like, what if, shortly after first contact, when we/they have learned to communicate with each other, and we started sharing our knowledge. they literally turned round to us and said like:
so this whole maths thing you've got going... you know how you have 9 numbers? and once you reach 10 it just repeats...
yeah you're doing that shit wrong.
imagine if they dropped a logic bombshell that just completely dicked over our entire way of thinking.
or "guys, 1+1 doesn't always equal 2", no one can possibly imagine the rules of math to be broken, they're quite universal.
I do expect someone to go "duh, zombie story authors have known it for ages" as a true zombie outbreak occurs, which does not scientifically add up.
Scientists are cool in this way though, instead of like the church going "ITS WRONG" they go "cool, we didn't know that!"
If there's no evidence though, scientists can be a bit logically-defensive though.
All they can do is issue a press release and, I dunno, maybe that will turn some of their faithful against you. Considering the intersection of Catholic and liberal in the United States, I don't think even that's a serious consideration.
I'm afraid they still have teeth and clout. Consider this as the opening salvo against the "liberal media" specifically the Pulbic Broadcasting act of 1967. Come next congressional cycle they'll be debating deep and meaningful cuts to the government. First on the chopping block? Corporation for Public Broadcasting, PBS, NPR and probably the Smithsonian. They're far too liberal for the next congress of which the church has heavily thrown their backing behind. By "far too liberal" I mean mostly sitting in the center being very careful not to swing either way. But when you swing so far to the right that center looks left I can see where the confusion crops up.
But they still have teeth and pull in Washington which effects the rest of us. They have teamed up with the conservative base in the past to get their agenda pushed into law.
Stem Cell ResearchThey helped Bush kill it dead but this is back on the plate after Obama flipped that switch back on, no doubt that pisses them off. It's like wack-a-mole. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops provides "guidance" to congress exactly like every other lobbying group and they're the most visible and pure of the lobbying groups deployed by the church.
The bishops' conference has "a unique role in this town,' said Monahan, "because first of all we're the largest religion--there are so many Catholics out there around the country. Next, the [politicians] do respect our kind of analyses of the moral dimensions of a lot of issues because that's the way they think, and that's the way they debate."
"Oh hello religion what are you doing meddling in affairs of the state?"
HIV/AIDS prevention in Africa was also heavily influenced by "abstinence only" politicking. There's even some deeper darker anti-gay politics going on in Africa with links back to US religious institutions.
So when you say "all you have to fear from their meddling is a few isolated nutters getting angry and blogging about it"... I have to disagree. They're still in there mucking things up, slowing things down and generally wrecking havoc in a system that was built to be separate from organizations of their type.
Like I said they haven't closed the issue or ever apologized for past transgressions, which if the had, would indicate that they no longer wanted to continue to meddle in politics or science. 600-400 years of scientific and political oppression, fine... it was a long time ago, no big thing, lets let it go. But they just tone down the tactics and update their methods for modern times... Same old church doing what it always does just with a new tactic.
I'm not trying to be anti Catholic even though it probably reads that way. I'm just not a fan of the covert and overt dealings of the church in politics and science. I don't agree with some of their top brass that they should use any means necessary to further the agenda of the faithful. Especially when there is a separation of church and state. They can try to reinterpret those lines of the Constitution but they're dead nuts wrong.
Why would any alien race with the technology capable of traveling to different star systems even want to communicate with us. Consider the history of our species and how irrational and violent we are. This goes back to a previous post I made about intelligence and how an alien race that is highly intelligent would not even consider communicating with us and also whether or not we, humans, could even recognize their intelligence.
sure, the Moon could be an alien intelligence for all we know. For these discussions we need to stipulate certain concessions. A: We'll be able to recognize them when we find them and B: We'll be able to communicate in some fashion.
Sort of the same way you're assuming the aliens will be able to look at our history, understand the 'irrational violence' and be turned away by that.
I would want to talk to an ant, if I could. They're violent little fuckers, but if given the opportunity, I'd let him talk.
and yes, this is my opinion as a human, not an alien. but we need to start somewhere.
sure, the Moon could be an alien intelligence for all we know. For these discussions we need to stipulate certain concessions. A: We'll be able to recognize them when we find them and B: We'll be able to communicate in some fashion.
Sort of the same way you're assuming the aliens will be able to look at our history, understand the 'irrational violence' and be turned away by that.
I would want to talk to an ant, if I could. They're violent little fuckers, but if given the opportunity, I'd let him talk.
and yes, this is my opinion as a human, not an alien. but we need to start somewhere.
how would they not have the ability to look at our history. for one, we've been sending radio signals, inadvertently, for decades. [speculation]from the point of view of an alien race why would you want to communicate with someone that will become aggressively violent over the smallest issue.
While many of us here appreciate science and technology, the average person considers themselves intelligent but have no concern of what an ant would think. from the ants point of view we're just a blur that went by. Which goes to my, and Tyson's, argument that if a highly intelligent life exists, would we even be able to recognize their intelligence. And what right do we have, as humans, to call ourselves intelligent.
who are to say they haven't had the same issues themselves?, I would expect any kind of lifeform as a big picture would go through these violent stages, they would recognize a bit of themselves.
what if their smart enough to nuke us or something worse?
What if they're smart enough to bring us peace with some simple revelations. Most of our squabbling is over resources, energy, food and water. I would like to think that just like how we as a global society share farming techniques to improve crops and harvests that we would do the same thing with inersteller beings if we had a way to help and improve their quality of life.
