Slashdot Mirror


Why We'll Never Meet Aliens

iggychaos writes "The idea that aliens will come visit us is fundamentally flawed. Paul Tyma ponders the technology that would be required for such an event and examines how evolution of that technology would preclude any reason to actually make the trip. He writes, 'Twenty years ago if I asked you how many feet were in a mile (and you didn't know) you could go to a library and look it up. Ten years ago, you could go to a computer and google it. Today, you can literally ask your phone. It's not a stretch at all with the advent of wearable computing that coming soon - I can ask you that question and you'll instantly answer. ... How would you change if you had instant brain-level access to all information. How would you change if you were twice as smart as you are now. How about ten times as smart? (Don't answer, truth is, you're not smart enough to know). Now, let's leap ahead and think about what that looks like in 100 years. Or 1000. Or whenever it is you'll think we'd have the technology to travel to another solar system. We'd be a scant remnant of what a human looks like today. ... The question of why aliens might 'want to come here' is probably fundamentally flawed because we are forming that question from our current (tiny) viewpoint. The word 'want' might not apply at all to someone 1000 times smarter than us."

629 comments

  1. We've already met one by Sigvatr · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's Steve Urkle.

    1. Re:We've already met one by christopher240240 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wrong. It was only like Urkel. The alien has a sweet, heavenly voice... like Urkel! And he appears every Friday night... like Urkel! Now if you'll excuse me, I've got a report to type up on my invisible typewriter.

    2. Re:We've already met one by CaptainLard · · Score: 4, Funny

      The 1980's called, they want their family friendly pop culture zingers back.

    3. Re:We've already met one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, did you warn them?

    4. Re:We've already met one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Urkel?

      That's "Mr. President" to you.

    5. Re:We've already met one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You were correct to insult that man. His joke was awful.

    6. Re:We've already met one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 1980's called, they want their family friendly pop culture zingers back.

      Something-Something Danger-Zone

      See that, Lana? I'm not even trying anymore...

    7. Re:We've already met one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 1990's called, they want their come-back zingers back.

    8. Re:We've already met one by chispito · · Score: 1

      While they're on the phone, ask them if they want their joke back.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    9. Re:We've already met one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did I do that?

    10. Re: We've already met one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but Marty McFly did!!

  2. Neighbors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Oh I thought the fact that they wouldn't come over was personal.

    1. Re:Neighbors by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Rings round the second gas giant. It's the interstellar equivalent of the yellow jack.

      I for one wouldn't want to visit anywhere that was infected with us. Euuwww!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:Neighbors by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Interesting

      TFA kept focusing on economic reasons though... and joke aside, the author forgot a few not-so-obvious-but-just-as compelling reasons:

      1) population pressure
      2) cultural/historical/other inquiry (aka the "because it's out there and we'd like to see it for ourselves" rationale)
      3) war (you know, rebels and stuff... Everyone from King David to Mao Zedong spent time on the lam - where better to hide from an oppressive government than, you know, outer-freakin'-space?)
      4) Maybe they want to know what Natalie Portman tastes like while naked and covered in grits? (okay not that, but maybe some similar stupid reason - think of it as a glorified hunting expedition, a'la Predator)
      5) politics (hell, we build bridges to nowhere on governmental funds...)
      6) {insert lesser barely-rational and irrational reasons here}

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    3. Re:Neighbors by idontgno · · Score: 2

      6) {insert lesser barely-rational and irrational reasons here}

      Ferinstance, lulz. We'll always have lulz. On some level, I think lulz are a requirement for the development of intelligence. Oh sure, cognitive psychologists call it "play", but we all know the correct name is "lulz".

      So aliens would visit us for the lulz. And we wouldn't like it. Lulz aren't fun for the victim, only the lulzer. If your victim is chuckling along, you're doing it wrong. Unless it's the "heh, heh, I'm a loser, you sure got me" nervous chuckling. The kind a lulz victim does because it's a viable alternative to crying or impotent rage.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    4. Re:Neighbors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still won't ever happen. Finding the our sun amongst all of the other stars in the universe would be akin to me asking you to find one specific grain of sand somewhere on this planet.

    5. Re:Neighbors by Zordak · · Score: 1

      5) politics (hell, we build bridges to nowhere on governmental funds...)

      I think you just nailed it. They will come here because Senator Xzwlyng'to needs to bring some pork back to the home world, and what better way then to build a factory for an interstellar ship on government funds. It will ostensibly be so they can send an aid package, in the form of 50 billion ktars, though anybody with half a brain pod will know that as soon as it arrives, the leaders of the Blue World will confiscate the money and use it to pay for guns and prostitutes.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    6. Re:Neighbors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they want to know what Natalie Portman tastes like while naked and covered in grits?

      Being naked and covered in grits is how I do all my Natalie Portman tasting too! I'm looking forward to meeting these guys.

    7. Re:Neighbors by White+Flame · · Score: 1

      Adding to #2, because life "out there" is (or at least seems to be) an incredibly rare thing.

    8. Re:Neighbors by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      How is #4 a stupid reason? I want to know what Natalie Portman tastes like while naked and covered in grits.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    9. Re:Neighbors by Ossifer · · Score: 1

      I've tried Portman 'n grits... Meh...

    10. Re:Neighbors by legont · · Score: 1

      Don't forget solar eclipse.

    11. Re:Neighbors by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      6) We fucked the planet up beyond repair?

      I'm surprised you could leave that one out given how global warning and doomsday scenarios are all the rage these days. Certainly several prominent scientists (such as Steven Hawking) believe the future for mankind is not on this planet, and while we would try to head to a local planet first if we want to talk in the scale of 1000s of years like TFA then it's not inconceivable that we'd inhabit some of our neighbouring stars.

    12. Re:Neighbors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TFA kept focusing on economic reasons though... and joke aside, the author forgot a few not-so-obvious-but-just-as compelling reasons:

      1) population pressure
      2) cultural/historical/other inquiry (aka the "because it's out there and we'd like to see it for ourselves" rationale)
      3) war (you know, rebels and stuff... Everyone from King David to Mao Zedong spent time on the lam - where better to hide from an oppressive government than, you know, outer-freakin'-space?)
      4) Maybe they want to know what Natalie Portman tastes like while naked and covered in grits? (okay not that, but maybe some similar stupid reason - think of it as a glorified hunting expedition, a'la Predator)
      5) politics (hell, we build bridges to nowhere on governmental funds...)
      6) {insert lesser barely-rational and irrational reasons here}

      It costs a billion dollars to elect a president now, for 4 years, and you get shit out of the deal.

      An expedition can cost 1000x as much, it can crawl (in unknown direction... to help prevent copycats sneaking by with slightly faster ship), and when you get their, YOU'RE the effing king. Or whoever. Any disastisfied group could go: Communitsts, Libertarians, Palestinians. It doesn't have to be all of them, just a few with their beliefs and the tech to bootstrap a new civilization.

      The expected return on the mission as far as Earth is concerned is exactly zero. Hell, I'd hope they not come back as they are as likely to come back to conqueor as for any other reason.

      captcha: control

      If you want "control", leaving the fucking Earth is as about as practical as assuming high political office.

    13. Re:Neighbors by josepha48 · · Score: 2

      sport :) like predator

      --

      Only 'flamers' flame!

    14. Re:Neighbors by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You guys are all of the incredibly naive assumption that intelligent aliens will have anything in common with us at all, an example is Terry Bison's excellent short story They're made out of meat. (full text at the link)

      A thousand years more advanced? How about ten million years more advanced? That's mine but another example of how we have no clue whatever (BTW, I'm posting the last chapter tomorrow). Ten million years is a small fraction of the thirteen billion plus the universe has existed.

      The bottom line, though is that we have no idea. There's no proof, or even any indication, that Earth isn't the first planet in the galaxy and maybe even the universe (unlikely as that seems to me) to host life. Mars was once hospitable to life, as our robots have found, but there is no indication it ever started there.

      Great topic for discussion, though. Personally, I think they exist or did exist or will exist, but I really doubt we'll meet them.

    15. Re:Neighbors by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      1) Theoretically we could get to a point where political pressure would be inescapable. Imagine if you lived in the Matrix but there was no Morpheus to release you. How do you escape when the laws of nature are stacked against you? More importantly you wouldn't *want* to 'escape' since you would be a part of the hive mind. Or more importantly if you were a Morpheus time... there is no reason to believe that either the hive collective mind or you would want to leave. Perhaps it's a seeming paradise and you're perfectly free to spend eons traveling the empty boring dark space or stay home and hang out inside the internet.

      2) "see it for ourselves" is again a lame excuse if you're a cyborg. Your "eyes" are as real as a CCTV. We're already getting close to such immersive experiences that we could give you extremely high resolution, high dynamic range stereo imagery that tracks your head. Give it 5-10 years and we'll be there easy for 'sight seeing'. I guess you could have bragging rights but maybe we'll just not care about physically being somewhere when a probe would give us the exact same experience.
      3) Most war is ideological or material. In a post-scarcity world what exactly would you bother fighting over? It would be like a war on a reddit post. Also killing people could prove to be nearly impossible with sufficient backups and highspeed wireless networking. You kill someone and they just download into another body. It would be like fighting a war to destroy every Dell computer in the world. It might be possible but it would be nigh on impossible. Cockroaches anyone? I think people wouldn't bother because it would just be too hard to launch an effective attack against an enemy. Asymetric warfare would be nigh on impossible. The only war you could win would be one of attrition and the larger force would have access to more resources which would by virtue of having resources give them access to more resources etc... Effective small forces that overcame 'the odds' almost always just won by making the enemy emotionally incapable of accepting the cost. When the cost is "free" why not send waves of attack machines to be destroyed when you can just build waves more for nothing.
      4) A perfect physics sim should be able to stimulate the exact neurons to give you that sensation without leaving your bedroom.
      5) I would imagine that even marginally more intelligent creatures would have a better political system. Especially with a few more hundred years of practice through trial and error.
      6) Perhaps more convincing. ;)

    16. Re:Neighbors by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      rying to understand alien economics seems rather silly since we can't understand our own. Imagine even a society as advanced as ancient Rome trying to understand what caused our recent global recession. Let me make a few possible assumptions:

      Technologies reach a plateau: we've seen this in a number of cases so far: ships, aircraft, cars haven't changed dramatically in capabilities in the last 50 years. Even computer tech may be slowing.

      Getting to these ultimate technologies requires a near planetary scale infrastructure - for each one. For example it may be difficult to build a small chip technology - you need large fab lines, development teams etc.

      A static alien civilization with very long year timescales - either through long-lived aliens, or a society that values organizations over individuals.

      So - they build a starship (expensive), but amortize that cost over many millenia of use. Fuel is deuterium - available at all gas giants. And they mosey around the galaxy at .05C. When they get to a planet like present day earth, they offer to trade: Say a bunch of mister-fusions they picked up on Rigel 7, for a thousand metric tons of high density memory chips. Later they will trade some of those chips for 10 meter cubes of flawless diamond from some other culture that has specialized in that technology.

      Some of the trips will be a bust, the civilization may have fallen, so you load up on more D2 and off you go again.

      Basically interstellar travel only seems unreasonable because humans happen to live 100 years. If we lived 100,000 it might seem quite reasonable.

    17. Re: Neighbors by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      First, this is Paul's personal blog and this is the first post in a year, so why is this on slashdot?? Second, they wouldn't come, they'd send drones first, like we do with the mars rover, but far more advanced. They might be here now, watching and waiting for us to become significantly advanced enough to become interesting to whatever life form sent them. Perhaps they're waiting for us to make a scientific breakthrough, or finally settle our disputes over land, etc. Who knows, but any significantly advanced race isn't just traveling around in a ship for no good reason, they'd send scouts out first to find something interesting and apparantly we are not that interesting yet

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    18. Re: Neighbors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe because the editors thought Slashdot would enjoy mocking someone with very little understanding of knowledge management and information seeking - but it's just a guess.

  3. Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I mean seriously, If i wanted this I would talk to my friend on mushrooms. This is not new in any sense of the word.

    1. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not new in any sense of the word.

      I, for one, blame the G.O.P.

    2. Re:Why is this here? by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The saddest part is the self contradiction:

      How would you change if you had instant brain-level access to all information. How would you change if you were twice as smart as you are now. How about ten times as smart? (Don't answer, truth is, you're not smart enough to know)

      Then tells us how THEY know

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    3. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's even worse is the somehow equivalence of "knowing some random fact" and "being smarter." Wikipedia makes it easier to be smarter, but it also makes it MUCH easier to believe you are smarted... but really you're just lazy.

    4. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, the saddest part is that people think computers make people smarter. In truth, computers make people less smart due to not requiring to know as much nor be able to process as much information.

      i.e. "Just Google it."

    5. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The weird thing is assuming we'll be any smarter in 100 or 1000 years. We're acquiring more knowledge, and a small % of the population is pretty smart, but generally, we're still as confused, superstitious, and bigoted as we've ever been.

    6. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. Unfortunately there's no moron filter on the Internet.

    7. Re:Why is this here? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      This is not new in any sense of the word.

      Eh, who knows? Maybe the mushrooms are better. Personally, I think peyote is more appropriate for these kinds of things.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    8. Re:Why is this here? by Fuzzums · · Score: 2

      And then they dare to say this: "Now, let's leap ahead and think about what that looks like in 100 years. Or 1000. Or whenever it is you'll think we'd have the technology to travel to another solar system."

      --
      Privacy is terrorism.
    9. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that's what you got from the summary, you lack basic reading comprehension skills.

    10. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have the technology to travel to another solar system today.

      It'd just be expensive, uncomfortable, and we'd die along the way.

    11. Re:Why is this here? by harperska · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The summary begs several questions, actually.

      One, how can they presume our mental state would be significantly altered by unknown future technology. History would presume to suggest the opposite of what they suggest, actually. Our ingrained drive for exploring the unknown that we had in the days of sailing ships certainly wasn't quashed with the advent of steamships, or then again by airplanes, rocket ships, etc. and the drive for knowledge that we had in the days of stone tablets wasn't quashed by the invention of paper, the printing press, or the internet. If anything, these advances have only increased our drive to know what's out there.

      Two, why would it necessarily take a time span long enough for our universal culture of inquisitiveness to fundamentally shift in order to develop FTL? There is no reason to say it absolutely won't happen before that arbitrary time. We already have theories such as Alcubierrie's suggesting that it isn't necessarily an impossibility, and even if it took 100 years for that theory to be put to practice it's presumptuous to say that drive in our psyche would definitely cease in that short a blip of our history.

      Three, even if technological advancements did reduce our exploratory drive, what is to say that similar advancement would affect an alien mind in the same way? As the answer could be such advancements would affect us the same as us, the opposite of us, or something different entirely in equal probabilities, the question itself is therefore meaningless and all we can do is hope that they have the same drive for inquisitiveness as we do in the first place. Or not. Depending on the kind of Sci Fi you watch/read.

    12. Re:Why is this here? by Fuzzums · · Score: 5, Funny

      And that's why I love Slashdot - news for philosophers and hypothetical matters.

      --
      Privacy is terrorism.
    13. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly what I was thinking.

      It is sad though, people have always been thoroughly arrogant in judging others from their own POV and then exempting themselves from that same judgement. I can't help thinking this is one human quality that actually holds us back as a species.

    14. Re:Why is this here? by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      well the summary expects that MOTIVE is directly a function of "smart" and that the more smarter you are the less motivated you are to do thinks just for fucks sake.

      of course it doesn't go like that - if they did, earth would be pretty boring already. it's saying that if you can wank you no longer would be motivated to fuck. which I guess is just fine considering that the summary is just on shrooms intellectual wanking.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    15. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No... the stupidest thing about this IS his whole argument. Reminds me of people who zealously support the Big Bang theory fully knowing that BANG is a sound... and in a vacuum like empty space..... there is NO sound. :-L

    16. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >One, how can they presume our mental state would be significantly altered by unknown future technology.

      Agreed.

      I don't see how a higher IQ or a better Siri or whatever will fundamentally change human epistemology or praxeology.
      People will continue to experience felt uneasiness. They will continue to plan and act purposefully to exchange worse states of affairs for better ones.

    17. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Whoever wrote this must be a kid just now formulating ideas about the universe. This is something we've all thought about before and is nothing new.

    18. Re:Why is this here? by Mattcelt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sorry to be pedantic, but unless I missed it, you pointed out only potentially factual errors in the original, not any logical fallacies. So while it certainly raises some questions, it does not "beg" any in your example. (Though I think a thorough analysis of TFA's original premise could find some petitio principii in the author's logic.)

      Here is a good explanation of why that is so.

    19. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 This. My thoughts exactly. And there is no reason to assume humans wil be any smarter in 1000 years. More data does not equate to being smarter, only to have more information on which to make better decisions. We are not any smarter in terms of raw brain processing power than we were 2500 years ago, in fact there is an argument (though I doubt it) that ancient Greeks were actually considerably smarter than us on average.

    20. Re:Why is this here? by dyingtolive · · Score: 1

      True 'dat. I've never heard of this knucklehead, but random stoned bloggers are pants. May he be quickly forgotten.

      --
      Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
    21. Re:Why is this here? by nightcats · · Score: 2

      Really.. Tyma the guy's name is? Never heard of him. Let me know when Zefram Cochrane writes something like this. Then you'll have scoop worthy of /.

      --
      Development is programmable; Discovery is not programmable. (Fuller)
    22. Re:Why is this here? by B'Trey · · Score: 1

      What's even worse is the somehow equivalence of "knowing some random fact" and "being smarter." Wikipedia makes it easier to be smarter, but it also makes it MUCH easier to believe you are smarted... but really you're just lazy.

      Did you RTFA?

      How many years before we have a brain interface to Google? You'd know everything. And its not crazy to think that soon after we'd find ourselves limited by how slow our brains process information. The obvious next step being to augment our brains, our thinking, and in the process - augment who we are. That's what our scientists will be working on then (and of course, are actually already working on).

      --

      "The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.

    23. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the far future, bans like The Rolling Stones will be venerated as gods.

      Who the hell bothers to learn a muscial instrument, these days? "Just Google it."!

    24. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the saddest part is that people think computers make people smarter. In truth, computers make people less smart due to not requiring to know as much nor be able to process as much information.

      i.e. "Just Google it."

      I think this is very valid. If you don't have to memorize anything, all you ever need to do is read something off. That doesn't build up as many synapses within the brain. Just because you have read something from Wikipedia doesn't make you any smarter than you were 10 seconds prior to reading it. Do you comprehend it? Do you retain it? Can you recall it?

    25. Re:Why is this here? by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      Correction: we have the technology today to travel to another solar system in a few hundred years, give or take.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    26. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, really, the saddest part is that books do not make people smarter. In truth, books make people less smart due to not requiring to know as much nor be able to process as much information.

      i.e. "Just look it up in a book"

    27. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who says it was empty space before the big bang? The laws of physics weren't what we know them as until after the big bang, so how do you know?

      A "bang" is not just a description of sound, it can be used to describe any explosive action. Also, in order for sound to travel, all it needs is a carrier medium with which to travel through. Considering that the big bang contained all of the matter in the universe, there very well could have been an auditory "bang" within its confines.

    28. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, no, we don't. You watch too many movies.

      The next nearest star to us is Proxima Centauri, which at its closest is 4.3 light years, or over 25.2 trillion miles away. Our fastest spacecraft are satellites, which have much less mass to propel than a space ship would. Even if we could develop a fully crewed and stocked space ship that can travel at a sustained 40,000mph (the approximate fastest speed we've ever achieved in any spacecraft), it would still take over 72,000 years to get there. That's THE closest star to our solar system, so you can imagine the travel times to any other star system on current tech.

    29. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the phrase "beg the question" means... Wait a goshdarned minute. You used it correctly! Congratulations, that's something I never expected to see again.

    30. Re: Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One simple refutation:

      Imagine if you asked someone how many feet are in a mile. They can now whip out a cell phone and tell you.

      Now, take away that cell phone and ask them the same question in a month.

      Get this guy a copy of Idiocracy, please.

    31. Re:Why is this here? by rijrunner · · Score: 2

      Well.. They have webcams on Mount Everest now, so I could see why no one climbs it any more..

      I am going to have to disagree with the author. Fundamentally, you can not advance your technology, or pretty much anything, without a drive for exploration in one form, or another.

    32. Re:Why is this here? by Zordak · · Score: 1

      Did you RTFA?

      I see you purchased a low-ish UID from B'Trey. Or assassinated him and cracked his 1024-bit encrypted passwords.txt file with your quantum computer. Really, it's all the same to us. Unfortunately, all that stuff he told you about Slashdot being a sort of counter-culture geek site was from 1999 when he registered. Now the articles are mostly trolls (like this one) and the comments are largely from kids who aren't old enough to remember the turn of the millennium. There are still lots of anti-DRM rants, though. Sorry if you're disappointed. Welcome, anyway.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    33. Re:Why is this here? by Hamsterdan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Depends on people I guess. For some of us, it actually makes people more knowledgeable . I learned a heck lot more researching designs for my OTA antenna system just by lurking in forums and reading Wikis for a month than in my whole RF Communications year back in CEGEP. My library network only has *one* book on antenna design for the whole Montreal island, and it's been rented out for at least 2 weeks now...

      But for most users, I tend to agree.

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    34. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because greater intelligence and knowledge will likely open new avenues of possibility for making those states of affairs better than a manned trip out to some piece of random space dust (the Earth). Imagine having modern technology back in the caveman days. You'd be able to accomplish much more than a species with stone blades and animal hides.

      If any beings are so advanced, they'd probably send automated (possibly nano-scale) probes to study things.

    35. Re:Why is this here? by krammit · · Score: 1

      I'd disagree. The genius is sometimes more in the question than the answer.

      --
      "Watch your cornhole, bud."
    36. Re:Why is this here? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      One, how can they presume our mental state would be significantly altered by unknown future technology. History would presume to suggest the opposite of what they suggest, actually.

      Not at all. Our mental state has been greatly transformed by two previous inventions -- speech and writing. We are now in the midst of the third great transformation, brought about by a new communications method: networked humanity.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    37. Re:Why is this here? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "The saddest part is the self contradiction"

      This.

      How does OP pretend to know what an alien race might think? Especially one that is many times smarter than he is?

    38. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not memorizing endless facts and figures that you can just look up makes one less able to process as much information? Huh?

    39. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the saddest part is that people think computers make people smarter. In truth, computers make people less smart due to not requiring to know as much nor be able to process as much information.

      i.e. "Just Google it."

      But what happens when the degree of integration between humans and the information that's 'out there' becomes as tight as that which currently exists between us and the information in our own heads? Googling will become indistinguishable from simple remembering and people will be able to answer most answerable questions readily. When this happens, what will it mean to be 'smart'?

    40. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "History would presume to suggest the opposite of what they suggest, actually."

      History actually blows all that garbage in the summary (and presumably the rest of the wasted effort) away entirely. If the technological advancement of society changed human nature in 1,000 it would have over the last thousand, same with the "looks like today" BS. Why would aliens come here? For one of the same reasons we would go to space. It doesn't matter what species you are your core needs for resources would be similar, and if they knew of intelligent life on another planet they would want to trade, enslave or destroy them.

      Whoever wrote that crap is hardly intellectual, nor did they give their discourse much thought. I would rate this story, -1 Troll.

      ______________________________________________
      I post anonymously in protest of the new /. overlords.

    41. Re:Why is this here? by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      You will never replace timely, intuitive thinking skills with instantaneous access to all "knowledge"....access to all knowledge will amount to differing viewpoints just as it does here on the old /., regarding the same given facts. YES, an accumulation of other people's proven doctrines is a good baseline for intelligence, but true genius all too often involves a momentary leap of imagination that is above and beyond what is "known". The game of life is like the game of comebacks, and thinking of a good one the next morning in the shower is just lame. Most points are awarded for speed.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    42. Re:Why is this here? by tmosley · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Computers allow us to specialize more. There is much less need to learn numerous facts when those facts are readily available. That is the old definition of "smart". The new definition of smart will be more along the lines of "the ability to correlate the numerous facts that are known to generate new knowledge or new processes, or new content in general".

      Further, when the author said "smarter", they meant, he is likely referring to increasing brainpower through artificial means.

      Reminds me of a story I read recently. In it, humanity had chosen to submit itself to life inside of a computer run by a self-improving AI. One of the most interesting parts of the story was that those who lived inside actually experienced extreme time dilation, as the AI was programmed to help people satisfy their values. Some people chose to live life much as they lived it in the real world, becoming so called "loop immortals", who basically didn't change over the millenia that passed in the blink of an eye in the real world, while others chose to have their mental abilities augmented. The AI continued to expand its processing power, searching for ways to avoid the heat death of the universe (it had found more than a dozen potential paths to survive the end of the universe) and also searching for other "humans" throughout the cosmos to take in.

      The point is that even with the premise proposed by the author, it is no less likely that we would one day meet an alien being. Here's to hoping that it was programmed to be friendly, and not to eat our planet and star out from underneath us.

    43. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He wrongly assumes that knowledge is the drive for exploration. That is not the case. I could live in the artic and have all the knowledge in the universe, but still want to vacation in florida. There are many many reasons for a species to leave their environment and none of them have to be knowledge.

    44. Re:Why is this here? by eyenot · · Score: 1

      I like this comment. When I came to read the comments on this article, I didn't know what to expect, but this comment was it.

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    45. Re:Why is this here? by theshibboleth · · Score: 1

      I agree that our more base traits seem to have survived from prehistoric times well into the present, but things like the exploratory drive seem to be redirected actually--yes, there is space exploration, and the technology is more advanced, but the accomplishments are arguably lesser: walking on the Moon vs. having a space station in low Earth orbit. And even if people were willing to make a one-way trip to colonize Mars--a trip perhaps of similar magnitude to our civilization as crossing the Atlantic was for Renaissance Europeans--there does not seem to be sustained initiative and funding from government to accomplish it. Even so, explorations are made, but they are largely being made inwardly, with computers in countless fields including math and medicine.

    46. Re:Why is this here? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Depends on how you define smart. By not remembering vast numbers of subtle details we have the capacity for more and more generalities, and we can then google the details. I would argue that this makes us smarter as you can't google a topic you didn't know existed in the first place.

    47. Re:Why is this here? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      For some of us, it actually makes people more knowledgeable

      "More knowledgeable" is not necessarily the same as "smarter".

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    48. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A species that advanced would not need to go anywhere, they could recreate what they wanted right where they are.

    49. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I confess that I'm too tired to RTFA but if I understand the summary correctly, the argument being made is that nobody knows and shouldn't assume to know either since it's not possible to know.

      I've heard similar arguments before that aliens with the technology to visit us would be about as interested in interacting with us as we are in interacting with worms. However, personally I don't quite agree with the insinuation that they thus aren't since if interaction and communication with more primitive forms of life than us were possible, I believe it would interest many of us. Don't scientists constantly try to decipher how animals communicate with each other? I think that.many would want to understand how ant populations (societies?) function and as a thought experiment communicating with them is most fascinating. Curiosity drives technological development and thus any aliens with the technology needed should be curious enough to visit us but we might of course lack the intelligence needed for any form of interaction instead of just observation. Or if - hypothetically - aliens have the technology not because they're curious (anymore) but because their technology reached a stage where it became self-developing and their own curiosity faded but in that scenario we would face the same contact with alien technology instead of the life forms (although we would probably not comprehend the difference). I do, however, accept the argument that was made to the extent that for a life form that is 10 000 times smarter than us, contacting and interacting with us might be as high on the list of priorities as contacting and interacting with worms is for us; something which only a handful of the most interested scientists pursue but that most find "cool", when results are presented.

    50. Re:Why is this here? by steelfood · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The premise of the summary is fatally flawed in and of itself. It starts by equating the accessibility and breadth of knowledge to intelligence, and special* intelligence at that. In making the assumption, it posits that a species with greater intelligence would not be interested in the same things that species with lower intelligence would.

      To begin with, knowledge and intelligence are two very different domains. Having greater knowledge is not equivalent to possessing greater intellectual ability, and it is an even further stretch to equate it with special intelligence. Yes, greater intelligence implies greater breadth of knowledge, but this is true only individually. And the relationship between the two is an implication, not an equivalence.

      Secondly, there is nothing indicative in our historical (we know our history, right?) record to even remotely indicate that we as a species has grown more intelligent over time. In fact, I would argue that the distribution of intelligence among the popuplation today is the same as (or even skewed in the negative direction) 500 years ago, 1000 years ago, 5000 years ago, and 10,000 years ago. The local maxima and minima with respect to time are also unchanged. What's changed in the past 500 years that resulted in the exponential progress of our society is a sudden stability in our record-keeping ability, which has lead to us collectively retain more knowledge, and disseminate this knowledge more easily. Essentially, we as a species are not reinventing the wheel all the time, and thus we can spend our time progressing other aspects of our lives.

      Thus as the premise itself is false with regards to the human species, the remainder does not follow. Now, to extrapolate this to supposedly alien beings would be an incredible stretch either way. In fact, I would go as far as to say that attempting to do so would be entering the realm of theology, i.e. unsubstantiated, even ignorant speculation. You might as well say that we will never make contact with aliens because the FSM is keeping them away, and be just about as accurate.

      * read, speci-al, or pertaining to the species.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    51. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The summary begs several questions, actually.

      No, it raises several questions. Begging the question means something else.

    52. Re:Why is this here? by dyingtolive · · Score: 1

      Are low uid accounts actually worth something? It might be worth trying to figure out my old password then.

      --
      Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
    53. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might want to visit that link yourself. GP used the term correctly.

    54. Re:Why is this here? by tbird81 · · Score: 1

      Did you RTFA?

      I see you purchased a low-ish UID from B'Trey. Or assassinated him and cracked his 1024-bit encrypted passwords.txt file with your quantum computer.

      I understand you can hack the moderation system using a HOSTS file.

    55. Re:Why is this here? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      ...space ship that can travel at a sustained 40,000mph (the approximate fastest speed we've ever achieved in any spacecraft), ....

      You do realize the ship isn't traveling on rubber tires along a highway? Right? There are several different technologies that could be used to build up speed over that 40,000mph. Even continually accelerate until the ship was moving at an appreciable fraction of c.

      And, yes, that is with today's technology. Hell, that is with last century's technology. Today's technology just makes it cheaper to implement.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    56. Re:Why is this here? by crispytwo · · Score: 1

      Just think how dumb they'd be without the internet!

      People are a lot 'smarter' than before. There is no doubt. "Just google it" first requires the person to acknowledge they don't know something, and forming a question about that something. Then reading about it. Comprehension may be weak, but there is something more there than before. All of these traits are what we used to call 'smart'.

      I'm certain beyond a doubt that computers have given people (those that have them) a HUGE advantage.

      I'm remembering people who couldn't read, others who wouldn't admit they don't know something, and people who spouted nonsense. All of those people still exist. But now-a-days only the spouting of nonsense has increased. And the nonsense can be quickly - on the spot - fact checked.

    57. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do realize how far 25 trillion miles is? Would you have enough fuel? Enough power? Enough space? Enough food and water? Would the ship even function for that long? How about protection from all sorts of nasty radiation and debris?

      Sorry, but no. You can't do it with modern technology and certainly not "in a few hundred years".

    58. Re:Why is this here? by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

      You might be right. What search words should I use?

      ;)

    59. Re: Why is this here? by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      They use to be, until UIDs were removed from the mobile version of /., now all you see is usernames

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    60. Re:Why is this here? by tsa · · Score: 1

      Good point. Besides, knowing a lot doesn't make you smart. I've seen students get high grades whilst understanding absolutely nothing about the subject. Being smart is not about knowing things but understanding why things are so and being able to use that knowledge in new situations.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    61. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone that makes the assertion that access to pre-digested answers to poorly formulated questions equates to intelligence belongs to the burger flipping stratum of society.

      The level of deep thinking that happenend in antiquity is stunning. Aristotle calculating the circumference of the Earth (even though he had only poor evidence that it was a sphere) is an example of that fact that we have only advanced in terms of volume of information, but not quality of processing that information. If anything, we spend less time deeply thinking about anything.

      I absolutely agree with my brother, Anonymous Coward @ 03:32PM. We are superficial fools, and the author of the piece is king amongst us...

    62. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The common use is supported by both logic (raise=>(apply antropomorhism)=>request=>beg) and apparently majority of speakers. It could be argued that this actually IS the correct definition and that to avoid confusion when referring to the logical fallacy you should use the term "circular reasoning" instead.

