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."

91 of 454 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.
    5. 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.

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

      [citation needed] --cordially, a marine biologist

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

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

      At least human males don't kill their stepchildren.

      [citation needed]

    10. Re:Patience! by kd5zex · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    11. 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
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.

    15. 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/
  2. 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 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
    4. 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.

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

      no that is taking into account slower than light exponential expansion

    6. 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...

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

      We should probably name this.

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

    8. 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?

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

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

    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    14. 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'!"
    15. 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.

    16. 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

    17. 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.

    18. 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
  3. 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 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.
    2. 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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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)
  4. 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 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 3, Funny

      Can you justify that it isn't?

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

    4. 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
    5. 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.
    6. Re:After 50 years? by SetupWeasel · · Score: 3, Funny

      It costs more than a dollar.

    7. 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.

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

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

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  6. 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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
  7. 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.

  8. 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 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.
  9. 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.

  10. 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."

  11. 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"!

  12. Obligatory XKCD... by denzacar · · Score: 4, Funny
    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  13. 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)
  14. 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'? ;)

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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 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.
  18. 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.

  19. 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.
  20. 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.

  21. 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 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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.
  24. 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.......

  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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.

  29. 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 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!

      --
      ...
  30. 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!
  31. 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.