SETI: When is enough enough?

What does make the world turn?
mack_10
New Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 3:30 am

Re: SETI: When is enough enough?

Post by mack_10 » Thu Jan 24, 2019 11:01 am

ElectricMonk wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:23 pm
Out of fresh food, maybe. Not out of stuff you can survive on.
Also, there's always corpses to eat if so many die.
Not sure how long those corpses would remain edible without refrigeration, 1 day 2 maybe

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4615
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: SETI: When is enough enough?

Post by ElectricMonk » Thu Jan 24, 2019 11:44 am

mack_10 wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 10:57 am
ElectricMonk wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 2:26 pm
the amount of tinkering you can do with DNA is limited by the requirement to have a uterus still accept the blastocyte as human.
Which means that you can go back to "organic" humans if you realize that tentacle arms aren't everyone's cup of tea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_uterus
I don't think that could work - not in the foreseeable future.
There is so much interchange between uterus and fetus that we have no clue about.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4615
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: SETI: When is enough enough?

Post by ElectricMonk » Thu Jan 24, 2019 11:45 am

mack_10 wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 11:01 am
ElectricMonk wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:23 pm
Out of fresh food, maybe. Not out of stuff you can survive on.
Also, there's always corpses to eat if so many die.
Not sure how long those corpses would remain edible without refrigeration, 1 day 2 maybe
salt them, dry them, etc.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23097
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: SETI: When is enough enough?

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Jan 24, 2019 1:01 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 11:45 am
mack_10 wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 11:01 am
ElectricMonk wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:23 pm
Out of fresh food, maybe. Not out of stuff you can survive on.
Also, there's always corpses to eat if so many die.
Not sure how long those corpses would remain edible without refrigeration, 1 day 2 maybe
salt them, dry them, etc.
The {!#%@} are already jerky.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34359
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: My nightmare
Location: Transcona

Re: SETI: When is enough enough?

Post by Gord » Thu Jan 24, 2019 3:33 pm

mack_10 wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 10:55 am
Gord wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:47 am
mack_10 wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:09 am
The evolutionary advantages of intelligence seem proven...
Do they? I don't see them.
that may have something to do with where you live
You seriously do not think intelligence has an evolutionary advantage?
Not if it destroys your evolutionary niche. If a species' intelligence leads to it destroying its own habitat, that's an evolutionary dead-end.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9565
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: SETI: When is enough enough?

Post by landrew » Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:49 pm

Gord wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 3:33 pm
mack_10 wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 10:55 am
Gord wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:47 am
mack_10 wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:09 am
The evolutionary advantages of intelligence seem proven...
Do they? I don't see them.
that may have something to do with where you live
You seriously do not think intelligence has an evolutionary advantage?
Not if it destroys your evolutionary niche. If a species' intelligence leads to it destroying its own habitat, that's an evolutionary dead-end.
Then that's the definition of non-intelligence.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Austin Harper
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5419
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit

Re: SETI: When is enough enough?

Post by Austin Harper » Thu Jan 24, 2019 8:01 pm

Re: SETI: When is enough enough?
Lance Kennedy wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:27 pm
Scientific experiments have to be run. Often the result is negative. Think of the 99% of all drugs tested that prove ineffective. But to find what is real, you have to test what is not.

The idea of aliens has not yet been shown to be unreal, so the experiment must go on.
Good point. Let's stop having failures and just do the experiments that will work.
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34359
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: My nightmare
Location: Transcona

Re: SETI: When is enough enough?

Post by Gord » Fri Jan 25, 2019 12:31 am

landrew wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:49 pm
Gord wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 3:33 pm
mack_10 wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 10:55 am
Gord wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:47 am
mack_10 wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:09 am
The evolutionary advantages of intelligence seem proven...
Do they? I don't see them.
that may have something to do with where you live
You seriously do not think intelligence has an evolutionary advantage?
Not if it destroys your evolutionary niche. If a species' intelligence leads to it destroying its own habitat, that's an evolutionary dead-end.
Then that's the definition of non-intelligence.
It's really not.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

mack_10
New Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 3:30 am

Re: SETI: When is enough enough?