      Good luck in your quest pretending to be a pedant.

    63. Re:Why is this here? by Troed · · Score: 1

      In fact, I would argue that the distribution of intelligence among the popuplation today is the same as (or even skewed in the negative direction) 500 years ago, 1000 years ago, 5000 years ago, and 10,000 years ago. The local maxima and minima with respect to time are also unchanged

      "The Flynn effect is the substantial and long-sustained increase in intelligence test scores measured in many parts of the world from roughly 1930 to the present day."

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

    64. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well according to Star Trek, warp capable species do not contact other species until they discover warp technology on their own. That concept might hold true in real galaxy. We still communicate by radio waves, where as advanced species might communicate by something else, like sub-space transmissions in Star Trek.

      Also, according to Ancient Astronaut Theorists, aliens did visit in the past when we were more technologically inferior than we are today. Or the aliens have just started to hide it more as we got technologically advanced and have less mythical beliefs.

    65. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intelligence is divorced from knowledge. Knowledge is not intelligence. Your statement that computers make people less smart applies to any information storage system. By this point of view, every advance in modern life has made us less intelligent, so that the most intelligent human, was the guy who didn't have access to any knowledge at all. Pretty much sums up what is wrong with much of the world's view on intelligence.

      I know what you mean, though, because I've heard this lame ass line before. What you mean is that the easy access to knowledge makes it less valuable becuase the person accessing the knowledge didn't have to WORK HARD for it. They didn't have to take risks, spend months of the lives in the dimly lit rooms of dusty libraries struggling to find that gem amid the book worms and dust mites.

      But it does separate those who are good at the mind numbing, boring, useless, tedium of searching through the shit for the tools we need to solve the actual problem from those of use who actually solve the problem.

    66. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People that want to learn more can use a computer to gain knowledge. Just like anything else, it depends on how you use the technology. I have learned quite a lot about things I wasn't sure about before on my computer. What exactly do you use yours for if not to learn something. Are you one of those dull gamers?

    67. Re:Why is this here? by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Okay, getting facts makes for more knowledge. Nice to know stuff.
      Taking a bunch of knowledge and learning to _understand_ something.... takes some thinking.
      But to do, to make, takes even more effort, often much more.

      I can tell you that an inch equals 2.54 centimeters. Yippee. I can tell you how to make a square cut in a two by four. I can describe some of the things you have to do to get that square cut. But until you do it, and can actually get that square cut, you ain't learned shit.

      Some here are smart, learned (the two-syllable one), and do stuff in real life for livelihood, even for invention. Yowzah! I've learned that some smart people spend a bit of time, curiosity aroused, at asking questions about how something works, why it works a particular way, how some things came to be, all kinds questions they started young and never stopped. Some read science and other subject areas even if it doesn't make them money, and further, some read science fiction. Not just for the diversion, but for the stretch.

      Paul Tyma took some questions and thoughts and produced a little think piece that deals with a very large question that not a few people, smart or no, have asked for a long time, and for those who think about "stuff" outside their daily life, it's worth the read - IMO, of course. YMMV, and if it's not something of interest to you, why carp on it? [not aimed at you, Crimson, by any stretch]

    68. Re:Why is this here? by kmoser · · Score: 1

      Not sure whether to mod this "Insightful" or "Informative".

    69. Re:Why is this here? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Can you not conceive of a ship we could build with our current technology that could be pushed to .01c? At 1% of the speed of light, the journey is shortened from 72,000 years, to 400-500 years. And with relativity kicking in, the people inside the ship age slower than the rest of the universe (though I don't know to what degree).

      Even at a speed of one tenth of that, the Centauri system is reachable. It would take a few millennia instead of centuries, but it certainly isn't impossible.

      It's called a generation spaceship, and it's not a new concept. Scientists and science fiction writers have been describing this for almost a century now. The 'enough fuel? enough power? enough space(????*)? enough food and water?' theatrics is just juvenile hand-waving. The only real concerns would be the initial phase of starting it moving, simply solved with a booster mechanism, and the protection from your 'nasty' radiation and debris. So you point out one valid issue which would actually need to be resolved, and talk out of your ass for the rest of your post. Great job.

      *Note: Really, I have no idea what your point is with this one. Will we have enough space for what? Where will this shortage of space be, while travelling through intersteller space? We have millions of people crammed into cities all around this globe, wanting more space, but not leaving the city for the countryside. I don't think space is the big problem here.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    70. Re:Why is this here? by Luc+Mercier · · Score: 1

      While all of your comments are aimed at our intelligence level, time goes by, So does the time of other civilization presumably at a faster or slower rate depending of their galaxy attraction or something to that effect. You are right, we will probably never see alien, but for different reason than were previously stated. There are billion of star maybe more, each of them having their own sun and planet arrangement. Each of them had this little pond were bacteria grew into something bigger. The only difference from our earth is time, when did everything started ? There was a different starting point for each star but everything will be pretty much the same on every elected star. So time travelling will become feasible when star travel will be possible. You will land in another star system just to be a spectator of what happened +/- x amount of year ago or upcoming. But we know better to disturb the logical evolution of another species. That is why IF alien ever visit us, we won't ever know. I really doubt we will see a spaceship coming toward us, they will be cloaked just because they already know at which technological advancement we are at. Fine tuning this ability to travel to another star system will provide us with the required information to decide in which era/decade we would like to travel into. Intelligence is just the fuel to get us were we want to go. And dam right computer enhance our intelligence. why is there so many people believing in faith ? why lots of people say "It was his/her time"? why do all people say "it wasn't meant to be"? what is "deja vue" all about ? At some very infinite level we have an invisible sense of what will happen but very clouded by the rest of our busy life involvement. AKA intuition/guts. We have evolved technologically more in the last 100 years than we have for the lapse of our existence. Get serious people it won't remain calm for very long. On a day to day basis nothing change much, we now have video conference over smart phone, every question can be answered via internet. This technology alone was not feasible 20 years ago but yet desired. We are part of a technological explosion. Body decoration/implants will greatly reduce the need of static equipment. Nano technology will be common meat as chalk and blackboard was last decade. Why is the atom model so close to planetary system? For all I know we could just merely be a part of the handle of this giant mug being consumed by this humongous entity. What the hell man. think outside the planetary system

    71. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it could be done, it would have already been done.

      We don't have space craft with parts that will last thousands of years. We don't have batteries or fuel to last thousands of years. We don't have city sized space craft that would be necessary so its inhabitants don't go nuts. We don't have deflector shields for micro meteors and radiation.

      How long would an ion thruster take to accelerate up to 0.1c? 10,000 years? Where would it get energy from to power the engine for thousands of years? How many thrusters would you need to move something the size of a small city?

      Yeah, you watch too many movies.

    72. Re:Why is this here? by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      The Internet didn't make us smarter. Or even the WWW as you are suggesting with your Google example. They just allowed us to find things faster. Before the web you would say "look it up in an encyclopedia" or "look it up in a book." Yes it took longer but still took all of the same skills so computers have not made us smarter.

      What computers have given us is the possibility to be more knowledgeable if we use it wisely. Examples of not using it wisely would include following the Kardashians on Twitter or keeping up with 500 people we don't know on Facebook but call our best friends. Yes, there may be some entertainment value in there but I feel sorry for people for whom that is their sole source of new knowledge.

      I have little doubt that if you took an infant from a thousand or two thousand years ago and raised them identically to someone born today that you could not tell the difference. Obviously if you brought someone older there would be a huge culture shock to manage. Look at how people have changed behaviour in the past when new technologies have caused disruptions. Are there huge differences between us and a person from even a hundred years ago, especially in the fields of math, science, and medicine. But do you really think that those people would have been incapable to understanding such concepts?

      What makes everyone so sure that having knowledge is going to make people smarter? And for that who's definition of smarter? We know that in countries in which the women become better educated and have better control of their lives the number of children they have goes down. Part of that is having access to birth control which the Catholic church refuses to let people use. Here we have two groups with opposing viewpoints both claiming to have the smarter option.

    73. Re:Why is this here? by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      Computers make us less smart because they are entertainment devices. As the old saying goes, "man uses his highest technology to amuse himself."

    74. Re:Why is this here? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      If it could be done, it would have already been done.

      Why would it already be done? What government or private citizen would have spent the funds necessary for this to have been done? Just because it's physically/scientifically possible doesn't it politically feasible at this time.

      We don't have space craft with parts that will last thousands of years. We don't have batteries or fuel to last thousands of years. We don't have city sized space craft that would be necessary so its inhabitants don't go nuts. We don't have deflector shields for micro meteors and radiation.

      How long would an ion thruster take to accelerate up to 0.1c? 10,000 years? Where would it get energy from to power the engine for thousands of years? How many thrusters would you need to move something the size of a small city?

      Yeah, you watch too many movies.

      In the mid 1970's they built a spaceship that was able to survive 35 years with no repairs, going from the inner solar system, past the outer planets, through the Kuiper belt and pierce the edge of the solar system itself. Do you really think we can do no better now? Keep everything simple, and as low-tech as possible. Food, water filtration, oxygen, etc could be mostly biological as opposed to manufactured or chemical. For the technology, make it as solid as possible and have redundant systems and spare parts. Again, if the ship can attain an appreciable fraction of light speed, the journey will only be centuries, not millennia, and we have systems here on Earth that are still functional after several centuries of use.

      Are you under the impression I am claiming we could go out right this minute and build a generational spaceship and fly it to Alpha Centauri ourselves? Because that is not what I claimed. It may take a century (or three) to build the ship and stock it with food and fuel. But that isn't transit time.

      As for the energy source to speed the ship on its way, why do you assume I mean ion thrusters? A better candidate would be thrust using nuclear explosions, which despite your quip about movies, is actually feasible. Others include using nuclear power plants to superheat non-reactive propellent. And as I posted earlier, a system similar in concept to the space shuttle's external rockets could be used to get it moving and then left behind to reduce mass. This could be what is powered by the nuclear explosions, so any damage to it would not be done to the spaceship itself, which by design would be protected from any such issue.

      Finally, surely you realize these ships would not be built on Earth. They would not be built near Earth. They would probably be built in orbit around Jupiter, just to reduce the amount of thrust needed when it is time to move them. Not to mention some of the material used would be mined from Jupiter or its moons.

      So, overall, I reject your reasoning in its entirety for being short sighted. Your arguments would have kept mankind in the Dark Ages, since no exploration by ship would have been undertaken. But I do thank you for your time.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    75. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, most people given access to all of Wikipedia spend their efforts... watching girlfights on YouTube and playing FarmVille.

    76. Re:Why is this here? by GigaBurglar · · Score: 1

      I disagree. You can't expect a person to know and remember everything. Before Google - were you stupid for looking up answers in a book? At the same time, after looking it up, was there even the slightest chance that you would have forgotten it? What you remember is essentially represented, physically, as strong synaptic patterns. These patterns naturally form an understanding of frequently used knowledge - do I have to Google how to ride a bike? It was, at one time, challenging and I had to practice it - but I got there.. if I wanted to further my understanding; looking it up is just the first step. If I forget it it's probably because it wasn't important or the interest to further myself, in that regard, wasn't there. Anything that your brain needs to succeed will most likely become second nature over time.. everything else is nearly completely forgotten. It's still useful to have information on hand because we simply cannot remember everything (or even know it beforehand).

      Intelligence is not only the ability to remember things but a mixture of imagination, critical thought, understanding, and knowledge.. amongst other things. Everyone remembers something. It's human nature to take your own path in life - you can't blame a system that throws shit to a wall to see what sticks.. people are people, what you perceive to be dumb dumb or not, they are part of an evolving system.

      I cannot really articulate what I want to say very well - I'm really bad at expressing what I want to say. I do understand it though. Surprisingly enough I wouldn't have done if indexed information wasn't at hand.

    77. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the saddest part is that people think computers make people smarter. In truth, computers make people less smart due to not requiring to know as much nor be able to process as much information.

      i.e. "Just Google it."

      If smart is: knowing things
      Then computers make ppl less smart.

      But i think smart is: being able to solve any problem and fast
      Then ppl who google the answer are truely smart.

    78. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A longer-term goal is developing optical telescopes that could resolve the planet directly. More tantalizing still would be sending a space probe out for an in-person visit — and it’s not entirely crazy to think it could happen, though it would take some patience. “With current technology,” said Loughlin, “it would take 40,000 years to get there. Given our propensity for instant gratification, that’s not really in the cards.”

      Source

      Build a ship that can last 40,000 years.

    79. Re:Why is this here? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      star trek only has that rule so they can make an exception of the rule for every 3rd episode. as hard scifi star trek is as good as ancient astronauts though. both bullshit.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    80. Re:Why is this here? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      I'd argue that's not changing the level of intelligence at all, it merely allows you to use what you have more efficiently.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    81. Re:Why is this here? by ROMRIX · · Score: 1

      'Twenty years ago if I asked you how many feet were in a mile (and you didn't know) you could go to a library and look it up. Ten years ago, you could go to a computer and google it. Today, you can literally ask your phone. It's not a stretch at all with the advent of wearable computing that coming soon - I can ask you that question and you'll instantly answer. ... How would you change if you had instant brain-level access to all information. How would you change if you were twice as smart as you are now. How about ten times as smart?

      Flawed premise; Parroting data does not equate to intelligence. Intelligence requires comprehension of that data. You can google the WIKI for E8 theory and read it aloud but unless your next comment is,
      "Oh, so if you picture a spherically inverted multifaceted poly-dimensional plexoid of random size, add in an elemental variable thermal/mass coefficient linking system based on the gravitational and magnetic field enhanced rate of change fluctuations of sub-atomic particles, then it all comes together like butter and honey on toast.", then I doubt you have any comprehension of what you have just read and are no smarter as a result of having read it.
      Having instant access to all information will not result in higher IQ's, if anything it will lower them because important brain functions are being bypassed and will simply atrophy.
      If this is universally the case with all higher lifeforms then we truly will never meet alien life but for reasons other than those listed in the article. They would have simply decided to stay home and articulate their pseudo-intellect with each other on some alien social network or other type of forum.
      Oh crap, I just realized WE are the alien species other worlds are waiting on... eh, they can wait. I'm 2 "bloodthirsty" medals away from gold plating my M8A1 in BO2! :D

    82. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is like saying reading books makes you dumber, if you want to learn and process the information it is worth the time. A computer doesnt know anything more then the human race, because it was created, and programmed by humans. Your using an outlet to find information, and possibly storing it in you brain for future use, I say possibly because few actually do this..

      Paul Tyma is an idiot, typical of a smart mouth to use memes and then posts a poor opinion to give himself the appearance that he is highly intelligent. This make for good humor personally, get to laugh at other people that have a BS in BS.. I noticed the story starts with "ponder this". I would agree that the human race may not even exist as we know it now. There are so many possibilities as to what we will become, we may all just end up being nothing more then a computer program or a real life SIMs video game.

    83. Re:Why is this here? by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      It's a different kind of smart. Instead of remembering all the information in my own head, I instead train myself to better perform the process of finding out this information with the tools I have available to me.

    84. Re:Why is this here? by wwfarch · · Score: 1

      I agree with your point but you're creating a false dichotomy. Sure, many people can't think very well. Those same people never seem to think "Hey, I can Google that". Someone with timely, intuitive thinking skills and access to instantaneous knowledge is a winning combination. Based on all evidence I've ever seen, people by and large are smart/stupid in roughly the same amounts pretty consistently throughout history. Most people are average and don't do much to help or hinder progress while a relative few continuously drive forward and fight against the ones actively trying to hold things back.

    85. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I agree, although he doesn't give many possibilities why this could happen. Here are two possibilities.
              Once we have the technology to hack our brains, many motivations to do many things we deem important now (like have children, make money, and in particular travel to places) could be lost. Consider a terminally ill cancer patient whose brain is hacked so he feels he is enjoying the vacation of his life or whatever other fantasy. Although his life will soon end, the lack of pain of his condition (and many others with that condition) will eventually surmount the motivation by society to cure them possibly.
              More importantly however is the actual value of physically traveling somewhere if such a future world. The whole need to travel physically to a particular place is rooted in the need to know more about that place. If we can equally well know about that place through advanced telescopes, or virtual reality via mechanical or non-mechanical probes or sensors, then humans physically going there will be meaningless. The level of intereaction may actually be higher than if you are physically there!!

    86. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also feel we understand very little about what distance and space actually mean and a better understanding of these concepts might expand the definition of what it means to "travel somewhere" such that physical travel to a location may actually be a more limited and old-fashioned way to interact with a distant environment. In Einstein Theory of GR and various field theories, the observer sees all actions as instantaneous or immediately present, although causal interactiona are not. Maldacena and others have had some success in formulating physical laws holographically, so that in a sense we might live in a 2D projection of a 3D universe. Then the concept of distance and going somewhere becomes also meaningless because we are already "there' in a sense, but are just limited by delays in causal interactions. In such a world, we could perhaps "travel" without leaving home to these states of different causal interaction (perhaps by making a highly closed system and entangling the internal states of the system with the "so-called" distant we would like to visit).

    87. Re:Why is this here? by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      Most people are average and don't do much to help or hinder progress while a relative few continuously drive forward and fight against the ones actively trying to hold things back.

      I read a "tough-on-crime" article several years ago, the gist of which was a posit defending the supposition that a small percentage of criminals were responsible for a large percentage of reported (statistically significant) criminal events. My instinct tells me this is likely correct, though I have no studies to cite. That a small amount of individuals could be responsible for a large amount of the "collective works", in any accounting of the merits, seems very likely.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    88. Re:Why is this here? by harperska · · Score: 1

      Two weeks later, I come back and see that half of the comments are about whether or not I used 'begs the question' correctly rather than the actual points I made. Two week old slashdot articles probably aren't read very frequently, but just in case for the sake of future digital archaeologists who may stumble across this thread, I will set the story straight.

      To my understanding, I used 'begging the question' correctly.

      Begging the question means to use an unproven assumption as a basis for an argument. The author's argument was that advancing technology will make a hypothetical alien race not want to explore the galaxy and therefore never make contact with us. For that argument to be valid, three assumptions must be made that the author assumes are true and makes no attempt to prove. First, technology advancement causes a decrease in drive for exploration. Second, FTL won't be invented until technology has advanced to the point that our drive for exploration is completely wiped out. Third, this effect of technology is absolutely universal among all possible intelligent life in the universe. I then point out why these three assumptions are wrong, and therefore the author's argument is bullshit.

  4. the only thing worth coming for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    resources

    1. Re:the only thing worth coming for by BenSchuarmer · · Score: 2

      I don't see the economics of that. It's going to take a lot of resources for somebody to get from another habitable planet to here.

    2. Re:the only thing worth coming for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly! And once they use all those resources to get here, what do you think they are going to need more of? Resources! Do you see how your argument eats itself?

    3. Re:the only thing worth coming for by jythie · · Score: 2

      Even if it doesn't take all that much resources (i.e. someone discovers some kind of short-cut drive that is cheap to operate), chances are most systems are going to have pretty much the same raw materials.

      Though such a move would probably be rooted in political or social priorities rather then strict economical ones, getting away from rules or consequences for instance. There is also the question, of course, of how common are habitable planets... I imagine any creature that makes it to space has enough of a mental need to spread out that they might like the fact there is a whole planet that is not registered anywhere in their list of deeds and thus is legally unowned.

    4. Re:the only thing worth coming for by invid · · Score: 2

      I think that we can safely assume that people 1000 times as smart as us will want to continue living. And chances are pretty good that they will be nigh immortal. Nigh immortal beings need lots of resources over time. But another factor will be to limit competition for resources. Immortal, highly intelligent creatures will want to make sure that other immortal, highly intelligent creatures won't come along and take their resources. It all comes back to survival. Being 1000 times as intelligent as humans doesn't mean squat if you're dead.

      --
      The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
    5. Re:the only thing worth coming for by smartin · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, food. Human is a delicacy in some regions of the galaxy.

      --
      The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
    6. Re:the only thing worth coming for by icebike · · Score: 2

      chances are most systems are going to have pretty much the same raw materials.

      Exactly. Why not take them from something closer to home and avoid all the fighting and killing, just to get some salty water (the only resource Earth has that is obvious from afar).

      If any putative aliens are just looking for Lebensraum, why pick a planet where the most common source of protein also wields nuclear weapons?
      They probably already have a catalog of "un-occupied" planets with adequate food stocks which are a whole lot less contentious.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    7. Re:the only thing worth coming for by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Probably more than we've got. Still, they might do it out of sheer spite, or for teh lulz. I might, if I was a fucking well hard spaaace halium.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re:the only thing worth coming for by jythie · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Though when I think about it, we take it for a given (not without some modeling behind it, but still) that there is a good even distribution of raw materials in the galaxy, but I guess it is possible that is not the case. It is already known that our star system developed in another part of the galaxy and drifted to our current 'between arms' position... I guess I could kinda see something like the area our star formed had unusually large amounts of iron and the area we are in now is unusually low on it.... then we get aliens coming and getting all eye buggy that our core is made of iron and it is so cheap we waste it on things like thumbtacks.

    9. Re:the only thing worth coming for by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      Ha, fighting & killing.

      Like they're going to come to earth before every living thing is dead.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    10. Re:the only thing worth coming for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your posts really suck today. Do yourself and everyone else here a favor and take the day off from Slashdot.

    11. Re:the only thing worth coming for by RatBastard · · Score: 1

      If it's good enough for Protectors, it's good enough for us,

      --
      Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
    12. Re:the only thing worth coming for by invid · · Score: 1

      There are more resources here than what it will take to get here. Profit!

      --
      The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
    13. Re:the only thing worth coming for by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It's nice to know that you know the resource it will take to get to another star system using technology invent 1000 years from now.

      And it assume there aren't generation ships, or people travel in a slow expansion, so its not one large leap.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    14. Re:the only thing worth coming for by dhasenan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Well sir, we've pretty much exhausted the available resources around this star, and worse, the star's going to go nova soon."

      "The Kuiper belt?"

      "Mined out fifty thousand years ago."

      "The Oort cloud?"

      "Slim pickings. At the current rate, we've got enough for another century at the outside."

      "Dammit, you've got to give me something!"

      "Well, there *are* other stars..."

      "Don't be ridiculous, it takes resources to get there."

    15. Re:the only thing worth coming for by lahvak · · Score: 1

      Somehow, I don't think they will be coming by icebike.

      --
      AccountKiller
    16. Re:the only thing worth coming for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There really needs to be a "-1, FUCKING STUPID" moderation option.

    17. Re:the only thing worth coming for by sycodon · · Score: 2

      So all that anal probing was actually marinade injections?

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    18. Re:the only thing worth coming for by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the fact that gravity wells make the resources at the bottom of them expensive- when most of the same resources are *equally available* in microgravity situations. If I had the technology to make giant space ships and mine other planets, why the hell wouldn't I just grind up an asteroid belt for the ore?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    19. Re:the only thing worth coming for by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Except, there likely aren't.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    20. Re:the only thing worth coming for by melikamp · · Score: 2

      And don't forget about the Human horn!

    21. Re:the only thing worth coming for by icebike · · Score: 1

      Like they're going to come to earth before every living thing is dead.

      Maybe they are looking for a good source of protein. The fresher the better.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    22. Re:the only thing worth coming for by jythie · · Score: 1

      That all depends on the cost of lift vs the cost of environmental support. Planetary operations mean cheap structures, you can spread out, free air, as much organics as you can harvest, no (or low) water processing cost, etc. You also have all your resources within a few thousand miles of each other... use up an iron deposit? Another one is not far away. Asteroids are pretty diffuse. There is also the quality of life element, workers (either low cost cattle or high priced operators) might not like being cooped up and are more willing to work when there is lots of open space.

      And of course there is the question of how expensive life costs are. If you do not care about the place long term you can always use atomic rockets, and who knows what other tech might be involved. Countergrav, or even just a skyhook (if you have a ship already, why not?) might reduce the cost of lift enough to make it nice and cheap. Esp since chasing rocks around in space also costs fuel.

    23. Re:the only thing worth coming for by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Everybody knows it's better grilled.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    24. Re:the only thing worth coming for by dantotheman · · Score: 1

      Depends on what resources you have in mind. We (earth) certainly have more liquid water on our planet than anything else "near by." If they have found some brilliant use for it and are running out, the economics of taking it from us could easily become profitable.

    25. Re:the only thing worth coming for by Pyrotech7 · · Score: 1

      To serve man!

    26. Re:the only thing worth coming for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Please describe how to "grind" things in a free-fall vacuum, and why this would be useful? Remember, your assumptions are all built on what you've experienced on Earth with a gravity field and an atmosphere. You sure "grinding" works the way you think it does when you have vacuum cementing and no gravity to keep the bits falling into your container?

      Most of your resources are equally hard to get at and equally useless in microgravity. That's the correct interpretation. No other.

    27. Re:the only thing worth coming for by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. It could be that they have nearly unlimited energy resources due to some amazing technological advance, but need matter to expand their civilization. I wonder if it would be cheaper to convert energy to matter, or to travel to new star systems in search of matter?

    28. Re:the only thing worth coming for by tmosley · · Score: 1

      I think you are thinking of human horn.

    29. Re:the only thing worth coming for by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      I would assume you'd do it much the same way a horizontal wood chipper works: Using the grinding gears to keep pulling the material in. Or did you think that a wood chipper only works if stuff is thrown into the bin?

      But as somebody else already pointed out- the fuel used to chase down the material could well be more than the cost to lift out of a gravity well.....

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    30. Re:the only thing worth coming for by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Assuming they don't have the tech to build at the atomic level. Becasue if you can do that, then everything is 100% recyclable.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    31. Re:the only thing worth coming for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And don't forget about the Human horn!

      What's any of this got to do with Shooby Taylor?

      (Ooh oopy poopy, poppy poppy, poppy poppy da shra! Poppy da rah! Soo doo-ba-lay doo-dah!)

    32. Re:the only thing worth coming for by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      "To Serve Man"

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    33. Re:the only thing worth coming for by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      Preemptively killing any potential rivals that have reached a stage that they (the aliens) recognise as being just a few hundred years away from developing FTL (or whatever allowed their own expansion).

      (Don't worry, there won't be a war. They'll just stand off at the edge of the solar system and fire relativistic masses at us. One hit, one kill. Pretty much any technology that allows interstellar travel can be used to kill a planet.)

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    34. Re:the only thing worth coming for by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Out of karma again, you polack cunt?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  5. The Dolphins and Mice ... by perpenso · · Score: 3, Funny

    The dolphins and mice demonstrate that they do want to come. ;-)

    1. Re:The Dolphins and Mice ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We just need to develop a sub-ether signaling device, then we can simply flag down the nearest passing spaceship!

  6. Flying Cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This train of thought sounds like how people in the early 20th century predicted flying cars and bases on the Moon by the year 2000. Transportation was the driving force of technology then and people extrapolated and came up with these crazy ideas. Now we are in the information age and people are extrapolating computers implanted in our brains. I don't think it will happen.

    1. Re:Flying Cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What people don't realize is a fundamental change in technology. In the past decade, technology hasn't advanced much for people. However, technology made to contain/alert/report/log/monitor/spy/lock out people has been the main push by most companies, be it DRM, data mining, data sold to advertisers, click tracking, sifting through E-mail and other communications for keywords, locked down devices and so on.

      We may not have moon bases, we may not have brain implants, but if one can extrapolate from today's technology, what will be the thing that we will have is shackles and prisons unimaginable today. Perhaps Dune style pain-amplifiers which are turned on should someone pass an opinion threshold, or mandatory "re-education", Clockwork Orange style should someone dislike the latest celebrity by a certain margin.

      The '70s were about tech. The '90s were about networked communication. This decade seems to be about control, surveillance, and containment of the population.

    2. Re:Flying Cars by jythie · · Score: 0

      To build off that, there is also a pervasive idea that science will simply continue on and that there will always been increases and improvements, when it is possible that we will hit some physical limits that there is no getting past. We could reach a point where, at least on the lower (math, physics, chemistry) there simply is nothing left to figure out and no new capabilities/technologies will ever come out of those domains again.

    3. Re:Flying Cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Computers implanted in our brain? We already have them. Cochlear implants, experimental corneas etc. Brains are complicated, but still wetware, and are very moldable. The input electrodes we now can produce are extraordinary. give it a decade and see where we get.

    4. Re:Flying Cars by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 2

      A practical and affordable flying car? Yes, we seem to have missed the mark on that. But even if we hadn't, there are a lot of collateral obstacles to actually "putting one in every garage". For example, I know far too many people who should not be driving a car, let alone an aircraft.

      Moon base? I think the obstacles were much more political than technological. It's been almost 44 years since the first maned Moon landing (and safe return on the first try). Politics shut that program down Realistically, we only did Skylab because we already had almost all the hardware needed - but NASA's engineers and contractors did it. If nothing else, I'm sure they could have successfully and safely landed a Saturn third stage on the Moon.

      Implanting computers in/near our brains? We already have implanted devices to grant vision to the blind and we are making a lot of progress with using brain signals to control devices. Don't know about you, but I know some people who are already trying to volunteer for a brain implant. Maybe not all who now claim they want such an implant would actually go through with it, but I'm sure some of them really would. Not that I think this is a good idea, I just see politics as the main obstacle to this.

      .

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
    5. Re:Flying Cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the '00s? Or do they not matter? I want a label for them too, dammit!

    6. Re:Flying Cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The '80s were all about big hair and global thermonuclear war

    7. Re:Flying Cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy, this is not a time to commit sociology of control-ism. :)

    8. Re:Flying Cars by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Flying cars have not come because of regulatory impediments. That is the only thing that has stopped us from having one in every garage at a reasonable price. Don't like it? Lobby to have the FAA shut down.

    9. Re:Flying Cars by geekoid · · Score: 0

      I here some yahoo saying that all the time. The tech hasn't changed like it did back in the xx's.
      Looking back it seems like the grand changes, but a the time? it was just another step.
      We have materials that can repair themselves.
      We have swarm robotics.
      We have a software program the can make formulas the provide mathematics formulas based on nothing but a set of data. mathematic formulas that work with 100% predictability and that no human understands..

      Please.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:Flying Cars by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No, they haven't come about becasue giant rotating blades are noisy and expensive to run.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    11. Re:Flying Cars by Troed · · Score: 1

      Now we are in the information age and people are extrapolating computers implanted in our brains. I don't think it will happen.

      http://scienceblogs.com/sciencepunk/2013/02/20/implanted-bionic-eye-allows-the-blind-to-see-again/

      http://news.discovery.com/tech/biotechnology/two-rats-communicate-brain-to-brain-130227.htm

      I see no reason why I wouldn't want more bandwidth between my mind and the Internet. Keyboards and touchscreens are clumsy.

    12. Re:Flying Cars by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      If you bother to study enough airplane and automobile technology, you will learn that a flying car for general purpose use is not practical. Consider that you'd want something smaller than about 20 feet by 10 feet. Make some simplifying assumptions: it never needs to travel on roads, cutting out the weight of wheels. Vertical takeoff and landing is required, all travel is between home and parking lots. Controls must be automatic and thrust in all directions must be adequate to take off and land in 60 mph gusting winds. Load capacity should exceed 400 pounds. Operating costs should not be excessive, and the vehicle must be very reliable. Initial cost shouldn't be excessive.

      How would you accomplish that? You're pretty much limited to a helicopter design, and they're expensive and require an awful amount of maintenance

      On the other hand, if you want a car that you can drive to an airfield and take off there, fly, then land and drive to your destination, you need some sort of folding or collapsible wing. It would be difficult to make the car sturdy and roadworthy. In the end, the resultant car is peculiar and inferior, and the resultant airplane inferior also.

      Some day, better engines, better materials, and better automatic controls may make one or both of these technologies not excessively expensive, but given the state of the art, it's not reasonable to expect it to have happened yet.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    13. Re:Flying Cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I had to guess, I'd guess the next new technology boom to be in biology. We're making some exciting fundamental progress in terms of understanding brains, genetic engineering, aging, diseases, brain computer interfaces. This fundamental progress seems likely to lead to practical breakthroughs that change what we think it means to be human, and that is maybe the avenue by which our intelligence will dramatically increase.

  7. Wow, this is stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "We have no idea how supertechnologically enhanced superscientific aliens would think. THEREFORE, we can be sure that we'll never meet any aliens. Because we don't understand anything of their thought processes. So we can say with certainty they won't find it logical to make the trip."

