Thread: Alien Life

Originally Posted by juroara

Here's something he's not getting. Violent and oppressive cultures crumble apart from within. It's unlikely that such a culture would have the necessary cooperation to reach space age. And even if they do reach space age, they're aren't going to get very far before they collapse under their own weight. That's just nature. Even the swarm of locusts are destined to die. They don't simply continue moving on and on and on. No, they die!

LOL. Our first steps to space age were due to cold war, not some humanity-wide cooperation. We're a pretty aggressive civilization and we seem to have no trouble lunching stuff into space. War is the strongest force behind technological progress.

It's still ridiculous.

He says

“I suspect there could be life and intelligence out there in forms we can’t conceive,” he said. “Just as a chimpanzee can’t understand quantum theory, it could be there are aspects of reality that are beyond the capacity of our brains.”

(not to mention that not only chimpanzees, but also humans don't get quantum theory)

but also says things like

“If aliens ever visit us, I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn’t turn out very well for the Native Americans.”

“We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn’t want to meet. I imagine they might exist in massive ships, having used up all the resources from their home planet. Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonise whatever planets they can reach.”

...seriously?

Originally Posted by SnakeCharmer

LOL. Our first steps to space age were due to cold war, not some humanity-wide cooperation. We're a pretty aggressive civilization and we seem to have no trouble lunching stuff into space. War is the strongest force behind technological progress.

On the other hand, every big, agressive civilization has crumbled from within.
I don't think we are as advanced as we could have been and you guys have
heard that Nasa funds have been cut and are to be concentrated on the lower
orbits, right? Military advantages, perhaps?



War might give an economical boost, but it is a very unlikely long-term solution.

Originally Posted by dajo

On the other hand, every big, agressive civilization has crumbled from within.
I don't think we are as advanced as we could have been and you guys have
heard that Nasa funds have been cut and are to be concentrated on the lower
orbits, right? Military advantages, perhaps?


War might give an economical boost, but it is a very unlikely long-term solution.

That's why we have cycles of war and peace.
Cycles of war can be linked to accelerated technological progress.
Examples:
Rocketry was developed for lunching weapons.
Nuclear technology was developed for bigger/stronger weapons.

You almost never have concentrated efforts to solve scientific and technological problems, unless there's a war. Projects like LHC are an exception, not a rule.

Originally Posted by SnakeCharmer

That's why we have cycles of war and peace.
Cycles of war can be linked to accelerated technological progress.
Examples:
Rocketry was developed for lunching weapons.
Nuclear technology was developed for bigger/stronger weapons.

You almost never have concentrated efforts to solve scientific and technological problems, unless there's a war. Projects like LHC are an exception, not a rule.

That is true up until a certain point. When we go beyond nuclear technology, the benefit and risks increase substantially. If the technology and the weapon can kill the entire civilization with one event, there will be no cycle as the civilization is wiped out. If the species want to survive beyond this critical period, its wisdom would have to match the progress of technology. I see this as a natural fail-safe mechanism in terms of negative impact on foreign extra-planetary life.

Of course, what kind of civilzation it would take or which would be possible is pretty speculative.

Originally Posted by SnakeCharmer

Nuclear technology was developed for bigger/stronger weapons.

If I remember correctly, splitting the atom didn't happen due to a war
situation. Many of the physicists that were involved, like Einstein, were
pretty pacifistic and also questioned what had become of their discoveries.
Although then they were asked to use it to build bombs. But it was an
inevitable step in order to gain more understanding of the nature of reality.

(edit: ok, you said developed)

War isn't neccessary for people to be curious. In our market system, things
like that need funding, so it makes sense that certain scientific areas get
increased funding then. But I don't think that this would be the only way.

Also I am not sure, if you can say that the majority of important, technological
accelerations happened in or due to a war cycle. Especially now, public
interest (in buying) can be a great stimulant for further technology as
well. (e.g. communication, economic growth due to industrialization)

Well, we didn't inherit anything from Chimps, but both humans and chimps got their similar aggression from a common ancestor. Grampa was a dick.

Originally Posted by dajo

War isn't neccessary for people to be curious.

You are misinterpreting what I said.
I wasn't talking about curiosity or whatnot. I wasn't talking about progress that happens in small increments due to sporadic efforts of certain scientists/groups.

I said "concentrated efforts to solve scientific and technological problems". This means having a group of greatest scientific minds working on the same problem completely unrestricted by anything else. It certainly never happened during peace time.

