51–60 of 67 posts
* No life on Mars, because it didn't have the luck, even despite having water.
* No microfossils from anywhere else we've looked because that's zero places.
* No other intelligent life because we're freakishly unlikely even relative to space being enormous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
False dichotomy. https://cliffberg.medium.com/the-false-dichotomy-of-space-ex... https://www.universetoday.com/131376/shouldnt-fix-earth-firs... https://www.marssociety.ca/the-fix-our-planet-first-fallacy/ Not sure what you mean by "tv" being fake.
Mars Society founder Zubrin heads an aerospace R&D company....was formerly at Lockheed Martin Astronautics. Cosmic Serpent. A young anthropologist takes ayhuasca and realises there's non-"academic" ways to ask questions and get answers. About reality. https://archive.org/details/CosmicSerpent
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mars Society founder Zubrin heads an aerospace R&D company....was formerly at Lockheed Martin Astronautics. Cosmic Serpent. A young anthropologist takes ayhuasca and realises there's non-"academic" ways to ask questions and get answers. About reality. https://archive.org/details/CosmicSerpent
Yes, but the arguments remain the same, that there is a false dichotomy between spending here versus there, whereas the advances from fundamental research for there benefit us for here.
My view is that the material universe is only an illusion, that Earth is the centre of 'the universe' (it's immaterial that we orbit around the sun) and that life and consciousness only 'exist' on this planet. It's the 'stage' where we play out our lives; from whence we come and to whence we go is the bigger 'mystery' and one more rewarding to ponder on, then wonder about life 'out there'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why?
I wouldn't be able to elaborate well so I asked ChatGPT and here's some pointers. 1. Familiarity Breeds Apathy – Most people grow up with the assumption that life exists only on Earth, so they don’t question it deeply. It’s just "the way things are." 2. Existential Avoidance – The idea that we might be utterly alone in the universe is terrifying. Conversely, the idea that intelligent extraterrestrial life exists but…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't be able to elaborate well so I asked ChatGPT and here's some pointers. 1. Familiarity Breeds Apathy – Most people grow up with the assumption that life exists only on Earth, so they don’t question it deeply. It’s just "the way things are." 2. Existential Avoidance – The idea that we might be utterly alone in the universe is terrifying. Conversely, the idea that intelligent extraterrestrial life exists but…
I’ll just counter that there is one very serious and practical reason to have a better understanding of life in the universe—if a spacefaring civilization develops fast travel and reaches Earth first, then humanity will be enslaved and subjugated.
I’m not really bothered at all. Something like us may exist many times over in the vast universe. We may never know. And that’s what is exciting, IMO. The idea of dying with all the answers is not that exciting to me. But to die with some of the answers, knowing there is the excitement of discovery, for future generations, is precious.
> The idea of dying with all the answers is not that exciting to me. But to die with some of the answers, knowing there is the excitement of discovery, for future generations, is precious. The "why" of existence is part of the human condition, and it's a big reason for the development of individual and societal artistic and intellectual endeavors, including work that happened in pre-civilization by cave dwellers. I'd…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but the arguments remain the same, that there is a false dichotomy between spending here versus there, whereas the advances from fundamental research for there benefit us for here.
Agree. Roadsters in space is fund a mental.
Second: I'm not sure why you're asking about fossils and debris? The size of space is so big that the most advanced state of the art is to detect atmospheric compositions as a whole. How would we possibly be testing for microfossils"?
If you mean on more local places like Mars, there's pretty good evidence Mars has/had a microbiome. But without better proof, it's not like they're going to make announcements. The rovers make deliberate choices on what experiments it carries and those devices need to withstand the trip and justify the shipping/opportunity cost. They don't have an electron microscope, but they have tried other methods of identifying life. A small ETM is planned for a future mission, though.
And to wrap it up: you're assuming life would want to be found. Space is unfathomably big, but it's also unfathomably old*. Humans won't be recognizable if we survive a few million years. How about a billion? What results may not even seem like life as we know it all. Their home may not even exist anymore, and they move through the interstellar medium. We can only look for known signs of bioactivity right now... not, say, crystalline beings in stasis ships traveling the void with virtually 0 energy emissions.
Or maybe they just realized it's a waste of resources - what would one even have to gain compared to lose? They may have made horrifying weapons that have no countermeasures and hide, knowing any first contact could kill their entire people.
And if they're sufficiently advanced, why not just create digital heavens and live in bliss and excitement for, essentially, eternity with their families and friends? Why look out into a void for aliens they probably could never understand when they can have cool space adventures with sci fi technology in their Matryoshka Brain?
All this is, is a neat thought. You're letting it get to you, but it's genuinely not important. Smart folk are trying, but it takes a long time and the odds aren't in favor of your life changing in even the smallest way from the endeavor.