    1. Re:Wow, this is stupid. by David+Gould · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ah, but see, the point of the article is that, unlike all the rest of us, this guy actually is smart enough to predict exactly how our 1000-times-smarter hyper-advanced post-human descendants will think.

      --
      David Gould
      main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
    2. Re:Wow, this is stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's worse, actually...

      It's more like, "Because I say we have *ABSOLUTELY NO WAY* to know how these hypothetical aliens might think, or what they might value, I can say with certainty that they will have no interest in us whatsoever."

    3. Re: Wow, this is stupid. by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      And who is to say they want to meet us? I mean they may want the planet instead for natural resources. Maybe to house their criminals.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re:Wow, this is stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, so his 'logic' is so advanced it's incomprehensible to us mere mortals.

    5. Re: Wow, this is stupid. by HaZardman27 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Based on how horrible we as humans can be as a collective, that may have already happened ;)

      --
      Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
    6. Re: Wow, this is stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe to house their criminals.

      Who is to say this hasn't already happened?!

    7. Re:Wow, this is stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Indeed. This article is a bit drab.

      If they have the curiosity needed to develop the technology, then it follows that a civilization has the curiosity enough to want to see what is out there.

      While it is unlikely that anything has gotten any of our transmissions yet, but when they do and they can reach us, I'd wager they might be curious enough to stop by for a visit.

    8. Re: Wow, this is stupid. by happy_place · · Score: 5, Funny

      Based upon the fact there's no Unobtainium on our planet, I suspect they've already been here and taken it all.

      --
      http://www.beanleafpress.com
    9. Re:Wow, this is stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank goodness he's spending his time informing us of this, rather than predicting the future for his own profit. What a nice man.

    10. Re:Wow, this is stupid. by grumbel · · Score: 1

      It might not exactly be a conclusive proof that we never ever get to see aliens, but the basic reasoning is pretty sound. Our whole idea of "meeting aliens" is based on conditions and expectations that will drastically change as technology moves forward. The same is true with a lot of futurist stuff, people imagine what they would do when they had access to all that cool technology, completely ignoring the fact that they will no longer exists then. It will be their grand children that have grown up with that technology and will likely use it in quite different ways then their grandfathers would have imagined. Things get even worse when you throw in the whole transhumanists stuff, when it's no longer about gadgets, but about changing humans themselves, as then essentially all bets are off. How can you predict how you will behave then when you can have a implant that will twiddle your pleasure center directly and essentially allow you to complete change the motivational framework that drives you today?

      The distances and time frames that come into play when it comes to aliens and space travel are simply so huge that a classic visit in 1950 sci-fi style visit will never happen. Before a visit happens we and them will very likely all be post-singularity creates that are far beyond our current biological selfs.

    11. Re: Wow, this is stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Based on how horrible we as humans can be as a collective, that may have already happened ;)

      If you think we're bad, you should see how animals treat unwanted individuals.

    12. Re:Wow, this is stupid. by lahvak · · Score: 1

      One reason they may want to come here is to get away from all the smartasses on their home planet.

      --
      AccountKiller
    13. Re: Wow, this is stupid. by loufoque · · Score: 1

      And they probably took all the dinosaurs, too.

    14. Re:Wow, this is stupid. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Aliens may visit the earth in the same way humans visit the zoo.

    15. Re: Wow, this is stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you think they did all of their tilling and mining? It's not like horses and other beasts of burden were around back then. They found out how useful dinosaurs were and took them when they left.

    16. Re: Wow, this is stupid. by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      We stopped doing that hundreds of years ago.

      Well .. kinda ... We don't do it as publicly without what we have decided is our legal process. ... or we can declare a war against them. ... or no one else is looking. ... or we can silence the witnesses.

      No, we're not as bad as wild animals. We're much worse.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    17. Re:Wow, this is stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe just curiosity of something so alien? Ok maybe they might not come here depending on how close some other primitive culture is to to them but surely they would go somewhere?

    18. Re:Wow, this is stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He must be crazy smart, I bet he knows the proof to the Riemann hypothesis, but likes to watch people stretch their scrawny minds.

    19. Re: Wow, this is stupid. by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Apparently, we still have tons of energon deposits though.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    20. Re:Wow, this is stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, this guy is so intelligent... He must be an alien! From the future!

    21. Re: Wow, this is stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is still some left on this planet. Us poor folks call it gold.

    22. Re: Wow, this is stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll be bringing a book with them, and offer to bring many humans back to their planet or exploring space with them.
      As we struggle to translate their language, we will after some time manage to translate the title... "To Serve Man".

    23. Re: Wow, this is stupid. by 5KVGhost · · Score: 1

      "Think back! Remember the Cretaceous Era? Happy dinosaurs, whole mountains of Unobtainum! All for us!"

      "And remember when somebody came along, and they took all our Unobtainium? And we never found out who it was?"

      (points up into the sky toward Kepler-62)

      "It was them."

      And a new Golden Age is born.

    24. Re: Wow, this is stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How would you know?

      If it's unobtainable then theres no way to get a sample to know it's there

    25. Re:Wow, this is stupid. by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      Exactly, who's to say that dumb people aren't a rare commodity in the greater galactic economic system. This would make Earth VERY valuable!

  8. Can we tag articles as !news or opinion please? by newcastlejon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm really not interested in opinion pieces (especially ones that ramble on as much as this one) and would like to filter them off my front page.

    --
    If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    1. Re:Can we tag articles as !news or opinion please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no funny mod on this?

    2. Re:Can we tag articles as !news or opinion please? by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      no funny mod on this?

      I was being serious. In retrospect, I should just start ignoring any article whose title starts with "Why...".

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    3. Re:Can we tag articles as !news or opinion please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you mean like CNN/MSNBC/FoxNews?

    4. Re:Can we tag articles as !news or opinion please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly... couldn't just determine from the headline that it was a fluff filler piece?

    5. Re:Can we tag articles as !news or opinion please? by burning-toast · · Score: 1

      Probably best to ignore anything ending in a ? as well.

      - Toast

  9. Compassion? by oscord · · Score: 1

    Maybe they'll do it out of compassion, to find someone to help to?

    1. Re:Compassion? by emho24 · · Score: 1

      The article attempts to rule out any logical reasons for aliens to visit us. What if they are just cthulhu style evil and wish our destruction / consumption? Not as fun to think about compared to your compassionate aliens.

      --
      You must gather your party before venturing forth.
    2. Re:Compassion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they'll do it out of compassion, to find someone to help to?

      To help to..... write grammatically correct sentences?

    3. Re:Compassion? by Saethan · · Score: 1

      Probably more out of boredom, like blowing up GI-Joes with firecrackers.

    4. Re:Compassion? by Elder+Entropist · · Score: 2

      Cthulu is not evil, just amoral or uncaring.

      And little microorganisms: http://science.ubc.ca/news/697

    5. Re:Compassion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The article attempts to rule out any logical reasons for aliens to visit us. What if they are just cthulhu style evil and wish our destruction / consumption? Not as fun to think about compared to your compassionate aliens.

      Or that they planted us here thousands of years ago and are returning to harvest when we reach around 8-10 billion "Units".

    6. Re:Compassion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly that error was typographical and not grammatical...

      That's right, you just got mistake-nazi-nazi'd

    7. Re:Compassion? by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      cthulhu style evil and wish our destruction / consumption

      Cthulhu doesn't wish our destruction or consumption. He just doesn't care how many people get stomped on or consumed, because people are utterly insignificant and unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    8. Re:Compassion? by war4peace · · Score: 1

      I wonder how HUGE microorganisms look like.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  10. lame by HPHatecraft · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The question of why aliens might 'want to come here' is probably fundamentally flawed because we are forming that question from our current (tiny) viewpoint. The word 'want' might not apply at all to someone 1000 times smarter than us.

    Who cut the cheese? This can so easily be turned on it's head. It would be just as easy to posit that said aliens, because of their intelligence and enlightened nature, have made it their life's purpose to seek out primitive cultures and assist in their evolution.

    Or seek out life forms and destroy their plants. Sort of the galactic equivalent of driving down the highway and shooting road signs. Highly populated, spherical road signs, with significant mass (and gravity).

    1. Re:lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sort of the galactic equivalent of driving down the highway and shooting road signs. Highly populated, spherical road signs, with significant mass (and gravity).

      I prefer to imagine it more like whacking roadside mail boxes with a baseball bat.

    2. Re:lame by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 0

      It's more like some silly liberal wet-dream going on here. "Oh in the future, we'll all be enlightened and socialist and help each other and there will be no 'want' and no lust and no violence!" Automatically, alien species must be not-warlike because "they've evolved and become enlightened". So, with no drives, they do what? Sit around, meditate, and die off slowly? Or have they discovered immortality and allowed society to stagnate, which will eventually lead to ruin anyway?

      Even the Chozo know aggression and desire. They have a deep sated hunger for the truth, for knowledge. They reached an 'enlightened' state in which they merged technology with nature and sought to cohabitate with the natural state of a planet they chose, yet they desired power--they desired knowledge, growth, evolution. They saw other races as young, or as evolved near-equals, or as fools who want that which none should obtain.

      People imagine that future humans and any aliens would be like small children. "Enlightened" such that they will not understand aggression or desire, that these will be foreign to them--as a child who is attacked by a stranger he never knew to fear, and doesn't understand why. They believe that, in the future, facing aggression, thievery, and base lust will be a strange and confusing experience which cannot be reconciled, instead leaving the mind paralyzed with no ability to understand such alien things.

      People are so stupid.

    3. Re:lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who are you talking to? And why do you call other people stupid after citing video game lore as an example of real world behavior?

    4. Re:lame by abuelos84 · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with reaching a phase where society-wide fear does not overcome curiosity and hunger for discovery replaces our current hunger for infinite accumulation of material wealth as a primary drive?
      Why is that a "silly liberal wet-dream"?

      For me, that would be a positive progression.

      --
      -- Counting backwards since 1984!
    5. Re:lame by loufoque · · Score: 1

      Do you seek out ants to teach them the value of freedom?

    6. Re:lame by mattventura · · Score: 1

      It's unlikely that either of these would ever happen. The universe has existed for billions of years. It would have happened by now.

    7. Re:lame by HPHatecraft · · Score: 2

      Since we're all conjecturing anyways... what if we haven't reached a certain technological threshold? Or maybe it isn't technology at all -- we're so stuck on this idea that technology is great. If it is so great, why do people suffer so much? Everything from disillusionment with their life to *real* problems like poverty and hunger.

      What if I real sign of intelligence is to *not* work your ass off, missing out on the important things in life, so you can buy a bigger flat screen TV? What if a sign of intelligence is altruism?

      Maybe said aliens are just waiting for humans to reach this threshold of understanding where they feel comfortable enough interacting with us, somewhat secure that the message they are bringing could even be appreciated.

      That's the same argument as the Second Coming happening in that person's lifetime Is it? Why? All of us might be dead and gone for 1000 years before aliens make contact us.

    8. Re:lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question of why aliens might 'want to come here' is probably fundamentally flawed because we are forming that question from our current (tiny) viewpoint. The word 'want' might not apply at all to someone 1000 times smarter than us.

      Sigh. When we can't even us our own language correctly, can you really blame the aliens? :)

    9. Re:lame by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Because it won't happen. That's why it's silly. It's like believing in magic, faeries, and the idea that everybody gets universal health care for no tax increase (this is a real thing: people in America for decades have had this thing where the same people who want free government healthcare also don't want to pay for it--but the money has to come from somewhere)

    10. Re:lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      can't even us our own language correctly...

      ouch

    11. Re:lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but I trap my houseplants in cylindrical prisons and lop off their reproductive organs to make festive displays. This serves as a warning to the ants.

    12. Re:lame by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      Since we're all conjecturing anyways...

      Oooh, I want to play.

      Perhaps there are intelligent entities out there who will interact with 'us' after we assemble ourselves into a higher form of life, just as we have been assembled from lower forms of life.

      Flying around the planet for a business meeting would seem pretty outrageous to a single celled organism. On interstellar scales, we are the single celled organisms.

      We're going to have to successfully grow our population to levels that boggle the mind before we become significant, and even then, we're going to have as much chance to interact with aliens in their own environment as a human white blood cell has of chatting up a cell from a dogs liver. We're going to be structural components in such a scenario, so most of us will exist our whole lives "inside" the "body", except those that are born to be "skin".

      Going further, the intelligences involved would have concerns as far removed from our own that we wouldn't have any chance of recognizing them. Their lifespans would be vastly beyond our own, the way our own lifespan is vastly greater than a skin cell.

      When you get right down to it, it's entirely possible this is already going on. How the hell would we recognize such a thing?

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    13. Re:lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get them before they start fucking with entropy on a large scale.

    14. Re:lame by geekoid · · Score: 0

      people suffer less, and continue to suffer less very year.

      Now this might change with people listening to AGW deniers, the rise of dangerous organic foods and anti-vaxers.

      I suspect after a serious round of disease, famine and plague people will remember why we developed to do thing they way we do.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    15. Re:lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By cosmic time scales, 14 billion years really isn't that long. Our own star is 5 billion years old and ticking. The universe is a baby.

    16. Re:lame by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      The word 'want' applies to the 'God' of the Christians, Jews and Muslims. And that thing is supposed to have created absolutely everything (except itself, I *guess*).

      So if the word 'want' can apply to some supposed 'supreme creator' then it can EASILY apply to a bunch of aliens.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    17. Re:lame by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      The question of why aliens might 'want to come here' is probably fundamentally flawed because we are forming that question from our current (tiny) viewpoint. The word 'want' might not apply at all to someone 1000 times smarter than us.

      Sigh. When we can't even us our own language correctly, can you really blame the aliens? :)

      Yet here we are, smart enough to be able to understand something thats not written 100% gramattically correctly. News for you; most native (and very many non-native) speakers can comprehend huge variations in use of grammar. Its almost as if grammar didn't even exist.

      The main purpose of the concept of gramattical (and often spelling) correctness is so smart-arses like you can pretend to be cleverer than others. To create a group of people who could think of themselves as an intellectual elite because they knew rules about the language that the plebs didn't know.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    18. Re:lame by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      Alien Teacher: And now we come to the planet known to its inhabitants as "Earth". Interesting fact about this planet, the 'dominant' life form actually developed atomic power BEFORE space travel (powered by fossil fuels)
      Alien Student: Wait, if they had yet to leave the planet, how did they test their atomics?
      Alien Teacher: Well .... *adjusts gel sac* we can only surmise, as all life became extinct within a short time after, 1-2 centuries (their time), but it appears they tested it on themselves.
      Alien Student: Oh, that's probably for the best, they probably wouldn't fit in with the rest of us too well, in that case.

  11. Bacteria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We aliens are spending tons of money to find really stupid (no intelligence) bacteria on Mars. Why wouldn't some super smart aliens want to find us?

    Skimmed TFA - not worth more of my time.

    Going back down to that STEM article ..

    1. Re:Bacteria by erroneus · · Score: 1

      That's a bit difference. We are still exploring ourselves, our origins and plotting alternatives to extinction on this planet. We are preparing to expand beyond this rock.

      Super-smart aliens have undoubtedly gone beyond all of that to arrive to their super-smart alien state. Now, depending on what they conclude from their knowledge and experience, they might behave in all manner of ways. Surely the economic arguments posited in the writing make sense. So if some alien race were to find themselves near Earth and had some interest, what would it be? That's the nature of the discussion, but we're simply incapable, as a species of generally understanding any of it.

      If they "wanted" something, we can only guess, but if it had anything to do with us, it could be anything from "zoo exhibit" to "ascendence" or "complete destruction."

      Humanity is a mess as we are today. And with our perpetual pattern of the few taking advantage of the many, it's hard to imagine us even enabling ourselves to think in the way the author has.... I mean as a species.

  12. They will still come... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...because we taste delicious

    1. Re:They will still come... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you know that, in Japan, a rack of lamb signifies insufficient memory?

    2. Re:They will still come... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you keep trying to out-bullshit the article with one-liners like that, you'll never meet aliens.

    3. Re:They will still come... by loufoque · · Score: 1

      Humans taste about the same as pigs.
      I wouldn't call that the finest delicacy.

    4. Re:They will still come... by electron+sponge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Humans taste about the same as pigs. I wouldn't call that the finest delicacy.

      Bacon comes from pigs. Pigs are fucking delicious.

    5. Re:They will still come... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humans are called "Long Pig" in many cultures that practice eating their dead for religious purposes,
      or enjoy devouring the conquered, to attain their power.

      For many, there are more reasons. Face it, people taste good.

      The most luscious taste is the web of the thumb, when crisped up proper!

      Avoid the delicious brains, to stave off Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease.

    6. Re:They will still come... by ULTRAJOE · · Score: 1

      sacrilege! BURN THE HERETIC

  13. They would come to earth for the same reason by mark_reh · · Score: 2

    people left Europe to come to the new world- first for GOLD, gathered under the excuse of converting the natives to Christianity, and later because people couldn't stand their proselytizing any more.

    "Any soul is worth saving, at least to a preacher".

    1. Re:They would come to earth for the same reason by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      I prefer the scenario postulated in the film Liquid Sky. Aliens would come to Earth looking for drugs.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:They would come to earth for the same reason by fermion · · Score: 1
      This is what I was thinking. The assumption is that at some point we would become so intellegent that would no longer have social differences, or breed excessively, or be curious to meet other people.

      What we know is that when travel is difficult, few people do it. What we also know is that even when travel is near impossible, and even deadly, a few want to do it anyway. So we know, at least from the human point of view, if space travel every become a real possibility, meaning more than a few people to a satellite or neighboring planets, we will have people who will jump at the chance. If it ever becomes easy, people will pay for it. This wil happen because of curiosity or because their options are limited.

      What we don't know is if any space faring life that might exist outside Earth is anything like, thinks anything like us, is recognizable.

      This post just makes me sad, because it means even if we don't otherwise perish, in 5 billion years, whoosh, we will be gone because we have become too smart and lazy to care.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    3. Re:They would come to earth for the same reason by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Troy Rising?

    4. Re:They would come to earth for the same reason by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Maple syrup...mmmmmmmm.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:They would come to earth for the same reason by cffrost · · Score: 1

      Troy Rising?

      No, "Liquid Sky," he said.

      Here.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    6. Re:They would come to earth for the same reason by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      I thought people left Europe because Europe was overcrowded and full of feudalism.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    7. Re:They would come to earth for the same reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they came to the New World for SPICES to that they could preserve food without having to use salt.
      Remember Columbus was looking for a route to the SPICE ISLANDS aka Indonesia...

      The GOLD was just a fortuitous happenstance. Actually it was a curse because the large amounts of
      gold and silver depressed the value of these in the OLD WORLD..

    8. Re:They would come to earth for the same reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And don't forget, all the BITCOIN in the universe is currently concentrated here on Earth. If that's not a reason for aliens to come here, I don't know what is.

    9. Re:They would come to earth for the same reason by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Human horn!!

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    10. Re:They would come to earth for the same reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're kidding, right? Tell me you're kidding.

      Because if that's what you got from the textbooks and teachers then they or you or both are really fucked up.

    11. Re:They would come to earth for the same reason by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Got it more from the poem at the base of the Statue of Liberty. Well, that and the realization that Europe is almost as bad as Mexico.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  14. Paul Tyma will be proven wrong in 20 years. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2, Funny

    It is not a matter of IF but WHEN. i.e. When is the human race going to grow up and look outside their myopic & arrogant view that they are the most important lifeform on the universe? Oh that's right, they finally have proof.

    Contact has _already_ happened. It is just NOT allowed on the global scale - yet.

    If I'm wrong I'll be just another idiot ranting that you won't remember. :-)

    But if I'm right you'll be more interested in knowing that the limits to knowledge are not artificially limited by Science; there is another path to Knowledge.

    Beside, the real interesting question is not "Are we alone?" but "Why the hell do we look so similar??"

    1. Re:Paul Tyma will be proven wrong in 20 years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get this feeling like, if I got really close to you that I would hear the sound of faint radio static and maybe someone playing a saw blade with a violin string

      A man carrying soup may assure you not to fear the Orbs, believe him

    2. Re:Paul Tyma will be proven wrong in 20 years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks

    3. Re:Paul Tyma will be proven wrong in 20 years. by Rhacman · · Score: 1

      If I'm wrong I'll be just another idiot ranting that you won't remember. :-)

      there is another path to Knowledge.

      Ok, let me see if I have this right. Rather than apply the scientific method to test an assertion in an objective and repeatable way, the shortcut to knowledge is to just make a baseless assertion and wait. If it turns out to be wrong then you are no worse off, however if it turns out to be verifiable at some point in the future then the assertion is denoted 'knowledge' and we may then look to the originator as some sort of genius / prophet?

      --
      Account -> Discussions -> Disable Sigs
    4. Re:Paul Tyma will be proven wrong in 20 years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that's a hell of a thing for a Forerunner to say. One day our far distant descendants will look upon our works, and despair...

    5. Re:Paul Tyma will be proven wrong in 20 years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cuckoo .. Cuckoo.

      I have a padded white jacket with your name on it.

    6. Re:Paul Tyma will be proven wrong in 20 years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I please have the same stuff you took?

  15. Depends on what they want by JoeCommodore · · Score: 2

    Earth has more than a bunch of rocks minerals and elements. there are surely unique organisms here not only that there is your culture and inventions. There's many ways to do things or to express ourselves, I don't think any advanced civilization has already thought of all those things. Most likely they are just as screwed up as we are and pick the first idea that works... not always the best.... so they would be in the market for different stuff, styles and ways of thinking that can be easily exported.

    --
    "Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
    1. Re:Depends on what they want by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      Earth has more than a bunch of rocks minerals and elements. there are surely unique organisms here not only that there is your culture and inventions. There's many ways to do things or to express ourselves, I don't think any advanced civilization has already thought of all those things. Most likely they are just as screwed up as we are and pick the first idea that works... not always the best.... so they would be in the market for different stuff, styles and ways of thinking that can be easily exported.

      You are right. My prediction is, we *will* be visited by aliens. Aliens with the intent to serve man...

    2. Re:Depends on what they want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also an advanced civilization might have the desire to learn EVERYTHING. They'd want to study our anatomy, DNA, and intellectual output.

    3. Re:Depends on what they want by scottbomb · · Score: 1

      Agreed. The author makes the assumption that aliens would only want to meet us for utilitarian reasons and since they would have no use for us puny, unsophisticated humans, they'd just thumb their nose at our solar system and continue their journey without stopping to say hello. Maybe instead they would want to meet us to actually befriend us, in a "United Federation of Planets" sort of way. Isn't this the main source of our own curiousity? Just to see "who's out there"?

    4. Re:Depends on what they want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our women. They want our women.

  16. Meanwhile, in Vogsphere by tanujt · · Score: 1

    While we're pondering how advanced or 'cybernetic' our apelike species is becoming and what that implies for alien contact, the Vogons are drafting legislation to setup a committee to analyze the ramifications of setting up a committee to analyze the ramifications of building a space-highway through the Solar system. We're not going to be able to ponder much longer.

    Just a few hundred years, given how lightning fast committees are.

    1. Re:Meanwhile, in Vogsphere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hopefully by then we can make the trip to the planning commitee on Alpha Centauri.

      Let's just hope they don't try to ping us for not paying our space taxes or breaking the ordinance on space junk.

  17. Concept Applies To God as Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Just as you can't predict how you would be different if you were twice as smart as you are now, or determine the desires or an alien 1000 times smarter than us, it is silly to decide that a god (in whatever form you like) most likely does not exist simply because he/she/it doesn't run the universe in a way that makes sense to you. Everyone is free to believe what they will about God's existence, but to pretend that a projected value judgement is the same as logic is not a valid approach.

    Just sayin' (to no one specific)

  18. Why spend lifetimes getting to other stars by BenSchuarmer · · Score: 2

    when you can stay here and play Angry Birds?

    1. Re:Why spend lifetimes getting to other stars by NewWorldDan · · Score: 1

      What do you think people will be doing on an interstellar voyage? Maybe someday we'll have a breakthrough on interstellar travel, but I think the 1000 year spaceship seems much more probable. And that's 1000 years without anywhere to go on vacation. 1000 years where nothing new ever happens. I can tell ya, whoever gets off that ship and arrives on a new planet is going to be damn good at Tetris.

    2. Re:Why spend lifetimes getting to other stars by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      Let's compromise and just play Angry Birds Space!

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    3. Re:Why spend lifetimes getting to other stars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To expand on this insightful comment: Creating the virtual experience of travelling to distant stars and meeting alien civilizations is astronomically easier than actually do it, and just as satisfying if the simulation is good enough. So there are probably millions of advanced civilizations all around us each one playing a communal simulation where their race is conquering the galaxy with faster-than-light travel. We should join the club. How's Eve Online doing?

  19. Most idiotic reasoning ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Under that reasoning human beings would have no need to venture to the depths of Ocean or the Moon.

    1. Re:Most idiotic reasoning ever. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Okay dumbass, tell me this: If you had landed on the moon when you were 19, how many chicks would you have had sex with by now?

  20. They will come, for a snack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do you think these aliens achieved 1000 times the brain mass of us humans? By eating every species's brains on every planet they found. They will eventually find us.

  21. Andy Rooney by decipher_saint · · Score: 2

    I read this article in Andy Rooney's voice (though I'm quite sure it would work in Seinfeld's as well)

    "and another thing, just WHO ARE these ALIENS anyway?"

    I think I need a time out

    *fumbles with 12 oz soda can because it's too much*

    --
    crazy dynamite monkey
    1. Re:Andy Rooney by almitydave · · Score: 1

      Jerry Seinfeld should deliver all the TED talks.

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
    2. Re:Andy Rooney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't stand that man's high-pitched, whiny voice.

  22. we're already here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....and have been so for the last century running the show and pulling the strings behind the scenes. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Micheal Jackson, George Carlin....all aliens. You humans are a bunch of suckers for a cheap disguise :)

  23. Why We'll Never Meet Aliens by kc8hr · · Score: 0

    Maybe the Earth is a sort of intergalactic game preserve, and visitors from elsewhere are prohibited by law from visiting or interfering with us in any way, like the Prime Directive in Star Trek.

    1. Re:Why We'll Never Meet Aliens by stevedog · · Score: 1

      I've heard we're protected by The Doctor.

    2. Re:Why We'll Never Meet Aliens by Anon-Admin · · Score: 2

      You are not to far off.

      This planet just happens to be several light-years off the main trade routes.

      Fewer than 1 in 20 stars have a planet in the habitable zone.
      Fewer than 1 in 200 stars have a planet that supports life.
      1 in 20,000 have evolved any intelligent life.
      So there are a lot of places out there that are off the beaten path and not visited often. Most intelligent species are not noticed for many years after they become space faring and start to explore. This is just a fact of space being so big and there being so many places where there is no life.

      About the only people that make it this far off the beaten path and come across this little planet are the ones that are hiding from something or the ones that get lost.

    3. Re:Why We'll Never Meet Aliens by XyrusV · · Score: 1

      Except on Christmas, we can see The Doctor in action, saving us all...again.

    4. Re:Why We'll Never Meet Aliens by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      We need a beacon.

  24. This article made me dumber by Alcoholic+Synonymous · · Score: 1, Insightful

    How can we ever understand how aliens think if we have articles like this making our entire species dumber by the letter?

  25. Yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet so many things mankind does have no better motives than: "because we can", or "just for the challenge of it".

  26. Self defeating argument by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

    The author of this opinion piece claims that people 1000 times smarter than we currently are might not want the same things we want (such as meeting aliens), but since he is not 1000 times smarter, he really isn't in the position to tell us.

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  27. What a load of crap. by gurps_npc · · Score: 5, Interesting
    We can't predict the future, or the desires of any alien race, therefore we can predict they won't want to visit us.

    Duh. If you can't predict then you can't say what they WON'T do.

    The reason why aliens would come and visit are numerous. Here are the top 3 that I thought of while reading his poorly thought out article.

    1. They are running out of space on their home world, and earth has some nice views, good water, nice temperature. Perfect place to raise a family without bumping into your neighbor (i.e. they don't want to steal just our gold, they want to steal everything)

    2. They want to learn about alternate biologies cultures, psychology, etc.

    3. Religion. We must spread the word of Latter Day Saints/Allah/etc. etc.

    The main problem is the fool thinks the future will be just like the recent past, rather than the distant pass. He assumes our technology will continue to grow dramatically, rather than incrementally.

    Right now, the most logical way to do star travel is to increase lifespans to 200+ years and develop a nice cryo-statis type thing.

    Which means travel is possible in just about 80 years of technology growth or so, (at least to Alpha Centauri) plus another 100/200 years of cry-sleep transit.

    The original article was written by someone that saw way too many bad sci-fi shows and think the most dramatic, silly inventions are likely, and that we/aliens will wait till everything is all settled till we go exploring.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:What a load of crap. by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Generational ship > cryo-stasis ship imho

      --
      Good-bye
    2. Re:What a load of crap. by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Generational ship > cryo-stasis ship imho

      Life extension >> generation ship.

      Any species advanced enough to spend a ship from star to star at a few percent of the speed of light should be advanced enough to survive the trip.

    3. Re:What a load of crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you aren't going to go much faster than light, it won't matter if you are in stasis or not.
      The distances are just too damn far.
      Things are perfect here for life to evolve, obviously not perfect anywhere else at this point.

    4. Re:What a load of crap. by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      if you aren't going to go much faster than light, it won't matter if you are in stasis or not.
      The distances are just too damn far.

      At 1% of the speed of light you can cross the galaxy in 10,000,000 years. That may well be less than the lifespan of an advanced alien.

      And if they've been able to upload from an organic body into a synthetic intelligence, they can travel much faster than that.

  28. And in spite of all of that by kruach+aum · · Score: 1

    We'd still have the desire to explore, to go places, to see new things, to go where no one has gone before. To actually have an experience. No matter how smart I'll become, I will always prefer exploring a cave system to reading about exploring a cave system, let alone another planet, especially one with aliens on it. I also like the lack of awareness displayed by the author about his own argument. If you're going to claim claims about the future are inherently untrustworthy because of our limited viewpoint and intelligence, don't follow it up with a claim about the future.

  29. Congrats! by sunking2 · · Score: 1

    You've made the running for the most assinine Slashdot submission of the year.

    1. Re:Congrats! by Brucelet · · Score: 1

      Still not as bad as the Quirky post from yesterday.

  30. We would, so why wouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we discovered life on Europa we'd send a manned mission before long. In several decades, if we discovered life in Alpha Centauri, we'd send a manned ship there as well. Obviously we can't know for sure, but not knowing includes having no reason to believe that this trend will stop as we advance or that an alien intelligence wouldn't share it.

  31. Why are software engineers so arrogant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is it that software engineers constantly think their opinions about scientific matters are important? Why does everyone with a degree in CS think they are SMEs in astrophysics, nanotechnology, etc? You're just another idiot building web applications to let people buy meaningless trinkets. Go back to school and study hard sciences for a decade+ if you wish to be taken seriously.

  32. Curiosity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Simple: curiosity.
    After all, if we would know there are bacteria like life forms on let's say Titan, we will head to that quickly. This despite the fact that we are certainly smarter than basic life forms. Yet we do want to study them. And so I suspect aliens that are far smarter than we are would perhaps do the same: study, curiosity, exploration....

  33. I'm not convinced. by greenguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We're hundreds of times smarter than the ancient Greeks and Romans -- and by "smarter," I mean we have vastly greater information available to us. And yet, I'd jump at the chance to go visit them in their time and place. Why? Because I think they were still pretty sharp, given their constraints. They did some pretty impressive stuff. Additionally, human nature makes for interesting drama, regardless of the level of technology. And that would map on reasonably well to any alien civilization capable of interstellar travel and communication with us. In other words, they'd have to have some order to their society, which we could learn in time. They'd likely have some form of metaphysical belief structure, and possibly several competing structures. They have to communicate somehow. They have to have advanced understandings of math and science. These are all things we could learn from them, or at least about them, just as an ancient Roman could learn to use a tablet computer, if they really wanted to. An advanced civilization would know that we are capable of advancing, and that would make us interesting to them.

    --
    What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
    1. Re:I'm not convinced. by Dorianny · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately being better informed doesn't necessarily makes us smarter. We are just as susceptible to the misuse of knowledge as our ancestors were, if not more so.

