Not to rain on anyone's parade but it's probably about a methane signature somewhere, or discovery of a nice and cozy thermal vent on mars. I'm of course hoping for Bibbel though.
It'll be fossilized micro organism in a meteorite. BORING...... I want spaceships n shit.
!
Your probably thinking too big. Considering how long we have been searching ANY news would be big news. Its probably just trace amounts of "something" that implies "something" else.
NASA has a duty to make noise about anything and everything, else they lose all their funding from lack of public interest. The search for ET makes for great PR sure whatever it is, although mundane, will be hyped as much as possible, and then re-hyped and spun by the science illiterate media.
Sigh, at least it will be fun to watch things get out of hand.
It'll be fosilised micro oganism in a meteorite. BORING...... I want spaceships n shit.
I feel you're right on the money.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed though that it's something way bigger than just fossilized bacteria. Although, this would proof life outside our planet, right? Which is a good start, but I already believe that there is definitely life out there.
Well, here's the thing. I would like to believe there are aliens. But I'm the type that doesn't believe anything. So, being scientific about it, I have to assume there aren't any because there isn't any evidence. The X-Files doesn't count.
Not only that, but every year that goes by where people are looking into space and seeing nothing, while at the same time we're not being contacted by an alien civilization, is further proof that there aren't any aliens out there, and we're alone.
Just like having no evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist is no proof that it does exist, so does having no evidence that aliens don't exist no proof that they do. So if we wanna be objective about it, we have to say that, for the time being, we're alone in the universe.
So... if Nasa comes up with evidence that there's fosilised micro organism in a meteorite, it will be the definite proof that we're not alone. That alone is worth getting really excited over.
So... if Nasa comes up with evidence that there's fosilised micro organism in a meteorite, it will be the definite proof that we're not alone. That alone is worth getting really excited over.
Correction: it will lead to years of wrangling, arguing, and accusations of fraud until such time as more samples can be found.
I guess "they" got a hold of Jon Stewart's book, Earth. It's written to whoever finds this rock after we're done with it. It's a really quick listen, and really funny, if you like Jon Stewart. They probably want to get a signed copy before the impending doom of humankind.
I heard a theory once. Might have been in a film or maybe Bill hicks quoted it or something. But I think it originated from a scientific mind. I'd like to find the source if anyone knows it. It goes something like this.
NOTE: This quote doesnt really make sense cause I cant remember it properely. But you get the guist.
"If 1% of all the galaxies has life in it and if only 1% of all the solar systems in those galaxies has life in it and if only 1% of all the planets in those solar systems has life on it. That still means there are Millions and Millions of planets with life on them"
I'm a firm believer that its ridiculous to think we are the only living things in the universe. And surely we arent the most intelligent thats for sure.
Not only that, but every year that goes by where people are looking into space and seeing nothing, while at the same time we're not being contacted by an alien civilization, is further proof that there aren't any aliens out there, and we're alone.
Actually, this is a lack of proof. That's an entirely different beast than proof that aliens don't exist. And honestly, just playing the statistics game, it's actually much more likely that aliens do exist than don't.
It's been shown that amino acids and other organic molecules can form under pretty rough conditions and the abundance of different forms of life on Earth shows that life is possible almost anywhere you look, from arctic wastelands to volcanic undersea vents. Considering that there are literally trillions of stars and that many or possibly even most have one or more planets orbiting them, I'd say it's a good bet that there is a huge amount of extraterrestrial life out there. The real questions are how advanced they are and how we might be able to communicate with them once we actually contact them.
Actually, this is a lack of proof. That's an entirely different beast than proof that aliens don't exist. And honestly, just playing the statistics game, it's actually much more likely that aliens do exist than don't.
It's been shown that amino acids and other organic molecules can form under pretty rough conditions and the abundance of different forms of life on Earth shows that life is possible almost anywhere you look, from arctic wastelands to volcanic undersea vents. Considering that there are literally trillions of stars and that many or possibly even most have one or more planets orbiting them, I'd say it's a good bet that there is a huge amount of extraterrestrial life out there. The real questions are how advanced they are and how we might be able to communicate with them once we actually contact them.
Yeah, hypothetically. The point is that hypothetically speaking, there could be a flying spaghetti monster. The lack of evidence that there isn't one isn't evidence in and of itself that it exists.
Don't get me wrong, I do believe that statistically speaking there just has to be life out there. But I'm just trying to stay objective.
