[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

A strawman? What did I accuse you of saying that you didn't in fact say?

I said nothing about holding back scientific study, much less sending all of western civilization back to the stone age. I'll say this though, we have quite a few people on this planet who already live in caves. Let's work on getting them out of those before sending manned missions to other planets. K?

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I said nothing about holding back scientific study

Yes you did, you're advocating holding back space missions until we solve all our problems on earth (read: never). If people had had that attitude a few decades ago, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now, because the technology necessary for it would not have been developed. We'd also be worse off with those social and economic problems too, unless you think technology doesn't help with those things at all.

[sek929]

It's like saying we shouldn't race cars and waste fuel on that until we solve problems. Until you realize that all automotive engineering breakthroughs came from auto racing, like disc brakes and fuel injection.

The space program benefits us all, and saying we should curtail it to benefit ourselves is bass-ackwards.

[nonhuman]

Colonizing other planetary bodies will open up new markets for investment and have tremendous potential for economic growth; the kind of economic growth that can then be invested in fixing problems and cleaning up messes here on Earth.

Besides all the scientific and technological benefits that will come from pursuing such things, of course.

[Chuckit]

There are no known bodies suitable for colonization (at least not by anybody except very dedicated research scientists). They're all lacking at least one and very often all of the following:

• Breathable atmosphere
• Survivable temperatures
• Ground to walk on
• Water
• Tolerable radiation levels

I don't see much of a chance for economic growth on other planets with current technology. Colonization would be a money-losing venture.

[wolfen]

Ratios. Do we spend $10 on social problems and 1 trillion on space jerkoff? Or what? I think the issue isn't whether one or the other is valuable, but the degree to which A) money is the real answer for either and B) the relative appropriation of all efforts (financial and otherwise) to each problem.

The problem is that the majority of people claiming there is no solution to social problems don't volunteer to mentor troubled youth or participate in literacy programs. But accepting that X% of their taxes go to NASA is a very passive, lazy way to say "I'm Pro Space!"

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by wolfen 

The problem is that the majority of people claiming there is no solution to social problems

See, now that's what a straw-man argument is. Who claimed that there was no solution to social problems?

[wolfen]

OK, fine. Have it your way. Still ignoring the point of my post.

[CharlesS]

Do you find it realistic that we can magically solve all social problems so that humanity all lives in a state of perfect harmony and bliss?

Especially if we don't pursue efforts toward scientific and technological advancement?

[wolfen]

Do you think that's the choice we are presented with? One or the other?

[CharlesS]

Well, that's what's been presented in this thread.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Rather than running around trying to find single-celled organisms on some distant moon we should fix some of the world's social and economic problems. Let's just remove the splinter from our collective eye first.

[wolfen]

But it doesn't address my question. Do YOU think that represents our choice accurately? All one or all the other? You imply you don't. But if you don't, what efforts do you make toward either effort?

My point is not that we should choose one or the other, but that it's simply a matter of convenience to support the solutions for technological advancement (eg, tax $). Meanwhile, the Pro-Technology social conservative typically offers no real effort in any direction and passively accepts social crisis as a byproduct of personal inaction.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Yes you did, you're advocating holding back space missions until we solve all our problems on earth (read: never). If people had had that attitude a few decades ago, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now, because the technology necessary for it would not have been developed. We'd also be worse off with those social and economic problems too, unless you think technology doesn't help with those things at all.

"All" of our problems? Sounds like you're the one who has a problem... with reading comprehension.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Well, that's what's been presented in this thread.

That's right, because I'm not foolish enough to believe that our social problems can be fixed with *snicker* space exploration.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

"All" of our problems? Sounds like you're the one with a problem... with reading comprehension.

Really then. Well, then at what point do you consider our social problems to be sufficiently "fixed" in order to allow us to start up our languishing scientific research programs again (assuming it's even still possible given how far behind the rest of the world we'd be by that time)?

The trouble is, no matter how many social problems we "fix", there will always be more of them for people like you to go and say we should "fix" before we can pay any attention to science. And then with no science, all our social problems get worse...

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

That's right, because I'm not foolish enough to believe that our social problems can be fixed with *snicker* space exploration.

Do you deny the clear advancements that we gained from the Apollo program?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

So i'm not going to disproof the existence of Alien life, because i never claimed it did not exist. So i guess the burden shifts back to those who seem sure that it does ?

Then I don't understand how your discussion could have gotten heated. All you could have been talking about is the degree of probability that life exists elsewhere than Earth.

FWIW: I think it's possible that life exists elsewhere, but I don't think it's probable.

