This is not to debate whether aliens exist or not, but could very well expand that way.

 

 

 

Hey, was just reading about the Fermi Paradox and had somewhat of a brain wave as to relate to it. Before I go into that a little of the history:

 

In 1950 a professor involved in the American Atomic Program, Enrico Fermi, made a statement which became the Fermi Paradox, he said 'Where are they?'.

 

The statement was in referance to a discussion which some eminate scientist were having about alien life. His paradox was 'If Alien life exists then why have we no signs of it, despite the universe being many billions of years old?'

 

 

 

The Theory has a lot of grounding in scientific fact, for instance, even if humans were to stop developing and only use our current level of technology, we could effectively reach every system within 5-50 million years. Which is nothing compared to how long Dinosaurs existed, and even less compared to how long the universe has existed.

 

Further more, even if the speices did not wish to travel between the stars if they were anything similar to us then they would be able to use radio and we should be able to detect some radio chatter from across the eons.

 

 

 

While it could be argued that humans are unique in their development and that other speices would find completely different ways of doing things, that only goes so far as 'proving' that humans alone in the universe...since the chances that Humans evolved completely independantly of all other forms of intelligent life, sharing virtually no technological similarities, are remote, it must be assumed that there are less intelligent speices than otherwise indicated.

 

 

 

On the other end of the scales there is the Drake Equation

 

[hide=]

 

where:

 

N is the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible

 

R* is the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy

 

fp is the fraction of those stars that have planets

 

ne is the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets

 

f? is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point

 

fi is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life

 

fc is the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space

 

L is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.[/hide]

 

Which predicts as many as 5000 intelligent alien life forms in this galaxy alone, or as few as just us. Added to that there is the idea that we cannot be alone since Earth is not special in any specific way, and so assuming we are alone is flawed in that respect.

 

 

 

Anyway, all of this got me thinking that maybe evolution is inherantly incapable of producing sustainable human life.

 

Take, for example, our own evolutionary path. Our genetic linage shows that we are closely related to mice and theory indicates that we evolved from these rodent like creatures after an extinction event.

 

We came from a small, inherantly fearful and weak animal.

 

Then over the course of many millions of years we developed into apes and finally into humans. This development, as recently theorised, took the form of the small rodent like animals developing into tree dwelling animals, giving us our opposable thumbs, but also a flatten pelvis which prevented us from walking upright, as well as a tail which gave us greater balance but less capable of hiding from predators on the forest ground.

 

We became animals specifically suited to living in a forest, surviving primarily as vegetarians.

 

However our eyes show a mildly different case. Prey animals(the catagory that non-intelligent humans would belong to) typically have their eyes planted to give near 360 degrees of vision, take rabbits for example. Humans and other primates though developed forward facing eyes, giving greater deapth perception which gave us more of an ability to move around the forest quickly.

 

We developed the ability to use our environment to escape from predators.

 

We also had to face aerial attack though, since our ability to move quickly was limited by not knowing we were under attack until it was too late, and, unlike most ground predators, birds of pray only need to land one hit to kill. Hence we had to come out of the trees or we had to develop a capacity to deal with this threat. In the end we did both. We developed into modern primates, spending a majority of their time on the forest floor, rather than high in the branches. We also developed the ability to communicate, increasing our ability to 'see' while maintaining our ability to jump between trees.

 

As such we became communal animals, and as such the more mental capacity that we had the more capable we were at communicating.

 

We then developed into hunter-gatherer cultures, roaming packs which worked together to bring down bigger pray...but at the expense of leaving the forests which meant our tails were effectively disadvantagous. Around this time we also began to use tools and clothes to protect ourselves, because we are not natural predators.

 

We developed into omnivore hunters.

 

After this some of us split off to take an agricultural role, because we are not natural predators we experiance fear much more than say a lion does, as such we are more willing to run away from a fight, which may keep us alive but if we do not have the animal carcass to eat... However some of us remained in a Hunter-Gatherer role, and we then found these ready built communities which we could control using our fearlessness.

 

We developed into two similar genegroups, the fearful and the hunters.

