Personally, I suspect that's true, but I don't know. However, I see three possibilities:
* They have no religion.
* They have a religion very similar to ours.
* They have a religion unlike anything we've ever seen.
Now, of those, do you really think #2 is likely? (If you do, you probably should investigate how religion arose on this planet.)
Well, since nobody really knows how religion arose in the first place, it'd probably be easier just to point the GP to the current religious wars:-)
I posted on this earlier, seems the GP must have read that and thought about it for a few seconds. The mention of Dawkins...
As to "militant atheists", I wonder if any of the more "militant religious fanatics" realize that by their very actions, they are producing more atheists? Seems to me that the more strongly they push their beliefs in this modern age, the more they are pushing people away. This is good thing; organized religion has more to do with control and power than with any sort of belief.
I STRONGLY agree with your last sentence. The last damned thing we should do is try to convert any alien species we encounter. Historically that has caused more chaos and carnage than most people realize amongst our own species. One need look no further than the current "war" between militant fundamentalists of the Judaic and Islamic religion sects.
The best thing we could do is present an unbiased synopsis of religion as it exists wrt humanity, and explain to them that we are all individuals and that we try to do our best in letting each and every one of us hold our own beliefs. It wouldn't be entirely true, but it might help convince them that not all of us are delusional to the point of violence.
See my point #1 in my earlier post;)
Great post, friend. Thanks.
Anyone who takes umbrage at my remarks might want know that I practice the 11th commandment exclusively.
11th commandment: Thou Shalt Keep Thy Religion to Thyself.
(Except that I don't have a religion. Atheism is the absence of religion.)
Atheists, at least so far, haven't started any wars.
Don't push us, we won't push you. But you are pushing... and someday, we just might. Chew on that for a while.
(I'm hardly a "militant atheist". Just because I speak my mind does not make me one. But the disruption I see from fundamentalists of all stripes really pisses me off. To all you religious people out there, I say: Police your own. )
Let's hope that they won't judge us on that. If they do, we're pretty well screwed.
“You are capable of such wonderful dreams,and such terrible nightmares.”
Hell, we can't even treat other members of our OWN species decently, as a whole, much less other species.
Some say we're in our adolescence, I'd argue we're still in the terrible two's" stage, where, as a species, we haven't developed a learned sense of ethics...
I see your point, but if there are aliens who are capable of traveling across interstellar space and navigating it without computer technology of some sort, there will likely never EVER be any common ground with us to communicate thru.
We rely on our technology for communications, more and more so the more technically advanced we get. Any form of communication has to have some sort of symbolic nature, otherwise it's not communication.
Like I said elsewhere, unless they communicate via telepathy, there has to be at least some common ground, technology wise. However, just because WE can't understand THEM, doesn't mean that THEY won't be able to understand US.
At the risk of providing fodder for fruitcakes, technically they could already be living amongst us, and we'd never know they were there. I am familiar with Clarke's Law wrt advanced technology...
I think it much more likely that any aliens who would go to the trouble of trying to contact us - as a species - via a means we are familiar with would use the means of communication we are capable of detecting.
Otherwise there wouldn't be much point in attempting to do so.
That's pretty good; also pretty funny, it's obvious they were going for the humor angle. I do like the math bit.
One caveat; any aliens that meet us here on Earth (which is where it will happen, at least for some decades, more likely centuries) will likely have been watching our radio/tv/digital output and have a pretty good idea of what is going on, if they can decode our transmissions. (I think it's likely they will be able to, any aliens with the technology to travel across interstellar space would have to have some pretty phenomenal computer technology).
I'd say it's a good possibility that when or if they arrive, they'll be able to communicate with us fairly effectively in our own languages, at least written or computer code. I doubt very much we'd be able to learn or understand theirs:)
Obviously, there's no good answer to this question. No matter who was picked, by whatever process, some group on the planet would resent it.
Personally I think Sagan had it right - we pick someone who doesn't have a religious or political agenda, is broadly educated especially in sciences, and would be willing to perform the task.*
(Hmm... Richard Dawkins? *g*)
* No, really:
1) No religious agenda - doesn't matter whether or not the aliens have religion. If they don't, they'll likely think us backward. If they do, it's possible they will be offended by our version(s) - and it's certain that picking anyone who professes one major religion would piss off the other major religions.
2) No political agenda. I doubt I need to explain this one; the person will be speaking for ALL HUMANITY.
3) Broadly educated - in trying to understand a totally alien viewpoint, experience in many different fields would be essential.
4)... especially in the sciences - because it's likely anyone who *could* contact us would be extremely far along in the sciences. Unless they're doing it with telepathy...
Just because language evolves does not mean that the evolution it experiences is always good.