Oh, and my thought process behind every year without proof is proof that they don't exist, is my logic that it's impossible for two civilizations to co-exist without interacting at some point in time. I really do think that if intelligent life existed, and ran across us, they'd make contact even by accident. So as time goes by and there's none of that, it could be interpreted that there's no one out there.
Just like if you get stranded on an island somewhere, the longer it goes without you being rescued, the more likely it is that nobody is looking for you. Only in this case, that there's nobody there to do the looking.
Ooh. Hang about. It might be something a bit more exciting than micro organisms but less exciting than tentacled slime aliens.
It could well be a radio/microwave signal. And we might have to create a huge gyroscope. Just a warning, if it does turn out to be this. Stick to the plans eh...no fancy recaro seat in it or anything.
But yeah, the probability of us being entirely alone in the universe is excessively minute. So is the probability of them being anything close to what we imagine..
If there are more stars in the universe than grains of sand on every beach on this planet, and each of those stars has anywhere from a few to more than the amount of planets our solar system has. Your telling me that we're the only life here?
No, I'm saying it's possible. And if we are to be objective about it, we need to keep an open mind to all possibilities, including that one.
Like Sherlock Holmes (or Data) says:
"when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
That's not to say that we've eliminated anything. But as time goes on, even the improbable can become the truth.
"It is known that there is an infinite number of worlds, but that not every one is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite nuber of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so if every planet in the Universe has a populations of zero then the entire population of the Universe must also be zero, and any people you may actually meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination. "
I just really doubt our government would allow the announcement of any kind of extraterrestrial life forms being found, be it just micro organisms or not.
But on the subject of "habitable planets", all theories about what could be a habitable planet is completely based our understanding of what is habitable to us. The elements and temperatures/proximity to a sun we have on earth is generally the basis for what scientists believe would make a planet a habitable candidate. This is a foolish way to look at things as we have no idea if there are other life forms if they are bound by the same laws/rules we are constrained to here on Earth.
I just really doubt our government would allow the announcement of any kind of extraterrestrial life forms being found, be it just micro organisms or not.
"Today, rock 84001 speaks to us across all those billions of years and millions of miles. It speaks of the possibility of life. If this discovery is confirmed, it will surely be one of the most stunning insights into our universe that science has ever uncovered. Its implications are as far-reaching and awe-inspiring as can be imagined. Even as it promises answers to some of our oldest questions, it poses still others even more fundamental." - Bill Clinton on the Allan Hills 84001 meteorite
Watch between 21:00 - 46:00, they have an interesting discussion on intelligent life. You should watch the whole thing though these guys are awesome to listen to.
Who are we to say we are an intelligent species.
I doubt that intelligent life from outside Earth would contact us. We are simply too violent overall (wars, nukes, etc...). They'll probably wait until we've proven that we can coexist with ourselves before being invited to the rest of the party.
What could the big announcement be? Chances are it has something to do with the recent discovery by the NASA-led international Cassini-Huygens mission of a tentative atmosphere containing both oxygen and carbon dioxide on the surface of Saturn's moon Rhea.
The oxygen in Rhea's atmosphere is five trillion times less dense than that of Earth, and the surface of the moon is far too cold to support life as we know it. That doesn't rule out life as we don't know it.
Participating in the press conference will be NASA astrobiology program head Mary Voytek; NASA astrobiology research fellow Felisa Wolfe-Simon; NASA astrobiologist Pamela Conrad; Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution fellow Steven Benner; and Arizona State University professor James Elser, whose research involves biological stoichiometry, the study of balance of energy and multiple chemical elements in living systems. That's not a group you gather together just to look at pretty space rocks.
So what does NASA have up its sleeve? The conference will be streamed online on Thursday at http://www.nasa.gov/. Until then, let the speculation fly!
I think if there is the type of species out there who have mastered interstellar travel they would never contact us like ben apuna said. we are just bareley evolved half retarded apes, we like to think we are superior but mankind is probably more perceivable as a virus than anything beneficial to the universe.
looking at how speices like the dinosaurs and sharks and crocodiles etc have been on the earth for hundreds of millions of years, humanity has only been around for a blink of an eye in the scheme of things. I love how we like to think we are so superior but really a lot of it is just pure arrogance. if there was a race out there that has been around for say 50 million years or so, to them we would probably either have nothing to contribute or seem like a baby. thats my [pessimistic view on us as a speices anyways, now for something lighter
Yeah, hypothetically. The point is that hypothetically speaking, there could be a flying spaghetti monster. The lack of evidence that there isn't one isn't evidence in and of itself that it exists.