Maybe they wouldn't be turned off by it but sympathetic to it and want to help. Honestly you can't say either way so its kind of silly freak out and to say for certain they would attack and wipe us out. Who knows, deal with it when it pops up, try to find them and observe before they do the same seems to be general idea to finding out what their intentions are... probably on both sides...
who are to say they haven't had the same issues themselves?, I would expect any kind of lifeform as a big picture would go through these violent stages, they would recognize a bit of themselves.
All life is bred in chaos, no one is perfect.
IMO, intelligence is not just scientific but also includes social and moral systems. So if an alien race is capable of coming here they would have at least dealt with some part of their moral system. That doesn't mean in their history they didn't have problems.
So when you say "all you have to fear from their meddling is a few isolated nutters getting angry and blogging about it"... I have to disagree. They're still in there mucking things up, slowing things down and generally wrecking havoc in a system that was built to be separate from organizations of their type.
The thing is, they say the same thing about you. Only when you do it, you think it's fine.
It's like what I was trying to say in the "piracy" thread. If you feel it's fine to use government power to benefit yourself in the expense of others, don't be surprised when other people will some day use government power to benefit themselves in your expense.
What if they're smart enough to bring us peace with some simple revelations. Most of our squabbling is over resources, energy, food and water. I would like to think that just like how we as a global society share farming techniques to improve crops and harvests that we would do the same thing with inersteller beings if we had a way to help and improve their quality of life.
Maybe they wouldn't be turned off by it but sympathetic to it and want to help. Honestly you can't say either way so its kind of silly freak out and to say for certain they would attack and wipe us out. Who knows, deal with it when it pops up, try to find them and observe before they do the same seems to be general idea to finding out what their intentions are... probably on both sides...
The thing is, they say the same thing about you. Only when you do it, you think it's fine.
It's like what I was trying to say in the "piracy" thread. If you feel it's fine to use government power to benefit yourself in the expense of others, don't be surprised when other people will some day use government power to benefit themselves in your expense.
I'm not in their church telling them to rip up bibles burn their cross and deny their faith. Nor am I telling them that they need to personally use condoms, get abortions, drink, do drugs and smoke pot.
They are prefectly within their rights to practice their faith SO LONG as it doesn't interfer with the "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" of others. The constitution clearly defines freedom for and freedom from religion, a clear separation between the two. If they want to expand God's love they can do that without using the government to do it. If I want to covert and follow their faith I know where to find them.
As for PBS, NPR and the Public Broadcasting Act. It's totally horse shit to think that those organizations lean as far to the left as Fox News leans to the right. Like I said if you lean so far to the right that "big bird and Elmo" look like left wing puppets then maybe that should be a wake up call that they've swung way too far to the right.
They have to be very careful not to launch an all out war against some of the things that provide them with the comfortable standard of living they have enjoyed for many years. The churches war on science if allowed to take off can stifle innovation and severally hamper its own efforts to expand and spread its message.
I shit you not, if a Muslim group tried to push into government as deep as the church there would be conflict on a biblical scale. If its ok for one religion to get so cozy then why not others?
I'm not trying to be anti Catholic even though it probably reads that way. I'm just not a fan of the covert and overt dealings of the church in politics and science. I don't agree with some of their top brass that they should use any means necessary to further the agenda of the faithful. Especially when there is a separation of church and state. They can try to reinterpret those lines of the Constitution but they're dead nuts wrong.
The issues you mentioned were implemented by elected members of the US government. The Catholic Church has influence with some of those members, no doubt, but that just makes them lobbyists. That's a far cry from throwing Galileo in prison for heresy, the original poster's initial point of complaint.
I don't know what you mean about 'any means necessary'. If there's any occurrence of an ordained member of the Catholic faith saying something like that, I haven't heard it and would like to see an example of it.
I'm also not following you about the 'far right' assessment. The most famous Catholic politican of all time is John Kennedy, a Democrat. Ted Kennedy was a dominant force in the Senate for decades, also a very liberal Catholic. Justice Sotomayor, put to the Supreme Court by Obama last year, is Catholic. Catholics also traditionally take a lot of public service positions (fire, police, and in my family the postal service), groups that tend to be very union driven, often a Democratic bloc. As major Christian faiths in America go, I'd say Catholicism is among the most left-leaning of them.
I'm not in their church telling them to rip up bibles burn their cross and deny their faith. Nor am I telling them that they need to personally use condoms, get abortions, drink, do drugs and smoke pot.
Way to miss the point.
They are prefectly within their rights to practice their faith SO LONG as it doesn't interfer with the "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" of others. The constitution clearly defines freedom for and freedom from religion, a clear separation between the two. If they want to expand God's love they can do that without using the government to do it. If I want to covert and follow their faith I know where to find them.
So they're "free" to pursue their interests (God's love as you put it) as long as it's without the use of government force. But when you want something, whatever it may be, you're perfectly within your right to use government for that?
Doesn't work that way buddy. Government force is a 2-way street. If you're gonna use it to benefit yourself in the expense of others, then at some point someone else will benefit themselves at your expense.
Note, I'm not saying that the 'others' in "benefit yourself in the expense of others" are the same people who will benefit themselves at your expense. Just that when you have a system, like the one you support, that benefits some in the expense of others, it's a giant circle-jerk where everyone just screws everyone else over.
If you support such a system, don't be surprised when you get screwed.
Would an intelligent being be confused? :P
Just kidding, but I think it's an interesting discussion - what defines human intelligence.
(opens wiki)
"Human intelligence in the species as the property of mind that encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason, plan, problem solve, think, comprehend ideas, use languages, and learn."