 

Though breeding these two groups together we developed into a mixture of the two, being both capable of running and fighting when required.

 

 

 

All of this took millions of years and required us to be pray animals to begin with, as well as being largely random in occurance.

 

This is because a predator animal does not require a large brain or a highly developed brain to hunt, however it does require us to develop some predatory overtones otherwise we have no reason to band together.

 

We could not develop straight into a farming community because we required more capable brains to do so and these are not particually benefical to a small community surviving off berries and nuts, or trapping small animals.

 

Where as more capable brains are extremely benefical in co-ordinating an attack by prey animals, for example backing an elephant into a corner or off of a cliff. Where as a pack of wolves could use their natural capabilties to bring an elephant down, humans are forced to rely on modifers.

 

Since evolution only works slowly it took approximately 2 million years from when we first emerged to when we started to settle down into farming communities.

 

 

 

Hence for a speicies to develop intelligence, human style, would require them to have a varried genepool of both fearless and fearful. If we only had fearless humans then we would have no reason to settle down, firstly our numbers would not grow to great because we would be being killed at the same time and secondly because we would not develop a long term need for non-hunted food.

 

 

 

Our intelligence, though, is limited by the intelligence of the animals around us. Without a need to develop intellectually the chances of such occuring are slim, and without the intellectually weak being killed off by something development is largely arrested as new developments can be easily diluted over successive generations.

 

While it is true that animals do develop in intelligence(Recently birds in Germany developed a knack of removing a Frog's liver, taking advantage of a Frog's natural defence of puffing themselves up, since this forced their internal organs out though the hole.) this development is similarly arrested by not killing off the less intellectually developed (I would like to say, though it disrupts the train of the argument, that I do not advocate Eugenics).

 

 

 

Hence we developed with a limited level of intelligence over a long period of time, and then exercised that intelligence over a very short period of time to get to where we are.

 

Hence it is not too far a leap to say that if any alien speices had developed intelligence they would similarly limited in this way.

 

By limited I mean that their research takes place over successive generations, each generation being only moderately more advanced than the prevouis one. As opposed to an evolutionary change which renders the prevouis generation all but obsolete, and virtually destroys what came before(Hence why we don't have half mice-half humans running around) We only have the original(Mice), the stable iterations(Apes and Kangeroos for example) and the most advanced iteration(Humans).

 

 

 

All of this (Can you believe it took me in a flash of inspiration) leading to a species such as ours, with the capacity to destroy itself, as well as all that went before it in the blink of an eye. Or to destroy themselves gradually over time with toxins, or even developing too slowly and being wiped out by a period of glaciation or that planets analogous form.

 

Events such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, Hitler's Germany, Britain's Empire, Small Pox, the Cold War(And all the potential hotspots therein), the Bird/Swine flu pandemics could have easily have destroyed humanity and conditions such a Cabin Fever, Generations disease, Wasting would limit the capablity for any non-highly advanced race to travel at speeds Faster than Light.

 

 

 

Meaning that it is not neccessarily unlikely for an intelligent species, you might even say it was almost innevitable, to wipe itself out as it grows too large, or to reach a point where expanision was no longer an option, and in the competion for resources blast itself back to the stone age.

 

If this is true then intelligent life travelling between the stars is almost impossible. The only exception being something like the Voyager Two probe. But that has only the most limited chance of passing though a solar system and an almost infintesimal chance of that system being populated by intelligent life.

 

Furthermore it would be like spotting a shoe box on pluto given the size and distance, as well as the fact that it has taken several years to get half way though mapping the orbit of the near Earth objects, specifically asteroids in the belt.

 

 

 

So that is my argument, that intelligent life is inherantly self destructive, hence why we have never been contacted by more advanced life. No doubt it is full of holes so I look forward to having it destroyed. :

A theory I thought myself too. Wouldn't surprise me neither if it were true, though.

It's an interesting theory, but it seems to all hinge on the idea that other intelligent life would share the same characteristics of human beings. There's a possibility that intelligent life could develop on another planet that doesn't kill, or forcibly expand, or share any of the other more negative human traits. Given the estimated number of habitable planets (at least, planets habitable by species that need oxygen and water as we do), could it not be possible that a species like that would develop?

