a nuclear attack in your lifetime?

[Agronaut]

i dont think we are the only life out there. its so vast i think it would be dumb to say we are it. i kinda beleave in aliens as well. no i dont think they are flying a million light years to probe our butts. however if we all started at the same time then an advanced alien race is very possible. think about where we would be if we didnt have the darkages and our tech was 400 to 600 years more advanced.

supost to be enough oil under texas to last the whole world 7 years alone. its mostly all reserved oil. the piple lines are already in place bringing it to production wouldnt take any time at all. thats what my company mostly does is service the piplines in east texas. i think its resered incase of a war or if something really bad happens. its the only place that i know of that iis under heavy reserve but has piplines so close to it. so if anything happend you could get the oil to market really fast, alaska cant do that.

the whole nuclear winter thing im not so sure about. i dont think thats fact i think they are basing it apon a simular event like a meteor strike. i think they base that apon what happend to venus. i just dont see how a nuke is going to send that much stuff up in the upper atmosphere. its the fallout that you have to worry about not the nuke itself

[freemehul]

well I'm not saying we're the only planet out there with life, but I'm saying it is incredibly unlikely we'll make contact with aliens

[Bishop]

wrong we have

ever since scientists discovered that when the light of a star dims for a short moment, they know that this is due to the circling of a planet around a star. I don't know the exact number of planets they've found yet, but it's a lot.

You cant seriously equate finding out a planet exists to a thorough search of it for signs of life. We have not searched any planets for signs of life properly.

Yes we assume that it is fragile and hence rare. It's not an invalid assumption. So far the opposite, namely what you're saying that it is an invalid assumption, has been proven wrong thus far. See above post.

The assumption that life is rare is based on the evidence gathered from 1 planet - which is ours. Our planet has life on it. We haven't even surveyed our nearest neighbours yet so how do you feel justified in making that statement? We have literally 0 evidence that life is rare.

No, I compared it to a biological entity (i.e. life) and biologists know that this rule applies to any life, whether human or non-human. You see humans are life too. So if you were to argue that this rule doesn't apply to humans, then what you are essentially saying is that we are not life. Which is of course ridiculous. So again you're in the wrong here.

That's not like applying an emotion to an animal. Anger is an emotion, agression is not. So yet again you're in the wrong here. To show the distinction, for example martial artists can have an aggressive stance in battle, but they don't necessarily have to show anger.

"biologists know that this rule applies to any life, whether human or non-human."
Biologists know nothing about an alien species. To claim that our understanding is easily translatable to a foreign entity is just wrong and arrogant.

It does not ignore the argument of civilization. There are aggresive civilizations and yet we exist. This continued existence is due to the golden rule of self preservation of a species. Again a biological rule. This rule states that with humans, that no sain human will kill more humans than his or her own inherital worth. For example, say we have a family and the father is at war with his children, then he may kill his son, but if he kills his son, then he won't kill his second son, or daughter. Why do you ask? Because one child is half his inherital worth, so if he killed two of his children. He would have broken the golden rule, because then he would have killed 2 * 0.5 = 1 his inherital worth.

Historians have shown us that this rule checks out ok. So the conclusion is that it is true. The textbook example they come up with to show the case, is usually the war of the roses in England. In this war he wouldn't kill his cousin, because he already had killed a brother and a cousin, so if he killed another cousin he would have broken the golden rule. Instead what happened is that he imprisoned his cousin. This rule is based on an instinct, so it isn't a learned rule like the Westermarck effect (which is of course imprinting).

Unfortunately because it is an instinct it doesn't work for humans whose mental health is serverely impeded. One such example are psychopaths. Hitler for instance broke the golden rule.

But military historians know that those who break the golden rule, in the end always lose a war, or lose power (i.e. dictatorships don't last).

This is due to the fact that people whose mental health is affected and who break the golden rule, miss two important military conditions and hence are at a severe disadvantage. The conditions being, the first, and seventh condition stated in Sun Tzu the art of war chapter one. Namely they are evil, and their army has no constancy in reward and punishment. In some cases these conditions become knock-on effects. Hitler for instance killed the generals who had ability (Rommel). Hitler didn't enforce discipline when he should have (it is due to his substance abuse that the allies were able to succesfully land at Normandy). Stalin for example weakened his army when he killed the officers due to his paranoia. The are numerous more examples to be found and they all show the same thing.