Does a dog lack any of the above? No, but they're not in the same capacity. The main aspect demonstrated by - or perhaps amplifying our human intelligence is language. No other species has so many words manifesting his world. What else do u think defines HI?
I think it's purely about language. It's not just words, sounds, that make it. It's that we can use it to describe abstract notions. I really think that's the dividing line.
Or put in more simple terms, as soon as I find out that cows can actually talk, I'll stop eating them
The issues you mentioned were implemented by elected members of the US government. The Catholic Church has influence with some of those members, no doubt, but that just makes them lobbyists. That's a far cry from throwing Galileo in prison for heresy, the original poster's initial point of complaint.
I don't know what you mean about 'any means necessary'. If there's any occurrence of an ordained member of the Catholic faith saying something like that, I haven't heard it and would like to see an example of it.
I'm also not following you about the 'far right' assessment. The most famous Catholic politician of all time is John Kennedy, a Democrat. Ted Kennedy was a dominant force in the Senate for decades, also a very liberal Catholic. Justice Sotomayor, put to the Supreme Court by Obama last year, is Catholic. Catholics also traditionally take a lot of public service positions (fire, police, and in my family the postal service), groups that tend to be very union driven, often a Democratic bloc. As major Christian faiths in America go, I'd say Catholicism is among the most left-leaning of them.
I agree, traditionally they DID lean left until the left started to take up certain social issues that conflicted with the views of the church. In the Bush era they started to swing right, with the last election they swung a little more to the right. The republican gains in catholic territory without so much as a whimper shows where they are leaning these days. Ted Kennedy's seat went to a republican and swung the balance of power from left to right.
With statements like what "Catholic League president Bill Donohue" (who is the head of the organization that talks to congress on behalf of Catholics) is making:
"Why should the working class pay for the leisure of the elite when in fact one of the things the working class likes to do for leisure is to go to professional wrestling? And if I suggested we should have federal funds for professional wrestling to lower the cost of the ticket, people would think I'm insane. I don't go to museums any more than any Americans do," Donohue said.
He clearly thinks Bruce Wyane attending a charity event is what museums are used for, tux and tails my good man, gaffa-ha, (pinkie up, monocle smile). He's not thinking of the millions of school kids that learn precarious pieces of our history and are provided with a balanced view of America and all of its diversity. He paints the American people as slack jaw idiots that need to be ruled, we're not partners in a free and open society, we're morons who can't be trusted. This is a guy that will have a heavy hand in shaping policy over the next few years and probably longer.
When the leader of the Catholic League makes statements about defunding the Smithsonian an institution that has a mandate to collect (impartially) and archive our history, good, bad, gay and straight, young, old, left and right, religious and not. They record the diversity that is America, as a whole.
It's astounding that they would go so far as to go after Museums and historians, but it makes sense I guess they espouse evolution and other heretical abominations against the church.
Donohue has some support from Congress. Virginia Republican Rep. Eric Cantor, the incoming House majority leader, urged the Portrait Gallery to shut down the whole show, calling it "an outrageous use of taxpayer money."
The exhibit actually was funded by private donors, but after receiving a flood of e-mails, gallery director Martin Sullivan removed the video.
If you dont like Americas diversity then instead of trying to change America to be less diverse, maybe you need to find another country that agrees with your narrow views.
But the removal of the art may not have ended the debate. Donohue said he wants Congress to eliminate all federal funding for the Smithsonian.
What the fuck... it wasn't enough that they removed the offensive art in a privately funded exhibit but now they want to pull the plug? Fine... do it we'll all have to listen to complaints that America lacks imagination, is even farther behind the curve and has completely slipped. There will be even less kids taking up careers in science and math because there are even less interest and even discouraged.
But hey there will be a shit load more stupid retarded kids with a bright future in fast food service AWESOME! I hear that's a booming industry...
They need to understand that they seek to undermine the very institutions that are guardians of our past when you lose that link its a very dangerous place to live in which you're bound to repeat past mistakes instead of learn from them. But I guess the future is easier to write if you can erase or white wash the past.
They need to understand that they seek to undermine the very institutions that are guardians of our past when you lose that link its a very dangerous place to live in which you're bound to repeat past mistakes instead of learn from them. But I guess the future is easier to write if you can erase or white wash the past.
man, I don't want to sound harsh, and I appreciate most of what you say, but that's such a load of bullshit. You have absolutely no way to prove that. That's some bizarre faith-based claim that those institutions are valuable to begin with.
All that is, is sensationalism. That's the same as when religious people shout that if people don't know the bible and the ten commandments, everyone would kill one another and rape and pillage. As if the ten commandments were the one thing stopping people from behaving like that.
And you're doing the same thing. Shouting that if they stop funding (not even abolish, just stop public tax-payer funding) to museums, the ENTIRE YOUTH of our nation will forever be dumb and work in fast food? As if a museum is the one reason science even exists?
man, I don't want to sound harsh, and I appreciate most of what you say, but that's such a load of bullshit. You have absolutely no way to prove that. That's some bizarre faith-based claim that those institutions are valuable to begin with.
All that is, is sensationalism. That's the same as when religious people shout that if people don't know the bible and the ten commandments, everyone would kill one another and rape and pillage. As if the ten commandments were the one thing stopping people from behaving like that.
And you're doing the same thing. Shouting that if they stop funding (not even abolish, just stop public tax-payer funding) to museums, the ENTIRE YOUTH of our nation will forever be dumb and work in fast food? As if a museum is the one reason science even exists?
