Slashdot Mirror


Hairspray Could Help Us Find Advanced Alien Civilizations

Hugh Pickens writes "Charles Q. Choi reports that hairspray could one day serve as the sign that aliens have reshaped distant worlds because one group of gases that might be key to terraforming planets are CFCs. 'Our hypothesis is that evidence of intelligent life might be evident in a planetary atmosphere,' says astrobiologist Mark Claire at the Blue Marble Space Institute of Science. CFCs are entirely artificial, with no known natural process capable of creating them in atmospheres. Detecting signs of these gases on far-off worlds with telescopes might serve as potent evidence that intelligent alien civilizations were the cause, either intentionally as part of terraforming or accidentally via industrial pollution. 'An industrialized civilization will be one that will use its planetary resources for fabrication, the soon-to-be-detectable-from-Earth atmospheric byproducts of which could be a tell-tale sign of their activity,' says astrobiologist Sanjoy Som. CFCs can be easily recognized in planetary atmospheres because their atmospheric 'fingerprint' (i.e. chemical spectra) is very different from natural elements, and are a tell-tale sign that life on the surface has advanced industrial capabilities. Using state-of-the-art computer models of atmospheric chemistry and climate, researchers plan to discover what visible signs CFCs and other artificial byproducts of alien terraforming or industry might have on exoplanet atmospheres. 'We are about a decade away of being able to measure detailed compositions of the atmospheres of extrasolar planets,' says Som."

211 comments

  1. Much more than that by staltz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Detecting CFCs applies well if you imagine that aliens are human-like. But real aliens can in reality substantially different than humans. The Universe is weird enough to allow some surprises.

    I've read some news about some odd planets floating somewhere. One planet is almost entirely sugar, and there's some sort of nebula that is basically alcohol. Life could be present in these odd places, and the way life manifests itself might be totally different from what we see here on Earth.

    So yes, CFC is a good sign, but aliens might be much weirder and let's not expect that they follow the same patterns as we do. I mean, aliens don't need hairspray.

    1. Re:Much more than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If it's from hairspray, they can't be all *that* intelligent.

    2. Re:Much more than that by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Interesting

      and the way life manifests itself might be totally different from what we see here on Earth.

      Harumph. Physics and chemistry work virtually the same way everywhere. What makes you think that they will discover something significantly different from CFCs as an inert propellant?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:Much more than that by clickclickdrone · · Score: 5, Funny

      I mean, aliens don't need hairspray

      Chewbacca begs to differ.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    4. Re:Much more than that by Fr05t · · Score: 5, Funny

      One planet is almost entirely sugar, and there's some sort of nebula that is basically alcohol.

      Where are these wonderful places, and how soon can I get there?!!?

    5. Re:Much more than that by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      What makes you think that life on another planet won't have found some biological use for CFCs?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:Much more than that by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      What makes you think that they will discover something significantly different from CFCs as an inert propellant?

      The simplest reason: They have significantly different materials to work with, affected by a different degree of planetary gravity (if that's relevant to what they're building), because they're on a different planet.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    7. Re:Much more than that by alen · · Score: 1

      true, but for intelligent life you need a body and appendages. you need hands and fingers to manipulate your environment like humans use hands to make tools. other animals use flora to make nests and dams but the fact that they can't use their hands and fingers like us limits them.

      in order to get to the high tech part of life you need body parts to manipulate your environment in low tech ways to make the tools and machines to allow you to progress in technology

      just like in Star Trek where all the space faring races have body parts that allow them to manipulate objects

    8. Re:Much more than that by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      No "virtually" about it.

      There are a limited number of ways to solve a problem given these constraints. Regarding the GP - this can be used for a lot more than hairspray.

      Generally, if we look at enough of our industrial output, there should be some overlap with any arbitrary sentient species.

      What is more of a concern... 500+ light years away, another alien civilization is looking at Earth, and not detecting squat, as we look at them, and don't detect squat. By the time evidence of civilization from either planet reaches the other... both races have wiped themselves out.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    9. Re:Much more than that by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      true, but for intelligent life you need a body and appendages.

      Tell that to the dolphins.

    10. Re:Much more than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chewbacca is not amused. :-\

    11. Re:Much more than that by vlm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What makes you think that life on another planet won't have found some biological use for CFCs?

      Oh man, talk to a chemist, they are inert, which makes things biologically complicated and the precursors are beyond nasty. For a good time google for Bromotrifluoromethane Synthesis (aka what you non-chemists would call "Halon") and imagine what it takes to make it both industrially and almost unimaginably via biosynthesis. Its not so much the final step that's the problem, but the precursors, processing the raw materials, etc.

      Its probably a pretty good "dependency" marker indicating advanced stainless steel fabrication, extensive acid production industries, hmm I'd have to think. Biological tissue has severe issues dealing with fluorine ions, which is too bad.

      Its not for lack of evolutionary pressure. Plenty of vessels and orifices would benefit by a native layer of teflon. Imagine the predator prey relations in a world of teflon skin. Some of the room temp liquid CFCs would superficially make a good replacement for that fluid in the bone joints (sorry not doc don't know its technical name).

      Theres also some evolutionary pressure in that you'd need a species that eats flourite ore rocks (or at least stuff grown in its soil, or naturally heavily floridated water) AND in the halon example a biological bromine source... One or the other, OK, but at this time of day I can't think of a way to pull off both. Some kind of migratory coastal ruminant mammal? Um...

      Also there's some thermodynamics issues, if you could pull off the synthesis in a cell, it would need to be a better idea than simply synth more ATP or hemoglobin or whatever else... Need to find a bio app where CFCs are more beneficial than anything else a cell can synth. CFCs are expensive to make so you need a good reason. Much as superficially silicon based brains "seem" more sensible than neuron based brains but its so hard to make a self reproducing factory the size of a typical mammal womb that its not happening any time soon.

      To some extent thats why halon is such a good fire extinguisher around humans. Terrestrial biochemistry has almost no idea how to interact with it, so it pretty much doesn't. CFC suffocation is a zillion times more likely than CFC poisoning. I was told but am too lazy to verify that if you get CFCs into your blood your kidneys get somewhat confused.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    12. Re:Much more than that by stranger_to_himself · · Score: 1

      One planet is almost entirely sugar, and there's some sort of nebula that is basically alcohol..

      Somewhere there is an astronomer with his telescope the wrong way around trying to work out the orbital trajectories of the remnants of his lunch.

    13. Re:Much more than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let the wookie win.

    14. Re:Much more than that by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      What makes you think their robots won't fart CFCs?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    15. Re:Much more than that by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      The first place can be found at Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory, the second seems to describe Ireland.

      I _kid_, I _kid_ :-)

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    16. Re:Much more than that by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      I don't know about that - I could imagine a blobular form of life that forms grasping body parts as needed via internal pressure from its outer layer. Kind of like how bacteria engulf their food.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    17. Re:Much more than that by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      No "virtually" about it.

      I believe that certain extreme environments *could* change the kinematics of chemical reactions. Take very strong magnetic fields, for example. These tend to deform the electron shells, and since these dictate chemical reactions, I'd be surprised if these were unaffected.

      But, granted, extreme environments are probably not conducive to the emergence of life in the first place.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    18. Re:Much more than that by Abreu · · Score: 2

      Also, wasn't Alf's home planet destroyed in an incident involving hair dryers? Hairspray doesn't sound far-fetched...

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    19. Re:Much more than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      and the way life manifests itself might be totally different from what we see here on Earth.

      Harumph. Physics and chemistry work virtually the same way everywhere. What makes you think that they will discover something significantly different from CFCs as an inert propellant?

      Haha. Yeah, you base that purely on a race that has only been to the tiny moon that is right next door on a giant bottle rocket. Beyond that all we have done is look at pictures and make assumptions based 100% on nothing. Or lets look at the fact that physics was believed to be a certain way till aristotle said he could move the world which then defied the laws of physics. But he explained how it's possible with a lever. Now, levers are included in Physical laws and studies today so if one man could change what people think of physics with something he had no way of actually proving then exactly how real and fool proof is physics?

      Look at planet WASP-18b that defies physics for being so close to its sun that it should not be able to exist. Again this is based on our physics, yet it still exists. Or the fact that our own moon is too big to exist considering the size of our earth and it has dust on that we say is over a billion years older than the moons rock. See, we only know what we are told by popular opinion and that changes constantly.

      Hell there are thousands of things on this earth that existed and we never knew about for thousands and thousands of years, right here on our own planet. So who is to say we know exactly how an entire freaking universe works without a shred of doubt by just looking through a keyhole and guessing at everything?

      Most claims in physics and science anymore are just BS created by someone to gain noteriaty or some grant money. Anyone can "explain" anything they want if they try hard enough.

    20. Re:Much more than that by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      You seem to miss the point entirely. CFCs are good for more than hair spray. An alien civilization might use them for terraforming (or Xanthaforming) new homes.

      The point is to look for signs of chemicals that don't occur naturally. Although they're sure to have some false positives, since something that doesn't occur naturally here may occur naturally there.

    21. Re:Much more than that by thesandtiger · · Score: 1

      Certainly intelligent aliens may have no need for or not make CFCs.

      But CFCs are not something that occur in nature by any process we know, and thus if we see them in abundance where they should not be, that's a sign something very interesting is happening there, caused by something that is worth investigating. Maybe it's aliens, maybe it's a new natural phenomenon.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    22. Re:Much more than that by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Funny

      They have significantly different materials to work with

      You mean that instead of fluorine, chlorine, and carbon, they have unobtanium, duranium and mithril?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    23. Re:Much more than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One planet is almost entirely sugar, and there's some sort of nebula that is basically alcohol.

      Quick, someone call Nestle and InBev. We might get off this rock yet.

      Woah, 400 trillion pints only 10,000 ly away. Looks like warp drive is a must. To go there in 20 years round-trip, it'd take a speed of 1000c (just under Warp 8 in Star Trek terms).

      The sugar planet is much more reasonable - 400 ly away.
      20c would get us there (Warp 3 for a 20-year round trip).

    24. Re:Much more than that by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      One planet is almost entirely sugar, and there's some sort of nebula that is basically alcohol.

      Where are these wonderful places, and how soon can I get there?!!?

      The Orion Nebula has alcohol. It will take over a thousand years to get there, assuming you're a photon (are you?). Sugar is closer, less than half as far.

    25. Re:Much more than that by Stratus311 · · Score: 1

      I couldn't agree with this more. Physics is mostly based on what we know here, on Earth.

    26. Re:Much more than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everyone uses hair spray. Why not methane? If so, then Saturn's moon Titan is a leading candidate. Maybe that's why the aliens moved from there.

    27. Re:Much more than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Although they're sure to have some false positives, since something that doesn't occur naturally here may occur naturally there.

      And that would still be very interesting to find and investigate and would probably have a huge impact on our understanding of life and/or chemistry.

    28. Re:Much more than that by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Oh man, talk to a chemist, they are inert, which makes things biologically complicated and the precursors are beyond nasty.

      Perhaps I'm not up to speed on chemistry, but that's only true for the industrial processes that we use. The only ways we can fix nitrogen are currently pretty biologially unfriendly at the moment.

      Biological tissue has severe issues dealing with fluorine ions, which is too bad.

      True, but some organisms have evolved to deal with it. For instance monofluoroacetate can be produced biologically.

      The point is that life on other planets may be quite different from our own. It will probably be based on carbon, since nothing else is nearly so flexible, but I don't see any reason why the chemistry should be anything close.

      Plenty of vessels and orifices would benefit by a native layer of teflon.

      Quite possibly, though the ability to synthesize some fluorine containing chemicals doesn't indicate the ability to synthesize them all. Also, don't forget that the parts have to be repairable and also have to have wound up there by evoloutionary chance as well.

      Very many things end up down a sub-optimal branch from which they cannot escape.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    29. Re:Much more than that by hoboroadie · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not only alien life, but proof that stupidity is universal.

      --
      They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    30. Re:Much more than that by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      *Golf Clap*

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    31. Re:Much more than that by dinfinity · · Score: 2

      An alien civilization might use them for terraforming (or Xanthaforming) new homes.

      My question is: Why would they terraform at all?
      Any civilization capable of meaningfully terraforming a planet is bound to be capable of not having to live on a planet or not having to care whether there is oxygen and atmospheric pressure on it.

    32. Re:Much more than that by Gilmoure · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly! All this science stuff is just humbug malarkey spread by all e college people who like to flaunt their learning as they drive past in their Suburus. And the only thing worse than an college person are those dirty worker types, all ignorant and stupid and stuff. Nope, the only people you can trust are those that wear nice suits, drive nice shoes, and wear nice cars. the sorta people you find running Wall Street. Their the last, best hope for hoomanity!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    33. Re:Much more than that by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Wait, they could be "a sign" but not a "conclusive sign" of technological processes? Since when does science give us maybes and variables? Science is supposed to be like the bible: clean, concise, and unambiguous!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    34. Re:Much more than that by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Variety. Think, if human kind got the capability for cheap inter-planetary travel there'd be colonies in all kinds of environments, asteroids, comets, various gas giant satellites and any easy to terraform planets. Different people like different things.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    35. Re:Much more than that by Mark+Claire · · Score: 1

      And answer to this could lie in the future of our own solar system. Let's say for a moment that the upper-end of the IPCC predictions actually occur and we are looking at 5-10 C rise in global average temperature over the next 500 years. Disaster? Yes End of the World? No - but it will make conditions here much more difficult... Mars is a cold planet, and leaving the ethics part of it aside for the moment, could be a very desirable place to live, if it wasn't so damn cold. One way to warm it up would be to artificially pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, in an attempt to warm up the CO2/H2O ice caps. Our scientific question is would this world be astronomically detectable - we think that the answer might be yes, which would be really cool. (Even if we could pull this off, we would still need pressure and oxygen to breathe). PS - I'm one of the scientists involved. Shameless plug for project here: http://www.petridish.org/projects/do-aliens-use-hairspray

    36. Re:Much more than that by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      It's not for lack of evolutionary pressure. Plenty of vessels and orifices would benefit by a native layer of teflon. Imagine the predator prey relations in a world of teflon skin. Some of the room temp liquid CFCs would superficially make a good replacement for that fluid in the bone joints (sorry not doc don't know its technical name).

      Synovial fluid. Sidenote, evolution tends to not reinvent the wheel, even if reinventing the wheel is entirely possible. Even if CFCs were possible to chemically make inside the body, I think evolution would tend to tweak it's fluid, protein, and connective tissue to make synovial fluid rather than make a new pathway for making CFCs.

      The human brain for example is in many ways just a reptilian brain with some add-ons. Important ones, but the brain was not totally overhauled.

      So I think the fact that we aren't producing CFCs is not just a chemical constraint, it's also a historical constraint.

    37. Re:Much more than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Detecting CFCs applies well if you imagine that aliens are human-like.

      Right, because only human-like aliens would have use for a low-reactivity, low-flammability propellant and refrigerant for industrial applications. And surely only human-like aliens could find value in things like polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon)!

      Point is that these are chemicals where there is no known natural process to create them in a planetary atmosphere. As such, their presence in a planet's atmosphere MIGHT be an indication of an industrialized society. While technological applications may differ, most "industrialized" species would probably have figured out how to extract and smelt metal, produce plastics, and other materials we've learned to create during our process of industrialization. And the signatures of those activities would probably look very much like they do here on earth, even if the applications of the technology are different.

    38. Re:Much more than that by gsslay · · Score: 2

      Physics does not say WASP-1b cannot exist, just that it's not going to stay where it exists for very long.

      Physics does not say the moon is "too big", it says that the moon is of a size that makes it unlikely to have been a passing object "captured" by the Earth's gravity.