 

 

 

Or there's also the idea that by some ridiculously slim margin, we are actually the first intelligent species to develop in the galaxy.

Or there's also the idea that by some ridiculously slim margin, we are actually the first intelligent species to develop in the galaxy.

 

 

 

We have certaintly made enough mistakes.

 

 

 

There's a possibility that intelligent life could develop on another planet that doesn't kill, or forcibly expand, or share any of the other more negative human traits

 

 

 

The evolution of such a creature would be extremely unlikely. The only example I can think of is some sort of plant, but even they compete for resources...you would be talking about a lone surviour in the ecosystem...A completely sterlised and self contained plant which evolved without reproducing...or died when it reproduced, and only reproduced one plant at a time.

 

 

 

Such a plant would violate just about every law of probability and evolution that I know, but could theoretically exist in ideal circumstances.

The arbitrary values Drake himself assigned to the variables in the Drake Equation makes me angry, but that's a different story.

 

 

 

In the end, yes, technology most likely will destroy humanity. But until that final spill, most people would agree that technology has benefited more than not. Modern medicine and transportation has increased the lifespan and population of the world at an exponential rate.

 

 

 

With all major diseases, even terminal diseases AIDs, there are always immunities. With all shortages of food, there are always the ones who have it. With all wars, there are always the unaffected, etc. Despite this, I still think it is safe to say we will end in a self-destructive way. I caught myself thinking, "Well if we somehow colonized every dense planet in the solar system..." only to realize I wasn't looking far enough into the future in that scenario.

 

 

 

The biggest point I disagree with in your argument is the backbone of it: that just because humans will self-destruct before capturing the ability for efficient long-distance space travel, it is impossible for other lifeforms to.

 

Here's a few variables to consider concerning the probability of intelligent lifeforms being capable of inter-solar system travel (given that it is within scientific possibility):

 

 

 

-How fast the technology progressed (many major advancements in human technology were results of accidents, the right person or a visionary being born) while the same level of intelligence was still there. We went to the moon within a century of when we created the first airplane; what if it had been invented two-hundred years earlier?

 

-Elemental resources

 

-Size of inhabitable area of a planet (Overpopulation sets in later, causing more people to be born, more minds to create). What if an intelligent lifeform had five times as many offspring on average than a human, and their inhabitable land area was the size of Jupiter? The more minds, the faster the advancement.

 

-Inherent creativity or any other physiological reason that would make intelligent lifeforms more able to create something (example being 4 arms, instead of 2) along with ability to collaborate ideas, etc.

 

 

 

Who is to say that there are not more capable or technologically "lucky", lifeforms in the universe? While your thesis may hold for humans, I wouldn't consider it a universal standard.

just to throw this out there, radio waves get so distorted after like 4 light years or something, so the thing of our TV, radio etc going into the depths of the universe isn't exactly true

that just because humans will self-destruct before capturing the ability for efficient long-distance space travel, it is impossible for other lifeforms to.

 

 

 

Not impossible, but highly improbable. Even a very optimisic Drakian would say there was only a few thousand intelligent speices in the universe. Since Earth has been here, and capable of supporting life for a few billion(3 and a half, roughly) years and the Universe is only 13 Billion years old and the Solar system was created around 4.5 Billion years ago it should be relatively apparent that life (As we know it) could have existed for around 9 Billion years, but probably less as most elements would be locked up in stars. Assuming that stars were larger back then we are talking about another 1-2 billion years before the first stars exploded, releasing large amounts of Oxygen Nitrogen and such (the basic building blocks of life as we know it). Meaning that realistically life could only have existed for the past 7 Billion years... unfortunately any of these systems would have exploded by now, so interstellar travel must have occured for them to survive. We cannot say if they did or didn't.

 

Then life took 3.5 billions years to reach Humans, so we are looking at 3.5 Billion years of potentially intelligent(Assuming that the human model is relative for the reasons discussed below) life.

