Extraterrestrial Intelligence

[T.Neo]

If they were really advanced and smart (of course, not the same thing) I think they would merge into a single nation/superpower.

That is silly idealism... a "world state" is such a common cliche in science fiction... apparently cooperation between individual (but cooperative and peacefully-relating) nations is apparently not enough.

Nevertheless, one would imagine they could broadcast coherent radio messages, or stage effective international projects (y'know, like we can- ISS comes to mind).

Oh, so you mean that we can't listen to signals from other planets because of our own radio noise? Ever thought about going to the Sahara desert? Who beams out from there? Or to the dark side of the Moon?

Satellites and aircraft still fly over the Sahara.

The far side of the Moon would be a far better option, and has been suggested often as the side for a radio telescope.

And how does having one nation encourage terrorism? Also, if they are advanced enough they could live in an almost utopian world, without terrorism.

Just because their civilisation is older and they're technologically advanced, compared to us, does not at all mean that their society is almost perfect. Especially because "almost perfect" depends on someone's point of view.

i would go strongly against that, actually a unified world will promote peace(provided the head government cares for the people and vice versa)
A world like ours, fragmented into countries is actually bad, as what could be good for one county could be bad for another, then conflicts can arise between 2 or more nations. with a single nation there can be no conflicts as there is onl 1 body.

A start of a government that cares for the people is a must... it both has little to do with having a world government, and also unfortunately only exists in limited ways in our current global society.

If a country elects to have something their way, that people from an adjacent country disagree with, that is no problem, as long as they can act like adults, accept eachother's differences, and cooperate properly.

If country A decides to go to war with country B, because of conflicting views, it is because the leader(s) are moron(s), not because the countries are seperate. War is caused by morons, not countries.

Also, since even relatively small states have sub-government (like South Africa, for example), any world-state would have to have sub-governments, sub-sub governments, and sub-sub-sub governments, because Earth is really that big.

In that case, what is really wrong with individual nations cooperating together within a multinational framework?

 

[Artlav]

I wonder if we are the first of that kind out there.

Let's see how fast the scale of our constructions increased - what took centuries centuries ago can be build in years now. We build thing on large scale.
And, we consider this a sign of our intelligence - that we build and change.

So, where are the ringworlds, dyson spheres, ramas, etc built by other civilizations?
Either we are the first, or there is some big change in the way intelligence evolve some time soon in our future.
Or our kind of intelligence can be different or unusual.
Or civilizations are like people, doomed to die after a time.


Then, consider aboriginal tribes in many rural areas.
There we have people who are definitely intelligent, and are know to grasp our developed science and world views easily, but who never the less don't build anything lasting or huge.
They live on the land for tens of thousands of years, with little traces.

Intelligence? Yes.
Detectable from another star? I don't think so.

What are we looking for?
Have we even found out what intelligence is?
Or do we just look for something that is like us, only different?

 

[T.Neo]

So, where are the ringworlds, dyson spheres, ramas, etc built by other civilizations?

Well, the ringworlds and dyson spheres can be explained away by the fact that they need to be built out of unobtanium, and require more than the mass of our solar system, at least, to be constructed.

A Dyson sphere would also create capability way beyond any potential need, unless you were building a sort of Death Star... you can still collect exawatts of energy using far smaller (but still absolutely gigantic, by current standards) structures that do not even get close to encircling a star.

They could have- and if they are advanced- probably do have- space colonies, similar in concept to Rama at least, but these are not that easy to detect- a colony on the scale of asteroids could be built with modern materials, but we haven't detected any extrasolar asteroids yet, we don't have that capability...

There are a lot of things we hypothetically could build but do not, either because we don't need or want to.

Or civilizations are like people, doomed to die after a time.

That tends to be the general pattern of history, as far as things go. But it is not permanent- when one civilisation falls away, another one will rise to take its place.

Then, consider aboriginal tribes in many rural areas.
There we have people who are definitely intelligent, and are know to grasp our developed science and world views easily, but who never the less don't build anything lasting or huge.
They live on the land for tens of thousands of years, with little traces.

Yeah, I am beginning to think that the majority of sapient species are like this... kept in a primitive state by one or more forces, almost like humans were during the ice ages- only once the climate became good enough, did we start to farm and settle down- and form civilisation.

 

[Artlav]

There are a lot of things we hypothetically could build but do not, either because we don't need or want to.