Yea I'm sure we would be fine for a while without them, however the treasures they house would be lost. It's more the attempt to clear out that history that shocks me, especially when there giant elephants in the room that need to be talked about first. You have to ask why would they go after things like the Smithsonian if it wasn't an attempt to control the narrative?
If the the Smithsonian is on the chopping block, then the military needs to have its ball up on the block also. You want to balance the budget, stop the wars and cull defense spending back down to mid 90's levels. We aren't bankrupt because of 100 year old institutions that relay partly on public tax payer money suddenly started spending obscene amounts of money. We're in the hole because some idiot sent our troops off to war without thinking.
Afghanistan drove Russia to military bankruptcy... Maybe if someone had taken a trip to a museum he might of planned better...
If the the Smithsonian is on the chopping block, then the military needs to have its ball up on the block also.
Totally 100% agreed.
You want to balance the budget, stop the wars and cull defense spending back down to mid 90's levels.
90% agreed. I'd say go further back, and cut the military down until there's no such thing as a military industrial complex. The 90s level is still way too high.
We aren't bankrupt because of 100 year old institutions that relay partly on public tax payer money suddenly started spending obscene amounts of money. We're in the hole because some idiot sent our troops off to war without thinking.
I agree, traditionally they DID lean left until the left started to take up certain social issues that conflicted with the views of the church. In the Bush era they started to swing right, with the last election they swung a little more to the right. The republican gains in catholic territory without so much as a whimper shows where they are leaning these days. Ted Kennedy's seat went to a republican and swung the balance of power from left to right.
I'm not going to hash where the balance of Catholic Americans are going with their politics, I've no idea if or how they're substantively changing. Obama got more Catholic votes than McCain did (by nearly 20%), and the growing Hispanic demographic is primarily Catholic, so I don't see reason to anticipate a significant shift. I still stand by my statement that Catholics are among the most left-leaning Christians in America.
I wish you hadn't brought up William Donahue. For one, he's not affiliated with the Church any more than any other lay person is. He's the spokesman for a group of people who have particular political opinions, but not something explicitly endorsed by the Vatican. He's also not representative of how all or most Catholics view their personal politics. Even the Catholic League's wikipedia page mentions that "Donohue and the Catholic League have been criticized by other Catholics." He's a vocal outlier, not representative of the whole, and certainly not a someone people out to use as a measuring stick for Catholicism in America.
It's astounding that they would go so far as to go after Museums and historians, but it makes sense I guess they espouse evolution and other heretical abominations against the church.
(Forgot to address this) I'm wondering if you're confusing Catholics generically with other (Bible literal) Christians. In 1996, Pope John Paul II specifically addressed the acceptance of the theory of evolution. Since he's got the only vote that counts, I'll quote him directly:
"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points....Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies which was neither planned nor sought constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."
There is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith - that can't be any more clear. That's not some heretical abomination, that's the word of the holy father. The Church looks at the entirety of Genesis as allegory, not literal truth - it's been taught that way at least since I was a student in Catholic schools back in the 1980s.
yea that is the kind of non committal statements that appear to carry some weight to the outside world but are deliverd well after the fact and in a time that people just shrug and scratch their head thinking wow how long ago where we talking about that? 100-200 years? Normally the statements do very little to change things internally and even less to change the way they deal externally.
Honestly I think there is a big disconnect between Rome and the American Catholic church. There are American Catholics (Bill Donohue) throwing their lot in with the literal Christians and espousing views that are very contrary to the lead that the past and current pope have set. It's hard to hold all Catholics to what Bill Donohue says but when they don't move to contradict him or clarify his position its hard to think they differ in views. If he isn't the voice for Catholics in America then maybe he needs to be asked to stop speaking to congress on their behalf. I guess in 100 years we can expect a statement that does just that...
In regard to Catholic democrats, it really comes down to the social issues that the democratic party has picked up. Catholics and other religious types just aren't that excited by the parties stance on abortion. I'm sure that holds true for Southwest Hispanic Catholics as much as it does for Northeastern Catholics.
I like how this thread was first about Nasa announcing some shit on Thursday. Then it became a thread about wanting to have sex with aliens. Then about the cool arsenic shit here on earth and the implications that means about life else where in the universe. To finally becoming about politics and religion.
As soon as the earthlings converse in mind-xaterion waves on the epscalon degree I shall stop harvesting their precious organs!
(that day I'll be first in line to utter the words "oh irony")
That's a straw-man. You're talking about the technical aspect of how a species communicates, I'm talking about whether a species can converse at all.
The thing stopping us from talking to cows isn't that they can't pronounce words. It's that they're not intelligent enough to speak. Even if through some sorcery you had a way to read a cow's mind, there would be nothing there to read.
If there's an alien species that communicates telepathically, then that's a technical barrier between us. But it's not an indication of intelligence.
It wouldn't be a thread on polycount if it didn't wonder all over and end up with Verm and myself debating something stupid...
It's what we do! Though I mostly just read Polycount for the articles (and by articles I mean penis tank.)
I won't disagree that the Church is painfully slow about things sometimes (the stance on contraception remains archaically idealistic, as if 'be fruitful and multiply' is still a relevant instruction to the flock), but I honestly don't have a problem with that. This is an organization that, for good or ill, provides moral guidance to something like 1/6th of the world population. It makes sense that they'd move deliberately rather than be reactionary about things, especially considering the rapid pace of discover in the last few hundred years.
Again, though, while they're slow about something like evolution, this goes back to my point about people holding an anti-science grudge against Catholicism. The Church HAS changed, it has accepted new ways of thinking. Not as fast as many would like, but give credit where it's due, especially in a nation where Bible literalists are trying to get creationism taught in public school biology classes and fundamentalists with more dollars than sense are looking to build a Noah's Ark amusement park a few.