Post by mack_10 » Fri Jan 25, 2019 4:25 am

Gord wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 3:33 pm
mack_10 wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 10:55 am
Gord wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:47 am
mack_10 wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:09 am
The evolutionary advantages of intelligence seem proven...
Do they? I don't see them.
that may have something to do with where you live
You seriously do not think intelligence has an evolutionary advantage?
Not if it destroys your evolutionary niche. If a species' intelligence leads to it destroying its own habitat, that's an evolutionary dead-end.
It is not intelligence that is leading to the destruction of the environment, it is the lack of intelligence in the people in charge. They will argue about the "climate change hoax" for another decade by which time it will be too late.
Why is it that there are so few scientists/engineers in government and so many people who appear to be proud of their ignorance/superstitions?
Does the democratic process fail at the basic level of weeding out the lazy, incompetent and dishonest?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12226
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: SETI: When is enough enough?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Jan 25, 2019 4:33 am

The problem, mack, with the USA government is that almost half are lawyers. If you want rational thought, you need scientists and engineers in government.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34359
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: My nightmare
Location: Transcona

Re: SETI: When is enough enough?

Post by Gord » Fri Jan 25, 2019 12:01 pm

mack_10 wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 4:25 am
Gord wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 3:33 pm
mack_10 wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 10:55 am
Gord wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:47 am
mack_10 wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:09 am
The evolutionary advantages of intelligence seem proven...
Do they? I don't see them.
that may have something to do with where you live
You seriously do not think intelligence has an evolutionary advantage?
Not if it destroys your evolutionary niche. If a species' intelligence leads to it destroying its own habitat, that's an evolutionary dead-end.
It is not intelligence that is leading to the destruction of the environment, it is the lack of intelligence in the people in charge. They will argue about the "climate change hoax" for another decade by which time it will be too late.
Why is it that there are so few scientists/engineers in government and so many people who appear to be proud of their ignorance/superstitions?
Does the democratic process fail at the basic level of weeding out the lazy, incompetent and dishonest?
Let's not split hairs here. It is human intelligence that has led to the technology that has destroyed and is continuing to destroy the habitats where we live. Humans have an inherent tendency to destroy that which gets in their way -- just look at what our species has done to other species along the way. We go out and kill predators that would endanger our children, even though such predation does not endanger us as a species. And we tell ourselves this is right, because we value the lives of every individual.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12226
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: SETI: When is enough enough?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Jan 25, 2019 6:29 pm

Humans do not destroy habitats or ecosystems. They change them. Lots of people regard the change as being undesirable, but that is not always so.

One of my favorite examples, from the book "The New Nature" by Australian naturalist Tim Low, is in the lead up to the 2000 Olympics in Sydney. While searching for venues to build Olympic stadia and swimming pools, a very polluted pond was checked. Environmental audit. What they found was amazing. A very rare and endangered species of frog had made its home there and was thriving. In fact, it was the biggest population of that frog found anywhere. The pollutants in that pond were killing the fungi that were killing frogs elsewhere. By swimming in the polluted pond, the frogs were treating themselves against a lethal infection.

Ecosystems change. They adapt. Often they adapt to human activity. Cities are not barren wastelands. They are full of wild life. Birds, rats, insects etc. In some places, leopards hunt inside cities. Humans change habitats and ecosystems, but do not destroy them. Keep an open mind.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34359
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: My nightmare
Location: Transcona

Re: SETI: When is enough enough?

Post by Gord » Sat Jan 26, 2019 1:17 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 6:29 pm
Humans do not destroy habitats or ecosystems. They change them.
Ay chihuahua, you know what I mean.

http://www.everythingconnects.org/main- ... -loss.html
Habitat Destruction

Habitat destruction occurs when natural habitats are no longer able to support the species present, resulting in the displacement or destruction of its biodiversity. Examples include harvesting fossil fuels, deforestation, dredging rivers, bottom trawling, urbanization, filling in wetlands and mowing fields....

Habitat Degradation

A degraded habitat may remain intact, but it's degraded state may render it incapable of functioning properly and lead to species extinction or migration. The main causes of habitat degradation is pollution, invasive species, agricultural development, diminished resources, such as water and food, urban sprawl, logging, mining, destructive fishing practices and the disruption of ecosystem processes, such as altering the intensity and frequency of fires in an ecosystem. These are some of the ways habitats can become so degraded that they no longer support native wildlife....

