Comment of the Day --"What do You Think?"

 

          

"So - What happens when scientists actually find a planet that strongly appears to have life - and it is out of reach? Too far away to reach in a human life span by current technology, and technology to get there faster - too far away in terms of development, for anyone living to see? What will be the social and psychological impact on a generation or several of researchers who are told 'you'll never know, you cannot know, one way or the other'?"

Cassandra

View Origonal 

Comments

[Matthew]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Report

If you have ever heard of something called the Brookings report, a think tank study commissioned by NASA during the 1960's. The report is very interesting as its basically a framework for how the government would attempt to handle a discovery of this magnitude. The report brings about the idea that it may be a better idea to hide such information from the general public, as to not upset the current power structures in place, mainly religious and governmental. The report takes some cues from the Orson Wells incident during his radio broadcast of War of the Worlds, in which mass panic was brought about by a fictitious radio show telling of a Martian invasion. Some would say the government has known for a very long time since the 1940's that we are definitely not alone, but chose to keep the information compartmentalized within military intelligence. There are several possible reasons for this, mostly due to the fact that information is power. If you were a military power in the 1940's and a real spacecraft containing both live and dead alien bodies crashed in you're backyard. Would you tell the world about it? Of course not, you would obviously try to gain as much knowledge of the craft and its occupants as possible before the secret got out. Thus giving military a staggering technological advantage. So even if scientists using these powerful telescopes find something out there, they are under obligations to report it directly to the proper authorities. Its those authorities, mainly military but some civilian. Who will decide if the information is ever allowed to become public.

[orkneylad]

What will be the social and psychological impact on a generation or several of researchers who are told 'you'll never know, you cannot know, one way or the other'?"

The whole idea that Science delivers 'answers' is -in itself- problematic, consider:

“the utility that science has delivered is often conflated with the concept of truth. As if human descriptions will ever surpass their own categorical weirdness and the assumptions that were a prerequisite for their development? Yet humanity often stands tall upon the subtle yet elusive constructs that provide the basis for delivering such utility. Humanity is constantly being told, reminded in one way or another, that truth is at hand – that we have facts; many are convinced that we are moving towards a greater understanding of everything.

Don’t be fooled. We’re being told only one side to the story. Tremendous paradoxes lurk out of sight, often placed there deliberately by scientists who hijack the real essence of scientific endeavor."
Prof. Ian Angell. [He has a very interesting blog here: http://www.sciencesfirstmistake.com]

For my part, I feel there are no answers; just an infinity of questions as yet unformulated, and all as unanswerable as those postulated already. We are bound by the limits of language and human cognition.

Nicholas of Cusa’s most famous treatise, On Learned Ignorance (De docta ignorantia), is a mystical discourse on the finite and the infinite. ‘Learned ignorance’ itself is a coincidence of opposites, for it teaches that the more we know our ignorance, the more we attain to true knowledge. Thus, as learned ignorance is perfected, knowledge and ignorance coincide. Using a comparison of the Infinite with the finite, Nicholas explains learned ignorance as follows:

“All those who make an investigation judge the uncertain proportionally, by means of a comparison with what is taken to be certain. Therefore, every inquiry is comparative and uses the means of comparative relation. … Hence, the infinite, qua infinite, is unknown; for it escapes all comparative relation.

It is self-evident that there is no comparative relation of the infinite to the finite. … Therefore, it is not the case that by means of likeness a finite intellect can precisely attain the truth about things. … For truth is not something more or something less but is something indivisible. Whatever is not truth cannot measure truth precisely. … For the intellect is to truth as an inscribed polygon is to the inscribing circle.”

[yordan]

Red dwarfs is the most possible place to be found super advanced civilizations. Actually I think they should be prime target for finding such. Plus We shall develop a way to check for a teraforming in progress or completion or/and electronic preseces - since such civilizations will most like if not inhabit at least developing the resources of the planets which could not be teraformed, or the teraforming of them is pointless.

Anyway finding such civilizations will be not hazardous since it is most unlikely for even super advanced humanoid form of civilization to develop traveling mechanisms which to posses direct menace to human kind.

I think if there is some advanced civilization - they searching for us - just as we do.

[Trantorian]

@orkneylad That's all rationally correct. However, remember that rationally Descartes is inexorably undeniable until the cogito. His reconstruction of reality from there, however, is feeble to a contemporary philosophy. By perfect rationality alone, we'd swim forever in an abyss of solipsism. There's no way a praxis based on this would ever amount to our seemingly unempirical technology.