That's a straw-man. You're talking about the technical aspect of how a species communicates, I'm talking about whether a species can converse at all.
The thing stopping us from talking to cows isn't that they can't pronounce words. It's that they're not intelligent enough to speak. Even if through some sorcery you had a way to read a cow's mind, there would be nothing there to read.
If there's an alien species that communicates telepathically, then that's a technical barrier between us. But it's not an indication of intelligence.
I think I'll regret entering this topic but..
well, there would be *something* there in the cows thoughts, something like 'grass grass grass shit grass grass sleep'
what if the alien race was of the opinion that our thoughts were to them, basically as simple as a cows thoughts are to us
well, there would be *something* there in the cows thoughts, something like 'grass grass grass shit grass grass sleep'
what if the alien race was of the opinion that our thoughts were to them, basically as simple as a cows thoughts are to us
Well, what then?
People pose that question as if the answer is to either officially declare the entire human race as retarded, and not worthy of life, or like we're supposed to come up with some compelling argument that justifies our existence.
We can't and shouldn't do either of those.
Yeah, there's a good solid chance that there's a race of cruel aliens out there that will kill us because they feel like it. So what? Worst case, we'll all die.
I don't understand your argument. Intelligence is an arbitrary term WE created, but you don't think we can call ourselves it?
What is your point? That you're not intelligent? What right do you have to call yourself not intelligent?
How is it arrogant? We fit the criteria of the definition...
I am honestly confused but most of what you say.
Well, through out history we humans have shown great hubris when it comes to our understanding of the universe or some other scientific discover. For example, we once considered ourselves the center of the universe, But after years of study and exploration we find that we're not and that there are plenty of other star systems like ours.
Now we're trying to find intelligent life "like us", but who's to say we're intelligent. We call ourselves intelligant because we're the only ones on this planet that can. We are only about 2% different from a chimp as far as DNA is concerned. So the whole of human intelligence is in that 2%. So if the genetic difference between humans and chimps is that small, maybe the difference in our intelligence is that small. This gets to my main point in which I absolutly agree with Neil deGrasse Tyson(this is his argument anyway), if that 2% is the difference between hitting a rock and building a computer then imagine a alien race that is 2% different then us. Think about how intelligent they would be. And if they were that intelligent would they even want to communicate with us. On the flip side, would we even recognize their intelligence. A chimpanzee doesn't realize that WE(humans) think we're intelligent and yet their DNA is only slightly different then us.
So I say, who are we to call ourselves intelligent.
I like how this thread was first about Nasa announcing some shit on Thursday. Then it became a thread about wanting to have sex with aliens. Then about the cool arsenic shit here on earth and the implications that means about life else where in the universe. To finally becoming about politics and religion.
k. so Im not reading ALL the new posts. but Im also in the underwhelmed crowd.
While it is cool that NASA funded people have managed to force a bacterium to adapt in such a way as to alter its dna, this is also a "well YEAH" kinda moment for me.
Cool that its happened but its like. "Lets see if gravitation still works on mars."
Perhaps its because I have a very fluid belief when it comes to scientific law. I look at laws as things that are we simply haven't found the means to understand better. By getting stuck on law too much the potential that the law is flawed gets ignored.
What this really proves is we don't have as good a grasp on biochemistry as we thought, rather than life being any more amazing a thing than it already is.
Yay for ignorance, lets move on into our new understanding with appropriate humility.
k. so Im not reading ALL the new posts. but Im also in the underwhelmed crowd.
While it is cool that NASA funded people have managed to force a bacterium to adapt in such a way as to alter its dna, this is also a "well YEAH" kinda moment for me.
Cool that its happened but its like. "Lets see if gravitation still works on mars."
Perhaps its because I have a very fluid belief when it comes to scientific law. I look at laws as things that are we simply haven't found the means to understand better. By getting stuck on law too much the potential that the law is flawed gets ignored.
What this really proves is we don't have as good a grasp on biochemistry as we thought, rather than life being any more amazing a thing than it already is.
Yay for ignorance, lets move on into our new understanding with appropriate humility.
What do you mean "they forced it to alter its DNA"... that's not true, they discovered a life-form that has a unique buildup of its DNA, they only tested it by placing it in a medium with arsinic and other nutrients (except phosphorus). Not really sure what your getting at here...
What do you mean "they forced it to alter its DNA"... that's not true, they discovered a life-form that has a unique buildup of its DNA, they only tested it by placing it in a medium with arsinic and other nutrients (except phosphorus). Not really sure what your getting at here...
I think he's saying that it doesn't matter if you discover something because obviously there are things out there to discover, so you shouldn't be all proud just because you discovered one of those things.
Replies
and i don't mean just sexually.
has a more advanced civilization visiting a more primitive one ever worked out for the latter's benefit?
or "guys, 1+1 doesn't always equal 2", no one can possibly imagine the rules of math to be broken, they're quite universal.
I do expect someone to go "duh, zombie story authors have known it for ages" as a true zombie outbreak occurs, which does not scientifically add up.
Scientists are cool in this way though, instead of like the church going "ITS WRONG" they go "cool, we didn't know that!"
If there's no evidence though, scientists can be a bit logically-defensive though.
http://www.npr.org/2010/12/02/131748447/gay-portraiture-exhibit-sparks-funding-debate
http://www.npr.org/2010/11/19/131436212/fox-news-ceo-ailes-npr-execs-have-nazi-attitude
Please feel free to pick up your government subsided pro-wresting tickets and swing by FoxNews for the latest list of books to burn, its the dawn of a new era... the dark ages are back baby!!
