We are alone
-
@89th said in We are alone:
We are absolutely alone in the universe. Or at least, effectively alone. Even if some life-supporting planet was out there, I’d imagine the life biology, evolution, and communication style would all be so different, it wouldn’t matter. For example, let’s say a planet 75 million light years away has a healthy population of frogs. Ok great, I doubt the frogs would be able to send a message to Earth. Let alone to a fellow frog 100 feet away. Also, IF (and this is a big IF) the frogs has the ability to view Earth from 75 million light years away…. they would see dinosaurs, not people.
That's all assuming they could be only as advanced as us. Which is a silly assumption, considering the relative age of our solar system.
I'm not saying t3h alienz are real. But "it's impossible because I can't see how it could be" is exactly how you get flat earthers. It's wiser to stay a little open-minded to things of which we're only scratching the surface.
wrote on 19 Aug 2021, 03:45 last edited by@aqua-letifer said in We are alone:
@89th said in We are alone:
We are absolutely alone in the universe. Or at least, effectively alone. Even if some life-supporting planet was out there, I’d imagine the life biology, evolution, and communication style would all be so different, it wouldn’t matter. For example, let’s say a planet 75 million light years away has a healthy population of frogs. Ok great, I doubt the frogs would be able to send a message to Earth. Let alone to a fellow frog 100 feet away. Also, IF (and this is a big IF) the frogs has the ability to view Earth from 75 million light years away…. they would see dinosaurs, not people.
That's all assuming they could be only as advanced as us. Which is a silly assumption, considering the relative age of our solar system.
I'm not saying t3h alienz are real. But "it's impossible because I can't see how it could be" is exactly how you get flat earthers. No It's wiser to stay a little open-minded to things of which we're only scratching the surface.
You know, I’m getting flashbacks of some debate positions you’ve taken back in college, and you were right in this regard too. I should stay open minded, especially with the sheer vastness of the number of planets out there.
That being said, If you forced me to take a binary position on this topic, I would say we are alone.
-
wrote on 19 Aug 2021, 03:47 last edited by
We’re all figments if some alien’s imagination.
-
wrote on 19 Aug 2021, 12:23 last edited by
@aqua-letifer said in We are alone:
@89th said in We are alone:
We are absolutely alone in the universe. Or at least, effectively alone. Even if some life-supporting planet was out there, I’d imagine the life biology, evolution, and communication style would all be so different, it wouldn’t matter. For example, let’s say a planet 75 million light years away has a healthy population of frogs. Ok great, I doubt the frogs would be able to send a message to Earth. Let alone to a fellow frog 100 feet away. Also, IF (and this is a big IF) the frogs has the ability to view Earth from 75 million light years away…. they would see dinosaurs, not people.
That's all assuming they could be only as advanced as us. Which is a silly assumption, considering the relative age of our solar system.
I'm not saying t3h alienz are real. But "it's impossible because I can't see how it could be" is exactly how you get flat earthers. It's wiser to stay a little open-minded to things of which we're only scratching the surface.
@89th there is a school of thought that life would generally follow similar pathways… That there are only so many successful evolutionary turns for these particular groups of chemicals and energies to go through and evolve into sentience…
-
wrote on 19 Aug 2021, 12:36 last edited by
Considering the vastness and age of the universe, it strikes me as hubris for this little bunch of monkeys that have only had telescopes for 500 years to decide that they're it.
We've only been able to talk for about 0.0003% of the age of the universe, and we've decided it's too big to explore?
-
@aqua-letifer said in We are alone:
@89th said in We are alone:
We are absolutely alone in the universe. Or at least, effectively alone. Even if some life-supporting planet was out there, I’d imagine the life biology, evolution, and communication style would all be so different, it wouldn’t matter. For example, let’s say a planet 75 million light years away has a healthy population of frogs. Ok great, I doubt the frogs would be able to send a message to Earth. Let alone to a fellow frog 100 feet away. Also, IF (and this is a big IF) the frogs has the ability to view Earth from 75 million light years away…. they would see dinosaurs, not people.
That's all assuming they could be only as advanced as us. Which is a silly assumption, considering the relative age of our solar system.
