings how many believe in the "young earth"). There's some people who'll live in their reality distortion bubble right up until reality smacks them over the head. Perhaps even all their life. But I would say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - if it's one telescope that caught something but there's no confirmation, I'd be inclined to think Earthly explanations - like someone playing the world's greatest prank by faking the data or a money/fame grab or something like that. If there's a candidate and we get multiple independent confirmations though, things will be different...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:Imagine the arguments a discovery would create! by ps2os2 · · Score: 0

      You are 100 percent right. Practically every major religion (except 1 maybe) to this day denies the possibility of life outside of earth.

      Religion is fine but when it actually dictates the idea that man is the only intelligent creature of god they are doing us a great mis-service as sooner or later they will be proven wrong and will be made to look like fools that they really are.

  37. They are looking in the wrong place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've got E.T. right here. What's that, you want to go home?

    -Elliot

  38. They'll listen and and learn. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1
    From one of TFA (time to re-think and expand the search):

    It would make much more sense for them to wait for our first signals. They might as well just monitor us passively and then start beaming messages.

    I think it much more likely that, after monitoring signals from Earth, they'll specifically decide to leave us alone to our own destruction. Yes, we have some very good qualities, but seriously, we're a short-sighted, narrow-minded, self-absorbed, fucked-up primitive species.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  39. Our eight tentacled friends. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Octopus.

    They use tools, disguise themselves, and other things that display intelligence.

    And people EAT THEM! And yet, they have no problem saving dolphins, and stupid mean nasty creatures that have fur.

    1. Re:Our eight tentacled friends. by DriedClexler · · Score: 4, Funny

      Have you even seen what octopuses have done to Japanese schoolgirls?

      Yeah. 'Nuff said.

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    2. Re:Our eight tentacled friends. by Nyder · · Score: 0

      Have you even seen what octopuses have done to Japanese schoolgirls?

      Yeah. 'Nuff said.

      mmm, tentacle porn...

      --
      Be seeing you...
  40. Obviously nothing there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    In other news, the Untied Ants of the Cupboard have checked the entire kitchen for the most common types of pheromone trails for the last 50 seconds and found nothing. Clearly, reports of mutilation and abduction by "Humans" is just wild fantasy.

    1. Re:Obviously nothing there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      xkcd reference....

      http://xkcd.com/638/

    2. Re:Obviously nothing there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly they are thinking about it backwards -- if only they would investigate reports of "abduction and mutilation" they'd find success.

  41. Intelligence, Smelligence. I'd settle for life. by Vellmont · · Score: 1

    We know that a pre-condition for intelligence is simply life, right? Life should be far more common than intelligence, though possibly harder to detect. So instead of looking for intelligence, why not look for life? Call it SETL. The search would consist of looking for things that only life produces. (Certain chemicals are one example).

    So.. what would it take to be able to detect the signs of life on other planets? Highly sensitive spectrometers? What is it that life produces that's distinguishable from long distances?

    --
    AccountKiller
  42. Patience, grasshopper... by argent · · Score: 1

    It's a search that's expected to take tens of thousands of years. Don't worry about the lack of results yet.

  43. It is time by postmortem · · Score: 0

    To find better meaning for your life, Mr. CEO.

    I often wonder why seemingly great minds get involved into some unrealistic endeavor like this. Some do it for power and money, but not all do.

    1. Re:It is time by postmortem · · Score: 1

      Message to douche that went rampant on all my comments and rated them offtopic/trolling: you suck in real life.

  44. Once again, Douglas Adams said it best... by billybob_jcv · · Score: 1

    "Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the drug store, but that's just peanuts to space."

  45. Giraffes are aliens by thoughtspace · · Score: 1, Funny

    The other animals would have eaten the food from the trees before the food reached the giraffe's height. So giraffes should be extinct.

    Unless ... all giraffes are aliens pretending to eat food.

  46. How Far Away Could We See Ourselves? by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 2, Interesting
    A while back I asked on an astronomy newsgroup where SETI was being discussed, how far away a civilization with the same level of technology as us, could detect our own signals. A SETI researcher said that it was about three light years. He said the most powerful signal that humanity radiates is the Distant Early Warning Radar, used to detect incoming Soviet nuclear missiles.

    The closest star, Alpha Centauri is about four light years. It is likely that the nearest technological civilization is quite a lot farther than that.

    He said that we were counting on detectable civilizations being lot more advanced than us, and so radiating a lot more power than we do. But I'm not so sure that that would help - possibly when a society gets more advanced, they develop more efficient communications technology and so radiate even less. An example is our own technology in which we now use undersea optical fiber rather than beaming so much power out at satellites.,P>

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.
    1. Re:How Far Away Could We See Ourselves? by billybob_jcv · · Score: 1

      Maybe the ETs were just much quicker about switching from broadcast TV to digital cable...

    2. Re:How Far Away Could We See Ourselves? by east+coast · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As it has been mentioned here a few times; the people involved with SETI have no illusions of finding ET on his cell phone. It's about the concept that maybe there are civilizations sending out a signal that is meant for no other reason than to be a beacon to others. We've already done it ourselves, we just don't do it on a regular basis.

      In any case, we will more likely observe life on their planet via chemical analysis of their atmosphere long before they get a signal from us. Given the leaps and bounds that extrasolar planet discovery has happened in the last decade, I'm guessing that we will know a great deal about the possibility of Earth-like life being on any planet within a thousand light years of us before our radio signals travel a tenth of that distance. If we find a planet that displays the chemical make up of life there is a high chance someone will start beaming it with radio signals but we will probably have the ability to actively observe the life on that planet long before the signal ever gets to them.

      So is SETI really going to prove anything we won't know much more about in the next couple of decades? Doubtful. But if we do detect signals from another planet using the SETI project it will probably mean that they know we're here and they're reaching out to us for better or for worse.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    3. Re:How Far Away Could We See Ourselves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the people involved with SETI have no illusions of finding ET on his cell phone.

      There's an app for that on iTunes

  47. Look at the Earth as an example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    We've been switching to satellite and low power transmission systems as well as cable TV. In a 100 years Earth itself may seem dead quiet from interstellar space. That's not even a 200 year window to detect Earth and that's if you are using far more powerful collectors than we are. Unless Aliens have an active program to contact other planets, something we have yet to do, the odds of detecting them within a 50 year window are nearly zero. We need to try but the whole point is "no result" is meaningless. We could have a detector aimed right at a planet a 1,000 years ahead of us and odds are we would detect nothing. We aren't talking about what are the odds of an alien species being alive we are talking about what are the odds of the same species being alive in that same 200 year window, and actively trying to communicate with another world and we happen to have equipment aimed at them. In practical terms it may be impossible but the sad thing is most people can't wrap their heads around the scope of the problem enough to not simple draw the conclusion that we are alone. In truth our only hope of contacting another world is if they not us want to make contact. We aren't looking for random radio signals from alien TV we are looking for attempts to contact other worlds. That's what people need to understand.