Ok that was dramatic.
But they still have teeth and pull in Washington which effects the rest of us. They have teamed up with the conservative base in the past to get their agenda pushed into law.
Abstinence-only sex education
Stem Cell Research They helped Bush kill it dead but this is back on the plate after Obama flipped that switch back on, no doubt that pisses them off. It's like wack-a-mole.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops provides "guidance" to congress exactly like every other lobbying group and they're the most visible and pure of the lobbying groups deployed by the church. "Oh hello religion what are you doing meddling in affairs of the state?"
HIV/AIDS prevention in Africa was also heavily influenced by "abstinence only" politicking. There's even some deeper darker anti-gay politics going on in Africa with links back to US religious institutions.
So when you say "all you have to fear from their meddling is a few isolated nutters getting angry and blogging about it"... I have to disagree. They're still in there mucking things up, slowing things down and generally wrecking havoc in a system that was built to be separate from organizations of their type.
Like I said they haven't closed the issue or ever apologized for past transgressions, which if the had, would indicate that they no longer wanted to continue to meddle in politics or science. 600-400 years of scientific and political oppression, fine... it was a long time ago, no big thing, lets let it go. But they just tone down the tactics and update their methods for modern times... Same old church doing what it always does just with a new tactic.
I'm not trying to be anti Catholic even though it probably reads that way. I'm just not a fan of the covert and overt dealings of the church in politics and science. I don't agree with some of their top brass that they should use any means necessary to further the agenda of the faithful. Especially when there is a separation of church and state. They can try to reinterpret those lines of the Constitution but they're dead nuts wrong.
yes, more specifically what we would do if we found a less advanced alien civilization
well unless we can jump our technology about 500 years, I seriously doubt we can communicate with another species let alone hurt them.
Sort of the same way you're assuming the aliens will be able to look at our history, understand the 'irrational violence' and be turned away by that.
I would want to talk to an ant, if I could. They're violent little fuckers, but if given the opportunity, I'd let him talk.
and yes, this is my opinion as a human, not an alien. but we need to start somewhere.
how would they not have the ability to look at our history. for one, we've been sending radio signals, inadvertently, for decades. [speculation]from the point of view of an alien race why would you want to communicate with someone that will become aggressively violent over the smallest issue.
While many of us here appreciate science and technology, the average person considers themselves intelligent but have no concern of what an ant would think. from the ants point of view we're just a blur that went by. Which goes to my, and Tyson's, argument that if a highly intelligent life exists, would we even be able to recognize their intelligence. And what right do we have, as humans, to call ourselves intelligent.
what if their smart enough to nuke us or something worse?
All life is bred in chaos, no one is perfect.
Maybe they wouldn't be turned off by it but sympathetic to it and want to help. Honestly you can't say either way so its kind of silly freak out and to say for certain they would attack and wipe us out. Who knows, deal with it when it pops up, try to find them and observe before they do the same seems to be general idea to finding out what their intentions are... probably on both sides...
IMO, intelligence is not just scientific but also includes social and moral systems. So if an alien race is capable of coming here they would have at least dealt with some part of their moral system. That doesn't mean in their history they didn't have problems.
The thing is, they say the same thing about you. Only when you do it, you think it's fine.
It's like what I was trying to say in the "piracy" thread. If you feel it's fine to use government power to benefit yourself in the expense of others, don't be surprised when other people will some day use government power to benefit themselves in your expense.
but speculation is so much more fun!
Or they could bring us enlightenment, peace and love.
Or they could isolate us because we're potentially dangerous to everyone else.
Or, or, or. I think there are far too many scenarios here to seriously discuss them. They all hold water in theory.
When was the last time you coveted the property of ants?
Which is almost never, but I think you get my point.
They are prefectly within their rights to practice their faith SO LONG as it doesn't interfer with the "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" of others. The constitution clearly defines freedom for and freedom from religion, a clear separation between the two. If they want to expand God's love they can do that without using the government to do it. If I want to covert and follow their faith I know where to find them.
As for PBS, NPR and the Public Broadcasting Act. It's totally horse shit to think that those organizations lean as far to the left as Fox News leans to the right. Like I said if you lean so far to the right that "big bird and Elmo" look like left wing puppets then maybe that should be a wake up call that they've swung way too far to the right.
They have to be very careful not to launch an all out war against some of the things that provide them with the comfortable standard of living they have enjoyed for many years. The churches war on science if allowed to take off can stifle innovation and severally hamper its own efforts to expand and spread its message.
I shit you not, if a Muslim group tried to push into government as deep as the church there would be conflict on a biblical scale. If its ok for one religion to get so cozy then why not others?
The issues you mentioned were implemented by elected members of the US government. The Catholic Church has influence with some of those members, no doubt, but that just makes them lobbyists. That's a far cry from throwing Galileo in prison for heresy, the original poster's initial point of complaint.
I don't know what you mean about 'any means necessary'. If there's any occurrence of an ordained member of the Catholic faith saying something like that, I haven't heard it and would like to see an example of it.
I'm also not following you about the 'far right' assessment. The most famous Catholic politican of all time is John Kennedy, a Democrat. Ted Kennedy was a dominant force in the Senate for decades, also a very liberal Catholic. Justice Sotomayor, put to the Supreme Court by Obama last year, is Catholic. Catholics also traditionally take a lot of public service positions (fire, police, and in my family the postal service), groups that tend to be very union driven, often a Democratic bloc. As major Christian faiths in America go, I'd say Catholicism is among the most left-leaning of them.