I'm not saying t3h alienz are real. But "it's impossible because I can't see how it could be" is exactly how you get flat earthers. It's wiser to stay a little open-minded to things of which we're only scratching the surface.
@89th there is a school of thought that life would generally follow similar pathways… That there are only so many successful evolutionary turns for these particular groups of chemicals and energies to go through and evolve into sentience…
wrote on 19 Aug 2021, 13:12 last edited by@lufins-dad said in We are alone:
@aqua-letifer said in We are alone:
@89th said in We are alone:
We are absolutely alone in the universe. Or at least, effectively alone. Even if some life-supporting planet was out there, I’d imagine the life biology, evolution, and communication style would all be so different, it wouldn’t matter. For example, let’s say a planet 75 million light years away has a healthy population of frogs. Ok great, I doubt the frogs would be able to send a message to Earth. Let alone to a fellow frog 100 feet away. Also, IF (and this is a big IF) the frogs has the ability to view Earth from 75 million light years away…. they would see dinosaurs, not people.
That's all assuming they could be only as advanced as us. Which is a silly assumption, considering the relative age of our solar system.
I'm not saying t3h alienz are real. But "it's impossible because I can't see how it could be" is exactly how you get flat earthers. It's wiser to stay a little open-minded to things of which we're only scratching the surface.
@89th there is a school of thought that life would generally follow similar pathways… That there are only so many successful evolutionary turns for these particular groups of chemicals and energies to go through and evolve into sentience…
Yeah because that line of thinking never gets categorically disproven. Like every time.
-
@lufins-dad said in We are alone:
@aqua-letifer said in We are alone:
@89th said in We are alone:
We are absolutely alone in the universe. Or at least, effectively alone. Even if some life-supporting planet was out there, I’d imagine the life biology, evolution, and communication style would all be so different, it wouldn’t matter. For example, let’s say a planet 75 million light years away has a healthy population of frogs. Ok great, I doubt the frogs would be able to send a message to Earth. Let alone to a fellow frog 100 feet away. Also, IF (and this is a big IF) the frogs has the ability to view Earth from 75 million light years away…. they would see dinosaurs, not people.
That's all assuming they could be only as advanced as us. Which is a silly assumption, considering the relative age of our solar system.
I'm not saying t3h alienz are real. But "it's impossible because I can't see how it could be" is exactly how you get flat earthers. It's wiser to stay a little open-minded to things of which we're only scratching the surface.
@89th there is a school of thought that life would generally follow similar pathways… That there are only so many successful evolutionary turns for these particular groups of chemicals and energies to go through and evolve into sentience…
Yeah because that line of thinking never gets categorically disproven. Like every time.
wrote on 19 Aug 2021, 13:14 last edited by@aqua-letifer Examples, please?
-
wrote on 19 Aug 2021, 13:19 last edited by
We can't even explain how bees fly, and we've decided that we know everything about how life in the universe evolves?
-
We can't even explain how bees fly, and we've decided that we know everything about how life in the universe evolves?
wrote on 19 Aug 2021, 13:25 last edited by@doctor-phibes said in We are alone:
We can't even explain how bees fly, and we've decided that we know everything about how life in the universe evolves?
No, but we can extrapolate based on the high amount of energy the bee needs to generate to be able to fly in that manner that it’s evolutionary paths forward are fairly limited.
-
@aqua-letifer Examples, please?
wrote on 19 Aug 2021, 13:28 last edited by@lufins-dad said in We are alone:
@aqua-letifer Examples, please?
@lufins-dad said in We are alone:
@aqua-letifer Examples, please?
Are you kidding me?
Ecclesiastes - there's nothing new under the sun. He said this a good century or two before we discovered Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, and nearly all of our solar system's moons.
Charles Duell - there's no longer anything new to invent. He (allegedly) said this before plutonium, microprocessors, and penicillin.
John von Neumann - “It would appear that we have reached the limits of what it is possible to achieve with computer technology.”
The brits initially said the lightbulb was “good enough for our transatlantic friends ... but unworthy of the attention of practical or scientific men.”
Heavier-than-air flight was considered a joke until it wasn't.
Atom-splitting was considered impossible until it wasn't. Now we're screwing with quarks.
Scientific history is defined by dipshits who thought we reached our limit because they themselves couldn't see a way forward.