      The age of the dust on the moon is accountable by the simple and obvious fact that much of it did not originate from the moon's rocks, which are younger. This fits in nicely with the moon not being a captured satellite.

      So all your examples don't prove anything you're saying. All they demonstrate is you don't pay attention to what science is saying.

    39. Re:Much more than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is that life on other planets may be quite different from our own. It will probably be based on carbon, since nothing else is nearly so flexible, but I don't see any reason why the chemistry should be anything close.

      Evolution would suggest that its biochemistry would probably be very much like that of earth life, since evolution favors the "path of least resistance" - biochemistries unsuited for survival will tend to die off, biochemistries efficient at survival will tend to flourish.

      Even microbes that survive in incredibly hostile-to-human-life atmospheres here on earth (high heat, extremely cold environents, low oxygen, deep sea vents, sub-arctic ice, high salt areas, areas high in toxic metals) have pretty recognizable and understandable biochemistry. There's no reason to expect that carbon-based life would develop completely unrecognizable biochemistry on another planet, unless the conditions are so REMARKABLY bizarre there that they bear no resemblance to environments found here on earth.

    40. Re:Much more than that by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > Physics and chemistry work virtually the same way everywhere.

      That is a pretty BIG assumption considering Scientists only know about %0.0000001 of the universe.

    41. Re:Much more than that by Immerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I know the whole space-station/asteroid colony thing is cool, but planets have several advantages

      1) Your survival is not dependent on the continuous operation of high technology devices - especially important if you're thinking in terms of millenia and insuring your descendants survive even if they pass through some form of knowledge-sapping Dark Ages.
      2) They're big, and virtually indestructible.
      3) Any ecological catastrophe is likely to proceed slowly (see 2), likely giving you decades or centuries of to develop a fix rather than the hours or months likely in an artificially constrained ecosystem.
      4) They're far more suitable as a "genetic heritage" site if you want a large, chaotic system of thriving genetic diversity
      5) Lots of people might well prefer to live within a thriving ecological web than in a rigorously controlled environment. I know I would.
      6) And possibly most importantly, if you have suitable candidates terraforming a planet is probably one of the most cost-effective ways to support billions of individuals. In fact the up-front costs of converting Venus (Mars is a much tougher nut to crack) into something way more hospitable than an asteroid are probably negligible - design a bacterium that will thrive in the current environment and bind atmospheric carbon dioxide into some stable solid, then seed the planet with them and wait a few centuries. Sure it takes a while, but it's a grad-student synthetic biology project with extra credit for having your bacteria designed to die off as conditions approach Earth-norm. Heck, we're almost to the point of being able to do such things ourselves. And once you've got a planet in the proper temperature range with a "non-hostile" atmosphere seeding it with "normal" bacteria to add proper amounts of oxygen and establish a thriving microbial biome in which multicellular life can thrive, while perhaps more challenging, is still potentially a research-project level endeavor whose expense will trivial compared to say, building an interstate highway. So basically, given cheap interplanetary travel all you need is a few individuals with vision to work on a centuries-long project and you can quite possibly terraform an "easy" planet to the point that people could walk unprotected outdoors and establish homesteads, even if they have to import their own multicellular life.

      Meanwhile building a viable enclosed ecosystem even the size of a small city is likely to be an extremely expensive undertaking, especially when you factor in radiation shielding, meteor defense systems, etc. Not to mention gravity - tethering is relatively cheap, but enough cable to support a city (plus shielding) under anything approaching Earth-norm accelerations is still going to be impressive, not to mention you have to perform ongoing maintenance continuously. Perhaps the whole thing could be done organically as some sort of city-sized organism/symbiosis, but that's supposing a much more advanced level of biotechnology, and you'd still have to feed the thing as it grows, though ideally it could absorb sunlight and some convenient carbonaceous asteroids for most of it's needs.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    42. Re:Much more than that by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It will take over a thousand years to get there, assuming you're a photon (are you?).

      Since I am a photon:

      I am already was there.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    43. Re:Much more than that by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Sidenote, evolution tends to not reinvent the wheel, even if reinventing the wheel is entirely possible.

      Have you seen how many different ways it's come up with to catch an impala?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    44. Re:Much more than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iKID? so now Apple has got its whores into the child business.

    45. Re:Much more than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, since when are dolphins disembodied spirits with no appendages?

      If you want to quibble with what he said, quibble with "you need hands and fingers to manipulate your environment."

      The form the bodies and appendages take could be quite flexible, though I think you'd need the ability to "grasp" something at the very least... but unless you're positing the existence of disembodied beings of pure energy affecting their environment via telekinesis, his argument that "having a body that allows you to manipulate the environment around you is a requirement for intelligent life," is pretty reasonable.

      It'd be hard to imagine a "sentient" race of sea sponges evolving into a star-faring race by sitting, unchanging, on the ocean floor for millions of generations.

    46. Re:Much more than that by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      No, but I'd wager most of them revolve around using bone and muscle to move the predator to the impala and then using some sharp bit of bone or keratin to shred and kill it. There are many diverse ways within that, but nature generally doesn't totally reinvent the basics. I haven't heard of any natural predators that use projectiles shot from their bodies, or clouds of knockout gas, for instance. It would require quite a bit of evolutionary innovation and then refinement for any of those to become useful. Meanwhile, predators that merely increase their muscle speed or grow longer claws would do well quicker.

    47. Re:Much more than that by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      In other words, evolution isn't diverse, except when it is?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    48. Re:Much more than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He should have said "intelligent, tool-using life." Undersea life is not likely to ever develop even modestly advanced tool use due to the incompressibility of water. Try building a watch under water and you'll find it's impossible: every attempt to add another gear produces currents which push the first one out.

    49. Re:Much more than that by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Question.

      If a planet had a significantly different ratio of base elements, such as a lot of fluoride and bromide on its surface, I assume life would make use of it and arrive at what you describe as 'teflon shells'. After all life here makes lots of things which are a LOT more complicated.

      So the real question is: can a planet form with widely different ratios of elements on its surface (who cares what's at the core) ? Or do planet formation models lead to gaseous / rocky worlds which have basically always the same chemistry ? For information, Earth's crust is 46% O, 27% Si, 8% Al, 5% Fe, 3.6% Ca, 2.8% Na, 2.6% K, 2.1% Mg...

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    50. Re:Much more than that by MakyoDetector · · Score: 1

      But real aliens can in reality substantially different than humans.

      You mean aliens that are real are... in reality? Gulp.

      Has anybody noticed the missing verb syndrome? It seemingly appeared a few months ago and is everywhere now. I swear it's fucking making me dyslexic and I'm now re-reading sentences just to make sure I didn't miss a verb.

      --
      Just this infinitely recurring zero floats into view.
    51. Re:Much more than that by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      I haven't heard of any natural predators that use projectiles shot from their bodies

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archerfish

    52. Re:Much more than that by Evtim · · Score: 2

      Well, the question you gotta ask is the opposite. What if the physics of a distant galaxy is different from the one around here?

      Well then I guess that its spectral lines might be different. And its movement in space might be different.

      We can now see more or less to the edge of the observable Universe which happens to be also a picture form the very distant past. Yes, the Universe looked different back then, of course it does, but the light we see is still the same. The nature of light includes in itself quite a lot of fundamental physics (e.g. electro-magnetism, quantum physics) it also carries information about the objects it came in contact with or originated from (atomic physics, chemistry). We can also see how things move around and judge if gravity behaves in the same way there as here.

      Oh yhea, and if you assume that the physics is different you got to explain a hell of a lot more and predict an observable effect. Like what happens at the borders between worlds with different physics? Are there borders at all? How does it work? Can you make a model? Does the model predicts effects that can be observed? If yes, why are we not seeing them? And so on and so forth...

      Compare to the Universe we are and always will be infinitely small. Unless we discover infinite speeds and infinitely fast terraforming capabilities - then we would fill it in a few millennia - but if that was possible odds are someone else would have done it already. So we will forever know (through observation and direct contact) only very, very small part of the Universe. But it does not mean we are absolutely powerless to comprehend it. You underestimate the amount of thought that was,is and will be spent on the assumption in question. So far the answer is indeed "Probably the physics as we know it is the same throughout the Universe"

    53. Re:Much more than that by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      No, in other words diversity doesn't happen equally fast at all possible levels. Perhaps a better example would be DNA coding. How the DNA is read stays very consistent. I don't believe there's any chemical reason why AUG MUST be translated as methionine. You could have AUG read as any other amino acid. But if you made that change suddenly, none of your existing protein sequences would work, and you would go extinct immediately.

      Gould calls these things constraints on evolution. There are a number of them, one is historical: nature doesn't reinvent the wheel when it doesn't have to. If it can modify something instead, it will tend to do that rather than create a new feature out of nothing.

    54. Re:Much more than that by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Evolution would suggest that its biochemistry would probably be very much like that of earth life, since evolution favors the "path of least resistance" - biochemistries unsuited for survival will tend to die off, biochemistries efficient at survival will tend to flourish.

      Consider the wavelengths of light absorbed by Earth's photosynthesizing plants. Now consider the wavelengths NOT absorbed by plants. These rejected wavelengths (green, mostly) are actually the most abundant, so it is counterintuitive that plants would evolve to effectively discard a useful energy source. It is very odd when you consider that pretty much every bit of free energy is capitalized by some form of life, yet the most abundant wavelengths are rejected.

      The going theory is that originally archaea DID make use of the green wavelength and didn't waste energy trying to capture the less valuable reds and blues. Cyanobacteria's ancestors (and the predecessor to our modern green plants) is theorized to have taken advantage of this 'discarded' spectrum where competition was lessened.

      Big deal, you may think. However, when you realize that our planet is pretty 'green' rather 'purple' you have to come to terms with the fact that the dominant plant life on Earth actually evolved along the more difficult path, scrounging 'scrap' energy. We aren't completely sure WHY cyanobacteria beat out archaea, because if you were to look at it from an unbiased perspective when life first emerged on the Earth, a betting man would have bet on archaea. It had monopolized the most valuable wavelengths in terms of available energy, was fairly dominant, and by all typical measures, was more 'fit' to its environment. Theories abound that perhaps being forced to use the 'dregs' of light forced early cyanobacteria to be more efficient in its energy usage, evolving processes which wasted less, allowed simpler reproduction, etc, and then a global stressor caused the purple life to falter, the green life took up the slack and never gave back its dominant position.

      There are lots of theories to why, but the important fact here is that for some reason, the less likely lifeform became dominant.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    55. Re:Much more than that by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Evolution doesn't like to reinvent core functionality, but loves to rearrange that functionality in different ways.

    56. Re:Much more than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at planet WASP-18b that defies physics for being so close to its sun that it should not be able to exist. Again this is based on our physics, yet it still exists. Or the fact that our own moon is too big to exist considering the size of our earth and it has dust on that we say is over a billion years older than the moons rock. See, we only know what we are told by popular opinion and that changes constantly.

      Let me guess: you're a creationist?

    57. Re:Much more than that by Migraineman · · Score: 1

      Evolution would suggest that its biochemistry would probably be very much like that of earth life, ...

      only because the terrestrial evoltionary process is biased by being immersed in a watery environment. I fail to see that a water-chemistry evolution would be optimal on a planet brimming with liquid ammonia or liquid hydrocarbons.

      For life to even stand a chance, you're going to need readily available raw materials, a "solvent" that's compatible (chemcally) with the raw materials, and an energy transfer mechanism. Water is top-of-the-list as solvents go, simply because we are currently using it that way. However, I have difficulty being so arrogant as to declare it to be "the one true solvent for all to use." Put your biological system in a 900 atm pressure environment, and tell me that the chemistry all works the same as it does here on Earth. Now bump the ambient temperature to 300C and do it again. There are way too many environmental permutations for my puny monkey-brain to comprehend.

    58. Re:Much more than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you need to watch more discovery channel.

    59. Re:Much more than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless, of course, they do!

    60. Re:Much more than that by Veggiesama · · Score: 1

      Haha! You're right, all women who use hairspray are stupid!

    61. Re:Much more than that by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      1 and 3 through 6 rely on the assumption that an advanced civilization still cares about billions of organically evolving individuals (or an ecosystem, for that matter).
      The 7 billion humans that exist today are largely redundant. I'd say that our current civilization could easily thrive as well (or even better) if we were 1 billion individuals. Biological evolution has already become largely irrelevant when it comes to insuring survival and progress and will become completely obsolete in the next century due to bioengineering and cybernetics. For a lot of service jobs, physical presence is also already mostly irrelevant and industrial jobs have been and are being taken over by more potent robotic workers. The list of reasons why the biological substrate will certainly perish goes on and on.

      As for 2: yes, they are. They are also pretty hard to adapt or move.
      In the centuries it takes to make the planet habitable, any civilization could figure out to do whatever it is they want to do on that planet without terraforming.
      More importantly, I can't think of any meaningful protection a planet gives that an advanced civilization cannot easily emulate.

    62. Re:Much more than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These rejected wavelengths (green, mostly) are actually the most abundant, so it is counterintuitive that plants would evolve to effectively discard a useful energy source.

      No, it's not. What is clear from this is that the wavelength of light they absorb is not the key factor in their evolutionary success - perhaps shorter and longer wavelengths penetrate cloud or ash cover better than the "middle" green wavelengths; perhaps their use of less-abundant energy sources pushed them into more efficient biochemical pathways, allowing them to evolve more easily into multi-cellular organisms or survive adverse conditions such as an asteroid strike or a massive volcanic eruption.

      Many archaea and some other microorganisms that still exist plentifully today use retinal, which absorbs in the green wavelengths and reflects blue and red (giving the retinal a purple-ish color) - but they never evolved into higher life forms and comparatively speaking, they're not particularly successful compared to chlorophyll-bearing microbes.

      Since green-reflecting photosynthesizers eventually achieved much wider dominance, but archaea and other retinal-using organisms still exist - it's clear that the wavelength absorbed is not, strictly speaking, the chief determinant of evolutionary fitness.

    63. Re:Much more than that by khallow · · Score: 1

      Detecting CFCs applies well if you imagine that aliens are human-like.

      Well, in what way are they "human-like"? CFCs can work over a wide temperature range. And their chemical stability means that they would be relatively non-toxic.

    64. Re:Much more than that by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Assuming the advanced civilization is (still) organic, they almost certainly have a strong understanding of the tightly interwoven web of biology necessary to keep a complex organism alive. Even if they no longer need planets terraforming the easy candidates is likely to be the sort of thing a single individual or small group could set in motion relatively easily. At that point it becomes a question of why not rather than why. And we're talking "humans in a few centuries" level of advanced, not godlike beings. Shoot, if we could drop test tubes into Venus's atmosphere today for the cost of some first-class postage there'd be dozen's of groups trying it already, even though we lack the tech to have much chance of creating viable organisms. And so what if they've figured out how to do what they want with the planet without terraforming? You're presuming they only want one thing, and that it would interfere with the process already unleashed. A livable ecosystem is likely to always be valuable, if only as an emergency repair/refueling location. And if it's virtually free to create, why not? And once you have that, why stop there? In fact you probably couldn't do so if you wanted to - every refueling spacer with a cargo of grain or a rat infestation would be introducing complex life to a world without competition. it'd only be a matter of time before a complex ecosystem took hold.

      I'd quite agree about 1 billion individuals (but are you volunteering to remove your redundant self? Or your children?), and I wouldn't be surprised if we actually stabilize at something closer to that number within the millenium, via simple negative population growth if we avoid any major catastrophes. On Earth. But once you get into space that changes there's no longer any population pressure except for our desire to not build more habitats. Not until you've got a population in the trillions at least. And that's just within the solar system, and it should be fairly trivial to go beyond it once we've master sustainable artificial ecosystems. Eventually the star is little more than an unwieldy (if extremely reliable) fusion reactor.