Way to miss the point.
So they're "free" to pursue their interests (God's love as you put it) as long as it's without the use of government force. But when you want something, whatever it may be, you're perfectly within your right to use government for that?
Doesn't work that way buddy. Government force is a 2-way street. If you're gonna use it to benefit yourself in the expense of others, then at some point someone else will benefit themselves at your expense.
Note, I'm not saying that the 'others' in "benefit yourself in the expense of others" are the same people who will benefit themselves at your expense. Just that when you have a system, like the one you support, that benefits some in the expense of others, it's a giant circle-jerk where everyone just screws everyone else over.
If you support such a system, don't be surprised when you get screwed.
If you have the ability to think of yourself as intelligent, you have the right to.
Just like we can all call ourselves artists, should we want to, regardless of our skill compared to someone else.
can someone say circular reasoning.
no other animal can object to your statement yet we humans arrogant call ourselves intelligent.
I don't understand your argument. Intelligence is an arbitrary term WE created, but you don't think we can call ourselves it?
What is your point? That you're not intelligent? What right do you have to call yourself not intelligent?
How is it arrogant? We fit the criteria of the definition...
I am honestly confused but most of what you say.
Just kidding, but I think it's an interesting discussion - what defines human intelligence.
(opens wiki)
"Human intelligence in the species as the property of mind that encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason, plan, problem solve, think, comprehend ideas, use languages, and learn."
Does a dog lack any of the above? No, but they're not in the same capacity. The main aspect demonstrated by - or perhaps amplifying our human intelligence is language. No other species has so many words manifesting his world. What else do u think defines HI?
Or put in more simple terms, as soon as I find out that cows can actually talk, I'll stop eating them
I agree, traditionally they DID lean left until the left started to take up certain social issues that conflicted with the views of the church. In the Bush era they started to swing right, with the last election they swung a little more to the right. The republican gains in catholic territory without so much as a whimper shows where they are leaning these days. Ted Kennedy's seat went to a republican and swung the balance of power from left to right.
With statements like what "Catholic League president Bill Donohue" (who is the head of the organization that talks to congress on behalf of Catholics) is making: He clearly thinks Bruce Wyane attending a charity event is what museums are used for, tux and tails my good man, gaffa-ha, (pinkie up, monocle smile). He's not thinking of the millions of school kids that learn precarious pieces of our history and are provided with a balanced view of America and all of its diversity. He paints the American people as slack jaw idiots that need to be ruled, we're not partners in a free and open society, we're morons who can't be trusted. This is a guy that will have a heavy hand in shaping policy over the next few years and probably longer.
When the leader of the Catholic League makes statements about defunding the Smithsonian an institution that has a mandate to collect (impartially) and archive our history, good, bad, gay and straight, young, old, left and right, religious and not. They record the diversity that is America, as a whole.
It's astounding that they would go so far as to go after Museums and historians, but it makes sense I guess they espouse evolution and other heretical abominations against the church.
If you dont like Americas diversity then instead of trying to change America to be less diverse, maybe you need to find another country that agrees with your narrow views.
What the fuck... it wasn't enough that they removed the offensive art in a privately funded exhibit but now they want to pull the plug? Fine... do it we'll all have to listen to complaints that America lacks imagination, is even farther behind the curve and has completely slipped. There will be even less kids taking up careers in science and math because there are even less interest and even discouraged.
But hey there will be a shit load more stupid retarded kids with a bright future in fast food service AWESOME! I hear that's a booming industry...
They need to understand that they seek to undermine the very institutions that are guardians of our past when you lose that link its a very dangerous place to live in which you're bound to repeat past mistakes instead of learn from them. But I guess the future is easier to write if you can erase or white wash the past.
Surely a sign the apocalypse is near.
man, I don't want to sound harsh, and I appreciate most of what you say, but that's such a load of bullshit. You have absolutely no way to prove that. That's some bizarre faith-based claim that those institutions are valuable to begin with.
All that is, is sensationalism. That's the same as when religious people shout that if people don't know the bible and the ten commandments, everyone would kill one another and rape and pillage. As if the ten commandments were the one thing stopping people from behaving like that.
And you're doing the same thing. Shouting that if they stop funding (not even abolish, just stop public tax-payer funding) to museums, the ENTIRE YOUTH of our nation will forever be dumb and work in fast food? As if a museum is the one reason science even exists?
If the the Smithsonian is on the chopping block, then the military needs to have its ball up on the block also. You want to balance the budget, stop the wars and cull defense spending back down to mid 90's levels. We aren't bankrupt because of 100 year old institutions that relay partly on public tax payer money suddenly started spending obscene amounts of money. We're in the hole because some idiot sent our troops off to war without thinking.
Afghanistan drove Russia to military bankruptcy... Maybe if someone had taken a trip to a museum he might of planned better...
Totally 100% agreed.
90% agreed. I'd say go further back, and cut the military down until there's no such thing as a military industrial complex. The 90s level is still way too high.
Yup
As soon as the earthlings converse in mind-xaterion waves on the epscalon degree I shall stop harvesting their precious organs!
(that day I'll be first in line to utter the words "oh irony")
I'm not going to hash where the balance of Catholic Americans are going with their politics, I've no idea if or how they're substantively changing. Obama got more Catholic votes than McCain did (by nearly 20%), and the growing Hispanic demographic is primarily Catholic, so I don't see reason to anticipate a significant shift. I still stand by my statement that Catholics are among the most left-leaning Christians in America.