The stars themselves then.
A sun makes a perfect garbage dump, for all kinds of radioactives.
Someone bound to use that, not everyone would be developed enough fast enough to get a clean fission/fusion at once.

And, such a use for a star would quickly alter it's spectrum, as far as i know.

Spectral analysis in general - a spacefaring civilization of our kind would tend to build and alter the environment, we should be able to detect something from the dust clouds and asteroid belts. Signs of mining, excess of certain elements due to rockets, etc.

Planets with unstable chemistries are a good sign of life or civilization.
Stars or dust clouds with unstable chemistry can also be so.

 

[T.Neo]

Nothing really warrants dumping stuff into the Sun. The dV required to reach the Sun from a 1 AU orbit is pretty high, and radioactive waste is still valuable- you can reprocess it, for example.

It is better to store it on Earth, where you are able to get at it later. Or even, store it on the Moon or a similar body- there, everything is geologically dormant, there is no erosion or groundwater, and thus radioactive materials could remain contained for a very, very long period of time.

I doubt dumping that amount of waste into a star would change its spectrum much- it is an absolutely minimal amount of mass compared to that of the rest of the star.

I'm skeptical about the altered chemistry of dust clouds. Again, even a heavy spacecraft industry is going to put out a minimal amount of mass- mass that in space, tends to disperse rather quickly. And if you are using hydrogen- desirable as propellant because of its particle mass, you are just throwing more hay into the bail...

 

[Nazban]

A unified world would be hard to control, and people have their own opinions and ideals on what should be done if you have the majority of the world deciding they want to take away your property obviouly you would want to fight it. The purpose of conrties is to represent their people in exchange for order and leadership... A single country that cannot satisfy all it's citizens will encounter some form of resistance...

we have to take other aspects to this too, the world is split, litterlally, into countries which are developed, and really poor, underdeveloped countries(the likes of which are unimaginable). This would not be so with a single, unified country.
And also you said that a single country would create conflicts among people inside. This is a valid point, but it would be the same for international affairs between 2 different countries.

 

[fsci123]

I'm pretty sure when the native Americans and the aboriganese people wondered what people "beyond" were like they probably thought that easterners were unified and peaceful.
And look where we are now?

I'm dead sure that any eti will have war, poverty, religous extremism, dissease, segregation,etc..

In a pretty good sense most eti will be pre tech considering humans have been around for 500000y and we only developed radio 100y ago.

 

[Nazban]

In a pretty good sense most eti will be pre tech considering humans have been around for 500000y and we only developed radio 100y ago.

humans developed 500,000 years ago!?!?? i thought it was less that......

well the only problem about ET, is that the best we coud hope for right now is microscopic lifeforms, let alone a pre tech civilization.
And with the vast distances between planets(out of our solar system) is that by the time we send a message(take gliese 581 for example), it will take 20.3 years to reach, and another 20.3 years for a possible reply, and communications will be really tiresome, a guy sends a message to ET when hes 20, and might get a reply long after he died.

 

[T.Neo]

we have to take other aspects to this too, the world is split, litterlally, into countries which are developed, and really poor, underdeveloped countries(the likes of which are unimaginable). This would not be so with a single, unified country.
And also you said that a single country would create conflicts among people inside. This is a valid point, but it would be the same for international affairs between 2 different countries.

Wrong. South Africa is a single country, and it literally spans between the utter, utter description of a slum, to areas that are virtually identical to those in developed nations such as the US or Europe.

Distribution of wealth and standard of living is dictated by how well the system(s) work, not whether seperate nation states exist or not.

The reason that undeveloped, poor countries exist, is because they are unlucky in the leadership department, and/or they have a bad history. If the leadership issue was fixed up, and economic potential was poured into poor African countries, for example, they could become not only very well developed but also a driving force in the global community.

I'm pretty sure when the native Americans and the aboriganese people wondered what people "beyond" were like they probably thought that easterners were unified and peaceful.
And look where we are now?

I'm not sure. Either they speculated about outsiders and concluded they would be similar to them, but of a different culture, or they simply didn't care, being more concerned with their immediate surroundings, which they had to understand and interact with well to survive.

The funny thing though, is that the Europeans were not all that different to the people they conquered... they were the same: just human.

Ok, so the ETIs won't be human, but they will be fallible entities, and fallible entities that are likely to share quite a few traits with us.

I'm dead sure that any eti will have war, poverty, religous extremism, dissease, segregation,etc..

