|
Post by 46thnumbuh on Apr 29, 2007 17:54:47 GMT
Alien: *sees a human* AAAH!! ALIEN!! gets shot
I've been interested in [and reading about] spacestuffs ever since I learned how to read. I think being able to locate a possible lifesource ka-jillions of distances away is a great discovery: an advancement in the field of science. It adds a cent on the 'we're not alone in the universe' idea, but it doesn't mean we will exhaust everything just to contact them. I mean, we do have a lot of problems to deal with presently, perhaps we'd save the 'omg they'll eradicate all life on earth' problem later. ;p But truly, it does seem cool there might be life on other galaxies.
About them being more advance than us.. it's not impossible. They might've even discovered our planet ages before. Better, taking steps towards a means of contacting visiting! us. ;D
|
|
|
Post by hoagiegal1970 on Apr 29, 2007 18:00:57 GMT
About them being more advance than us.. it's not impossible. They might've even discovered our planet ages before. Better, taking steps towards a means of contacting visiting! us. ;D That brings up another big question: IF there are advanced alien civilizations, WHO created them? (It makes for a good theological debate...and that's an open-ended question.)
|
|
|
Post by numbuh82 on Apr 29, 2007 18:31:46 GMT
If you mean in views of Creationism then probably the same fella that created us,
If not in those eyes and there is still a God well in my views if there is a God then he did very little,He made the elements to start us and then bang,the Universe grew and we evolved,Although he could have influenced certain factors for life and stuff,like some say life came on a asteroid that went through a nebula,that proves that a God like being didn't create us,But you could also say that he influenced it to do that.Or you could also say the complete opposite,That he had noting to do with it and waited till people became sentient and reached a certain point.
Now God gave us free will so maybe he gave planets the option of knowing about him but it died down,or he mightn't of gone to a planet and left the develop with out knowing about him.
Thats from a Theist view of course.
Note#When I say him I don't mean that I call God a male,it's just the fact that we call it a him and it doesn't sound right to say it.
|
|
|
Post by Numbuh 0xFF on Apr 29, 2007 19:05:47 GMT
I...I don't need to answer that question do I? Evolution is, in all likelihood, an universal law, probably on the level of mathematical relationships.
Frankly, if we were to discover alien life/civilization I'd be to busy dancing my happy dance to worry about the theological ramification. Except, perhaps, to toss off a mischievous hope that some theologian somewhere has a headache over this. Probably not, though: a properly executed happy dance takes a lot of concentration.
|
|
|
Post by sjedmondson on Apr 29, 2007 19:23:46 GMT
Me? First of all I'm doing my happy dance that scientists didn't name the planet "New Earth".
*shot for Doctor Who reference*
Hmmmm, out of interest if there IS intelligent life, who decides what the planet should be called?
I mean can we actually communicate with this planet, it being "such and such" miles away and all?
EDIT: An interesting thought came to me, say if we had a way to reach this planet and we found out they were in a primative state (Cavemen would be a simplification of that). Should we interfere with the planet in any way? Or leave them to it?
What do you think NASA would do?
(Does that make sense?)
|
|
|
Post by Numbuh 278 on Apr 29, 2007 19:37:34 GMT
I created the aliens on the planet! Cuz I am God ;o ... or not XDD *idiot* Umm.. Yeah, I read bout the new planet xD sounds kinda cool.