I wish you hadn't brought up William Donahue. For one, he's not affiliated with the Church any more than any other lay person is. He's the spokesman for a group of people who have particular political opinions, but not something explicitly endorsed by the Vatican. He's also not representative of how all or most Catholics view their personal politics. Even the Catholic League's wikipedia page mentions that "Donohue and the Catholic League have been criticized by other Catholics." He's a vocal outlier, not representative of the whole, and certainly not a someone people out to use as a measuring stick for Catholicism in America.
(Forgot to address this) I'm wondering if you're confusing Catholics generically with other (Bible literal) Christians. In 1996, Pope John Paul II specifically addressed the acceptance of the theory of evolution. Since he's got the only vote that counts, I'll quote him directly:
"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points....Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies which was neither planned nor sought constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."
There is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith - that can't be any more clear. That's not some heretical abomination, that's the word of the holy father. The Church looks at the entirety of Genesis as allegory, not literal truth - it's been taught that way at least since I was a student in Catholic schools back in the 1980s.
Honestly I think there is a big disconnect between Rome and the American Catholic church. There are American Catholics (Bill Donohue) throwing their lot in with the literal Christians and espousing views that are very contrary to the lead that the past and current pope have set. It's hard to hold all Catholics to what Bill Donohue says but when they don't move to contradict him or clarify his position its hard to think they differ in views. If he isn't the voice for Catholics in America then maybe he needs to be asked to stop speaking to congress on their behalf. I guess in 100 years we can expect a statement that does just that...
In regard to Catholic democrats, it really comes down to the social issues that the democratic party has picked up. Catholics and other religious types just aren't that excited by the parties stance on abortion. I'm sure that holds true for Southwest Hispanic Catholics as much as it does for Northeastern Catholics.
That's a straw-man. You're talking about the technical aspect of how a species communicates, I'm talking about whether a species can converse at all.
The thing stopping us from talking to cows isn't that they can't pronounce words. It's that they're not intelligent enough to speak. Even if through some sorcery you had a way to read a cow's mind, there would be nothing there to read.
If there's an alien species that communicates telepathically, then that's a technical barrier between us. But it's not an indication of intelligence.
It's what we do! Though I mostly just read Polycount for the articles (and by articles I mean penis tank.)
I won't disagree that the Church is painfully slow about things sometimes (the stance on contraception remains archaically idealistic, as if 'be fruitful and multiply' is still a relevant instruction to the flock), but I honestly don't have a problem with that. This is an organization that, for good or ill, provides moral guidance to something like 1/6th of the world population. It makes sense that they'd move deliberately rather than be reactionary about things, especially considering the rapid pace of discover in the last few hundred years.
Again, though, while they're slow about something like evolution, this goes back to my point about people holding an anti-science grudge against Catholicism. The Church HAS changed, it has accepted new ways of thinking. Not as fast as many would like, but give credit where it's due, especially in a nation where Bible literalists are trying to get creationism taught in public school biology classes and fundamentalists with more dollars than sense are looking to build a Noah's Ark amusement park a few.
I think I'll regret entering this topic but..
well, there would be *something* there in the cows thoughts, something like 'grass grass grass shit grass grass sleep'
what if the alien race was of the opinion that our thoughts were to them, basically as simple as a cows thoughts are to us
Well, what then?
People pose that question as if the answer is to either officially declare the entire human race as retarded, and not worthy of life, or like we're supposed to come up with some compelling argument that justifies our existence.
We can't and shouldn't do either of those.
Yeah, there's a good solid chance that there's a race of cruel aliens out there that will kill us because they feel like it. So what? Worst case, we'll all die.
Well, through out history we humans have shown great hubris when it comes to our understanding of the universe or some other scientific discover. For example, we once considered ourselves the center of the universe, But after years of study and exploration we find that we're not and that there are plenty of other star systems like ours.
Now we're trying to find intelligent life "like us", but who's to say we're intelligent. We call ourselves intelligant because we're the only ones on this planet that can. We are only about 2% different from a chimp as far as DNA is concerned. So the whole of human intelligence is in that 2%. So if the genetic difference between humans and chimps is that small, maybe the difference in our intelligence is that small. This gets to my main point in which I absolutly agree with Neil deGrasse Tyson(this is his argument anyway), if that 2% is the difference between hitting a rock and building a computer then imagine a alien race that is 2% different then us. Think about how intelligent they would be. And if they were that intelligent would they even want to communicate with us. On the flip side, would we even recognize their intelligence. A chimpanzee doesn't realize that WE(humans) think we're intelligent and yet their DNA is only slightly different then us.
So I say, who are we to call ourselves intelligent.
you know you love us:)
While it is cool that NASA funded people have managed to force a bacterium to adapt in such a way as to alter its dna, this is also a "well YEAH" kinda moment for me.
Cool that its happened but its like. "Lets see if gravitation still works on mars."
Perhaps its because I have a very fluid belief when it comes to scientific law. I look at laws as things that are we simply haven't found the means to understand better. By getting stuck on law too much the potential that the law is flawed gets ignored.
What this really proves is we don't have as good a grasp on biochemistry as we thought, rather than life being any more amazing a thing than it already is.
Yay for ignorance, lets move on into our new understanding with appropriate humility.
http://www.xkcd.com/
What do you mean "they forced it to alter its DNA"... that's not true, they discovered a life-form that has a unique buildup of its DNA, they only tested it by placing it in a medium with arsinic and other nutrients (except phosphorus). Not really sure what your getting at here...
I think he's saying that it doesn't matter if you discover something because obviously there are things out there to discover, so you shouldn't be all proud just because you discovered one of those things.