Afraid Of Aliens? The Science Doesn't Back You Up

[C C]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswitha...ae219a1429

EXCERPT: [...] That's exactly the fear that many among us possess. But is that fear based in reality, and is that a legitimate reason to not send our messages, spacecraft, and information to the stars beyond our reach? Absolutely not. Let's imagine the possibilities. If aliens wanted natural resources like rare elements, they'd be best off visiting a planet made out of those elements; there's no advantage in coming to Earth. If they wanted molecular oxygen, they'd likely have the astronomical technology that's already on the horizon for the 21st century here on Earth: to search for those molecular signatures in exoplanet atmospheres. In fact, if they were interested in inhabited worlds at all, even if the goal were simply to wipe them out, they would be able to use techniques and technology that we've already envisioned to systematically find them....

MORE: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswitha...ae219a1429

- - -

[stryder]

It's assumed that it's naive to look at the infinite expanse of the universe and consider the possibility that it's creation itself was/is artificial. After all there is so many religions that angle their perception at creationism with variants of mysticism and fallacy.

The thing however is that our (Mankinds) endeavours to understand the universe is destined to unravel not just how it works through science, but eventually rationalising that it's existence is only possible by taking an active role in making it happen. It can be compared to an existential cycle usually referred to as a Singularity. Various belief systems have echo'd these sentiments with consideration of not just individually being conscious but apart of the universe conscious too (In fact part of the perception of enlightenment is collapsing the definition between the two so they are one in the same, the Singularity).

While some Transhumanist's (Futurists that consider how our technologies can advance us beneficially, as opposed to fearing change.) consider a Singularity as something yet to happen, I rationalise that we are already apart of one... we just haven't got to the point of understanding that we are, we are however currently verging on that awareness.

The reason I mention all this is down to the narrative I've pursued in regards to the universe; It's creation, it's reason for existing and subsequently more to the point our reason for existence. While indeed at points in time mankind's nativity had both the sun revolving around the earth as well as it being the centre of the universe. Those perceptions no matter how erroneous did however have one thing in common, our observations are self-serving and this is something that is apart of our anthropological make-up as we are all about surviving through adaptation (tool using, cultivation and culture) and Egocentrism (It's all about us)

As mentioned the universe is infinite, our observations of it's size however is limited to our capacity of only being able to observe finite volumes. (To observe beyond our scope of capacity is left to pure conjecture.) The questions that might well be raised but not usually answered is why is the universe potentially (that's the term used with conjecture) infinite?

Part of the rationality is this, if the universe is something we are apart of, not just as observers within it but part of building it's existance, reaching a limitation (a wall or barrier) would literally be like creating a prison. Our perception of freedom would be proven to be false, our inspiration and aspirations to push further into unknown's in science would be cut down an relegated to finite knowns leaving no room for growth. In essence we would smoother ourselves by not allowing any room left to grow, not just as individuals but as a species (We've seen what limiting the size of a habitat can do to endangered species that are only that way because of mankind).

A microcosmic experiment to understand this rendition is simply a bacterium culture in a petridish, it's growth will emanate out to the edges of the dish until it reaches the boundary, at which point it will turn back on itself and reach a point of an equilibrium fluctuation, where the culture exists in both as live and dead parts. At which point it either continues to fluctuate or should a malformity or disease hit the culture, the whole dish can stagnate to death.

Consider however should that culture have the capacity to not just perceive it's barriers but be able to increase the size of the dish so it never meets the barrier, it would never reach the point of being either an equilibrium or suffering stagnant death.

In essence what I'm implying is that should a rendition of Arthur C Clarke's perception of Magic ("Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."), so to magically never reach a boundary doesn't necessarily mean that one was never there, it's just sufficiently advanced to be moved.

This however bring me to the point of why expressing all this in relationship to Forbes "don't fear the aliens" article. I can not honestly believe that aliens exist. While indeed science will depict that we can't be alone in this universe, it's rendition of existence is like poker in the sense that the cards it's dealt it deals with at face value, it just speculates what cards are left in the deck and the chance of what cards the dealer holds. The problem of course is the assumption that it's poker being played and not some other game entirely.

I'd considered the potential of aliens in line with the Singularity rational, however as a Apex Predatorial species, if we had the choice of allowing aliens to exist in a universe that we are apart of building, our own concerns of staying on top and not having to deal with the emergence of a subsequent Uber-Predatorial species with ambitions to take our place is the very reason why we'd leave aliens out and remain in this universe alone. ("... Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. ..." Bene Gesserit Litany against fear)

[C C]

[...] Consider however should that culture have the capacity to not just perceive it's barriers but be able to increase the size of the dish so it never meets the barrier, it would never reach the point of being either an equilibrium or suffering stagnant death.