      Oh and as an aside - no, so long as all reproduction isn't reduced to perfect cloning of a single individual evolution will remain completely relevant - it's the one eternally relevant factor. The particular traits it selects for may change, but it will always cause the species to drift towards those reproducing the most. Even if the "elites" transcend their organic bodies the only way evolution ceases to be relevant is if they impose transcendance or extermination on *everyone* else. Even then unless reproduction ceases to be possible (can I duplicate my transcendent consciousness?) some individuals will be more prone to reproduce while others will fall victim to terminal accidents, etc. so the species as a whole will continue to evolve.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    65. Re:Much more than that by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Dude, think how many ways there are to make something as simple as a support structure (bones). The diversity in evolution is actually quite incredible. Some things fly.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    66. Re:Much more than that by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      At that point it becomes a question of why not rather than why.

      Because it is useless and therefore irrational. The technological advancements that would take place in the time it takes to terraform are bound to be far more effective than terraforming.

      And we're talking "humans in a few centuries" level of advanced, not godlike beings.

      Technically, we were talking 'detecting other civilizations that may or may not have terraformed planets'. But a few centuries is a long time. Long enough for organic bodies to become irrelevant to a civilization (starting from where we are now).

      A livable ecosystem is likely to always be valuable, if only as an emergency repair/refueling location.

      No, it is not. Livable ecosystems are redundant if you have advanced ways to deal with whatever they might throw at you.

      And so what if they've figured out how to do what they want with the planet without terraforming? You're presuming they only want one thing, and that it would interfere with the process already unleashed.

      No, I am presuming they wouldn't invest resources in flooding that planet with CFCs. I'm not really feeling your implication that terraforming is a matter of cheaply throwing some cheap stuff at a planet and waiting for terraforming to complete. I think it would take considerable resources to actually terraform a planet. If not, it would probably be a process indistinguishable from a process started naturally or by simple chance.

      I'd quite agree about 1 billion individuals (but are you volunteering to remove your redundant self? Or your children?)

      I wasn't implying actively striving for that number, simply that the idea 'we need (to support) more people and thus need terraformed planets' is false. Whether I would volunteer in removing myself is an interesting question. I'd say that civilization would be losing a great mind, so no ;-) ;-)
      Honestly, I'm not that big on individualism, so I doubt I would care too much would I have to actually make such a choice.

      and I wouldn't be surprised if we actually stabilize at something closer to that number within the millenium, via simple negative population growth if we avoid any major catastrophes. On Earth. But once you get into space that changes there's no longer any population pressure except for our desire to not build more habitats.

      It's not about population pressure. It is about redundancy and resources. Only if more individuals increase the progress of a civilization are they worth the energy to create/sustain them to a sufficiently advanced civilization.

      Eventually the star is little more than an unwieldy (if extremely reliable) fusion reactor.

      Yes, a harvestable energy source. Planets are a harvestable matter source. Although at some point the difference will become moot.

      Oh and as an aside - no, so long as all reproduction isn't reduced to perfect cloning of a single individual evolution will remain completely relevant - it's the one eternally relevant factor. The particular traits it selects for may change, but it will always cause the species to drift towards those reproducing the most.

      Or towards whatever we engineer the reproduction process to produce. We've been doing it with crops and animals for millennia. Think about pretty much every important crop or animal we feed on and it is most probably already far out of the reach of biological (Darwinistic) evolution (and as a result fairly incapable of surviving on its own).
      Granted, for humans the favored results of a breeding process aren't as clear cut and thus there are some ethical issues around it that may have caused some wars here and there.
      On the other hand genetic engineering, the newer way of making biological evolution irrelevant, is far more precise an

    67. Re:Much more than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...but it's a grad-student synthetic biology project with extra credit for having your bacteria designed to die off as conditions approach Earth-norm.

      I'm pretty sure life doesn't work that way. It will find a way to survive, ala Jurassic Park. Mufti-celled organisms are pretty easy to kill off, but bacteria reproduce at such a crazy rate that your shut-off switch will possibly have mutated into some other form by the time it is called for. Or, life will mutate around the switch. All it takes is one survivor.

    68. Re:Much more than that by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I suppose it comes down to whether we're talking aliens like what we might readily become in the next few millenia (assuming no incredible new physics) or godlike aliens that could continuously shield their artificial habitats from massive solar flares or surprise gamma-ray bursts that could easily destroy their habitats or themselves (keep in mind a GRB from outside the stellar plane could conceivably hit every habitat in a system virtually simultaneously with no warning, so shielding would have to be continuous). If the former, well then a planet offers lots of benefits, Not that it doesn't have it's weaknesses, but they're *different* weaknesses than an artificial environment, so if nothing else they offer insurance against many extinction-level events.

      You've also failed to explain what makes you think these aliens, godlike or otherwise, would want to spend their entire life living in a giant tin can. It's certainly a conceivably viable option, but I can only assume you've never spent any time appreciating the wilderness and wide open spaces, it has much to offer that can't be simulated. It might not appeal to everyone, but you're assuming a race in which it appeals to *no one*, which seems to me very unlikely, unless perhaps they were a subterranean species to begin with.

      As for the ease of terraforming - I'll grant you a CFC-pumping operation or other "active" technique is unlikely to be cheap, but in our own system (the only reference point we currently have) we have two planets sort-of similar to our own, and both of them are potentially convertible to "primordial slime" Earth-analogues via nothing more than some cleverly designed microbes and a few centuries of time. And while an intensive short-term terraforming would call for sufficient motivation and funding, a more "natural" approach would call for little more than vision, time, and access to their upper atmosphere. In which case I repeat, why not? We're talking something that could be done as a college prank by a race not much more advanced than ours, not exactly a huge waste of resources. I'll freely admit though that such terraforming endeavors are unlikely to be recognizable from natural phenomena across interstellar distances - natural or not though I expect seeing a planet's atmosphere quickly change composition (if we even noticed a centuries-long change) would call for a closer look.

      As for planets being a harvestable matter source - sure, but unless you've already harvested all the asteroids, etc there's much more accessible sources. Why throw away the unique advantages of a planet for mere matter, unless for some truly stupendous project - in which case you'd probably look first to any gas giants which posses far more matter and (probably) far fewer useful applications as-is.

      I would argue that genetic engineering - whether direct or via domestication/breeding programs does not render evolution irrelevant - it simply represents taking conscious control over what is usually a more chaotic process. Indeed direct self-engineering is would quite possibly introduce a great deal more diversity into a species as different groups pursue different ideals. Over the course of centuries/millenia some of those groups/traits would tend to become dominant in the broader population, whether that's due to interbreeding or simple adoption of other group's modifications is irrelevant - evolution is simply concerned with the spread of useful genetic traits throughout the population - in fact among microbial species that is one of the primary means by which genetic changes spread, it's quite common for individuals to exchange genetic material, even between species. There's nothing new about genetic engineering except having a thinking mind behind it (well, and intentionally introducing completely new sequences).

      There's a continuous thread in your argument that suggests you think any extremely advanced species would have discarded respect for the individual and/or coalesce into a single group-consciousness or collective, may I

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    69. Re:Much more than that by burning-toast · · Score: 1

      ... drive nice shoes, and wear nice cars...

      Ok, your post was already doing well... but that part just about got Mt. Dew sprayed on my monitor...

      I'm going to put on a pair of Corvettes and drive my Nike home now. Nothing to see here, move along...

      - Toast

    70. Re:Much more than that by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      I'll probably get down voted but I would rather point out the dangers of what Feynman called "Cargo Cult Science" ...

      > What if the physics of a distant galaxy is different from the one around here?
      It is. Wake me up when Scientists have discovered the strong-intergalactic and weak-intergalactic force, let alone White Holes.

      > We can now see more or less to the edge of the observable Universe
      Again, another assumption. There is no "edge". You keep assuming a linear Euclidean space/time. That is akin to asking "What happened 'before' the beginning of the universe. There was NO BEFORE."

      Any contrary view that doesn't fit into the presupposed current dogma is ignored. ( http://electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm ) Ergo, the "Age" of the Universe is significantly off by ~7 billion years because Scientists are making some pretty major incomplete assumptions about red-shift and don't understand the Cycle of the Universes. The fact that the Mayan estimated the age of the universe at 16 billion years (which is slightly more accurate) then the SWAG (scientific wild-ass guess) of the current 13.7 billion year old estimate of Science ( http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/060915/index.html ) should say something.

      > Unless we discover infinite speeds
      Again, that is an assumption. You don't *need* infinite speeds for FTL travel. You are limiting your thinking to moving in space-time, but it is also possible to move in the reciprocal time-space. The *analogy* of the classic "worm hole" is a good example.

      > then we would fill it in a few millennia - but if that was possible odds are someone else would have done it already.
      1) I don't think you realize just HOW big space is,
      2) The Universe ALREADY IS populated. We've only searched a TINY, TINY, TINY fraction of the physical dimension again using assumptions of what we THINK the properties of alien life would be. This story of using hairspray is proof of this idiocracy.

        You'll have proof of this in ~20 years that we are not alone.

      > So we will forever know (through observation and direct contact) only very, very small part of the Universe.
      Again, another assumption. My advice is that there are two words one should remove from ones vocab: never and forever, because sooner or later, one or the other tends to get proven wrong.

      > But it does not mean we are absolutely powerless to comprehend it.
      Agreed. Science is the process (journey) of removing ignorance one at a time.

      > You underestimate the amount of thought that was,is and will be spent on the assumption in question.
      No I do not. You are underestimating ALL *your* *assumptions* AND the implications.

      UNTIL we have *physically* BEEN there Scientists need to be honest and act with integrity "We .. just .. don't .. know." It is fine to make implications but being married to Scientific dogma only leads to a rather rude divorce when new facts are discovered.

      The first step towards knowledge is to admit "I don't know."

    71. Re:Much more than that by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Let me guess: you're a creationist?

      He's talking about a WASP planet. Doesn't that give you a hint? ;-)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    72. Re:Much more than that by neoshroom · · Score: 1

      One planet is almost entirely sugar...Life could be present in these odd places...

      I imagine a long dead civilization rotating around a familiar looking star. Thousands of years later when their radio messages get to us, we will be puzzled by their repeated SOS messages sent into the void. What killed them? It wasn't an ecological disaster, a virulent plague or a nuclear war -- it was diabetes.

      --
      Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
    73. Re:Much more than that by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      It's still obeying the same laws of physics and chemistry... And that would only alter some, not all, of the choices made for chemicals and techniques used.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    74. Re:Much more than that by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --Thank you for adequately expressing how utterly STUPID this article is. I mean seriously, this is about the dumbest thing I've seen on Slashdot in months.

      --I feel like my IQ has dropped for even having read the article summary. I award HughPickens no points, and may God have mercy on his soul. :B

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    75. Re:Much more than that by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      [...] shield their artificial habitats from massive solar flares or surprise gamma-ray bursts that could easily destroy their habitats or themselves (keep in mind a GRB from outside the stellar plane could conceivably hit every habitat in a system virtually simultaneously with no warning, so shielding would have to be continuous).

      GRBs are very rare and very directed. If one of them hits, being planet-based isn't going to add a lot to custom made protection measures. Protecting against solar flares in space isn't really a problem now, let alone in centuries time.

      [...]

      You've also failed to explain what makes you think these aliens, godlike or otherwise, would want to spend their entire life living in a giant tin can. It's certainly a conceivably viable option, but I can only assume you've never spent any time appreciating the wilderness and wide open spaces, it has much to offer that can't be simulated. [...]

      I have. The reason you (and I) enjoy wilderness and wide open spaces is based in your (and my) biology. As much as I can enjoy the feelings my body experiences in certain situations, I am very aware that those feelings (with our bodies) will become obsolete in favor of efficiency.
      Your phrasing of 'a giant tin can' reveals that you are looking at the future in a romanticized anthropocentric fashion. The reality is that we are not the end point. The reality is that a lot of the systems we have put in place that we consider as part of civilization are designed to prevent our biological nature to manifest itself. Our natural way of being is one of selfish power (ab)use and our laws and political systems are designed to prevent that.
      The examples of where our biological background is a huge hindrance are everywhere and it is therefore that I think that an advanced civilization will have gotten rid of it.

      [...] and both of them are potentially convertible to "primordial slime" Earth-analogues via nothing more than some cleverly designed microbes and a few centuries of time.

      And then we just wait for a couple of billion years until terraforming is complete, like it happened on earth?

      [...]As for planets being a harvestable matter source - sure, but unless you've already harvested all the asteroids, etc there's much more accessible sources. Why throw away the unique advantages of a planet for mere matter, unless for some truly stupendous project - in which case you'd probably look first to any gas giants which posses far more matter and (probably) far fewer useful applications as-is.

      I'd say use all the matter and energy you can find. Waste nothing.

      I would argue that genetic engineering - whether direct or via domestication/breeding programs does not render evolution irrelevant - it simply represents taking conscious control over what is usually a more chaotic process. [...]

      You are misconstruing evolution. Evolution is governed by statistics (induced by pressure from the environment). Genetic engineering is governed by conscience (and whatever it wants to achieve).

      There's a continuous thread in your argument that suggests you think any extremely advanced species would have discarded respect for the individual and/or coalesce into a single group-consciousness or collective, may I ask what your rationale for that is?

      Efficiency. We are wasting huge amounts of energy by creating energy-hungry general purpose individuals. As argued earlier, in a lot of cases, the use they have for civilization as a whole can be realized by inorganic replacements that use a fraction of the energy that goes into their human counterparts. A factory robot doesn't need to commute every day.
      Furthermore, at this moment, we have probably five billion individuals that have the knowledge to tie shoelaces. I'm all for redundant storage, but keeping five billion copies of something trivial is probabl

    76. Re:Much more than that by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      If a planet had a significantly different ratio of base elements, such as a lot of fluoride and bromide on its surface, I assume life would make use of it

      Maybe ; maybe not. Most of the complex molecules in nature are polymers of some sort, be their monomeric unit organic (carbon-based), or silicate. Linkage (covalent bonding) between the monomers is either carbon-to-carbon, or via a Si-O-Si linkage. Single-valent atoms tend to pack out around the backbones of the polymers, with significant effects on the detailed properties, but not helping much in actually lengthening the polymers, which is the main way of adding compexity. As single-valent atoms go, hydrogen is vastly more common than any of the halogens. I doubt that the halogens are going to be more important than hydrogen anywhere in the universe. Unless you get the Magratheans to build a planet to very special order (and the raw materials bill is going to be several times that for building a normal planet.

      For information, Earth's crust is 46% O, 27% Si, 8% Al, 5% Fe, 3.6% Ca, 2.8% Na, 2.6% K, 2.1% Mg...

      If you add in the nickel and iron in the core (and somewhat uncertain amounts of sulphur and/ or potassium), you've got a nucleosynthesis distribution there. Those are the nuclei that are formed in the energy producing processes of main sequence stars. That's not a coincidence.

      In short ... The only way you're going to get a significantly different base mixture of elements, it's going to be by greater or lesser additions of hydrogen and helium, forming gas giants. It's not incredible that in Jupiter-like situations, you might also get ice planets (water, CO2, NH3, with only traces of "rock"), but that doesn't really get you towards having a lot of halogens.

      Sorry if the universe doesn't live up to your requests.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    77. Re:Much more than that by Immerman · · Score: 1

      GRBs typically last for only a few seconds, and while I may be wrong I'm guessing that having several thousand miles of rock (aka a planet) between you and a high-energy source will likely offer substantial shielding. The planetary ecosystem will likely be in danger of collapsing when half the planet is suddenly cooked, and depending on the intensity you may have significant plasma storms, etc that do a pretty good job of sterilizing the far side as well, but at the very least any sealed underground habitats will likely be in far better shape than if they were free-floating in space.