|
|
|
Post by Numbuh 0xFF on Apr 29, 2007 20:26:55 GMT
Me? First of all I'm doing my happy dance that scientists didn't name the planet "New Earth". *shot for Doctor Who reference* Now now. That one's in a different galaxy. Me, I can't wait for New New York. Well technically it's the fifteenth since the original, so it's New New New New New New New New New New New New New New New New York. ;D The intelligent life, I'd assume. Otherwise all planet-naming is, officially, handled by the IAU (International Astronomical Union) which sets up a naming commission which votes for the name. Of course the person who discovered the thing gets first crack at proposing a suitable moniker but the IAU is free to deny said recommendation. Actually, yes! It's just the matter of sending out a powerful enough signal (don't forget, EM in vacuum attenuates with the square of the distance) and waiting...for forty years. Twenty for it to get there and twenty for a response. If there is one. That's what SETI has been trying to do -- catch alien radio chatter. Well...it's a very good question. In the Star Trek universe there's the famous Prime Directive which specifically forbids tampering with pre-spacefaring civilizations. On the other hand the Noon Universe I mentioned a few posts back has a group of people called progressors who go around and try and give primitive races a leg up. And on the third hand (after all we are talking aliens!) there's David Brin's Uplift universe where tampering with pre-sentients (the procedure is called uplift) is the main activity of just about everyone in the Five Galaxies. Truth be told, no one thought about it except SF writers. And they are all over the map. I could make arguments both ways: On one side who are we to force our culture on an primitive race, on the other hand who are we to deny them access to the same culture in the first place. What exactly qualifies us to determine what's best for them? Tricky thing. Today's NASA? Hmmm. Hard to tell. Most likely if Stephen Hawking just announced he built a warp drive in his garage (using a robotic exoskeleton one would assume) and the NASA built the first FTL ship and actually got into contact with a primitive alien life-form on a distant world there would be a split. The NASA science team would, judging from the people I know that work there, probably want to study their ways and not mess with them -- at least not right away. Another fraction would probably be for leaving them totally alone. And then the White House would assert authority, turn it into a military mission and then...well the aliens would fare only slightly better than the Native Americans. A NASA (IASA?) of the distant future would probably approach the matter more altruistically. I base this on very simple reasoning: if we don't get more altruistic, less greedy and a whole lot less aggressive we are not going to be launching any interplanetary missions EVER. Reason being we'll all be very very dead. To me, yes. But then again I am highly geeky so...
|
|
|
Post by hoagiegal1970 on Apr 29, 2007 21:09:57 GMT
Except, perhaps, to toss off a mischievous hope that some theologian somewhere has a headache over this. That was the whole idea behind posing the question: it'll give the real wacko Christians and fundies of any religion and such huge headaches. (Read this site and prepare for tons of head-scratching.) Not to mention spectacular nonsense I've read that aliens may actually be demons in disguise sent by Satan to fool the unaware human race. Where do people GET this stuff from?? (If aliens do find us, of course my own faith will take a huge hit (since who knows what they'll believe in), but I'll deal with that when/if it happens.)
|
|
|
Post by numbuh82 on Apr 29, 2007 21:38:23 GMT
Except, perhaps, to toss off a mischievous hope that some theologian somewhere has a headache over this. Not to mention spectacular nonsense I've read that aliens may actually be demons in disguise sent by Satan to fool the unaware human race. Where do people GET this stuff from?? I'll give you a tip,Never go near anything to do with Religion or Aliens on Paltalk, They say things like a burning chariot was a UFO crashing and that Elvis and Jesus are the same Edit-I hope ye know that in my last post that I in those guesses evolution did/does happen.
|
|
|
Post by numbuheightbitstar on Apr 30, 2007 5:29:55 GMT
And then the White House would assert authority, turn it into a military mission and then...well the aliens would fare only slightly better than the Native Americans. Unless of course, the group that's all for leaving the aliens alone decides to get militant. Which they won't because everyone in America is more of a whipped wusspuppy than Father. Real Man: "Look, either you respect the rights of those aliens or we're going to kick your butts and have ourselves a merry revolution!" Most Americans: "Look, either you respect the rights of those aliens or we're going to start a letter-writing campaign!"
|
|
|
Post by hoagiegal1970 on Apr 30, 2007 11:42:42 GMT
OK, I couldn't help but notice this:
Real Man: "Look, either you respect the rights of those aliens or we're going to kick your butts and have ourselves a merry revolution!" (James)
But then look what will happen:
If we don't get more altruistic, less greedy and a whole lot less aggressive we are not going to be launching any interplanetary missions EVER. Reason being we'll all be very very dead. (0xFF)
So needless to say, I'm not on the "Real Man's"side.