 

 

 

-How fast the technology progressed (many major advancements in human technology were results of accidents, the right person or a visionary being born) while the same level of intelligence was still there. We went to the moon within a century of when we created the first airplane; what if it had been invented two-hundred years earlier?

 

 

 

The first Airplane was invented back with Di Vinci though arguably the ability to fly has existed since early times when someone jumped off a high place with feathers glued to them.

 

 

 

Steam power is a better example though, it was invented over 2000 years ago, but was only utilised after 1800 years of slavery, when suddenly engines, that were not people, were needed.

 

 

 

Another example would be the use of AK47s by tribes in Africa. It has notably arrested their development as new ideas can be easily put down. As well as making some of the countries there unstable.

 

 

 

The aero-space program was merely events coming together at the right time...Given that in the last 40 years we haven't done anything more in space(except launch a few million satelites) we must question why we went to the moon...and the truth is competition with the Soviets. Once it was achieved there was nothing pushing the US forwards and so it degenerated into sending probes up and looking at results and going 'hmmm how interesting'.

 

It is perfectly possible that 200 years from now we will still be on Earth (though there might be another space race)

 

 

 

-Elemental resources

 

 

 

Potentially...The more difficult they are to get to the more developed a speices might be...though equally they might not bother. If resources were easily avalible then progress would potentially go faster, if they had a drive to do so...

 

 

 

Alternatively you mean reproductive resources, but that would simply reach a higher celing value, it would not neccessarily speed things up.

 

 

 

-Size of inhabitable area of a planet (Overpopulation sets in later, causing more people to be born, more minds to create). What if an intelligent lifeform had five times as many offspring on average than a human, and their inhabitable land area was the size of Jupiter? The more minds, the faster the advancement.

 

 

 

Increased gravity, more arguments between people, more potential for wars, disease and such to kill everyone off. At the same time more chance for medicine and warfare to improve. Fundermentally though, more people do not equal faster development because these people still need to be educated, found work for as well as food and shelter.

 

The intelligent use of labour and mental prowess might change that, but that is another varriable entirely.

 

 

 

-Inherent creativity or any other physiological reason that would make intelligent lifeforms more able to create something (example being 4 arms, instead of 2) along with ability to collaborate ideas, etc.

 

 

 

Would require some sort of evolutionary backing. Very few things naturally influance the mind(in terms of evolution) because they require intelligence to utilise in the first place. A species would need millions of years to develop inherant creativity, or a specificed breeding program over thousands of years.

 

More arms makes things easier, hence less need to develop, as milipedies show more limbs does not require more brains. More complex movement requires a more developed brain, but such a requirement would imply that the only source of food was very hard to get to, limiting the ability to reproduce in early stages, and developing a wider ability to eat would be more sound evolutionary logic.

 

 

 

You have to approach something like this in reverse, what would cause this, what would cause that...ect until you have a winding line going back millions of years.

 

 

 

-How fast various steps in evolution took place

 

Faster evolutionary steps require: Extreme luck, fast gestation or breeding.

 

The first one is unlikely

 

The second one is not indicative of developed organism, it would also(probably) lead to a short life span, meaning progress would be slow.

 

The third one requires influance outside what is exerted by any naturally occuring speices on Earth...So either another speices(Or God) leading them though evolution or they lead themselves though evolution and I cannot begin to fathom how such a system would work...It would require complete detachment and understanding that you were worthless except for producing children...such a speices would over take any other speices within a matter of million years(It just doesn't roll off the tounge like centuries.)

 

 

 

 

 

Additional:

 

Any species that has existed for 3.5 Billion years should have left some kind of a clue as to their existance. Unless of course you go in for the 'Those numbers look similar, maybe they seeded the universe'.

 

The truth is we can only guess, and to guess wisely we use evidence.

 

 

 

just to throw this out there, radio waves get so distorted after like 4 light years or something, so the thing of our TV, radio etc going into the depths of the universe isn't exactly true

 

You mean SETI has been wasting money for all this time!

Since the Universe is so big, even if there were more lifeforms on other planets out there, these 'islands of life' in the Universe would be SO far apart that they will never be able to know each other exist and share the same Universe. Also, as you said, the time frame for radio emitters and receivers are so infinitesimal that even if they did establish contact by chance, that intelligent race would be wiped out soon after.

