the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU9iJB0ATpk

See #4 about dna

Nice video , which is answering the questions asked by itself
Steve,
However, my idea from very beginning of the thread is, that we /Earth in general/ can be kinda of >pit stop< for someone more advanced in exploring the space/dimensions, than we are.
BUT
I do not stretch this idea to the point were :
we are the evolution results of the aliens shit left by the accident, millions years ago...

But on the other hand...
10 opposing reasons also put forward by the thoughtful Mr Godier:

Sure. There are lots of possibilities, including time lords, Asgardians, and other types of beings who do not need to conform to the physics that humans must. But, my point has been that if they are like us, it's possible to give reasons why they are not traveling between galaxies. Yep, if they live for thousands of years, then trips lasting hundreds of years might not bother them. Maybe they don't die at all. Maybe they don't have bodies. Maybe they are machines or even planets. Shucks, I could give plenty of possible aliens by listing Star Trek episodes.

Everything is in the realm of the imagination, so I stick to thinking about the subject from the human pov. I.e., aliens would need the same type of things and be limited by the same factors that limit humans. We cannot even survive on any other object in our solar system, and much of the earth, without external protection. That's probably true for other forms of life.

Recently on Swedish news(because it’s election times I guess)there was a story about a member of the Green-party who was asked to leave the party because he is affiliated with “Raelism” who believe in the ancient alien visiting earth theory...So I looked up a little about Raelism. One thing that sect put forward is we can achieve eternal life - cloning ourselves! simple as that......So that could be it for human longtime space travels? if we not sending out whole colonies so maybe a small crew that can clone themselves or with a bunch of cryo-frozen clones ?

Yes, it's possible for humans to colonize "space" --if not a planet-- right now. If fuel considerations are eliminated, all that matters is life support. Well, that's still a tall order because it would require energy for food production, medical treatment, and simple repairs necessary for maintaining the environment. And, we'd have to find out what the inevitable effects of cosmic radiation would have on our dna.

Ya know, right now, it'd be possible to create a spacecraft that could reach half the speed of light or faster. All it takes is enough hydrogen bombs. It'd mean sequentially detonating nukes in space. Well, ok, stopping would still be a problem. Newton's laws are a b..ch. It's all theoretically practicable to move humans to the outskirts of the solar system in a lifetime.

If evolutionary development to intelligent life with technology is inevitable, then we can seed the galaxy with life today. We don't have to send humans anywhere to save the species --if that's the operating premise. We can send bacteria. Of course, we can't really know whether those bacteria will evolve into dinosaurs, and that a meteor strike will kill them off so that little mammals could emerge to dominate. Lots of big and little accidents needed, but we know it ain't impossible.

I'm always struck by the argument of inevitability. The universe is so vast that people say there must be somewhere in it where the exact same things have occurred. So, there must be a RSF somewhere else in the universe, and some Steve writing this at exactly the same time I am. Ok, I get the idea of quantum entanglement. But, I'd go more with the idea that this may be an inter-dimensional phenomenon. I.e., there's only one me in this dimension (or time space continuum). However, my point is that why --in an "infinite" universe-- we (or I) would have only one twin? Why not 50?

Sorry for the sidetrack. I think we could save the species already, but we're too greedy and self-centered. Technology offers solutions, but it's far more likely that we'll use it to destroy the best place in the universe for us or each other. What may keep us here is simply human nature. It's how we can imagine Klingons and Borgs. It's why there are weapons on all our movie space ships. My favorite alien film is "The Day the Earth Stood Still." It might take some aliens to force humans to cooperate with each other --for the sake of the other life on the planet, and maybe even for life in general.

So, as in the second video, maybe there are aliens who are trying to hold us back as well as help us? Vulcans might conclude that eradicating us was logical. Klingons would see us as weaklings. The Borg would say "assimilate or die" and "resistance is futile." They all sound extreme until we recognize that they are just reflections of human societies. Otoh, maybe the only highly technological societies that survive are the ones that manage to control their environment to the point where it is a self-sustaining paradise that is unnecessary to leave.

Now,
I`m starting to think, that our main multidimensional problem is the Ego

Steve James wrote:y
maybe the only highly technological societies that survive are the ones that manage to control their environment to the point where it is a self-sustaining paradise that is unnecessary to leave.

Except for our inborn curiosity to go where no man has never gone before. Maybe we need to look for other places to settle either way whether we manage to make the planet an ecologically Haven(almost no pollution) or not. How about a growing population how will we manage that, can the earth take that in a couple of hundred years ?

Nice reflections in your last contribution, Steve. And the others, too.