Don't get me wrong, I do believe that statistically speaking there just has to be life out there. But I'm just trying to stay objective.
Oh, and my thought process behind every year without proof is proof that they don't exist, is my logic that it's impossible for two civilizations to co-exist without interacting at some point in time. I really do think that if intelligent life existed, and ran across us, they'd make contact even by accident. So as time goes by and there's none of that, it could be interpreted that there's no one out there.
Just like if you get stranded on an island somewhere, the longer it goes without you being rescued, the more likely it is that nobody is looking for you. Only in this case, that there's nobody there to do the looking.
That kind of thinking doesn't work on this scale. You're operating on an almost infinitesimally small sample size (what humans have seen of the universe in a few thousand years of recorded history) and drawing conclusions that are too large.
If we flipping it around, there is life in every single solar system that humankind has ever explored. That's because we've explored exactly one solar system. Since our one example of a solar system shows that life exists, there is nothing to suggest other systems are lifeless. Looking at it that way, there's more evidence that other solar systems will have life (1 system confirmed) than that they won't (0 systems confirmed.)
Obviously, the one example we have isn't enough to draw any conclusions. We just don't have enough evidence, pro or con. It would be like watching a rookie hitter strike out four times in his first baseball game and declaring he'll never get a hit in his entire career. Statistically that's possibly, but it's extremely unlikely - he has hundreds, maybe thousands of more games in his career to try. We just can't look at an incredibly small samples and draw large conclusions. When you figure the universe is about 13 billion years old and we've been civilized, scientific creatures for a few thousand... Great alien civilizations may have risen, fallen and returned to dust before the Earth even formed. We've been here so short a time and explored so little, that what we haven't seen isn't representative of anything.
That kind of thinking doesn't work on this scale. You're operating on an almost infinitesimally small sample size (what humans have seen of the universe in a few thousand years of recorded history) and drawing conclusions that are too large.
If we flipping it around, there is life in every single solar system that humankind has ever explored. That's because we've explored exactly one solar system. Since our one example of a solar system shows that life exists, there is nothing to suggest other systems are lifeless. Looking at it that way, there's more evidence that other solar systems will have life (1 system confirmed) than that they won't (0 systems confirmed.)
Obviously, the one example we have isn't enough to draw any conclusions. We just don't have enough evidence, pro or con. It would be like watching a rookie hitter strike out four times in his first baseball game and declaring he'll never get a hit in his entire career. Statistically that's possibly, but it's extremely unlikely - he has hundreds, maybe thousands of more games in his career to try. We just can't look at an incredibly small samples and draw large conclusions. When you figure the universe is about 13 billion years old and we've been civilized, scientific creatures for a few thousand... Great alien civilizations may have risen, fallen and returned to dust before the Earth even formed. We've been here so short a time and explored so little, that what we haven't seen isn't representative of anything.
That's basically what Neil deGrasse Tyson(astrophysicist) has been saying for years. If the difference between chimpanzees and humans is a bout 2%. Then imagine a alien species that's 2% different then us. To aliens we would be nothing more then infants maybe less. A highly intelligent race probably wouldn't even entertain the notion of communicating with us.
That's basically what Neil deGrasse Tyson(astrophysicist) has been saying for years. If the difference between chimpanzees and humans is a bout 2%. Then imagine a alien species that's 2% different then us. To aliens we would be nothing more then infants maybe less. A highly intelligent race probably wouldn't even entertain the notion of communicating with us.
But that argument defeats its own purpose.
It would make sense if we were talking about a universe that had two races only. Us, and a race 2% different than us that's so advanced they wouldn't be interested.
But it seems pretty clear to me that if there is intelligent life out there, it won't be just us and them. There will be lots and lots of alien societies, or none at all other than us. In which case, just like how the 2%-advanced race doesn't care about us, we shouldn't care about them. It should be more about the other races that are not all that different from us.
We should be interested in finding Vulcans, not the Q. And let's pray we never find any Borg.
Well in the trek cannon, it turns out we made the Borg by sending out Voyager in the first place
I know there's life out there, it's that simple. I don't think NASA's announcement will be concerning any intelligent ET life, but perhaps organisms living on other planets in our system. It's a good step
It would make sense if we were talking about a universe that had two races only. Us, and a race 2% different than us that's so advanced they wouldn't be interested.
