You don't transmit and wait, you just keep talking* - we've essentially been doing this since radio broadcasts began, but we haven't heard/recognized a response yet...
*I thought this was a NASA quote, but I probably got it from a science fiction story somewhere?
They're probably just single celled animals if anything. I just don't believe they can be as advanced or better than us. Some people may disagree (people who would die for star wars/trek).
Why does that have to be the case though? The universe/galaxy are already very old. I can't imagine there's anything preventing alien beings from having gone through an entire life-cycle already, since humans began to walk the earth.
We'd also probably try to send probes. Hopefully intelligent, self replicating probes that will avoid contaminating any alien biological systems while gathering information and transmitting it back.
Of course, that would be an extremely long lasting project so we'd have to set up some way to collect the signal here at home for the next few dozen thousand years.
In other words, we will have some interesting questions to ask ourselves and interesting challenges to overcome.
Perhaps, for example, we could find a dead moon, planet or stable orbit nearby (to avoid contamination) and set up a station or artifact that any intelligent life that gets to the advanced stage of getting to that body would find. We could have information about ourselves and instructions on how to communicate with us.
We could even do this for all candidate planets -- whether we know that they have developed intelligent life or not, yet. Basically lay out a galactic internet protocol so that even if these things are discovered long after we are gone, they could attempt to communicate with others that have found any of the other protocol monuments.
I understand concerns about focusing on issues that are directly pertinent to the people of a country, however historically we have never seen a culture solve all of its pressing problems and then decide to focus on science and exploration. Instead what we see is cultures committing to solve problems at home, but also investing resources in programs that look forward to new discoveries. I think it's short sighted to postpone space exploration simply because we don't have time for it today, or because we don't see the tangible benefit. The point of space exploration from the beginning has been to search for "truth and understanding," [1] a goal so noble that our astronauts risk their lives in pursuit of it. With greater understanding comes solutions to problems we never even knew we had.
Thank you for pointing this out. I respect astronauts more than soldiers for this reason. Soldiers fight for their own people but untimately end up killing other HUMANS. Astronauts are risking their lives on the other hand for the better of the entire human society.
Unfortunately countries like to spend more money on war than space exploration, especially the United States.
I'm not going to enter this deep, deep rabbithole- but I'd just like to point out that your post rests on the assumption that military leads to the betterment of the species/individual humans.
The way I see it, conflict usually comes from means of profit, and limited resources. The universe is pretty damn big, and chances are once we're advanced enough to do space travel, there aren't going to be many resources in one place but not the other.
Conflict may also come from misunderstanding. Imagine a civilization where individuals are blobs of goo, and their way to understand each other and procreate/mutate is to mix with each other. Now if they would encounter a human being and realize that it's sentient, they would try to understand it by trying to mix as they usually do. From human's perspective that would be an act of violence and would prompt immediate defense/offense.
I'm reminded of H.P. Lovecraft: that we live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. There's a lot not to like about Lovecraft but I think he pegged humanity's role in the cosmic order pretty well (we wouldn't have one.)
Any species capable of reaching our planet from another galaxy will be more than advanced enough to wipe us out without effort. If there's any sort of competition for resources or territory between aggressive civilizations operating at that scale and we find ourselves in the middle, we just lose. Our "fighting" them would be akin to termites "fighting" a steamroller flattening their mound.
Former soldier here: veteran of the first Gulf War. Was on the ground in Saudi, and during the push into Iraq when the ground war started.
Pretty sure I didn't engage in any baby-killing, but thanks for furthering the stereotype.
Edit: I specifically said "baby-killing" because this is the kind of slander thrown at my father's generation when they returned from Vietnam. Not all soldiers are killers, and to imply that they are is offensive. It's sad that I have to point this out.
He didn't mention any sensationalist baby-killing in his post, but one common side effect of war, and by extension soldiers, is the killing of other humans right?
I respect you and are grateful that you risked your life during your service for us. However, making false blaming statements isn't going to help your cause. Datsundere didn't say you killed babies. He said that soldiers kill people, which is a true statement. It's part of being a soldier, but it isn't necessarily the right thing to do moving forward for humanity.
You personally aren't on the hook for this. You signed up for the military, took oaths to defend us (for which I am very grateful) and took orders from decision makers who may or may not have been influenced in their decisions to do the right thing. The rest of us have a right to voice those concerns and ask hard questions about the opportunity cost of warfare. That doesn't mean we're questioning the concept of chain of command.
I hope our sons and daughters end up living in a world where risk is still ever present, but it is used for exploration and the furtherment of humanity, instead of fighting and killing each other over what will later be considered less important matters.
Edit for fellow HNers: Voting down a soldier for expressing some emotion isn't cool. You don't have to apply (misweighted) negative karma to someone who is sharing an important experience of their life to make an impact in the conversation. +1 on the parent - listen to your fellow man, no matter what he is saying.