Yes. But we can hope for their sake that they have learned to control bad forces such as these... you cannot eliminate poverty for example, but you can do your best to reduce it to the smallest minimum possible.

In a pretty good sense most eti will be pre tech considering humans have been around for 500000y and we only developed radio 100y ago.

No... Anatomically Modern Humans (AMH) arose only around 200 000 years ago. Behavioural modernity (examplified for example by art and spirituality) arose around 50 000 years ago.

Homo gautengensis, the earliest recognised example of the genus Homo, appeared "over 2 million years ago". Homo habilis appeared 2.3 million years ago. However, these species are quite different from H. Sapiens, being more primitive, for example.

The thing is, although we've only had radio technology for around 100 years, (if we have any real societal intelligence) we'll be branching out into the solar system within the next 100 years, and could have a very sizable offworld population by 500-1000 years time, which is geologically a blink of an eye.

It's entirely possible though that there are forces 'holding back' sapient species from industrial civilisation, and thus advanced civilisation. Your point still stands that we have been 'primitive' for most of our existence (and indeed, most of our behaviourally modern existence). Maybe we were just lucky because our climate was conducive to agriculture (after the ice age ended...), or because our manipulators were really efficient, or because our bauplan was advantageous, or because we had tons of material to make tools and technology with available to us. Other sapient species might have things differently, and they might also be in the majority.

well the only problem about ET, is that the best we coud hope for right now is microscopic lifeforms, let alone a pre tech civilization.
And with the vast distances between planets(out of our solar system) is that by the time we send a message(take gliese 581 for example), it will take 20.3 years to reach, and another 20.3 years for a possible reply, and communications will be really tiresome, a guy sends a message to ET when hes 20, and might get a reply long after he died.

The communication thing doesn't particularly matter, primarily because it's communication between civilisations or institutions (which last far longer than individuals), and the primary importance of communication is "yes, we're here".

How is bacterial life the "best we can hope for" right now? It is probably more common, but this is not some sort of astronomy find-it book that doesn't have the target character in it at all...

 

[Nazban]

How is bacterial life the "best we can hope for" right now? It is probably more common, but this is not some sort of astronomy find-it book that doesn't have the target character in it at all...

Sorry, i meant microscopic life.
look, we dont know whats out there, everything can only be said with probability, like the drake equation. We cannot really argue against statements, it is entirly possible for even highly, spacefaring aliens to exist, and the same goes for microscopic life, plants, and anyother living thing. With the unierse at its size, there has to be life out there, but we dont know what it is.

 

[T.Neo]

Exactly. But there is nothing to state that life elsewhere in the universe is only single-celled, or that at present we can only detect single-celled life.

 

[ZombiezuRFER]

I think we're being a bit too homocentric. We're looking at ET from too human a POV. By my definition, Sapience is the ability to invent, and share information and use tools, but sapience only works with Invention. Look at a crow, it uses tools, it shares info, but it does not invent. Without invention, it isn't sapient. For invention to be necessary, there has to be some adverse or negative condition, like humans had. Early humans hunted and gathered food, but needing meat, they hunted. Humans, not being the most successful natural predators, invented something. The spear! The spear allowed the gathering of meat. That condition started Sapience.

From the book I'm writing, The Heretic Empires, we find out why the Ragnaroks, the aliens, became sapient. They were predators, and had to be smarter than their prey to catch it, so natural intelligence begins there. The Heesht, pack hunters, often clashed with other packs. So they invented weaponry to deal with intruders and to claim territory. Thus began Sapience.

So, some conflict has to be present for the necessity of Sapience, be it food, warfare, inadequate shelter, etc, that cannot be solved by something that already exists in the environment.

On the topic of radio, how do we know that they haven't heard us? They most likely haven't. From Wikipedia, there are 500 billion planets, 500 million of which may be inhabitable. Only a fraction will have ETs. But what is our definition of inhabitable? Are we not to say nothing can exist on a 4gee world? or something with gravity not unlike the moon? This proves our homocentrism. We haven't been contacted if even heard, because we ARE just background noise. the signal probably gets too bad to even be noticeable as alien to any ETs. Another thing, how do we even know they listen to radio signals? Maybe they communicate via laser. Wouldn't that make our radio listening more or less useless? Open up to the entire spectrum, and see what noise you get. Our own Solar system is noisy, let alone transmitting messages across light years. If we are to meet ETI, it will be once we expand beyond our Solar System, if not by Alcubierre drive, then by generation ship most likely.