The fact that these mad dictators and tyrants lose war so often, is because there are other powerful leaders in the world who are motivated by altruism, which although the opposite of selfishness is motivated by self interest. The best example I can come up with is how Roosevelt acted in WW2.

Because we humans are all of the same species, this instinct works with the preservation of human civilization. Because ET is not the same species as earth human, then the golden rule does not apply to the hypothetical "first contact". That is because ET is not human! Hence not the same species.

"There are aggresive civilizations and yet we exist" <-- there are plenty of civilisations that do not exist because of these aggressive civilisations too though.

Apart from that, your argument and example are flawed at a base level. You are comparing civilisations that have not attained a sufficient level of technology to enable acts of widespread species extinction. Furthermore, you are applying human knowledge to a nonhuman species again.

You stated the following:

"Oh and one more thing. Suppose some planet does notice our communications, then that means that they are technologically superior to us. Biologists know that a superior technological entity is also more aggresive, in other words they're essentially deemed pioneer species. So basically what that means is that if they do notice us and they have some superior transport to our planet that can nullify the problem of distance, than what we'll see is an aggresive species that wants to conquer our planet. So in other words we should be glad that we haven't found ET."

You cannot make that parallel because it applies only to earlier levels of civilisation in our experience. We have seen, clearly, that as our level advances we gain the ability to inflict greater casualties on our enemies and so must show greater restraint, or we will enter a species destroying conflict - such as a nuclear war. The argument is that for a civilisation to advance to a level to foster the level of tech required for galactic travel, and not wipe themselves out in the process, they must have attained peace.

Apart from that there is still the major issue with your arguments (and mine) - we are applying rules and boundaries based on limited experience of only our own planet and life.

[lastunicorn]

The method of the survey is biased. Most planets discovered thus far are much bigger than our own and much closer to the star they orbit than earth to the sun because those are the easiest to find.

[freemehul]

You cant seriously equate finding out a planet exists to a thorough search of it for signs of life. We have not searched any planets for signs of life properly.

"biologists know that this rule applies to any life, whether human or non-human."
Biologists know nothing about an alien species. To claim that our understanding is easily translatable to a foreign entity is just wrong and arrogant.

Apart from that there is still the major issue with your arguments (and mine) - we are applying rules and boundaries based on limited experience of only our own planet and life.

No, it is wrong and arrogant to say that it doesn't translate to other biological life. That argument would only hold true, if there was any other lifeform that isn't biological. As any chemist will tell you that's nonsense.

The problem with your comparison is that it is based on nothing, while my comparison is based on the experience we have. I agree it is a limited experience. There might be more out there, then again there might not be. So far it appears that there might not be! I disagree that the search wasn't done properly. If you know the requirements and you know the ones you've discovered don't even remotely match the criteria (and they've found a lot), then you know there is nothing out there as far as we know.

Withholding aggression is not based on restraint, it is based on self-interest. Trade spreads technology, if both advanced civilizations are in a small geographical "situation" (which is the case), they each have a self-interest not to destroy eachother. Whether that is through union or non-union like unilateral treaties like MAD makes no difference.

So if you mention there are plenty of civilizations that do not exist and you also mention that the parallel applies ONLY to earlier levels, then you are contradicting yourself if the "situation" is small, which it is.

we are applying rules and boundaries based on limited experience of only our own planet and life.

I agree that it is limited. But then I point to the fact that the situation we're in, supports the hypothesis that there is nothing, but still doesn't your hypothesis that there is something.

To make another parallel Bishop...
What you are essentially doing is the following (I'm exaggerating here of course, but it is to make a point). Science doesn't know everything -> science can't know everything -> ergo science must always be wrong -> hence the opposite is always true.

If you hold the latter to be true, then god must exist, ET must exist, ghosts must exist, and so does the flying spaghetti monster.

[freemehul]

The method of the survey is biased. Most planets discovered thus far are much bigger than our own and much closer to the star they orbit than earth to the sun because those are the easiest to find.

Yes that is true. But how much bigger are they?! They can find planets that are of the size that may fit as the bigger planets in a comparable solar system to our own. In these systems, they either found too few big ones, or too many yet bigger planets. So despite the bias, that tells us, that all we know is that thus far there is no solar system with a comparable normal distribution of mass (and hence also density), and hence you know it doesn't have planets that support biological life, even if you can't see the smaller ones.