Sorry to be a jerk but does it annoy anyone how often conversations about the military/soldiers go through the perfunctory "I respect your service blah blah blah..."?
The term "military service" itself irks me to no end. It's not service, it's a government job. No one thanks DMV employees for their "service".
Actually, there is the term "civil service" that denote all other government jobs that are nonmilitary. I always referred to my mother as a civil servant (she held a government job for 35 years before retiring)
My husband is a career sailor, in his 3rd enlistment, Iraq war veteran, and he takes more of a "it's a job" look at it. He still doesn't really know how to respond to strangers' "thank you for your service" even after 14 years.
I think people say it because they respect someone's willingness to risk their life. Especially since we are taught that the military defends our freedom.
I agree with most of your post, but I disagree with the salute-the-troops attitude. Were the parent from any profession other than the military, no one would take any issue with downvoting his tirade. If you really want to 'support the troops,' stop making idols of them and start treating them like people.
I agree the OPs quote was less than ideal, but that doesn't mean you can speak for him. There's a difference between you saying what you feel and you saying what others said/feel. The latter should be avoided, if possible.
"Not all soldiers are killers, and to imply that they are is offensive"
- you must have missed something in basic training - why do you think soldiers carry weapons? It's not to help old ladies cross the street.
I totally understand why a nation needs a big stick to defend its interests, but please let's not delude ourselves that when we weild that stick it doesn't mean killing people.
Soldiers that are not killers are called civilians.
...you must have missed something in basic training...
Enlighten me, since you apparently took comprehensive notes.
Soldiers that are not killers are called civilians.
Really? I thought they were called intel analysts, medics, chaplains, cooks, mechanics, electronics repair specialists, drill sergeants...etc etc etc.
I must have missed something else in Basic Training, I guess. Maybe I was all hopped up on adrenaline, while I was running around trying to stab people with my bayonet.
Perhaps you should re-check that filter between your brain and keyboard, son.
Interesting. Using my estimates on your calculator my result was 1. Will keep the link on my bookmark, for when I want to wonder.
The one I can't really figure out (all the others I can't really figure out, but they seem easier to guess) is the last one, "Years for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space". Is 10000 too little for a technologically advanced civilization, or will most of them self-destruct because all life after that ever springs up is essentially a race for resources? Is 100000 too much? How long will we be around. It seems if we get the war thing solved among us, the ceiling could get pretty high.
Even if there is some sort of god or creator or what have you, it would be... as Sagan put it in Contact... an awful waste of space if we were the only project.
> No wonder the American people think this Republican Congress is from another
> planet -- they're more interested in life in space than Americans' lives
And I guess Democrats are more interested in taking jabs at the opposition than they are in uniting the nation in something other than war or fear. I guess we'll have to wait until Mars attacks, then we'll see everyone come together to fund space exploration.
(I'm not actually taking a jab at Democrats, just pointing out that they're all a bunch of useless bottom-feeders who take any opportunity to speak ill of the other. Let's send them all into space like DNA's telephone sanitizers)
I tried calling them on the phone about this, but their "Comment line" voice mail box was full and bounced me back to the receptionist, Matt. (On the bright side, Matt was very helpful and offered to transcribe my comments into their web comment form for me. I opted to just type them up myself.)
Odds of alien life: Very high. Odds of it affecting us in the foreseeable future: Very low.
It's an interesting question, and one that I would love to see research funding for. But it's also unlikely to lead to any direct practical results for a while, although offshoots of technology designed to answer it might end up being handy.
I think you're overestimating the ability of the world population to intelligently process this information. Hell - a third of the United States thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old.
Except if, for example, our discovery of the nature of the universe accelerates a change for us that isn't stereotypical of "Aliens from another planet". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity for context.
I think the spokeswoman for the DCCC missed the part where this was presented to the House Science Committee, not the committee in charge of immigration or minimum wage...
If radio signals is the best way for us to detect alien intelligent life, and vice-versa, aren't we doomed to keep quiet then? I mean, how long until we phase strong radio signals almost completely? I mean, has there been any growth in the quantity and power of radio signals since, say, the 80's? It's an honest question, since I don't know, but I see radio declining everywhere, except for, I guess, airplane and naval communication. What else am I missing here? Probably a whole lot, maybe someone could fill me/us in?
51 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 153 ms ] thread*I thought this was a NASA quote, but I probably got it from a science fiction story somewhere?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Son,_the_Physicist
We'd also probably try to send probes. Hopefully intelligent, self replicating probes that will avoid contaminating any alien biological systems while gathering information and transmitting it back.
Of course, that would be an extremely long lasting project so we'd have to set up some way to collect the signal here at home for the next few dozen thousand years.
In other words, we will have some interesting questions to ask ourselves and interesting challenges to overcome.