In essence what I'm implying is that should a rendition of Arthur C Clarke's perception of Magic ("Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."), so to magically never reach a boundary doesn't necessarily mean that one was never there, it's just sufficiently advanced to be moved.

This however bring me to the point of why expressing all this in relationship to Forbes "don't fear the aliens" article. I can not honestly believe that aliens exist. While indeed science will depict that we can't be alone in this universe, it's rendition of existence is like poker in the sense that the cards it's dealt it deals with at face value, it just speculates what cards are left in the deck and the chance of what cards the dealer holds. The problem of course is the assumption that it's poker being played and not some other game entirely.

I'd considered the potential of aliens in line with the Singularity rational, however as a Apex Predatorial species, if we had the choice of allowing aliens to exist in a universe that we are apart of building, our own concerns of staying on top and not having to deal with the emergence of a subsequent Uber-Predatorial species with ambitions to take our place is the very reason why we'd leave aliens out and remain in this universe alone. ("... Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. ..." Bene Gesserit Litany against fear)

In terms of choice in leaving them out... Back in that era or even now, most of Asimov's story settings were unusual from the standpoint of occurring in a Milky Way that was largely bereft of competitors to humans. But his prescient 1950s version of Time Lords (the Eternals) ironically obstructed that anthropocentric situation from developing than rather engineering it. Until the Eternals themeselves were prevented from being founded by changing the past.

We often consider any space traveling, complex life as having to be rational, intelligent, etc (to some degree) in order to accomplish that feat in the first place. But it might alternatively be animal-level mentality that evolved from the runaway nanotech of some civilization it destroyed / consumed. Or far less likely, life of conventional origins that arose in a gas torus that was unusually dense and rich in chemical resources. Which gradually adapted in a heavy armored and hibernating-capable form to the hostile extremes of bare space itself. (Granting that conditions in the gas torus were severe in their own right in terms of surviving radiation, lightning discharges, savagely low and high temperatures, etc.)

Still, in their abysmally slow progress across interstellar space, they would either not have the knack for apprehending what human transmissions meant (if they were receptive to a wide range of the electromagnetic spectrum), or find it even in terms of their animal instincts not worth venturing from their current migration route (nearer planetary systems are available to gobble-up or have a dominating spasm of reproduction in). Eventually, in the course of millions or billions of years of wandering, they'd make their way here anyway.

There are those menaces that come from hypothetical astrobiological spores which may accordingly lack rationality and a sense of morality, too. The 1960s film version of "The Day of the Triffids" sported that in its many deviations from the original novel. (In the latter, triffids were speculated to instead have been produced by USSR bioengineering.) But though either their appetite or their need for an Earth-like world might make us more desirable to an end-product of spores, they would have no control over their destination as well as any sentience to specifically detect a preferable target system.

- - -

[Secular Sanity]

The thing however is that our (Mankinds) endeavours to understand the universe is destined to unravel not just how it works through science, but eventually rationalising that it's existence is only possible by taking an active role in making it happen.  It can be compared to an existential cycle usually referred to as a Singularity. Various belief systems have echo'd these sentiments with consideration of not just individually being conscious but apart of the universe conscious too (In fact part of the perception of enlightenment is collapsing the definition between the two so they are one in the same, the Singularity).

I don't think it works like that, Stryder. 

Part of the rationality is this, if the universe is something we are apart of, not just as observers within it but part of building it's existance, reaching a limitation (a wall or barrier) would literally be like creating a prison.  Our perception of freedom would be proven to be false, our inspiration and aspirations to push further into unknown's in science would be cut down an relegated to finite knowns leaving no room for growth.  In essence we would smoother ourselves by not allowing any room left to grow, not just as individuals but as a species  (We've seen what limiting the size of a habitat can do to endangered species that are only that way because of mankind).

A microcosmic experiment to understand this rendition is simply a bacterium culture in a petridish, it's growth will emanate out to the edges of the dish until it reaches the boundary, at which point it will turn back on itself and reach a point of an equilibrium fluctuation, where the culture exists in both as live and dead parts.  At which point it either continues to fluctuate or should a malformity or disease hit the culture, the whole dish can stagnate to death.

Consider however should that culture have the capacity to not just perceive it's barriers but be able to increase the size of the dish so it never meets the barrier, it would never reach the point of being either an equilibrium or suffering stagnant death.

I hate to sound cynical here but I think we have limitations.  We are bound.   

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/reeU09R4TIA