|
|
|
Post by numbuheightbitstar on Apr 30, 2007 12:42:13 GMT
OK, I couldn't help but notice this: Real Man: "Look, either you respect the rights of those aliens or we're going to kick your butts and have ourselves a merry revolution!" (James) But then look what will happen: If we don't get more altruistic, less greedy and a whole lot less aggressive we are not going to be launching any interplanetary missions EVER. Reason being we'll all be very very dead. (0xFF) So needless to say, I'm not on the "Real Man's"side. That's because, as usual, you don't fully understand the "Real Man's" position. You only saw that it involved fighting and figured "Oh, the 'Real Man' must be a macho military type." Note that a part of the quote involved the Real Man believing totally in a positive value--that the aliens should be left alone, and then he fought for that value when confronted with the possibility that the more militant branches of government might not be so obliging. What 0xFF was describing was your average militant government, which wants to send the army everywhere and eliminate all potential threats to their ego/power/security. That's not what the Real Man is.
|
|
|
Post by hoagiegal1970 on Apr 30, 2007 12:50:35 GMT
Actually, I would like a description of the "Real Man" prototype.
I also thought 0xFF was describing mankind in general, not just governments. He's right. If we DON'T clean up our act, and soon, we'll face catastrophies OF OUR OWN MAKING, e. g. global warming.
|
|
|
Post by numbuheightbitstar on Apr 30, 2007 13:51:11 GMT
Now you see, the fact is, most people are very much inclined to "clean up their act." Thing is, they want to do it in ways that don't actually require effort. They want to use votes and legislation and petitions and letter campaigns to achieve their ends. And, see, historically none of these methods has ever achieved anything.
It's as Bush himself said: "Quit throwing the Constitution in my face! It's just a goddamn piece of paper!" Or with King John and the Magna Carta--King John would never have agreed to that document if it wasn't for the fact that the creators of the MC had already proven they had the will and muscle to back it up. Authority figures don't listen to pieces of paper. They DO listen to angry people who have proven a willingness to take drastic steps. History has proven this and this is a lesson that modern America is forgetting in our feel-good nanny-state age.
We're becoming just like the Han in Philip Frances Nowlan's novel Armageddon 2419 A.D.. You should track down a copy of that book and read it just to see what I mean (and because its really good).
As for what the "Real Man" is (and note that by "man" I refer to humans in general, not just males):
The Real Man is a realist--he knows the facts, knows what people are like, knows what will and will not work.
But he's also an idealist. He wants the human race to reach the spiritual perfection we all dream about, where there's no war or pollution or greed or crime.
To this end, he's a great planner--he may not be exceptionally strong (either physically or in terms of popularity) but he knows what options he has towards achieving this ideal of humanity.
The Real Man never does anything with an ulterior motive, or if he does he at least doesn't try to hide it.
The Real Man seeks critics, and listens to their words in order to find his weaknesses and thus, ways to improve himself and his methods. He does not tolerate the presence of "Yes-men."
Obviously, he's open-minded.
And finally (or at least until I can refine this ideal further):
The Real Man should also have a sense of humor.
I had an idea for what a "Real Man's" idea of a merry little revolution would be. It involved ventriloquism, Sheryl Crow music, and compromising photographs. But that needs refinement too.
|
|
|
Post by hoagiegal1970 on Apr 30, 2007 15:31:12 GMT
Well, it's a pretty decent ideal to work towards, but I also get the feeling that you're describing yourself.
Kinda egotistical, if you ask me.
If the world is going to improve, we need more humble people, not people who do altruistic things so it can benefit them (i. e. Christians who only do good things to get into heaven and not for the benefit of the other person--which is actually one of the Seven Deadly Sins, conveniently called GREED). And I don't get the feeling that you're humble, at all.
|
|