But it seems pretty clear to me that if there is intelligent life out there, it won't be just us and them. There will be lots and lots of alien societies, or none at all other than us. In which case, just like how the 2%-advanced race doesn't care about us, we shouldn't care about them. It should be more about the other races that are not all that different from us.
We should be interested in finding Vulcans, not the Q. And let's pray we never find any Borg.
"But that argument defeats its own purpose." What in the world are you talking about? I never said anything about there only being 2 species in the universe. I was illustrating an example of how a highly intelligent species might look at us or not look at us.
As Neil deGrasse Tyson said in the video I posted. How would we even recognize a highly intelligent species. In our everyday life we don't walk around wondering a worm is thinking. At the same time a worm doesn't realize that we think we are intelligent. To a worm we're just blur that went by, maybe not even that.
My guess is they found some random moon, probably made mostly of ice, except some of it might've been melted underneath the surface, and there is resulting "space-algae". "Plant" life, or some sign thereof. No big deal.
Personally, while I think it highly likely there's other life out there, I feel relatively certain we'll never make contact with it. Not intelligent contact, anyway.
Anyone who'd take the time to bother with us is probably a dumbfuck, in which case I wouldn't see much point in dealing with them. I'm all about the wonders of the universe. I just don't think we're ready to try and understand intelligent alien life when we can't even understand how to take care of ourselves and our own planet. Recommending we go to space to try and reach and interact with alien life would be to me like recommending your 14 year old son take your car to go reach and interact with with downtown's hookers and drug addicts. ...lots of growing up to be done before we're ready for that, I think.
I just also like being able to mind my own business. Somehow I think intelligent aliens would complicate that for me.
"But that argument defeats its own purpose." What in the world are you talking about? I never said anything about there only being 2 species in the universe. I was illustrating an example of how a highly intelligent species might look at us or not look at us.
As Neil deGrasse Tyson said in the video I posted. How would we even recognize a highly intelligent species. In our everyday life we don't walk around wondering a worm is thinking. At the same time a worm doesn't realize that we think we are intelligent. To a worm we're just blur that went by, maybe not even that.
And I didn't say that you said that...
We're talking about encountering alien life, or alien life encountering us. At which point some people (like Tyson) bring up the argument that the alien life we're looking for may be so advanced, that they'll not only want nothing to do with us, but may not even notice us.
But we're not really looking for that type of alien are we? So the argument defeats itself. Its purpose is to show a possible futility in looking for alien life, but it just doesn't apply to the type of life it's describing.
It's like saying "If we were looking for something that we're not looking for, we wouldn't find it". Well, yeah, cause we're not looking for it...
Replies
[ame]
So assuming it's some kind of plant-life or something, the next question naturally is: What does it taste like?
I'm sure someone will cook it, and I don't mind trying an alien-burger.
I WANT OFF THIS ROCK! Even if it means slavery on some god forsaken mining asteroid in the gamma quadrant. It'll still be cool as f*&^!
Your probably thinking too big. Considering how long we have been searching ANY news would be big news. Its probably just trace amounts of "something" that implies "something" else.
NASA has a duty to make noise about anything and everything, else they lose all their funding from lack of public interest. The search for ET makes for great PR sure whatever it is, although mundane, will be hyped as much as possible, and then re-hyped and spun by the science illiterate media.
Sigh, at least it will be fun to watch things get out of hand.
I feel you're right on the money.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed though that it's something way bigger than just fossilized bacteria. Although, this would proof life outside our planet, right? Which is a good start, but I already believe that there is definitely life out there.
Anyways, I want to meet some god damn aliens!
Not only that, but every year that goes by where people are looking into space and seeing nothing, while at the same time we're not being contacted by an alien civilization, is further proof that there aren't any aliens out there, and we're alone.
Just like having no evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist is no proof that it does exist, so does having no evidence that aliens don't exist no proof that they do. So if we wanna be objective about it, we have to say that, for the time being, we're alone in the universe.
So... if Nasa comes up with evidence that there's fosilised micro organism in a meteorite, it will be the definite proof that we're not alone. That alone is worth getting really excited over.
Do they want to meet you? ;P
Anyway. I think vig is correct. To much money needed in weapon research
Not possible. The prime directive explicitly prohibits this.