There are two main themes/ideas in this thread and I think it's useful to keep them more or less separate:

1. Is there any evidence that can seriously lead one to think/suspect that our planet has actually been visited by intelligent alien life-forms in the past? Such as various 'mysterious' archaeological sites.

2. General speculation and consideration of what aliens might be, might act with regard to us; and how we as a potentially space-going species might act towards ourselves and other forms of alien life.

Personally I find Theme 2 quite fun and it offers lots of room for creativity and thinking through issues. Theme 1 is only moderately interesting to me and, once again, we have to let Occam's razor pass over the field of play first. After that we can see if anything of note remains. Anyone who considers alien intervention on our planet without first applying this phase is IMO in cloud-cuckoo land.

Personally i find theme 1&2 equally interesting. Number one probably because the geek in me like and believe in that topic. Number two probably also because the geek in me, and also that geeks at NASA and similar most probably/certainly pushing us closer to extraterrestrial life, and when they/we find we might find out much more about our own distant past....it’s geekingly interesting

Yes, Ego is our problem because along with it comes jealousy, greed, envy: i.e, human nature.

Aliens who were intelligent enough to get here might not want to have anything to do with us. It's not about tree-hugging. It's about the fact that any alien observer would see that our species kills each other as a matter of course, for one thing. Worse, however, it feels free to destroy the other 98% of Life (i.e., any and every biological thing and species) for its benefit. And, even that benefit is not for the species, but for individuals.

What about over population? In this country, there are individuals who own land masses the size of small countries. What happens with over-population? Either people share or they make war. Aw, maybe we can eliminate option one. This species is not that old, but it is increasingly more self-destructive. Yep, because of ego. Yep, it may be natural. My point is what this means for the ability of any species to travel beyond its planetary (celestial) boundary. But, it's based on what we know about human beings.

For ex., technology, right now there may be a war because a country (people) disliked by another country (people) may get the capability of developing a weapon that makes them more equal. All the players belong to the same species, of course. So, no reason to believe that competitors on Earth will just remain competitors elsewhere. That whatever is "discovered" will not be shared. This will inevitably slow technological development. Oh, competition does speed development. War leads to a lot of innovation. We've become so innovated that we can destroy almost all the life on the planet. Whether we can survive long enough to develop the tech we'd like to be able to travel the stars is the first question. I'd argue that any species that manages that trick has avoided the fate of self-destruction. Then, the question is how we (or any species) can do it.

Once we figure that out, the tech is relatively easy. And, along the way, we'd probably figure out how not to destroy the Earth. There wouldn't be an over population problem. Yeah, a Malthusian can argue that it's a geometrical function of population growth. But, currently, populations are in decline in many countries --with war being a contributing factor in many. In parts of Europe and Asia, populations are going down, or not going up.

However, suppose it's true that the human race is running out of space (which was one of the reasons for WW2). Imo, anyone who thinks that going to Mars is any type of solution is being silly. Mars is a third the size of the Earth. Yet, humans occupy only part of one third of this planet. I.e., only part of the 30% of this planet that is dry land. Cities in the sea and in the air would certainly be possible for an advanced civilization, and I'm sure they would be much cheaper to build and support than sending a million (millionaires) to live on Mars. Frankly, I think we're more likely to use Mars as a prison colony, like Australia was.

Hmm, in the deep, we might even meet Cthulu. Think about it.

One of the more interesting questions on the video giving reasons that aliens might invade was the matter of religion. What if they thought they were on a mission to bring their beliefs to everyone in the universe. Scary. Then again, it's just more human projection (ego). But, I think they'd have to have an idea about where they came from. That'd be a mind blowing tale.

And since I believe in the number one theme, we maybe will find something here on earth(technology left behind) that with a giant leap take us upon close contact with extraterrestrial life/livable planets

Steve James wrote: Yeah, a Malthusian can argue that it's a geometrical and support than sending a million (millionaires) to live on Mars. Frankly, I think we're more likely to use Mars as a prison colony, like Australia was.
.

Yes that might be how it will begin on Mars, a prison colony.....Maybe Earth once where a paradise vacation resort for decadent wealthy ET’s, just accessible for the very few at the very top of the intergalactic elite they needed servants/caretakers and cloned forward some humans who eventually grew in numbers and took over, the ET’s left the planet to its own faith.

Yes, imo, Mars is no solution to population control, and to me it's more like banishment. But, it might be cool for the purely adventurous ... as an adventure, not to save the species.

The subject of saving the species also raises interesting questions about interstellar visitors. If we wanted to save the human race, really, it would take a lot of people. Diversity would be necessary, and that would require large numbers of people. Here's an article on the issue https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/ ... -16654747/

Basically, the suggestion is that interstellar travel even at great speed would require generational travelers. Maybe it'd be the same for other species, too.