Habitat Fragmentation

As the name implies, habitat fragmentation is the spatial separation of habitats from a previous state of greater continuity. The 'cutting up' of habitats into fragments is mainly caused by agricultural land conversion, urbanization, dams, water diversions, pollution, invasive species and deforestation, but can also be caused by geological processes that slowly alter the layout of the physical environment. According to NWF, "These fragments of habitat may not be large or connected enough to support species that need a large territory in which to find mates and food. The loss and fragmentation of habitat make it difficult for migratory species to find places to rest and feed along their migration routes," or to even make it across these ancient and essential migratory paths to begin with....
...and such.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

mack_10
New Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 3:30 am

Re: SETI: When is enough enough?

Post by mack_10 » Sat Jan 26, 2019 5:27 am

Gord wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 12:01 pm
mack_10 wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 4:25 am
Gord wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 3:33 pm
mack_10 wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 10:55 am
Gord wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:47 am
mack_10 wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:09 am
The evolutionary advantages of intelligence seem proven...
Do they? I don't see them.
that may have something to do with where you live
You seriously do not think intelligence has an evolutionary advantage?
Not if it destroys your evolutionary niche. If a species' intelligence leads to it destroying its own habitat, that's an evolutionary dead-end.
It is not intelligence that is leading to the destruction of the environment, it is the lack of intelligence in the people in charge. They will argue about the "climate change hoax" for another decade by which time it will be too late.
Why is it that there are so few scientists/engineers in government and so many people who appear to be proud of their ignorance/superstitions?
Does the democratic process fail at the basic level of weeding out the lazy, incompetent and dishonest?
Let's not split hairs here. It is human intelligence that has led to the technology that has destroyed and is continuing to destroy the habitats where we live. Humans have an inherent tendency to destroy that which gets in their way -- just look at what our species has done to other species along the way. We go out and kill predators that would endanger our children, even though such predation does not endanger us as a species. And we tell ourselves this is right, because we value the lives of every individual.
"Let's not split hairs here." and then proceed to split hairs.
Most humans do not have an inherent tendency to destroy that which gets in their way. Most humans are constructive, the problem is too many humans, too much construction.
There is a small percentage of people, about 5%, that are sociopaths, they do not care what damage they do in getting what they want, the worst of them are religious, they claim their right to destroy as a mandate from heaven.
Blaming intelligence seems to preclude intelligence as being the only solution to the problems.
How do you solve your problems, intelligence or coin toss?

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34359
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: My nightmare
Location: Transcona

Re: SETI: When is enough enough?

Post by Gord » Sat Jan 26, 2019 8:35 am

mack_10 wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 5:27 am
Gord wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 12:01 pm
mack_10 wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 4:25 am
Gord wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 3:33 pm
mack_10 wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 10:55 am
Gord wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:47 am
mack_10 wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:09 am
The evolutionary advantages of intelligence seem proven...
Do they? I don't see them.
that may have something to do with where you live
You seriously do not think intelligence has an evolutionary advantage?
Not if it destroys your evolutionary niche. If a species' intelligence leads to it destroying its own habitat, that's an evolutionary dead-end.
It is not intelligence that is leading to the destruction of the environment, it is the lack of intelligence in the people in charge. They will argue about the "climate change hoax" for another decade by which time it will be too late.
Why is it that there are so few scientists/engineers in government and so many people who appear to be proud of their ignorance/superstitions?
Does the democratic process fail at the basic level of weeding out the lazy, incompetent and dishonest?
Let's not split hairs here. It is human intelligence that has led to the technology that has destroyed and is continuing to destroy the habitats where we live. Humans have an inherent tendency to destroy that which gets in their way -- just look at what our species has done to other species along the way. We go out and kill predators that would endanger our children, even though such predation does not endanger us as a species. And we tell ourselves this is right, because we value the lives of every individual.
"Let's not split hairs here." and then proceed to split hairs.
What? No I didn't!
Most humans do not have an inherent tendency to destroy that which gets in their way. Most humans are constructive, the problem is too many humans, too much construction.
:facepalm:

How do you construct something without destroying something else to get your building materials or your construction zone?
There is a small percentage of people, about 5%, that are sociopaths, they do not care what damage they do in getting what they want, the worst of them are religious, they claim their right to destroy as a mandate from heaven.
I'm not talking about sociopaths, I'm talking about humans in general. But even if we were just talking about a portion of the population, the fact that it's a behaviour of some of us means that it's inherent to the species.
Blaming intelligence seems to preclude intelligence as being the only solution to the problems.
I'm not "blaming intelligence", I'm pointing out that our intelligence is what's allowed us to be so destructive. It's still humans that are doing the destroying, though.
How do you solve your problems, intelligence or coin toss?
I usually destroy what's in my way. Mwah ha ha ha ha! Like when I shovel snow so I can walk down my sidewalk, or buy chicken breasts from the supermarket, or trim my beard so people don't mistake me for Bigfoot.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

mack_10
New Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 3:30 am

Re: SETI: When is enough enough?

Post by mack_10 » Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:25 am

Gord wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 8:35 am
mack_10 wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 5:27 am
Gord wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 12:01 pm
mack_10 wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 4:25 am
Gord wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 3:33 pm
mack_10 wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 10:55 am
Gord wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:47 am
mack_10 wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:09 am
The evolutionary advantages of intelligence seem proven...
Do they? I don't see them.
that may have something to do with where you live
You seriously do not think intelligence has an evolutionary advantage?
Not if it destroys your evolutionary niche. If a species' intelligence leads to it destroying its own habitat, that's an evolutionary dead-end.
It is not intelligence that is leading to the destruction of the environment, it is the lack of intelligence in the people in charge. They will argue about the "climate change hoax" for another decade by which time it will be too late.
Why is it that there are so few scientists/engineers in government and so many people who appear to be proud of their ignorance/superstitions?
Does the democratic process fail at the basic level of weeding out the lazy, incompetent and dishonest?
Let's not split hairs here. It is human intelligence that has led to the technology that has destroyed and is continuing to destroy the habitats where we live. Humans have an inherent tendency to destroy that which gets in their way -- just look at what our species has done to other species along the way. We go out and kill predators that would endanger our children, even though such predation does not endanger us as a species. And we tell ourselves this is right, because we value the lives of every individual.
"Let's not split hairs here." and then proceed to split hairs.
What? No I didn't!
Most humans do not have an inherent tendency to destroy that which gets in their way. Most humans are constructive, the problem is too many humans, too much construction.
:facepalm:

How do you construct something without destroying something else to get your building materials or your construction zone?
There is a small percentage of people, about 5%, that are sociopaths, they do not care what damage they do in getting what they want, the worst of them are religious, they claim their right to destroy as a mandate from heaven.
I'm not talking about sociopaths, I'm talking about humans in general. But even if we were just talking about a portion of the population, the fact that it's a behaviour of some of us means that it's inherent to the species.
Blaming intelligence seems to preclude intelligence as being the only solution to the problems.
I'm not "blaming intelligence", I'm pointing out that our intelligence is what's allowed us to be so destructive. It's still humans that are doing the destroying, though.
How do you solve your problems, intelligence or coin toss?
I usually destroy what's in my way. Mwah ha ha ha ha! Like when I shovel snow so I can walk down my sidewalk, or buy chicken breasts from the supermarket, or trim my beard so people don't mistake me for Bigfoot.
Clearly no splitting of hairs here.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34359
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: My nightmare
Location: Transcona

Re: SETI: When is enough enough?