Correction: it will lead to years of wrangling, arguing, and accusations of fraud until such time as more samples can be found.
That reminded me of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Hills_84001
Which I think is going to be similar to what NASA has to show us on Thursday.
NOTE: This quote doesnt really make sense cause I cant remember it properely. But you get the guist.
"If 1% of all the galaxies has life in it and if only 1% of all the solar systems in those galaxies has life in it and if only 1% of all the planets in those solar systems has life on it. That still means there are Millions and Millions of planets with life on them"
I'm a firm believer that its ridiculous to think we are the only living things in the universe. And surely we arent the most intelligent thats for sure.
Actually, this is a lack of proof. That's an entirely different beast than proof that aliens don't exist. And honestly, just playing the statistics game, it's actually much more likely that aliens do exist than don't.
It's been shown that amino acids and other organic molecules can form under pretty rough conditions and the abundance of different forms of life on Earth shows that life is possible almost anywhere you look, from arctic wastelands to volcanic undersea vents. Considering that there are literally trillions of stars and that many or possibly even most have one or more planets orbiting them, I'd say it's a good bet that there is a huge amount of extraterrestrial life out there. The real questions are how advanced they are and how we might be able to communicate with them once we actually contact them.
Jean Michelle Jarre did a great job in close encounters. That or Maths.
Anyway. Hopefully they'll bring some universal translators with them. Mine's on the blink
Yeah, hypothetically. The point is that hypothetically speaking, there could be a flying spaghetti monster. The lack of evidence that there isn't one isn't evidence in and of itself that it exists.
Don't get me wrong, I do believe that statistically speaking there just has to be life out there. But I'm just trying to stay objective.
Oh, and my thought process behind every year without proof is proof that they don't exist, is my logic that it's impossible for two civilizations to co-exist without interacting at some point in time. I really do think that if intelligent life existed, and ran across us, they'd make contact even by accident. So as time goes by and there's none of that, it could be interpreted that there's no one out there.
Just like if you get stranded on an island somewhere, the longer it goes without you being rescued, the more likely it is that nobody is looking for you. Only in this case, that there's nobody there to do the looking.
It could well be a radio/microwave signal. And we might have to create a huge gyroscope. Just a warning, if it does turn out to be this. Stick to the plans eh...no fancy recaro seat in it or anything.
But yeah, the probability of us being entirely alone in the universe is excessively minute. So is the probability of them being anything close to what we imagine..
No, I'm saying it's possible. And if we are to be objective about it, we need to keep an open mind to all possibilities, including that one.
Like Sherlock Holmes (or Data) says:
"when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
That's not to say that we've eliminated anything. But as time goes on, even the improbable can become the truth.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047573/
But finding signs of alien life basic as it will be would be much cooler.
-Douglas Adams
But on the subject of "habitable planets", all theories about what could be a habitable planet is completely based our understanding of what is habitable to us. The elements and temperatures/proximity to a sun we have on earth is generally the basis for what scientists believe would make a planet a habitable candidate. This is a foolish way to look at things as we have no idea if there are other life forms if they are bound by the same laws/rules we are constrained to here on Earth.
ORLY? LINK
"Today, rock 84001 speaks to us across all those billions of years and millions of miles. It speaks of the possibility of life. If this discovery is confirmed, it will surely be one of the most stunning insights into our universe that science has ever uncovered. Its implications are as far-reaching and awe-inspiring as can be imagined. Even as it promises answers to some of our oldest questions, it poses still others even more fundamental." - Bill Clinton on the Allan Hills 84001 meteorite
Who are we to say we are an intelligent species.
The Poetry of Science Richard Dawkins and Neil deGrasse Tyson
[ame]
The oxygen in Rhea's atmosphere is five trillion times less dense than that of Earth, and the surface of the moon is far too cold to support life as we know it. That doesn't rule out life as we don't know it.
Participating in the press conference will be NASA astrobiology program head Mary Voytek; NASA astrobiology research fellow Felisa Wolfe-Simon; NASA astrobiologist Pamela Conrad; Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution fellow Steven Benner; and Arizona State University professor James Elser, whose research involves biological stoichiometry, the study of balance of energy and multiple chemical elements in living systems. That's not a group you gather together just to look at pretty space rocks.
So what does NASA have up its sleeve? The conference will be streamed online on Thursday at http://www.nasa.gov/. Until then, let the speculation fly!