  48. More examples of "government science" waste. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Governments are inherently corrupt, and all the "science" they fund is corrupted along with it. Real science comes from free experimentation, free competition of ideas, and financial accountability that can only exist with free market capitalism. Only the free market can allocate resources so that scientific research takes place at the right time, in the right place, in the right way, and by the right people. Sure, the government can build the pyramids or fly a mainframe to the moon, but at what cost? If not stolen by the government, that money would have done a lot more good in the private sector instead, and when the private sector would have expanded into space it would have been much more timely, cost-effective, and economically sustainable. Think mining asteroids for earth-rare elements and building gigantic zero-liability nuclear power plants in space instead of of planting useless flags on the moon and number-crunching space static from galaxies far away - something that we'd be able to do exponentially cheaper (i.e. Moore's Law) just a few decades from now!

    (Signed: Alex Libman's sock-puppet.)

  49. Large Hadron Collider by agwis · · Score: 0, Troll

    Lately I've been thinking that the natural progression of any intelligent life form all follows a very similar path. We all do the stone age, bronze age, industrial age, and whatever you call our current age until someone gets the bright idea to try and recreate the 'big bang'! Eventually, curiosity inevitably compels each race to speculate that they can find their "<insert name here> Boson" by hurling particles at each other at damn near the speed of light! Before every race's top scientists can even say 'oops', those minute little black holes that were 'supposed' to degrade don't...and another giant black hole is born. Some day, some race may have a person like that German woman last week who got her lawsuit thrown out actually win in her bid to stop the experiments. That race will be the first! I'll bet that they will go on to find that black holes aren't actually created from stars collapsing in on themselves but that they are the remnants of yet another civilization whose German high court rejected the bid from the only sane person on that planet that only wanted to exercise caution and prevent Armageddon!

    As history repeats itself, SETI will likely never discover an artificial radio signal due to the fact that every ET only becomes capable of transmitting the noise we could detect less than a century before their own 'big bang' ;)

    1. Re:Large Hadron Collider by imakemusic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So on one hand you have a civilisation with scientists trying to find out about their world by smashing things and watching closely. They use their discoveries to invent lots of things: electricity, medicine, computers, space ships etc, and eventually colonise the galaxy and become the intelligent life that we're looking for.

      On the other hand you have a civilisation that didn't experiment because they might break something. They never invented space-faring rockets because they were scared they would crash into the dome of the sky and break it. They did invent electricity but it was never widely popular because people knew it would only be a matter of time before everyone got electrocuted. And they never invented computers because they weren't bloody stupid and they had better things to do with their time. And they never tried building an LHC which was a shame because it meant they never discovered how to make the faster-than-light anti-gravity propulsatron drive they needed to to escape the planet when the asteroid hit.

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
  50. Might Be All Around Us by oakwine · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Might have been Charles Pellegrino who said that intelligent life would not long stay on a planet if they had a better option such as living on space constructs. Space constructs might most likely be found near proto star systems where a true star never formed and never blew away all the clouds of organics and heavy elements. Nanotech harvesters, fusion power, communication by point to point laser. Or communication by something we have not even the power to conceive of yet. Only real signature would be heat and we do not have the space borne technology to do a significant survey for something as subtle as that. Fred Hoyle and Arthur C. Clarke also provided alternatives that would make intelligent alien life almost impossible to detect, even if they were actually here! The odds we are facing with our present technology resemble finding a needle in a haystack, where it could be hid in any one of all the haystacks on earth during harvest season but no way to tell which it might be.

  51. Turn off mute... by rennerik · · Score: 1

    All they heard was the sound of "snow" when they first turned it on, so they hit mute on the remote before it fell between the couch cushions. Now, 50 years later, they're still looking for it. Not aliens; the remote. When they find it, though... oh you'll see. We'll find aliens in no time!

  52. I looked in a drop of ocean water by DrugCheese · · Score: 1

    I looked in a drop of ocean water and found no life. There must be no life in the ocean.

    --
    *DrugCheese rants*
    1. Re:I looked in a drop of ocean water by gox · · Score: 1

      I looked in a drop of ocean water and found no life. There must be no life in the ocean.

      But it is highly improbable to find a drop of ocean water that doesn't contain life. Isn't it what Fermi Paradox is all about?

    2. Re:I looked in a drop of ocean water by imakemusic · · Score: 1

      Substitute "life" for "fish" and works a whole lot better...

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
    3. Re:I looked in a drop of ocean water by gox · · Score: 1

      Sure, but it's still unlikely that there won't be any trace of fish poop in it. Of course, how you could identify the poop without knowing about the fish is a big issue.

    4. Re:I looked in a drop of ocean water by imakemusic · · Score: 1

      I see what you're saying. Maybe SETI has already found some extraterrestrial fish-poop and we don't know it.

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
  53. Overlap between set god and set extraterrestrial by Kris+Thalamus · · Score: 1

    Yes, thats why I added the "...wasn't born on Earth clause".

  54. Evidence is here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is already enough evidence for a foreign intelligence, here on earth. Yes, it is no so-called "hard evidence", but in its entirety the evidences are just overwhelming.

    You want to see it? There you go:

    But before you say that all UFOs can or could be explained as natural phenomenons or secret aircrafts or any other explanation besides a foreign intelligence, you really should read these documents. I don't know anybody who has read them and still says "UFOs (as in "foreign intelligence") are not real". Every person who did deep scientific investigation into the UFO phenomenon comes to the conclusion that there must be a foreign intelligence behind some of the mass of UFO cases.

    Documents:

    Archives and data bases

    1. Re:Evidence is here by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The Black Vault documents alone are an indication that we should not give up on the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Life.

      I mean, there's also no sign of the Higgs-Boson or a cure for cancer, so does that mean we should give up on them, too?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  55. Evidence is here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The evidence for a foreign intelligence is here on earth. This evidence is overwhelming. Yes, there is no "hard evidence", but still: Everyone who has done deep *scientific* investigation of the UFO phenomenon won't deny the fact that there is a foreign intelligence on earth.

    Documents

    If you haven't read those papers, please don't assert to know that UFOs (as in "foreign intelligence") don't exist.

  56. Why would an alien civilization make contact? by voss · · Score: 2, Funny

    Our technology is too primitive, our cultures are backward. Our population is xenophobic and militaristic in varying degrees. One would have to be insane
    to give cultures like that faster than light travel or even travel at near light speed. On its face it would seem we have nothing to offer these aliens, youd be wrong.

    At first the idea of slaves but robots can do the job cheaper and faster.

    Then the idea hit me...soldiers. If youre a wealthy interstellar civilization with enemies or just really bad pest problems...why not use humans,
    they breed themselves, cheap to feed and lets humans see the galaxy. The aliens would not have to enslave humans, theyd just offer ultra
    tech toys and cool ray guns and youd have plenty of volunteers.