^I hope this is clear, but it is like explaining to a layman how html frames work (not easy to comprehend, if you don't see it in front of you).

Anyhow despite the bias it shows that thus far of al the planets we've discovered there isn't a single one that matches even one criteria.

[Bishop]

No, i just stated we don't have the knowledge to make concrete statements like you are making. For example.

No, it is wrong and arrogant to say that it doesn't translate to other biological life. That argument would only hold true, if there was any other lifeform that isn't biological. As any chemist will tell you that's nonsense.

This is bollocks. The argument that because all we know of is biological life therefore all life must be biological is ridiculous.

I disagree that the search wasn't done properly. If you know the requirements and you know the ones you've discovered don't even remotely match the criteria (and they've found a lot), then you know there is nothing out there as far as we know.

We don't know the requirements at all. We know a limited set of them based on our experience of 1 planet. Knowing the atmospheric makeup and distance from from solar bodies is not a thorough search for life.

this isn't about science not providing all the answers, this is about finding a footprint and deducing that a species liked to dance a lot. Its complete bollocks.

and hence you know it doesn't have planets that support biological life, even if you can't see the smaller ones.

How can you make that statement when we haven't even proved the planets in our own solar system cannot support life?

[freemehul]

No, i just stated we don't have the knowledge to make concrete statements like you are making. For example.

This is bollocks. The argument that because all we know of is biological life therefore all life must be biological is ridiculous.

We don't know the requirements at all. We know a limited set of them based on our experience of 1 planet. Knowing the atmospheric makeup and distance from from solar bodies is not a thorough search for life.

this isn't about science not providing all the answers, this is about finding a footprint and deducing that a species liked to dance a lot. Its complete bollocks.

How can you make that statement when we haven't even provided the planets in our own solar system cannot support life?

Actually it is you who is making the concrete statement, by saying we can't know anything. And all I said it was probable.

OK so you're saying there must be life that isn't biological. If so, show me the evidence.

No it's bollocks to say that there ain't a footprint. I didn't say it may be flawed, we don't know that with certainty. The fact that they're still looking supports that.

OK so you're saying there are martians out there. If so are they really green? Do they have tentacles? ;)

Basically what you're saying here is that when you wish to catch butterflies, don't bring a net, because you don't know how big the butterflies are.

[Bishop]

Actually it is you who is making the concrete statement, by saying we can't know anything. And all I said it was probable.

OK so you're saying there must be life that isn't biological. If so, show me the evidence.

No it's bollocks to say that there ain't a footprint. I didn't say it may be flawed, we don't know that with certainty. The fact that they're still looking supports that.

OK so you're saying there are martians out there. If so are they really green? Do they have tentacles? ;)

Basically what you're saying here is that when you wish to catch butterflies, don't bring a net, because you don't know how big the butterflies are.

I think you'll find i responded to your statements. I said from the start that we do not have anywhere near the data required to make statements like you have made.

[freemehul]

we do.

Remember Bishop I mentioned "natural law" in that first post, I did not say "law". So you're dealing with probabilities, not certainties, like you're making it out to be


i.o.w.

You may be right, and I may be right, but based on our experiences, it's more likely that I'm right, in that there is no ET or that we'll be unable to make contact with ET. That doesn't say we shouldn't keep looking, because we should. All it says is that if you were to look in this vast and expanding universe, then the first thing you should search for is something similar to our own, something that you know.

[Bishop]

You may be right, and I may be right, but based on our experiences, it's more likely that I'm right, in that there is no ET or that we'll be unable to make contact with ET. .

That really is such bull****. We have bugger all experience, to try and say we do is asinine.

[freemehul]

That really is such bull****. We have bugger all experience, to try and say we do is asinine.

ok so you're saying we have no experience whatsoever. Do I get that right?

If yes, then you can't make a statement that that is asinine, because that too would then be based on experience. So in other words, it is you who is contradicting yourself ;)

[Bishop]

Bugger all = Little or none.

I.e - "we have little experience". You can take your semantic arguments and fondle them btw, I'm not interested.

[freemehul]

ah but is it "little" or is it "none"

-if it is little than my probability stands
-if it is none then neither does your statement stand ;)

btw I never was that good at semantics ;) but you just got cornered here ;)

[Bishop]

Little, clearly. When a debate drops down to nitpicking on words used you know its done. Have a nice day.