If not they can go fuck themselves.
looking at how speices like the dinosaurs and sharks and crocodiles etc have been on the earth for hundreds of millions of years, humanity has only been around for a blink of an eye in the scheme of things. I love how we like to think we are so superior but really a lot of it is just pure arrogance. if there was a race out there that has been around for say 50 million years or so, to them we would probably either have nothing to contribute or seem like a baby. thats my [pessimistic view on us as a speices anyways, now for something lighter
[ame]
That kind of thinking doesn't work on this scale. You're operating on an almost infinitesimally small sample size (what humans have seen of the universe in a few thousand years of recorded history) and drawing conclusions that are too large.
If we flipping it around, there is life in every single solar system that humankind has ever explored. That's because we've explored exactly one solar system. Since our one example of a solar system shows that life exists, there is nothing to suggest other systems are lifeless. Looking at it that way, there's more evidence that other solar systems will have life (1 system confirmed) than that they won't (0 systems confirmed.)
Obviously, the one example we have isn't enough to draw any conclusions. We just don't have enough evidence, pro or con. It would be like watching a rookie hitter strike out four times in his first baseball game and declaring he'll never get a hit in his entire career. Statistically that's possibly, but it's extremely unlikely - he has hundreds, maybe thousands of more games in his career to try. We just can't look at an incredibly small samples and draw large conclusions. When you figure the universe is about 13 billion years old and we've been civilized, scientific creatures for a few thousand... Great alien civilizations may have risen, fallen and returned to dust before the Earth even formed. We've been here so short a time and explored so little, that what we haven't seen isn't representative of anything.
I'm not drawing any conclusions. I'm just saying it's possible, that's all.
That's basically what Neil deGrasse Tyson(astrophysicist) has been saying for years. If the difference between chimpanzees and humans is a bout 2%. Then imagine a alien species that's 2% different then us. To aliens we would be nothing more then infants maybe less. A highly intelligent race probably wouldn't even entertain the notion of communicating with us.
But that argument defeats its own purpose.
It would make sense if we were talking about a universe that had two races only. Us, and a race 2% different than us that's so advanced they wouldn't be interested.
But it seems pretty clear to me that if there is intelligent life out there, it won't be just us and them. There will be lots and lots of alien societies, or none at all other than us. In which case, just like how the 2%-advanced race doesn't care about us, we shouldn't care about them. It should be more about the other races that are not all that different from us.
We should be interested in finding Vulcans, not the Q. And let's pray we never find any Borg.
Well in the trek cannon, it turns out we made the Borg by sending out Voyager in the first place
I know there's life out there, it's that simple. I don't think NASA's announcement will be concerning any intelligent ET life, but perhaps organisms living on other planets in our system. It's a good step
"But that argument defeats its own purpose." What in the world are you talking about? I never said anything about there only being 2 species in the universe. I was illustrating an example of how a highly intelligent species might look at us or not look at us.
As Neil deGrasse Tyson said in the video I posted. How would we even recognize a highly intelligent species. In our everyday life we don't walk around wondering a worm is thinking. At the same time a worm doesn't realize that we think we are intelligent. To a worm we're just blur that went by, maybe not even that.
Personally, while I think it highly likely there's other life out there, I feel relatively certain we'll never make contact with it. Not intelligent contact, anyway.
Anyone who'd take the time to bother with us is probably a dumbfuck, in which case I wouldn't see much point in dealing with them. I'm all about the wonders of the universe. I just don't think we're ready to try and understand intelligent alien life when we can't even understand how to take care of ourselves and our own planet. Recommending we go to space to try and reach and interact with alien life would be to me like recommending your 14 year old son take your car to go reach and interact with with downtown's hookers and drug addicts. ...lots of growing up to be done before we're ready for that, I think.
I just also like being able to mind my own business. Somehow I think intelligent aliens would complicate that for me.
And I didn't say that you said that...
We're talking about encountering alien life, or alien life encountering us. At which point some people (like Tyson) bring up the argument that the alien life we're looking for may be so advanced, that they'll not only want nothing to do with us, but may not even notice us.
But we're not really looking for that type of alien are we? So the argument defeats itself. Its purpose is to show a possible futility in looking for alien life, but it just doesn't apply to the type of life it's describing.
It's like saying "If we were looking for something that we're not looking for, we wouldn't find it". Well, yeah, cause we're not looking for it...