      [...] and both of them are potentially convertible to "primordial slime" Earth-analogues via nothing more than some cleverly designed microbes and a few centuries of time.

      And then we just wait for a couple of billion years until terraforming is complete, like it happened on earth?

      No, of course not - but once you've got a microbial-slime ecosystem in which complex life can survive then you're in the home stretch - You've got a massive, stable ecosystem just ripe for invasive species to explode in, you just have to make sure nothing's so invasive that it wipes out the "slime" that's supporting the whole thing. (It's the same basic deal on Earth - the vast majority of the ecological "movers and shakers" are microbial, multicellular life has just carved itself a niche within the greater ecosystem). People can homestead and import the ecosystems they want, which will promptly start escaping into the world. "space truckers" can dump unwanted seeds/pests/etc. Grad students can study the chaotically developing ecosystem and release things to fill various entertaining niches. Life will almost certainly thrive with very little coaxing - probably plants and algae-eaters first, but then insects and herbivores, followed by insectivores and predators, much like the sequence that would happen naturally except that life doesn't have to evolve, it's being carelessly (or intentionally) seeded from already viable ecosystems. If done haphazardly the multicelluar ecosystem would quite likely collapse repeatedly before a stable system formed, but as long as the slime survived that wouldn't really be a problem.

      I won't argue the evolution thing anymore, I think we're getting into the realm of semantics there. Though I would suggest that when one individual bacteria copies genetic "tricks" from another, as has been happening since long before multicellular life arose, we're quite possibly dealing with some tiny slice of "consciousness", even if it's probably nowhere close to the same league as what what we, or even insects, are packing. Granted it's only recombinant DNA engineering and not the "create whole new genes" games we're playing, but it's still more than just random chance and statistical outcomes.

      The efficiency though... why should that be major consideration? The alien race presumably did just fine as swarm of a crude, inefficient biological individuals for billions of years, subsisting, along with their entire planetary ecology, on nothing more than the meager energies released by a cooling planet and the few solar rays that impacted it. Then they (presumably) unlock the near boundless energies of atomic energy, wrest free of their planet so they can get close to their sun to harvest more energy in a few years than in the previous billion, and quite possible develop direct mass-energy conversion ("domesticated" black holes perhaps?) Why, in such a glut of energy, would a species be driven to warp its fundamental nature for the sake of efficiency?

      Lets put this in perspective: Direct human energy consumption is currently at ~120PWh/year, while the infinitesimally tiny amount of solar radiation that hits the Earth is about 174PW (that is to say one hours worth of sunlight hitting the Earth is about 50% more energy than we consume in a year). In a year the Earth receives about 9000x that much, ~5.5e24J. Meanwhile the sun is putting out about 100x

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    78. Re:Much more than that by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      GRBs typically last for only a few seconds, [...] at the very least any sealed underground habitats will likely be in far better shape than if they were free-floating in space.

      If they can meaningfully survive the GRB, it is due to technology that is very very close to or beyond what would be necessary to survive a similar event 'free-floating in space'. That is the point. Sure, a planet helps, but the time window of its necessity for survival is very small.

      [...] No, of course not - but once you've got a microbial-slime ecosystem

      which will take millions of or at least thousands of years to meaningfully establish itself. A time period in which, again, technological advances will have rendered terraforming obsolete.

      [romanticized anthropocentric story about space truckers and space grad students]

      As appealing as it sounds, it is just not going to happen. Civilization leaving its biological substrate is a HUGE step and absolutely incomparable to the transition from ships to airplanes or something similar. It's life, Jim, but not as we know it.
      Really, forget about space truckers stopping for space coffee at space gas stations. Even we are not that far removed from humanless transportation (you can bet your ass that truckers and bus drivers are the first ones to go when driverless vehicles become legal).
      I too once reveled in dreams of a pretty-much-the-same-but-spacefaring society, imagining what space job I'd have or want to have, but in the end those are dreams, nothing more.

      [...] I think we're getting into the realm of semantics there. Though I would suggest that when one individual bacteria copies genetic "tricks" from another, as has been happening since long before multicellular life arose, we're quite possibly dealing with some tiny slice of "consciousness", even if it's probably nowhere close to the same league as what what we, or even insects, are packing. Granted it's only recombinant DNA engineering and not the "create whole new genes" games we're playing, but it's still more than just random chance and statistical outcomes.

      Well, I suppose you could define consciousness as such, but it becomes pretty useless and pretty far from what most people would consider consciousness to mean. The practical difference is that in your bacterial example extremely radical changes would have very little hope of survival, whereas genetic engineering and subsequent nurture could easily support extremely maladapted lifeforms (which may be better adapted to an environment in which they did not 'evolve' (per your definition), let's say: space).

      The efficiency though... why should that be major consideration?

      Because! ;-)
      No, seriously, because of rationality. Efficiency is rational. Rationality is efficient. An advanced civilization will be utterly rational. Pissing away energy for luxuries is an irrational thing to do - for an advanced civilization, not for an individual in a crude civilization -. It should be no secret that most of the energy that we currently waste is being wasted because we evolved from apes and are still largely driven by a desire for biological procreation.

      [...] Why, in such a glut of energy, would a species be driven to warp its fundamental nature for the sake of efficiency?

      Like I said before, because what you call 'fundamental nature' is a terrible, terrible, absolutely dreadful hindrance to progress. The biggest problem in any field, hands down, is our human nature. It just causes so so much crap. Yes, also some beautiful things, but a lot more crap.

      Lets put this in perspective [... useful calculations concerning energy use ...] More importantly only the tiniest sliver of that energy is actually going towards keeping the biological entities alive.

      Well, one would imag

    79. Re:Much more than that by dargaud · · Score: 1

      ...If you add in the nickel and iron in the core...

      So, no various ways of segregation of the surface elements ? Because in the end it doesn't really matter what's at the core, but what's on the surface.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    80. Re:Much more than that by Immerman · · Score: 1

      If they can meaningfully survive the GRB, it is due to technology that is very very close to or beyond what would be necessary to survive a similar event 'free-floating in space'. That is the point. Sure, a planet helps, but the time window of its necessity for survival is very small.

      Yes, a very small window that is *very* difficult to survive through. Godlike beings willing and able to maintain continuous shielding against the very unlikely event of a burst (or having an FTL warning system, if that's possible - even godlike powers may be limited to lightspeed) might not have any problems, less advanced races probably would. The point is that if Earth were hit by a GRB today, unless it were a spectacularly bad/close one (on the scale of GRBs) then not only would the far side be fine, the near side likely would be as well, the atmosphere would block the GRs themselves, but the resulting chemical reactions would likely destroy most of the ozone layer and might leave the surface a barren rock within a few years. The point is it's nothing we couldn't survive (some of us at least, for a while) with today's technology using something like Biosphere 2.

      [biological slime ecosystem] which will take millions of or at least thousands of years to meaningfully establish itself. A time period in which, again, technological advances will have rendered terraforming obsolete.

      Why do you assume this? Thanks to the power of exponential growth a single bacterium given unlimited food in a friendly predator-free ecosystem could reproduce to outmass the Earth in a few weeks. Assuming a race that can design bacteria to order the actual "active" terraforming phases might be extremely brief, with larger windows while the planetary chemistry stabilizes. For a race with sufficiently advanced bio-science it might even be accomplishable in years if you assume and "overshoot and correct" methodology to shorten the stabalization periods. As for obsolete, even on a thousands of years timescale you're still assuming a (probably non-biological) race that would have no interest in maintaining at least "natural" biological preserves (not even as a museum/zoo?).

      [romanticized anthropocentric story about space truckers and space grad students]

      Sure, probably not much like it will "really be", even if we remained fundamentally human - just spinning an image to convey that it quite possibly wouldn't take a major concerted effort to go from stable slime to thriving complex life

      Efficiency is rational.

      Great, show me a rational species and I'll accept this argument. Heck, show me a rational *individual* and I'll think about it. The closest examples I can think of are some psychopaths and sociopaths, not exactly what I'd want to base a species on. There was I time when I considered total rationality a shining goal that everyone should strive for, but I've since come to the decision that while yes, some of our irrational biological drives are destructive, others like love, compassion, curiosity, etc. are what make life worth living. Answer me this - what motivation would a 100% rational being have to even continue it's own existence?

      Pissing away energy for luxuries is an irrational thing to do

      Certainly, especially if you're energy constrained and those luxuries constitute a major percentage of your available resources. But if we assume a race that's doing big things with big energy "pissing away" 0.0000001% of that consumption to maintain a biological life of luxury doesn't look all that bad, and if we were using 1% of our sun's output that would be 50x our current per-capita energy consumption. Which considering that our current luxuries are mostly hideously inefficient would supply for a phenomenal level of efficient luxuries. It wouldn't be rational to optimize away the "inefficiency" of biological life and luxury unless all other processes were al

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    81. Re:Much more than that by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      Yes, a very small window that is *very* difficult to survive through. [...] The point is it's nothing we couldn't survive (some of us at least, for a while) with today's technology using something like Biosphere 2.

      You seem to be contradicting yourself here, but from what I've read about GRBs, the presence of an atmosphere is more of a problem than a measure of protection. A couple inches of lead should provide shielding against most GRBs.

      Why do you assume this? Thanks to the power of exponential growth a single bacterium given unlimited food in a friendly predator-free ecosystem could reproduce to outmass the Earth in a few weeks. Assuming a race that can design bacteria to order the actual "active" terraforming phases might be extremely brief, with larger windows while the planetary chemistry stabilizes. For a race with sufficiently advanced bio-science it might even be accomplishable in years if you assume and "overshoot and correct" methodology to shorten the stabalization periods. As for obsolete, even on a thousands of years timescale you're still assuming a (probably non-biological) race that would have no interest in maintaining at least "natural" biological preserves (not even as a museum/zoo?).

      A single species of bacteria is not an ecosystem, but I'll admit that on second thought, a well-engineered (set of) species could transform the atmosphere very fast.

      Great, show me a rational species and I'll accept this argument. Heck, show me a rational *individual* and I'll think about it.

      Well, we're not there yet :-) It seems slightly unreasonably skeptical to demand evidence of a prediction for the future. I claimed that efficiency is rational and it is, because rationality is utilitarian. In question form: what is the use of spending energy on things that almost certainly do not help you achieve your (sub)goals?
      It's probably more fuzzy, with a certain degree of uncertainty warranting spending a certain amount of energy on it.

      The closest examples [of a rational individual] I can think of are some psychopaths and sociopaths, not exactly what I'd want to base a species on.

      And your opinion is very important to them ;-)

      There was I time when I considered total rationality a shining goal that everyone should strive for, but I've since come to the decision that while yes, some of our irrational biological drives are destructive, others like love, compassion, curiosity, etc. are what make life worth living. Answer me this - what motivation would a 100% rational being have to even continue it's own existence?

      Because there is no reason to stop your own existence. Rationality would have that question boil down to: What is the reason for the universe?
      Because of our uncertainty of what that reason is it is rational to try to find out what it is.
      Incidentally, that is the same reason an atheist (like myself) shouldn't jump out of a window anytime soon ;-)

      [...] It wouldn't be rational to optimize away the "inefficiency" of biological life and luxury unless all other processes were already running at 100% efficiency. Even then such a tiny percentage would be completely lost in the noise of solar variability.

      The question is on what basis an advanced civilization would make the decisions to support biological life. If somebody asked you to buy dog poop for [x = minute amount of money in a currency of your choice], it's not rational to say "Well, it's only [x], so yeah." or "You look like a nice guy, sure."
      At some point, a rational civilization will say: there is no reason to spend energy on that, so we are not going to do it. And as said elsewhere, if biological life is going to contend with technological life for energy, biological life will lose.

      How exactly are you defining progress?

    82. Re:Much more than that by RockDoctor · · Score: 2
      I'm not sure what you're getting at. For the chemistry at the surface of a planet, then yes, you couldn't care less what's in the core ; but if you care about little things like having an atmosphere, then the core matters, because you need the mass to provide the gravity.

      The composition of the Earth (and of all planets studied in any great detail) can be described to a reasonably good approximation by taking a nucleosynthesis distribution (i.e., what is produced when a supernova goes "bang" with around 10^50 J) and then removing all material with a boiling point below a value "X". If X <= 4K, then you get a gas giant like Jupiter (or another star). If 4 < X <= 100 (still in Kelvin), you'll lose most of the hydrogen and helium but get lots of water, carbon dioxide, methane and ammonia to form icy planetesimals (but smaller and smaller, because hydrogen / helium are more common than "ices"). If 100 < X <= [several hundred], you'll start losing the "ices" and getting increasingly rocky planets (but also a lot smaller, because "ices" are more common than "rock"). And for X > several thousand K, you boil away to vapour on any geologically significant timescale.

      Surface elements do get segregated all the time. That's what the whole of "economic geology" is about - how metal (and non-metal) elements get concentrated, where, when , why, and how to find such deposits, and how to most efficiently exploit them. But it seemed that you were asking for a planet that was going to have lots of halogens, but relatively little of other "volatiles". You can't have that, because the processes that segregate elements during planetary formation are essentially physical ones (distillation / condensation in hard vacuum), not chemical ones.

      So what would happen would be that your halogens would all rapidly react with metals in space to form salts (e.g. ferrous chloride), all of which are "rocky". That's going to happen in the tail processes of the supernova as the debris is flying away and cooling. Later (millions or billions of years later, when you're assembling planets from the debris, you're going to get more-or-less the same distribution of elements in all of your planets.

      Which isn't to say that all planets are going to be the same. Just look at the inner solar system. But compositionally, Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars are all quite similar. The atmospheres are compositionally unimportant. (Earth's atmosphere is equivalent to approximately 10m of water over the entire surface, which I make to be around 5.1Ã--10^18kg, or about one millionth of the Earth's total mass. Venus is around 100 times richer in atmosphere, Mars about one hundredth as rich.)

      Could you generate a planet with (say) a chlorine atmosphere? OK, here's a scenario : build a rocky planet with most of the metals safely wrapped up in several thousand kilometres thickness of silicates (to separate the nasty reactive metals from the nasty reactive chlorine atmosphere) ; now bombard your planet with "ice" asteroids to give it oceans like ours ; now bombard your planet with an asteroid of (I calculate) 106.785km radius composed of chlorine. Cue a planet with a chlorine atmosphere for Captain Kirk's green-skinned beastiality partners. One tiny problem - where did you get the chlorine asteroid from? That's probably the whole of the solar system's supply of chlorine, in one asteroid.

      It's an interesting problem, but you come back to the basic reason that our biochemistry uses the elements that it does. We use the common elements in our environment for our bulk biochemistry and we only use the rare elements for fiddly little details. An early biochemistry that started by depending on (say) molybdenum and iodine for vital processes would maybe have stumbled on, randomly evolving until a variant developed which could use (say) iron in place of molybdenum and chlorine in place of iodine (both substitutions of a rare element for a more common one) , at which point the comparative abundance of the new substitutions would have allowed that variant to massively dominate over the rare-element species.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    83. Re:Much more than that by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Okay, so I rearranged things a little to consolidate related topics, consider yourself warned

      the presence of an atmosphere is more of a problem than a measure of protection. A couple inches of lead should provide shielding against most GRBs.

