Is it too late for me to say: "In space, no-one can hear you scream?" ...
Who is to say they didn't? Maybe we are a colony of a species that seeded other stars and didn't have FTL travel. Maybe they did it and aren't around anymore since it would have been a long, long time ago, in a solar system far, far away. We could colonize the galaxy without ever leaving the solar system and without FTL.
We need not assume that that patently immoral cultural relativist doctrine is everywhere present.One consideration I sometimes think is their ethics: whereas we 150 years ago contacting a different civilisation (apart from less noble motives) had no doubt we were doing our duty and benefiting them in drawing them into ours, now we are more likely on contacting a people in Brazilia or New Guinea to think the ethical thing is to leave them alone and that it is better for them not to know anything of us.
It also might be that the probabilities are more along the lines of, say, one Earthlike planet (with Moon, assuming it's necessary) per galaxy, or per 10 galaxies, or 100 ... . Who knows?
Just saw an article that there is new speculation based on discovered planets around other suns that there could be earthlike planets around all the stars that are similar to ours (not news to me, I would have bet money on that before we ever discovered the first planet). Also that there could be life on many of them. If there is life it could be intelligent.
Assuming for the sake of argument that there are hundreds or even thousands of intelligent civilizations in our galaxy, why haven't we heard them? What are the possible explanations for the silence?Assuming intelligent life exists elsewhere, we haven't heard from them because:
b. We don't speak their language. It's foolish to assume, as many do, that we can automatically detect products of conscious choice. I ask you, what metric would allow us to determine information produced by a conscious entity from random sets of order?
In the final analysis, we probably haven't heard from "them" because "they" do not exist. At least...not...yet.
I don't speak Mandarin but I could tell it was a language. It could be recognized because it WOULDN'T be random. There are patterns in language and signals that can be recognized, ever hear of code breakers? Any reasoning you could apply that they don't exist could be applied to us yet here we are.
If intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe (and I seriously doubt that it does at this point in time), it may not communicate with a system of languages familiar to human beings. If that is the case, you would never know you were being communicated with by other life forms within the universe regardless of how good your (or anyone's) code breaking skills might be.
I agree, but without the Moon it's unlikely that life capable of sending and recieving signals to and from distant planets would have -- anyway, that's the contention of a program I saw on The History Channel, iirc.I wouldn't make the assumption that a moon (of our moons size or any size for that matter) is required for life to develope. It would seem that way when we look at life on our planet, but that is only beacause our life developed and evolved with our moon. If there was no moon, it would have evolved differently, but it still would have evolved.
In another thread I asked how far away would we be able to detect a civilization that is emitting signals exactly like we are emitting ignoring the travel time issue. It seems from the posts there that we should be able to detect emissions like ours from almost anywhere in the galaxy so detection isn't the obvious problem.
Actually, that is the problem.
We can not detect random signals from more than a few hundred light years away.
The cost of sending focused signals is very expensive and even those can not be detected more than a few thousand light years away.
Earth has sent only 1 or 2 focused signals and they each lasted less than a 1 hour.
Our Galaxy is 100,000 light years in diameter. So, at best we can only hope to detect
a signal within an small part of that.
I wouldn't make the assumption that a moon (of our moons size or any size for that matter) is required for life to develope. It would seem that way when we look at life on our planet, but that is only beacause our life developed and evolved with our moon. If there was no moon, it would have evolved differently, but it still would have evolved.
nottheone said:The moon isn't required for life to develop. What it probably did was take a few hits for us. We might not be here today if some of the things that hit it were heading towards us and that is likely. It may save us in the future too. But we had better get off our *** because it is a mighty small shield and sooner or later we will be hit again.
Recent discussions concerning the likelihood of encountering intelligent extraterrestrial technological civilizations have run into an apparent paradox. If, as many now contend, interstellar exploration and settlement is possible at non-relativistic speeds, then reasonable calculations suggest that space-faring species, or their machine surrogates, should pervade the galaxy. The apparent absence of evidence for extraterrestrial civilizations, herein called 'the Great Silence' places severe burdens on present models.
Many of the current difficulties are due to inadequate exploration of the parameters of the problem. A review of the topic shows that present approaches may be simplistic.
The quandary of the Great Silence gives the infant study of xenology its first traumatic struggle, between those who seek optimistic excuses for the apparent absence of sentient neighbors and those who enthusiastically accept the Silence as evidence for humanity's isolation in an open frontier.
Both approaches suffer greatly from personal bias, and from lack of detailed comparative study. In this article we have attempted to deal with a subject that, for all its great importance, is almost ghostly in its intangibility. We have broken the subject into it logical elements and attempted a morphological discussion of the possibilities. Table I represents an overview of many of the ideas discussed here and their respective effects on the factors in equations (1-3). It is up to the interested reader to look up the references cited and come to his/her own conclusions.
Some of the branch lines discussed here serve the optimists, while others seem pessimistic to an unprecedented degree. We have laid out only the outline of a full analysis of the problem. Further work should consider every experimental test that could be applied to this fundamental question of humanity's uniqueness.
This survey demonstrates that the Universe has many more ways to be nasty that previously discussed. Indeed the only hypotheses proposed which appear to be wholly consistent with the observation and with non-exclusivity - 'Deadly Probes' and 'Ecological Holocaust' - are depressing to consider.
Still, while the author does not accept that elder species will necessarily be wiser that contemporary humanity, such noble races might have appeared. If such a culture lived long, and retained much of the vigor of youth, it might have instilled a tradition of respect for the hidden potential of life in subsequent space-faring species.
It might turn out that the Great Silence is like that of a child's nursery, wherein adults speak softly, lest they disturb the infant's extravagant and colorful time of dreaming.
The moon isn't required for life to develop. What it probably did was take a few hits for us. We might not be here today if some of the things that hit it were heading towards us and that is likely. It may save us in the future too. But we had better get off our *** because it is a mighty small shield and sooner or later we will be hit again.
Not necessarily, compressed digital data should ideally be completely random. From an information theory point of view any recognisable intelligent information in a signal is wasting bandwidth.If we intercept a communication signal in the electromagnetic spectrum, no matter how different they are it will not look like a natural random phenomena. No matter how they communicate it will have to contain intelligent information by it's definition as a communication signal. Look at it the other way around. If this hypothetical species of yours intercepted an FM signal from us they wouldn't understand it but they would know it wasn't a natural signal.
The moon could just as easily attract more material towards the earth-moon system or even speed it up before it hits Earth, causing more destruction. One argument that I've heard for the moon being vital to certain kinds of life is that its orbit around Earth stabilizes Earth's rotation. Apparently without it, our axial tilt would fluctuate wildly and could cause some pretty extreme variation in seasons and weather. I'm not sure if this is true, though.
I base my comment on the apparent fact that the far side of the moon is much more heavily cratered than the near side and a little common sense.
But a significant percentage of the things that caused craters on the moon's far side would have been heading towards us if they hadn't hit the moon's backside.
Really? Think this spec blocks many things from hitting Earth? Size and distance to scale.
If it hit the far side of the moon it certainly wasn't headed AWAY from us and if the moon wasn't there, the trajectory for many of those things would have brought them into our gravity field.