    1. Re:Why would an alien civilization make contact? by BikeHelmet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately, your post has a pitfall also covered in your post:

      At first the idea of slaves but robots can do the job cheaper and faster.

      Sufficiently advanced robots would make better soldiers than us.

    2. Re:Why would an alien civilization make contact? by Saija · · Score: 1

      That's not the plot in Half Life 2?

      --
      Slashdot ya no es que lo era! ;)
    3. Re:Why would an alien civilization make contact? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our technology is too primitive, our cultures are backward. Our population is xenophobic and militaristic in varying degrees. One would have to be insane to give cultures like that faster than light travel or even travel at near light speed.

      True, but that doesn't explain why they haven't contacted us Europeans.

    4. Re:Why would an alien civilization make contact? by imakemusic · · Score: 1

      You're right, it's not! The combine are from a parallel dimension, not outer space.

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
    5. Re:Why would an alien civilization make contact? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, we're still pretty immature as a species. On the other hand, someone said something recently that gave me hope for our continued progress. Let's see, what was it? Oh I remember...

      Our technology is too primitive, our cultures are backward. Our population is xenophobic and militaristic in varying degrees.

      We may suck, but at least we know it, and sooner or later we're going to drag ourselves into maturity. As always, my biggest argument against your [and those like you] reasoning is your ability to think such things in the first place.

    6. Re:Why would an alien civilization make contact? by muckracer · · Score: 1

      Join the Army! Meet interesting aliens! Kill them...

  57. Re:Intelligence, Smelligence. I'd settle for life. by tftp · · Score: 1

    So.. what would it take to be able to detect the signs of life on other planets?

    You'd have to have feet on the ground. Life even as we know it can hide in oceans and caves. And we know nothing about other lifeforms that may exist, so we can't test for them. See Solaris as just one example out of thousands.

  58. We already know there is intelligent life.... by 3seas · · Score: 0

    ....out there as the Ancient astronauts where Ezekiel the even documents his encounter.

    There are plenty of people who have seen technology in use far more advanced than what we can make, even today.

    The real question is not whether there is such life out there but why have we not found them or why are they hiding?

    Given the amount of stars it is estimated that we should have been able to find quite a few differ intelligent life forms or evidence of such. Its actually a puzzelment why we haven't.

  59. Re:Intelligence, Smelligence. I'd settle for life. by Vellmont · · Score: 1


    You'd have to have feet on the ground.

    No. Life produces things that other things don't produce. Oxygen in an atmosphere for instance. Oxygen is highly reactive with just about anything, so finding it in an atmosphere is a big tipoff of life.

    See Solaris as just one example out of thousands.

    Why is it people try to use science fiction to try to back things up? If you want to start talking about the life we don't know about and thus can't detect, go ahead. It's going to be either a very short conversation, or a very useless and made up one though.

    --
    AccountKiller
  60. Encryption by Fished · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Did anyone think that, maybe, most hypothetical alien signals might encrypted? I'm referring here not to signals deliberately sent, but to leakage, that sort of thing. There may be a relatively short window in which any civilization uses unencrypted radio. Then they move on to digital radio, encryption, etc., at much lower power, and the chance of finding them (in the speed of light window) is lost. The thing is that an encrypted data stream will look pretty close to random. So, your odds of picking it out of the noise are low.

    --
    "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
    1. Re:Encryption by tftp · · Score: 1

      Did anyone think that, maybe, most hypothetical alien signals might encrypted?

      Not so much encrypted as compressed. It costs energy to send redundant bits.

      However SETI tries to find beacons that are intentionally built for us to find. Given that we don't run those beacons ourselves, it hinges on the theory that aliens are careless, or they know that it's safe to broadcast (how? - we may be highly advanced and bloodthirsty.)

    2. Re:Encryption by digitalchinky · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think you have a bit of a misunderstanding about how SETI works. It doesn't matter whether the signal is encrypted or what kind of modulation it might be using - the search itself is simply to detect an energy lobe above the noise floor of the receive equipment. If you're pumping out 40 watts at 300MHz to talk to your buddy on the other side of the city over AM / FM / Whatever, you're going to need the same, or perhaps even a little more power, if you convert your analogue transmission to digital.

      Just detecting a radio signal from deep space would be of tremendous interest all on its own.

      I do wish SETI would give themselves a little more bandwidth to work with though. 1420MHz, the hydrogen line. That's pretty narrow.

      Back when I was military, from time to time on a boring night watch I would occasionally swing the search dish away from the Clark belt and sit glued to the spectrum analyzer. DC to 80 GHz. I never found anything that wasn't "human" though I never really expected to anyway.

      DNA was right, space is big. Even a 30 meter satellite dish pointed at a bird just 36,000 kilometers away, you move that bad boy by so much as a tenth of a degree and your signal goes to crap. A signal 'light years' away, now that's a pretty damn big haystack.

    3. Re:Encryption by nscott89 · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't all alien communication appear encrypted anyways? I mean, it's not like we are going to understand it. That's not the point of the SETI project. The point is to find ANY signal that appears to be the result of intelligent, technological life.

    4. Re:Encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      barring special schemes designed to reduce intercept probability (generally used only by militaries), encrypted radio is easy to distinguish from noise. It looks just like any other use of digital radio; the only difference is that the contents appear random.

    5. Re:Encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An encrypted signal would be indistinguishable from an unencrypted one in an unfamiliar format. It would still be detectably modulated. Seti isn't trying to find signals they can understand they're trying to find signals that are artaficial (and an electrical engineer can explain better how you do that but i'm fairly certain it can be done).

    6. Re:Encryption by cpghost · · Score: 1

      Did anyone think that, maybe, most hypothetical alien signals might encrypted?

      Obviously, aliens' DRM is a lot more advanced than ours: even their signal is perfectly hidden from us humans who are too cheap to buy their premium licenses in the iAlienTV online shop on Alpha Centauri. They can't let us watch their programs for free and steal their commercials, right?

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    7. Re:Encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would look random, but random noise originating from a single source would be as suspicious as an patterned signal from a single source.

    8. Re:Encryption by hypergreatthing · · Score: 1

      Or better yet, did anyone stop and think that advanced civs don't use radio waves to communicate real time data? Maybe, just maybe, they found a way to implement quantum entanglement or some other form of exotic (to us) communication which allows distance to not be a factor?

      because if there was a alien race which is so technologically more advanced than us that still uses radio waves as a form of communication, i'm not too sure i'd want to meet them. They'd probably be as backwater and un-advanced as us. Which would mean a tenancy to perform genocide as a form of preservation.

  61. The first? Or the only? by Fished · · Score: 1

    Seriously, what are the philosophical, theological, and scientific implications if we were to be the only planet to evolve "intelligent" (I use the term advisedly) life. Genesis is starting to look pretty good, if that were true. (Not that I think it is true.)

