We could rope in the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation, where the end result N tells us "the number of civilizations in our galaxy, with which we might hope to be able to communicate". The factors leading to N not only may not be complete, but are rather uncertain in each term. Civs may be so short lived, that not seeing them anywhere in the EM spectrum is what's to be expected.
However, I lean more towards the more demanding explanation that we could well be "alone" (there are too few civs to make detection worthwhile). It's hard to believe that we just happen to be in a dead zone where the spectra of other civs haven't reached us or have already passed us by. The evidence (albeit poorly understood) is what we should be going on, not on our hope of there being other civs, and certainly can't be supported by the idea of "easy life". Even if life arises easily (since the dust clouds of the galaxy have rather complicated compounds in them, allowing for interstellar seeding) we still can't deny the evidence of the "silent sky".
The "easy life" concept means that we should keep looking. We should continue a modest search of the EM spectrum for likely signals. We should search for astrodynamic evidence of artificial structures and movements (like Dyson Spheres and other modulations of starlight). But until we get a positive, we have to admit the evidence says: NEGATIVE.
(If pressed to cut SETI funding, I'd cut it. It would be better to expand out into the solar system using such excess funds, rather than continue to blow cash looking for civs that should be too far away to contact at any rate.)
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-22 0:33 ID:VxJubQKl
Reading that I suddenly imagined the follow scenario:
#5, obviously we shouldn't use TCP/IP or cellprotocols when communicating over interstellar distances. The huge lag makes it important to simply transmit information without regard for interactivity. In fact, if Humanity was really more serious about such communication, we'd be steadily transmitting our "Encyclopedia Humanica" out to the stars.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-22 6:58 ID:xmy9o1bX
It's depressing to think that we may be alone, or if we're not, we can never make contact :(
Name:
4tran2007-07-22 8:50 ID:htYuFF17
>>4
Regarding the drake equation, it is even moar unfortunate that it is only a statistical average. If we are very unlucky, we're still stuck in an empty void even if we should statistically have 9000 neighbors.
I'm rather surprised that you're not instantly condemning SETI/extraterrestrial life the same way you condemn the notion of divine entities. There is currently no proof of either.
>>6
The problem with that is still language. Do we use English? German? Latin? Perhaps all these languages will seem like random signals to the aliens?
#8, at least with the search for extraterrestrial life, we have one point of proof: ourselves and our biosphere. We can not only take ourselves as the one point of data, but our development on Earth shows every indication of having happened naturally, hence it's only logical to suppose that such natural development would have happened on other worlds across the universe.
For divine issues, instead, there's no proof whatsoever, just a bunch of baseless and unbelievable claims, and centuries of bullshit stories. In addition, there's no "ecology of divinity" to study in order to perform extrapolations. There's just NOTHING.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-22 16:34 ID:+1tCtVAa
I think we need to be more concerned with the issues on our own planet. We have a lot of shit here to be concerned with, we don't need to be worried about whether or not there are aliens out there. Not just yet, at least.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-22 20:04 ID:XJHhpURV
>>8
the aliens speak spanish that a know fact faggot
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-22 21:16 ID:uLR4ksoZ
It seems to me that life is fairly easy, and probably relatively common throughout the universe. But when I say life, I'm talking about single cell microbes.
The chances of those microbes existing on a suitable planet, and then evolving into higher life forms is pretty unlikely though. Also remember that as life grows in complexity, it becomes more and more fragile. For life to exist undisturbed (no asteroids, super volcanoes, etc.) for a long enough period of time to evolve into something intelligent is something less than probable.
Now take into account that these intelligent beings must build a civilization, progress technologically to about the point humans reached in the early 1900's, and then somehow avoid blowing themselves up as they wait centuries for someone to hear their radio chatter.
I'd say we humans just won the intergalactic lottery, and we're probably the only ones.
>>11
Agreed. I don't think our technology is advanced enough to make use of the resources outside of our planet. There is plenty of death and destruction that goes unchecked in this world.
>>13
Hard to say... the universe is quite large, and we don't yet have an accurate sense of how big it really is.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-22 23:37 ID:UlPSL+v9
>>10
The simple physical placement of humans in a seemingly random point of the universe is not in itself a demonstration of mere chaotic formations. As there is an intrinsic atomic purpose for every speck of energy in our universe, humans themselves may be the most intelligent life form dedicated to the discovery of a truth within itself. That's not to say I'm a proponent of creationism by any means. It is the natural worth of every atomic structure within relation to its externals that determines its next set of characteristic functions.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-22 23:43 ID:UlPSL+v9
>>11
We could have stopped Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle, not to mention Thales and Archimedes from continuing philo-scientific discovery because there were too many trivial things happening around them. Where do you think we'd be today, then? Probably in a war because of the lack in moral retribution. Oh, and then it would too hard to kill our enemies because of a lack in fundamental technological developments.
I can only reiterate that I would cut SETI funding if given the chance. From the example of our own planet, life seems probabilistically capable of forming, but the stunning silence from the stars is too strong a piece of evidence to the contrary. Rationally we should accept that we might be alone ... or too transient, or too far away. Obviously there's some part of the Drake Equation that we greatly misunderstand.
In short, when it comes to large projects that require public funds, we should STOP LOOKING. SETI has produced a huge body of evidence that reasonable men should have accepted by now as requiring the cessation of the project. Those individuals who still want to look can still do so; at any rate, the availability of power, engineering equipment, and computing power expands across the world and will enable more and more individuals who still want to pursue the so-called quest.
Name:
4tran2007-07-23 1:01 ID:/M4eUMMu
>>15
"As there is an intrinsic atomic purpose for every speck of energy in our universe, humans themselves may be the most intelligent life form dedicated to the discovery of a truth within itself." = unproven assertion. What purpose? EVERY speck of energy? What truth?
>>16
I don't see how this is relevant. Their discoveries were very much concerned with earth and human existence. SETI does not. What will you do if SETI invites a hoard of pedobears to invade our planet?
>>18
Read my last sentence, "It is the natural worth of every atomic structure within relation to its externals that determines its next set of characteristic functions."
There are infinite examples in nature that show the intricate adaptations of matter to its neighbour. Birds fly in the air, monkeys climb trees. Humans evolve when lands are fertile and solar conditions are perfect.
'What truth?'
The same you're trying to find by arguing with me. I'll reiterate again, all matter reacts in accordance with the harmony of its neighbours. How do you know humans and our psyche aren't another example of this?