Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is ‘Oumuamua an alien spacecraft? First scans show no signs of technology

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 100 posts

Re: Is ‘Oumuamua an alien spacecraft? First scans show no signs of technology

#81

Post by QAPereo »

mirimir wrote: post #63
vvanders wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good luck with that considering how much RF we're blasting out into space(you can make contact with the ISS/AmSats on a 5W handheld + yagi antenna).

In The Killing Star , it was Star Trek that sealed Earth's fate. Humans came off as dangerous know-it-alls :(

In the Dark Forest, we could get lucky given how faint and brief the peak of our RF emissions have been. We’d probably have to be close to “someone” looking for signs of life to give ourselves away now. Still for all that we know the relativistic bombardment is already en route, or a dual-vector foil.

Re: Is ‘Oumuamua an alien spacecraft? First scans show no signs of technology

#84

Post by eclectic »

wasx wrote: post #11

I'm kind of glad to hear that to be honest. It's already too far away from us and going too fast for any spacecraft that could currently be built to reach it. It would have been a very cruel joke if the first opportunity for interaction with extra terrestrial intelligence flew past us so unceremoniously. Of course it's certainly disappointing that it isn't an alien spacecraft, but would have been doubly so if it were…

The most momentous discovery would be that it is indeed an alien spacecraft. Whatever we could have gained from a close inspection would pale in comparison.

Re: Is ‘Oumuamua an alien spacecraft? First scans show no signs of technology

#85

Post by eclectic »

pmoriarty wrote: post #23
ceejayoz wrote: post #5

Obviously, this indicates they're using technology far exceeding ours that's undetectable to our sensors.

It could also be just a dead spacecraft, than was once operational but is no longer so. That could also be why it's tumbling now, whereas once it may have flown in a more aerodynamic fashion.

Maybe it just rotates to create artificial gravity.

Re: Is ‘Oumuamua an alien spacecraft? First scans show no signs of technology

#86

Post by pm90 »

wasx wrote: post #36
on_and_off wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last thing I would want for an alien life is to be humane. We have not really been great in our interactions with other cultures throughout history and they were of the same species as us.

I put humanity in quotes because I didn't really know what else to name it when talking about some other form of intelligence. I guess I'm talking about that part of our society that craves peace and stability, that has enabled our continued development up to this point. Certainly throughout history we've seen unimaginable cruelty inflicted on "less civilised" societies by colonial and imperialist societies. Hopefull…

We probably wouldn’t exploit it as long as access was hard. Once space travel becomes more common though, I think we might have a situation like Star Wars where the far away worlds are basically left to their own devices since it would be a huge pain for an earth centered society to enforce laws...

Re: Is ‘Oumuamua an alien spacecraft? First scans show no signs of technology

#87

Post by pm90 »

Houshalter wrote: post #69
wasx wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've gotta disagree with you on this. Personally I think intelligent life is probably very rare in the universe, the sheer number of factors that need to go right for it to arise, and then the sheer number of factors that need to not go wrong for it to continue to exist mean any intelligent life out there is probably going to find us way more valuable and worthy of co-operation and interaction than say destruction of…

It doesn't matter. No matter how convincing your argument is, we can't afford to risk the entire world on you being right. The stakes are too high. And I think you are very wrong. Aliens don't need to be anything like us. Don't anthropomorphize them. They might have nothing like our morality or care for other sentient life forms. And just see us as a pest and potential future competition to snuff out. Or if they do h…

One Important thing to note was that while religious undertones certainly existed the main goal of colonizers was economic. So I wouldn’t be surprised if the first alien ship to arrive on earth would be an exploratory mining ship trying to basically mine earth for water/minerals and would wipe out anything inconvenient such as existing life.

Re: Is ‘Oumuamua an alien spacecraft? First scans show no signs of technology

#88

Post by pm90 »

wasx wrote: post #41
rlkf wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the society need not be based on internal oppression, to be an adversary to us: I don't think the kingdom of Castille in 1492 necessarily was a beacon of stability and lack of conflict; yet it financed an expedition westwards.

That is true, but I don't think fair parallels can be drawn between a southern European empire in 1492 when humanity was still discovering itself and it's place within the universe to an interstellar society. Society matures in much the same way as an individual does, albeit on much longer, slower time spans. Can you seriously imagine an interstellar society (which I truly believe would be a democracy, as I see no fe…

Democracy isn’t something that automatically makes you a space faring civilization, neither is it necessary. The Roman Empire got pretty far while enslaving millions of people. It’s not a stretch to think that the Age of Science could have happened under Roman tutelage had it not met its unfortunate demise

Re: Is ‘Oumuamua an alien spacecraft? First scans show no signs of technology

#89

Post by pm90 »

Klathmon wrote: post #53
wasx wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've gotta disagree with you on this. Personally I think intelligent life is probably very rare in the universe, the sheer number of factors that need to go right for it to arise, and then the sheer number of factors that need to not go wrong for it to continue to exist mean any intelligent life out there is probably going to find us way more valuable and worthy of co-operation and interaction than say destruction of…

As a counterpoint, I'd argue that conflict can act as a "force multiplier" of sorts. Every large war in our history has caused leaps in technology. Even on a smaller scale we treat conflict and competition as a good thing that promotes innovation. Life as we know it "craves" and thrives on conflict. And if that's a universal truth, then any other civilizations we meet could as well.

Excellent point. Wars have (albeit morbidly) allowed for drastic changes in all aspects of human society as well. But maybe a war based society can only progress until it invents planet destroying WMDs. After that the cost of war becomes intolerable to progress

Re: Is ‘Oumuamua an alien spacecraft? First scans show no signs of technology

#90

Post by on_and_off »

0xdada wrote: post #35
on_and_off wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last thing I would want for an alien life is to be humane. We have not really been great in our interactions with other cultures throughout history and they were of the same species as us.

I think you're not interpreting the word "humane" correctly. It's possible for humans to behave in an inhumane manner. In fact it happens a lot to this day. That doesn't mean GP's definition of "humane" is wrong.

I am aware of this.

I am not a native speaker, so the dichotomy between the sense of this word and our most common behaviors as a species has always felt unsettling to me.

I kind of like this word, I would love to live in a world where this is a perfect descriptor for our species.

Back to the topic at hand, while it would indeed be marvelous to find benefactors from the stars, all the other possibilities are chilling. From cosmic horror to simple warmongering, there are so many ways it could go irremediably wrong.

Post reply on HN