Originally Posted by dajo

Especially now, public
interest (in buying) can be a great stimulant for further technology as
well. (e.g. communication, economic growth due to industrialization)

1. Big projects don't get funded with private money because they are too expensive.
2. Big projects that bring big technological and scientific advances are not aimed at and are not motivated by the end products that eventually make it to the market.

Originally Posted by SnakeCharmer

I said "concentrated efforts to solve scientific and technological problems". This means having a group of greatest scientific minds working on the same problem completely unrestricted by anything else. It certainly never happened during peace time.

But, talking about space travel - the Hubble Telescope, all the research
centers and astronauts, etc are not included in military spending. If you'd
have a more curious and educated public in a time of peace, more of the government spending would be directed towards this realm than it would
be in new defense systems and such. (I would think). This would be decided
by the voter, through voting.

Efforts are certainly concentrated to solve specific scientific and technological
problems, but therefore other sections will get less attention and funding.

And to be a little more exact - a lot of the scientific exploration in, say,
nuclear weaponry, was not so much due to war, but due to fear of war.

1. Big projects don't get funded with private money because they are too expensive.
2. Big projects that bring big technological and scientific advances are not aimed at and are not motivated by the end products that eventually make it to the market.

With communication I was talking about the immense technological advantages
that have been and are constantly achieved and that shape our very culture
by the day - not because they were needed for war, but mainly because of a
very promising market and the important benefits they bring for a nation.
This technology defines our time right now.

Industrialization has given us an abundance of new technologies, mainly
because of the necessity of economic growth. Technology can be influcenced
by war, or it can further be used in combat situations, but my point was
that there are certainly other catalysts for technological leaps.

If I missed your point, please define "Big Projects".
I just see war as a possible motivator, out of many.
And I don't think it's very helpful in space exploration.

Originally Posted by dajo

But, talking about space travel, the Hubble Telescope, all the research
centers and astronauts are not included in military spending.

True, but the bulk of the technology they use was developed during the cold war as a part of the space race.

Originally Posted by dajo

If you'd
have a more curious and educated public in a time of peace, more of
the government spending would be directed towards this realm than
it would be in new defense systems and such. (I would think). This
would be decided by the voter, through voting.

That's how things should be, but that is not how things are or were. I must admit I don't have high hopes of things actually working themselves out.

Originally Posted by dajo

And to be a little more exact - a lot of the scientific exploration in, say,
nuclear weaponry, was not so much due to war, but due to fear of war.

Again, we are talking about slightly different things. The Manhattan project was the big thing, a milestone. Everything else related to nuclear technology fits into "small increments".

Originally Posted by dajo

With communication I was talking about the immense technological advantages
that have been and are constantly achieved and that shape our very culture
by the day - not because they were needed for war, but mainly because of a
very promising market and the important benefits they bring for a nation.
This technology defines our time right now.

I disagree with this. Most products of technology that we use are just by-products of what the technological solutions were originally designed for.

Originally Posted by dajo

Technology can be influcenced
by war, or it can further be used in combat situations, but my point was
that there are certainly other catalysts for technological leaps.

Those leaps are inconsistent, unless you have a lot of brain power (in numbers) working together. This almost never happens in science. It's just how scientists work. They are competing against each other, both for funding and for 'getting there first'. During peace, you have labs competing against each other. During war time you get a bigger motivator to put those people together and make them solve big problems.

To put it in short: the more hostile the environment, the more technological prowess is needed to survive it and prosper. This is a big motivator.

Originally Posted by SnakeCharmer

LOL. Our first steps to space age were due to cold war, not some humanity-wide cooperation. We're a pretty aggressive civilization and we seem to have no trouble lunching stuff into space. War is the strongest force behind technological progress.

Let me explain, when I mean space age, I mean the real deal. Not just flying to your moon but the capacity to leave your solar system all together. We humans haven't been able to do this. Were so caught up in strange ideas like "American" "Russian" "Chinese" and so on that we aren't really cooperating on the level we need to be to be a space age race.

The population I think would begin to rebel if all your money, time, energy, and intelligence goes into creating technology to traverse space, when you have left so many problems down below on your little planet

Originally Posted by juroara

Let me explain, when I mean space age, I mean the real deal. Not just flying to your moon but the capacity to leave your solar system all together. We humans haven't been able to do this. Were so caught up in strange ideas like "American" "Russian" "Chinese" and so on that we aren't really cooperating on the level we need to be to be a space age race.

The population I think would begin to rebel if all your money, time, energy, and intelligence goes into creating technology to traverse space, when you have left so many problems down below on your little planet

Not if you coveted the technology. Personally, I feel we are living in the Medieval Ages by comparison due to technology being coveted.