That said, it's kind of pointless raising this discussion here of all places, don't you think? :)

[Andrew]

What will happen if we find a habitable planet at a distance comparable to Gliese 163? We'll get serious about getting there and about space exploration in general. Gliese 163 is "only" 48.9 light-years away at best estimate. Using continuous acceleration at 1 g (Earth surface normal acceleration), time dilation would kick in and a traveler would experience the passage of about 7 years 8 months enroute to Gliese 163. That's a long but endurable trip. What stops us now? We need to develop the required propulsion technology. For an impulse drive (anything relying on momentum transfer) this acceleration requires 3 GW output power per vehicle kilogram. What will happen when we find a habitable planet at a range like Gliese 163? We will get serious about developing the technology. Until then many will laugh at the possibility.

On another subject, the US government has and is funding much of the exoplanet exploration and habitability analysis through routes like NASA's Kepler project. If part of the US government had knowledge of extraterrestrial life that it felt must be hidden, Kepler's funding could have been killed before it got started or at the end of the base mission. Yet Kepler's funding continues. (I realize the Gliese 163 discovery is more European, but I suspect Kepler's science team is involved in the habitability analysis.)

[bkpr]

Eventually, we humans will find a way to know distant extraterrestrial life. I believe it will be through some form of virtual communication. Endless technical possibilities are waiting to be discovered. We're learning how to find and use nature's resources. Its only a matter of time and exploration until we cross paths with other galactic beings. The future is full of astounding, beautiful and terrifying realities. We humans will embrace these challenges and make the discoveries necessary for our survival and growth...

[Iqbal Latif]

The Drake Equation is obsolete, alien intelligent life is very very rare.

I tried my hand at the Drake Equation. For each variable I choose what I thought is the best answer from the combo box. I strongly contend that The Drake Equation is obsolete!

Homo sapiens cause no harm to anyone, we are not easily 'evolvable' our own planet is unimaginably hostile to our kind of life for most of its history. Our basic needs are two free oxygen and triple point water. 78% of the surface area of our planet is seawater. Of the remaining 22%, about one third is either mountain ranges, deserts, or ice caps. We're down to about 15% of the planetary surface — For roughly 90% of the Earth's history we couldn't even breathe the air. And about 10-25% of the time, there have been ice ages so savagely fierce that the glaciers reached the tropics. Earth has only been inhabitable about 8% of the time. Life may evolve, sentient life is difficult to advance. I have a problem with values inserted here for ne, F1 and Fi deduction of N = the number of communicating civilizations in the galaxy is suspect her.

Assumptive Generalisation is poor rationale and bad science. Fraction of earth like planets (ne) would be very rare, 1 in a billion planetary systems where Carbon based sentient life can evolve. In F1 Earth like environment life will develop definitely. For Intelligent life to develop the biggest hurdle for any 'alien' life to cross is life that is aware and conscious. Unicellular Life 'alone' how it came into existence, yet cannot be explained. That alone will be '1 in a trillion chance.' Still life may exist extensively in Universe considering the size of The Universe. It is the 'conscious life' that can decipher 'The Universe' within 10,000 years of its cave age exodus that what is a rare evolutionary leap. Life that has 'intelligence' to make it own Gods, its rudimentary dogma, its own musicians, its own culture, their own tyrants and philosophers.

From 2.5 million years since the first appearance of the genus Homo, and only 200,000 years after the development and emergence of anatomically modern humans, and within 10,000 years first known habitation as gatherers from hunters state, in last 100 years we are nearly deciphering 'singularity.' Our opacity to see back in time through 'James Watt' after 'Hubble' demise is now overarching the final hurdle of 200 million years after The Big Bang. Once humans became bipedal and Larynx dropped consequently having the ability to write and talk, the transformation into a 'Google age of connectivity' relatively happened on a very fast track.

I would like to emphasize the speed and scale of development that is so mind boggling once consciousness appears. I will argue that if Drakes optimistic argument is correct, there should be millions of civilizations far advanced than us in the rich real estate in the habitable zones of the universe scattered all around. My logical summation is that it took 10 billion years from 'The Big Bang' for Earth to form. It took nearly 1.2 billion years for simple cells (prokaryotes) to appear, another 200 m years that earth demonstrated photosynthesis, nothing happened until 2 billion more years when complex cells (eukaryotes) appeared and nearly another 1 billion years had to pass before multicellular life made its entry.