    --
    "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
  62. stupid stupid stupid by unity100 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    the concept behind this is too arrogant and in its ultimate consequence, stupid.

    it assumes that any civilization should develop technology in the way we did, and have the same values as we do. ie, think mathematic is universal, and try to communicate over mathematical patterns and regular expressions that repeat themselves. even if they do, it is still extremely naive to expect the radio waves to reach here without losing their precise nature, or getting garbled due to innumerable sources of interference.

    1. Re:stupid stupid stupid by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > it assumes that any civilization should develop technology in the way we did

      No. It merely assumes that at least some are likely to. Not unreasonable since 100% of the civilizations we know of have done so.

      > it is still extremely naive to expect the radio waves to reach here without
      > losing their precise nature, or getting garbled due to innumerable sources
      > of interference.

      I think it likely that the SETI astronmers are capable of calculating the degree of attenuation and distortion of signals. In fact, they have, and have published their results. Where are your calculations published?

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:stupid stupid stupid by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      it assumes that any civilization should develop technology in the way we did

      No, it assumes (hopes) that at least one civilization might have. They're not trying to find every single civilization out there; the goal is just to find *one* right now.

  63. Re:Intelligence, Smelligence. I'd settle for life. by tftp · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Life produces things that other things don't produce. Oxygen in an atmosphere for instance.

    Animals don't produce oxygen. Atmospheric composition is also not a good indicator; we can have 100 million people living on the Moon, under the surface, but it has no atmosphere. This is particularly relevant to intelligent life, which can create its own biosphere where necessary.

    If you want to start talking about the life we don't know about and thus can't detect, go ahead. It's going to be either a very short conversation, or a very useless and made up one though.

    It is most reasonable to expect an alien life to be alien to us. We will probably have machine intelligence (and life) within a century or two. Searching for lost keys only under the streetlight may be convenient but not very productive.

  64. SETI publications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Why is it that when I go to the SETI scientific publications page (http://www.seti.org/Page.aspx?pid=327), the only person with recent publications (in the last four years) hasn't produced scientific publications recently (http://www.seti.org/Page.aspx?pid=555).

    Most of the people on this page (http://www.seti.org/Page.aspx?pid=327) have scientific publications from years ago.

    What has SETI contributed to the scientific community for the last five years? 50 years?

    And what has it contributed to interstellar diplomacy?

    While I think it's great that people like Paul Allen who are passionate about SETI support it, I would be dismayed if SETI is supported by the public through taxes, much like I am horrified that moneysinks like wars and bridges-to-nowhere are constantly funded by the public.

    A side question: the NIH grant award rate is something like 10% (of submissions get funding). Do 10% of all contractors who submit applications for contracts receive awards from the government? more, less? Is the review process as rigorous for these applications?

  65. simple solution by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    just download the aliens' public key and use PGP...

  66. Re:The first? Or the only? by telomerewhythere · · Score: 1

    Genesis doesn't teach evolution. But if there is no life that is like human in the universe to ever be found, by the time that conclusion is conclusively reached, the Bible would be proved wrong. ('The End/Armageddon is nigh' is the relevant paraphrase)

  67. Not encryption, but efficient transmission. by Animats · · Score: 1

    There may be a relatively short window in which any civilization uses unencrypted radio.

    Most modern forms of radio communication look like noise unless you know what to look for. Nobody uses big "carriers" any more. In analog TV, 80% of the energy went into the video carrier, which was easy to detect but conveyed no information beyond "I'm here, and you can tune to this." That's history. I made this point to some SETI people about fifteen years ago, and now, with analog transmission much reduced, it's clear that looking for carriers is probably futile. If somebody within a few light years was putting out a big carrier, we'd have noticed by now.

    Of course, the pessimistic view is that technological civilizations have a lifespan of maybe 100 to 300 years between first radio transmission and collapse due to resource exhaustion.

  68. SETI is a waste of time, looking by eriktderek · · Score: 2, Funny

    outside our world means we have given up on our world. Just enjoy your life, as technology is accelerating and soon we will move too fast and become a Black Hole which, by the way, are other civilizations enjoying the orgasm of technology and ending. The universe does not allow systems so knowledgeable that they can traverse space. A society powerful enough to travel would know all answers to everything instantly and that is its death knell. Its the Fermi paradox sorta. So looking for life is a belief system that is irrelevant like trying to beat our own lives. Might as well enjoy life, try to save the coral reefs.......

    1. Re:SETI is a waste of time, looking by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

      Eric? You're a fucking retard. Why don't you just go back to watching Star Wars and smoking reefer? It would save all of the rest of us a lot of anguish.

      Oh, poor you. Your precious tribe is being polluted by non-conformist thinking? New ideas which don't fit your own?

      He wasn't rude, (unlike you), he wasn't speaking from a thoughtless place, (unlike your knee-jerk), and he wasn't boring.

      I may not agree with anything he said, but at least he's not you. Uniform thinkers who stay in line and never trouble the herd by walking out of sync are just that; herd animals. Take a note from Darwin and try evolving beyond your automatic behavior a little.

      -FL

  69. What does "finding" mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Currently, there is a tiny minority of people that are absolutely sure that aliens exist since they're convinced that they've seen UFOs. So some have already "found" alien life. Now, I assume that by "finding", you mean that a relatively credible scientific source were to claim to have detected signals from an alien life form. However, only a fraction of the population will even understand what is meant by signals, if they aren't shown a received Alien TV broadcast or something similar. Consequently, general acceptance will depend on the credibility of whoever is making the claim and their ability to defend it when some relatively credible sources are likely to refute it (unless it's absolutely clear). Would "finding" thus mean making over 50 % of the earth's population convinced that there is alien life? Or would it mean that once it's good enough to be included in science books? Acknowledged by heads of state?

    I'm rather sure that even if a signal that would convince most slashdotters was detected, the acceptance would happen slowly among the rest of the population. Perhaps like general acceptance that the earth isn't flat happened over time. And even if everyone on earth accepted that we're not alone in the universe, what would we do about it? Start some intergalactic arms race just in case they're hostile? Consider contacting them? Or just carry on with life as usual since when most people have considered it plausible before without seeing a need to undertake any "just in case" actions?

  70. Look for short lived temporal phenomenon by wisebabo · · Score: 1

    Next time there is a REALLY unusual cosmic event (supernova within one's own galaxy, collision of two black holes), cast your net a little wider and train your telescopes on a region of the sky surrounding the event. Any advanced civilization will know that lots of other astronomers will be pointing their telescopes in their general direction and, if they choose to make their presence known, will send signals in a direction opposite (to them) of the event. There should be a better chance for them to be noticed.

    As for the Fermi paradox, another solution is that THEY ARE ALREADY HERE, ALL AROUND US, in the form of nano-machines. Very soon, as our technology and becomes capable of discovering them, they will have to leave or announce themselves. Or they will decide that we did not pass the test and clear off the planet for the next candidate.

    1. Re:Look for short lived temporal phenomenon by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      Next time there is a REALLY unusual cosmic event (supernova within one's own galaxy, collision of two black holes), cast your net a little wider and train your telescopes on a region of the sky surrounding the event. Any advanced civilization will know that lots of other astronomers will be pointing their telescopes in their general direction and, if they choose to make their presence known, will send signals in a direction opposite (to them) of the event. There should be a better chance for them to be noticed.