Post by Gord » Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:52 pm

mack_10 wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:25 am
Gord wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 8:35 am
mack_10 wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 5:27 am
Gord wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 12:01 pm
mack_10 wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 4:25 am
Gord wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 3:33 pm
mack_10 wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 10:55 am
Gord wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:47 am
mack_10 wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:09 am
The evolutionary advantages of intelligence seem proven...
Do they? I don't see them.
that may have something to do with where you live
You seriously do not think intelligence has an evolutionary advantage?
Not if it destroys your evolutionary niche. If a species' intelligence leads to it destroying its own habitat, that's an evolutionary dead-end.
It is not intelligence that is leading to the destruction of the environment, it is the lack of intelligence in the people in charge. They will argue about the "climate change hoax" for another decade by which time it will be too late.
Why is it that there are so few scientists/engineers in government and so many people who appear to be proud of their ignorance/superstitions?
Does the democratic process fail at the basic level of weeding out the lazy, incompetent and dishonest?
Let's not split hairs here. It is human intelligence that has led to the technology that has destroyed and is continuing to destroy the habitats where we live. Humans have an inherent tendency to destroy that which gets in their way -- just look at what our species has done to other species along the way. We go out and kill predators that would endanger our children, even though such predation does not endanger us as a species. And we tell ourselves this is right, because we value the lives of every individual.
"Let's not split hairs here." and then proceed to split hairs.
What? No I didn't!
Most humans do not have an inherent tendency to destroy that which gets in their way. Most humans are constructive, the problem is too many humans, too much construction.
:facepalm:

How do you construct something without destroying something else to get your building materials or your construction zone?
There is a small percentage of people, about 5%, that are sociopaths, they do not care what damage they do in getting what they want, the worst of them are religious, they claim their right to destroy as a mandate from heaven.
I'm not talking about sociopaths, I'm talking about humans in general. But even if we were just talking about a portion of the population, the fact that it's a behaviour of some of us means that it's inherent to the species.
Blaming intelligence seems to preclude intelligence as being the only solution to the problems.
I'm not "blaming intelligence", I'm pointing out that our intelligence is what's allowed us to be so destructive. It's still humans that are doing the destroying, though.
How do you solve your problems, intelligence or coin toss?
I usually destroy what's in my way. Mwah ha ha ha ha! Like when I shovel snow so I can walk down my sidewalk, or buy chicken breasts from the supermarket, or trim my beard so people don't mistake me for Bigfoot.
Clearly no splitting of hairs here.
You were the one splitting hairs over "intelligence" when you said, "It is not intelligence that is leading to the destruction of the environment, it is the lack of intelligence in the people in charge." I'm the one trying to keep the hairs together in this weird analogy of hair decompartmentalism, here.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 16998
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: SETI: When is enough enough?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jan 26, 2019 4:30 pm

The last factor in the Drake Equation is "L": = The length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space. The wiki reveals some think L has a value of some 400 years while others think it could be millions of years or "immortal."

I side with Carl Sagan: "The astronomer Carl Sagan speculated that all of the terms, except for the lifetime of a civilization, are relatively high and the determining factor in whether there are large or small numbers of civilizations in the universe is the civilization lifetime, or in other words, the ability of technological civilizations to avoid self-destruction. In Sagan's case, the Drake equation was a strong motivating factor for his interest in environmental issues and his efforts to warn against the dangers of nuclear warfare." ///// This clearly is a reference to advanced civilizations being unable to avoid the consequences of their intelligence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

As stated earlier: intelligence is good at the start but when it is able to modify the environment, its longevity in millions of years as demonstrated by the more instinctual/less intelligent creatures is not logical and certainly not displayed.........as we are the only one known so far, and so far, the trend is towards extinction........or in terms of the Drake Equation, moving towards not being able to send radio waves into space?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12226
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: SETI: When is enough enough?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat Jan 26, 2019 6:30 pm

Bobbo

Your emotional trend to pessimism still taints your thinking.

There is zero evidence that humans are headed towards extinction. Quite the opposite, really. Humans today live longer, are healthier, are better nourished, better housed etc and etc than any other time in history or prehistory. We have even, the last 70 years, caused deaths from human on human violence to plummet.

Biologists normally regard population size as a sign of how successful a species is within an ecosystem. On this basis, humans are one of the most successful mammals ever. Certainly the most successful land mammal in our size range.

On the business of intelligence destroying ecosystems.
Destruction comes more from power. For example, one of the most potent ecosystem destroyers is elephants. They are, to an extent, the origin of the African grasslands, by destroying forest. Elephants push over trees fo feed on the top leaves. They do this, and thus have profound changes on the African ecosystems, because they are powerful.