      In the long term perhaps, in the sense that you were depending on it being there and it's now falling apart. With sufficient tech though it may be possible to repair. As for lead, a few inches of lead may provide adequate shielding against *background* gamma rays, which have roughly a 50% penetration rate per cm. Moreover gamma shielding effectiveness is far more dependent on the amount of stuff than it's density, so neglecting any potential special benefits of ozone, a magnetosphere, etc (any?), comparable shielding to our atmosphere would require ~1kg/cm2 (=1atm) of shielding, which translates to just under a meter of lead, which is a pretty heavy/wasteful amount of weight to be carrying around with your habitat if you want to move it around

      what is the use of spending energy on things that almost certainly do not help you achieve your (sub)goals?

      What are your goals? I'd venture a guess that most every being in existence has "living well" as one of the major ones, and efficiency becomes counter-productive to that goal when it begins to impinge on survival and at least a few luxuries. Especially when the maximum possible efficiency gains amount to a tiny fraction of a percent of your total energy consumption. Why are you burning all this energy to begin with? *Everything* not dedicated to survival is a luxury, no matter how lofty the goals.

      Because there is no reason to stop your own existence. Rationality would have that question boil down to: What is the reason for the universe?

      You are assuming there is a reason, a rational being might well come to the perfectly reasonable answer that there IS no reason, or it is unknowable, and the only reason is those which we ourselves create. Alternately God might manifest and give you/them any number of reasons many of which quite possibly would be wholly unsatisfying - "Yeah, so, umm, you're all essentially bacteria living on a piece of wall art, sorry to disappoint. Pretty impressive that you've reached the point of being able to communicate though, good going! Maybe I'll look in on you in a few billion years to see if you've done anything interesting. Or maybe not, you know how it is. Bye"
      But I wax ridiculous. Perhaps a better question would have been: Assuming it had something resembling a "survival instinct" in the first place, why would a purely rational being do anything *beyond* basic survival?

      ...your notion of what makes us what we are is governed by culture much more than biology

      I beg to differ. I find most cultural practices vaguely ridiculous (not that that's necessarily bad - most fun things are ridiculous) The things I consider important: love, compassion, curiosity, community, are largely valued cross-culturally, and available evidence is that those along with greed, lust, power-hunger, etc. are all biological in origin. As for the oppressive tendencies of certain cultures, rationality may indeed play a part in that, but they're also mostly severely impoverished cultures, largely due to subjugation by the "enlightened" British empire, or in the case of the Middle East by well-organized barbarians (and *then* by the crusades, and more recently by the Allies during WW1/2 who installed some really vicious tyrants in the region for political convenience.) - there's a reason we use Arabic nemerals, while Christianity muddled through the Dark Ages, Islam was a bastion of knowledge and tolerance, it wasn't until they were brought low by repeated conquest that the current vicious tendencies began to bloom.

      I don't deny the value of Rationality, I simply deny that it can stand alone to produce anything worthwhile. I as offer

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    84. Re:Much more than that by dargaud · · Score: 1
      Thanks for the detailed explanation, I've never read that before.

      When I asked about different segregation methods, I was thinking along the line of the formation of the Earth+moon from the collision with a bigger thing than the moon. If before that both bodies had a very 'standard' segregation process (heavy elements at the core, lighter ones at the crust), I bet that after such a collision a lot of heavy elements were to be found on the surface, unless everything melted and dropped to the core again.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    85. Re:Much more than that by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      About 6-7 years ago, this was addressed by modelling by, IIRC, Canup-et-al from Colorado's SWRI. Feel free to read around the subject. I enjoyed slapping my skull to dig several-year-old stuff out of long-term storage into working memory. My memory, on the other hand, doesn't like to be asked to justify it's existence.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. Either a hair spray... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...or it's just that the species has more than fifty arms and they invented the aerosol deodorant before the wheel.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
    1. Re:Either a hair spray... by Exitar · · Score: 4, Funny

      And yet The Coming of The Great White Handkerchief could have left no traces of them for us to find.

  3. What if someone analyzed earth 400yrs ago? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hmmn.. if intelligent aliens would have analyzed Earth's atmosphere 400yrs ago, as proposed, they would have dismissed it saying no life exists in our solar system.

    1. Re:What if someone analyzed earth 400yrs ago? by vlm · · Score: 2

      hmmn.. if intelligent aliens would have analyzed Earth's atmosphere 400yrs ago, as proposed, they would have dismissed it saying no life exists in our solar system.

      In some ways that's easier because there is no requirement to only look once. They'd see all kinds of interesting atmospheric changes over a couple centuries, not just CFCs. Weathermen studying climate on distant planets will eventually be a growth industry.

      You could have fun trying to list atmospheric changes over time. Hmm I'd say first you see lots of particulates from cruddy fire, like london smog in 1800. Then you'd see a lot of sulfur compounds. Then you'd see strange radioisotopes (probably too low concentration to detect remotely, but...). Then CFCs burst on the scene, accumulate for awhile, then stop accumulating. Meanwhile CO2, methane, and O2 ratios start getting weird, for awhile. Drought in developed ag land leads to dust bowls, so the more developed ag land you have, the worse air quality is during droughts. You could probably make environmental planning theory guesses about forest fire management over time based on how fast they burn out. Another good one would be blooming deserts, it takes industrialized civilization to do it quickly, however temporarily.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:What if someone analyzed earth 400yrs ago? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your logic is off. If they analyzed our atmosphere 400 years ago as you suggest, they would simply have found no evidence of life based on this one metric. That is not the same as saying that no life exists.

      -- MyLongNickName

    3. Re:What if someone analyzed earth 400yrs ago? by gmuslera · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If they analyze CFC content in earth atmosphere 30 years ago would conclude that here may still exist life, but that surely isn't intelligent enough.

    4. Re:What if someone analyzed earth 400yrs ago? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Well even more to the point. There is the time we Made CFC's and the time we found out it was bad so we stopped using it, a 50-100 year gap. It may take a few hundred years for the chemical to degrade. But you may have a gap of a few hundred years in a planets billions year lifespan, to find evidence of intelligent life.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:What if someone analyzed earth 400yrs ago? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      That's correct, a test for CFC producing life can't detect non-CFC producing life. /thank_you_captain_obvious.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    6. Re:What if someone analyzed earth 400yrs ago? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Weathermen studying climate on distant planets will eventually be a growth industry.

      Funny you should say that, a lot of what we know about climate came from studying Earth rocks and other planets atmosphere's, the main question in the first half of the 20th century was "what caused the ice ages", from there they have built up a good history of the inner planets climate and the mechanisms by which they evolved. Until very recently most people assumed god created and micro-managed the climate for our benefit, the only circumstantial evidence for that theory is that when the Texas Governor asked people to pray for rain recently, Texas burst into flames.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    7. Re:What if someone analyzed earth 400yrs ago? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      so now we use flourinated hydrocarbons instead, still an obvious sign

    8. Re:What if someone analyzed earth 400yrs ago? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Actually that's exactly when the severe city pollution epsisodes began in europe, heavy burning of hydrocarbons (coal) began

      and as for life, our atmosphere is obviously the product of life, you can't have high concentration of oxygen without something working on the carbon dioxide

  4. Not a good idea.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Hairspray was a really bad movie and I think alien civilizations would be
    greatly offended by it and probably Annihilate us and sparing us no quarter.

  5. natural elements? by necro81 · · Score: 1

    CFCs can be easily recognized in planetary atmospheres because their atmospheric 'fingerprint' (i.e. chemical spectra) is very different from natural elements, and are a tell-tale sign that life on the surface has advanced industrial capabilities.

    Are these CFCs made from exotic kinds of matter? Are we looking for advanced civilizations that have been able to synthesize new forms of chlorine, fluorine, carbon, etc., that are different than those that arise from stellar nucleosynthesis? No? In that case, we should be looking for spectra different from naturally occurring molecules, not elements.

    1. Re:natural elements? by vlm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      .... atmospheric 'fingerprint' (i.e. chemical spectra) is very different from natural elements

      Are these CFCs made from exotic kinds of matter?

      Yes. This is another "talk to a chemist". Ur doing it wrong, when halogens accumulate in your ozone layer. There seems to be no way to get them there, in extreme bulk, other than CFC release on the surface, or maybe some kind of insane doomsday weapon, both of which indicate extreme industrialization and a certain lack of ecological concern.

      A standard /. automotive analogy is car sized lumps of unoxidized iron with certain precise and consistent fractions of dissolved carbon found on top of strips of heavy petroleum fractions mixed with gravel is just too weird geologically and biochemically to be anything but the product of intelligent life. You just don't find those elements laying around in that physical configuration.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:natural elements? by necro81 · · Score: 1

      you missed the joke I was trying to make: the summary was talking about the spectra being different from natural elements. As best we know, the elements (carbon, chlorine, etc.) on some distant planet world are identical, interchangeable, to those here on earth or anywhere else in the Universe. So, if we are looking for exotic spectra, we should be looking for those coming from exotic, not-naturally-occurring molecules. Talk to a chemist: if you're conflating elements with molecules, or claiming that one oxygen isn't identical to another, ur doin it wrong.

    3. Re:natural elements? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      car sized lumps of unoxidized iron with certain precise and consistent fractions of dissolved carbon found on top of strips of heavy petroleum fractions mixed with gravel is just too weird geologically and biochemically to be anything but the product of intelligent life.

      Good one.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  6. 1980's by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well I guess we are alone in the universe. If no aliens found us in the 80's it's not looking good.

    1. Re:1980's by ledow · · Score: 1

      The chances are that we are *not* alone in the universe. Seriously.

      However, the chances also state that us ever finding someone else within the existence of our species is very small.

      And the chances that we can communicate with them before they die out is smaller still.

      And the chances that anyone of our species will ever meet anyone of theirs, "in person", are even smaller still.

      Simple physics still has to be overcome - you can't move faster than the speed of light, and by the time we detect something interesting, it's probably too late to communicate with it, and by the time we *do* communicate with it and verify what's happened, the time to GET to it means it's probably too late to ever actually meet them. Unless a planet literally NEXT DOOR to us in the galaxy exhibits signs of complex life, it's barely worth even trying to communicate.

      And, as pointed out, the greatest chance of something happening is that we are in fact contacted by someone else. As yet, that's not happened but we are literally, what, a few hundred years into the capability of detecting things like that and the average span of life itself is some billions of years.

      The chances of two nearby lifeforms being at the same or greater evolutionary point as each other, around the same time, within a reasonable distance, both looking for each other, and then happening by a billion-to-one chance to actually discover a foreign message... it's just too small to worry much about.

      And, actually, the biggest chance is that any civilisation capable of communicating to us at any point in its history had a similar exponential curve in technological innovation at the point they got interested and actually now use technology MILLIONS of years advanced of our own (so the world's best supercomputer looks like a particularly curiously-shaped fossil to them). By the time we catch up, they will be MILLIONS of years ahead again and if not actually zipping between dimensions and creating their own universes, then at least looking for "life" by other definitions and in places that we can't even IMAGINE to look, let alone have the technology to do so.

      Seriously, what if the best communication method to use at the moment is some quantum effect? Quantum mechanics is less than 100 years old, really. So it would be like expecting Plato to detect a code hidden in entangled photon emissions to communicate with someone even a few hundred years (or, say, one politician less in terms of global education) ahead of us.

  7. Intelligent life does not mess up their biosphere by RichMan · · Score: 0

    Intelligent life would not mess up the biosphere on which the depend for life.
    Only unintelligent life does that.

  8. The problem with CFC by Moraelin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem with CFC is that it's duration is an insignificant blip at cosmic scales. We've used it a little, we're phasing it out because it ruins a rather important layer of the atmosphere.

    Our planet will continue to exist for about 5 billion years after the point where we reasonably reached a point that some aliens could contact at all without coming all the way here. (For most of our time on the planet we couldn't receive radio and didn't have telescopes.) Out of that, we've been abusing CFC heavily for maybe 50 years.

    Let's say that t would take a while to get weaned off them, and for the upper atmosphere to gradually clear of them. Like maybe 500 years instead of 50. But it's still 500 years out of 5 billions.

    That's a chance of of 1 in ten millions that if a civilization is there, you'll detect it by CFCs.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:The problem with CFC by qvatch · · Score: 1

      not only that, but it isn't something that you keep using, so even if civilization continues, CFC's probably won't (at high levels). The consequences of high atmospheric CFC's are enough to push them out of use. It'll be like high powered omnidirectional TV and radio signals. Those stopped too, yet we continue.

    2. Re:The problem with CFC by Hans+Adler · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think you missed the point about detecting CFCs. It's not about unintended terraforming of someone's home planet. It's about terraforming *another* planet that initially is a bit too cold for the civilisation in question. In human terms we are speaking about creating factories on Mars that pump CFCs into its atmosphere so as to create a more habitable (for us) climate there. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars#Using_fluorine_compounds

    3. Re:The problem with CFC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with CFC is that it's duration is an insignificant blip at cosmic scales. We've used it a little, we're phasing it out because it ruins a rather important layer of the atmosphere.

      It's already phased out in developed countries. Strange that hasn't been mentioned yet.

    4. Re:The problem with CFC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, if it's "more advanced" they might have found a way/use for CFCs to break down and tranform or whatever.
      Seems like a longshot...I mean our own pollution might be fuel for some other organism

    5. Re:The problem with CFC by Mark+Claire · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm one of the scientists affiliated with this project. It's very true that SETI in general terms is a "needle in a haystack" sort of search. So one way to look at this is that we are suggesting more "needles" to look for. So far, we are searching for radio waves and optical pulses. Looking for technosignature molecules in a planetary atmosphere (if it actually works, which is what we are trying to figure out with our proposal), is a third needle. I also totally agree with your points about looking for "inadvertent" CFC use by a young and dumb civilization like ourselves. As Hans Adler pointed out, we on the science team are thinking of this more as a search for terraformed worlds. For instance, if we were going to colonize Mars and try and live on the surface in the next century or so, we would likely need to warm up the atmosphere, and CFC's would be a good starting place (and possibly detectable over interstellar space)

    6. Re:The problem with CFC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've used it a little, we're phasing it out because it ruins a rather important layer of the atmosphere.

      This assumes that intelligent life elsewhere:
      a) has an ozone layer in their atmosphere to worry about depleting;
      b) requires the radiation shielding such a layer would require;
      and
      c) cares about "artificial" global warming;

      These three concerns are VERY anthropocentric, and may not be universal in the least. If you live in an environment similar to Siberia, you might not mind a 5 degree increase in average atmospheric temperature so much as if you live in equatorial africa.

    7. Re:The problem with CFC by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Our planet will continue to exist for about 5 billion years

      There is considerable doubt about that, in the details. whether the Sun's expansion to a red giant will actually destroy the Earth is unsure. (It's not doubted that the planet will be roasted during this period.) When the Sun will expand to a red giant is considerably less certain, and it may be in as little as a couple of billion years.

      Whether the Earth will survive that long ... is less sure. Some modelling of the orbits of the inner planets carried out a few years ago (I should be able to find the reference if you're really interested) showed that there is a possibility for Venus and Mercury to get into a locked resonance which then involves Mars, from which point, Mars gets pulled into an Earth-crossing orbit and things get very messy until Jupiter gets involved and throws a planet or several out of the system. That happened in a few percent of their runs, IIRC.

      In the nearer term I recently heard that Chiron (the large comet / minor planet between Saturn and Uranus) has an unstable orbit, and that it might become a short-period comet in a mere few hundred thousand years. While that's unlikely to actually destroy the Earth, having a 200km-diameter comet falling apart in the inner solar system is likely to have ... unpleasant ... consequences on Earth when the debris lands.

      But by then, we should have got global warming under control. Or be extinct ; one or the other.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  9. Re:Intelligent life does not mess up their biosphe by BluPhenix316 · · Score: 1

    Intelligence isn't something that happens over night. They may not mess up their biosphere on the night we glance at it but that doesn't mean they didn't before.