    2. Re:I'm not convinced. by fnj · · Score: 1

      I fancy you'd jump at the chance to go visit CERTAIN ATYPICAL Greeks like Aristotle, Plato and Socrates; maybe Leonidas, but probably not everyday Greeks. The latter were probably even more mind numbingly dreary, dumb and boring than typical people are today. And the same with the Romans, people of the Rennaissance, etc.

      If you go back even further, to Ötzi the Iceman, I at least would be fascinated to ask him about his life and thoughts, but probably it would be a fairly short visit.

    3. Re:I'm not convinced. by triffid_98 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately being better informed doesn't makes us smarter.

      Pretty much everything conspiracy theorists label as 'OMG Aliens' is actually 'OMG Smart People'. Be it pyramids, calculus, astronomy, geogylphs (Nazca Lines), mechanical computers (Antikythera), etc. Just because you couldn't figure it out without ET's help doesn't mean nobody could.

    4. Re:I'm not convinced. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea. I can tell you aren't 1000 times smarter like these aliens would be, because you are still driven by curiosity. 1000 times smarter aliens aren't curious cause they are so smart.

    5. Re:I'm not convinced. by ShoulderOfOrion · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. Maybe you missed this headline from late last year:

      http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/11/13/191217/study-claims-human-intelligence-peaked-two-to-six-millennia-ago

      Based on a rough statistical sample made up primarily of my neighbors, I believe this study has merit.

  34. One consistency throughout human history... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Based on the one consistency throughout human history, I posit that the driving factor for aliens exploring space, discovering our planet, and introducing themselves to us will be the search for and acquisition of some valued resource.

    What resource might be valued enough to pay for the (literally) astronomical costs involved in finding and retrieving it from across the vast void of space? No idea, but I don't really see what's so valuable about a number of resources we spend loads of cash digging up from under huge volumes of dirt and rock, other than the fact that we've decided they're valuable. Heck, much of the stuff that 'we' decided was valuable, and then found *actual* uses for (eg: diamonds) can be synthesized at less cost, and with more consistent results, than digging them out of the ground, but for some reason 'natural' diamond is more expensive than 'created' diamond. Not because it's more useful, but because it's rarer due to import, export & production controls in place.

  35. also important points to consider by nimbius · · Score: 4, Funny

    1. we cant even universally handle different colors or sexes of our same species, its absurd to think we'd approach aliens any differently.
    2. we still use and condone physical violence at all social levels to solve problems despite it being scientifically ineffective and counterproductive.
    3. no ones proven Gary Busey is not in fact an alien lifeform
    4. it is statistically improbable any advanced alien lifeform would even remotely consider a presence on the same planet as snooki and perez hilton.
    5. Most aliens probably called it off after they found out we quit manufacturing twinkies.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:also important points to consider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incorrect - our violence toward each other is one of the very reasons you are typing on the internet. DARPA wasn't invented because we were looking for ways to share our hopes and dreams - it was created so intelligent people could still find channels of communication in the event of an attack. GPS was a military invention. Lasers, by and large ,including fiber optics, were advanced by the military.

      You could actually say that being physically violent toward one another is the single biggest motivating factor in scientific development, next to medicine.

  36. Reasons to make the trip by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

    - It's one thing to see plans for cool technology we might want to trade, it's another thing to actually have the object in question exactly as the other group designed it.
    - Just to prove we can. That's why we went to the moon, it's a major reason we'll eventually go to Mars and beyond.
    - Green-skinned Orion slave girls.
    - Cultural exchange. It's one thing to see pictures and films and other information about a place, it's another thing to actually experience it.

    Even if the aliens are far more technologically advanced than we are, or vice versa, there are benefits to this kind of trade.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:Reasons to make the trip by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Those are the good reasons. Here are the bad reasons:
      - Aliens evolved from a species many times more tribal even than humans, and as such are instinctively and intensely xenophobic. We are not like them, and thus must die. The Dalek scenario.
      - Aliens follow a religion which demands they spread the word to unbelievers throughout the universe. Painful death for heretics optional.
      - The alien zoo needs some new attractions.
      - Some common practice on earth is seen as such an intolerable evil by their culture, they will invade to put an end to it.
      - Exotic pets are fashionable status symbols.

    2. Re:Reasons to make the trip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - It's one thing to see plans for cool technology we might want to trade, it's another thing to actually have the object in question exactly as the other group designed it.
      - Just to prove we can. That's why we went to the moon, it's a major reason we'll eventually go to Mars and beyond.
      - Green-skinned Orion slave girls.
      - Cultural exchange. It's one thing to see pictures and films and other information about a place, it's another thing to actually experience it.

      Even if the aliens are far more technologically advanced than we are, or vice versa, there are benefits to this kind of trade.

      3 words. "To Serve Man". :P

  37. We could meet aliens in 100 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If SETI finds a planet, and if they happen to transmit their version of the internet, and if we can get their gene sequence, and if their cellular biology is the similar/adaptable, and if we can genetically engineer their genes, we can have a colony of aliens here enjoying their own unique culture (think tv shows / entertainment captured by SETI relayed to them).

  38. What if wow man like wooow? by Arthur+B. · · Score: 1

    Actually if *anything* remains it might be the concept of "want", having goals is pretty central to the definition of intelligence.

    --
    \u262D = \u5350
    1. Re:What if wow man like wooow? by fnj · · Score: 1

      Curiosity, excitement, and a sense of adventure. I should think, if our alien possesses these, it would make for much more common ground than "goals" which would likely be impossible for us to relate to.

  39. Flawed Logic... by TimO_Florida · · Score: 1

    Paul makes a very common mistake: trying to imprint his logical understanding of the motivations an alien race we've never met. Even humans had numerous motivations for leaving their countries and spending years to travel to foreign lands. Anyone who insists that it CAN'T happen is probably as wrong as the scientists who insisted in 1902 that Man will never fly.

  40. "Aliens" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what you're saying is - "Game over, man! Game over!"

  41. I call bullshit... by chaoskitty · · Score: 1

    If there's one thing we can generalize about truly intelligent people is that they are always curious. The geniuses can come up with questions nobody else can.

  42. Butterflies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We enjoy looking at and studying beautiful butterflies and other interesting fauna and we are 1000 times smarter than butterflies. It might be really insulting to us but aliens might come to study a primitive being and primitive cultures. Our brightness minds might even make trainable pets for them.

  43. Matter clearly consists of tiny strings! by geraldkw · · Score: 1

    Of course this whole scenario with super 1000x intelligent beings you concocted is just as far fetched as aliens travelling here to meet us.

  44. Space Tourists by Freddybear · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Maybe they'll just stop over here for a roadside picnic. ;)

    1. Re:Space Tourists by ExecutorElassus · · Score: 1

      I call dibs on the weird artifact that grants wishes. You get +1 for super-obscure soviet sci-fi literary references.

  45. Because it is there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do people climb Mt Everest? Been done before. Got lots of pictures. They aren't advancing Science.

    They do it because it is there.

    Even 1000 times smarter, this reason is good enough.

  46. 3 reasons by dpilot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1 - Curiosity - Maybe they can predict us, but what are untested predictions worth. Think Doc Smith's Arisians and their "Visualization of the Cosmic All." They still needed Samms' lens on-site to test their prediction.
    2 - Charity - Arguably we could certainly use some assistance.
    3 - Boredom - When you've solved that many problems, and when you've run out of "Gilligan's Isolated Stellar Cluster" reruns, you need something to do.

    Really, we have no idea how rare the Earth is - or isn't, and that would affect the likelihood of being investigated by a more advanced type of life. We've been finding planets in the Goldilocks belt, and some of those are nearly Earth-sized. But at the same time we're learning more about how critical Jupiter and the Moon are to our development, so OUR requirements were actually quite complex, not that that needs to be universal.

    But the rarer the circumstances for intelligent life to develop, the more likely it gets that we will be investigated. That assumes that that puts us in the bucket of "interesting things", and that that bucket is smaller than it would be if the galaxy were teeming with life.

    I do have to agree with the article's assertion and reasons that there won't be an invasion force. If there were to be any hostile actions by aliens, it would almost have to be xenophobic fear - get us before we get the technology to get them. If that were the case, we'd never see an invasion force - comets and asteroids are much simpler, easier, cheaper, less risky, and at least as effective.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    1. Re:3 reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps humanity is one giant first post, so we'll go out looking for all the comments and find none.

    2. Re:3 reasons by dpilot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't know if this was meant as snark or not, but that's one of the very real possibilities.

      I once heard that you couldn't have life like us until you were around a third-generation star like ours, because the environment would be to metal-poor. Wait long enough for our sun, then wait long enough for planets, the wait a while for life, and here we are.

      According to that assertion, we're reasonably early on the scene, given what we know about stellar evolution. But even "reasonably early" may be a highly variable thing, leaving lots of room for slop. Maybe a few of them would even be uploads of Ray Kurzweil.

      Give us a thousand years and we could easily have robot probes scouring the galaxy, building a few more at each suitable spot. They could cover the galaxy in a few million years.

      A few million years sounds like a lot to us, but against a galactic timescale it's a drop in the bucket. The same applies to someone a few million years ahead of us. Compared to stellar evolution, planetary formation, and evolution it's a drop in the bucket.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  47. They want to study us the same way we study ants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because they can.

  48. your assuming something ridiculous by maliqua · · Score: 2

    your basing it on the assumption with greater intelligence comes lowered ambition and curiosity, this has always proven to be the opposite, the more we learn the more outrageous and unbelievable our next endeavours become. We will always seek to understand the unknown that is our nature and i think a fundamental part of us that intelligence / evolution will never strip away. p.s. someone tell me how to put cariage returns in a /. post for the love of god why does it never show up right

  49. You're projecting , too. by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

    The author is projecting his own value system on alien's motivations too. I agree they probably wouldn't want to turn us into batteries ala Stephan Hawking / Matrix largely because why? - you can already create anything we could possibly have.

    OTOH it's not IMPOSSIBLE that advanced creatures have an advanced morality / compassion / values that causes them to CARE about the fate of things not themselves.

    Why we ourselves show some primitive forms of this on occasion.

    1. Re:You're projecting , too. by rgbatduke · · Score: 1

      Or, it's at least equally possible that far more advanced creatures have a an advanced morality/compassion/value set that recognizes that the only hope lesser beings have of becoming greater ones in the one, short, pain-filled lifetime they have is being eaten by those greater beings.

      In which case, when they land, their first words might well be, "Wow! Who brought the mustard..."

      rgb

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    2. Re:You're projecting , too. by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

      If it's true, I'll take it. I'm good with cinnamon and a dash of nutmeg. preheated oven at 350 for 45 minutes, wait to cool before serving.

    3. Re:You're projecting , too. by rgbatduke · · Score: 1

      Hey, it works with me and lobster. There they are, relatively stupid crustaceans, ripping up and eating fish and the like and surely not deeply into philosophy. Then bang -- a few days later, at least some of their molecules have become -- me! Along with a few molecules of succulent melted butter that have joined other lipids that are a part of me around my belly that I could stand becoming not-me.

      I'll bet I'd be delicious, slow roasted with garlic until all that fat comes dripping down over the roast, or with my belly meat cured and turned into "long bacon". More a savory dish than a sweet one.

            rgb

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
  50. Speaking of tiny viewpoints.... by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

    The philosophies, politics, religion and entertainment of today has hardly changed since the dawn of recorded history.

    Technology has changed, certainly; instead of watching Greek drama in a theater, we now watch Greek drama in a theater with CGI effects. But history has time and again proven that new toys do not qualitatively change mankind.

    (p.s. - ironically, our imminent ascendance to godhood is another of those ideas that has been around forever...)

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  51. nosubject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wouldn't mind knowing who is Paul Tyma.

  52. In other related news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My showerhead is scalding me when I turn it all the way hot and back down. Since someone 1000 times smarter than me would simply avoid getting dirty in the first place, this problem can never be solved.

  53. Access to machine knowledge is weakening us by erroneus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When I first started driving, I bought maps... first the cheap ones, then the really good street atlas books with indices. From there, I was able to plot my way to my destination pretty quickly though it required I step myself through each turn, street name and all that. But in the end, I learned where I was at any given time, felt I knew generally where anything was relative to my own position and about how far and how long it would take me to get there. None of this was as fast or efficient as a car GPS with traffic signal reception, of course. So after I moved away from my home area to another state, I finally broke down to get a GPS with traffic and all that. The new location was far more challenging to drive in and missing turns were far more costly in terms of time and frustration -- it was a much older area and so the roads are much more complicated, unpredictable and unforgiving.

    But now that I have been using GPS all this time, I find that my ability to learn my way around and know where I am has diminished significantly. I have grown extremely reliant on GPS navigation. I have lost the skills and knowledge I once had. (My knowledge not actually lost... I'm still familiar with my original area and know my way around quite well still)

    I think most people will find the same problem where other technological improvements are concerned. Even the practice of typing instead of writing has had affect on our ability to write by hand for many of us and remembering simple things like phone numbers? I used to have dozens in my head. Now I have just a few and the rest are comfortably in my phone where I have ready access to them. Tech has definitely made us all soft even if it's more efficient. It makes us horribly dependent.

    So what if we went to the next levels? Brain interfaces? Computer data completely replacing our own memories? With intelligent decision making telling us "the best choice" in any given situation? The things we can allow machines to do for us is probably beyond my imagination, but even what I can imagine is pretty frightening when you think about it. What will we become when we become symbionts with the machines?

    Giving up what little I have already lost is reason enough for me to reconsider how much I should rely on technology. But to imagine what humanity might become is certainly reason to consider blocking certain things to prevent our own failure.

    Consider what might happen if we all matrix ourselves until the first outage we experience cuts us off from all knowledge. We instantly become as useless as a 5-year-old.

    Perhaps this is a bit off-topic, but the summary was enough to release a collection of thoughts which have been gathering over the past few years.

    1. Re:Access to machine knowledge is weakening us by seebs · · Score: 2

      Yeah, and civilization means most of us no longer get all our own food from scratch. So?

      Fallbacks are nice, but keep in mind that many of these "failures" are still way above what we could have done without the technology in the first place. They just look worse because we're used to better.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    2. Re:Access to machine knowledge is weakening us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See the novel Illium by Dan someone. TFA is pretty much the scenario depicted in Charles Stross' accelerando: shells of Dyson spheres containing the uploaded human race - no going to the stars because you live in a self contained universe.

      The novel is actually different but in ways that don't change the basic prediction. It's a nice solution to the Fermi paradox.

    3. Re:Access to machine knowledge is weakening us by steveg · · Score: 1

      You're saying that you are less capable of doing without the aid than you were before you started using it. That's not the same as saying you are less *capable* now than before you started using it.

      Are you less capable *with* the GPS than you were before, when you were relying entirely on your own skills?

      --
      Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
    4. Re:Access to machine knowledge is weakening us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Horribly dependent, but I'm happy to be freeing up my neurons for higher-level concepts. Neurons are shit at storing bits, but good at pattern recognition. Computers are the opposite. It's a good relationship.

      Today was a good example. I was trying to find analytic formulas for a new model we're using. I could concentrate on coming up with creative strategies, and use Wolfram Alpha and Wikipedia to fill in the details. I know what tools are available, but I don't have to remember all the details of how to use the tool.

      To make a programming analogy, it's like I have some library functions I can call, without needing to know their implementation. While there are tradeoffs, it's obvious that it's good to have such libraries available.

    5. Re:Access to machine knowledge is weakening us by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Nope, right on the money. As we become more dependent on ever more complex interacting systems, if something goes haywire or breaks, we're fucked.

      How do you build a fire? Who cares? Somebody else will do it.
      How do you grow a tomato? Who cares? Never happen. Nah, all you need is a gun to take the tomato from whoever grew it. Etc.

      We're already so distanced from the world around that children today don't even know how to dress appropriately for weather conditions. (Even worse, they don't know how to play. They only consume someone else's quite narrow idea of play using specialized doodads.)

    6. Re:Access to machine knowledge is weakening us by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Spoken like a fellow older-person.

      My son, thankfully, knows how to play. He is 6. Yes, he plays with the computer. He plays xbox360 occasionally but mostly to watch his videos. Those are carefully metered though. The rest of the time? He is drawing, coloring and creating. Not sure where he got the idea, but I approve. He draws things from his games or imagination, cuts them out and creates scenes and interacts with them. "Paper dolls" I guess but more than that. "Paper action figures" would be more like it. He imagines all sorts of things and loves to run around outside too. But I'm an old fashioned guy and I hope there will be enough "old fashioned boy" in him as he grows up. He'll have the kinds of experiences I enjoyed as a boy... or as much as possible. If I ever teach him to shoot, I wonder how much therapy he will have to go through?

    7. Re:Access to machine knowledge is weakening us by kermidge · · Score: 1

      "I hope there will be enough "old fashioned boy" in him as he grows up."

      I hope so too.

      Seems to me we're the last generation in U.S. to know what play is. A big part of it is getting outside and running around, tag, kick the can, whatever. A few days ago got a ride to the store from one of the people in the house, late afternoon, relatively warm. School was out, we're driving through a residential neighborhood and past a park, and I didn't see any children out playing. It seemed wrong, alien, almost.

    8. Re:Access to machine knowledge is weakening us by erroneus · · Score: 1

      In my neighborhood, I just moved here, I saw something even more alien and spooky.

      Children are playing outside. There's often one or more "community balls" laying around outside of various types -- football, basketball and soccer. I always drive slow because of that and always back into my parking spaces too... I saw a little boy on a bicycle almost get backed-into as a driver was pulling out. (That can't happen when backing into a parking spot because when a driver prepares to back in, he has already surveyed the spot for safe parking -- no one there -- and when pulling out, you are facing forward and have a better chance of seeing whatever is out there)

      Anyway -- yeah... I have gotten so accustomed to the current norm that seeing something nice out there is a bit weird too... even if it is a pleasant weird.

  54. Tried to leave a comment on the blog... by Saethan · · Score: 2

    Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

    This is why we only see 7 comments, all of which amazingly support the author.

  55. Why? Its common knowlege by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

    The reason that aliens want to come here is that they need suitable hosts in which to insert their larvae.

    1. Re:Why? Its common knowlege by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason that aliens want to come here is that they need suitable hosts in which to insert their larvae.

      In other words: women.

  56. This is... really dumb. by seebs · · Score: 1

    Yeah, we can't meaningfully talk about things that are wholly unlike us, but... So far, nothing appears to have changed the existence of "wanting" as a concept, and it's inconceivable that anything would. Which means there's not much point arguing about it; this is off in "what if everything big became small, and everything small became big" territory.

    The big problem is:
    "We don't know what X is like" is not evidence that X is unlike us.

    --
    My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
  57. So, how is this argument different? by Radagast · · Score: 1

    How is this argument different from "The singularity, because reasons, and beyond that, nothing is knowable"?

    --
    --Joakim Ziegler
  58. We don't WANT to meet aliens by bwindle2 · · Score: 1

    Think about it; if M-class planets are so rare, and this alien species can fly faster-than-light to our planet, they likely want to take over our planet (and wipe us out in the process). Why else would they bother showing up? Besides, the author makes a key logical fallacy; having information does not make one smarter, it makes you better informed. Just because you can instantly pull up the equation for gravity or the schematics of a rocket, doesn't mean you'll understand it.

  59. Aliens would be as interested in us as... by goffster · · Score: 2

    about as much as Europeans were interested in the Africans.
    But that did not stop them from coming to Africa.

    1. Re:Aliens would be as interested in us as... by fnj · · Score: 1

      Europeans were VERY interested in Africans as slaves.

    2. Re:Aliens would be as interested in us as... by goffster · · Score: 1

      yes, that was my point

  60. What about the selection effect? by rasmusbr · · Score: 2

    "The word 'want' might not apply at all to someone 1000 times smarter than us."

    Sure, so a lot of aliens are probably going to be uninterested in colonizing or exploring (and those are two very different things) the universe, but all it takes is one species or one subgroup within one species) that does want to colonize and explore.

    I think the answer to the Fermi paradox is probably a combination of technological species being rare and interstellar spaceflight being expensive. I imagine the nearest interstellar species is probably far away and that they're making really slow progress on their interstellar empire.

  61. Neither Toclafane nor Borg... by Beorytis · · Score: 1

    ...had individuals who are more intelligent than modern humans. No need for it. And both collective minds chose to contact humanity. I think creators of these fictional races (in Doctor Who and Star Trek respectively) have more insight into the future of humanity than Paul Tyma.

    1. Re:Neither Toclafane nor Borg... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      More intelligent, does not mean:
      a) they know more
      b) they have high(er) moral standard
      c) they have less ambitious goals

      The guys conquering south america where not more intelligent than the natives, they only where on a higher "tech level".

      I would wager that human intelligence is fixed since about 10.000 years. The fact that we know use fighter crafts, carriers, atomic bombs has nothing to do with intelligence.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    2. Re:Neither Toclafane nor Borg... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would wager that human intelligence is fixed since about 10.000 years. The fact that we know use fighter crafts, carriers, atomic bombs has nothing to do with intelligence.

      Exactly. Any geek who doesn't believe this, should try to read and understand all of Euclid's writings... Some folks from that era were far from primitive, and were probably way more advanced than most PhDs that are minted these days.

  62. Fundamental flaw in the article by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

    If the summary is at all a reflection of the logic in the article, the article is fundamentally flawed. People today who have quicker access to look up information using their phones are not smarter than those who lived 50 years ago and needed to go through a more laborious process to find the answer. Having access to more information does not in and of itself make you smarter. The reason that we traditionally use the amount of information that someone has quick access to as a measure of intelligence is that in the pre-Internet age, the majority of people who had quick access to large amounts of information were people who were very smart (the others were usually idiot-savants of one sort or another). However, quick access was merely a proxy used to determine intelligence, not an actual measure of intelligence (of course the fact is that as we have tried harder to quantify intelligence we have discovered that intelligence is not one thing but instead a collection of related things).

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    1. Re:Fundamental flaw in the article by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      That and the argument seems to be, "we can't imagine what our race will look like in a thousand years, so we can assume these positive things about life from other planets."

      I guess an honest, "we have no idea" article doesn't get many clicks.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  63. Ancient Aliens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Evidence across the globe points to theories and speculation that "aliens" have already been here, thus negating this entire argument. Maybe the aliens found us more interesting when we lived in caves??

  64. Don't buy it by HtR · · Score: 1

    I think this is almost certainly wrong for two reasons.

    1) It would be wonderful if "want" will disappear in the future when information technology, or technology in general, will have advanced in ways we can't imagine. But we are physically limited to whatever resources we have on the planet, and maybe a few close asteroids. Right now, even clean water, clean air, and food aren't as available as we would like everywhere on the planet, and it doesn't look like we can assume that will get better as the population continues to grow.

    2) Even if we had unlimited energy and maybe a Star Trek replicator to create any kind of matter we need, wouldn't that tend to make a species more curious about the rest of the universe? Humans who are barely surviving don't wonder much about other planets when they're wondering where the next meal will come from. But humans (and maybe also aliens) who have most of their wants already answered would be much more likely to look farther afield for challenges.

    In short, I believe in more of a Star Trek/Star Wars future than a Wall-E future.

    --
    Have you tried turning it off and on again?
    1. Re:Don't buy it by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      1) is mainly due to fraud at present. We live in a technological plenty, but we artificially limit things like the growth of wheat to meet demand at a specific price- this is capitalism.

      2) No. Read The Dilbert Principle if you want to know why. If we had such technology, we'd be far more likely to just stay home and make our own paradise.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  65. Smart? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    That has not much to do with smartness.
    You can be as s,art (or intelligent) as you want. If yu know nothing you have nothing to work with.
    Education and knowledge is the key, not smartness.
    The rest of the article seems rather ... inlegible ...

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  66. reasoning? by j2.718ff · · Score: 1

    Let me see if I follow...

    We used to store information in books, in libraries.
    Then we digitized our data such that you could look it up from your computer.
    Now we have computers small enough to fit in our pockets, with access to all of this information.
    Aliens will have even better technology, therefore they won't want to visit us.

    huh?

  67. Tyma isn't smart enough to . . . by tiberus · · Score: 1

    Know the difference between information and knowledge.

    How would you change if you had instant brain-level access to all information. How would you change if you were twice as smart as you are now. How about ten times as smart? (Don't answer, truth is, you're not smart enough to know).

    I so enjoy when people equate having knowledge with being smart, or intelligent. It's rather like listing to someone expound upon 'common sense'. While having quicker access to information, especially the direct brain to cloud stuff, is very intriguing and have a high awesome factor, it's doesn't make your smarter. It doesn't even mean you know more stuff, it just means you have easy access to information, okay a crap ton of information.

    You may be able to quickly determine whether a cup goes best with a saucer, spoon or napkin (this used to be on at least one standard intelligence test) in picosecond but, your still just as dumb as you were a picosecond ago (do neurons fire that fast?), you just and idiot that can quickly access information.

    1. Re:Tyma isn't smart enough to . . . by AdamHaun · · Score: 1

      Yeah, simply having access to knowledge isn't very helpful for knowing what questions to ask.

      --
      Visit the
    2. Re:Tyma isn't smart enough to . . . by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Nailed it.

  68. what if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if we'll be just bored and still want to meet some in 1000 years? Or maybe they are or will be.

  69. They'll be so smart... by vlpronj · · Score: 2

    So, aliens won't have any interest in us, because they'll be so much smarter than us? Just like we're so much smarter than ants, bacteria, and plain old rocks, that nobody studies them?

  70. Intelligence vs Emotion by rthille · · Score: 1

    Intelligence would allow us or aliens to go.
    Emotion would lead us or aliens to go.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan's_ass

    --
    Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    1. Re:Intelligence vs Emotion by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      What if that emotion is apathy towards an inferior species? There's just so much we don't know and any number of reasons no one has knocked on the door. It could the Federation's "no contact" rule, waiting for us to grow up like in the movie _Contact_, fear of our pathogens like _War of the Worlds_, etc.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  71. flawed argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fundamentally flawed argument.

    You're arguing accessibility of information against the human mindset.

    At least here on earth, life (generally) follows certain patterns - it seeks to protect itself, it seeks food and shelter, it seeks interaction, and so on.

    Data doesn't fundamentally change that. People may have a better understanding of how certain dynamics exist and how to manipulate them, new systems can provide new opportunities, but the fundamental element of the human condition is the most primitive - survive, shelter, procreate, explore.

    Exploration is a survival trait as it allows for species to spread to new areas, meaning that it is more likely for that species to survive. Exploration can also yield new resources (water, food, livestock, etc) that can be exploited. That doesn't mean one cannot be cautious or make judgement calls, but those who stay in one place are beholden to that one place.

    Thus, while we may have increasingly sophisticated technology and rituals, human nature doesn't change overnight. Theory holds that while the fundamental properties or "Design" of an alien may differ from humans, they should have similar drives. Entropy is a universal constant, after all.

  72. He's quite wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And it's primarily because he's assuming motives and behavior of an ultra advanced alien intelligence that probably doesn't exist. He's assuming that given their hypothesized advanced intelligence and space travel capabilities they would have no need to travel here.

    I would disagree.

    At a minimum, like virtually every living organism we've seen on earth capable of movement, any advanced alien intelligence will want to keep tabs on its neighbors.

    And given that humans are extremely warlike and rapidly approaching the point where they'll be able to leave their planet and solar system, any advance aliens within 50 light years or so, will be quite interested in what we're up to on a regular basis.

    So if they wouldn't visit for colonization or terraforming purposes they would visit for surveillance purposes.

  73. Subective Flawed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Twice as smart". Access to knowledge is not "smart". It's just knowledge. Knowing things doesn't make you smart. Maybe help to make better decisions by being more informed, but as for your IQ, that won't change, regardless of how much technology you throw at your brain.

    I'd turn this "view" on it's head, and say...if we make it 500 more years, and have interstellar travel capability, and that we find some intelligence we want to contact (safely)...would we not go fourth in our spirit of adventure? Any civilization that has advanced technology most likely has an exploitative spirit that enabled it to advance that far in the first place. Why, after accumulating knowledge, would you not still further your exploration footprint? Sounds counter-intuitive and...narcissistic on the advanced aliens behalf.

  74. Chia Pet your civilization by scorp1us · · Score: 1

    Currently, with the understanding we have, we find it hard to move matter. So why not just transport a minimum amount of yourself (DNA) to other worlds and set up a replication shop. Grow your own civilization at the destination. It's far cheaper and more interesting that way, because when you do meet in the middle, or finally make it there, you'll have close but not-quite distant relatives.

    Also, I suspect at some time we'll be able to quantum entangle enough particles to construct our DNA remotely and initiate civilization by remotely.

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    1. Re:Chia Pet your civilization by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      I've tried this theory out. The highest I can get is about 3 feet above my launch point :(

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  75. Its a safe bet by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 1

    It's actually quite stupid when you think about the idea of any two alien species making contact in our universe.

    I do believe wholeheartedly there is life out there. It comes down to basic chemistry and statistic probability. Amino acids formed in some ocean on another planet that eventually lead to life. I even believe there are aliens that have figured out how to leave their planet and travel in space.

    But space is too big and it is far too difficult to travel across it. Think of the massive amount of technological hurdles needed to overcome even sending humans to Mars, let alone sending humans to another solar system, even one a few light years away.

    I don't accept that aliens are out there that have solved all these problems easily and can freely come and go at will. I actually think its also stupid to assume aliens are smarter than us or have figure out how to defy fundamental physics. It could very well be that all other life in our whole galaxy is nothing more than slime and single cell organisms, maybe the real miracle of our planet is that we evolved into something that could think and ponder about the universe, not just that life began on it.

    And finally I agree, what motivation would there to spend the trillions upon trillions of dollars required to build a spaceship capable of travelling to another solar system, even if we know it contains life, even sentient life? Yes I am sure a lot of people would like to go and investigate, but the logistics are simply insurmountable. Even if an alien race forgoes capitalism and money and profit and all that rot and solely pursues space travel for esoteric reasons, it comes down to a basic resource issue, you have to find enough fuel/energy and material to build a spaceship able to keep a crew alive for many years.

    It's senseless to believe we will ever venture out of our own solar system, and it is ridiculous to assume another alien species has as well.

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
    1. Re:Its a safe bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post demonstrates a limited understanding of human history.

      You said: "But space is too big and it is far too difficult to travel across it."

      It used to be extremely difficult to travel cross country in North America. Now people regularly do it with cars, planes, and trains. In fact it's so commonplace it's no longer newsworthy unless you do it by foot.

      It used to be virtually impossible to travel across the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, now it's regularly done by airplanes in hours and by ships in days.

      Interplanetary travel is difficult now and interstellar travel is virtually impossible, not because those environments are too big or difficult to get across, but because of our primitive technology, just as it was centuries ago with continental and oceanic travel.

      But relentless exponential technological progress continues decade after decade, and eventually interplanetary travel and interstellar travel will become commonplace, boring and no longer newsworthy. And so it will also be with alien species capable of space travel.

      So to say they can't do it because we currently can't demonstrates a lack of imagination and historical understanding.

  76. Reasons we'll never meet aliens... by rgbatduke · · Score: 1

    a) Because there aren't any aliens to meet
    b) Because even if there were, they might not be within (fill in the blank with) N>3 light years from us.
    c) Because absolutely trivial physics suggests that for ANY constructed object to travel N > 3 LY, or 18 trillion miles, it would require stupendous amounts of energy. At one kilometer per second -- 1 megajoule per two kilograms of payload -- it would still take 300,000 YEARS to travel ONE light year. To cut travel time down to 300 years, one would have to travel at 1000 kilometers per second, at an energy cost of 1terajoule per two kilograms, and shortly after that one has to start paying a relativistic penalty and get less and less benefit for each doubling in energy cost. Any propulsion system that involved reaction mass would have to lift MANY orders of magnitude more mass, multiplying this already absurd number by a much larger absurd number.

    True, there is always the chance of new physics, of "warp drives" and other such stuff, but that so far is pure science fiction, and if anything the fact that we AREN'T up to our armpits in smelly alien suggests that either there REALLY aren't any aliens to meet or that there is no such new physics out there to discover.

    I love SF, and am a physicist and thrilled at the prospect of new physics, but when answering an open ended question it is always better to base the answer on what is known, not what MIGHT be true, if life were a Heinlein novel. Based on known physics, we'll never meet aliens because it is effectively impossible to travel in person between the stars.