      Just one flaw in your plan, by the time we see those events usually thousands or millions of years have passed (we're looking into the past, due to the speed of light being so danged slow). Assuming an happens 50,000 light years away from each of you (with colliding black holes, you'd want it to be a side further), you'd probably have to wait at least 100,000 years. Finally, telescopes don't "send out signals" in the direction they're pointing; they generally only receive information passively.

  71. Quote Charleton Heston @ the beginning of a film: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We are trying to find signs of intelligent life off the Earth. Give it some time, people. And try to become civilized yourselves." - by Foobar of Borg (690622) on Sunday March 14, @07:10PM (#31476158)

    "You who are reading me now are a different breed - I hope, a better one. I leave the 20th century with no regrets. Seen from out here, everything seems different: Time bends, space is boundless... it squashes a man's ego - I feel lonely... That's about it! Tell me though: Does man, that 'marvel of the universe', that 'glorious paradox' who sent me to the stars, still make war against his brother? Keep his, neighbor's children starving??" - The late, great Charleton Heston as 'Colonel George Taylor' (from "The Planet of the Apes")

    Well, you can all answer that, for me... because, sometimes? I seriously wonder.

    APK

    P.S.=> I tell you right now, that were I aware of us, & because of that awareness + having actually STUDIED us first (& knew how WE are to our own selves even (warring for profit only, killing one another, & far more/worse))? I'd hide! That, or, IF not tell our governments this:

    "YOU stay down there, in your galactic 'tamany hall district' you psychotic lunatics & don't you DARE spread your mental poison out here where OUR children play... should you disregard this, you earth will be reduced to a burned out cinder! Until you change, IF you ever change? You stay put, or else (but, my guess is you'll end yourselves, before that ever occurs)"

    (Sometimes, I wonder if THAT is what the biblical tale of "Adam & Eve" is really, all about - we WE as a species kicked out of a "galactic garden of Eden", because we're SO "f'd up" at such a deep genetic/nature type level, that's irreversible, that we were banned out? Think about it...)

    Now, also:

    Due to satellite communications beaming "downward/inward" (vs. outward as we have been doing for a couple centuries now (soon to stop soon probably IF my ideas are correct)) Well - you only "hear" civilizations like ours, for a LIMITED TIMEFRAME anyhow (those that use radio that is).

    I say that, because "loud" outbound radio transmissions eventually cease due to things like satellites & closed circuits, & go "inward/planetbound" (vs. constantly outwardly radiating sends as we have been doing), & then?

    THEN, you "sent your soul through the invisible" & no longer can be "seen/heard" anymore by others in the cosmos... apk

  72. Weak by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seems to me we're unlikely to find aliens and they are unlikely to find us. The distances between us and possible life are extreme and there's a whole universe of stars, black holes, radiation clouds, and other forms of interference in the way.

    Are you seriously counting on those old AM/FM radio transmissions making a direct line through space-time to a planet 140 billion light years away? Let's look at what can go wrong. Assume the Earth has a bunch of weak transmitters which occasionally fire information into space - this will already be a weak version of a weak signal since it's gone through our atmosphere, clouds, etc.

    1. This signal is subject to inverse-square law. By the time it's left our own solar system the signal is infinitesimal.
    2. The earth itself will obscure more than 50% of all the signals as it rotates.
    3. Signals will be shot straight into our sun or pass close enough to either bend into it's gravity or have it's course dramatically altered.
    4. There's billions of other suns which will do the same thing as it passes by.
    5. Signals will slowly approach chaos, and be in-detectable from background radiation.
    6. Their receivers will be expecting more powerful signals and our will pass "under the radar".

    There's likely a million other ways for a signal which is designed to bounce off our atmosphere to become lost in space as it tries to make it from here...to there, whereever there is. Don't expect contact any time soon.

    --
    All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    1. Re:Weak by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > Are you seriously counting on those old AM/FM radio transmissions making a
      > direct line through space-time to a planet 140 billion light years away?

      As the universe is only about 14 billion years old, no.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  73. Re:Intelligence, Smelligence. I'd settle for life. by Vellmont · · Score: 1


    Animals don't produce oxygen.

    No they don't, but plants do. Plants are life.

    Atmospheric composition is also not a good indicator;

    Of what? We don't need to detect ALL forms of life. One would be a start. The idea here is to go after the low hanging fruit.

    --
    AccountKiller
  74. not worth it... by Eth1csGrad1ent · · Score: 1

    So that image burn on my old 17" Samsung CRT was all for nothing ??? Damn.. what a waste!

  75. The Atomic beacon by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Our weapon of war is undoubtedly a beacon of intelligence. Sounds ironic, I know. But when you think about it, detonating vast amounts of plutonium releases a tremendous amount of energy all over the EM spectrum. It also gives off a unique signature of the kind that doesn't, or could *never* happen naturally. It really takes a civilization to make and concentrate plutonium into a bomb.

    Forget TV or radio transmissions. The true universe of intelligent language is THE BOMB! It all started with Trinity on July 16, 1945.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:The Atomic beacon by wisebabo · · Score: 2, Informative

      I seem to remember (Mr. Google wasn't much help) an Arthur C. Clarke story where a future world government, scarred by a devastating asteroid impact, detonates a very powerful (Gigaton?) nuclear explosive on the other side of earth's orbit (so that the sun blocks it). This is so that an extremely bright "pulse" is created that very briefly illuminates every single object in the Solar System (except the earth) which makes their detection easy by prepared astronomers.

      A few decades later, a signal is detected from aliens. When their position is calculated, it turns out it is precisely twice the distance in light years as the time since the explosion. The implication of course is that the aliens were alerted to our presence from the blast, realized it wasn't natural, and sent a greeting to us. Sorry don't remember what happened in the book after that.

      By the way, you might be interested in my earlier post (just a few posts above; "Look for a short lived temporal phenomenon"). Here, since even atom bombs are pretty weak at interstellar distances, I suggest tagging along rare, super powerful COSMIC events (supernovae in your own galaxy, colliding black holes, etc.). If during or right after the detection of one of these events, you immediately transmit a signal in the opposite direction you will be likely to be "seen" by any astronomers downstream of you (provided you use a part of the spectrum that isn't overwhelmed by the event). Likewise when WE see an event, we should be paying attention not only to the event but the region of the sky immediately adjacent as someone might be trying to tag along with it!

    2. Re:The Atomic beacon by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Informative

      > But when you think about it, detonating vast amounts of plutonium releases a
      > tremendous amount of energy all over the EM spectrum. It also gives off a
      > unique signature of the kind that doesn't, or could *never* happen naturally.