Humans can change ecosystems because we are powerful, like elephants. Intelligence plays a role, but so does the fact that we have evolved sophisticated tool using fore limbs, and language, to permit social cooperation. It is our intelligence that now permits us to see that we must be more responsible in the way we change ecosystems. This is happening. For example, the area of the world that is set aside as wilderness is growing year by year.

Since we are also reducing the amount of land needed to grow food, this trend will continue. The future includes a large percentage of the world set aside as nature reserves.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9565
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: SETI: When is enough enough?

Post by landrew » Sat Jan 26, 2019 6:33 pm

It's far from certain that all civilizations would be broadcasting signals capable of reaching other star systems for hundreds of years. Low-power relays or fiber optics are far more efficient and capable of much greater bandwidth than broadcasting powerful radio waves. Our own broadcasting stations are already shutting down one by one after less than a century, due to other technological innovations like the internet. Not every planet may have an ionosphere either, which propagates radio signals over long distances.

Frank Drake himself was the first to admit that the Drake equation was a crude starting point for estimating the likelihood of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. No one can account for technological breakthroughs which may occur. That's the main reason most predictions turn out to be so far off-base.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9565
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: SETI: When is enough enough?

Post by landrew » Sat Jan 26, 2019 6:43 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 6:30 pm
Bobbo

Your emotional trend to pessimism still taints your thinking.

There is zero evidence that humans are headed towards extinction. Quite the opposite, really. Humans today live longer, are healthier, are better nourished, better housed etc and etc than any other time in history or prehistory. We have even, the last 70 years, caused deaths from human on human violence to plummet.

Biologists normally regard population size as a sign of how successful a species is within an ecosystem. On this basis, humans are one of the most successful mammals ever. Certainly the most successful land mammal in our size range.

On the business of intelligence destroying ecosystems.
Destruction comes more from power. For example, one of the most potent ecosystem destroyers is elephants. They are, to an extent, the origin of the African grasslands, by destroying forest. Elephants push over trees fo feed on the top leaves. They do this, and thus have profound changes on the African ecosystems, because they are powerful.

Humans can change ecosystems because we are powerful, like elephants. Intelligence plays a role, but so does the fact that we have evolved sophisticated tool using fore limbs, and language, to permit social cooperation. It is our intelligence that now permits us to see that we must be more responsible in the way we change ecosystems. This is happening. For example, the area of the world that is set aside as wilderness is growing year by year.

Since we are also reducing the amount of land needed to grow food, this trend will continue. The future includes a large percentage of the world set aside as nature reserves.
I call it cynicism, and we do tend to be that way as a species, but it's nonetheless generally wrong-headed thinking. I'm not all sunshine and rainbows either, and I have seen significant changes for the better in the world, increasing all the time.

But I'm still keenly aware of how quickly things can spiral out of control. The First World War was an example; none of the great nations saw it happening the way it did, and no one was prepared for the conflagration. Despite great confidence that it would never happen again, the Second World War erupted suddenly and the First War paled in comparison. We are never far from potential disaster.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 16998
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: SETI: When is enough enough?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jan 26, 2019 8:29 pm

landrew wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 6:43 pm
Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 6:30 pm
Intelligence plays a role, but so does the fact that we have evolved sophisticated tool using fore limbs, and language, to permit social cooperation. It is our intelligence that now permits us to see that we must be more responsible in the way we change ecosystems. This is happening. For example, the area of the world that is set aside as wilderness is growing year by year.
I call it cynicism, and we do tend to be that way as a species, but it's nonetheless generally wrong-headed thinking. I'm not all sunshine and rainbows either, and I have seen significant changes for the better in the world, increasing all the time.

But I'm still keenly aware of how quickly things can spiral out of control. The First World War was an example; none of the great nations saw it happening the way it did, and no one was prepared for the conflagration. Despite great confidence that it would never happen again, the Second World War erupted suddenly and the First War paled in comparison. We are never far from potential disaster.
its not land needed for agriculture or wars that is the extinction event staring us in the face THAT WILL HAPPEN, if we don't do something starting five years ago and getting all that much worse in our failure to do so. No. ITS AGW. I can accept extinction being only a little bit too pessimistic, but denying the end of modern society is just denial. We've touched on it before, but the only "salvation" I see is that when the consequences finally become undeniable and catistrophic, a World War Three on co2 Pollution "might" save our butts with more deaths than all the previous wars combined.............and the saving grace of no cascading tipping point being triggered.