-
@doctor-phibes said in We are alone:
We can't even explain how bees fly, and we've decided that we know everything about how life in the universe evolves?
No, but we can extrapolate based on the high amount of energy the bee needs to generate to be able to fly in that manner that it’s evolutionary paths forward are fairly limited.
wrote on 19 Aug 2021, 13:32 last edited by@lufins-dad said in We are alone:
@doctor-phibes said in We are alone:
We can't even explain how bees fly, and we've decided that we know everything about how life in the universe evolves?
No, but we can extrapolate based on the high amount of energy the bee needs to generate to be able to fly in that manner that it’s evolutionary paths forward are fairly limited.
We can extrapolate all we like, but we've seen one planet with life on it. There are potentially billions out there. The theory of evolution is what, 220 years old - and we suddenly know freaking everything? We've still got political leaders who say 'it's only a theory' - and now, we understand everything?
Hubris.
-
@lufins-dad said in We are alone:
@doctor-phibes said in We are alone:
We can't even explain how bees fly, and we've decided that we know everything about how life in the universe evolves?
No, but we can extrapolate based on the high amount of energy the bee needs to generate to be able to fly in that manner that it’s evolutionary paths forward are fairly limited.
We can extrapolate all we like, but we've seen one planet with life on it. There are potentially billions out there. The theory of evolution is what, 220 years old - and we suddenly know freaking everything? We've still got political leaders who say 'it's only a theory' - and now, we understand everything?
Hubris.
wrote on 19 Aug 2021, 13:35 last edited by@doctor-phibes said in We are alone:
@lufins-dad said in We are alone:
@doctor-phibes said in We are alone:
We can't even explain how bees fly, and we've decided that we know everything about how life in the universe evolves?
No, but we can extrapolate based on the high amount of energy the bee needs to generate to be able to fly in that manner that it’s evolutionary paths forward are fairly limited.
We can extrapolate all we like, but we've seen one planet with life on it. There are potentially billions out there. The theory of evolution is what, 220 years old - and we suddenly know freaking everything? We've still got political leaders who say 'it's only a theory' - and now, we understand everything?
Hubris.
Hell the article Mik just shared about COVID cited a study in which an e coli population learned how to ingest citrate instead of glucose.
-
Considering the vastness and age of the universe, it strikes me as hubris for this little bunch of monkeys that have only had telescopes for 500 years to decide that they're it.
We've only been able to talk for about 0.0003% of the age of the universe, and we've decided it's too big to explore?
wrote on 19 Aug 2021, 14:00 last edited by@doctor-phibes said in We are alone:
Considering the vastness and age of the universe, it strikes me as hubris for this little bunch of monkeys that have only had telescopes for 500 years to decide that they're it.
We've only been able to talk for about 0.0003% of the age of the universe, and we've decided it's too big to explore?
Word.
-
wrote on 19 Aug 2021, 15:59 last edited by
Most of the aliens shed their bodies a long time ago.
Now they are just energy.
Time and space are no longer barriers.
-
We are absolutely alone in the universe. Or at least, effectively alone. Even if some life-supporting planet was out there, I’d imagine the life biology, evolution, and communication style would all be so different, it wouldn’t matter. For example, let’s say a planet 75 million light years away has a healthy population of frogs. Ok great, I doubt the frogs would be able to send a message to Earth. Let alone to a fellow frog 100 feet away. Also, IF (and this is a big IF) the frogs has the ability to view Earth from 75 million light years away…. they would see dinosaurs, not people.
wrote on 21 Aug 2021, 09:31 last edited by@89th said in We are alone:
We are absolutely alone in the universe. Or at least, effectively alone. Even if some life-supporting planet was out there, I’d imagine the life biology, evolution, and communication style would all be so different, it wouldn’t matter. For example, let’s say a planet 75 million light years away has a healthy population of frogs. Ok great, I doubt the frogs would be able to send a message to Earth. Let alone to a fellow frog 100 feet away. Also, IF (and this is a big IF) the frogs has the ability to view Earth from 75 million light years away…. they would see dinosaurs, not people.
Frogs? I wasn't expecting this turn in the conversation, but it's a nice addition
. My froggos approve. It took much discussion on their part.