      No, not really. The "bomb" is pretty feeble by cosmic standards.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  76. Failmath is Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on people. Consider that some of our nearest possible galactic neighbors are on the order of 26 light years away, With radio communication, that means that the signal will get there in about 26 years. Assuming that Einstein was right, and nothing can go faster than C, it would take the same amount of time for any signal from the receiving planet to return.

    Assuming normal radio transmission levels through space, the signal would be SERIOUSLY weak by the time it got there, or reached us coming back. SETI covers like 1% of the sky with their equipment at any given time. The probability is, even if there IS intelligent life in abundance out there, we're just not well enough equipped and haven't been at it long enough to see any results.

    The 'Fermi Paradox' is tough to swallow. Something as generalized as "If it was there we would've seen it" is hard to take as any science-based theory. For being such a smart guy, Fermi dropped the ball on that one.

  77. We've already found them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The odds against SETI finding anything are (sorry! :)) astronomical. If the aliens are even 0.01% of the universe's age younger than us, then they're still in their trees and completely undetectable. If the aliens are even 0.01% of the universe's age older than us, then our entire observable universe is running as a screensaver on one of their computers, and the general consensus of humanity (though not, I note, of the average slashdot reader) is that we're been praying to them, in one form or another, for at least the past 5000 years. Finding aliens who's development is aligned to ours within even a million years would be like dropping lawn darts at two random points on the surface of the Earth, and discovering that they'd hit each other.

  78. But Pandora had no Radio... by freedom_india · · Score: 1

    ...and yet they somehow magically discovered it has intelligent Life.

    --
    "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
  79. Success! by dazlari · · Score: 0

    I, for one, welcome our undetectable, non-communicative, overlords.

  80. There's nothing out there... by okmijnuhb · · Score: 1

    We're all alone.
    It would be better for mankind to believe this, that way, he'll take better care of the planet and one another, and all species on earth, which should all be viewed as irreplaceable.
    It's time to scrap the deluded notion that we can destroy earth's habitability, and move to another place with all our cows, pigs, chickens,crops, etc.
    Get over it, and take care of Earth.
    Of course the folly of mankind and other species follows predictable patterns.
    We will slowly overpopulate, and destroy our ecosystem with toxins and radiation.
    I accept this as inevitable.

  81. Fermi Paradox: SOLVED - They Are Here Now! by wisebabo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A friend of mine who is much smarter than me (I know, I know, that doesn't mean much) INSISTS that they are here now. However since he works at a very high level in a field which requires him to tell the state department 3 months in advance before he is allowed to leave the country, I pay attention to what he says in technical matters at least.

    Like the dog in "Men In Black" said: "Silly Humans, why do you always think something powerful has to be big?" (or something like that, no thanks to you Mr. Google!); perhaps Aliens or rather their NANO sized machine emissaries reached Earth a long long time ago (in keeping with the Fermi Paradox) and have basically infested the entire solar system, waiting...

    Now as we start dabbling with nano-technologies and begin to have the capability of actually seeing them with our new atomic-force microscopes, they have to make a decision. Do they allow themselves to be discovered? I assume they could either do this passively like letting us see some of their machinery scuttle about amongst the atoms or they might as well come out and say "We're Here!". (Kinda like "Horton hears a Who")

    Or, will they 1) leave the planet and keep withdrawing just beyond the range of our increasingly sophisticated probes? 2) maybe they will actively try to remain hidden, should be easy (for awhile) to cause subtle "problems" in our equipment from finding them. Experiments will mysteriously (or not depending on how clever they are) not work and our own attempts to create nano-machines will forever be thwarted.

    Or maybe they'll decide, time's up, this species is not worth keeping; let's clean the planet and start over with another (bears?).

    One way or another maybe we'll find out soon!

    1. Re:Fermi Paradox: SOLVED - They Are Here Now! by dargaud · · Score: 1

      I always wondered why this line of reasoning is not followed more often. Assuming we found a less evolved alien specie and we want to avoid to repeat the errors of the past (war for land, genocide, cultural extinction, etc...), I assume we'd still be curious and want to observe them discreetly. So why don't we assume others are doing this to us ?

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    2. Re:Fermi Paradox: SOLVED - They Are Here Now! by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Suppose you could make a human the size of a mouse, and that that human was just as human as the humans around now, and comparably able in every way except size. Then instead of billions of them, you might be able to have trillions or even quadrillions of them infesting the earth for the same resources. For a short time ( because of exponential growth in population, if everyone were shrunk to the size of mice, then the world would again be an open and plentiful land short only of people, and hence the value of human life would increase even further for a time )

      It seems to me such a mini human would be utterly superior to existing humans since you'd get all the bang for a thousanth the bucks. Big people would be like UNIVAC models.

      Other benefits are that you could fall from great heights and survive, though you'd get cold easier, and also dehydrate faster. You'd probably need a faster metabolism and maybe a different shape to deal with those issues. And why should people only be shrunk in size? Why not time as well? With quicker thoughts and a more active lifestyle, maybe a couple of years would be enough time to live a whole human life.

      Squeak!

      --
      ...
    3. Re:Fermi Paradox: SOLVED - They Are Here Now! by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      The more I read, the more I"m beginning to believe that "they" are already here. Just finished reading The Intelligent Universe (http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Universe-Emerging-Mind-Cosmos/dp/1564149196). If the universe had 1 intelligent species a couple billion years ago, that would have been more than sufficient time to colonize every single piece of matter several times over. That is just using slower than light generational travel, and basic exponential population growth.

      It really boils down to two choices: 1) We are the only intelligent life in the entire universe, or 2) intelligent life is all around us, but who's technology is so far advanced, it is basically magic. Completely beyond our ability to comprehend.

      When SETI searches, what they are actually searching for, is a civilization that is +/- 100 years from our current technological state. And that, given the age of the universe, is a very very small subset.

    4. Re:Fermi Paradox: SOLVED - They Are Here Now! by lennier · · Score: 1

      Anyone who's paid attention to the UFO phenomenon can tell you that the existence of 'something' out there has been well known by the US military since the 1940s. The problem is nobody really seems to understand the first thing about just what 'they' are, so it's embarassing to talk about and best brushed under the table. Whatever 'they' are they're NOT classical little green men with antennae... and I highly doubt that any 'crash debris' was ever retrieved.. all the best incidents indicate something much weirder, transient, and more in control of the parameters of the encounters than we are.

      There's a few good reviews of the classic UFO material online: Michael Swords is good, as is the Daily Kos blogger Two Roads. I also recommend the Society for Scientific Exploration. The rest of the stuff is out there for anyone with Google.

      The apparent failure of radio SETI is a very interesting data point to put against the apparent reality (yet weirdness) of the UFO phenomenon. But then, we've moved so far beyond analog broadcast radio in the last 50 years, why wouldn't ET civilisations' communications move equally fast? What if there were some way of, eg, modulating gravity or quantum entanglement? Should we expect to still be detecting legacy technologies just because that's the detectors we happen to have right now?

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  82. Time to rethink and expand the search? by Clueless+Nick · · Score: 1

    Search for Extraterrestrial Idiocy. It will work.