    Sending one's genetic code, OTOH, might be doable, if you could get it past the customs and immigration people who might not be thrilled at us cloning a potentially hostile competitive species and raising it out of all natural cultural context just to say high to a life form that didn't evolve on Earth.

    rgb

    --
    Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    1. Re:Reasons we'll never meet aliens... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Time.

      The only limitation is time.

      So what gets around that limitation?
      Speed - which based on current propulsion, you have covered.

      Habitat - Being able to create a self sufficient ship that will house generations. I believe we could do that with today's technology if we wanted to do it. Hard at are current tech, but I see no limitations.

      Robots - Send out robots with AI.

      Seed ships - Ship designed to seed a planet.

      You take 'we', and then change it to 'in person'. We as a species? we could. We as in you or I, not likely.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Reasons we'll never meet aliens... by rgbatduke · · Score: 1

      Granted, but now invert it back to the question. We will never meet aliens. We might at best meet their "seed ships". Those seed ships would no doubt be equipped with AI, AI at a level that would made them "the alien intelligence" we are likely to meet. Either they are programmed to avoid already settled planets entirely (wise for so very many reasons unless you are CERTAIN that you have the biggest guns in the galaxy) or else they (think they) have the biggest guns in the galaxy and consider evolution of the fittest to be the fundamental axiom of morality, in which case the robots will proceed to sterilize the planet, or at the very least wipe out all species that could be a threat and greatly simplify the existing planetary ecosystem, and then bioform it to meet their needs and crank out lots of little B.E.M. bottle babies to take it over.

      Either way, we'll STILL never meet the real aliens. One way we MIGHT -- briefly -- have a clue that they were out there. If I were a galaxy-travelling AI with the second directive, I'd just stop my ship out in the Oort cloud, pick a half dozen 10 km asteroids, build fusion-driven ion jets onto them, add moderate directional control and drop them so that they would all arrive at once, with little warning, at six selected spots on the surface of the Earth. Then wait 100 years or so for the worst of the extinction event weather swings to damp down and bring in the clowns. The only hint we'd have that there are aliens in the Universe would be the enormous improbability of a six asteroid extinction event, at most one year before it happened (one year if they don't stealth the asteroids by e.g. painting them flat black or fitting them with a mirrored cone facing the sun to reflect all incident sunlight sideways). I rather think that truly paranoid aliens would arrange it so we would have no more than a day of warning or no warning at all. Most humans would see the flash of the rock that killed them, and within minutes the shockwaves and pyroclastic flow would arrive, transforming them into dust in seconds. Scattered survivors in e.g. submarines that survived the underwater shock waves and tsunamis of the oceanic hits would come back to a surface with no human built structure standing, no food, no plants, no animals, and an Earth with near-unit albedo and millions of teratons of surplus ocean water and fine-grained ash and dust in the atmosphere. First there would be dirty rain, then cleaner snow, and the Earth would ice up, quite possibly all the way to the equator.

      One would hope that the aliens would have done this before, and would have the patience to wait out the mini-ice age or the technology to bring ice ages to an end, but I don't think that even with our technological knowledge a single human would survive an attack such as this for a full decade after the event (and bear in mind that "six" and "10 km" are variables that can be adjusted to reduce that probability further still). If we had a year's warning, we could probably build or retrofit underground bunkers capable of preserving humans for that decade, but our future prospects would still be bleak. We'd still have a hostile alien roboship with effectively unlimited free energy (it can refill it's deuterium supply from the moons of Jupiter, for example) sitting on top of a gravity well in a solar system that is chock fully of rocks. There is no depth we could build a shelter that could survive a second wave of smaller rocks dropped directly on any shelters revealed by e.g. a heat signature or electromagnetic radiation or simple observation from orbit. And remember, they've got a whole century to ensure that they got every last one of the vermin inhabiting what will eventually become a steaming warm jungle or a nice dry desert or whatever their idea of an "ideal" environment is.

      All of this (to them) would be entirely justified. If we were fitter than they are to spread all over the galaxy and beyond, we'd wipe them out instead of them wiping us out, right?

      The tragedy is that this i

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
  77. The real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real reason we won't meet aliens is that if they ever show up in our neighborhood, they'll know all about us from our radio signals and immediately know how dangerous we would become if we accidentally got ahold of any of their technology... so they'd quarantine us. Ban all travel anywhere near us.

  78. What Horseshit by sexconker · · Score: 1

    This article is fucking trash.

    It presumes that access to more information equates to more intelligence. It doesn't.
    If access to information helped drive intelligence, the average person today would shit on Motzart and Einstein, and a 15 year old girl would have found the Higgs 2 years go while tweeting about Jake (he's so cuuuuuuute~!).

    Then it presumes that such increased intelligence makes beings less likely to explore and seek out other beings. Horseshit.
    If intelligent beings didn't care about less intelligent beings, we wouldn't have people who dedicate their lives to studying the less intelligent beings we have on this planet, or people who keep pets, etc.
    If technologically advanced beings didn't care about exploring undeveloped places, Columbus and Magellan would have stuck their thumbs up their asses while tugging their dicks all day at home instead of all day at sea.

    "How would you change if you had instant brain-level access to all information. How would you change if you were twice as smart as you are now. How about ten times as smart? (Don't answer, truth is, you're not smart enough to know)."

    So we can't know what we'll do when we're more intelligent, yet TFS ignores that rule and tells us anyway? Laughable.

    It's as fucking bad as Tyson's line about aliens not giving a shit about us because they'd be so far advanced that we'd be nothing but bugs or dust to them.

    Why would you presume such a large gap in technological advancement? Why wouldn't there be civilizations who are just somewhat more advanced, to the point where we're still a curiosity? Wouldn't a growth in advancement lead to a growth in stellar reach, and thus increase our chances of meeting despite any lack of intentional interest on their part?

    Why even presume a lack of interest comes along with advancement? We're excited when we see signs of water on other planets. We're actively looking for that shit. If we found a fucking planet full of boring space slugs we'd be going out of our fucking minds with excitement. We have people who dedicate their lives to talking to parrots and apes and shit. We literally know how to twerk our black booties to tell bees where some delicious pollen is.

    Since the dawn of man we have wondered if we were alone in the Universe. There is no reason to presume that any other species would be different. Indeed, there is reason to believe that such curiosity goes hand-in-hand with intelligence and increased likelihood to become the dominant species on a planet.

  79. More Input! by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

    ... The question of why aliens might 'want to come here' is probably fundamentally flawed because we are forming that question from our current (tiny) viewpoint. The word 'want' might not apply at all to someone 1000 times smarter than us.

    I've studied neuron systems in both animals and computer simulations. Know what happens when the inputs become the same over enough time? Boredom. Know what happens if you just randomly change one pixel in a field of view of an OCR machine intelligence? The same thing that happens when you do that with people. They stare at it. They fixate on the new input, they'll study that which they do not know or have not explained. That's why we explore. It's not a human thing, it's a LIFE thing.

    Neural networks may not be the primordial soup du jouer, but any complex system I observe, from selection pressure applied to randomly arrange instruction sets, or simplified chemical bonding chain sims, the tendency to "know" and experience more and generally become more complex is a common thread. If conditions are too hostile to allow such complexity to arise, then I wouldn't expect something like sentience, however, once that critical mass has been reached you can bet your bottom dollar the aliens would want to come and say "Hi", if for no other reason than to know more about the Universe.

    Imagine what would happen if we detected a faint ordered "intelligent" signal from space, even a primitive one. Despite the impossible odds that the civilization would even be around to hear our response, EVERY damn nerd with a satellite dish would be re-purposing it to broadcast everything from the complete works of Shakespeare to Girl-on-Xenomorph Porn. You think mountain climbers climb because they want to? No. Go talk to one. The mountain is THERE. It must be climbed. There's an almost insatiable lust in explorers, human, animal and artificial alike. If you think for one second that we'd turn down the chance to pop over for a spot of alien tea, were it in our power to do so, then you haven't been studying life for very long.

    Now, the idea of "wanting" might not apply to even us in a post-scarcity economy, but you can be damn sure that keeping fresh configurations of neurons firing is the unwritten prime directive of the cosmos. Accelerating the rate of knowing just makes you get bored FASTER! It means you need more input quicker to keep you entertained. What do you get the cosmic collective mind that already knows everything? 7 billion irrational unpredictable under-evolved pets to study, that's what.

  80. I'd agree with one tangential point by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2

    And advanced enough alien culture might not ever need to make direct contact with us to learn all they need to know. They might have robotic probes that could stealthily sit and watch much like a National Geographic photographer, except with the cloaking device enabled because unlike a lion pride we'd react to the observers.

    Second, maybe life (even advanced non-space faring societies) are common enough for them to ignore?

    Third, this is ALL speculation because our knowledge of the universe is so limited we can't possibly make an informed guess. Just about ANY theory has equal validity.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  81. Wrong... There is a bigger reason why.... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    It's because we are made out of meat....

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  82. Smarter? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    How would you change if you had instant brain-level access to all information. How would you change if you were twice as smart as you are now. How about ten times as smart? (Don't answer, truth is, you're not smart enough to know). The word 'want' might not apply at all to someone 1000 times smarter than us.

    I'm smart enough to know that "Smart" and "Technologically Advanced" are not the same thing.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  83. How many feet in a mile? Really? by lahvak · · Score: 1

    I have a problem with equating smartness with having quick access to information.

    --
    AccountKiller
  84. UP3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The UP3 prohibits them from coming here and interfering with our civilization.

    http://starocean.wikia.com/wiki/Underdeveloped_Planet_Preservation_Pact

  85. Curiosity.. by sstamps · · Score: 1

    There could be a million "maybes" which describe a highly-intelligent being's wants and desires, but this one is far more definite.

    I don't know if it follows that highly intelligent beings are automatically driven by curiosity, but if not, I would call into serious question how they become highly intelligent in the first place.

    --
    -SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
  86. need? by fldsofglry · · Score: 1

    Perhaps want has nothing to do with it. Maybe they would need to come here.

    1. Re:need? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      It is hard to find a possible need that would justify the expense. The only one I can think of is religion.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  87. Can the entropy of the universe be reversed? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    We should ask siri and wonder if it will say, "insufficient data for an answer."

    Thats the last question I guess.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Can the entropy of the universe be reversed? by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Buckminster Fuller once postulated that the purpose of intelligence in Universe might be to counter-act entropy. Maybe tongue-in-cheek, but he though it an interesting enough question to be going on with.

  88. no intelligent life here by RichMan · · Score: 1

    We are still killing each other for irrational reasons down here.

    Why would intelligent life even want to stop by for conversation? ((with a bunch of violent irrational creatures))

    1. Re:no intelligent life here by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Why do you assume that trait is only a human trait?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:no intelligent life here by RichMan · · Score: 1

      Are you then asserting that irrational killing is an intelligent thing to do ?
      Please explain how this is so.

    3. Re:no intelligent life here by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Intelligence isn't limited to rationality, even in human beings.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  89. No by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And we don't need ANY arguments about what such beings would be like in order to understand that there is nothing unique here to want. The Solar System is composed of approximately 99.95% hydrogen and helium. This is basically the same as the composition of the rest of the Universe. While some elements may be slightly more common or concentrated in slightly more convenient forms in one place than another there simply isn't anything particularly unique in one star system that isn't present in another.

    Furthermore look at the energetics of interstellar space travel. "Accelerating one ton to one-tenth of the speed of light requires at least 450 PJ or 4.5 ×10^17 J or 125 billion kWh, without factoring in efficiency of the propulsion mechanism. This energy has to be either generated on-board from stored fuel, harvested from the interstellar medium, or projected over immense distances." -- Wikipedia. In 2008 the world used roughly 474×10^18 J, which means the entire power output of the human race for a year would suffice to accelerate one starship of 40 tons to 0.1C, roughly. This is about the weight of the 'J' class Apollo Lunar mission payload (LEM, CM, SM, etc). Clearly even the most limited interstellar travel would have an energy cost that is frankly hard to imagine.

    So, considering the enormous cost and the high degree of technology required to traverse interstellar space, why bother? Certainly it can never be economical. The energy costs quoted above indicate that even the most expensive conceivable processes for making things would be cheaper (IE using solar power to perform nuclear reactions to transmute one element into whatever other ones you need and then make whatever you want out of it) than traveling to where you can find something.

    Clearly a civilization could in principle literally consume all matter in its vicinity. It is hard to imagine how this would lead to expansion for economic reasons though, there'd never be any hope of getting a return on your investment.

    Obviously someone can always invent some new hypothesis as to why, for reasons of alien psychology, aliens would want to travel, but nobody knows squat about alien psychology, so there's really no point in debating it. The very fact that such an undertaking would be VAST in scope, significant even for a Kardeshev level 2 civilization indicates it wouldn't be carried out on some whim, and it seems unlikely that a civilization which spent its energy so profligately on whims would survive long.

    I know it isn't a real popular opinion to hold, but everything I see indicates that interstellar distances are pretty close to uncrossable for physical beings like humans. Frankly I think that is the plain answer to the whole Fermi Paradox that people just don't really want to come to grips with. The gulfs between the stars are so wide that nobody crosses them, EVER.

    --
    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    1. Re:No by lahvak · · Score: 0

      I do not understand why are you using "output of the human race" as unit of energy when the universe is full of nothing but energy. Besides, you first ask what would they come here to get, and then you yourself answer that.

      --
      AccountKiller
    2. Re:No by gl4ss · · Score: 0

      well.. the usual optimistic space exploration answer to "why bother" is that there's nothing else worthwhile doing in the long run - and it's sort of true. the extension is that what's the point of creating elements you need when you really _don't even need them_ because you're just waiting to die where you already are.

      motives are strange things anyhow, considering for how pesky things humans are willing to die for.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:No by JWSmythe · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You're stating this as if you are omnipotent.

          A few hundred thousand years ago, a sling was the most powerful launch device known. It could launch a rock dozens of feet.

          About 60,000 years ago, a bow and arrow could launch a projectile hundreds of feet.

          A couple hundred years ago, a cannon could launch a projectile thousands of feet.

          Just over 100 years ago, man learned to fly.

          About 70 years ago, the largest release of power ever known to man until that point in the first nuclear explosion.

          About 50 years ago, the first man left the confines of Earth.

          About 40 years ago, the first man step foot on another astronomical object.

          You have never left Earth. You are standing on the Earth with knowledge of the workings of a slingshot, trying to predict what we will learn about our universe in the future.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    4. Re:No by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm simply explicating the SCALE of the power requirements for interstellar travel, which are clearly huge. It has NOTHING to do with the universe being "made of energy", it has to do with the amount of power you have available to you to use. By your reasoning the Earth is "made of energy" and thus the human race has no energy problem, right?

      I answered what? Read it again. The Solar System is made up of nothing but hydrogen and helium basically, with a minor impurity of C, O, N, and a very minor contamination of other atoms. Every other system is made of that stuff too. As the author of the original blog pointed out, if you have the tech to cross interstellar space, then you clearly can simply make whatever you want out of what you have at home.

      Yes, you could run out of matter, but do you realize how incredibly hard that would be? Jupiter has 1000x the mass of Earth. In fact Earth is a very tiny fraction of the mass of all the planets. By the time you were running out you'd be at Kardeshev level 2 (10+ orders of magnitude beyond using all the energy on Earth, which is many orders of magnitude beyond us), would you really need to GO anywhere for more? It seems kinda unlikely, and again would be a bad investment (you'd never get the energy invested back).

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    5. Re:No by sycodon · · Score: 1

      AND...in the last 200 years our physics understanding underwent a sea change, a complete replacement of one set of theories with another set. Who's to say that won't happen again and with that, cheap FTL travel?

      Seems we always think that at the moment, we know all that is knowable when in truth the things we don't know dwarf the things we do know.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    6. Re:No by utoddl · · Score: 0

      "Accelerating one ton to one-tenth of the speed of light requires at least 450 PJ or 4.5 ×10^17 J or 125 billion kWh, without factoring in efficiency of the propulsion mechanism. This energy has to be either generated on-board from stored fuel, harvested from the interstellar medium, or projected over immense distances."

      Or you can borrow it from the future, where it will be generated conveniently enough in exactly the right quantity by slowing that one ton down. We just haven't figured out how to shift the energy equations in the temporal dimension yet.

    7. Yes, of course that does ultimately come up at some level, the "then why bother to do anything in the first place" argument. HOWEVER, if you look at the human race's progress it seems to be almost exclusively in the direction of overall greater efficiency and an increase in our collective share of the energy throughput of the biosphere. We learned to chip flint and light fire because it was easier and more efficient. We learned to plant crops and hurd animals for the same reason, etc. This process might well continue up to a certain point. We can imagine a Solar System wide civilization with trade and so forth that might make economic sense. Once you hit the edge of the Solar System though the costs go up VASTLY. There simply is no conceivable economic argument left.

      Now, individually people of course don't act entirely on the basis of economics, but stable societies don't continue to exist in the face of economic reality. They are quickly replaced by ones that DO live by their means. We have no examples at all of such behavior at the level of society, and it is hard to imagine a society in which individual whim is sufficient to spend the vast resources needed for interstellar travel. It seems almost conceivable as some sort of "great pyramid" kind of thing, but even looking at that, the Egyptians only built a very limited number of large pyramids in one tiny portion of their overall history as a great civilization. I'm still not seeing the example or the rationale where something like that would continue for long.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    8. Re:No by Andrio · · Score: 1

      I need mod points right now.

      --
      The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
    9. Re:No by 5KVGhost · · Score: 2

      "Obviously someone can always invent some new hypothesis as to why, for reasons of alien psychology, aliens would want to travel, but nobody knows squat about alien psychology, so there's really no point in debating it."

      So there's no point in debating "why", because you've already decided that no possible value of "why" can satisfy the conditions you've assumed to be true. Your logic has run rings 'round me.

      But let's say you're right. Let's look at human psychology, instead. Do humans ever undertake incredibly expensive, dangerous, and impractical ventures with virtually no chance of success, and absolutely no chance of return on investment? On a whim? Because they're curious? Because it's there? Yes. They do.

      So what was your point, again?

    10. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, please. You seem to be locked into some very limiting thought patterns.

      "basically the same as the composition of the rest of the Universe." So the Mona Lisa would be just as good if it was shredded. And Bach's music doesn't contain any atoms, so it is worthless. It's not the substance, it's the arrangement that matters.

      "an energy cost that is frankly hard to imagine" A century ago, no one could imagine more energy than that provided by chemical reactions. That's changed. And there may be better ways of obtaining energy, too; physics isn't finished yet.

      "uncrossable for physical beings like humans" We were discussing aliens, remember? There may not be any need to "physically" cross space; you just need to transfer the necessary information. To repeat myself, it's not the substance, it's the arrangement that matters.

    11. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet you predict all kinds of space travel and incredible technologies. Just because someone might have been wrong before, doesn't mean you are right.

    12. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's simply full of energy that is diffuse and not directed at anything. Why do you think it took OIL for the human race to start getting technological if energy were as everywhere as you think? Energy in the form of gamma rays or neutrinos doesn't do much for us.

    13. Yes, yes, well what are you doing? At best the opposite argument is "well, we always somehow advanced, it will never change", which is quite ridiculous. I mean, go ahead and SHOW ME an FTL drive or some 'magical' supply of fantastic amounts of energy. While we certainly don't know everything by a long shot we're coming closer and closer to a good approximation of understanding what is and isn't possible. There are NO indications whatsoever that FTL etc are possible. Without that sort of 'impossibilium' to power your objections you're basically left just throwing rocks at whatever I've said. That's fine, of course many people have been proven wrong in history, but I will predict now that the sort of 'technology' required is simply magic and can't exist. Again, I know my opinion is unpopular, but unpopular and wrong are not the same thing, or even related to each other.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    14. Yep, and you're the one that should get those mod points! (too bad, I even have some, can't use them here).

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    15. Yes, in other words, "Its impossible, but let me imagine if it wasn't". Were such 'shifts' possible the laws of nature as we know them would be utterly overthrown. Again, I know, its not a popular opinion and you can always wave your hands and imagine some other imagining, but we can only extrapolate from what we know, not what we wish.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    16. Re:No by bmcage · · Score: 1

      Aliens pay to be transported to Earth, in the return trip they take the gold/minerals/pelts back? Like the colonization of the USA? Give humans new green pastures, and again many people would emigrate there. Would be a bonus though if this time there were no natives waiting for you.

    17. Re:No by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 1, Informative

      No, actually they don't. Not on any scale larger than that which can be undertaken by a few individuals. Beyond that our activities, on a 'society scale' are quite practical. The exceptions are quite informative. The ancient Egyptians employed 1000s of people to build giant pyramids, for less than one century before their society collapsed. When it recovered they built much smaller underground tombs for the next 2000 or so years, never again building a large pyramid. Other 'whimsical' projects were on much smaller scales. In fact no building exceeded the size of the Great Pyramid of Cheops until the 20th Century (the Eiffel Tower was the first to equal it in height). Considering the crude technology at hand we could safely hypothesize that the Great Pyramid is pretty much unique in history. Certainly interstellar travel would necessarily entail a vast and prolonged effort by an entire society on a huge scale. History isn't especially sanguine about the likelihood of that happening.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    18. Re:No by tyrione · · Score: 1

      The visible Universe taps into 4% of the total Potential Energy. When we factor in advances of collecting Dark Matter/Dark Energy and smart travel over point A (Earth) to point Infinity you'll discover that most interstellar travel will be jump and wormhole maps.

    19. Re:No by bmcage · · Score: 0
      I don't agree here. You assume our current economics remains the norm, but a future of abundance is also possible, with machines doing labour. Groups can easily form with specific motives. Certainly should telescopes show life on a planet in the stellar neighbourhood. Question like "how does it look like" would pop up and keep on nagging.

      I'm doing many things now with no economic argument because I'm in the liberty to do so for the time being. So, assuming cost actually would be VAST in 1000 years (how could we know?), that would be a requirement: not caring for the cost, as the economics is irrelevant to your goal and own bottom line. As long as it increases your happiness, money can be considered well spent.

      We know the Earth will be destroyed, many don't care so far in the future, but a small percentage does, already today.

    20. Re:No by chihowa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He's not predicting that FTL, etc will be possible. He's saying that you're wrong for declaring it to be absolutely impossible.

      Seriously, all of those things he listed would be described as "the sort of 'technology' required is simply magic and can't exist" in the past, yet they came about. The reality is that we don't know what's possible and making sweeping statements like yours is just a sign of hubris and ignorance. You can wrap your mind around the concept that not knowing how something can be possible doesn't mean it's absolutely impossible and making categorical statements like yours only paints you as a fool?

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    21. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, great response to a crap article! I want to touch on a few things you said:

      While some elements may be slightly more common or concentrated in slightly more convenient forms in one place than another there simply isn't anything particularly unique in one star system that isn't present in another.

      So, intelligent life being in another star system would not qualify as unique enough to want to go there? I think there are millions if not billions that would disagree, and the fact that there is resource similarity across the universe is a good thing for us so we know we can find the heavier elements we need to make and do stuff.

      Furthermore look at the energetics of interstellar space travel. ...

      SCREECH!!!! Brakes. 150 years ago we couldn't fly and had no idea how to conceive of splitting an atom. Our understanding of the universe has started changing at such a rapid pace that if we were to discover life on a "nearby" star system in the next 100 or so years (let alone the article's 1000) whose to know what kind of advances in physics and energy production we could realize in order to make traveling there a possibility. Let alone the possibility of where society might be with respect to economics and commerce. Economic feasibility may not even be bothered with as economics may be much different.

      If history teaches us anything it's that we're not too good at predicting the future, especially when it comes to innovation and its effect on society. Here's hoping that society changes enough in the future to make us realize that money shouldn't drive every endeavor and that we do find a way to travel between the stars.

    22. Re:No by tmosley · · Score: 1

      You would need about 3 kilos of antimatter (an 3 kilos of matter) to make your 1 ton accelerate to 0.1C. Seems fairly reasonable that technology should come into being to allow such things to be made over the next thousand years, assuming we don't find some other method of moving quickly, or generating energy. How about a "catalyst" that turns matter directly into energy? Relativistic travel would be trivial with a high throughput device of that nature.

      Remember that a thousand years ago, the energy output of humanity was measured tons of grain and number of stone and canvas windmills.

    23. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about finding a new element between carbon and nitrogen? Or a new integer between 2 and 3? Some things just *are* basically impossible because they just make no sense.

    24. Re:No by lahvak · · Score: 1

      The Solar System is made up of nothing but hydrogen and helium basically,

      Exactly, it is made of hydrogen and helium. If you can use hydrogen and helium to travel, you can certainly use the hydrogen and helium from solar system. You don't need to transport it anywhere, you don't need to make anything from it, you just use it to get somewhere else.

      --
      AccountKiller
    25. Re:No by joe_frisch · · Score: 2, Informative

      You don't need FTL. Its easy to imagine a fission or fusion powered rocket that could reach 0.1C - this is not far from what we can imagine now. That leaves you with a trip of centuries to millenia. That might be completely reasonable to an advanced race that either has a naturally long lifespan, or which has solved the problem of ageing. Depending on their technology they might be able to bring enough of their information technology with them to stay interested for the trip.

    26. This. The trend of human progress has been for us to get more per capita. It is not unreasonable to think that along that trajectory, a sufficiently advanced - probably post-scarcity society - wouldn't have any real concerns for things like mass energy generation, provided you weren't planning on blotting out a significant portion of your host star's energy, or maybe strip-mining the local gas giants rings.

      When the effort required is simply the interest of individuals, and the approval of your peers (see: don't destroy the aesthetics of the solar system too much) it seems unlikely that certain groups wouldn't be interested enough to attempt interstellar travel using the currently known laws of physics. Especially since practically no other pursuit, comprehendable to minds on our scale, would even be likely to tax the resources of an automated, type-2 civilization. Sex parties don't have particularly taxing material demands :)

      Of course, it's also quite possible the known laws of physics aren't what they seem, FTL is common-place and the Earth is just in a well-regulated galactic neighbourhood where non-interference is the norm.

    27. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there simply isn't anything particularly unique in one star system that isn't present in another.

      Yeah, unless you count the fact that the hydrogen and helium in this system bounced in to each other and started thinking, talking, and pondering its own existence.

    28. Re:No by itchybrain · · Score: 1

      A few hundred thousand years ago, a sling was the most powerful launch device known. It could launch a rock dozens of feet.

      < snip >

      About 40 years ago, the first man step foot on another astronomical object.

      .

      For everything else, there is VISA?

    29. Re:No by thingummy · · Score: 1

      No, actually they don't. Not on any scale larger than that which can be undertaken by a few individuals

      Who says more than a few individuals of the human-psychology-adhering alien race are required to undertake a journey to earth? Adding unnecessary condition of "scale larger than that which can be undertaken by a few individuals" won't prove your point, but surely prove your desperation to prove your point at the cost of spoiling the discussion thread.

    30. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not predicting that FTL, etc will be possible. He's saying that you're wrong for declaring it to be absolutely impossible.

      GP didn't say it was absolutely impossible. She (assuming she, with a nickname like Electronic Bra) said that using current technology and knowhow, high sub-light speed travel is energetically infeasible, and FTL travel has been shown to be impossible with our current understanding of physics and engineering. Multiple theoretical approaches and multiple practical experiments have confirmed both Special and General Relativity and thus the existence of the fundamental light speed barrier, so you'd need a theoretical breakthrough of our understanding of physics in general and cosmology in particular of the order of magnitude of Newton's and Einstein's theories combined to be able to work out how FTL travel could function. I don't expect such a theory to be produced in my lifetime (I'm 45), even with the vastly greater spread of advanced mathematical and physical knowledge in the world's population compared to Einstein's, let alone Newton's time.

      Seriously, all of those things he listed would be described as "the sort of 'technology' required is simply magic and can't exist" in the past, yet they came about. The reality is that we don't know what's possible and making sweeping statements like yours is just a sign of hubris and ignorance. You can wrap your mind around the concept that not knowing how something can be possible doesn't mean it's absolutely impossible and making categorical statements like yours only paints you as a fool?

      It isn't a sign of hubris or ignorance at all. Quite the opposite. It's a sign that Giant Electronic Bra has understood that without FTL travel, interstellar journeys are a non-starter for energetic reasons and that FTL travel, if it's at all possible, represents an intellectual and operational barrier an order of magnitude higher than anything mankind has encountered so far. Surmounting such a barrier requires extraordinary motivation for any civilisation and barring extreme curiosity, this motivation isn't likely to exist, since a civilisation squandering such enormous resources on simple curiosity is unlikely to be able to sustain itself.

      A truly great post by Giant Electronic Bra. Thank you!

    31. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Invent a technology that will square the circle or make 2+2=5.

      That's about how certain it is that FTL is not possible.

    32. Re:No by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      First I thought your number was way off, now I see it is only wrong. E = m * v ^ 2, that should be 9 E 18 J.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    33. Re:No by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Oops, forgot about the 0.5 in the formular, so your 4.5 is right however the exponent should be 18 not 17 unless I typoed somewhere ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    34. The point is, if you have the technology to do interstellar travel then you have the technology to make a 'pelt' or some 'gold' or whatever out of any matter you can get hold of, and it would be FAR FAR cheaper than transporting it across interstellar space. The economics can never make sense.

      The colonization of North America is just not analogous. Suppose it took 40 years to sail from London to Manhatten and the cost of a single ship was as much as the entire GDP of Europe in 1700. There's no bloody chance at all that such a colonization would have ever taken place. Nor would a few troublemakers like the Pilgrims have had the wherewithall to hire such a ship to haul them across. Nor is it at all likely they would have survived when they got there without the eventual arrival of additional ships, etc.

      I'm not 100% sure we can ever economically justify colonizing the Moon, though it seems likely, but some other Solar System which is a TRILLION TIMES further than Mars, a place we can barely imagine being at the very outermost edge of our current capabilities (and another place I can't really see ever being economical to colonize, though scientific exploration seems quite likely). A trillion times harder than just about too hard is beyond too hard, it is beyond even "what the hell, we'll learn something" hard. There's just no imagining with a practical imagination anyone finding a 'pelt' or a 'mineral' so unique and valuable that it would be worth many times over the total current power output of the human race to send it back.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    35. Re:No by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, I think the various AC's that have responded already have summarized things nicely, to reiterate:

      1) FTL is LOGICALLY impossible. This is off the table. We may not fully understand the way the universe works but we have logically demonstrated that either there is FTL and no causality and no common universal laws of physics which apply within every reference frame equally (IE the laws of physics would change whenever you accellerated) or FTL is impossible. No appeal to "we don't know enough, we're ignorant" can get around this, Einstein did not leave ANY 'get out of jail free card' ways to get around it. No, not wormholes, they'd break down causality too, nor the 'Alcubierre Drive' which ALSO breaks down causality, etc. You can try to assume there are some sort of parallel worlds or something you can access via some handwavium tech, but frankly why not just posit that the right ritual enacted at the right phase of the Moon will open a door into Elfland? Nobody can EVER 'prove' such things don't exist, but you care to bet?

      2) As for the "well, things always seem difficult until we do them", I would just like to point out what the 2nd AC said "...if it's at all possible, represents an intellectual and operational barrier an order of magnitude higher than anything mankind has encountered so far." except said AC is wrong in one sense. It isn't AN order of magnitude harder. All the list of things that were listed by JWSmythe above are maybe an order of magnitude, at most, harder than things that were done before them. Going from being able to travel to Mars to being able to travel to Alpha Centauri in something even roughly like the same time frame (IE less than a decades long journey) with a human crew is 12 orders of magnitude harder. Not ONE but TWELVE.

      That's the thing people regularly fail to understand. They've been brought up on a steady diet of space opera/Star Trek where starships woosh around through space like its nothing and a trip to the next star system is like a jaunt to the next highway exit. THAT is surely fantasy. Even if some sort of FTL, or something nearly as good, proved to exist it would perforce have to be incredibly difficult to achieve, else natural phenomena would already exist which recapitulated the necessary phenomena for us to observe. The energies required must be beyond even what is achieved in the presence of billion solar mass black holes and such. No hint of such things is evident.