  10. I'd pick streetlighting by art6217 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    gigawatts of radio waves put into space: check
    at a wavelength interesting to astronomers: check
    low--frequency modulation, common phase: check (think Fourier analysis over months of data to filter out unmodulated light of a nearby star)
    characteristic spectral fingerprint of artificial light: check
    not limited to a civilisation's "radio window": check

    1. Re:I'd pick streetlighting by Cenan · · Score: 1

      Good point, though that only works for planets with a day/night cycle and aliens depending on sight during night.

      --
      ... whatever ...
    2. Re:I'd pick streetlighting by ledow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And light pollution measures and energy saving says that the streetlighting we've had for a mere fraction of a galactic second (i.e. a couple of hundred years) won't be here in that same fraction again.

      Hell, as it is, we try to reduce the amount of light that goes somewhere unnecessary (e.g. the sky!) or that is produced and doesn't do anything. There are already countries and cities with lighting that's dynamic based on the cars rolling over it (which means the signal is even HARDER to find, even if you knew what you were looking for).

      And in terms of the stretch of a civilisation, lighting visible even from orbit, let alone the other side of the galaxy, is literally a tiny flicker that you'll only catch if you're constantly listening to EXACTLY that, in EXACTLY the right place for a few billion years.

      Hell, it's hard enough to see all of Earth's artificial lighting from orbit if there is cloud cover, let alone from somewhere like where Voyager currently is, and as you got further out the inverse square law solves the problem nicely to give you a probability of anyone detecting it tending rather swiftly towards zero.

      If you want to detect a civilisation, about the only sensible thing to do is ignore the planets, look at the stars. Because sources of energy that huge, that well light-up, that stable, that predictable and, with suitable technology, even harvestable (I believe it's called a Dyson sphere) are likely to be something that won't stop being a commodity for a long time and activity on them will be inherently visible (even if that's by one-day disappearing entirely).

      Think to yourself. I plonk you down into the universe at an unknown point and at an unknown time since the Big Bang. I give you a billion-year-long-life (sound a lot? It's not). How do you find someone who's had the same done to them? The chances are you're not even going to be able to see each other, would never be at the right stages at the right times to communicate with each other before moving onto the "next most advanced / obvious method of communication", and even if you do by some chance talk be too far away or your communication too "out of date" to do anything useful with it.

      Until you can quite literally bend space and visit other places, it's all a bit pointless to be looking because of simple physical laws. And by the time you *can* do that, it's easier to just plonk a sensor on every star system with your space bending techniques than it would be to ever listen out for them all.

      We are quite literally talking about how to detect a particular mayfly of interest on an entire planet of activity. And by the time we do it, that mayfly has evolved to build its own space program and buggered off deeper into the galaxy anyway.

    3. Re:I'd pick streetlighting by Ihlosi · · Score: 2
      gigawatts of radio waves put into space: check at a wavelength interesting to astronomers: check low--frequency modulation, common phase: check (think Fourier analysis over months of data to filter out unmodulated light of a nearby star) characteristic spectral fingerprint of artificial light: check not limited to a civilisation's "radio window": check

      You're assuming that Westinghouse won on the aliens planet.

    4. Re:I'd pick streetlighting by tgd · · Score: 1

      Good point, though that only works for planets with a day/night cycle and aliens depending on sight during night.

      And life that relies on sight at all. Life was on Earth a very long time without being sensitive to EM radiation. The majority of life on Earth still doesn't, to any significant effect. And there are comparatively intelligent creatures that rely predominantly on echolocation.

  11. Max Tegmark at MIT says no aliens exist... by lsulfate · · Score: 1

    ...and that's good enough for me. He points out that the Milky Way is only 100,000 ly wide. Therefore, if there were alien life out there with advanced civilizations, they would find travelling such a small distance a piece of cake and would have discovered us by now. But they haven't. And Tegmark says if the whole galaxy we live in has no life, it's highly unlikely there's life any elsewhere, either -- even if the universe is infinite, it's likely we're the only living creatures in it.

    1. Re:Max Tegmark at MIT says no aliens exist... by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      This isn't a new argument: Enrico Fermi came up with it in 1950. It basically boils down to "If aliens exist, where are they?"

      Read all about it:
      Fermi Paradox

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:Max Tegmark at MIT says no aliens exist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and that's good enough for me. He points out that the Milky Way is only 100,000 ly wide. Therefore, if there were alien life out there with advanced civilizations, they would find travelling such a small distance a piece of cake and would have discovered us by now. But they haven't. And Tegmark says if the whole galaxy we live in has no life, it's highly unlikely there's life any elsewhere, either -- even if the universe is infinite, it's likely we're the only living creatures in it.

      Except there is intelligent life in the Milky Way. US. In 500 or 1000 years we'll be zipping all over the place. Maybe there's only 1 planet with life per galaxy (on average). I'm not disagreeing that there's no life, just saying that its poor reasoning.

    3. Re:Max Tegmark at MIT says no aliens exist... by art6217 · · Score: 1

      Do you think that searching for various traits of a planet, for which no known explanation exists, becomes useless just because there is no life on the planet?

    4. Re:Max Tegmark at MIT says no aliens exist... by Capt.Albatross · · Score: 1

      There are at least two other plausible explanations for the Fermi paradox: 1) interstellar travel is really hard. 2) it is hard for technologically-advanced civilizations to last long. We have no evidence on 2, and the best evidence we have on 1 is in the affirmative.

    5. Re:Max Tegmark at MIT says no aliens exist... by deadweight · · Score: 1

      TOTAL FAIL We are pretty smart - we made atom bombs and robots and all kinds of toys. So far faster-than-light travel totally eludes us. There literally could be 10,000 planets with 10,000 Einsteins per planet in our hood and no one is going anywhere.

    6. Re:Max Tegmark at MIT says no aliens exist... by vlm · · Score: 1

      3) Intelligence means they want to communicate with the savages. Think back to earths colonial era, how many average joes in England wanted to talk to or hang out with who they considered savages? Once you grow out of the cultural toddler era of religion, and grow out of the slavery and colonialism era, there is no intense demand to visit, meet, or talk to the savages, is there? So we'll have rich tourists and anthropologists visiting and watching us, both of who want to keep a low profile so they can study us and keep it real.

      4) Why would the aliens communicate using our tech? Why EM radiation? If you can modulate gravity or have a really great sensitive high bandwidth neutrino detector, why use crappy old fashioned EM waves? Just because its the best we could invent in the 1800s doesn't mean it'll always be the best. Its quite possible we currently sitting on a trunk line for intergalactic cable TV using gravitons and/or neutrinos and don't even have the tech (yet) to tell. This is assuming a future telecom tech is something we have even heard about or can currently imagine. Some string theory thing which will be invented in 2163 might be the basis of the intergalactic "wifi" internet and we can't even imagine it yet.

      5) Expansion and exploration is taken as granted by an expansion oriented industrial planet, for obvious reasons. I'm not sure it would be by a post singularity civilization. Once you've got your quantum computers and dyson sphere, do you need to conqueror a galaxy? The number of homebodies and hermits vastly exceeds the number of explorers and that's missing from the equation.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    7. Re:Max Tegmark at MIT says no aliens exist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect he said more than you mention, because what you said doesn't make sense. The aliens would have found us because 100,000 ly is small. But, because there is no life in this small place, there is none in the much bigger place. That's not an argument.

    8. Re:Max Tegmark at MIT says no aliens exist... by lsulfate · · Score: 1

      That is, nevertheless the essence of his argument.

    9. Re:Max Tegmark at MIT says no aliens exist... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      5)...
      But it only takes a handful of explorers and malcontents to establish a colony, and available evidence is that evolution preferentially selects for organisms driven to reproduce. Admittedly though a species that managed to not wipe themselves out may have gotten those impulses under control, and/or an authoritarian government may be violently resistant to establishing colonies outside their control. Still the window for human-level civilizations to evolve has been open for billions of years, it seems unlikely that such conditions would apply to *all* of them. 3 and 4 seem pretty valid though

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    10. Re:Max Tegmark at MIT says no aliens exist... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      the Milky Way is only 100,000 ly wide. Therefore, if there were alien life out there with advanced civilizations, they would find travelling such a small distance a piece of cake and would have discovered us by now.

      To be advanced enought to get past lightspeed, we'd be chimps or less by comparison.

      And Tegmark says if the whole galaxy we live in has no life, it's highly unlikely there's life any elsewhere, either

      Not logical. It could well be that there are only one or two plaents in any given galaxy that is conducive to life forming.

    11. Re:Max Tegmark at MIT says no aliens exist... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Actually I haven't heard much evidence for 1 either - they wouldn't need to travel fast, 0.001c would be plenty fast enough for an early-rising civilization to have colonize the entire galaxy by now, and conceptually at least a world-ship in a hollowed-out asteroid/moon would be fairly simple to construct and launch, and a couple miles of rock should provide plenty of shielding against anything life-threatening, especially if you assume it never accelerates significantly after getting up to speed, instead navigating the galaxy by gravitational slingshot maneuvers and sending out more traditional vessels as it passes near/through star systems they want a closer look at. I seem to remember someone running the numbers a few years back and deciding that our own moon could be launched from the solar system at speeds higher than that using only current technology and estimated lunar reserves of radioactive isotopes, though some sort of direct mass-energy conversion would help things along considerably, especially when considering fueling a civilization for the thousands of years necessary to reach the next star.

      Admittedly though the expense might be prohibitive unless your star was destabilizing to provide incentive.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    12. Re:Max Tegmark at MIT says no aliens exist... by vlm · · Score: 1

      But it only takes a handful of explorers and malcontents to establish a colony, and available evidence is that evolution preferentially selects for organisms driven to reproduce

      A good argument but I'd counter that for most of human evolution moving a couple miles in any direction to set up a new tribe mostly worked, but "most" random stellar "space seeds" are going to croak enroute.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    13. Re:Max Tegmark at MIT says no aliens exist... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      That's awful pessimistic. I imagine most "space seeds" will be likely have the indefinitely sustainable closed ecosystem thing licked before setting out (for a world-ship) or some really impressive cryogenics or some more exotic stasis technology. In either case, it certainly appears to be pretty empty out there, not much to go wrong except social collapse or poor engineering. Personally I'd bet on the world-ships having higher survivability, though a living organic cryo-ship might be similarly fault-tolerant.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  12. so we should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    shoot ricki lake and john travolta into space to look for others of their kind? i'm ok with that.

  13. Re:Intelligent life does not mess up their biosphe by Coisiche · · Score: 1

    So what they're looking for is evidence of an impulsive, short-sighted species like us.

    It will probably be associated with evidence that the species no longer exists.

  14. This reminded me of... by Quakeulf · · Score: 1
  15. Re:Intelligent life does not mess up their biosphe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is silly - each life form so far changed the env in which it lived. It usually grew as big as it could and if it was successful it left traces i.e. changes big enough to be considered damaging by environmentalists of the time. Your statement is really pushing a spirit and will where it does not belong i.e. into nature. Och never mind

  16. Desperate Times... by Jetra · · Score: 1

    I honestly can't tell if they're wanting attention or are actually trying every avenue to find life. Hairspray? While I'm all for trying to find life on other planets, wouldn't it be far better to improve our space travel capabilities as well as creating some sort of Intergalactic Network? I mean, we know how to make ozone, so wouldn't it be a good move to get comets, land them on Mars, then use the oxygen and water inside of them to partially terraform the planet?

    I really feel sorry for the people working at SETI, they must be digging at the bottom of the barrel. It's true what they say, Nobody cares about achievements, they'd rather see something blow up. Keep searching, guys!

    1. Re:Desperate Times... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      While I'm all for trying to find life on other planets, wouldn't it be far better to improve our space travel capabilities as well as creating some sort of Intergalactic Network

      INTERGALACTIC?? Holy shit, man, the closest galaxy to ours is 11.7 million light-years away! You're going to wait 11.7 million years for a response? Where are you going to get the power to send a message that far, considering the inverse square law? If you meant intragalactic, the nearest star is four light years away. Do you have some magic way to get a signal to move faster than light? If so, there's a Nobel in it for you.

      I mean, we know how to make ozone, so wouldn't it be a good move to get comets, land them on Mars, then use the oxygen and water inside of them to partially terraform the planet?

      "Partially" is the key word here. How are you going to give Mars a magnetosphere? Without that, you're not going to have a habitable Mars. Yeah, Mars was terraformed in the book I'm writing (see the journal), but that's ten million years in the future and it's the species that we evolve into that terraforms it. And no, I hand-waved past the magnetosphere. Plus, it's fiction.

    2. Re:Desperate Times... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Not hairspray, evidence of terraforming, for which CFCs could be useful. I think the SETI folks are beginning to conclude that the chances of discovering a civilization via radio are miniscule - as efficiency improves in another couple centuries humanity probably won't have a significant radio footprint, and assuming a few-century transmission window we're unlikely to detect a signal unless radio-using civilizations are ridiculously common, or someone is specifically trying to talk to us (in which case they'd have to detect us somehow). So yeah, the search is ever-expanding to cover other evidence we could detect, it's very much a needle in a haystack search, and the more needles we can recognize the more likely it is we find something. Early additions included several types of beacons an advanced civilization might build to intentionally make themselves detectable to other species, but the simplest/cheapest options involve doing things like moving large planets into unlikely orbits, so nobody really expects to find them, but a sufficiently advance "godlike" race might decide to do such a thing either because their own searches have failed or as a "community service" to the younger races, or for other reasons entirely their own, so we keep an eye out for them.

      Mainly it's a matter of we don't yet have the ability to detect an "Human-like" civilization unless it were practically next door, so we're looking for what's easy to detect with current technology rather than what seems likely to find. Because honestly any detectable civilization out their is likely to be far more advanced than us so we don't really know what we're looking for, except that the things we have been looking for so far (mostly radio waves) probably aren't it. And any civilization less advanced than us will probably be undetectable until we put telescopes far enough out to use the sun as a gravitational lens so we can peek in their windows (at 6.4 billion miles Voyager 1, our most distant probe, is almost 13% of the way to the 550AU minimum distance) .

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:Desperate Times... by Jetra · · Score: 1

      I thought that they found one that was about 11,000 LY away? And forget intergalactic, how about Intersolar? This planet is getting crowded so I though maybe pushing for habitats on Mars would create breathing room as well as give us a spare planet where we can test more volatile and unstable experiments. Since Mars has little atmosphere, you can test particle acceleration closer to the vacuum of space.

      Magnetosphere, completely forgot about that one. Nukes down a hole that goes to the center of mars? There's a hole in Russia that goes 25 kilometers down, but couldn't go any further because of the extreme heat. Maybe without Vulcanization and plate tectonics, we could go deeper using lasers and machines? Sorry if I sound like I'm jumping back and forth.

  17. Re:This shit is getting stupid. by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    No matter if they discovered us. They won't visit us, so far our science knows, they can't, no matter how advanced they are. They could send a signal, but need to be relatively close to both being able to detect us and send a signal with any kind of hope that we detect and understand it (and considering how much people like you is asking for basically banning space investigation, i'd say that the window of opportunity for that is closing).

    Anyway, that "useless" space program had a lot of side effects pretty important for us down here, you are using at least one of them right now. Maybe we won't colonize the solar system and start chatting with alien entities anywhere soon, but just trying to make it possible will change our lives for better.

  18. Are we ready for contact? by concealment · · Score: 1

    Our society is still too disorganized and prone to impulsive, selfish acts for us to contact an alien civilization.

    If we don't immediately make war on them, we'll move in, set up a gift shop and a law firm, then start piping them our TV and selling them whatever junk food has taken over for the Twinkie (RIP).