    --
    Chat with other atheists http://secularchat.org
  83. Maybe... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Cause they are Vulcans and not Ferengi?

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  84. reasons for that can be many but... by mhs1973 · · Score: 1

    ...considering where we are, in relation to other inhabited patches of the universe, that is no surprise to me

    1. Re:reasons for that can be many but... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > ...considering where we are, in relation to other inhabited patches of the
      > universe, that is no surprise to me

      And you are keeping your knowledge of the locations of these inhabited patches secret for what reason?

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:reasons for that can be many but... by mhs1973 · · Score: 1

      actually, no, but the statistics that I myself falsified point to that. And I always read and write at other peoples risk.

  85. What did SETI expect? by Niubi · · Score: 0

    If Aliens do exist, they've probably got some uber technology that lets them hide. Isn't there meant to be some kind of mountain where they live in the NW of the US? They'd have better luck with DubLi, really.

  86. scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IMHO it is scary to think that we are alone in the entire universe

  87. Missing word in the title : by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

    'yet'

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  88. Fermi paradox update by migloo · · Score: 1

    Three explanations at least to this "paradox":
    Explanation 1
    Aliens are everywhere but shy enough to avoid being detected by ordinary idiots like us.
    Explanation 2
    Evolution to a technological civilization is an extremely improbable accident. Vertebrates on earth have had enough equipment (say eyes and fingers) for hundred millions years to draw stuff on walls (which is the start of civilization) yet never "thought" of it until lately. It may well be the case that the accidental brain configuration that finally suggested that feat was absolutely improbable and normally never happens anywhere else.
    Explanation 3
    When technology reaches a point near where we are now, it is unavoidably destructive of the species before it has time to escape its planet. We may be approaching the point where a single individual may spread disaster over the whole planet, volontarily or by error.
    This is the most likely explanation of the paradox in my opinion.

  89. THEY ARE LOOKING IN THE WRONG PLACES!!! by Terminus32 · · Score: 0

    "To search expectantly for a radio signal from an extraterrestrial source is probably as culture bound a presumption as to search the galaxy for a good Italian restaurant." - Terence McKenna "I once visited the world's largest radio telescope in Araceibo, Puerto Rico, and they search for extra- terrestrial life with this thing. It's so large a telescope it's basically a dish suspended in round valley. And underneath the dish there's pasture land, and white cattle, and Stropharia cubensis... It's like this amazing image of this instrument studying the centre of NGC-3622?, and yet a hundred feet from the main control booth is probably what they're looking for." - Terence McKenna

    --
    http://nathanlindsell.blogspot.com/
  90. Ask them to... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    Ask them to pull their heads out of their asses, and they might hear something out there. I had a friend that worked for them a long time ago, and when they fight so hard all the time to get people to accept them instead of focusing on the problems of how to get
    on board one of those missions to send up their own satellite, and make progress, that is where they miss all the good opportunities to evolve into a better more efficient fact finding organization.

  91. New movie about this by Cloud+K · · Score: 1

    I think this b3ta entry applies pretty well here :) (not my work, just happened across it) http://www.b3ta.com/board/9956971

  92. SETI/Intelligent Design by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

    SETI and Intelligent Design are based on the same principle, that certain patterns of signal are signs of intelligence. The only difference is the media they are looking at signal in.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  93. Or aliens are already here, but we can't see them. by master_p · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Perhaps their technology is so advanced, they we can't see them. Perhaps they have figured out all the physics mysteries we haven't figured out yet, and those physics allow mechanisms for communication that we cannot comprehend yet. Perhaps aliens were here in the past and left.

    There are so many possibilities...ruling out the existence of alien intelligent life because we only have searched for 50 years and found nothing it's shortsighted at best.

  94. Re:Orders Of Magnitude by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 1

    My favorite is the one where we start on Homer Simpson's bald head and change our vantage point by orders and orders of magnitude until we see the known universe, and then go further and further until we see that the universe is just bits of atoms and then molecules and then cells, and then skin, and we keep pulling back until we arrive back where we started looking down on Homer Simpson's bald head again.

    --
    ...
  95. Re:The first? Or the only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But if there is no life that is like human in the universe to ever be found, by the time that conclusion is conclusively reached, the Bible would be proved wrong. ('The End/Armageddon is nigh' is the relevant paraphrase)

    There have been doomsayers and predictors of the Christian version of the eschaton (i.e. end of the world) for over a thousand years, yet Christianity has survived them being wrong. Also there are at least a few different passages in the New Testament where Jesus basically states no one but God really knows when the end of the world will actually happen.

  96. Costs less than a dollar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Costs less than a dollar. Divvy up the cost of SETI among the number of people who play the lottery and you're spending 3p a month on SETI.

  97. Have humans ever been discrete in exploration? by maillemaker · · Score: 1

    >I assume we'd still be curious and want to observe them discreetly.

    Why would you assume this? Man has never done this in any of his previous explorations, which are almost always adventures for profit.

    When man explores someplace new, he immediately gets down to the business of business.

    Of course, other space faring people might act differently, but I would not use mankind as an example of discretion in exploration.

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
  98. Just do som simple math by juasko · · Score: 0

    Find out the probability of evolution to start. Life to begin from life less matter. Then subtract that with the estimated amount of planets or moons that could sustain life forms. The result is that the probability of finding life in our wast universe is none. Our Univese is too small.

  99. In other news... by darkvizier · · Score: 1

    Life on Earth is now 4.8 Billion years old and no one's found us yet.

  100. Re:Intelligence, Smelligence. I'd settle for life. by muckracer · · Score: 1

    > So instead of looking for intelligence, why not look for life? Call it SETL. The search would consist of looking for things that only life produces. (Certain chemicals are one example).

    Headlines:

    "Secretions, Emanations, Totally, Life!"

    "E.T. wanna call home (but don't know the numbers)!"

    "SETI SETLes for Less!"

  101. I would have been suprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would be surprised if they had found anything. I highly doubt any species communicating across the interstellar expanse is still using radio waves. How were we communicating only 200 Years ago? Pony express? Steam Ship? Smoke signals? Why must a civilization likely hundreds or thousands (let alone millions) of years ahead of us technologically use radio waves? In my opinion our only real hope would be finding a society at a similar level of development (If you want a clue as to how likely this is imagine a 100Ly radius circle inside of a 50,000Ly circle, yeah) or an advanced society looking to contact a relatively new member to the "we don't live in mud huts and wooden shacks anymore" club (how much effort do we put into communicating with woodland animals). I'm not saying we should stop, I think SETI could use more funds, but we just need to understand that our chances are about equal to winning the lottery, it'll happen eventually if we keep playing, but it might take a loooonnnnnngggg time.

  102. Why is a negative result considered a failure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SETI started out with the question "Is there extra-terrestrial intelligence?" not "Where is the extra-terrestrial intelligence that must be out there?". So why to people persist in calling what they've managed so far a "failure"?