[Sealobo]

it's unimaginable that life form on earth is an unique case in the vast universe.

the fact that organism on earth are so diversified, is proof that life is extremely eager to prosper.

life adapt to environment. An earth-like planet is not a must for life. it is only ideal to us, and probably not the "others" in existence.

[Andy8]

The aliens have arrived in style:

Spiral UFO puts Norway in a spin

Mystery as spiral blue light display hovers above Norway

LESERVIDEO fra Senja: Slik så lysfenomenet ut der

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Sealobo 

it's unimaginable that life form on earth is an unique case in the vast universe.

the fact that organism on earth are so diversified, is proof that life is extremely eager to prosper.

life adapt to environment. An earth-like planet is not a must for life. it is only ideal to us, and probably not the "others" in existence.

Life (as we know it on Earth) may adapt to its environment, but if life doesn't exist in an environment in the first place, it's not going to adapt.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Really then. Well, then at what point do you consider our social problems to be sufficiently "fixed" in order to allow us to start up our languishing scientific research programs again (assuming it's even still possible given how far behind the rest of the world we'd be by that time)?

Languishing? Poor baby, they're just suffering aren't they? I think I may cry. I like to read about advances as much as the next person, hell I contributed $10k to the Vanderbilt CSO and fund a yearly science scholarship. Don't give me your BS about what I do or don't do. There are lots of areas of study that don't involve manned space exploration.

The trouble is, no matter how many social problems we "fix", there will always be more of them for people like you to go and say we should "fix" before we can pay any attention to science. And then with no science, all our social problems get worse...

Do you deny the clear advancements that we gained from the Apollo program?

So, again, you've drawn this imaginary line stating what I "require" be fixed before you can get in your rocket and head to Jupiter's moons looking for algae? Look again at what I wrote above. "People like me" do quite a lot, maybe even more than "people like you".

[CharlesS]

No, the point is that if you are trying to hold back scientific progress on the grounds that there are social problems that government money could be spent on instead (which you'd probably oppose anyway, since you seem to be one of the conservative posters in the PWL), well, that's a condition that's always true. So implementing your viewpoint would mean killing the space program permanently, which would do irreparable harm not only to our scientific and technological advancement, but to our ability to solve social problems as well due to the aforementioned missed technological advancements. Unfortunately, the only response you seem able to come up with consists of personal attacks. Since you are not able to be civil, I see no point in continuing this endless repetition any further.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Life (as we know it on Earth) may adapt to its environment, but if life doesn't exist in an environment in the first place, it's not going to adapt.

Quite so.

[Eriamjh]

Hubble Deep Field 3 just found another "empty" spot of space filled with galaxies.

There is other life out there. The problem is it is so far away, we will likely never encounter it.

Damn speed of light limitation!

The universe is such a huge place. It's too bad we can't really experience it.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Then I don't understand how your discussion could have gotten heated. All you could have been talking about is the degree of probability that life exists elsewhere than Earth.

FWIW: I think it's possible that life exists elsewhere, but I don't think it's probable.

I guess some people get defensive when their "wishful thinking" is challenged. They very well could be Alien life out there, there's a smaller probability that unicorns and the lochness monster is out there as well. I for one am open to those possibilities, but until there is unshakeable evidence/proof... i don't believe they exist.

[Sealobo]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

but until there is unshakeable evidence/proof... i don't believe they exist.

but until there is unshakeable evidence/proof... i don't believe they do not exist.

at this point, we should all just believe whatever we prefer. this is pretty much like faith/religion.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

I for one am open to those possibilities, but until there is unshakeable evidence/proof... i don't believe they exist.

If you're open to the possibilities that they *might* exist, then it's more accurate to say that you don't believe they are *likely* to exist.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

If you're open to the possibilities that they *might* exist, then it's more accurate to say that you don't believe they are *likely* to exist.

Only in the same sense that you don't believe the sun is likely to blink out of existence in the next half a second.

[CharlesS]

Except that there's far more basis to say that the sun's not likely to spontaneously disappear than to say that this unimaginably huge, near-infinite universe couldn't have possibly produced any other planets capable of sustaining life at any time in the 14 billion years of its existence.

In fact, you could probably get one of those probabilities by putting 1 over the other.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Only in the same sense that you don't believe the sun is likely to blink out of existence in the next half a second.

Exactly. But, saying that and saying "I don't believe the sun will ever blink out of existence" are two *very* different beliefs.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

If you're open to the possibilities that they *might* exist, then it's more accurate to say that you don't believe they are *likely* to exist.

I (nor anyone else for that matter, imo) knows the *likelyhood* of alien life existing. They *might* or *might not* exist. But given what 'proof' (as opposed to guessed probabilities) we have thus far, i don't believe they exist.