    If you were an alien civilization, and your first contact from outside came from the U.S. Congress and/or McDonald's, or maybe you were exposed to Justin Bieber or dubstep, you might just pull up the welcome mat, throw out technology and go live in caves.

    1. Re:Are we ready for contact? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Hardly - any detectable aliens are likely to be far more technologically advanced than us for the simple reason that we lack the technology to detect significantly less advanced civs, and given the time frames involved the chance that another civ at about the same level as us exists nearby is pretty slim. And unless we develop FTL the low-tech races won't even know we exist, so that leaves the "godlike" races we might interact with - and without Twinkies it seems likely they'd have no reason to want to. Even if they did it seems likely any substantial cultural "infection" would likely be flowing in our direction.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re:Are we ready for contact? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If dubstep is the first thing that they encounter from us then we are doomed. They are aiming the death rays as we speak.

  19. Re:This shit is getting stupid. by umghhh · · Score: 1

    This money that we spend on searching aliens is of course a waste. The same can be said about almost anything except food and medicine all the rest is not really needed for survival of our species. This is one thing. The other is - once we stop spending money on such wasteful things like this (or other) program we waste it another way by sending troops somewhere or some such silly thing. But in general you are right - searching for aliens is futile.

  20. Why not look for nuke teasting? by Rooked_One · · Score: 0

    I mean... we only set off "one" before hiroshima, however we as a collective earth, decided a couple of thousand, plus some, was needed

    Well - If I were an alien, I would know to steer clear of that third rock.

    Time-Lapse of every known nuke. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY

    1. Re:Why not look for nuke teasting? by ledow · · Score: 1

      Because nuke testing has only been around less than a hundred years. In universal scales, that's barely worth bothering with. It's literally a fleeting spark. The Sun is 4.6bn years old alone. Even from the Sun, it would have been a long wait to see some activity on earth that you could detect by looking for nukes (if they even have a signature that will travel across the galaxy which seems unlikely given that thousands of them have gone off across the globe in the past and we barely notice *here*, let alone light-years away), and the spectacle would be inherently short-lived (given that we either will switch to another weapon in the next 100 years or blow ourselves up anyway, which nearly happened in the Cold War, let alone modern times).

      And then you have to have ANOTHER civilisation somewhere out there, in a SIMILARLY advanced state also detonating nukes and thereby thinking of looking for other's nuke detonations, and they have to be in the same part of space or, critically, roughly the same time as us to notice us - even if they do nothing but stare permanently in the perfect direction to see us and have no obstacles.

      If you made a time-lapse on a similar scale (that video is one second = one month) for the entire galaxy since its birth as a galaxy (so you're probably looking at one second = a million years to even get close to something that was about the same length), we'd barely be a tiny colour change, on a tiny single pixel, a blip at the very, very, very, very end of the very last frame of the very last second of the time-lapse and barely even register on the data whatsoever. And that's just a galaxy, of which there are 170 billion by even the best estimate.

      And you're expecting a civilisation similarly "blippy" to just happen to be looking at us for the time of their time and see our blip, in an entire universe.

    2. Re:Why not look for nuke teasting? by heypete · · Score: 1

      Natural fission reactors occur and can vent their byproducts to the atmosphere. Detection of fission products would not necessarily be a marker for life.

    3. Re:Why not look for nuke teasting? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Because nuke testing has only been around less than a hundred years.

      Above ground testing only lasted for about 20 years, from 1945 until the middle of the sixties when we signed the test ban treaty with the USSR.

  21. translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So what you're saying basically is that Earth is a giant red pulsar on a CFC radar.

  22. Unless, of course, we are the first. by macbeth66 · · Score: 1

    And future civilizations will refer to us as the ancients and that they should learn from our mistakes.

    "Don't be a third rocker!"

    "Tiles? They must have been retards."

    "Bacon? Mmmmmm"

  23. Logical fail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really?

    100,000 light years is a small distance? We humans have had radio for only 130 years - give or take. And assuming all radio waves escaped out into space, that would mean just the near 130 light year radius around us may have heard something. And there's the time for a signal to get back. And optical telescopes only have a limited range - even if you were to imagine a super duper alien tech telescope that can look at individual planets from across the galaxy.

    And he's assuming that all life has interstellar travel ability - apparently faster than light travel.

    If he really said that, then it is a logical fail. To extrapolate the last century and make statement about the whole galaxy is incorrect.

    1. Re:Logical fail. by Immerman · · Score: 1

      You're not thinking in cosmic terms. Even if we ignore the rest of the universe outside our galaxy our planet is still 4.5 BILLION years old, and our sun was a relative latecomer to the party of 3rd-generation stars likely to have Earth-like planets - meaning there was plenty of time for human-level civilizations to develop elsewhere in our galaxy before our planet even formed. If life were common then at least one of those civilizations would likely have taken to the stars, and even if they only ever traveled at 0.1% of light speed they'd still have had plenty of time to explore the entire galaxy by now, and probably seeded life wherever they went - even if it evolved from the microbes clinging to the bottoms of their shoes or thrown out with their garbage it could have a billion-year head-start on us (or for that matter it could *be* us, Earth life does appear to have made a few sudden leaps forward in the early eons, any one of which could be the result of "invasion" by alien microbes).

      The logical conclusion is that either
      1) life-bearing planets are rare
      2) or intelligent civilizations rarely evolve on them
      3) or they commonly wipe themselves out before taking to the stars (since an interstellar species would be extremely resistant to extinction-level events)
      4) or we just haven't figured out how to detect them yet
      5) possibly because our current level of technology is transitional and nobody else within our light cone is generating/looking for structured radio emissions

      So far (1) is looking increasingly unlikely - we haven't found evidence of life yet, but it's questionable whether we'd be able to detect it yet, and we're finding rocky planets everywhere we look. The others are still open questions.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  24. Probably not an indicator of hairspray by guttentag · · Score: 1

    The prospect of finding an alien civilization that uses hairspray is not very good, given that Little Green Men rarely have hair in Hollywood or Roswell. However, CFCs are less likely to be an indicator of hairspray than plastic foam, circuit board manufacture, Star Trek-esque hypospray propellent, refrigerators or air conditioning. The NY Times just ran an article about how we're still venting CFCs from home central air units in the U.S., over 20 years after the big marketing push to eliminate them.

  25. Hair Mousse not Hair Spray by DickBreath · · Score: 3, Funny

    Didn't the Centuari Republic give Earth jump gate technology in exchange for our advanced hair mousse formulas?

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  26. I thought the hairdressers by rossdee · · Score: 1

    went on the B-Ark with the telephone sanitizers etc

  27. Genius by mayberry42 · · Score: 1

    I would never have associated 80s hair metal bands with advanced civilization....

    1. Re:Genius by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Well, there is a fine line between clever and stupid...

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
  28. Silly by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

    We're already phasing out the use of CFCs and will likely not produce any detectable amounts in the near future. Don't they think aliens would learn the same lesson? Giving us, at most, a 100yr window to catch their CFC use? Why do people have this incredibly close minded view of alien life that makes them think that not only will they be like us, with arms and legs, be based on water but also be stuck in the same time period as us as well?

    I suspect that we'll eventually find life on nearly all of the planets and even some of the asteroids in our own solar system. Maybe even intelligent life that's trapped under heavy atmosphere that really has had no technological way to explore space. Imagine an intelligent creature floating in the atmosphere of Jupiter or Saturn. They'd have almost no material to build tools out of, much less spacecraft or telescopes. And MOST planets have atmospheres like theirs.

    1. Re:Silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes life else where could be vastly different but seeing as we have no idea how to detect something we don't know exists we have to start somewhere. Or you can point at any star in the sky, shrug your shoulders, say "maybe", and call it day.

  29. Cut to Bones by paiute · · Score: 1

    "Damn it, Jim - I'm a doctor, not an air conditioner repairman!"

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  30. doing the moonwalk by merxete · · Score: 0

    Aliens using hairspray? What's next, they also do the moonwalk?

  31. Thats assuming. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That whoever these aliens are that they are exactly like us. And thats the problem with humans and searching for aliens we all assume since we have convinced ourselves we are the center of the universe and the most highly intelligent life from which all other life stems that all alien life will respond to radio waves and our math. So we assume everything else about them is exactly like us as well.

    But of course thats the beautiful thing about science, you really dont have to prove shit. We havent evolved much from a couple thousand years ago when all you needed was an idea and if it sounded good people paid attention to you. And if you need to prove something all you need to do is come up with some mathematical equation that is impossible to replicate in real life and other scientists will agree with you, or you just need some show man ship and really make it sound like you know what you are talking about by comparing things and have a good speech writer.

  32. Elvis lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finally we will be able to locate Elvis

  33. Detecting terraforming more interesting than cfcs by AmeerCB · · Score: 1
    From TFA:

    But what about more advanced life? Could we find tell-tale signs that a planetary system had been modified or terraformed in order to make it more habitable for intelligent alien species? For instance, when humans colonize Mars, we will need to raise global planetary temperatures significantly in order to live on the surface without suits.

    This seems a lot more interesting to me. As another poster mentioned, would cfc use constitute enough of a civilization's existence to make it a viable means of detecting them? But looking for a planet that is warm enough to have liquid water and is outside the goldilocks zone of its solar system seems like an interesting idea.

  34. Inverse square law destroy your argument by aepervius · · Score: 1

    The intensity of nearly all signal we put out outside diminush so rapidely as to be non differentiable from galactic noise, within a few AU, maybe 1 LY at most. The only signal which has reached a few dozen LY was the one sent (when was it ? 70 ies ?) from a radio antena a very strong pulse directed at a place far away, and it was 2 times a one minute or two signal. The rest ? Street light ? radio ? TV ? All noise beyond 1 light year.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Inverse square law destroy your argument by art6217 · · Score: 1

      Have you ever did any involved mathematical analysis of detecting a slowly drifting 50Hz signal in a background stronger by hundreds of dB? I did not. This is why I would not say "all noise". I just do not know that. Do you?

  35. Haha damn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the anti-environmentalists had clinged onto this 'we're attracting aliens!' theory 20 years ago, the hole in the ozone layer would be totally gone.

  36. Hopefully not the 2007 movie version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If aliens saw a cross-dressing John Travolta, they'd probably decide our species is not worthy of survival and come wipe us out. So hopefully they'll detect the 1988 movie or a Broadway version instead.

  37. CFCs aren't naturally occurring? by hsthompson69 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hrm...funny how you can measure them out of volcanoes:

    http://cfc.geologist-1011.net/

    "CFCs are not Volcanic" - Oh Really?

    "This statement is one that I keep seeing on websites and blogs, and ties in with the assertions repeated by Warrick & Farmer (1990), Grimston (1992), Hendeles et al. (2007), Colice (2007), Colice (2008), and Green & Stewart (2008, p. 18) to the effect that CFCs are not natural in the environment. If one chooses to measure the gases emerging from volcanic vents instead of taking a politician's word for it, one discovers that volcanoes produce a variety of halocarbons, including CFCs. This fact, along with other natural sources of CFCs including sponges, other marine animals, bacteria (both marine & terrestrial), fungi (both marine & terrestrial), plants (both marine & terrestrial), lichen, insects, is so well documented that it is the subject of ongoing textbook publication (Gribble, 2003; Jordan, 2003). Stoiber et al. (1971) first measured and documented CFCs venting from Santiaguito in Guatamala. Since, there have been many studies corroborating the volcanic emission of CFCs (Isidorov et al, 1990; Isidorov et al., 1993; Jordon et al., 2000; Schwandner et al., 2000; Schwandner et al., 2002; Schwandner et al., 2004; Frische et al., 2006). Although some authors attempt to correlate volcanogenic CFCs to atmospheric variations, the confirmation of soil diffusion decay with distance from the vent (Schwandner et al., 2004) still stands in stark contradiction of Frische's hypothesis."

    1. Re:CFCs aren't naturally occurring? by Mark+Claire · · Score: 2

      The website you linked to isn't overly packed with peer-reviewed research ideas. My colleagues who study volcanic emissions and halocarbons do tell me that measurements of carbon tetrachloride (CCl4) (which the unscientific label of "honorary CFC" as it was regulated in the Montreal Protocol) may in fact be produced in extremely minor quantities by some volcanoes. This is cool as it points to new science. But the measured fluxes are 6 orders of magnitude lower than the anthropogenic fluxes. i.e. it doesn't really matter in the long run - there is no conspiracy here. I looked briefly at three of the articles you cited and they are talking about natural halocarbons, but not chloroflourocarbons. Given the other links to climate-science denial and even plate-tectonic denial on that website, I'm a bit skeptical.

    2. Re:CFCs aren't naturally occurring? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Yes, thanks for this skepticism. In general the statement "x" is not produced naturally is false. Nature is surprisingly diverse and creative. For example one often sees statements like "dioxins don't occur in nature, or free chlorine doesn't occur in nature, or there is no natural equivalent to HFCS. These are false.

      In reality what is important is the quantity of the materials, where they occur and what the environmental and health impacts are.

      In the case of CFCs while there is evidence that there is some natural production (again the claim they don't naturally occur is wrong) the amounts on Earth are very small.

      http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/pdfs/data/2000/157-08/15708-9.pdf

      However the fact is other planets may have different proportions, so the presence of CFCs is not necessarily a sure indicator of civilization without knowing more about the planet.

    3. Re:CFCs aren't naturally occurring? by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      If you see a flux of CFCs in the atmosphere, why would you assume that this is due to anthropogenic activity?

      More importantly, how would you exclude natural activity as a cause of observed CFC fluxes? One might start off with the assertion that CFCs never occur naturally, but as we've seen, that is demonstrably false. We could do some study of natural CFC sources, and try to extrapolate that to the entire universe of natural CFC sources, but that would be informative, not definitive.

      As for natural halocarbons not including CFCs, I'm not sure I see where you're getting that - CFCs are a subset of halocarbons...are you asserting that there is a specific CFC that has not be observed in volcanic plumes?

    4. Re:CFCs aren't naturally occurring? by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1
    5. Re:CFCs aren't naturally occurring? by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Well, they're begging the question - human CFCs didn't cause ozone depletion either :)

      http://reason.com/blog/2007/09/27/ozone-hole-science-revisited

      The question is, "can volcanoes (and hey what the hell, oceans) increase CFC concentration in the atmosphere"? The assumption of the "detection of CFCs means detection of intelligent life" depends on a lack of CFC generation by any natural means. We've already shown this is simply not the case, and unfortunately, our measurement network and duration for CFC concentrations in our own atmosphere is terribly limited.

    6. Re:CFCs aren't naturally occurring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The argument isn't that they are not naturally occurring (to focus on that is a bit of a red herring) - it's that the anthropogenic sources are so much larger than any plausible natural source that it effectively doesn't matter. If you take your instrument and measure 1 g/yr CCL4 coming from a volcanos and that same instrument measures 1000000 g/yr coming from refrigerators, air conditioners, and cans of hairspray, you might conclude that most of the CCL4 is produced anthropogenically. From the perspective of a scientist, the burden of proof in a situation like this would require someone to measure a much larger natural source before you would consider the CFC's in the atmosphere to be anything other than human made. There have been decades of research into figuring out the chlorine budget of the stratosphere. While the example above is obviously hypothetical, I drew it from the abstract of one of the articles you cited in your first comment (Frische et al. 2006) http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GC001162.shtml

      Nature is awesome and it is possible that a volcano that was erupting through a crustal layer heavy in halite and flourite might form some low level compound which contains a chlorinated flourocarbon by purely thermodynamic processes. I looked at three of the papers you suggested and didn't see this measured. I only saw halocarbons (organic molecules with chlorine) discussed not chloroflourocarbons (organic molecules with chlorine + flourine). I'm not familiar enough with the literature on observational volcanology to state that there is no measurement of a volcanic CFC, but I can confidently say that even if that measurement does exist, it would almost certainly be a complete drop in the bucket compared to the industrial sources so that it doesn't matter globally.