 

 

 

Furthermore, I don't understand why people hope or want extraterrestrial life to exist/co-exist with us. Take the decimations of American Indian and Australian Aboriginal cultures when a technologically superior 'species' decided they were unfit, for example. Aliens would see our planet as exploitable, and we'd be goners in no-time. Also, I'm pretty sure the Fermi story is as follows:

 

 

 

Him and three of his co-workers go out for lunch, and when they are all seated, Fermi asks: "Where is everybody?" when clearly everyone invited were sitting right there with him. What makes the anecdote interesting is that all his physicist friends knew exactly what he meant, and the theory went on to become well renowned.

This is quite an interesting concept, I tend to disagree on the basis that I don't think humanity will actually wipe itself out(even nuclear war might not be entirely destructive).

 

 

 

One thing I would note, it would seem that the prescence of conciousness(and therefore the potential for self destruction) is one of the prerequisites for developing advanced technology. If so, then this could have some reasonability, as any species that could reach us could also destroy itself.

Not impossible, but highly improbable. Even a very optimisic Drakian would say there was only a few thousand intelligent speices in the universe. Since Earth has been here, and capable of supporting life for a few billion(3 and a half, roughly) years and the Universe is only 13 Billion years old and the Solar system was created around 4.5 Billion years ago it should be relatively apparent that life (As we know it) could have existed for around 9 Billion years, but probably less as most elements would be locked up in stars. Assuming that stars were larger back then we are talking about another 1-2 billion years before the first stars exploded, releasing large amounts of Oxygen Nitrogen and such (the basic building blocks of life as we know it). Meaning that realistically life could only have existed for the past 7 Billion years... unfortunately any of these systems would have exploded by now, so interstellar travel must have occured for them to survive. We cannot say if they did or didn't.

 

Then life took 3.5 billions years to reach Humans, so we are looking at 3.5 Billion years of potentially intelligent(Assuming that the human model is relative for the reasons discussed below) life.

 

 

 

What is improbable? That there are more technologically advanced lifeforms? We are already talking in unknown odds, and there are many upgradable inherencies to our species (as discussed below).

 

 

 

Oh, and stellar lifespan can range anywhere from a couple million years to a hundred billion, depending on the size (smaller the longer), so I wouldn't rule out the possibility of an existing planet much older than ours that is sustainable for life.

 

The aero-space program was merely events coming together at the right time...Given that in the last 40 years we haven't done anything more in space(except launch a few million satelites) we must question why we went to the moon...and the truth is competition with the Soviets. Once it was achieved there was nothing pushing the US forwards and so it degenerated into sending probes up and looking at results and going 'hmmm how interesting'.

 

It is perfectly possible that 200 years from now we will still be on Earth (though there might be another space race)

 

Yes, so you acknowledge that inadvertent circumstance can boost technology, but you can't say that the rocket ship was not conceived and realized directly because of the airplane; it was.

 

I hope you understand the gist of the proposed phenomenon: once you make the snowball and tumble it down the hill, it will only get bigger.

 

Fundermentally though, more people do not equal faster development because these people still need to be educated, found work for as well as food and shelter.

 

The intelligent use of labour and mental prowess might change that, but that is another varriable entirely.

 

X amount of people on Y amount of land with Z amount of resources = 2X 2Y 2Z

 

We wouldn't need to contrive of some more efficient way of doing things, as there would still be the same ratios.

 

 

 

Would require some sort of evolutionary backing. Very few things naturally influance the mind(in terms of evolution) because they require intelligence to utilise in the first place. A species would need millions of years to develop inherant creativity, or a specificed breeding program over thousands of years.

 

More arms makes things easier, hence less need to develop, as milipedies show more limbs does not require more brains. More complex movement requires a more developed brain, but such a requirement would imply that the only source of food was very hard to get to, limiting the ability to reproduce in early stages, and developing a wider ability to eat would be more sound evolutionary logic.

