There are vast problems with trying to communicate with an alien civilization that make it likely if they were beaming signals at us, we'd not know it. For starters, there's if anyone else has noticed "the water hole." That's a band of frequencies related to water that are relatively clear in the EM spectrum. Of course, the reason we notice this has to do with the way we interpret the spectrum and label frequencies. A species which doesn't have our same concept of time or use base 10 mathematics might not notice the clear portion of the spectrum, or if they're not a water based species, they might not put the same importance on water that we do. Then there's the method of encoding. Even if they're broadcasting analog signals, we'd have a tough time deciphering it without having identical hardware on our end. Which we wouldn't necessarily have. Perhaps their microphones and speakers work differently than ours, capture different frequencies or emit different frequencies. Then we get to trying to figure out whatever it was that they sent us. Was it a picture? Sound recording? Would their first words to us translate as "Greetings from the people of Greelax."? Or would it be "This is the High Priest of Frombulitz, sending a prayer to our god, Snarkelfitz."? Assuming the basic concepts of self-identity exist amongst them in the same manner that they do amongst us. If you've read the book Solaris (forget about the Clooney movie, its got a different focus than the book), you'll know that the idea behind it was to try to truly imagine what it might be like to encounter an alien intelligence which thought in utterly different ways than us. Its difficult, and I have to imagine that if we ever do encounter sentient aliens, it'll be a long time before we're able to even work out the basics of simple communication with one another, because of how different we think.You're right. We don't even know how to figure out the basics of communication with our family members because of how differently we think. What would we do with aliens? Lois
Has it ever occurred to anyone that any intelligent life "out there" probably knows about earth and its inhabitants and has wisely decided to stay as as far away as possible from us and never let us know they exist, obliterating all signals? LoisThat might explain the silence from some civilizations but all civilizations most likely pass through a period like ours where they are indiscriminately broadcasting signals into space and just like email once its out there you can delete it or call it back. If at some point must civilizations become more discriminating in what and who they broadcast to then of course that would decrease the amount of time they are detectable to neophytes like us and therefor decrease the number of intelligent civilizations that we would be able to detect. The threshold would be the speed of light and how long it takes the signals to arrive. ... Good point, if an extra-galactic civilization sent out signals 99 million years ago, and they're 100 million light years away, we still have a million years to wait, to hear from them.
... You're right. We don't even know how to figure out the basics of communication with our family members because of how differently we think. What would we do with aliens? LoisWe also, can't even communicate, effectively, with other intelligent Earth species, e.g., dolphins.
The threshold would be the speed of light and how long it takes the signals to arrive. If the civilization was able to stop broadcasting longer ago than they are away from us in light years, that would explain things nicely. But how long have humans on Earth been so bad that no-one else wants to have any contact with us.Here is another way to look at it. Each civilization will be broadcasting a signal that has a length in years. If a civilization broadcasts for a thousand years than its signal is a thousand light years in length. If we happen to be listening when that thousand year long signal passes over us then we will hear it. If the civilization only broadcasts for 40 years then the signal is only 40 years long and that gives us less time in which to hear it. If it passed over us a 100 or 1000 or 1 million years ago or perhaps a million years in the future ( if we are no longer around) then we may never hear it. Yeah, what we need is a civilization that is advanced enough to send a very prolonged signal, but not advanced enough to think this is a bad idea. And then, we also have to be lucky enough to get the timing right. All sorts of signals could have passed us since pre-WWII, and we would have no idea. Other signals could be on their way, but they might not arrive before human civilization falls irrevocably apart.
So maybe we should concentrate on the unsolved problems we have on earth right now instead of looking for more trouble. Does that sound like a good idea?
Lois
So maybe we should concentrate on the unsolved problems we have on earth right now instead of looking for more trouble. Does that sound like a good idea? LoisUnless trouble comes looking for us....