    7. Re:CFCs aren't naturally occurring? by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Here's the rub though - if we can establish that *someplace* on earth these compounds can occur naturally, even if their rate on *earth* is very low, that doesn't preclude their rate on some other planet being very high.

      While we *may* decide that there are no significant natural sources of CFCs on earth (an open question, given the indirectness of our measurements, and the lack of any long term record), we cannot presume that such a thing is true on all worlds, or even all earth-like worlds.

    8. Re:CFCs aren't naturally occurring? by Mark+Claire · · Score: 1

      I disagree. This isn't generally how science works. You would have to make an argument as to why you would expect a planet with a crust of chlorine and flourine and the specific mechanism that works in a self-consistent chemical framework to continuously produce CFC's at a level that they could build up against photolysis in a planetary atmosphere. You cant get six orders of magnitude increase in flux for free just by saying "anything could happen" It's just not a very convincing argument. It is absolutly unequivocal that the CFC's in our atmosphere are anthropogenically produced. If our project is funded, we will calculate the fluxes necessary to sustatin ever larger quantities in various atmopsheric regimes. You are then free to make an argument that those fluxes are able to be produced by volcanoes using principles of physics and chemistry - If you can do so, I'll gladly change my mind. That is how science works.

    9. Re:CFCs aren't naturally occurring? by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      I'd believe the assertion that CFCs in our atmosphere are unequivocally anthropogenic if we had a longer term record for CFC history in the air (specifically the upper stratosphere), but we don't have anything of the sort. In fact, my understanding is that these concentrations are measured indirectly (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/oceans/new_atmCFC.html) - perhaps you know of a direct CFC-o-mometer that can give column CFC concentrations on a global scale, but thus far, I haven't seen such data or mechanisms.

      I'd also assert that while volcanoes are a known source of CFCs, I wouldn't assume that they are the only non-anthropogenic source of CFCs. Again, part of this is a dearth of long term CFC atmospheric information (if we had seen CFCs in significant quantities in say, 100,000BC, during a period of low volcanic activity, we'd have to start searching for other possible sources), but I think we're assuming way too much here.

      So to play the science game, the first thing I'd do is improve the measurement network, the second thing I'd do is look for other non-anthropogenic sources of CFCs on earth, and then I'd look for non-anthropogenic sources of CFCs on other planets. After thoroughly convincing myself that we've established a galactic principle of "CFCs come from intelligent life", then I might be more likely to accept the remote detection of CFCs as indicative of ETI.

  38. Re:Intelligent life does not mess up their biosphe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No true Scotsman would do it, anyway.

  39. Re:Detecting terraforming more interesting than cf by Mark+Claire · · Score: 2

    I'm one of the scientists involved in the project. We see this primarily as a search for terraformed worlds, rather than looking for inadvertent technological byproducts. We've started a kickstarter-like drive to do the fundamental research needed to find out if an actively terraformed world would be detectable over astronomical distances. Details are here: http://www.petridish.org/projects/do-aliens-use-hairspray -Mark

  40. Found via the Sigue Sigue Sputnik satellite... by Dogtanian · · Score: 5, Funny

    If it's from hairspray, they can't be all *that* intelligent.

    Judge for yourself- here are some pictures of aliens we've discovered using the hairspray detection technique.

    Their communications technology is still remarkably primitive though.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  41. Ask Me Anything by Mark+Claire · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Hi all. I'm one of the scientists involved in this project. We are trying out this new kickstarter-for-science approach as it's both hard to get NASA funds for SETI, and it's also surprisingly hard to get small "seed money" type grants to do cutting edge work. We've started our own non-profit scientific research organization (http://bmsis.org) and are trying to do science outside the confines of the traditional academic structure. We'd love your support if you can (http://www.petridish.org/projects/do-aliens-use-hairspray) but more than that, we'd love to hear any ideas/answer questions about the project.

  42. Re:Intelligent life does not mess up their biosphe by RichMan · · Score: 1

    >each life form so far changed

    You missed the "intelligent" qualification.

    We are killing ourselves with our own pollution. This is due to our success as an animal. Every non-intelligent animal suffers population collapses due to population rising above sustainable levels. We are about there.
    We are killing ourselves with pollutants and "deskjobs" and plentiful food which is not what our bodies are adapted for.
    We are not acting any more intelligent than rats or crows.

  43. My dreams by PPH · · Score: 1

    A planet populated by Dolly Partons.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  44. Bald Aliens Safer by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    So only bald aliens will remain safe and anonymous from interplanetary predators. Perhaps we should breed a race of Yule Brenner's to survive.

  45. Ask me Anything, redux by Sanjoy+Som · · Score: 1

    Hi All, I'm also one of the scientists involved. While we'd love to go "hunting for aliens" directly, this project is more about how to recognize evidence of industrialization from afar. As you likely know, extrasolar planets are being discovered left and right, and so the next step in the process of discovery will be to measure the composition of those atmospheres because they may give clues to the processes happening on the planetary surface. But what are we going to compare those compositions to? Modern Earth? Sure, but one data point is not terribly great, so our work here is to build a database of atmospheric compositions that would be strong contenders for having an industrialized civilization below. It turns out it's more straightforward to measure "industrial pollution" in an atmosphere than natural occurring gases that may be in disequilibrium because of timid biological processes. But we need your support to do this! And you can be involved by contributing. We are a non-profit science institute passionate about space exploration, astrobiology, and science communication. Your donations to this project are tax deductible as we have 501(c)3 status. http://www.petridish.org/projects/do-aliens-use-hairspray You can find out more about our research at http://www.bmsis.org/publications, or join our space exploration and astrobiology social/collaborative network at http://www.saganet.org./ But where we need your financial support today is at http://www.petridish.org/projects/do-aliens-use-hairspray Thanks for your time! And don't hesitate to post questions! ..and follow us on Twitter! @BlueMarbleSpace, @Saganorg, #alienhairspray - cheers

  46. Don't need FTL by Immerman · · Score: 1

    Our sun is a comparative newcomer among 3rd-generation sun-like stars, the window for human-level civilizations to have evolved in our galaxy has been open for BILLIONS of years, plenty of time for a civilization to colonize the entire galaxy even if they never travel at even 1% of lightspeed.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    1. Re:Don't need FTL by deadweight · · Score: 1

      Until WE do it I would think assuming others can do it is a bit silly. What if they are 98% as smart as us and their rockets blow up? What if they don't give a shit about flying in space? What if they all nuke themselves back to the stone age? Maybe we are the only ones to not play WW III when we get nukes? Maybe they are all a bunch of smart marine animals that can sing and do sonar like a mensa-whale but can't build anything? Maybe they did show up here and thought WE were a bunch of dangerous nutters and have a WARNING STAY OUT beacon on outer-space channel 11 set up on Pluto?

    2. Re:Don't need FTL by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Somehow I think assuming a civilization with a multi-billion-year head start on us can't figure out how to do something we're pretty sure we could do now if we *really* wanted to is a losing proposition. It would be ridiculously expensive with current technology but unless something really unexpected is going on out beyond the heliosphere we could start building world-ships today and be moderately certain of them reaching their destination, the hardest part would be designing a closed ecosystem that could survive for a few centuries or millenia, but we're getting ever better at understanding the problems there, and the solutions tend to be obvious.

      As for the others - yeah, lots of reasons individual civs might not spread or announce themselves, but the point is that sunlike stars (and presumably Earthlike planets) have been around long enough that even if FTL is completely impossible a race born of a world that developed much like ours around an early sun could easily have colonized the entire galaxy while our race was still swinging in the trees, or for that matter oozing around without an internal skeleton. So unless we're one of the very first we should reasonably expect that at *least* one of them has already colonized the galaxy. That we see no evidence of this is the heart of the Fermi paradox and countless cocktail-party discussions.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:Don't need FTL by deadweight · · Score: 1

      We have NEVER had even close to a multi-billion year run of stable climate here on Earth. Why assume other planets do? It is entirely possible that no one gets much past where we are before the next asteroid/global warming/global cooling/huge volcano/Godzilla attack or whatever.

    4. Re:Don't need FTL by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Who's assuming they do? Getting wiped out before taking to the stars is certainly a possibility, but if some enclave of civilization managed to survive (moon bases, underground shelters, etc) they would have had billions of years to recover. And if they took to the stars before catastrophe then it's a non-issue. Heck, on billion-year timescales you have to start considering the survival of their sun as well - it's quite possible that the homeworld of an early race has long since been destroyed by their sun becoming a red giant - ours is only projected to have a few billion years left in it, but if they take to the stars before then they should be everywhere. The point is not that things could have happened to any particular race, it's that unless the galaxy is a lot less conductive to life than we're currently estimating there should have been thousands of life-bearing worlds that arose before ours, and unless intelligent life is pretty uncommon (we have no clue) a lot of those worlds should have developed civilizations. So unless *all* of those were homebodies or got wiped out before taking to the stars the galaxy should be pretty well colonized by now.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    5. Re:Don't need FTL by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Maybe in a couple centuries we can put our conciousness into machines, and then there is no need for planet suitable for life. We could be surrounded by such beings who have no use or desire to communicate with "slightly sentient meat". In our words, our universe will look empty until we evolve enough to be worthy of communication.

    6. Re:Don't need FTL by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      no paradox, at some point we will leave our bodies behind and upload into computers. planets at that point are of no use, just need energy and raw materials not food or atmosphere. we're of no interest right now to beings that have already done this because we're just "biofilm" on some rock.

  47. wineo detection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am also familiar with using it to detect wineos who have gone past being a wineo. They spray the hairspray through a piece of white bread to filter it, then they drink the filtered liquid. Aquanet is preferred. The bread filters all the nasties out of the hairspray. Of course it doesn't really help because they eat the bread when they get hungry afterwards. Yes, yes it's true, and so sad.

  48. Why should we assume... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that any alien civilization will make the same disastrous environmental mistakes that we have made?

    Just goes to demonstrate our human arrogance - that we assume the way we have evolved is the only way to evolve.

  49. Venus will be harder to terraform you think... by slew · · Score: 1

    CO2 isn't the biggest problem terraforming Venus, but even the CO2 problem probably can't be solved with just bacteria. Carl Sagan was one of the original proponants of that idea, but after further study, he conceded that it wouldn't work because of thermodynamics (it's currently just too hot, you must first cool it down to make those reactions stable).

    Changing the day/night ratio to something reasonable and establishing some sort of magnetic field to block out solar radiation would probably also be required (and perhaps these are related problems). I'm pretty sure these problems probably couldn't be solved as a grad-student synthetic biology project.

    1. Re:Venus will be harder to terraform you think... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      You are quite right - for some reason I thought Venus had a fairly strong magnetic field, it's lack is likely to be a doozy for long-term stable terraforming, Mars might be easier after all. I'm less convinced about the temperature problems - admittedly designing a microbe that could survive there would be a challenge, it is considerably hotter than even the most extreme terrestrial environments, but the extreme pressures would likely help stabilize chemistry near the surface, and there are potentially more hospitable environments in the upper atmosphere, in which case it's just the high-carbon waste which would have to be stabilized (diamond dust perhaps?) Likely beyond our current capabilities, but with a few more centuries of biological technology under our belt (we're talking about a civilization capable of to housing itself primarily off-planet after all) I suspect a fully synthetic biology minimally related to earth chemistry could be designed.

      As for the day/night cycle, sure, that one would be unlikely to be an easy fix, but then it doesn't necessarily have to be. It means ferocious winds, and pretty dramatic thermal differences across the planet as their heat capacity drops, but the "twilight zone" might well remain highly viable. Of course since it's not completely tide-locked yet it would call for fairly mobile biota - animals probably wouldn't have a problem but plants would likely need to have a very short lifecycle so that they could grow and reseed themselves before passing into the baking sun side. Either that or they'd have to be hardy enough to survive the rather brutal sunside and darkside seasons.

      Okay, fine, point taken. Venus probably won't ever be a popular place to homestead. Too bad, terraforming Mars is likely to need a much more hands-on approach. At any rate though we've got two planets in our (typical?) system that could probably be terraformed without ridiculous expenditure, and a lot of reasons to prefer terraformming to living exclusively in artificial habitats.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re:Venus will be harder to terraform you think... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      You just need to homestead high in the atmosphere. Once you're high enough for 1 (Earth) atmosphere pressure, the temperature is pretty close to 20 celsius. Easier to float in CO2 as well.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    3. Re:Venus will be harder to terraform you think... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Of course, an excellent place to raise those spherical cows (helium filled).

      The problem is once you reduce CO2 levels (and re-balance other gasses) to the point where you can breathe the atmosphere, the temperature will cool dramatically, and the atmosphere will likely get much thinner. It is a likely place for early terraforming biota to thrive though.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  50. Viltvodle VI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe they'll find the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle VI, who believe that the entire Universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of a being called the "Great Green Arkleseizure."

    The Jatravartids, who live in perpetual fear of the time they call The Coming of The Great White Handkerchief, are small blue creatures with more than fifty arms each, who are therefore unique in being the only race in history to have invented the aerosol deodorant before the wheel.

  51. Was one of the scientists named Arthur Dent? by phrackthat · · Score: 1

    The Golgafrinchans of 'Ark B' will be glad to have new salon clients.

  52. They know we are here then? by m2 · · Score: 1

    So, their astronomers less than a 50 light years away ran their version of Kepler, looked at Sol, found Sol-5 and Sol-6, and with some luck Sol-3 and they noticed the liquid water fingerprint and selected it as a likely candidate for a life-hosting planet.  Then they made more and better observations and they found the CFC fingerprint and figured that Sol-3 must have a technological civilization living there.

    What do they do next?  Build their version of SKA and point it at Sol-3 hoping to catch radio signals?  There won't be much to find yet.  They probably need to keep observing for another 20 years at least.  What if they looked 100 years too early?  They would have noticed the water, but not much more.  They might be able to figure out that Sol-3's atmosphere is mostly nitrogen and oxygen.  Will they keep observing in the hopes that something interesting happens?  How soon will they be able to notice the subtle changes in the atmosphere's composition?

  53. no natural processes? by khallow · · Score: 1

    . CFCs are entirely artificial, with no known natural process capable of creating them in atmospheres.

    Odds are good we'll find at least trace amounts of CFCs in the lunar crust. Any volcanism with high concentrations of chlorine, fluorine, and carbon can create CFCs.

  54. Plenty of aliens found us in the 80's. by neoshroom · · Score: 1

    Well I guess we are alone in the universe. If no aliens found us in the 80's it's not looking good.

    Plenty of aliens found us in the 80's. However, they did so using microscopic-sized nano-probes, extremely powerful telescoping cameras and the second and third track titles of Duran Duran's self-titled album, so we never noticed.

    --
    Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
  55. Planet Earth by neoshroom · · Score: 1

    As you can see here the aliens logically concluded "You're looking at planet earth. There's no sign of life." How this music video can be explained without recourse to alien communication is beyond me.

    --
    Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
  56. The Musical by Dabido · · Score: 1

    So, we broadcast Hairspray the musical to the galaxy and see who complains about the acting (overacting) ... right????

    --
    Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
  57. Hairspray? by iq145 · · Score: 1

    i saw "Hairspray". It had nothing to do with aliens! :-) Although, Edna Turnblad / Arvin Hodgepile (aka Divine) could qualify... Not to mention, there's someone in it named "Mink Stole"... No, that IS someone's real life name!