 

When introducing a civilization into evolution, things don't remain the same. Characteristics won't prevail based on the same nature dictated reasons as before. Take for example, my generation compared to someone of the same age, in the same location one hundred years ago. I have the internet, a resource that the past teen would never have dreamt of. If humans as a whole are more intellectually stimulated in one way or another, their collective intelligence will only gain. Many anthropologists theorize that the internet is very beneficial in this regard (It has also been theorized that thumb-dexterity has increased since the release of game-consoles).

 

 

 

 

Furthermore, I don't understand why people hope or want extraterrestrial life to exist/co-exist with us. Take the decimations of American Indian and Australian Aboriginal cultures when a technologically superior 'species' decided they were unfit, for example. Aliens would see our planet as exploitable, and we'd be goners in no-time.

 

Are you talking about an interplanetary "indians vs. Americans" war? Improbable hypothetical situations are always possible, but that's kind of ridiculous. And unless they planned on inhabiting our planet, which their physiology would probably not allow, our planet is no more exploitable than Venus.

 

 

 

People don't necessarily want extraterrestrial life to exist, but it is the job of science to figure out whether or not it does or would.

 

Furthermore, I don't understand why people hope or want extraterrestrial life to exist/co-exist with us. Take the decimations of American Indian and Australian Aboriginal cultures when a technologically superior 'species' decided they were unfit, for example. Aliens would see our planet as exploitable, and we'd be goners in no-time.

 

Are you talking about an interplanetary "indians vs. Americans" war? Improbable hypothetical situations are always possible, but that's kind of ridiculous. And unless they planned on inhabiting our planet, which their physiology would probably not allow, our planet is no more exploitable than Venus.

 

 

 

People don't necessarily want extraterrestrial life to exist, but it is the job of science to figure out whether or not it does or would.

 

You were supposed to make a deeper allusion to Columbus' discovery. Let me elaborate: back in the 15th century, the Old World believed they were the unique inhabitants of Earth. After years of exploring uncharted waters, he discovers a new society on another continent. He brings in Western Europeans and pretty much steamrolls his culture over the new-found continent. But what if the Americans, who were less technologically advanced than the Europeans, were infact those with superior weapons? Perhaps they simply accepted that they were alone on the planet and gave up looking for other humans, even though they had the means to discover Europe. In that case, Columbus' visit would have completely reversed consequences, where the Americans take over Europe. So, according to history, sending out signals every which way into space is suicidal.

 

 

 

Even if they didn't need our planet for resources or enlightening conversations, history also taught us that xenophobia is a common irrational excuse to wipe out cultures, or in our case the planet.

I personally think that for a species to get past our stage, they have to either be peaceful, or be intelligent enough to know that peace must exist for them to grow. That's why I hate movies like Independence Day, because that situation seems very unlikely. I like a situation like Contact better, because that seems much more likely. For many different species to co-exist, they must have some means of conveyance that will let them go from place to place much faster than now, such as a wormhole or some sort of mass-propulsion like in Mass Effect, because if they couldn't, there would be no way for them to interact, and almost no possibility of an invasion.

 

 

 

About the Drake Equation, Carl Sagan took it one step further in Cosmos, by multiplying the overall answer of the equation by 1/100,000, his rough guess of the chance of a species surviving technological adolescence, and his final answer was ten civilizations.

 

 

 

I do not like the idea of us being the only intelligent race out there, because we are just on a minuscule planet, on an insignificant star, in the suburbs of our Galaxy. We have no special place at all, so why would this just be it?

 

 

 

Oh, and I am anxiously awaiting the day when on the news, it says "Alien Signal found beaming from Deep Space" or something to that effect.

So, according to history, sending out signals every which way into space is suicidal.

 

 

No, it hasn't taught us anything in that regard.

 

 

 

And would you really consider it suicidal? Sounds a bit melodramatic in my opinion. Would you consider someone who walks in outside to get their mail during a thunderstorm suicidal? Or rather, given the relative odds we're talking of intercepting extra-terrestrial life, it would be like considering anyone who walks outside suicidal, given the myriad of natural things that can kill you: meteorites, falling trees, falling satellite debris, etc.