    What they have shown is that there are no alien intelligences within about 50 light years...or at least none that want to talk to us. That's a useful piece of information. Finding that out is a successful outcome - not a failure.

    A failure would be that none of their equipment worked - or that they kept coming up with false alarms or that we found there were aliens out there after all and SETI failed to find them. None of those things have happened - so as far as we can tell, SETI is a success...albeit a boring one. Science proceeds as much by veryifying the mundane facts that we kinda already suspect as it does by revolutionary things like evolution, quantum theory and relativity. Is it a failure of meteorology that we now have solid mathematical proof that you can't reliably predict the weather for more than a few days ahead? Was it a failure of biology to discover that the virus responsible for the common cold mutates so fast that we can't cure it? No! These things were successful outcomes of a search for the truth.

    Same deal with SETI. They are doing good work - and if they finally conclude that we are the only intelligent life in the galaxy, that would be a profound and interesting outcome. We should continue to give them whatever support they need for at least the next 50 years.

  103. Get Over Yourselves by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

    Get over the human-centric thinking such as displayed in TFA, or your result criteria will be so restricted that you'd never find anything other than your selves.

    SETI is searching for intelligent life on stellar systems other than this one. So why is an arbitrary number of revolutions of one planet around its star, presented as a number in an arbitrary number base (in this case, base ten; and not truly arbitrary since it is used because it matches the number of manual digits on the hands on the beings doing the searching), significant? It's not.

    Nor is it directly relevant to SETI. It's the kind of thinking that makes "50 years" significant that restricts the thinking that will make it possible to detect extra-terrestrial intelligence. Once that thinking understands why it has to specifically give up concepts like "50" and "years" when thinking about this subject, it will begin to make itself able to expand its thinking outside the restrictions of its own nature and able to think in terms of all possible natures.

    Consider beings with fluid bodies similar to amoeba. They will have no set number of digits, and so may use different number bases for different measures. "50" and the thinking that understands such numbers ceases to mean anything. And consider that rather than counting stellar revolutions, they instead measure time according to a variable standard, with "years" ceasing to be useful as a concept. And consider that beings 'out there' discovered very early the chaotic nature of most physical phenomena, and so when presenting numbers relating to dimensions or numbers of variables that best describes something, they give a non-integer number. Given just these few differences, it may not be possible to decode any signal relating numerical data, and it's certainly unlikely that any who maintain a "50 years" mentality would agree that the decoding is meaningful. That point may not pertain to SETI researchers, but may petain to the far larger number of scientists that must agree with the presented information in order for it to be considered accepted as scientifically accurate and a true signal indicating intelligence.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  104. 50 years no signs by ps2os2 · · Score: 0

    Sigh... I have been running SETI on my computers for at least 15 years.
    For the last 4 months their servers have been so unreliable I am guessing even if life was found SETI would not know about it.
    I am guessing that they run MS servers as UPTIME is not in their vocabulary.
    Worthwhile project but any work done will be down the tubes because of their ability to keep their servers up and running (reliably)

  105. Re:The first? Or the only? by Fished · · Score: 1

    As someone with a Ph.D. in New Testament, let me just assure you that you need to learn a good bit more about the Bible and about Christian theology. First off, it's highly debatable whether or not the book of Genesis is incompatible with evolution. The whole notion of "literal" interpretation--as used by the reformers when they called for the "sensus literalis"--doesn't mean what you think it means, because "figurative" and "allegory" are *not* the same thing. An allegorical interpretation would be something like saying, "Adam represents the church, and Eve represents the devil, and the serpent represents the Gnostics". This sort of interpretation was all the rage in Medieval Catholicism, and it's that sort of interpretation that is to be rejected. A figurative interpretation acknowledges that people, and books, don't always speak in a direct, literal way. See, for example, parables.

    On the other hand, a bone-headed literalism is just as bad as allegorical interpretation, because it ends up missing the words of the text. In the words of John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1:6:

    "For, to my mind, this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. "

    Regarding eschatology... I highly suggest you take some time to read "Revelation: Four Views", which is a parallel commentary. When you read it, consider the preterist position and how well it compares to premillenial nonsense, and consider the possibility that you've been badly deceived, because the bottom line is that chiliasts have been promising the "end is nigh" for 2000 years now and ... ahem ... it hasn't yet materialized. Maybe there's something wrong with that whole reading of scripture? You really don't have a choice: either scripture's wrong, or your reading of it is wrong. I'm going with you being wrong, brother. "End Times Fiction" is also quite good, but sadly out of print.

    --
    "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
  106. Because mice are small. by AzuMao · · Score: 1

    Unless we'd be the equivalent of netbooks, attached to some giant external hivemind, we'd be stuck with tiny brains.

  107. Re:The first? Or the only? by telomerewhythere · · Score: 1

    First off, it's highly debatable whether or not the book of Genesis is incompatible with evolution.

    Note I was careful to say Genesis doesn't teach evolution. I don't really want to get into an argument about this, but I am aware that people say evolution and Genesis Creation are compatible, but you won't find the explicit teaching of Evolution there. Really, otherwise Bible scholars would have come up with Evolution and not Darwin. I did choose my words carefully in that phrase.

    As to the end of the world is near, Note I said when humans conclusively find no [intelligent life] in the universe, (remember, universal negatives are pretty hard to prove) by that time, if Armageddon has not come, I think it will not be coming. 100,000 ly across, (not area) just for Milky Way. 100,000,000,000 stars, and then we got 100,000,000,000 other galaxies in the universe. When we finish that, then we need to go to the rest of the universe, the vast part we can't see from Earth. (As an aside, the complete universe is not 13 or so billion ly in radius, that's just what we can see) And while the Milky Way can basically be measured in area, the universe is measured in volume. Are you familiar with the square-cube problem? Yeah, that fits this search.

    So in summation, sure the end hasn't come yet, but will it not come by the end of the survey of all the planets in all the star systems in all the galaxies in the universe?

    I was not really making a theological argument, just a 'the universe is too vast to fully chart' argument.

    P.S. I do have a Theological question for you. I promise not to argue. Do you think Mt 28:19, 20 is binding upon all Christians today, and what does that mean they should be doing in practical application?

  108. Re:The first? Or the only? by Fished · · Score: 1

    P.S. I do have a Theological question for you. I promise not to argue. Do you think Mt 28:19, 20 is binding upon all Christians today, and what does that mean they should be doing in practical application?

    Yes, I do think it's binding. In terms of practical application, however, I think that our first emphasis should be on "teaching them to obey everything which I have commanded you." It's no accident that Mt 28.19-20 comes at the end of the gospel of Matthew, which contains the most explicit account of Christianity distinctive ethics--that is, Matthew 5-7 (the Sermon on the Mount.) The reason we fail at evangelism is because we've failed at "making disciples." The reason we fail at "making disciples" is because we've failed at being disciples. The problem is our own accommodation to worldliness, and until we get our own house in order we will fail.

    --
    "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1