Is SETI putting us in danger?
- Thread starter K.I.L.E.R
- Start date
Once we're advanced enough we're going to be the alien race conquering the galaxy. Other species will know us as the evil aliens.
SETI actually works in the exact opposite manner that you described. We're looking for others sending out signals, not sending them out ourselves. Unless you count radio & tv broadcasts as "sending out signals".
Thank you. I was just about to say that, unless aliens are quantum particles subject "action at a distance" they probably won't hear us "listening."
Chuck Norris.
Besides the fact that there are no alien races in existance known?
(and because of Chuck Norris and Jack Bauer, of course...)It will come to pass, it is inevitable...Actually, if you worry about aliens "hearing" us, well, it's already too late. Countless broadcast stations already send waves and waves of data into space, and we can't do anything about it since they travel at light speed
We've come pretty borderline close to wiping ourselves out before now so you gotta figure that any civilisation thats progressed beyond us technologically is at the very worst, no more violent than we are at the moment.
On the other hand they may have a completely differnt value system were they see they are completely peaceful within their own species but have no concern whatsoever for others.
I have a theory anyway that their aren't actually that many alien civilisations in our galaxy, at least not that we could interact with in any meaningful way.
You always hear the numbers about so many stars, so many planets, of whick x% should feature life etc... but none of that accounts for the timing of that life. Earth is what, 4 billion years old? and its had civilisation for what percentage of that?
0.00025%.
So take all the planets in the milky way that are likely to breed intelligent species. Now multiply that by 0.00025% and thats how civilisations there could be out there that have a level of development anywere between us today and us when we first started building mud huts. In fact even less as the galaxy is more than 4 billion years old.
There could be a similar number at the level of development between ourselves and where we could be in 10,000 years. In other words, meeting a civilisation that doesn't look upon us as we would look upon a bug might be impossible in this galaxy. Thats assuming we evolve far faster over the next 10,000 years than we did over the last which due to technological intervention, i'm certain we will (or die trying).
Yeah that math is completely flawed but its just to illustrate the point of how much timeframe effects the likelyhoof of us meeting a civilisation at our technilogical level, or even within a 1000 years of us.
On the other hand they may have a completely differnt value system were they see they are completely peaceful within their own species but have no concern whatsoever for others.
I have a theory anyway that their aren't actually that many alien civilisations in our galaxy, at least not that we could interact with in any meaningful way.
You always hear the numbers about so many stars, so many planets, of whick x% should feature life etc... but none of that accounts for the timing of that life. Earth is what, 4 billion years old? and its had civilisation for what percentage of that?
0.00025%.
So take all the planets in the milky way that are likely to breed intelligent species. Now multiply that by 0.00025% and thats how civilisations there could be out there that have a level of development anywere between us today and us when we first started building mud huts. In fact even less as the galaxy is more than 4 billion years old.
There could be a similar number at the level of development between ourselves and where we could be in 10,000 years. In other words, meeting a civilisation that doesn't look upon us as we would look upon a bug might be impossible in this galaxy. Thats assuming we evolve far faster over the next 10,000 years than we did over the last which due to technological intervention, i'm certain we will (or die trying).
Yeah that math is completely flawed but its just to illustrate the point of how much timeframe effects the likelyhoof of us meeting a civilisation at our technilogical level, or even within a 1000 years of us.
Yeah probably. Slightely drunk, and little effort really doesn't help with maths.
The natural way then yes, your probably right. But we have far quicker ways of doing it right now. And in the future (near future) they will expand hugely. Within 100 years I expect we will have complete control over our own genetic makeup. If we choose, within 300 years we could evolve ourselves via technology to a level that nature would have taken the next 10 million years to achieve.
I'm not suggesting we become the borg or anything, but rather that improvements to our genetic makeup can be made incrementally to evolve the species. I'm sure it will happen, market forces will drive it. Things like extended life, enhanced immune systems, possibly even enhanced physical and mental abilites will all we widely available.
Hell They will need to be. Within 50 years humans are no longer going to be the most intelligent sentient life forms on the planet - AI's will be. We are on the verge of making our own race obsolete, we need to upgrade to keep up, and the technology to do so is just around the corner. The AI's will probably help us invent it.
Oh great so it's the Technocore we have to worry about not aliens!
Oh great so it's the Technocore we have to worry about not aliens!
Well, yeah, pretty much
Seriously though, we should be far more worried about wiping ourselves out via war or runnaway technology than we should be conquering aliens....
Technology is a serious threat, AI's, runnaway nano technology, super viruses, WoMD..... any one of them is probably more likely to wipe us out than Aliens and that probably doesn't cover half the threats that we are creating for ourselves today.
Not that I protest against them though, I think the potential gains are worth the risk, we just have to tread very carefully.
Interesting, but I'm not at all I follow their logic. How did they determine these changes were advantageous? In fact, why the hell would any sort of change in the modern world have a greater chance over others? The means in which we keep people with "defects" alive means their changes will likely be spread just as much as advantageous ones. I can believe that humans genes are rapidly changing, but when I mentioned "evolution" I was talking specifically advantageous changes, and while the research might show for certain more rapid changes, I'm not sure how it concluded that changes are for the better. I think a lot of traditional thinking with human evolution doesn't apply to the modern world, such as advantageous changes having a greater chance of spreading over negative changes.
Cartoon Corpse
Veteran
Don't worry, i'll save you!