 

 

 

You seem to agree more with me than Arch, in that you acknowledge the possibility of alien contact. Arch has presented us with the probable reality, and I simply stated the "what ifs". It seems like from your point of view, there is a significant threat of long-distance traveling, earth-hunting belligerent aliens, the combination of which I find implausible.

An interesting read, but I think what really cripples it is that you assume other intelligent life would have the same characteristics.

 

We think that the world around us is "Normal", when another race of intelligent life could have an environment that is so incredibly "Wierd" that we cannot understand it.

 

The human mind has great difficulty imagining anything that isn't already like us or our planet in some way.

 

 

 

On a side note, How in the world would language barriers (Assuming they don't use telekinesis or something :lol: ) be surpassed?

Since the Universe is so big, even if there were more lifeforms on other planets out there, these 'islands of life' in the Universe would be SO far apart that they will never be able to know each other exist and share the same Universe. Also, as you said, the time frame for radio emitters and receivers are so infinitesimal that even if they did establish contact by chance, that intelligent race would be wiped out soon after.

 

 

 

If you were traveling around standard orbit speed(10,000 KPH) it would take roughly 12 BILLLION years to cross the galaxy. Almost the age of the Universe.

 

If however you were traveling at a quarter of the speed of light it would only take 400,000 years. Which is nothing on the evolutionary scale.

 

If you were sending out messages at light speed it would only take 100,000 years to cross the galaxy.

 

 

 

We could probably make it to the next star in 60 years, just using an Earth based Laser, a Luna Solar Farm and a hell of a massive mirror. It would take 4 years of constant acceleration followed by the use of some kind of breaking system, potentially a magnetic parachute(if Cryostasis was used) or small Ion Thrusters slowing the vessel down for many years, so that it coasting into the system.

 

 

 

Furthermore, I don't understand why people hope or want extraterrestrial life to exist/co-exist with us.

 

How very bleak.

 

But if you look at the history of it...Aboriginals were wiped out, Native Americans were tolerated with a lot of killing....Its leading to a point of tolerance as a race becomes more morally aware.

 

Of course the modern human is not as evolved as the 1900's human so probably we would try to exterminate them first, exterminating them later, and exterminating them at the peace conference.

 

 

 

What is improbable?

 

A word :

 

It is improbable that a speices could evolve without some predatory traits.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and stellar lifespan can range anywhere from a couple million years to a hundred billion

 

Sorry, I meant a star capable of supporting life and a solar system that wasn't destroyed...White dwarfs have a supergiant phase before they become white dwarfs, and so any planets close enough to support life would be destroyed by that...

 

 

 

so I wouldn't rule out the possibility of an existing planet much older than ours that is sustainable for life.

 

7 Billion years is longer than ours...

 

 

 

once you make the snowball and tumble it down the hill, it will only get bigger.

 

Or, as with the steam engine, it hits a tree and stops for a few thousnad years. #-o

 

 

 

We wouldn't need to contrive of some more efficient way of doing things, as there would still be the same ratios.

 

Well that is assuming that all the ratios were increased, but that is none too likely

 

X= A(Average number of Children per pregnacy), B(Gestation period), C(Life Span), D(Age of Reproduction), E(Number of times pregnacy occurs per individual)

 

Y= F(Land Size), G(the size of each individual), X(the numerb of people), H(The dietry requirement per person), I(The efficeny of their plants converting Solar energy into chemical energy), J(the strength of the Solar Mass), K(The age of the planet), L(The Tectonics of the planet.

 

Z= K, L, I, H, M(the elements present at the formation of the planet), N(The time the planet was formed), O (The ability to get at the resources), P(The willingness to gather resources), X, Q(The requirements of a speices)

 

 

 

Not an exaustive list but you get the point.

 

 

 

When introducing a civilization into evolution, things don't remain the same. Characteristics won't prevail based on the same nature dictated reasons as before.

 

I disagree. A present day human is almost identical, at birth, to a prehistoric human.

 

We have not increased our intellect, only the potential harnessed by it. Meaning that we have only progressed as a collective being, but individually we are still the limited prey animal...