So maybe we should concentrate on the unsolved problems we have on earth right now instead of looking for more trouble. Does that sound like a good idea? LoisUnless trouble comes looking for us.... If it's alien trouble, I'll wait. Lois
So maybe we should concentrate on the unsolved problems we have on earth right now instead of looking for more trouble. Does that sound like a good idea? LoisWell, we sort of suck at solving a lot of the unsolved Earth/human problems. So I am supportive of those who seek to know more and to seek out new life and new civilizations. Most of us are not pioneers, and view them as a bit nutty, (and some probably are), but our civilization would be stifled if there were never any pioneers. Which brings to mind the purported plans to send a colonization project to Mars in the relatively near future. It sounds insane, but I wish them well.
So maybe we should concentrate on the unsolved problems we have on earth right now instead of looking for more trouble. Does that sound like a good idea? LoisSeriously? We're not going to do anything until we solve our problems here? Honestly though I hate when that concept comes up. First of all few problems every get resolved by the direct approach. Often we find solutions to problems in places we were never expecting to find them. The space program has often been cited as such an example since many earthbound problems were solved through research done to launch people into space. Even when space research doesn't lead directly to earthly solutions it provides the inspiration to many of the kids who go into science and engineering fields and many of them go on to solve problems right here on earth. If it weren't for the space program I might not be a doctor today. These are the sort of things that fire kids imaginations. Of course there is always the fact that we will never solve all of our problems here on earth. As pessimistic as that may sound its an indisputable fact. Throwing more money and talent at the same old problems eventually runs in to the laws of diminishing returns. And there will always be that segment of society that is homicidal, suicidal, selfish , ego maniacal,or otherwise antisocial no matter what we do. If that is the criteria we have to meet before looking beyond earth then we will never look beyond our own mundane daily lives.
So maybe we should concentrate on the unsolved problems we have on earth right now instead of looking for more trouble. Does that sound like a good idea? LoisSeriously? We're not going to do anything until we solve our problems here? Honestly though I hate when that concept comes up. First of all few problems every get resolved by the direct approach. Often we find solutions to problems in places we were never expecting to find them. The space program has often been cited as such an example since many earthbound problems were solved through research done to launch people into space. Even when space research doesn't lead directly to earthly solutions it provides the inspiration to many of the kids who go into science and engineering fields and many of them go on to solve problems right here on earth. If it weren't for the space program I might not be a doctor today. These are the sort of things that fire kids imaginations. Of course there is always the fact that we will never solve all of our problems here on earth. As pessimistic as that may sound its an indisputable fact. Throwing more money and talent at the same old problems eventually runs in to the laws of diminishing returns. And there will always be that segment of society that is homicidal, suicidal, selfish , ego maniacal,or otherwise antisocial no matter what we do. If that is the criteria we have to meet before looking beyond earth then we will never look beyond our own mundane daily lives. It comes down to limited resources. If you have only a certain anount of discretionary income do you spend it on your house that needs maintenemce, your kids' education, your parents who might need help or an ailing child, or do you spend it instead on "looking beyond" your own mundane life in case there is something "out there" that is more interesting to contemplate and let the chips fall where they may? Just asking. Lois Lois
It seems a possible extra-galactic signal has been detected. http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.05245v2Is that the 10,000th? LL
It comes down to limited resources. If you have only a certain anount of discretionary income do you spend it on your house that needs maintenemce, your kids' education, your parents who might need help or an ailing child, or do you spend it instead on "looking beyond" your own mundane life in case there is something "out there" that is more interesting to contemplate and let the chips fall where they may? Just asking. Lois LoisThe problem is where do you draw the line? There are always limited resources. There will always be people in need and you could throw every resource we have at the problem and you wont solve it or even come close. You could use this argument to take money away form every item in our budget that isnt basic food, clothing, and shelter. It could be used to put an end to all art, literature, and music and anything else that isnt in the essential category. I would venture to guess we spend far more on those activities than we do on the space program. Aside from making the world a dreary place not worth living in this approach ignores the fact that these "non-essential" activities often give birth to things that make the biggest difference in our lives. If gentleman scientists hadn't used their leisure time in such a wasteful way no one would have every discovered the world of microbioogy that eventually lead to the germ theory, vaccines, antibiotics and aseptic technique that has saved millions if not billions of lives. These pursuits always seem frivolous until they don't. You can't just wake up one day and discover antibiotics without all the frivolous daydreaming that went on before it. We dont know what use space exploration may have but already the benefits have been huge. If people had questioned the utilitarian value of the first satellite which was nothing more than a basketball sending out a radio beep we wouldnt have satellites that can predict Hurricanes before they hit our homes or lend visual support and a wealth of data to tell us we are warming the climate. There are many practical applications of knowledge that was gained through apparently impractical activities and I cant go into them all here. Suffice it to say you cant wait until you need knowledge to go looking for it. Much of what we learn we learn by serendipity when we are searching for something else. The greater our knowledge of the universe we live in the better prepared we are to adapt to threats and to improve the lives of everyone. And aren't our lives made richer just by the knowledge of our place in the universe?