Hacker also used to have a good meaning, wrt technology "geeks". It was media misuse of the term that produced it's bad meaning.
BTW, "Piracy" didn't mean "parrots and yarrhs" until Disney got a hold of it. Mostly it meant - and still means - the theft of other people's material goods by force and violence. Hence, "Somalia pirates", etc. Or are you going to argue that the Somalians carrying out that particular bit of thievery should be called something else? After all, language evolves...
So where does the "force and violence" come in when some kid downloads an mp3 thru a peer to peer app? Do you really think that most of the people who are doing this are sitting in their basement with pirate hats on, fake parrots on their shoulders, saying "yarr" to their friends?
Are you really that much of an idiot? Or are you just an astroturfer?
A DNA sample is taken of every child born globally, to test for potential genetic diseases.
This will happen. Don't pretend it won't. Eventually genome analysis will be reduced to a chip.
Regarding the obvious issue of genetic privacy, Seringhaus makes this argument: "Your sensitive genetic information would be safe.
Hahahahahaha.
First lesson of security, when it comes to computer databases: There is always someone out there smart enough to crack your security, and given sufficient profit motive, they will.
No matter how smart you are, there is, or will be, someone smarter. It's a basic lesson of history. If it weren't true, we wouldn't have computers.
I am NOT saying we should stop scientific process (as if "we-globally" could!) - but our society needs to evolve to realize it's potential. It will. Whether we survive it as a species, is another question entirely.
But we're already fully aware that being vulnerable to EMR is the very least of these people's problems, which are often caused by extensive use of mind-altering drugs.
My point, which I made somewhat facetiously, was that this is an issue that will have to be resolved considering the advances in genetics technology. It's already been an issue for years.
I'm not sure why anyone would consider it an "philosophical issue" but I always welcome discussion on that point.
I for one am not willing to let any company patent any particularly specific part of my genome, nor "own" my tissue in any way or form, without my consent. How much legal power I have to do that is exactly what the issue is.
Sorry for the late reply, I'm too busy monitoring the shit I put out;)
Typically if they take a tissue sample from you at the hospital, it belongs to them
No. It "belongs" to the being it was taken from. The being it was taken from has first "copyright"/"patent"/"trademark" to it (add whatever terms the lawyers feel necessary, here)
It does not matter who sequenced it first. It does not matter whether it has unique properties. It does not matter who it was taken from, whether they consented to it, or not.
No corporation, government, nor any other entity, can own anything about me that I do not give explicitly give them rights to.
Legislators can pontificate as much as they want to, there are things that we - as human beings - won't give up. This is one of them. History proves that.
If those in power wish to [continue] to do so, they will suffer the same fate as their predecessors have; they will eventually be replaced.
I'd pay a hundred dollars a month for good solid healthcare coverage - as long as I could get it. I'm 42 YO, been paying taxes on my income since I was 16, been a good citizen with no felonies, why shouldn't they help me keep living so I can be a good productive citizen for another forty or fifty years?
Good health care is one of the services any sane government should be fanatically interested in providing.
Healthy citizens == productive taxpayers. Increase your numbers of healthy citizens by providing good healthcare, increase your numbers of productive taxpayers, and if they live longer, they pay more taxes.
But of course this all assumes that government employees - including - especially - elected representatives - are capable of rational thought. History, and especially recent history, seems to indicate otherwise.
The images of M31 are fantastic. It's interesting to be able to see how stellar formation is mostly happening where gas clouds are interacting with the medium around them, that should give us more data on how rotation in the galaxies spiral arms influences stellar formation.
From these pix it looks like the theories about galaxies having "orbital rings" of debris from collisions with other galaxies were right. You can see several distinct rings that aren't in the same plane as the disc.
SB
(just an amateur astronomer wishing he could have been a professional)
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the funny mod point, whoever you were. Good to know someone still gets it :)
SB
Personally, I suspect that's true, but I don't know. However, I see three possibilities:
* They have no religion.
* They have a religion very similar to ours.
* They have a religion unlike anything we've ever seen.
Now, of those, do you really think #2 is likely? (If you do, you probably should investigate how religion arose on this planet.)
Well, since nobody really knows how religion arose in the first place, it'd probably be easier just to point the GP to the current religious wars :-)
I posted on this earlier, seems the GP must have read that and thought about it for a few seconds. The mention of Dawkins...
As to "militant atheists", I wonder if any of the more "militant religious fanatics" realize that by their very actions, they are producing more atheists? Seems to me that the more strongly they push their beliefs in this modern age, the more they are pushing people away. This is good thing; organized religion has more to do with control and power than with any sort of belief.