 

If you grabbed a modern baby and gave them to a medievil family in the past then that child would not be inherantly more moral or creative, they would almost certainly be exactly the same.

 

 

 

Even if they didn't need our planet for resources or enlightening conversations, history also taught us that xenophobia is a common irrational excuse to wipe out cultures, or in our case the planet.

 

 

 

It has also taught us that we admire intelligence in our pets...So maybe humans will not be extinctifed but enslaved...and history has taught us that slaves tend to eventually get their freedom.

 

 

 

About the Drake Equation, Carl Sagan took it one step further in Cosmos, by multiplying the overall answer of the equation by 1/100,000, his rough guess of the chance of a species surviving technological adolescence, and his final answer was ten civilizations.

 

If you used a particually pessimistic estimate of the universe then the chances of life occuring, according to Sagan's Equation, are 1 in 500,000...

 

Current estimates place there being 80 billion galaxies in the univere so... there are approximately 16,000 planets with intelligent life, in 93 Billion Light years.

 

So the density of the intelligent life would be 0.0000017, so there is 58125 Light years between us and the next intelligent life form(in a straight line), in terms of area that is 1,826,287.5 Light years...Surrounded by almost two million light years of void....One wonders if that kind of proves my argument, God gave each speices a buffer zone for when it blew itself up. :

 

 

 

It seems like from your point of view, there is a significant threat of long-distance traveling, earth-hunting belligerent aliens, the combination of which I find implausible.

 

Hehe, reminds me of a newspaper headline 'DON'T GO OUTSIDE, ITS FULL OF BLACKS, MUSLIMS AND QUEERS'

 

I think that if we actually got to know some aliens we would find out we were not all that different.

 

 

 

How in the world would language barriers be surpassed?

 

Indeed, when we look at something like Medicine our language is based on a dead language with a completely different syntax to our regular speech patterns.

 

Who knows how much more complicated other races are...Or we are unique in having a language that is impossible to learn. :oops:

 

 

 

But I would assume you would look for a sign of commonality...say the word for Star or Planet, and move on to descriptive words like Hot, Cold, alive, dead...slowly progressing towards a point where it was possible to have a reasonable conversation.

 

Alternatively you abduct/exchange a load of children who can already speak their native language and teach them the other language. :D

Communication wouldn't be a big deal at all; when you think about it out of everything in life, is there anything you would put more effort into then communicating if we found another intelligent species. In fact, even the Spanish managed to communicate with the aztecs.

Your arguement assumes that life exists on our 'wavelenth', life as we know it maybe completely un-exlpaneable in terms of human exerience.

 

The classic paradox is; Is the colour you perceive as green the same as how I perceive the colour green.

 

And so how would an alien perceive the same texture if all matter is energy existing at different frequencies.

 

The closest metaphore is of an FM radio station, one must be 'tuned in' to the correct frequency to receive a transmission.

 

 

 

The visible light (red, yellow, blue) is a very small fraction of the electro-magnetic spectrum, beyond what we can perceive or measure, is much larger.

 

 

 

Since the Universe is so big, even if there were more lifeforms on other planets out there, these 'islands of life' in the Universe would be SO far apart that they will never be able to know each other exist and share the same Universe. Also, as you said, the time frame for radio emitters and receivers are so infinitesimal that even if they did establish contact by chance, that intelligent race would be wiped out soon after.

 

 

 

If you were traveling around standard orbit speed(10,000 KPH) it would take roughly 12 BILLLION years to cross the galaxy. Almost the age of the Universe.

 

If however you were traveling at a quarter of the speed of light it would only take 400,000 years. Which is nothing on the evolutionary scale.

 

If you were sending out messages at light speed it would only take 100,000 years to cross the galaxy.

 

 

 

We could probably make it to the next star in 60 years, just using an Earth based Laser, a Luna Solar Farm and a hell of a massive mirror. It would take 4 years of constant acceleration followed by the use of some kind of breaking system, potentially a magnetic parachute(if Cryostasis was used) or small Ion Thrusters slowing the vessel down for many years, so that it coasting into the system.