What "evidence" we have thus far is inconclusive so far..... a strange cloud here, a moving light there, etc. All that proves is that we dont know what those things are. So some people would draw the conclusion that because we cant explain it, it must be aliens. i for one, stop there and say 'all i know is that i do not know what that thing is'. Like those lights over Norway....... all the 'kooks' came out of the woodwork . instead of rationally seeing an explanation, they chose to try and use an inexplicable(when it occurred) event to reinforce their belief in what they *want to believe*.

Sealobo....
That issue about souls/spirits and God did come up as well..... and i guess to some extent faith is a choice. But look at the subject matter at hand......

Aliens: physically tangible being which should be picked up by our sensory(eyes, ears, etc) system

Spirits/God: metaphysical beings no 'physical' dimension to verify a 'real' existence.

So to say if someone chooses to believe in God, has to also, by that logic believe in a physical creature(Alien) that he/she has never encountered(in reality or in any physical scenario) is illogical and unreasonable imo.

So since if it a group of people claiming their existence(reality), it's upto them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that what they believe is 'true'. Probabilities and possibilities and chances and odds have enough reasonable doubt to not be qualified as proof imo.

As far as the sun blinking out of existence..... that's a prediction on a future event. the future, where no one has 'yet been'(except for me ) so in predictions nothing is 100% anyway and an event is not the same as claiming the current existence of a specific physical entity. so that analogy is kinda flawed imo.

I guess the only reason i say that Aliens *could* exist somewhere, is only because we havent looked everywhere yet. What 'evidence' we do have only leads me to believe that we havent explained where that evidence came from ... hence "UFO"(UNIDENTIFIED), as opposed to "A$$" (Alien Space Ship )

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

I (nor anyone else for that matter, imo) knows the *likelyhood* of alien life existing. They *might* or *might not* exist. But given what 'proof' (as opposed to guessed probabilities) we have thus far, i don't believe they exist.

What "evidence" we have thus far is inconclusive so far..... a strange cloud here, a moving light there, etc. All that proves is that we dont know what those things are. So some people would draw the conclusion that because we cant explain it, it must be aliens. i for one, stop there and say 'all i know is that i do not know what that thing is'. Like those lights over Norway....... all the 'kooks' came out of the woodwork . instead of rationally seeing an explanation, they chose to try and use an inexplicable(when it occurred) event to reinforce their belief in what they *want to believe*.

No, what you're referring to is the belief that there's intelligent life buzzing around in our atmosphere with spaceships, having developed somewhere sufficiently close to Earth to reach us, and apparently having nothing better to do than to make the centuries-long voyage to reach our solar system just to fly around and show up in hillbillies' fuzzy photographs. That's quite a different claim from the idea that some kind of life could have sprung up somewhere in our massive universe over the vast timescale of its existence, which I would think to be nearly certain.

[Spheric Harlot]

Yes, the conflation of believing that alien life is probable (even if it's just in the form of a patch of organic sludge somewhere) with the Roswell/Area 51 idiots is unfortunate.

[Hawkeye_a]

I agree that is an unfortunate association and i only used it to illustrate what annoyed me about the 'Alien' enthusiasts (ie wanting = believing).

But what i said applies to even single cell organisms..... heck we have no idea what spurred life here. right now the only thing we(or at least me) can be sure of, is that this planet could be that only 1 in a quadro-trillion-billion that had everything(whatever those things are) necessary to sustain life.

Until there is evidence (a single cell) of ET life, why should anyone believe that it's there ? (unless they want to of course, nothing wrong with that however irrational)

[Spheric Harlot]

For simple reasons of probability.

We've discovered enough planets already that are at least *capable* of providing conditions hospitable to life as we can imagine it to assume that there are billions and billions more.

We've found enough traces of organic material in chunks of rock that have fallen from space to assume that there is plenty of it around "out there".

Aside from delusions of grandeur and pure Act of God (but why should God create the entire universe with probably trillions of hospitable environments, only to single out one planet to populate with creatures hell-bent on destroying it?):

However improbable an event is, the huger the sample size becomes, the more the probability of seeing it happen approaches One.


Another point that hasn't been brought up is that "life" is something we haven't even adequately defined yet in science (vis viruses), and that "life" may exist elsewhere in forms and shapes that are completely unrecognizable/unimaginable to our puny frames of mind.

[Sealobo]

YouTube - The Known Universe by AMNH

if you still think we're on the only planet with life after watching this video. then i have nothing more to add.

[ebuddy]

Finally, one example of high quality footage of a UFO...

... and it's a Russian missile.