      Perhaps our Universe was created by a prankster. It certainly seems like the limitations we face are such that the promise of surmounting them must always seem barely out of reach, but I think the prankster did a good job.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    36. Sure, we can imagine making 3 kilos of antimatter. What we can't imagine is what would be worth paying the humongous cost for it. Even in a future where energy is plentiful an amount equal to the current total power output of the human race would be enough to do a LOT with (look at what we today can do with it and then imagine that power applied through a much more advanced technology).

      Again though, we can imagine ANYTHING, but where are there any signs of 'direct conversion' in our understanding of nature? I mean certainly we understand things in only a partial way, but there are no signs of any phenomenon under which matter is converted to energy. When people cry that we have all sorts of examples of technology 'nobody would have predicted before' I have to be pretty skeptical. People predicted and experimented with powered heavier-than-air flight for millenia for instance, and even achieved some limited success, certainly they had some idea of how to achieve it. Likewise with other technologies such as steam power, electricity, etc. Certainly Volta wouldn't have predicted micro-electronics and wouldn't be able to explain them with the physics he had at his disposal, but if you gave him a computer he'd probably correctly assert that it was an electrically based device, and people certainly did predict computers etc long before they became available. We have not even a wiff of a hint about things like 'direct conversion' today. If such a thing is possible it is FAR beyond us. Again, we could simply imagine such things from whole cloth, but that's just magical thinking, it doesn't really belong in a discussion of what is actually feasible and likely.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    37. Yes, somewhere else which is made of TADA! More hydrogen and helium! The problem is that on even a modest scale the Universe is remarkably homogenous. Once you posit a high level of technology its hard to imagine a very good reason WHY you would want to spend the huge cost to travel to the stars. If one says "well just because" then you have to posit a VERY irrational intellect, and it is hard to imagine such an intellect being able to carry out a mission to the stars.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    38. But again, what rational species would finance such a trip? The return on investment couldn't possibly make it worthwhile. A race which was so impractical in its outlook that it would expend vast resources with no return is unlikely to survive and prosper to the level of building starships, is it not?

      Beyond that I think the 'slow road' is not such an easy thing. Even 0.1C is a HUGE amount of energy, as I calculated above, but going slower creates other obvious problems. To create a 'mechanism' (in the most general sense of the word) which would remain functional over 100's, 1000's, or 10's of thousands of years is far more difficult to imagine than sci-fi authors seem to think. Entropy is the enemy of everything, and the more complicated you have to make your mechanism in order to supply it with means to deal with more and more situations (remember, more and more unlikely problems will become significant factors over long stretches of time) the more failure prone it becomes. Biological systems rarely remain intact for time periods beyond a few decades for instance. Imagine a mechanism which had to withstand the high radiation environment of a 0.1C trip to the nearest star system for 50+ years. Is this possible? Would the requirements for additional mass to enable acceptable reliability simply bloat the mission far beyond feasible limits? Can something so complex function at 100% duty cycle without spares or maintenance for 50 years, even with advanced technology? At best we're looking at an extraordinarily difficult engineering problem, one many orders of magnitude beyond what we are familiar with.

      As I've said before though, interstellar travel doesn't have to be literally impossible. It just needs to be infeasible enough that an advanced civilization has better things to do with its resources than fling them into space to never see again. Even if it does happen once in a long while we'd be VERY unlikely to meet aliens unless such things were fairly commonplace, given the vast size of the Universe.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    39. Its a discussion thread, if it is 'spoiled' by there being more than one side to the discussion then all of /. is utterly pointless, just go talk to yourself! lol.

      As for who says, energy says. It would take a monster amount of energy (read above) to travel to another star system. Surely such vast quantities of energy are far beyond what any individual would ever need. Thus it seems unlikely to me that one or a few people would ever possess by themselves the means and authority to deploy such large resources to such a project. If an entire civilization (or a large part of it) is both so impractical and so empowered that it would do such a thing then isn't it vastly more likely such a civilization would simply do something stupid and wipe itself out due to its own impracticality? That's the whole nut of the "scale beyond a few individuals" because if the whole society is insane then yes indeed they might dream of interstellar travel, but they're not going to be in a position to achieve it.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    40. I got my numbers from various sources. The power requirements for 0.1 C travel came from the Wikipedia article on interstellar travel (but the math cited there appeared to be correct). The power output of the human race can also be found on Wikipedia, but is also found in IEA reports, so I would have to assume that number is at least roughly correct (I used the 2008 numbers).

      In any case, I'm not sure which number you are correcting, but it sounds like you are saying the energy required to accelerate a mass to 0.1 C is 10x more than I stated. Even if its 10x easier than I stated (or we generate 10x more power today) it just means we could send 400 tons to Alpha Centauri in around 50 years vs 40 tons. Neither is even close to an adequate mass for a manned mission of such duration, though perhaps it would suffice for a flyby mission at 0.1C. I wonder if such a mission would actually learn much that we can't learn FAR cheaper by just building a huge telescope or 20. The costs are so vast it would seem like we could build an instrument to sit out at the gravitational lensing point of the Sun far more cheaply, or some other equally large scale project.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    41. Re:No by lahvak · · Score: 1

      But why is staying in one place, extracting resources so one can improve his ways of extracting more resources and so on, any more rational than simply moving to where there are some resources, staying for a little, and then move on? You could also ask what reason is there to stay put? Since universe is indeed pretty homogenous, it does not really matter where you are. Once you figure out a way to travel, what reason is there not to do it?

      --
      AccountKiller
    42. Re:No by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Well, you don't need wikipedia to calculate the energy.
      Kinetic energy of a moving object is: E = 1/2 * m * v ^ 2
      v is in you case 10% of c, wich is 10% of 300,000,000 m/s
      v ^ 2 is then 900,000,000,000,000 m^2/s^2, that is 9e15
      m is a metric ton which is thousand kg, so we add 3 zeros and divide by two: 4.5 e 18.

      Yepp, some telescopes floating far away to use the sun as gravitational lense would be superb!

      Problem is such a craft would need to be 700AU away from the sun, Voyager right now is rouly 114AU away.

      This arcticle describes it for communication, unfortunately the immage links are broken: http://www.icarusinterstellar.org/sun-gravitational-lens/

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    43. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, no mod points.

    44. Re:No by chihowa · · Score: 1

      GP didn't say it was absolutely impossible. She (assuming she, with a nickname like Electronic Bra) said that using current technology and knowhow, high sub-light speed travel is energetically infeasible, and FTL travel has been shown to be impossible with our current understanding of physics and engineering.

      No he didn't. He said that there is categorically no chance that we will be visited by aliens because the energy requirement is too high (and FTL is impossible) and nowhere in the universe in all of the time it has been in existence will alien life find a way around those limitations. He wasn't talking about current technology, except to imply that we have reached the summit of technological development and all that's left is dusting in the corners. Our current theoretical framework is complete (even though it clearly isn't), whatever Einstein said is the inviolable word of God (if he didn't leave any explicit exceptions, then all hope on that front is lost), and if we haven't figured out how to do something at this early point in our history then it's infeasible that a hypothetical advanced civilization might accomplish it (even though we can come up with clever theoretical constructs like the Alcubierre drive).

      Listen, I understand that FTL is not compatible with current theory. I'm aware of the energy requirements needed for fast interstellar travel. My point is that it is hubris to assume that we have it all figured out and that our theory is adequate to perfectly explain the universe.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    45. Re:No by utoddl · · Score: 1

      Humor detectors exists though. Most people have 'em. Obviously not everybody though.

    46. Re:No by aix+tom · · Score: 1

      One other comparison, directly to the "prime energy fountain" in our Solar System.

      The sun puts out 3.8×10^26 J per second. The sun emits ~1.367 kW per square meter. So if you want to accelerate 40 tons to 0.1c ( where you need the ~1.316 × 10^14 kWh ) over, let's say, the course of one year ( ~ 8 765 hours ), you would need ~1.5 * 10^10 kW, which would be the energy output of 11 549 431 square kilometres of the sun's surface.

      Basically it all boils down to "Cheap Energy" Why do we have cars, trains, planes today that almost anyone can afford to use? Because ~150 years ago someone found out "hey, I can get the same energy that I would have to pay $100 to labourers, horse merchants, mill builders, etc.... for $0.10 by just using that black goo that we just found in abundance over there". That black goo is basically the way we now use up the solar energy that hit the earth over countless millennia.

      When you look here how the "human energy consumption" multiplied in the last 200 years, I don't see why it couldn't exapand again to 20-30 or even hundreds times more IF a way is discovered to use a substantial amount of the suns "waste energy" directly.

      Basically that is the "big if" in the question on whether we will go to other planets or even stars. 200years ago anyone suggesting that you do a "daily commute" of 100km would have been named a madman. But these days it's quite common, only due to cheap energy.

    47. Re:No by thingummy · · Score: 1

      As for who says, energy says.

      To deluded anthropomorphising people.

      would take a monster amount of energy (read above) to travel to another star system

      And the basis of the discussion is that such an amount is available. Completely hypothetical, but a stated assumption nevertheless.

      Surely such vast quantities of energy are far beyond what any individual would ever need

      Irrelevant. What is relevant is that a single individual might have ACCESS to such an amount of energy. Assuming this is false is completely unsubstantiated, you are not even making an effort to argue why this might be false for a space-faring human-psychology-adhering civilization.

      Thus it seems unlikely to me that one or a few people would ever possess by themselves the means and authority to deploy such large resources to such a project. If an entire civilization (or a large part of it) is both so impractical and so empowered that it would do such a thing then isn't it vastly more likely such a civilization would simply do something stupid and wipe itself out due to its own impracticality? That's the whole nut of the "scale beyond a few individuals" because if the whole society is insane then yes indeed they might dream of interstellar travel, but they're not going to be in a position to achieve it.

      You have assumed single person won't have access to such an amount of energy (without a basis of the assumption), and then extrapolated to justify the same assumption.

      Its a discussion thread, if it is 'spoiled' by there being more than one side to the discussion then all of /. is utterly pointless, just go talk to yourself! lol.

      The standard of the discussion is lowered by arguments like yours, involving unstated as well as unsubstantiated assumptions. When questioned, the assumptions which if stated in advance would have been justifications, are invented, though without lending credence to the argument because of unsubstantiated nature of the assumptions.

    48. Cost?

      I think people really fail to appreciate the HUGE costs involved. Energy is the ultimate currency. Its hard to see the need.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    49. Sounds right. Of course I can do that math myself, but why bother? Clearly Wikipedia is a pit of inaccurate arithmetic... ;)

      700 AU is of course a LONG distance, but only a tiny fraction of the way to the nearest star. We could probably today without any major new tech build a probe that could reach that distance in a decade or two, maybe less. It would be a tiny fraction of the cost of even a high speed flyby probe of a nearby systems.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    50. Yes, but you still fail to appreciate just what you can do with 1.316 × 10^14 kWh (and realistically of course considerably more) BESIDES accelerate 40 tons to 0.1C. 40 tons is basically an object the size of a large bus. Such an object would be a very limited probe for the cost, lacking any means of slowing down at the other end just what exactly would you hope to gain by expending a year's worth of our current power output?

      There is a QUALITATIVE difference between using oil to commute 100km and traversing 50 trillion Kilometers of space in a reasonable timeframe. The cost of the former is tiny and the alternate uses of the required energy aren't particularly compelling as a result. The cost of the later is huge, equal to everything humanity today can do in a year. Even in some future with vast energy availability (and you'll quickly run into problems harvesting even a small fraction of the Sun's total output) there's no denying what that energy is capable of. Its a simple matter of trade-offs.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    51. Ah, right, I'm unworthy to participate in your high level of erudite debate. Pfffffffft! Give me a break bozo. If you want to have a discussion it helps to be civil, but since you're not up to that...

      In any case:

      Its fine to ask these kinds of questions, but surely in a society which we might conceive to be something like known human ones since when does any one individual have at their disposal routinely vast quantites of energy far beyond what they need? We can point out some individuals today who are given some authority to direct the use of many resources, but they certainly aren't in absolute control. Any society which routinely put petawatts of energy in the hands of single decision makers with no obligations and constraints placed on them would not last long! If you had actually followed my entire argument you might have noted that these points have been touched on already. RATIONAL societies survive long-term, and what's rational about expending vast amounts of energy in dubiously useful ways? Our own history doesn't show much in the way of examples of this happening.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    52. Re:No by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The problem with that distance is the tuning on the system you like to observe. Yeah we can build now engines that would be in that timeframe. Not sure if it is one or two decades, but less than 50 years it is.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    53. Re:No by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      Listen, I understand that FTL is not compatible with current theory. I'm aware of the energy requirements needed for fast interstellar travel. My point is that it is hubris to assume that we have it all figured out and that our theory is adequate to perfectly explain the universe.

      It really wasn't that long ago that we knew it was impossible to ever travel faster than the speed of sound. It just couldn't be done. Any aircraft built to do it would simply disintegrate.

      Why couldn't we travel faster than the speed of sound? Because our technology had no progressed that far. Theories were built around our understanding of the universe. In time, our understanding changes.

      It's good to know that we have so many theoretical physicists here to tell us anything we don't think is possible now, is simply impossible. It's going to make life a lot simpler for researchers. They can all retire, knowing our knowledge of the universe is done.

      oh ya, and Giant Electronic Bra says the Alcubierre drive can't exist. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    54. Re:No by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      I tried to get a travel visa to the Mars. It was denied. Bastards. We'll never get there because of the damned red tape.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    55. Depends on how determined you are to go fast. A nuclear/vasimir type of design, or other advanced fission designs, could deliver constant acceleration for long periods of time with quite high specific impulse at quite useful thrust levels. You could QUITE easily get to Pluto in a year with a fairly large spacecraft. From there we can extrapolate perhaps 10 year flight times. Clearly change the aim/focus of your telescope is quite difficult, but I could see launching such a mission to study an Earth-like world around a relatively nearby system. You could in theory resolve quite a lot of detail and it would be well-worth the mission to make a close study of such a system. It may be 50 years yet before we really have deployed the relevant technology and had enough practice with it, but we could do it. If you are OK with a 40 year mission profile then nuclear propulsion isn't needed.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    56. Re:No by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          I'm not predicting anything. All I'm saying is that you can't predict 0 growth because you think we've already done it all. Historically, that's proven to simply not be true. Heck, in your own lifetime, we've done what was previously impossible.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    57. Re:No by lahvak · · Score: 1

      Cost in what? Labor? Energy? Time?

      What exactly do you hope to buy with this currency? Anyway, you still did not tell me the need to stay. You say you don't see the need to go, I don't see the need to stay.

      Finally, there could be very good need to go, if, for example, your star, or some other star nearby, is about to go kaboom.

      --
      AccountKiller
    58. Energy, or rather work, is the ultimate 'currency'. That's what you always pay for things in, or that is that's what their cost is, which you never pay less than.

      Of course your star could be about to 'go kaboom' but that is going to be a once in many billions of years event for any given species, as are other such cosmic events. So we hardly need imagine it comes up often enough to matter.

      The whole POINT of the debate of course is that some people can't imagine why you wouldn't do something, but lets consider some sort of analogy. Now and then human socities do something very expensive for what seems like little really logical reason. However this is extremely rare, and never rises to very high level of total society output (for instance we only expend 2% of our wealth on war today). The one single example I can even muster of a large organized social project of no explicit utility which required double digit fractions of economic output were the last few pyramids built by the Egyptians, and they only pulled of really three huge ones and about 10 other somewhat smaller examples, all within the span of a few decades. But imagine the US spending 2 TRILLION $ a year for decades on some project for which the economic return is zero and the necessity doesn't exist. It is just far-fetched.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    59. Re:No by thingummy · · Score: 1

      Its fine to ask these kinds of questions, but surely in a society which we might conceive to be something like known human ones since when does any one individual have at their disposal routinely vast quantites of energy far beyond what they need?

      1. You didn't ask the question, you just assumed a scarcity of energy available to a single person without even stating the assumption.
      2. Assumption is not substantiated because :
      a. Energy might be scarce, but may not be scarce enough to limit space travel. If exawatts are required for their space travel technology, and trillions of exawatts are available to many single individuals, it is not an issue. As the whole discussion is about an UNKNOWN kind of being, such assumptions are surely not warranted. At the very least they need an explicit mention of the assumption, with an admission that it covers only a certain subset of the said space-faring human-psychology-adhering civilizations.
      b. They might have found a way to space travel needing less energy than our current imaginations of space travels do. Accessing the dimensions not available to humans could shorten the distances or use wormholes. Or, of course, something completely unexplored by humans yet. We are talking about an UNKNOWN people, remember ?

    60. Re:No by lahvak · · Score: 1

      Energy, or rather work, is the ultimate 'currency'. That's what you always pay for things in, or that is that's what their cost is, which you never pay less than.

      Sure, but if you have plenty of it, and nothing to spend it on, it becomes very cheap.

      Every civilization, in order to advance, will have to discover new ways of harnessing energy that is available to them. Almost all energy at any planetary system comes from the star. Ultimately, at least some civilizations will concentrate their attention at harvesting energy from the star itself. It could be done in a slow way, so that the energy will last for very long time, or the star can be quickly destroyed and the energy used to get the hell out of there. It seems to me that controlled long time harvesting would be harder. I don't see any reason why some civilization would not choose the other way. And once you have that kind of technology, there is no reason to stop and settle. You can just base your whole existence on going from star to star, using each star to get to the next one. There are only two risks: one that you will accidentally end up at a star that does not have enough energy to take you to another one, and get stuck. Another, that you will run into another civilization, that will attempt to defend their system. Even there, though, the advantage is on your side: they will want to defeat you in such a way that they can keep living on their planets, and will therefore want to preserve the system as completely as possible. You don't care, since you only want to use the systems energy to continue your travel.

      --
      AccountKiller
    61. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also seem to miss one very important point:

      When all we could do was throw rocks, we certainly didn't know how to get to the moon, but we also didn't know anything that told it it was impossible. We knew we didn't know how to do it, but we didn't know anything that told us that we couldn't do it if only we knew how.

      When it comes to FTL travel, however, we know we can't do it. To pretend like we just need to learn how to do it is absurd.

    62. Re:No by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Never is a long time.

      While you make excellent points, and indeed resources are likely more or less the same from one stellar system to the next, finite resources are still finite, and if a civilization wants to grow it must expand. (Not to mention any advanced civilization would understand that staying on one planet or within one stellar system would be risking destruction by a planetary or stellar level disaster. Eggs in one basket and all that.)

      Fundamentally I think its a matter of the 'apes or angels' hypothesis. It's unlikely that sentient beings are likely to cross paths at anything like similar levels of development. As a species we haven't even been working with practical electricity for much more than a century, and yet we're already at the point where we can send more information between two computers than an individual human being can know or understand. Eventually we will merge with computers in some way (continued development virtually requires this), at which point language of mere words will become completely obsolete. A "word" in the future might well be a "Library of Congress" today. A civilization like that might even "forget" how to communicate at low bandwidth levels, and the things it might learn from such communication might be so unimportant as to make it worthless. For instance many small organisms communicate using pheremones, and while we can synthesize said pheremones, communicating "scared" or "horny" to tiny creatures isn't worth the time. Similarly superintelligences that might communicate all of humanity's knowledge in a single "word" might be unwilling to stoop to "hello, how are you?" It would be far, far worse than somebody raised on a dedicated OC3 having to use a 2400 baud modem.

      Really the only hope in terms of analogous behaviors is that some people study lower forms of life quite diligently. If any contact has occurred or might occur, it's most likely going to be with an extraterrestrial equivalent of a microbiologist. However even human scientists don't (usually) talk to their petri dishes, so I think meaningful contact is still unlikely until we raise ourselves to a high enough bandwidth.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    63. Ask what question? I can ask "is some hypothetical alien civilization allocating energy to its individuals in such-and-such a way" until I'm blue in the face, there's no answer forthcoming at this time unless someone here can demonstrate that they are in contact with actual space-faring aliens... Thus we have to work from what we know. In fact I justified my assertion that no one individual would have access to excessive amounts of energy. We can debate this point of course but it wasn't the main point of the original discussion.

      You can of course simply make your own assumptions, which is exactly what your points A and B ARE, simply unjustified assumptions. You would strengthen these assertions with some logical arguments as to why they are warranted. IMHO B can be dismissed. While it is likely that we will find methods of travel that are MOST energy efficient we already know the uttermost theoretical limits on minimum energy, which are actually the ones I quoted, 450 pWh/metric ton at 0.1C (and in fact this number has been demonstrated to be low by an order of magnitude). In order to achieve a lower energy cost the laws of nature must be such that the Universe as we know it could not exist. I understand that for people without a good understanding of modern physics and cosmology this sort of statement is always disputed, but its like saying after Magellan circumnavigated the globe that we could still discover that the Earth is flat, that ship has sailed, we positively know better.

      As for your point A... ALL we can work with is what we know of societies ultimately. You can of course simply state "well, its alien, no argument from experience means anything" but that just means there's no discussion to be had AT ALL. I mean, fine, aliens are alien, nothing we know applies to them, we can all pack up and go home now. Instead what I've tried to do is both argue from analogy with human societies and to look at what makes human societies necessarily as they are. I've pointed out that one of the hallmarks of human society is economically rational behaviour. Humans aren't ALWAYS rational, not even at the level of entire societies, but they are pretty well bounded within limits. When a society becomes TOO economically irrational it simply cannot support itself anymore, necessary functions cease to be carried out, anomy results. Given the large investment needed to achieve even limited interstellar flight it seems reasonable that it would require some degree of stability to achieve. Economic rationality thus seems like a reasonable hypothesis, and its hard to make any sort of economic argument for interstellar flight.

      As for the point that single individual (who in human society are often not rational actors) would have unfettered access to the vast energy required for an interstellar mission, the argument is similar. A society filled with irrational individuals, each one free to deploy terajoules of power as they see fit doesn't sound to me like it would last very long. Would human civilization last very long if every individual had the equivalent of an arsenal capable of sterilizing the surface of the Earth? I really doubt it. We're scared that someone might get a nuke or make a super germ. Any really advanced civilization will PERFORCE have integrated consensual decision making to a very high degree, and it will almost surely have to be quite rational.

      In fact this is the real ultimate conclusion that the blogger in the original story has to come to, that advanced civilizations must be very rational, very conservative too. The alternative is what? Societies that stagger forward to advanced technology for a decade or a century and fling a few random objects out into the void before they go kaboom? If so then I think his conclusion, that we're never likely to meet them, is justified. Either way it seems justified. The likelyhood seems low IMHO. I've explained that line of reasoning, as did the original story. You're free to object, but I think the discussion won't move forward until you're willing to really examine your own assertions and weigh them against other possibilities.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    64. I would just say on the first point that every single organism we have ever observed, including humans, spends all the energy it can get hold of on growth and reproduction in some sense. There's NEVER 'spare' energy. Were there the vast quantities of spare energy that would be required for interstellar travel that would imply that said society has either A) limited itself in terms of growth, which IMHO implies it probably wouldn't be interested in exploration, a fundamentally growth-linked behavior; or B) is limited by some OTHER constraint.

      Possibility B brings us to the second set of points you bring up. If a society was so advanced that it could do things like harness all the energy of its star, it seems hardly likely that possibility B would be a factor (IE at that level of technology you can simply synthesize matter from energy or harvest it from your star etc).

      As for 'super technological wonders' like exploding stars... A) you have to posit some mechanism for this sort of thing. Its all well and good to say that is what would happen, but without either evidence or at least a theory as to how this would be done it is just a dead-end for any discussion, you might as well just say "fairies did it" or something. B) where are all these stars? Surely if a civilization can engineer entire star systems then its impact on the visible matter in the galaxy would soon be impossible to miss. Certainly if this sort of thing has happened much at all there would be whole interstellar civilizations of beings munching on stars. I can only assume one of two things is true, either this sort of thing is impossible (and indeed I cannot imagine any actual technological way to 'take apart' a star) or intelligent life is VERY rare in the Universe, rare enough that we can't pick out its signature from natural phenomena. Either of these alternatives tends to validate the original premise, that we're unlikely to ever meet another species.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    65. Sure, never is a long time, but we also don't need to come even close to postulating never. Lets suppose it is difficult and expensive enough to travel between the stars that actual colonization is effectively a losing proposition. You might even be able to accomplish it now and then, but its not often attempted, rarely succeeds, and thus for every given instance of an inhabited planet the probability of founding even one colony is less than one. Under this assumption civilizations don't 'spread', so they will only come into contact by proximity.

      Secondly we then look out at the sheer vastness of the Universe. If intelligent life isn't SUPER common, and doesn't last for millions of years, then the chances of 2 civilizations being nearby in time and space rapidly approaches zero. In the whole Universe will it never happen? Probably it will, but the chances that WE are one of that handful are very low.

      I think that the fundamental stumbling block that I run into all the time with these sorts of discussions is that the human mind is simply not capable of appreciating the sheer scale of the Universe in both time and space. We see a Universe vastly full of 'stuff', but space is vast beyond all human imagining, and time is long beyond all human imagining. Unless intelligent life is either extremely common or extremely facile at both crossing these unimaginably vast reaches of space and enduring across vast cosmological ages of time then every such spark is almost sure to be unique and alone. If the Universe in its lifetime holds 10 trillion civilizations then we have virtually no hope of ever meeting even one other.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    66. Re:No by thingummy · · Score: 1

      In fact I justified my assertion that no one individual would have access to excessive amounts of energy

      Not really. Like I pointed out earlier too, your "justification" started with assuming the same fact that it tried to "justify".

      You can of course simply make your own assumptions, which is exactly what your points A and B ARE

      Absolutely false. Logic 101 disaster. In the form of argument you are making ("no small group of individuals of an unknown civilization can possibly have energy enough to space travel"), burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders. My points A and B are just 2 possibilities, for a rigorous argument I do not even need to specify them. They are just for your benefit. The form of argument I am making (simply "not necessarily"), burden of proof is absolutely not anywhere around me.

      IMHO B can be dismissed. While it is likely that we will find methods of travel that are MOST energy efficient we already know the uttermost theoretical limits on minimum energy, which are actually the ones I quoted, 450 pWh/metric ton at 0.1C (and in fact this number has been demonstrated to be low by an order of magnitude

      If the distances are reduced by multiple orders of magnitude using other dimensions and wormholes, what good is a calculation using "C"[sic] ?

      Would human civilization last very long if every individual had the equivalent of an arsenal capable of sterilizing the surface of the Earth?

      It not only would, but it has. It all depends on the form of energy. To humans, an immense amount of energy is available in the form of free mass, using which most humans can just hurl rocks at each other. To someone in a "free mass" scarce society proficient in unlocking the energy potential of free mass, it might sound like a liberal overabundance of "energy", but we are utter fools sitting on an astronomical amount of energy , where single individuals are completely unable to destroy the civilization using this energy.

      The alternative is what? Societies that stagger forward to advanced technology for a decade or a century and fling a few random objects out into the void before they go kaboom

      In exactly the same manner as earth humans have an overabundance of energy in the form of mass, which is suited well for throwing rocks at each other but not for much else; the "alien" civilization might have trillions of exawatts of energy available to many single persons in a form which is not suited to going kaboom, but is suited excellently to space travelling through wormholes.

      You're free to object, but I think the discussion won't move forward until you're willing to really examine your own assertions and weigh them against other possibilities.

      All the points you have made so far show that it is YOU that are unwilling to consider "other possibilities". I am the one who is pointing these other possibilities to you, if you haven't noticed. That is what my points A and B are all about.

    67. Re:No by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't grant your first assumption. In the first place, you're thinking about colonization in some 1960s mindset. Indeed, your example for energy cost is predicated on Apollo-style payloads. Get your head out of the era when computers were the size of buildings and machines are the size and function of John Deeres. The advancements of the future aren't big, they're small, and that will make things most haven't even dreamed about cost effective. We're already working on nanoscale molecular machines and subatomic data storage. We might be able to send a payload the size of a matchbox or something that has everything necessary to self replicate and expand in near limitless fashion upon arrival at some other world. (This is actually likely to be the way we start colonizing in system, for the same reason: cost effectiveness.) If having establishing organic life is important, once the nanomachines have been working long enough to build facilities to grow lifeforms, they can simply grow them from some suspended unicellular form (life, conveniently, begins as one cell in all cases). Work is already quite advanced on artificial wombs, and will probably be complete in a matter of decades.

      Once you leave the 20th century behind, you'll find a lot more is possible than you've probably thought about. And this is without even considering what we might be able to do in another century. We're still practically infants when it comes to quantum effects and how to use them.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    68. Re:No by lahvak · · Score: 1

      I was never questioning the premise that we are very unlikely to meet another species. I was just disagreeing with your assertion that no civilization will ever engage in interstelar travel. I agree that it would be rare, but I am still not convinced that it could not happen.

      We are both talking about stuff that we have no idea about. And we both seem to be projecting our own respective cultural biases onto alien civilizations that, as far as we can tell, probably not even exist. I therefore do not see the necessity for presenting a theory how some specific technological advancement would work. After all, a person from 1000 years ago, if confronted with out current tiny technological advancements, would most likely be convinced that "fairies did it".

      --
      AccountKiller
    69. Well, sure, I agree, it is hard to be certain what is and isn't going to be possible in an engineering sense. You certainly cannot say with absolute certainty what the capabilities of a specific mission mass budget will be centuries down the road. There are questions though, blind optimism is not advised. First of all we have yet to witness any sort of complex nano-technology in action. While clearly it is possible to do things similar to what living organisms do IMHO there must be some fairly significant barriers to going much further than that, otherwise we'd having life forms with such capabilities already. Nor is it at all certain that such small and thus delicate and vulnerable structures could survive for long in the high radiation environment prevailing during a high velocity interstellar voyage (or even just floating around in the interstellar environment for that matter). 'starwisp' type vehicles are at best highly speculative. Possible? Maybe, but nobody has suggested a framework under which such technology would work.

      I've THOUGHT about a lot things. Obviously extrapolation is reasonable, OTOH plenty of engineers and such will tell you that this level of miniaturization probably won't work. I suspect the truth is somewhere in between. Many of the things it is so easy for a sci-fi author to write up like it is plausible will turn out to be pipe dreams, but many things will turn out to be possible. The question then is will the real utility of a bunch of these low-mass craft really be great enough to do a whole lot? Only time will tell. I think the loss rate could be very high and then you're sort of back to "it takes a lot of energy" again, just for slightly different reasons. If you coupled that with "these sorts of spacecraft are pretty limited" then where are you?

      Its an interesting question at least.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    70. Eh, yeah, well, we can only discuss things within the context of our own knowledge and experiences, that's true. I'm not entirely convinced that we have 'no idea' though. I think in terms of knowing what things are likely to be physically possible we're in a lot better shape than the people of 1000 years ago. I'm reminded of Isaac Asimov's famous essay where he talks about there being a HUGE difference between virtually no data and having a lot of data but not all the answers. Ancient man believed the world was flat. Indeed this was a logic belief which conformed with the available data, but it was of course a horribly inaccurate estimate of the shape of the Earth. 17th Century people OTOH knew the dimensions and general shape of the Earth, but still were unaware of its exact shape, considering it to be a sphere. While still not perfectly accurate their estimate is good enough that for the most part it is still used today even though we know that the Earth is in fact 0.3% oblate. Likewise NASA does not normally perform relativistic mechanical calculations for celestial navigation, 17th Century knowledge of mechanics suffices for this purpose. Clearly the knowledge of the 17th Century, while incomplete in many respects was good enough to irrefutably declare that the Earth was round, and to calculate the trajectories of the objects in the Solar System to great accuracy.

      Likewise our understanding of things like basic conservation laws, causality, and thus the absolute limitations on travel to the stars. These things are not simply theories we've cooked up. They are reinforced by a vast interlocking array of observations. To for instance posit the actual existence of a reactionless drive or some form of FTL would be as if some 18th Century navigator had stumbled upon a whole new continent in the midst of the Atlantic ocean, there simply wasn't any unknown territory with the room to fit it into anymore.

      Clearly you can always just say "well, you haven't looked in the right place, your viewpoint is limited by current understanding" etc. but what would you say to someone who showed you a map with Atlantis in the middle of ocean? It just can't be fitted with what we know, and we've seen too much to discount it, Atlantis just doesn't exist. It can't. FTL and etc things likewise.

      So, that means we have to do it "the hard way". Will that never ever happen? I just posit that the hard way is too uneconomical to be at all common. I don't claim it is literally impossible. Contrariwise it seems likely it is possible to some degree, but I question if it can really happen enough to matter.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    71. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually FTL travel is quite possible.