As an analogy, think of an Ant. this ant represents the entirety of Humans. The ant walks on a cows hoof. Supposing the ant had human intelligence, and it looked only at the hoof, would it recognize what it saw? No. The ant is too small to recognize what is in front of it. Until Human civilization expands to an Extrasolar colony, it is unlikely we will see any ETs soon.

 

[T.Neo]

H. Sapiens did not invent the spear... this is fact, we already have evidence of spears, for example, made by Neanderthals.

And chimpanzees already use pointy sticks to kill monkeys.

Nevertheless, you are totally right- it is an incentive for tool use, that creates sapience. Sapience itself is not defined by tool use, even though sapient organisms make very good tools (tools themselves are rather common, crows, as you suggested, are a good example of that).

But what is our definition of inhabitable? Are we not to say nothing can exist on a 4gee world? or something with gravity not unlike the moon?

Ah, but... that is not because life can or cannot exist on these places because it is life, but rather because these places tend to have certain attributes that mean that they don't have an environment that is conducive to the formation and survival of life. For example, the lunar-sized planet isn't large enough to hold on to an atmosphere, wheras the 4-g world could have a thick, crushing atmosphere.*

*Funnily enough, life should be possible in this gravity, conditions permitting. Due to a thing called the square-cube law, weight matters far more to an organism than size. A human (for example) with the same weight as a normal human, living on a 4-G planet, would only be around one and a half times smaller (that equates to around 1.1 meters vs. 1.8 meters for the average male), which is very short by human adult standards, but not microscopic. Or pancake flat on the ground.

In short, it is more biologically difficult for an Elephant on Earth, physics-wise, than it is for a human-weighted organism on a 4G world.

If we are to meet ETI, it will be once we expand beyond our Solar System, if not by Alcubierre drive, then by generation ship most likely.

Ah... the Alcubierre drive... I wish we could find a way to make it or something like it work at faster than light velocities. I want FTL, darnit! I want to go and... explore Gliese 581. Or Mu Arae. Or heck, even Neptune...

Mind you, "sub-light" does not mean "hundreds and hundreds of years". You can make interstellar journeys without needing to basically make the ship a mini-planet, but it requires stuff we don't really know about yet. Which doesn't make it all that different from the miniplanet generation ship.

As an analogy, think of an Ant. this ant represents the entirety of Humans. The ant walks on a cows hoof. Supposing the ant had human intelligence, and it looked only at the hoof, would it recognize what it saw? No. The ant is too small to recognize what is in front of it. Until Human civilization expands to an Extrasolar colony, it is unlikely we will see any ETs soon.

Except, the ant cannot imagine a cow, when it sees the cow hoof. We are limited to Earth + LEO, all we can see is our home system and a whole lot of stars, plus we're able to rudimentarily detect some extrasolar planets. Yet we can still speculate about life on other worlds and our potential interaction with it, which puts us apart from the ant... by a long distance.

 

[fsci123]

In a pretty good reality earth didn't just make intelligencene in the form of humans... It also made dolphins, elephants and, homos.
A good analogy buying a car and an unknown fuel. For hominids we got the car and the proper fuel. Dolphins and elpehants got their cars but improper fuels.

---------- Post added at 08:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:25 PM ----------

Another analogy is a building with a lot of noisy macinery. And inside that building there is 5000 people 4000 are deaf,mute and,blind. 1000people are partialy blind,and deaf and they are screaming a whole bunch of crap in 8different language that completely make no sense whatsoever. And they are in different rooms. And out of those 1000 only 10 have a key to the doors seperating them.

 

[ZombiezuRFER]

In a pretty good reality earth didn't just make intelligencene in the form of humans... It also made dolphins, elephants and, homos.
A good analogy buying a car and an unknown fuel. For hominids we got the car and the proper fuel. Dolphins and elpehants got their cars but improper fuels.

---------- Post added at 08:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:25 PM ----------

Another analogy is a building with a lot of noisy macinery. And inside that building there is 5000 people 4000 are deaf,mute and,blind. 1000people are partialy blind,and deaf and they are screaming a whole bunch of crap in 8different language that completely make no sense whatsoever. And they are in different rooms. And out of those 1000 only 10 have a key to the doors seperating them.

Kinda helps to know what the analogy is about...

 

[fsci123]

Kinda helps to know what the analogy is about...

Thank god im back on my computer orbiter forum sucks using the cellphone...

Its about the communications distances in time and space between ETIs