Why We Haven’t Met Any Aliens • Hacker News Board

Re: Why We Haven’t Met Any Aliens

#51

Post by rsheridan6 » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 6:24 AM UTC

brandall10 wrote: post #24

Let's imagine there are billions of planets out there (a true Sagan-esque billions) which have spawned intelligences that have achieved interstellar travel - ie. they have the ability to actively seek out and communicate with others of similar ability. Perhaps like the United Federation of Planets in Star Trek, except many, many of these, separated from others by various degrees of intelligence or ability. Let's imag…

Primordial soup is interesting. If we had any of it to study, we'd have hundreds of postdocs studying it right now, as we have lots of labs studying all sorts of things that are not obviously useful.

Any species that didn't have intellectual curiosity about things that aren't obvious useful would probably never make it off its home planet. A lot of the math and science that underlies stuff we use every day didn't seem useful when it was developed - see, for example, the theory of computation, worked out when there were no computers, and without which there probably still wouldn't be any computers.

Re: Why We Haven’t Met Any Aliens

#52

Post by redwood » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 6:28 AM UTC

ccc3 wrote: post #38

At some point in the article he states: Evolution simply could never have anticipated... Evolution, by definition, doesn't anticipate anything. It's disappointing to see a university professor writing on evolution who seemingly doesn't even understand the evolutionary process.

I'm sorry but this is a way of speaking that doesn't necessarily imply he believes in an evolution capable of cognition. It's a short hand for saying "humans evolved in situations so unlike the situation they have today, that the traits they evolved are no longer best-suited for survival in today's world"

Re: Why We Haven’t Met Any Aliens

#53

Post by vonskippy » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 6:29 AM UTC

Why would intelligent life that can expand and conquer their part of the universe use clunky ancient inefficient technology like radio waves.

We humans have had radio for about 100 years and already we're moving on. Digital satellite radio, wired and fiber internet, cable tv, faxes (just kidding), etc.

Imagine if we could travel from our star to another on a routine basis, would we be using radio for anything?

The Universe could be teaming with life, but with our current planet bound technology and meager 200-300 years of industrial/technological innovation, how would we know?

Articles like this is why psychology is called a SOFT science.

Re: Why We Haven’t Met Any Aliens

#54

Post by d5tryr » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 6:33 AM UTC

exratione wrote: post #19

A terrible article. So let's say something more interesting. There are several important ideas intertwined together around the Fermi Paradox: 1) Fermi Paradox Why haven't we seen any evidence in the observable universe of megascale activities and exponential growth comparable to those that we know that our descendants will be capable of, and fairly soon? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox 2) The Outer Bounds…

Agreed on it being a terrible article. Way too many 'clever' turns of phrase. Why make a statement when you can juxtapose some pop culture references? Seems much more of an act of self indulgence than the condemning of one...

But as for your list I think you left out the Occam's razor option:

5) Rare earth hypothesis

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

Re: Why We Haven’t Met Any Aliens

#55

Post by redwood » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 6:34 AM UTC

It's also possible that we were one of the first to develop intelligence, within our light-sphere, that is since the minimum time needed from the big bang to develop intelligence (whatever that is). E.g. let's say you need 12 billion years just to get to the point where you might be able have the environment needed to make planets. Then in our 2-billion year light sphere we may be one of the first to develop intelligence. That is, if it's very rare to develop intelligence.

Re: Why We Haven’t Met Any Aliens

#56

Post by rsheridan6 » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 6:34 AM UTC

Not credible, because if even a few people stay away from futuristic, all consuming super-porn, and can convince their kids to do the same, then those people will come to predominate, and the super-porn becomes irrelevant. There are already people who would consciously eschew any form of entertainment that would prevent reproduction - the Amish would ban it within their communities for sure.

On the other hand, if just one person with control of an adequate supply of nuclear weapons (or other super-weapons, possibly including ones that haven't been imagined yet) decides to wipe out humanity, he stands a good chance of succeeding. This seems much more plausible than mass suicide via entertainment.

Re: Why We Haven’t Met Any Aliens

#57

Post by d5tryr » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 6:36 AM UTC

tensor wrote: post #10

sliverstorm wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, the past decade has taught us again and again how powerful crowdsourcing can be.

It may be useful for finding ideas to earn money, but I have seen no indications that crowd sourcing is at all useful for solving complex questions, designing complex machinery, or discovering any form of truth.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/07/29/crowdso...

Re: Why We Haven’t Met Any Aliens

#58

Post by asdkl234890 » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 6:37 AM UTC

d5tryr wrote: post #54

exratione wrote: post #19

A terrible article. So let's say something more interesting. There are several important ideas intertwined together around the Fermi Paradox: 1) Fermi Paradox Why haven't we seen any evidence in the observable universe of megascale activities and exponential growth comparable to those that we know that our descendants will be capable of, and fairly soon? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox 2) The Outer Bounds…

Agreed on it being a terrible article. Way too many 'clever' turns of phrase. Why make a statement when you can juxtapose some pop culture references? Seems much more of an act of self indulgence than the condemning of one... But as for your list I think you left out the Occam's razor option: 5) Rare earth hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis

Also space is really BIG, and no one can go faster than light.

Re: Why We Haven’t Met Any Aliens

#59

Post by Stormbringer » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 6:40 AM UTC

redwood wrote: post #52

ccc3 wrote: post #38

At some point in the article he states: Evolution simply could never have anticipated... Evolution, by definition, doesn't anticipate anything. It's disappointing to see a university professor writing on evolution who seemingly doesn't even understand the evolutionary process.

I'm sorry but this is a way of speaking that doesn't necessarily imply he believes in an evolution capable of cognition. It's a short hand for saying "humans evolved in situations so unlike the situation they have today, that the traits they evolved are no longer best-suited for survival in today's world"

I'm even more sorry that this way of speaking is so utterly prevalent in science reporting.

That, plus the tendency of people from other specialties cough astrophysicists especially cough to wax lyrical and ascribe amazing powers to 'evolution' and the casual observer would be entirely forgiven for thinking that anyone talking about "intelligent design" must be talking about evolution and that those are simply two terms for the same thing.

Before you start flaming me, my issue is not with Science! but it is with how Science! is reported on, which involves both watering down the message (turning everything into a Kipling-esque "Just so story"), and gussying up the message to make it seem more important (gotta get that funding somehow).

Re: Why We Haven’t Met Any Aliens

#60

Post by d5tryr » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 6:49 AM UTC

asdkl234890 wrote: post #58

d5tryr wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed on it being a terrible article. Way too many 'clever' turns of phrase. Why make a statement when you can juxtapose some pop culture references? Seems much more of an act of self indulgence than the condemning of one... But as for your list I think you left out the Occam's razor option: 5) Rare earth hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis

Also space is really BIG, and no one can go faster than light.

BIG space doesn't solve the exponentially-reproducing colonist issue though...