      And to contradict the nonsense another poster said, Einstein's theories are not the word of God, just the flawed partial understanding of reality from a mortal being. Like every other scientist before him and all those who will come after him.

      In time he will be proven wrong as all proponents of incomplete scientific hypotheses and theories have been and humanity will progress as it always does.

      So, FTL travel is possible for 2 main reasons:

      1. Quantum entanglement. It matters not that humanity can't see a way for information to travel between 2 photons even if they appears to communicate instantaneously, nature can do it and in time we shall as well. Just as we did with aircraft, which in an earlier time was considered impossible.

      And

      2. It also appears likely because based on a recent paper that concludes that the speed of light isn't constant and only has the speed it has because of photonic interaction with virtual particles in the quantum vacuum. Get rid of that barrier in a volume of space and you have infinite velocity and the Star Trek future looks very likely.

      So yes FTL travel is going to happen and all the skepticism in the world, well grounded though it might be, won't be able to stop it.

      As for causality, our understanding of it would change if it's found that there isn't a universal speed limit and physicists would have to modify their understanding of it as well.

      And in an earlier time space travel itself was considered absurd. Humans didn't have the slightest clue about escape velocity, orbital velocity, or staged rockets, but in time we learned and applied that knowledge and now we can use rockets to send people and cargo into space which is boring to most people now, but centuries earlier would have been considered magic.

    72. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When all we could do was throw rocks, we certainly didn't know how to get to the moon, but we also didn't know anything that told it it was impossible.

      That's a ridiculous statement. Of course we knew it was impossible. In order to reach a place, you had to be able to walk there. There was no stairway to reach the moon, so it was impossible to get there.

    73. Re:No by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

      If only I had mod points.

      If FTL is possible, everything -- everything -- falls apart, because we've knocked out causality. There may be something left if causality falls, but no branch of science or philosophy offers us any tools to analyze it.

      If FTL is not possible, then the more advanced our communication and computation and HCI become, the less motivation we have to move even beyond low orbit. Think of how gamers whine about hundred-millisecond ping times today. Now imagine continuous, fine-grained, fully-integrated access to post-Google at the pre-conscious level -- and imagine that suddenly half your thoughts are experiencing multi-second latency. Not even the most inveterate stoner would be eager to tolerate that sort of impairment.

      And the idea of traveling to another solar system? It would amount to forking reality, with the travelers effectively removing themselves from Earth's consensus universe forever.

  90. This makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The question of why aliens might "want to come here" is probably fundamentally flawed because we are forming that question from our current (tiny) viewpoint.

    By this exact same reasoning we can also conclude that "The question of why aliens might NOT want to come here is equally fundamentally flawed ..."

  91. Problems never change by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Society is dominated by scarcity. You always need either power or material. Food and most other things come from a combination of the two. So the question of "why" is simply answered by "do they need materials or energy that may be local to us" or "are they just curious."

    1. Re:Problems never change by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Scarcity is already largely an artifact of the attempt of international capitalism to maximize profit by limiting supply.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    2. Re:Problems never change by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Most scarcity is not. Only the small subset of digital property encounters artificial scarcity. Computers, milk, oil, and other physical goods have genuine scarcity. That a small percentage of items are falsely scarce doesn't mean we live in a post-scarcity society.

    3. Re:Problems never change by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      If that was true, we wouldn't need agricultural subsidies to retard production.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    4. Re:Problems never change by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The subsidies aren't there to retard production, but to stabilize the food production. Overproduce every year and destroy half. That way, when you have a drought year and production is half, you can still feed everyone.

      Yes, I realize that's not how it works. But that was the intention. Now it's all bribes for votes, with farms being concentrated in the hands of mega-corps demanding political favor.

    5. Re:Problems never change by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Why not overproduce every year, and send half to Africa?

      Or overproduce every year, use the same process as these guys, and store up enough food for 27 years worth of famine:
      http://www.mygofoods.com/?

      In short, why bother with the free market at all?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    6. Re:Problems never change by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Why not overproduce every year, and send half to Africa?

      When we did that, the food was confiscated by warlords, sold to the highest bidder, and caused the collapse of local agriculture and propped up despots. Did you really think that was a good idea?

    7. Re:Problems never change by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      That's because we did it wrong. What we should have done- used freeze dry and MRE packaging techniques, and air bombed the country from 30,000 feet, spreading it out wide and making sure everybody got some.

      Then we should have followed that up with a seed drop- the ultimate in guerilla gardening, to make sure the land would produce the next season whether or not anybody farmed.

      But you have a good point- famine is only caused by politics and bad economics, these days.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    8. Re:Problems never change by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The problem wasn't "scarcity" it was distribution. There's enough food on this planet to feed everyone comfortably (despite what the human-hating environmentalists claim).

    9. Re:Problems never change by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      True enough. Always has been. Oh, darn, I forgot and switched to my autism sig line. My previous sig line was Je Suis Marxiste, Tendance Reinhard- Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Bavaria seems to have a lot to say on the subject of just distribution.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  92. this is silly by PermacultureEngineer · · Score: 1

    How completely boneheaded! If I were ten times as smart and had instant access to all known information (and presumably a very long life, by virtue of magical technology), I would get BORED. What better way to relieve boredom than to go looking for a totally alien perspective on the universe?

    1. Re:this is silly by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      I've already commented, or I'd mod you up.

      The other reasonable answer is a religious need for followers to evangelize.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  93. If we can't understand them we can't predict them. by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    If we are not smart enough to know how advanced aliens would think, how can Mr. Tyma be smart enough to be sure that they will not, for their own incomprehensible reasons, come here?

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  94. Re:How many feet in a mile? Really? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Smartness is having a correct answer. Whether it's complex deduction or trivia isn't distinguished by most.

  95. The smarter we are... by scream+at+the+sky · · Score: 1

    The more curious we get... I hope to hell that a person 10, 100, or 1000* smarter than we are now wouldn't have abandoned curiosity.

    --
    I wish I was a neutron bomb, for once I could go off...
  96. How would we know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are stupid people everywhere, they don't even know that they're stupid, and the bad part is I was so stupid I did not realize I was one of them.

  97. Recall != Smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aside from the dissonance in the presenter's mind (that he IS allowed to say what those potentially advanced species would and would not want prior to telling us that we can't know that due to their level of intelligence), his depiction of what it means to be smarter than you were before is flawed.

    Rapid access to answers isn't the measure of being smart. If you have a brain interface directly to Google, then you are as smart as you were before and you're as smart as Google, but that doesn't make you twice or thrice or 10 times as smart as you were before. It's not a multiplier. (Also, a brain interface to Google sure as hell won't make someone "know everything.")

    And by the way, a brain interface to Google would already *be* an augmentation of someone's brain. You wouldn't need to make the interface *and then* find the brain too slow, in need of augmentation.

  98. Incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We will never meet Aliens because of the simplest reason that there is a speed limit in the universe. The light from the closest star takes 8 minutes to reach us. The light from the second closest star takes about 4.2421 years [according to wikipedia] to reach us, after that, from the nearest star bodies light takes 4.3650, 5.9630 and 6.52 years to reach us from their point of origin.

    It is entirely asinine then to ask whether or not an extra-solar system entity will visit us some day. The distances to travel are monumental and it would take them generations to get to us, unless, of course, these entities have a lifespan in the terms of millions of years and are predisposed to sit thru their vollage...

    Now, you may ask me, do I think there is life out there? Absolutely! Will we ever detect it? Probably, but not as they currently are. Will they reach us or us reach them? Absolutely not, the laws of physics will get in our way.

    If you want a good representation on how these events may unfold, I suggest reading Carl Sagan's Contact, or watch the movie of the same name. Cheers!

  99. The author is confusing intelligence with ability by KeithH · · Score: 1

    The author writes How would you change if you were twice as smart as you are now...Or whenever it is you'll think we'd have the technology to travel to another solar system

    Having the technology to travel to another solar system does not necessarily require a super-human intelligence. The author's conclusion may be correct but not due to this very weak argument.

    One might instead argue that a race that has the capability of travelling to another solar system would be strongly motivated to do so simply because they have nearly exhausted the mysteries of their own system.

    Consider an extremely long-lived race with a very slow metabolism. Unlike humans, they might very well have the patience for such a long trip and and a biological advantage that makes the prospect less daunting.

    And back on the topic of intelligence, my experience is that curiosity is strongly correlated with intelligence. Furthermore, what would be the imperative driving the development of such intelligence? It would most likely be either curiosity or a threat. In either case, migration/exploration is likely.

  100. Re:How many feet in a mile? Really? by pmontra · · Score: 1

    It's 1.000 feet in a mile, right? What else?

  101. In the year 2525 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everything you think do and say, is in the pill you took today.

  102. Not all that much. I suspect. by westlake · · Score: 1

    How would you change if you had instant brain-level access to all information

    Unlimited access to information --- good, bad and misleading --- is not the same thing as understanding, Nor is understanding the same thing as skill.

    1. Re:Not all that much. I suspect. by ShoulderOfOrion · · Score: 1

      True. Furthermore, if I had instant brain-level access to every bit of information on the Internet, I'd know a LOT about the Kardashians and very little about how to build a Saturn V rocket engine.

      The more things change, the more things stay the same.

  103. If it were up to you by caywen · · Score: 1

    On one hand, as a hyperintelligent super powerful alien, why would you bother introducing yourself to a bunch of mindless apes? If you have questions, just disguise yourself as a human, have a couple of chats, ingest a bit of our media, and whatever passing curiosity you'd have about us would be quickly satisfied.

    On the other hand, you could just come down here, forcibly take a few humans for study. Who the hell cares about witnesses (which makes the whole shady-abduction-in-remote-forest thing seem stupid).

    I personally think that such aliens, if they exist, do already know about us as well as most other aliens in the universe. And they don't really care, except for the ones that are on par. In that case, they probably greet each other with a yawn and move on.

  104. The aliens would come here because they want us as specimens for their intergalactic zoo, a la Slaughterhouse Five!

  105. Don't eat the ones on the northwest continent by Dareth · · Score: 5, Funny

    The alien surgeon general recommends not eating pasty white humans from the northwest continent. You can eat all the yellow ones you like from the eastern continent they are much healthier for you. Though you may find yourself hungry again in just a few parsecs.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  106. Alien's on Slashdot! by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

    We all know any alien capable of reaching earth would be able to make a first post on Slashdot! AND we wouldn't even know it was +5 informative.. "Frosty Piss" is just a line of alien code to accomplish this task, but you didn't hear that from me.

  107. They don't want to meet us because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reason they don't want to meet us is because we are the neighbors next door.

    * Always fighting
    * Trashy place
    * Not friendly towards others
    * No consideration of our outer space neighbors (space junk).

    How many of you have neighbors like this? Do you want to meet them?

    1. Re:They don't want to meet us because... by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · · Score: 1

      Understood. we are the trailer-trash of the universe.

  108. Re:The author is confusing intelligence with abili by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · · Score: 1

    Consider an extremely long-lived race with a very slow metabolism. Unlike humans, they might very well have the patience for such a long trip

    space sloths?

  109. How short sighted by geekoid · · Score: 1

    And here is why we WILL achieve contact: AI.
    Once AI is good enough, a civilization could just send them out to make contact. Time wouldn't matter too much. As long as the have power, the AI will exist.

    There is no reason to think a civilization couldn't do that.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  110. Re:The author is confusing intelligence with abili by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Or just medical technology advanced enough where age is no longer an issue, or AI.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  111. Not equivalent by jitterman · · Score: 1

    Intelligence != ease/convenience of data acquisition

    --
    For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
  112. Aliens will come here for the Dragonballs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone here needs to start training harder.

  113. for the p0rn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His argument is fundamentally flawed as well.
    The aliens would come here for the p0rn, best in class in the Univers!

  114. Not Buying It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So being 1,000 smarter than a human being and the desire to explore are mutually exclusive?

    Probably the dumbest theory I've heard in awhile. We are ~1,000 smarter (citation?) than fish yet we still go exploring.

  115. no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Worst thing I've read on slashdot, ever. Logic held up half way through and then went batshit nonsense crazy why should I even finish this sentence properly ug.

  116. How about NEED by REALMAN · · Score: 1

    "The word 'want' might not apply at all to someone 1000 times smarter than us."

    How about the word NEED?

    Considering the resources needed for a species that continues to grow it may be need that spurs a species to move beyond it's borders.

    --
    - A Frog in a pond utters an azure cry. -
  117. There are no aliens... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are demonic manifestations. Some sort of lifeforms we have yet to understand. --Not what pop culture wants to to believe so eventually we'll come to understand and seek some future alliance. Making it cool.

    Just look at all the movies whose stories occur in the distant future. Then there is History channel telling you repeatedly "these gods created us" alongside all their blatant shows on "hell" and "haunting". You're being brainwashed by it.

    Why do you think they "watch from above" and fly around for so many centuries and not make themselves known in a formal communication with people? --without sounding too religious read the bible on it and you'll see they masquerade as all sorts of things throughout the centuries trying to exert control and influence we don't see.

    Anyway if there were aliens (as there are not) those beings are so much more advanced it would be like trying to talk to your dog and we're the dog. Never mind the technology, we can't comprehend the alternate realities and dimensions of these things.

  118. we are not getting smarter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are definitely not getting smarter as a species.
    Smart people don't live longer or reproduce more often.
    And our society makes sure dumb ass folks that would most certainly have been unable to survive 100 years ago breed like bunnies now.

  119. Why travel? Drugs & Porn, of course. by mveloso · · Score: 1

    Porn: the low-slung engine of progress.

    Either that, or they're filming a reality show.

  120. Playing along with the ridiculousness... by ZahrGnosis · · Score: 1

    I agree with most posters that the logic in the post is hugely flawed (predicting something about the future by arguing that we can't know enough to predict it is inane). But more constructively: our constant access to information hasn't sated our desire for more information. Information collection is driving the recent knowledge boom as much if not more than ease of access. Besides, no matter how much time passes, if we haven't visited another world we won't have the information about that world at our availability. You have to collect information before you can use it... that's WHY further exploration will always be a goal (unless, you know, we obliterate ourselves somehow in the mean time, or find something similarly more important in any given short-term).

  121. From the deepest corners of your Milky Way by notthegeneral · · Score: 1

    After browsing your Internets, we can say with confidence that we have no interest in you. However, we will take your cats.

  122. conversation starter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was posted just to talk about how presumptuous the writer was right?

  123. Cat-Killing Simplicity by IamIanB · · Score: 1

    I guess curiosity is a low and base instinct that we will have eradicated by the time we evolve? How will we continue to evolve without curiosity?

  124. Crises of Faith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like someone's trying to reconcile their belief in the Singularity with the Fermi Paradox.

  125. I have zero interest by Zeromous · · Score: 1

    I have zero interest in talking to ancient humans, but some egghead scientist might?

    This guy's logic is beyond dull.

    Why would we visit a frozen over lake in the middle of antarctica?

    --
    ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
  126. If this were true... by theendlessnow · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't I be getting thinner? And shouldn't my battery be lasting longer? Not too mention... I should be looking really sharp!

    But I seem to be getting larger. My memory is slower. I run down faster....

  127. Re:How many feet in a mile? Really? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Smartness is having a correct answer.

  128. Retitle: Melancholy for twilight zone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Melancholy for another run of twilight zone would be the appropriate title

  129. Siri makes U smarter!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cuz access 2 info == smart.

    Im smart cause I haz better tools than ur great great great grand mom!!

    I'm so hi up in my self referental nosense I feel like an alien in my UFO.

  130. Same problem as Fermi Paradox by darth_borehd · · Score: 1

    It's assigning modern human values to extraterrestrials hundreds or thousands of years in advance.

    You can make up whatever thought experiments you want, but until you have real data to back it up it's all just science fiction.

  131. They Live by tekrat · · Score: 1

    Of course aliens are coming HERE!
    We're cheap labor!
    Now, take off those huffman lenses and obey.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  132. Mothmen by ExecutorElassus · · Score: 1

    For all of its flaws, that odd artifact of Richard Gere's film career, The Mothman Prophecies had a couple insightful things to say about how a truly alien species would react to us. Both of them were in the form of a dialogue with the author of the book on which the film was based. They went:

    Richard Gere: But they're more advanced than we are: why don't they just explain themselves?
    Author: You're more advanced than a cockroach; you ever try to explain yourself to one of them?

    Richard Gere: but what do they want?
    Author: [something something] and their motives are not human.

    I think that's going to be the truest indicator of alien intelligences: we won't even understand them on a basic psychological level, let alone be able to have debates and conversations and cheesy expositional dialogue with them.

  133. I think we will meet aliens, and here is why. by mozkill · · Score: 1
    I think we will meet aliens, and here is how:
    1. 1. A remote civilization will recognize our planet and send a probe at sub-light speed (3% or less) for a journet of 1000 years, or whatever.
    2. 2. Within a few years of arriving at Earth, the probe will download (at light speed) a new Firmware update from the home planet, which has the newest technologies, innovations, and informations.
    3. 3. As the probe nears our solar system , it will begin growing biological versions of test-tube baby aliens.
    4. 4. The probe, using robots, will educate the newly born aliens just in time for their arrival at Earth.
    5. 5. The aliens arrive and say Hello.
    6. 6. The robots destroy us all.
    --

    -- Betting on the survival of the media industry is a serious risk. I advise investing elsewhere.
  134. Earth Life Alien Life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    * Aliens MAY NOT think in terms of 20-year-generations and 80-year lifespans. They may think in lifespans to the equivalent of thousands of Earth years.
    * Aliens MAY NOT have the herd-attachment of humans. Perhaps they don't care about who they leave behind.
    * Aliens MAY be able to "hibernate" for extended periods of time
    * Aliens MAY be highly resistant to radiation
    * Aliens MAY have different "value" systems - who are we to say what is worthwhile to them?

    You can only say that, based on our current understanding of physics, what the requirements are for interstellar travel and whether or not humans are able to meet those.

  135. Intelligence by liviano_corzu · · Score: 1

    Intelligence. 1000 times more intelligent. Yeah right.
    Chances are that intelligence has rapidly diminishing returns. Specially because people today are not more intelligent. Maybe better educated.

  136. It's more than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    There is no combination of actual, real physical materials and technologies that could cross the interstellar void in something resembling a biological timeframe. Even if we would make a self-sustaining Space Shuttle that could last the 400000 years it would take to get to the nearest neighbor, the human race would be different by then anyways, making the whole "we" part of the story moot.

    Not to mention getting the people to live that long and not end up insane.

    The best we could hope for is interstellar communication using RF sent from here beamed at likely candidates for life.

    I believe life is fundamental and is a property of matter. Since I think it's the same periodic table of elements across the universe, and the same forces and chemical reactions, to me it's clear there are other planets out there with life processes going on.

    They'll learn the same things as we did, and confront the same limits. We can't get there, and they can't get here. Communication is the best we could hope for.

  137. One word: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Curiosity.

  138. Who would want to visit us... by cjjjer · · Score: 1

    Based on our movies alone about ET's what aliens would want to drop by only if to exterminate us so we don't end up attacking them in the future.

  139. We will see them when they want something we have by Glasswire · · Score: 1

    ..but probably not because they want to come and make contact for it's own sake.
    For all we know collecting industrial-level civilizations is a hobby, like owning ant farms or exotic plant gardens.
    Just because they want to come here doesn't mean they will likely see us as equals.
    Could be creatures at our level are prized pets and one day Earth will be depopulated by Spore-like ships grabbing product for sale to real civilizations

  140. Check out the novel Existence by David Brin by yossie · · Score: 1

    A complex and fun novel with a main theme revolving around this exact question. Stop reading here to avoid spoilers..

    Travel in body between star systems is not cost effective or appealing. BUT, what if you could upload your mind into a small holographic computer powered by ambient light and be shot across space towards a planet in another solar system. When there is less ambient light, processing speed and passage of time simply slows down - but the capsule continues on it's trajectory. When it gets near another star, more ambient light speeds up processing and time. Such a computer would be capsule shaped and not very large (a few feet long, less than a foot wide.) These capsules carry not one, but MANY sentient beings, from many races. What if you could create a whole lot of these capsules and send them in every direction. Many will never make it anywhere, or if they do, there may be little to nothing to see there, but a few will make it someplace interesting (specifically in the story, Earth.) In the book, these capsules have been arriving on Earth for many thousands of years, maybe many more, but humanity has never caught on to what they are till now (now being the near future.)

    There is so much more to the book, of course, and most of it is interesting and fun. The main plot, though, is well handled and suggests a reasonable technological and science based solution to star travel.

  141. Remember Stanislav Petrov? by fritsd · · Score: 2

    You could actually say that being physically violent toward one another is the single biggest motivating factor in scientific development, next to medicine.

    You could also actually reason that being physically violent toward one another will be the single biggest factor in the sudden destruction of our civilization: See the following fictional doomsday scenario: Dr. Strangelove, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.

    To quote Albert Einstein (who apparently heard it from someone else):

    "I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones"

    See also: Mutual Assured Destruction

    But, that's all just for laughs.

    THIS is the reality of our situation (if you dare to read it): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov.

    --
    To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
  142. Travelling in the flesh... by hpa · · Score: 1

    I have seen a lot of bits about why interstellar travel may never be practical. All of them seem to assume not only travel in the flesh, but round-trip travel. Realistically, by the time we can build something that can travel to the stars, it seems quite likely that we also can download conciousness into a robot. Send a robotic (one-way) mission to build bodies and transmission equipment, then have the real travellers download themselves, or copies of themselves, via radio. No need for life support or suffer through the boredom of even relativistic travel.

  143. Why presume they are rational? by miroku000 · · Score: 1

    Aliens might visit us for reasons that are not rational. Or, they may have a religion that makes them want to come over and convert us. Or maybe that was redundant.

  144. Sci-Fi authors have been considering it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I recently read Blindsight by Peter Watts and it had a pretty good take on the future of humanity wrt technology and space exploration; in it, mankind has settled on the moon and Mars but otherwise has become more and more interested with virtual realities where a person can become practically omnipotent and have everything they've ever wanted; why bother expanding deeper into space? And, of course, that gets flipped upside down when a bunch of alien probes show up one day in the Earth's atmosphere, take a picture of everything, and disappear. The book is primarily about the human mind and how completely alien and foreign another form of life could be to our own but I still saw a future where our own needs are better taken care of by technology than by exploring elsewhere a pretty viable future for mankind.

  145. Stupid assumption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A stupid article not worthy publishing on Slashdot. Why would humans 1000 smarter than us not want to meet other aliens? And that's aside from the fact that we'll most likely never (or at least not in our current form) attain an intelligence level of 1000x.

  146. No tech difference from '03 to '13? by snadrus · · Score: 1

    Facebook (est. 2004), the social 'revolution'
              allowing many-to-many conversations and helped overthrow some oppressive governments.
    Tablets, smart phones: the basis of the summary wouldn't be recognizable a decade ago.
              Those broke the MS monopoly and are breaking the Apple walled garden.
    Massive acceptance of solar & implementation of wind power.
    Power savings:
              in '03 it was thought we'd need huge power draws to run today's computers.
              Now theories of ever-growing energy requirements of a society are even in question.
              With the above, it's helping break the oil monopoly.
    E-ink
    The Cloud
              Now a start-up doesn't need to have huge VC funding to buy hardware it may not need, but can scale if they do.
    Near-free micro-controllers with amazing sensor arrays (plus OpenCV).
    3D printing
    Vast materials science, directed sound, and other discoveries have happened (most I've read from Slashdot).

    Engineers are better off now. Sure, politics is a little crazier, but technology (powering & directing the real world) is better off.

    --
    Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
    1. Re:No tech difference from '03 to '13? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      the oil monopoly

      Do you understand what the word monopoly means? Can you name the single organization or person that this monopoly consists of?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    2. Re:No tech difference from '03 to '13? by snadrus · · Score: 1

      The oil market had monopoly control of the wider energy market.
      A monopoly's possessor need not be corporeal. It's just a relation.

      --
      Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
  147. Obligatory XK... err, C&H by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TFS is as dumb as they come, but this seems apropos.

  148. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tourism.

  149. It's something people don't want to hear. by Myria · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I know it isn't a real popular opinion to hold, but everything I see indicates that interstellar distances are pretty close to uncrossable for physical beings like humans. Frankly I think that is the plain answer to the whole Fermi Paradox that people just don't really want to come to grips with. The gulfs between the stars are so wide that nobody crosses them, EVER.

    I think that the biggest scientific discoveries coming this century will be about what we can't do. We'll progress significantly in applied sciences such as medicine, but in physics, we'll likely prove the impossibility of many things of which we dream.

    Many of us like science fiction stories, but the reality is that they are not dreams of the future - they are merely a modern type of fantasy. We keep dreaming of the stars even when it's impossible. Unless we find a mass relay embedded in Charon.

    --
    "Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
  150. Computronium by TuringCheck · · Score: 1
    Every little piece of matter is valuable if it can be converted to computronium to host those super-superintelligences.

    Galaxy central black hole: jackpot!

    1. Re:Computronium by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 1

      Agreed. The question is who would take the leap across the great gulf when there are always much cheaper ways of getting more matter, even if you hve to take it from someone else? At best all the sponsors of such a mission can hope to get back is information, but as the author of the blog piece says, eventually there just isn't that much more to know that's really all that valuable that its worth going all that way at all that expense to get.

      In terms of "why haven't we met anyone" (the Fermi Paradox) though we really don't need to assume that interstellar travel is NEVER undertaken, only that it is modestly rare. If intelligent life itself is fairly uncommon (probably not an unreasonable assumption, certainly plausible) then we could easily see ourselves being the only active intelligent species in the galaxy at this time.

      It may be that simple curiousity and a drive to spread exists in some species to a degree which does drive them across the galaxy. Unlike many I'm not as sanguine about the ease of such a species becoming ubiquitous. Travel itself may be slower and more difficult than we imagine with a high cost and high rate of failure. Coupled with a moderately short survival time for technological civilizations might mean that each colony/Von Neuman probe on average produces less than one or only right about one offspring. It could then take vastly longer than the half-life of a species to explore a large part of the galaxy. In that scenario it may be that there are regions which are explored and 'occupied' in some sense for a time, but much/most of the galaxy remains virgin.

      Even if these interstellar civilizations were moderately common the gulf of TIME is very large. If each lasts only a small handful of millions of years then most of time is empty of them. I really doubt that the artifacts of such a civilization would remain in any easily discoverable form for more than a few million years at most.

      Thus in effect its easy to postulate we could be pretty much completely alone even without assuming the absolute infeasibility of interstellar travel. It just needs to be difficult and expensive. From where I stand it seems like that's exactly what it is! Even some advanced machine race which can make highly durable 'bodies' and has reached Kardeshev level 2 might not be able to spread all through the galaxy, or last very long.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
  151. Too late, they've been here for centuries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look into the Billy Meier case. There are 20,000+ pages in high german, including an alternate history of earth, and a cosmology, related to the Swiss farmer by human extra-terrestrials (I know, one is crazy to talk about it). He's also made accurate, well documented predictions. To hear translations of conversations with 'Ptaah' and 'Semjase', Google "Billy Meier". Also interviews with the man on YouTube. Since 1978...

    We're not ready for this conversation. It is literally not possible to have a serious conversation on this subject.

    1. Re:Too late, they've been here for centuries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are interested in us, they say, because we have a common ancestry. They're also interested in our planet, apparently. They are warning us that our technology is more advanced than our judgement, and that as soon as we become space faring, we will immediately become aware of the other space faring races, not all of them benevolent. Their advice? Meditate.

  152. Just Walk Up to Them and say Hello by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This just seems like another "Women are aliens and I'll never meet them." complaint from the nerdlinger group.

  153. This is an old idea by PhamNguyen · · Score: 1

    Not that people don't independently come up with existing ideas, but credit is due to Vernor Vinge for suggesting this first in his novel "Marooned in Realtime"

  154. "Don't answer, truth is, you're not smart enough" by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Actually, I am. I know that for every 100% I go up, I'd become 1000% more asshole.

    Hence, I would become a super-knowing asshole of such epic proportions that you'd be enslaved to me. After all, with that asshole attitude, I'd exceed even the sociopathic tendencies of corporations.

    Author of TFS and TFA are apparently not smart enough as-is.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  155. Well, we might meet them, but how would we know? by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    I agree, the idea that intelligences capable of FTL travel or communication are unlikely to continue to house themselves in their original organic containters, built accidently by self-replicating molecules which give no thought (literally) to the comfort of the awareness they house.

    For some period at least, such intelligences might have enough curiousity to look around the universe. The material part of their telepresence, however, might be about the size of a grain of sand, and at least as noticeble. Communication wouldn't be a priority. Would you talk to an ant? You might inhale a telepresence device, however. Or eat it. You'd never know.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  156. access to knowledge != "smarter" by trandles · · Score: 1

    The author conflates access to information with being smarter and in the process invalidates his own theory. I'm not necessarily smarter just because I can look up a set of facts quicker now than in the past. Just because we have access to the latest physics research papers via the preprint archive doesn't mean we're all magically more intelligent. Besides, since when does knowing more about the universe translate into LESS of a sense of wonder?

  157. And I like the zoo hypothesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because it says if they're around, they're already here. But the caveat is they're plenty smart enough to not rattle the bars on the cage all the monkeys are in, lest the poo gets flung about. This is because for the most part, monkeys are more fun to observe when not in an all-out agitated state. Particularly if watching them from a position where the poo just might be able to hit you.

    The second catch is we'll only know whether or not this is true when we're able to get out of the solar gravity well in a reasonable timeframe. (Have a working warp drive or some such near C or FTL way of interstellar travel.) At that point any interstellar aliens would have reason to address us and tell us the rules, because then we would have the potential to spread our stupidity about and be a problem for the rest of the universe. Yet until then, we're not going to know any better as we're captive in our solar gravity well while being fairly harmless and possibly fun to watch.

  158. No Intellegent Life Here! by uslurper · · Score: 1

    Of course aliens are not interested in us. Just look at this thread. Not one intelligent comment.

    The author kinda rambles. But I think his point is that what we want from alien interaction right now is to learn lots of cool stuff.
    That boils down into three categories.. 1. Super powerful energy sources. 2. Control of time, space, and gravity. 3. Unlimited life/food etc.

    But an alien life form would already have these things, so why would they be interested at all in 'exploring the universe' when instead they could just sit on their fat happy asses and not worry about a thing ever? -Answer, they don't

    Alternatively, in 1000 years (or more likely 10,000-100,000, if we survive that long), we will have all those cool gadgets. Then we will have no need of learning stuff from other aliens, so why would we care? -Answer, we won't.

    On a side note, the whole idea of aliens coming to our planet to steal our 'resources' is ludicrous! If they have the technology for interstellar travel, creating unlimited amounts of air/water/etc will be easy. And if there is no real 'secret' to the universe, it would be much more economical to mine metals from asteroids and water from comets or rings. It takes way too much fuel to enter and exit the gravity of a planet.

    --
    oldhack: "Security is a waste of money until shit hits the fan. 5 minutes later, it becomes waste of money again. "
  159. Are you kidding me OP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why We'll Never Meet Aliens

    The question of why aliens might 'want to come here' is probably fundamentally flawed because we are forming that question from our current (tiny) viewpoint. The word 'want' might not apply at all to someone 1000 times smarter than us.

  160. Fascinating. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And yet there's one "generally grievous" flaw with the author's argument: Stormtroopers weren't aliens! Bio-engineered, perhaps, but inescapably human. Rather than presume the author hasn't seen Star Wars, I'd prefer to think he simply boycotted the specifically grievous pre-sequels (post-prequels? Whatevs).

  161. It's a fair point, but presumes much by emagery · · Score: 1

    We ourselves on an exponentiating curve when it comes to technology, and will have to augment ourselves just to keep up with ~VERY~ short order (in the grand scheme of human history thus far.) Still, the presumption that being smarter (or even less human) will make us less curious is ... well ... curious.

  162. what is this 'want' you speak of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "How would you change if you had instant brain-level access to all information. The word 'want' might not apply at all to someone 1000 times smarter than us."

    Obviously civilization would collapse as individuals merged into the collective singularity only to dissolve once the resulting hivemind contemplated the awesomeness of the pornosphere. Every bit of literotica, gif, jpg, and video ever made, absorbed in one giant WHOOSH of ALL-PORN.