There must be billons of other planets in other systems where habitable zones existed before earth was formed, and 'earth' like planets should have formed 2 or 3 even 4 billion years earlier than our Earth. Either we have to assume that only Universe in last 4.6 billion years have become stable for habitable zones to appear or if Universe was stable enough such zones did exist for last 7-8 billion years and should have earth like planets where life could have evolved. If so, life once it crossed the hurdle of 'multicellularity' should follow the pattern of 'development of concious life' as we have seen on earth. Imagine a sentient life that knew connectivity and logic, reason, toleration 4 billion years ago. They should be time travellers, watching as primitive quarrelsome species warring over our Gods and avatars.

The habitable zones billions of years ahead of earth absolutely pass the test of law of probability that suggests that human like intelligence is not a miracle but an evolutionary process has to be followed under the pattern and conditions universal laws of physics and astronomy demand. If we humans who are very near to our cave age existence in last 10,000 years can jump into age of Hubble within last one century; why not those billion upon billion possible sentient beings which the ' Drake probability' due to infinite size of Universe demands, should not be far ahead of us by billions of years, why they still remain to be silent spectators. It is only possible if they have chosen to be silent otherwise one can argue that sentient life is very rare, the hurdles are just too many to cross.

No one will be born directly into the 'Space Age.' Every evolving alien in the universe will have to go through perfection of biological design like we did; that shall demand inward eyes in a socket not bulging eyes otherwise they will all be blind or half blind and a shorter index finger not a long one. The reason 'Index finger' has to be shorter is that they will be unable to turn round 'nodules of flint by splitting and chipping.' We humans have tendency to design aliens the way we perceive them like we designed our angry retributive Gods.

The steps of progressive evolution are essential; from 'hunters and gatherers' to 'settlers.’ We went through certain learning processes over eons from nature. For example, to become a 'sentient being' we learnt certain things from Chimpanzees. One thing we did was how Chimpanzees used large sticks as hammers to crack nuts, using logs as anvils. All sentient beings before they develop machines will need to develop an anvil too. The anvil kind of heralded the Stone Age banality into human creativity. Nearly 2.5 million years ago, humans discovered that with the help of the rudimentary 'Anvil' the round nodules of flint can be split and chipped to form a sharp edge; this would be the first hurdle to cross for any “alien” with a long index finger. Had humans not had the ability to make sharp edges, it would have left lesser protein intake for the human, the hunter, resulting in far slower expansion of brain. Maybe evolution delayed by another few million years? In this age every hour matters, when we were evolving time stood still as a rock, it took 14 billion years for star dust to compose in to a sentient being like us. Human life is not easy, don't keep quiet when one is wasted.

Try your hand at Drakes equation:

http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/seti/drake_equation.html#Try

[yordan]

Iqbal Latif - you are completely wrong.

We can not use Sea Water - just because our evolution were on a place where the Salt is rare, and the River Water and Rain Water is dominant. If we were evolved near the Oceans - then we will most likely enjoy drinking Sea Water.

About Drake Equation - yes - it is absolute - it cuts too much of the life actually.

I strongly believe on the hypothesis that "live exists and evolve anywhere where is having conditions, and the evolution and just part of each life form."

And i strongly believe that Humans will enter inter-stelar period in next 50 years. This is just the natural way of the things.

[smartypants]

Andrew
Does your space flight of 7 years 8 months mean acceleration all the way and stopping by splatting into the planet or does it give time for deceleration?

[Cassandra]

Andrew - space flight of "about 7 years 8 months enroute to Gliese 163".

How long to develop and build such a craft - 25 years, 50 years? Let's be really, really optimistic and say 10 years. For everyone who is not on that craft - the answer to the question "is there really life on Gliese 163 and what is it like?" will take a very long time to get. Even at light speed, with the ship leaving today - that answer would take nearly a century - 50 years for the ship to get there, 50 more years for any message to get back. And your scenario would be much longer for everyone not on board.

Meanwhile, our culture gets faster and faster, we are taught to expect answers and entertainment and product, on ever shorter turn around times.

At some point, a very strong candidate planet is going to be found, what that scientists will desperately want to visit - and how are they going to convince governments to give them any money to get an answer 300 or 500 years from now?

I'm not saying "don't look", but I do think that there's a need to really think about what the social consequences will be of having such a situation hanging over humanity's head for centuries.