We won't see that, our kiddies might not, but our grandkiddies are not going to think kindly of us...........
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12226
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: SETI: When is enough enough?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat Jan 26, 2019 8:54 pm

Totally over the top, Bobbo.

As I have pointed out repeatedly, there are any number of societies that live with high temperatures without the benefit of major technology. They survive quite nicely.

Humans are the most adaptable of animals, and with added technology, we are even more so. There are plans to set up self sustaining colonies ln Mars and even on the moon. They will be difficult, but I strongly suspect that they will happen nevertheless. The only real question is when.

To be self sustaining here on Earth under elevated temperatures is a much easier problem. Based on existing trends, I predict a more artificial life style, with more indoor dwelling, and more reliance on such things as robots to do the productive work. But the overall standard of living will increase. Even those nations now in the bottom 10% in terms of poverty will, by the year 2100 have a much higher standard of living. Life span has increased substantially over the past 200 years, and will continue to increase.

AGW will be a serious problem, without doubt, and there is a need to find better ways of doing many things, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But the move to those better methods is already under way. My further prediction is that by about 2050, there will be little fossil fuel in use. Agriculture will change. More forest reserves will be growing. Trump will be dead !

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9565
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: SETI: When is enough enough?

Post by landrew » Sat Jan 26, 2019 9:08 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 8:29 pm
landrew wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 6:43 pm
Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 6:30 pm
Intelligence plays a role, but so does the fact that we have evolved sophisticated tool using fore limbs, and language, to permit social cooperation. It is our intelligence that now permits us to see that we must be more responsible in the way we change ecosystems. This is happening. For example, the area of the world that is set aside as wilderness is growing year by year.
I call it cynicism, and we do tend to be that way as a species, but it's nonetheless generally wrong-headed thinking. I'm not all sunshine and rainbows either, and I have seen significant changes for the better in the world, increasing all the time.

But I'm still keenly aware of how quickly things can spiral out of control. The First World War was an example; none of the great nations saw it happening the way it did, and no one was prepared for the conflagration. Despite great confidence that it would never happen again, the Second World War erupted suddenly and the First War paled in comparison. We are never far from potential disaster.
its not land needed for agriculture or wars that is the extinction event staring us in the face THAT WILL HAPPEN, if we don't do something starting five years ago and getting all that much worse in our failure to do so. No. ITS AGW. I can accept extinction being only a little bit too pessimistic, but denying the end of modern society is just denial. We've touched on it before, but the only "salvation" I see is that when the consequences finally become undeniable and catistrophic, a World War Three on co2 Pollution "might" save our butts with more deaths than all the previous wars combined.............and the saving grace of no cascading tipping point being triggered.

We won't see that, our kiddies might not, but our grandkiddies are not going to think kindly of us...........
Your alarmist tendencies are well-known in this forum Bobbo. This was referred to in less politically-correct times as "silly goose behavior" or even "silly woman" in times past. The point is that it erodes confidence in what you say. Constantly overstating things forces everyone to constantly recalibrate, taking you less and less seriously over time. I understand the good intentions, but hysteria just doesn't work. It only undermines the cause. Face it, this is the biggest problem facing those committed to changing other peoples' minds.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 16998
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: SETI: When is enough enough?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jan 26, 2019 9:43 pm

landrew: I challenge you to copy paste exactly what I post that is silly woman.

Go==============>
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12226
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: SETI: When is enough enough?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:08 pm

Easy Bobbo.

You described AGW as an extinction event.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9565
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: SETI: When is enough enough?

Post by landrew » Sun Jan 27, 2019 12:47 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 9:43 pm
landrew: I challenge you to copy paste exactly what I post that is silly woman.

Go==============>
That didn't work when you were six either. You can't wiggle out of everything by saying "prove it" all the time.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 16998
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: SETI: When is enough enough?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jan 27, 2019 2:40 am

Ha, ha. You're the man.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?