Perhaps, for example, we could find a dead moon, planet or stable orbit nearby (to avoid contamination) and set up a station or artifact that any intelligent life that gets to the advanced stage of getting to that body would find. We could have information about ourselves and instructions on how to communicate with us.
We could even do this for all candidate planets -- whether we know that they have developed intelligent life or not, yet. Basically lay out a galactic internet protocol so that even if these things are discovered long after we are gone, they could attempt to communicate with others that have found any of the other protocol monuments.
hey, I saw that movie too
[1] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/In_the_ev...
Unfortunately countries like to spend more money on war than space exploration, especially the United States.
As an aside, many astronauts are former soldiers.
If we discover alient life within our galaxy, and years pass and we become friendly. What if another galaxy attacks ours, and we fight them.
Galaxy vs. Galaxy.
One side wins, the other falls in line and is absorbed in their ways. The we form one huge 'quadrant' in space.
Another quadrant attacks us ad infinity.
When does the tribal, us vs. they end? -Does- it end?
Any species capable of reaching our planet from another galaxy will be more than advanced enough to wipe us out without effort. If there's any sort of competition for resources or territory between aggressive civilizations operating at that scale and we find ourselves in the middle, we just lose. Our "fighting" them would be akin to termites "fighting" a steamroller flattening their mound.
Pretty sure I didn't engage in any baby-killing, but thanks for furthering the stereotype.
Edit: I specifically said "baby-killing" because this is the kind of slander thrown at my father's generation when they returned from Vietnam. Not all soldiers are killers, and to imply that they are is offensive. It's sad that I have to point this out.
You personally aren't on the hook for this. You signed up for the military, took oaths to defend us (for which I am very grateful) and took orders from decision makers who may or may not have been influenced in their decisions to do the right thing. The rest of us have a right to voice those concerns and ask hard questions about the opportunity cost of warfare. That doesn't mean we're questioning the concept of chain of command.
I hope our sons and daughters end up living in a world where risk is still ever present, but it is used for exploration and the furtherment of humanity, instead of fighting and killing each other over what will later be considered less important matters.
Edit for fellow HNers: Voting down a soldier for expressing some emotion isn't cool. You don't have to apply (misweighted) negative karma to someone who is sharing an important experience of their life to make an impact in the conversation. +1 on the parent - listen to your fellow man, no matter what he is saying.
The term "military service" itself irks me to no end. It's not service, it's a government job. No one thanks DMV employees for their "service".
My husband is a career sailor, in his 3rd enlistment, Iraq war veteran, and he takes more of a "it's a job" look at it. He still doesn't really know how to respond to strangers' "thank you for your service" even after 14 years.
I think people say it because they respect someone's willingness to risk their life. Especially since we are taught that the military defends our freedom.
The OP quote was: "Soldiers fight for their own people but untimately [sic] end up killing other HUMANS."
I'm assuming the word was "ultimately", which is incorrect. Not all soldiers ultimately end up killing.
The statement was wrong and offensive. I will not apologize for getting in OP's chili about it.
- you must have missed something in basic training - why do you think soldiers carry weapons? It's not to help old ladies cross the street.
I totally understand why a nation needs a big stick to defend its interests, but please let's not delude ourselves that when we weild that stick it doesn't mean killing people.
Soldiers that are not killers are called civilians.
Enlighten me, since you apparently took comprehensive notes.
Soldiers that are not killers are called civilians.
Really? I thought they were called intel analysts, medics, chaplains, cooks, mechanics, electronics repair specialists, drill sergeants...etc etc etc.
I must have missed something else in Basic Training, I guess. Maybe I was all hopped up on adrenaline, while I was running around trying to stab people with my bayonet.
Perhaps you should re-check that filter between your brain and keyboard, son.
http://www.calchere.com/c/k1zpzn0o/Aliens-existing-in-our-ga...
This is from Frank Drake
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Drake
But that assumes that the existence or nonexistence of life is a random event, and that goes at odds with some religious belief systems.
> planet -- they're more interested in life in space than Americans' lives
And I guess Democrats are more interested in taking jabs at the opposition than they are in uniting the nation in something other than war or fear. I guess we'll have to wait until Mars attacks, then we'll see everyone come together to fund space exploration.
(I'm not actually taking a jab at Democrats, just pointing out that they're all a bunch of useless bottom-feeders who take any opportunity to speak ill of the other. Let's send them all into space like DNA's telephone sanitizers)
Edit: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's contact page is here: http://www.dccc.org/page/s/contact
I tried calling them on the phone about this, but their "Comment line" voice mail box was full and bounced me back to the receptionist, Matt. (On the bright side, Matt was very helpful and offered to transcribe my comments into their web comment form for me. I opted to just type them up myself.)
It's an interesting question, and one that I would love to see research funding for. But it's also unlikely to lead to any direct practical results for a while, although offshoots of technology designed to answer it might end up being handy.