I STRONGLY agree with your last sentence. The last damned thing we should do is try to convert any alien species we encounter. Historically that has caused more chaos and carnage than most people realize amongst our own species. One need look no further than the current "war" between militant fundamentalists of the Judaic and Islamic religion sects.
The best thing we could do is present an unbiased synopsis of religion as it exists wrt humanity, and explain to them that we are all individuals and that we try to do our best in letting each and every one of us hold our own beliefs. It wouldn't be entirely true, but it might help convince them that not all of us are delusional to the point of violence.
See my point #1 in my earlier post ;)
Great post, friend. Thanks.
Anyone who takes umbrage at my remarks might want know that I practice the 11th commandment exclusively.
11th commandment: Thou Shalt Keep Thy Religion to Thyself.
(Except that I don't have a religion. Atheism is the absence of religion.)
Atheists, at least so far, haven't started any wars.
Don't push us, we won't push you. But you are pushing... and someday, we just might. Chew on that for a while.
(I'm hardly a "militant atheist". Just because I speak my mind does not make me one. But the disruption I see from fundamentalists of all stripes really pisses me off. To all you religious people out there, I say: Police your own. )
SB
Well, it's obvious, then.
The aliens are already here, and they are responsible for the large part of the spam email out there.
They want us to reproduce as much as possible, so there's more meat when the processing ships arrive ;)
SB
Ditto.
Let's hope that they won't judge us on that. If they do, we're pretty well screwed.
“You are capable of such wonderful dreams,and such terrible nightmares.”
Hell, we can't even treat other members of our OWN species decently, as a whole, much less other species.
Some say we're in our adolescence, I'd argue we're still in the terrible two's" stage, where, as a species, we haven't developed a learned sense of ethics...
SB
I see your point, but if there are aliens who are capable of traveling across interstellar space and navigating it without computer technology of some sort, there will likely never EVER be any common ground with us to communicate thru.
We rely on our technology for communications, more and more so the more technically advanced we get. Any form of communication has to have some sort of symbolic nature, otherwise it's not communication.
Like I said elsewhere, unless they communicate via telepathy, there has to be at least some common ground, technology wise. However, just because WE can't understand THEM, doesn't mean that THEY won't be able to understand US.
At the risk of providing fodder for fruitcakes, technically they could already be living amongst us, and we'd never know they were there. I am familiar with Clarke's Law wrt advanced technology...
I think it much more likely that any aliens who would go to the trouble of trying to contact us - as a species - via a means we are familiar with would use the means of communication we are capable of detecting.
Otherwise there wouldn't be much point in attempting to do so.
SB
"Nations" don't speak. People do.
SB
Cute. And Harmless looking...
Of course what human beings consider cute, aliens might consider insultingly ugly... in which case we're still fucked.
SB
That's pretty good; also pretty funny, it's obvious they were going for the humor angle. I do like the math bit.
One caveat; any aliens that meet us here on Earth (which is where it will happen, at least for some decades, more likely centuries) will likely have been watching our radio/tv/digital output and have a pretty good idea of what is going on, if they can decode our transmissions. (I think it's likely they will be able to, any aliens with the technology to travel across interstellar space would have to have some pretty phenomenal computer technology).
I'd say it's a good possibility that when or if they arrive, they'll be able to communicate with us fairly effectively in our own languages, at least written or computer code. I doubt very much we'd be able to learn or understand theirs :)
SB
requisite background in deal making, understanding different points of view, and convincing others more powerful than we not to wipe us out
Sure they do. Nearly all scientists are familiar with the grant application process ;-)
SB
Obviously, there's no good answer to this question. No matter who was picked, by whatever process, some group on the planet would resent it.
Personally I think Sagan had it right - we pick someone who doesn't have a religious or political agenda, is broadly educated especially in sciences, and
would be willing to perform the task.*
(Hmm... Richard Dawkins? *g*)
* No, really:
1) No religious agenda - doesn't matter whether or not the aliens have religion. If they don't, they'll likely think us backward. If they do, it's possible they will be offended by our version(s) - and it's certain that picking anyone who professes one major religion would piss off the other major religions.
2) No political agenda. I doubt I need to explain this one; the person will be speaking for ALL HUMANITY.
3) Broadly educated - in trying to understand a totally alien viewpoint, experience in many different fields would be essential.
4) ... especially in the sciences - because it's likely anyone who *could* contact us would be extremely far along in the sciences. Unless they're doing it with telepathy...
5) Volunteer, of course.
SB
Just because language evolves does not mean that the evolution it experiences is always good.
Hacker also used to have a good meaning, wrt technology "geeks". It was media misuse of the term that produced it's bad meaning.