  163. I think the premise is incomplete by cfalcon · · Score: 1

    Essentially, the point is "why would they come here"?

    And there's plenty of reasons. For instance, if humanity had that level of technology, we might be concerned with with an alien race hitting some tech singularity and coming to kill us all with underdeveloped morals and overdeveloped beam weaponry- we might want to monitor, meet, or conquer to ensure that such a thing doesn't happen. An alien race could certainly have a policy of exterminating anything that is sentient or surpasses a certain tech marker (FTL drives, grey goo, or something we haven't thought of yet). Alternatively, a race could seek out sentient sufferers and seek to aid that- if humanity reaches that level of advancement, instead of sitting back with a "prime directive" mentality, we may instead move in, ameliorate, offer immortality and uploads, etc.

    I suspect FTL is either impossible or has not been invented in Virgo Supercluster. It seems unlikely that we would be in the brief window of time from which it is invented until we see visible signs of such a civilization.

  164. The Dangers of Virtual Reality... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...eventually VR will become more enticing than real life and then who'll want to spend the time traveling the stars? Alternatively, THAT will become so boring we'll modify ourselves genetically to sustain interstellar travel to find other titillation be they VRs or the visceral.

  165. Wrong by heteromonomer · · Score: 1

    A thousand years later some of us may be a lot more connected with direct-brain-interfaces, to the point that there will be multihumanic species (like multicellular). It doesn't mean that the multihuman consciousness won't have curiosity, wants etc. Don't we, multicellular beings want to live, eat etc? Aren't we curious about bacteria? The whole article is pretty bad.

  166. confusing knowledge with smart by devent · · Score: 1

    If you really want to know how fast evolution is going, just visit a museum of Sumer or ancient Egypt. Sumer for example go back to 4500 or 4000 BC. Than compare the every day life of a Sumerer to the today life. You would be surprised how little people have changed.

    Sure, we have computers, air planes, auto mobiles, etc. today. But the every day life looks shocking familiar to 7000 years ego. We still drink wine and beer, enjoy music, enjoy dancing, enjoy talking, reading, praying, eating, mating, go to war, kill millions innocent including children, and so on. In fact I would say we didn't changed at all in 10,000 years.

    The author is confusing knowledge with wisdom or being smart. Sure in 100 years you will be able to load every article of Wikipedia in your brain, but will it make you smart? Intelligence is not how much you know, intelligence is your understanding and your problem solving abilities. Nobody would think that Newton was stupid only because he didn't know how far is the next star from us (Proxima Centauri 4.2421ly).

    Evolution is a very very very slow process. And if Darwin is correct then without pressure to become smarter, people will stay at the current level of "smartness". We have got the state in which we are smart enough, meaning we can produce food cheap and have a comfortable life. In fact, more smarter persons have a very difficult time to survive.

    I don't really think that give more 10,000 years or 100,000 years, even with the current exponential increasing technology, we will get any smarter then the Sumerer. Maybe if we can replace the part of the brain for "intelligence" with a computer chip.

    --
    http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
  167. Article so full of stupid assumptions by Nyder · · Score: 1

    I think the author is a prime example of how having better tech doesn't make you smart.

    Aliens, are well, Aliens. They probably wouldn't be human, and thus, would evolve along a different type of path.

    Another point, even with having all the tech in the world, sometimes it's nice to stretch your legs. I got computers, TV, phone, I don't have to leave home, everything I need is here or can be delivered. And yet I still go outside just for the heck of it.

    And while I can't speak for Aliens, I can speak for humans and we tend to do things just because we can do it. Travel to other stars? I'd guess humans are going to figure out how to do it and start doing it before our sun expands. Or maybe we'll kill most of each other off and live in caves. But either way, we ain't going to get the tech and knowledge, then do nothing with it.

    --
    Be seeing you...
  168. Consider this... by airplaneit · · Score: 1

    What ever happened to the reason we climb mountains? Because they are there.

  169. Re:No (speed of light, convservation of momentum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The parent post mentioned the energy cost of accelerating matter. It's really more about conservation of momentum. To get that ton of material going in one direction, you need equal momentum in the opposite direction. In fact, if you had some sort of cosmic connector between them; you could 'recover' the energy by stopping the thing going in one direction while stopping the thing going in the other. You could bop around all over the place constantly reusing some chunk of energy that was your capital equipment. Using a rocket like system though, you'd need to eject something to decelerate when you got to your destination, or have a star or planet at your destination absorb the momentum for you (and, if it wasn't on the scale of a gas giant you might end up kicking it out of its solar system.

    All of this supposes a lifeform/civilization that is based on 'massive' particles. One using massless particles like photons or very low mass particles like neutrinos, might get around this. Also, maybe for a really advanced civilization it's all about information. Some theories speculate that the universe is a kind of hologram, or maybe we're inside a black hole, so they may have other ways of doing things that we don't know about.

  170. There's plenty of reasons to want to come by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

    Just because you're super smart and capable of meeting all your needs in the immediate locale, doesn't mean there's no reason to ever visit. Aliens might just want to hang out and talk. Or have exotic space sex. Or eat us. Or all three. Seriously, have a little imagination.

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  171. Smart? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are confusing 'smart' with 'well informed'...
    Just because you can look up the length of a mile on your phone does not make you any smarter
    than anyone else - just better informed.
    And the biggest problem with this is the lack of 'common sense'..
    or 'I saw it on the internet so it must be right'.
    Supposing a worm altered the size of a mile on the Internet sites to 3 feet instead or 5,280.
    Would anyone notice?
    Now supposed the worm altered it to 4096....
    food for 'thought'... and there is preciouse little of that going around these days...

  172. Ob. DNA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Teasers.

  173. The answer is obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The smartest person on the planet just craves to be stupid. We'll be swarmed by mega-smart aliens doing stupid shit.

  174. Flawed by JBrow · · Score: 1

    The entire discussion as to why we will never meet aliens is fundamentally flawed because we are are discussing it from our current (tiny) viewpoint. And the rest? Well it's pure speculation.

    --
    --- You are in a little twisty maze of comments, all different.
  175. That's a fallacy. C.f. books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The same thing has been said about books. "Books will make people dumber because they have to memorize less!". A couple of hundred years of written text and a couple of dozen years of printed text shows evidence to the contrary.

  176. It's not the elite aliens, but their rejects... by sridharcheema · · Score: 1

    ... that'll get us. The type that doesn't want to buy the latest iPhone or follow their laws. Think of Aussies vs Aborgines, Pilgrims vs Indians, or Burmese pythons (pet rejects) vs alligators in the Everglades. No one consulted the Native Americans about the Loiusiana purchase. That's going to be the case with Earth, aka parcel #21239012. Hopefully not in my lifetime.

  177. Everest is littered with bodies of people by Marrow · · Score: 1

    Who didnt need to climb a mounting to achieve that altitude. We could be visited by alien kids on a joy ride. They could be driven from their homes by the same pressures that drive us from our homes. Their would could incur a extinction event. Or they may just want to get a tan.
    Or maybe, just maybe, they have a problem and would like a different point of view.

  178. no imagination by irving47 · · Score: 1

    We can't imagine being 2-10 times as smart as we are now, but then they go on to speculate why a civilization 100-1000 times as smart would or would not do ANYthing?

    --
    I had a sucky sig.
  179. government bureaucrats by John+Allsup · · Score: 1

    We have met strange aliens. They've taken human form and infiltrated jobs like social security clerk and ... BANG... silence... voices: gffbvgfgfggvfffdssdf... :-)

    --
    John_Chalisque
  180. Kids In The Hall already answered this question... by luke923 · · Score: 1

    They're coming for decorative spoons!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR_w-hFjqto

    --
    "Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two" -- RFC 1925
  181. bullshit by Dr+Max · · Score: 1

    Just because you know the answer instantly, doesn't mean you change who you fundamentally are. We have come a long way from hunter gatherer tribes, but you can still see it in us; when we make kills in video games it triggers the small adrenalin and dopamine release that we got when we made hunting in cave men times, and so on. Another thing that i think comes naturally in us and why we are here today is exploration (both knowledge and physical), and that wont change any time soon. I don't know why the aliens that are visiting us evolved, they might have no values.

    --
    Rocket Surgeon.
  182. news for philosophers and hypothetical matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...That don't understand the difference between "Begs the question" and "Raises the question."

  183. Such intelligence would die quickly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of boredom.

  184. Wow. by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

    It's funny when someone tries to use their limited logic set to predict the actions of 1000x more intelligent than them.

  185. Robots by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    They might have robotic probes that could stealthily sit and watch much like a National Geographic photographer, except with the cloaking device enabled because unlike a lion pride we'd react to the observers.

    If that was the case, we wouldn't know about them, and the premise of never "meeting" them still stands.

    We might be under surveillance now and never even have a clue. They are watching our Drunk Kitten videos on YouTube also, but won't show us their Drunk Tribble vids.

  186. What a Clown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > The idea that aliens will come visit us is fundamentally flawed. Paul Tyma ponders the technology that would be required for such an event ...

    What an incredible enough-said Paul Tyma is. Like fx the Incas knew what hit them, or renaissance people could forsee our drones. Ah, irritating clown. Make them go away.

  187. from the sky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it is more likely that rocks will fall from the sky than will dildos, and I base this on experience. Extrapolating to what else I can imagine coming from the sky, I would expect a dildo to fall out of the sky from an overhead plane before I would expect to fall an alien mechanism of any complexity greater than rock.

    If an alien mechanism entity were to arrive here, I expect it would do so erotically. Perhaps in the form of a falling dildo which strikes nonbelievers and rewards believers. Falling dildo theory is consistent and coherent with all modern quantum field theories and has graduated numerous selective algorithmic optimization eggs.

  188. Instant info access won't make us smart or better by backslashdot · · Score: 1

    Instant access to information won't make us smart or better decision makers. We are still subject to our emotions, and our curiosities, and our desires. Also, raw knowledge is not wisdom. I am reminded of a quote from Picasso .. "Computers are useless, they can only give you answers not questions" .. So yeah if we don't correctly and deeply query our information or understand how to trust it .. the information provided will not improve our decisions.

  189. The Found Tech Theory by FrankWolfConnell · · Score: 1

    The Argument "They would be far to advanced to want anything to do with us because of blank" holds no water for me. I've always held the theory that a particularly creative species would adapt whatever tech they find to their own purposes. Lets say Galactic Civ 1 exists for eons but dies out due to calamity or other misfortune Post Industrial Civ 2 who are on par with us now discover some left behind tech lets say it's an FTL engine of some sort. Civ 2 reverse engineers it and within 10 - 20 years they have their own FTL and any number of derivative Tech discoveries made along the way. Wouldn't that Civ still be relatively on par with us albeit with more advanced tech and still subject to the same impulses for exploration and discovery as we are today? This basic hypothesis is far more likely in my opinion than the traveling gods scenario, where they'd be to advanced to care. Because The Great Galactic Civ 1 would have left behind enough relics and trash over the eons for multiple post Industrial Civ' 2's to find and adapt. It's as good a theory as any.

  190. The Curiosity Factor by nicholasbbyrd · · Score: 1

    Look, the fact is that nearly all forms of intelligent life display the trait that we have dubbed "curiosity." We study things for the sole purpose of understanding them, I don't understand why a sentient species that has mastered space travel would look at Earth and decide that it's simply not interesting enough to investigate. Intelligence craves understanding and contact would be the best way to accomplish that. "What is that?" is a powerful and pervasive mindset, it drives science in it's entirety. A technologically superior species is likely to be more interested in answering all questions of existence, from quantum foam to "Why do humans act like that?" Technology is driven by curiosity and curiosity results in understanding, ergo the more knowledgeable you are the more questions you are likely to have, The only reason I see us not being visited are these: 1) We are alone. 2) Faster than light travel is impossible and we are not reachable. 3) Humans scare the living shit out of other sentient species because of our insane proclivity toward self destruction and murder.

  191. Resources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think only reason aliens would come here is just resurces. We got tons of water, metals, etc. Since we inhabit very dull neibourhood in galaxy, none in galactic community says anything if one race goes and recycles few planets to produce what they need.

    For us humans its imbossible to even quess what some super smart aliens might think. Its similar to small ant trying to understand humans and why humans keep destroying their nest over and over... In that light, i hope we newer run into aliens, becouse it they have technology for FTL travel, were doomed.

  192. Dr Greer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check out "Sirius Disclosure". Looks convincing enough to not completely dismiss out of hand.

  193. Brainsmart isn't everything by zwarte+piet · · Score: 1

    We also have a right brain hemisphere to explore, that people currenlty hardly use at all. It has it's own wildly different kind of intelligence and might have possibilities that may seem scifi/magic today.

  194. Basic example one earth why premise is flawed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Firstly 1000 smart is meaningless. What is 1000 smart ? 1000 time quicker to do an addition ? Hu. Yeah. My PC is then billion time smarter than me. More knowledge ? Does not jive, we have now external brain (think wiki) and have 1000000 time the knowledge available than a single indivividual has. No really the 1000 smart is empty of meaning.

    Secondely, for the same reason there are *physical* limitation on computer to CPU speed and miniaturisation, a being composed of cells would effectively also had limitation on how intelligent they can become. I am not going to pretend to put a limitation myself, but on the carbon-carbon bond level you can't get such a speed as basic ion transport like our neurone. You can imagine intelligence based on silicon (electronic transport), or various crystal (light) but then you fall in the problem that this need wildly different environment than the one we are living in to get such simple reaction going, in pressure, temperature, or gravity , or a combination of all those. So yeah good luck with your 1000 time smart as premise.

    Finally the third and most important point. The premise is flawed. The reason alien might want to come to visit us has nothing to do with intelligence. The only word I need to mention is : curiosity. Even "simpler" intelligence are curious. Ever heard of the chicken wanting to go the other side of the road ? Well it was curious to see if the seeds were tasting better the other side. Ever see a cat curious ? I love cat but they are dumber than dog which aren't bright themselves.

    Maybe instead of pretending we are special, and intelligence make us behave differentely than other animal, those idiot making their "you can't udnerstand somebody smarter than us" would shut the fuck up and realize that since we have SO MUCH in common with our other animal brethen despite our so called "smartness" difference.

  195. Aliens may never come themselves by ajyand · · Score: 0

    The smarter they (aliens) get the harder they will explore the universe through their instruments. The way we have progressed, it's very likely that our devices will land on their planet (if not theirs on ours).

  196. Extrapolation without conclusion. by AAWood · · Score: 1

    "The word 'want' might not apply at all to someone 1000 times smarter than us."

    Or alternatively, it might. What was the point again?

  197. If it can kill a cat ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would hate to be these aliens who, hyper intelligent, have lost all sense of curiosity.

  198. Flawed thinking by skaag · · Score: 1

    This thinking is flawed. There were human beings alive 1000 years ago who were 1000 times smarter than the average human being living today. The simple truth is that most creatures prefer to have fun and be lazy.

    A remote alien race wont be comprised of a population that is 100% smart. It will be more like what we have: 1% or less of the population are smarter than all the rest.

    They will want to experience our culture, if only to mirror their own to themselves. Out of curiosity, out of wanting to have fun, out of wanting to experience something new. And maybe just because they can!

    --

    All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain... time... to... die...

  199. No FTL for you by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

    FTL travel will probably never be possible at all. Even though the Alcubierre drive is "not so impossible", there are still problems that make it improbable or useless. The front of the bubble has Planck lenght thickness : good luck assembling that!, from exotic negative mass matter with may or may not exist. But my favorite is being unable to steer the bubble or make it stop, so you're trapped in warp speed or hyperspace essentially.

    Without FTL there's probably no point to interstellar travel at all. But maybe you can count on relativistic time dilatation so that you can reach a star in a short enough time for you?, if you go way over 0.1c. The only price to pay is all your friends and family, society and culture you lived in are all dead. But you can only reach a nearby system where you'll get to skirt around useless rocks, comets and gas giants.

  200. No but not for that reason by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Because over here in the real world, no 'one' will ever be capable of making the trip. Hawking is wrong, it wouldn't be Columbus coming to the new world, it would be Columbus sailing to the moon, and that is simply never going to occur.

  201. Obligatory JBS Haldane quote by bdwoolman · · Score: 1

    "I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."

    Go here for more

    --
    "No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
  202. A question for Mr. Tyma by Rambo+Tribble · · Score: 1

    By your calculation, a smart physicist, understanding the forces and their outcomes, would never choose to bungee jump, but some do. Why? It's the experience, Mr. Tyma, the experience.

  203. there'll always be idiots by richard.wahl · · Score: 1

    I guess there'll always be idiots unless all 'advanced' civilisations 'out there' espouse eugenics and/or other self-limiting technologies. Religious beliefs also seem to be strangely resistant to logic.

    So we might have expected a constant stream of idiots and religious nutters, from far away/the future/another dimension/angelic realms. Add to their numbers those utterly dull people interested in their genealogy (code for a ridiculous and pathetic search for an ancestor who actually did something 'unusual'; for example, being transported to Australia, inheriting a title, making a pile of money, or any other of the shabby claims to distinction our enfeebled moderns grasp at) and we should have been overwhelmed by visitors from the vasty depths of space and time, despite the very doubtful premise that in the future we will be much, much cleverer than we we are now, and, by analogy, so will be/are these posited 'aliens' who aren’t visiting.

    On the other hand, maybe they are so sophisticated that they would no more consider introducing themselves to us individually, or even collectively, than the child with an ant farm bothers to make the acquaintance of the ants that make up her colony.

    But if we leave aside the silly stuff and reflect upon the truly amazing size of the universe and the relative rigidity of the rules which seem to govern it, it doesn’t seem quite so strange that, so far, no one has called on us...

  204. Aliens use the metric system, I'm SURE of it by B1ack+Lotus · · Score: 1

    Well, if you asked me how many meters are in a kilometer, I wouldn't need a library, a computer, nor a phone; because the metric system isn't absolutely retarded. Also: genes. As advanced as they may be, it's hard to imagine they could 'predict' the biological evolution of all of the billions of living specimens our pretty little zoo has... The REAL reason why we'll never meet aliens is really much more simple: If they do have the tech to get to Earth they also have the tech to hide themselves from us while doing so. I think the author needs to read up on Fermi's paradox a bit...

  205. Bad summary by AC-x · · Score: 1

    The summary seems to have done a pretty bad job at describing the article, as it's more about how Hollywood alien encounters don't make sense (aliens coming along, inaccurate phasers blasting etc.)

    Did you ever wonder though - why these same [alien] scientists who made these neato energy weapons never bothered to develop targeting systems? They still rely on crappy biological reflexes to aim them. It's even sillier when alien robot/cyborgs that can outperform humans in every other way somehow still aren't so great at aiming their phaser zapper. They miss just as much as the humans do, and by that I mean - a lot. Of course, Star Wars would have been a short film if every shot stormtroopers made hit Han Solo but it would have made more sense.

    Its actually rather ridiculous when you think about it - we (as in current state of human tech) already have automated targeting systems that work well with our doofy bullet-guns. We literally have targeting systems in existence today better than anything you saw in Star Wars.

    and also how aliens will have already explored so much of the galaxy they'll just stop exploring more (for some reason, seems a bit unlikely to me)

    If we discovered a fish-like creature on Europa today it would be fascinating for us to study it. If however, we were 1000 times smarter and had spent the last 1000 years finding fish-like creatures across the galaxy, and could with 99.99% accuracy predict the exact existence of such creatures from light-years away, it probably wouldn't be all that interesting to go study another one.

    Also what about automated (Von Newman) probes? Paul doesn't really seem to consider all avenues of exploration.

  206. Why i will kill you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you see one thing that is not going to happen is interfacing with my brain, I will instead visit you in your lodge, "brother" and we will interface.

  207. Hedge-a-mony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This might possibly maybe be potentially statistically significant, but it's also possible that perhaps it's not entirely certain.

    I grow tired of the built-in hedging of EVERYTHING THAT'S EVER SAID ANYMORE. If you need to lace your statements with the hedge-a-mony, consider not saying anything at all.

    And who knows how many of what types of factors might lead to an effort to travel interstellar distances?

  208. TFA is insufficiently depressing by dabrowsa · · Score: 1

    I can think of a much more depressing reason why ETs may never travel. Perhaps at a certain level of development in cognitive psych and fundamental physics it becomes clear that conscious and personal identity are illusions. Then life is regarded as trap, reproduction ceases, and the remaining population subsides into a virtual reality bath to soothe its pain.

    --
    `Perche non reggi tu, o sacra fame de l'oro,l'appetito de' mortali?'
  209. The question is flawed. by Deefburger · · Score: 1

    "The question of why aliens might 'want to come here' is probably fundamentally flawed because we are forming that question from our current (tiny) viewpoint. The word 'want' might not apply at all to someone 1000 times smarter than us." The question is flawed because it equates intelligence with technological progress. Tech level is not the same as intelligence. Second, the question assumes that we haven't been visited already and that we are not currently being visited now. There is plenty of evidence that we are in fact being visited. Third, it is assumed that we are "tiny" in our viewpoint when we may only be limited by our assumptions! The author presumes himself inferior and uninterested and then projects this as an axiom upon the rest of humanity. Give me a means to travel to another world right now and I will do it because I can! So, the author equates high intelligence with boredom and disinterest in "lesser" life and places? Stupid assumptions all.

    --
    Most people are mostly good most of the time.
  210. The reverse argument holds by SimplexBang · · Score: 1

    The reverse argument holds :
    Being 1000x dummer ,
      we are unaware of their visitations up to now

    --
    Avoid your fears , or wonder at the past
  211. good example for why we fail to meet aliens by dschinn1001 · · Score: 1

    for example we on earth are always listening to radio, telephone and music ... now one hearing person wants to meet a deaf person, but does not know how to reach him, when deaf person has no phone, radio or music-equipment at home . . . how to reach a deaf person, when never met before ??? or for example we on earth are always watching beautiful pics like museum, artworks, advertisings, movies, videos, and are talking about many beautiful pics ... now it happens we meet somebody who is blind from birth - how should we describe colours to him ??? how should we describe a beautiful pic to a blind person ??? so now earthlings want to meet aliens . . . means probably we are not more smart than 100.000 years ago ... despite of different equipment ... 100.000 years ago we had sticks, stone, arrows spears and splint-stones to make fire ... today we have cars, computers, electricity ... but we are today the same people like 100.000 years ago - because we still have the simple same taste like 100.000 years ago - the same simple taste like a paramecium - we are only content with something which looks as something somewhat best thing to us .... no matter if woman or man - we are only content with something which looks as the best to us. so we did not make any progress, no matter which equipment we have today and which equipment we had 100.000 years ago - we still have the same taste. so why earthlings want to meet aliens ??? resp. why ever aliens want to meet earthlings ??? for same reason ??? or because of this primitive simple taste - to only be content with the best ??? - then aliens dont want to meet ever a single earthling ??? because earthlings are too primitive like parameciums ??? typic earthling - still believing in progress ? with only one single taste ? to be content only with the best ??? too primitive ! you can forget earthlings !? what a luck we survived the mayan calendar ! phew ! - so we already reached a new level of understanding mankind ! congratulations ! the primitive simple taste has been now dumped into trash ! finally ! phew ! that was really hard for us ! boah ! hey ! a new level of understanding mankind ! now ! thats a universal record ! so it is enough to lead wars against each other on earth - we have no place anymore for all weapons !

  212. Re: Brain-level access to all information by Kizul+Emeraldfire · · Score: 1

    To be honest, I'd give it up. It'd be kinda like playing Pokemon with a GameShark pre-loaded with all the codes to give you a completely filled PokeDex, all of the badges, whatever pokemon of whatever type(s) and with whatever moves you want, whatever items (particularly Master Balls) you want, infinite items... To me, that's just not nearly as fun, because about five-sixths of the game has already been completed before you really begin.

    Likewise, I personally think that having 'brain-level access to all information' wouldn't be as fun; you wouldn't actually be learning anything, because (if you had the device) you wouldn't have to learn anything: you'd call up a piece of information, recite it -- either verbatim, or in your own words (your choice) -- and then, just as quickly as you recalled it, it'd be gone. After a while, you'd barely have any memory of even doing it, because there just wouldn't have been enough synapses in use at the time. It would, I theorize, make us less intelligent, as people would rely on their instant-info devices more and more until hardly even the brightest of them could function without them. Eventually, we'd probably end up with everyone's brains almost atrophying.

    And then, of course, someone would probably be foolish enough to try and use their device to simultaneously access all information at once. It would end up giving its user an unprecedentedly-large burst of data, probably overloading (or almost overloading) their brain as it desperately tried to contain all of the information it was given. They would become very silly -- extremely perturbed. They'd be... a freakazoid!

    Or, more likely, a vegetable. :(

  213. Why Aliens Will Come to Earth by Xylene2301 · · Score: 1

    I read a sci-fi story called 'Waystation' from Amazing Magazine in the 50s that said that Earth's great contribution to the galactic community would be coffee but we know that they'll also come here for the sex, drugs and rock & roll of course!

  214. There is One Reason Aliens Would Visit by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    Simple curiosity. And if Aliens could come here, it would be understandable that humanity would never be aware of it.

  215. Why YOU'LL never meet aliens... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. you don't live near a border.
    2. you don't live near an airport.
    3. you don't live near an interstate highway.
    4. you don't believe.

    If you are calling the 440,000 races of beings in the Universe "aliens",
    then you are uninformed, and, prejudiced against others, who might know more than you.

    That is why you won't meet any of us. You are inferior in your maturity, and freak
    at the thought of our very existence.

    We have already met with your leaders.

    Fortunately for you, we have a "hands off" policy towards primitive worlds.

  216. Suck it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Im an alien and this f#%king guy's article is fundamentally flawed.

  217. Jesus (born ~2013 yrs ago) says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also." John 14:3

    so we're supposed to be the aliens to go somewhere out there while this earth takes a reformatting. and we live forever w/o sin, suffering, sorrow, and pain.

    don't debate me unless you have a more hopeful/profitable/provable plan.

    history is on our side (it follows bible prophecy, http://discoveries08.org/schedule/).
    archaeology is on our side (http://www.andrews.edu/archaeology/).
    statistics is in our side (fastest growing church in america, growing twice as much outside america, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-03-18-Adventists_17_ST_N.htm).
    science/medicine/lifestyle is on our side (we are known to live longer than most americans, http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/travel/happiest-places/blue-zones-california-photos/).

    intelligent people check out http://www.amazingfacts.org/ to know more!

  218. Dont agree with the premise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The premise is based on the assumption that emotions will evolve into a cold mathematical state or become nonexistent. I don't believe that they will and I don't want to believe that. I will believe the contrary.

    1. Re:Dont agree with the premise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who says they cannot relate to our emotions *at all* in their future? My guess, with all the *fortunate coincidences* our planet has, like us being in the right spot, having the moon etc , might be an indication of this :)

  219. They'd run away... by gshegosh · · Score: 1

    "If any sentient life existed nearby, it would detect us years ago and run away to another galaxy by now" ...not mine, but I can't for the life of me google who said that or where I read it.

  220. self-contradictory article by dotar · · Score: 1

    How would you change if you were twice as smart as you are now. How about ten times as smart? (Don't answer, truth is, you're not smart enough to know).

    And yet, the author is smart enough to know that aliens wouldn't be interested in humans/ interstellar travel. Good job.

  221. Conclusion close; logical path is not. by rickshaf · · Score: 1

    The writer's conclusion is that we Humans will progress to the point that we won't care to travel to other stars, and that other species have likely evolved to the same state. I'd suggest that the first part is likely correct. We will progress to the point that we have access to all the information and Human opinions that might interest us and, thus would allow us to travel to the stars. However, whether or not we're interested might be much less important than the issue of latency. If we're all connected, traveling much past the Moon will cut us off from the "hive mind" in such a way that we'd be so lost as to no longer be functional, due to the delay in exchange of information due to the finite speed of light. This isn't an original thought. The late, great space scientist, philosopher, and SciFi writer Charles Sheffield made this exact point in his short story "Power Failure", which I read in his 1979 collection known as "Vectors". It is the single most thought-provoking SciFi collection I've read.

  222. well 'im here but who says i WANT to meet you huh by KingBenny · · Score: 1

    the writer of TFA is clearly a septic sceptic who lacks imagination of any kind and treats any kind of alien possibility from a human point of view. I mean Sagan could imagine floating sacks on Jupiter and he was a scientist (exact science is not know for its imagination, except the scorned ones who lead to quantum leaps because they diverted from the calculations for a second, right?)
    to claim to know what any kind of 'alien' would do or think like is homo-centric, SETI is nice and has probably lead to some discoveries but is looking for patterns you sapiens consider to be patterns, tell me otherwise , what does an 'alien' pattern look like since you seem to be looking for familiar patterns there.
    On the other hand if i were to give it some thought, i would either go with Klaatu or the star trek prime directive depending on how many planets are habitable (considering the fact they would be carbon-based in need of oxygen andd sustenance for starters)
    The possibilities of an encounter are limitless, aliens might not need ships at all or might never have gotten to the point where communication relied on learning words other people invented, they might have been here as gods, von daniken style, they might have planted some algae to come back and harvest, only to see the farm turned into an interesting experiment
    they might not exist (although the larger the place gets the more probably they do but never certain since even with dimensions you might just get an infinite number of copies of this one and not all possibilites like wishful thinkers like to think)
    i think the writer is an attention whore trying to be a septic sceptic lacking imagination about it
    maybe he's religious, or an atheist
    which are the same to me since both are categorical and dogmatic and leave no room for anything but their own point of view
    the bipolar nature of the sapiens, why don't you just follow the rules of evolution and go extinct already ?

    --
    Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
  223. I disagree with the basic premise of this article. by geekprime · · Score: 1

    It seems to me to be an argument for stagnation.
    Easy access to information / knowledge does not satiate all curiosity, there will always be people (or beings) that wish to know more than is currently known.

  224. That assumes they come visit only if they "want" by NekoXP · · Score: 1

    What about "need"? What if they NEED to come visit us for some reason? Either to satisfy their hyper-intellectual curiosity about what other life exists in the universe, or just to murder us and rape our natural resources a la Independence Day and every other Sci Fi movie about marauding alien cultures..?

    Assuming that aliens will not visit us with those reasons is to assume that travelling the universe and meeting other cultures is justifiable only on a whim, a literal flight of fancy.. this is, in fact, the opening of Star Trek (to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilisations, to boldly go where no (man|one) has gone before..) but that doesn't mean to say that this is the only justification to do so and that if you were a hyper-brained hyper-culture that you just wouldn't give so much of a shit..

  225. Aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They will come, if for no other reason than to see the "Primitives." Same reason most people go to the zoo.

  226. Quaint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh look, its the Singularity thing again, this time with aliens.

  227. 4. They're On The Lam... by littlewink · · Score: 1

    You forgot a most likely possibility: they are fugitives from their own civilization. They need to get away for awhile to someplace safe and environmentally compatible until the heat is off. They could either plan the trip here or merely stumble across our planet while running away. So the first aliens we meet could be simple criminals.

  228. Tyma's proposition is fundamentally flawed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Paul Tyma's proposition is fundamentally flawed for the following reasons:

    Tyma uses the unqualified, undefined term "intelligence" as a determinant for deciding whether an alien race would want to visit Earth. What does he mean by "intelligence" anyway? Does he mean simply "brain-level access to information"? Isn't that a rather shallow, one-dimensional view of what it means to be human and what motivates us (or aliens)? An alien race might have a multitude of motives for wanting to visit Earth, none of which Paul Tyma would be smart enough to know.

    Also, why do we need to assume that the technology for overcoming the light speed barrier is a long way off? And why must we assume that it would require the generation of impossible amounts of energy to accomplish? This is simply an assumption based solely upon today's understanding of physics. Why not the discovery of some principle of physics that would allow us to get from point A to point B by manipulating or controlling vast amounts of energy (rather than generating it), or even by circumventing the need to travel linear distances at all? At the present time, these are things we simply don't know.

    Lastly, why must we assume that our present-day paradigm for the nature of existence, purpose of life, etc..is not evolving as it always has? Tyma's concept of human evolution seems to be nothing more than a crude projection into the future of our current (short-sighted and materialistic) world view. Tyma seems to be doing exactly what he tells us we shouldn't do: trying to reach an intelligent conclusion from a tiny viewpoint.

  229. Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PFFFFT.

    It's already happening.