So maybe we should concentrate on the unsolved problems we have on earth right now instead of looking for more trouble. Does that sound like a good idea? Lois60% of the food consumed in the world today comes from crops which are native to the Americas. Had Columbus not set sail until there were no starving people in Europe, he'd still be at the docks. The sad fact is, we will never get people to agree to do the necessary things to solve the world's issues. We could slash the US defense budget in half, put that money towards things like homelessness, hunger, child poverty, education, and still have one of the largest defense budgets on the planet. Yet there's no way we could get people to agree to it, even though it would end homelessness, hunger, and child poverty. In terms of the overall US Federal budget, the $20 billion/yr NASA gets is a pittance. The amount NASA spends on SETI is minuscule, and much of the work SETI does is paid for by billionaire Paul Allen, or done by volunteers.] Still, the solar panel technology which NASA pioneered is now being used by aid agencies all over the globe. The portable medical gear they helped design for Skylab, the shuttle, and the ISS, now fill the backs of ambulances. You can argue that all these things could have been developed without NASA, but they weren't. And the reason why NASA developed them and not some other organization, because NASA saw a need for them, whereas everybody else was just accepting of things as they were. When the government first mandated that cars had to undergo crash tests, literally nobody had any idea of how safe the late 50s/early 60s model cars were. It just wasn't something that occurred to them to worry about. This is despite the fact that people being thrown from cars in an accident or getting speared by the steering column was a common occurrence. It took Ralph Nader complaining to get people to look at the issues and think, "Hey, we've got to solve this." We need to push boundaries because that's how we solve problems. Not by doing the same kinds of things over and over again.
So maybe we should concentrate on the unsolved problems we have on earth right now instead of looking for more trouble. Does that sound like a good idea? Lois60% of the food consumed in the world today comes from crops which are native to the Americas. Had Columbus not set sail until there were no starving people in Europe, he'd still be at the docks. Which would, of course, had been a great thing, for had Columbus nor anyone else from Europe set sail, then ninety percent of the native population of the so-called New World would not have been destroyed by the introduction of diseases to which the "American" natives had not evolved resistance. Then, of course, most of the remaining population were enslaved by the cruel conquistadors bearing crosses; they were branded on the face and forced to work in gold and silver mines until they dropped dead. The great ancient cities of Mesoamerica were razed, and the texts of ancient civilizations were consigned to the flames. So, yeah, it would have been a great idea if Columbus had stayed at the dock and minded his own damned business.
So maybe we should concentrate on the unsolved problems we have on earth right now instead of looking for more trouble. Does that sound like a good idea? Lois60% of the food consumed in the world today comes from crops which are native to the Americas. Had Columbus not set sail until there were no starving people in Europe, he'd still be at the docks. Which would, of course, had been a great thing, for had Columbus nor anyone else from Europe set sail, then ninety percent of the native population of the so-called New World would not have been destroyed by the introduction of diseases to which the "American" natives had not evolved resistance. Then, of course, most of the remaining population were enslaved by the cruel conquistadors bearing crosses; they were branded on the face and forced to work in gold and silver mines until they dropped dead. The great ancient cities of Mesoamerica were razed, and the texts of ancient civilizations were consigned to the flames. So, yeah, it would have been a great idea if Columbus had stayed at the dock and minded his own damned business. Excellent point!