BTW, "Piracy" didn't mean "parrots and yarrhs" until Disney got a hold of it. Mostly it meant - and still means - the theft of other people's material goods by force and violence. Hence, "Somalia pirates", etc. Or are you going to argue that the Somalians carrying out that particular bit of thievery should be called something else? After all, language evolves...
So where does the "force and violence" come in when some kid downloads an mp3 thru a peer to peer app? Do you really think that most of the people who are doing this are sitting in their basement with pirate hats on, fake parrots on their shoulders, saying "yarr" to their friends?
Are you really that much of an idiot? Or are you just an astroturfer?
SB: Sarcastic Bastard, and stickin' to it.
I just realized that there might be a bit of irony in that I posted my original comment on my birthday ;)
Great post. Thanks.
SB
For some people, conveniently.
SB
A DNA sample is taken of every child born globally, to test for potential genetic diseases.
This will happen. Don't pretend it won't. Eventually genome analysis will be reduced to a chip.
Regarding the obvious issue of genetic privacy, Seringhaus makes this argument: "Your sensitive genetic information would be safe.
Hahahahahaha.
First lesson of security, when it comes to computer databases: There is always someone out there smart enough to crack your security, and given sufficient profit motive, they will.
No matter how smart you are, there is, or will be, someone smarter. It's a basic lesson of history. If it weren't true, we wouldn't have computers.
I am NOT saying we should stop scientific process (as if "we-globally" could!) - but our society needs to evolve to realize it's potential. It will. Whether we survive it as a species, is another question entirely.
In the meantime...
sb
I am not going to apologize for that remark. I don't give a fuck if it offends anyone.
The human species is at a point, right now, where if we don't decide whether or not we want to combine our efforts to survive, we won't.
Tipping point. Global communications via the internet may provide that impetus we need to grow up as a species, or it may not.
Some of us do care.
SB
Future generations will likely just nuke the fundies from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure of the continuation of the species.
SB
Future generations will likely just nuke the fundies from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure of the continuation of the species.
SB
But we're already fully aware that being vulnerable to EMR is the very least of these people's problems, which are often caused by extensive use of mind-altering drugs.
There, fixed that for you ;)
SB
My point, which I made somewhat facetiously, was that this is an issue that will have to be resolved considering the advances in genetics technology. It's already been an issue for years.
I'm not sure why anyone would consider it an "philosophical issue" but I always welcome discussion on that point.
I for one am not willing to let any company patent any particularly specific part of my genome, nor "own" my tissue in any way or form, without my consent. How much legal power I have to do that is exactly what the issue is.
Sorry for the late reply, I'm too busy monitoring the shit I put out ;)
SB
The Heechee, of course. Duh :)
SB
Typically if they take a tissue sample from you at the hospital, it belongs to them
No. It "belongs" to the being it was taken from. The being it was taken from has first "copyright"/"patent"/"trademark" to it (add whatever terms the lawyers feel necessary, here)
It does not matter who sequenced it first. It does not matter whether it has unique properties. It does not matter who it was taken from, whether they consented to it, or not.
No corporation, government, nor any other entity, can own anything about me that I do not give explicitly give them rights to.
Legislators can pontificate as much as they want to, there are things that we - as human beings - won't give up. This is one of them. History proves that.
If those in power wish to [continue] to do so, they will suffer the same fate as their predecessors have; they will eventually be replaced.
Fools.
SB
I'd pay a hundred dollars a month for good solid healthcare coverage - as long as I could get it. I'm 42 YO, been paying taxes on my income since I was 16, been a good citizen with no felonies, why shouldn't they help me keep living so I can be a good productive citizen for another forty or fifty years?
SB
Exactly.
Good health care is one of the services any sane government should be fanatically interested in providing.
Healthy citizens == productive taxpayers. Increase your numbers of healthy citizens by providing good healthcare, increase your numbers of productive taxpayers, and if they live longer, they pay more taxes.
But of course this all assumes that government employees - including - especially - elected representatives - are capable of rational thought. History, and especially recent history, seems to indicate otherwise.
SB
The images of M31 are fantastic. It's interesting to be able to see how stellar formation is mostly happening where gas clouds are interacting with the medium around them, that should give us more data on how rotation in the galaxies spiral arms influences stellar formation.
From these pix it looks like the theories about galaxies having "orbital rings" of debris from collisions with other galaxies were right. You can see several distinct rings that aren't in the same plane as the disc.
SB
(just an amateur astronomer wishing he could have been a professional)
Not necessarily (although I agree with you).
That's why competent IT staff do spot checks on the integrity of their backups.
(Or if you're paranoid enough and have the time, or it's indicated by the mission critical aspects of your data, you verify ALL of them)
SB