It comes down to limited resources. If you have only a certain anount of discretionary income do you spend it on your house that needs maintenemce, your kids' education, your parents who might need help or an ailing child, or do you spend it instead on "looking beyond" your own mundane life in case there is something "out there" that is more interesting to contemplate and let the chips fall where they may? Just asking. Lois LoisThe problem is where do you draw the line? There are always limited resources. There will always be people in need and you could throw every resource we have at the problem and you wont solve it or even come close. You could use this argument to take money away form every item in our budget that isnt basic food, clothing, and shelter. It could be used to put an end to all art, literature, and music and anything else that isnt in the essential category. I would venture to guess we spend far more on those activities than we do on the space program. Aside from making the world a dreary place not worth living in this approach ignores the fact that these "non-essential" activities often give birth to things that make the biggest difference in our lives. If gentleman scientists hadn't used their leisure time in such a wasteful way no one would have every discovered the world of microbioogy that eventually lead to the germ theory, vaccines, antibiotics and aseptic technique that has saved millions if not billions of lives. These pursuits always seem frivolous until they don't. You can't just wake up one day and discover antibiotics without all the frivolous daydreaming that went on before it. We dont know what use space exploration may have but already the benefits have been huge. If people had questioned the utilitarian value of the first satellite which was nothing more than a basketball sending out a radio beep we wouldnt have satellites that can predict Hurricanes before they hit our homes or lend visual support and a wealth of data to tell us we are warming the climate. There are many practical applications of knowledge that was gained through apparently impractical activities and I cant go into them all here. Suffice it to say you cant wait until you need knowledge to go looking for it. Much of what we learn we learn by serendipity when we are searching for something else. The greater our knowledge of the universe we live in the better prepared we are to adapt to threats and to improve the lives of everyone. And aren't our lives made richer just by the knowledge of our place in the universe? It's a matterof degree. I never said we should stop all such investigations, just that we should do it sensibly and with an eye on real problems already on our doorstep that are killing and maiming people. You know, something like triage. Lois
And you know, there’s precedent for this. Before Columbus, the Chinese had a mighty nation and a great navy. They could have sailed the Pacific and “discovered” “America” before the Europeans did. Who knows how that would have worked out? It’s quite possible that the Chinese, unburdened by vile Christianity, would have intermingled peacefully with the natives; maybe also they would not have carried fatal diseases to which the natives were susceptible.
In any case, they didn’t do it. They docked their navy and minded their own damned business. Good for them!
And you know, there's precedent for this. Before Columbus, the Chinese had a mighty nation and a great navy. They could have sailed the Pacific and "discovered" "America" before the Europeans did. Who knows how that would have worked out? It's quite possible that the Chinese, unburdened by vile Christianity, would have intermingled peacefully with the natives; maybe also they would not have carried fatal diseases to which the natives were susceptible. In any case, they didn't do it. They docked their navy and minded their own damned business. Good for them!Instead, they decided to adopt things like tiger testicles and rhino horns as medicine, to march armies through much of Asia, and spend over two hundred years locked in a civil war which was as bloody an horrific as anything wrought by the Europeans on the Americas. Not to mention foot binding, which crippled millions of women. No nation, no society on this Earth has unbloodied hands. Had the Americans set sail for Europe or Asia, even if they had been greeted as equals, they still would have wound up being decimated by disease, because it wouldn't be until some 400 years later that humanity began to get an inkling of germs, and how to prevent their transmission. Indeed, without the discovery of America, it might not have happened in the 19th century that humanity began to understand what caused disease. Knowledge doesn't exist in a vacuum, and it is often complex, seemingly unrelated concepts bumping into one another that lead to new ideas, new knowledge, and new technology. North Korea has isolated itself from most of the rest of the planet, and I don't think anyone would call them a model of compassion.
It's a matterof degree. I never said we should stop all such investigations, just that we should do it sensibly and with an eye on real problems already on our doorstep that are killing and maiming people. You know, something like triage. LoisIsn't that what we are already doing? NASA makes up only about 1/2 of 1% of the U.S. budget. That's a pretty small amount compared to the huge sums we waste on a lot of other things that do far less good.
The thing is, you do what you can. We don’t have the social and political and (therefore) economic competence to make sure that everyone in the world is properly nourished, has healthcare and education, and is safe from abuse and exploitation, and that our planet’s ecosystem is secured. We do have the means to make new discoveries. And we damn well better do so. Because that is the best hope that we have for any of those things to be supported.