Leaderboard

Moon is not suggesting we leave tomorrow, and therefore is not dependent on current technology. If the proposed future technology seems feasible, or it at least does not violate accepted physics, I'm unsure why he cannot reference it to discuss the future. The technology to colonize Mars does not exist but that doesn't keep reputable scientists from discussing it as a possible future endeavor. Discussions about the future are, almost by definition, required to speculate about future technologies.

I think you are missing the point of the slow ark. Great speed is not necessary. It is not as if the people who depart Earth will arrive at the destination no matter how fast you go. It is the future generations who will arrive. Not everyone is completely lacking in curiosity or would consider finding new life to be beneath one's dignity. I'm guessing you don't bother to interact with many people who have cognitive disabilities.

Electromagnetic radiation is ubiquitous, and has the advantage of traveling at c. I think it is safe to assume that an advanced civilization will have discovered it and figured out how to use it. While it is certainly not the only communication medium, someone interested in talking to us will likely attempt multiple channels. We don't have to wait until we know everything to do something.

I have no desire to revisit this. The threads exist. I also can't help but note that my objection to you citing nonexistent technology is to cite...nonexistent technology. And has been for 40 years.

Of course. You're absolutely right. Thanks so much!

Volume of acetic acid which is in liquid/solid state not gaseous state..

LNPs were in use before that. See Anselmo and Mirtagotri Bioeng Transl Med. 2016 Mar; 1(1): 10–29.

I tend to agree with @Prometheus. I find it difficult to see the paradox because there are so many unknowns. Let me give you an example: In recent years it's been discovered that there are microorganisms living underground and in the marine bottoms with life cycles completely disparate from those imposed by the Sun. This suggests that we are barely starting to understand the limits of life in our own planet. I would add the ethological argument. Namely: Why would another civilisation want to be seen by us? Predation, parasitism, territoriality, and other similar patterns in which one organism takes advantage of another are very common in Nature. Not always or necessarily to the advantage of one, the other, or both. Then there is the issue itself of how Fermi conceived of the question. It was a very informal argument arising from a conversation, that he later tried to make into a scientific argument, but I don't think he ever made it very rigorous or attempted to do so. Then came Drake and his equation. That's a more serious attempt at setting up the question. But still, so many unknowns... And going back to the original argument from Fermi, it sounds suspiciously similar to an argument from silence: We don't see any evidence of this, thereby it never happened. The way in which this kind of argument can mislead you has been extensively analysed in classical studies, archaeology, and all sciences that have to do with studying the past.

Claimed without evidence, yet again. You've never been able to support this without an appeal to technology that does not exist, and properties of the universe that are not confirmed.

I don't know why so many people get this idea that we'll become or be superseded by an artificial superintelligence by this century. We'll probably go on for thousands of years as the same, limited biological species in a civilization "a la star wars/trek".

Facepalm* N/A

What would that be? Also, it appears you have failed to pick apart my argument and provided detailed refutations. From what I have observed, it appears that you have engaged in a red herring and an ad hominem. I am not interested in arguing in circles with you. I was on onlinephilosophyclub.com and communicated various ideas in relation to the legal system. It appeared that the issue of "epistemological anarchism" (a concept I learned from Wikipedia) came up, whereby I eventually figured out that all legal cases should be ending in a mistrial. With the usage of term "accuracy," it may inferred that I am referring also to "validity." In argumentation, the reasonableness of a claim is related to whether or not it is sound and valid. However, if an individual lacks absolution in any domain of expertise to ensure the validity and soundness of a claim, then it might be interpreted that the "validity" of a claim is left upon falsification. Here is a paragraph from an essay I have typed in relation to standards of proof: Police claim they have met the standard of proof known as probable cause in various situations. They also claim to have met a standard known as "reasonable suspicion." Both of those claims are false claims. Do you think it is possible for a police officer to have totality of the facts and circumstances in relation to a perceived crime in order to claim something as a crime? If so, why would there be a need for due process, a hearing, a tribunal, etc.? There wouldn't be such a need. Otherwise, such need in itself would be considered racketeering. It appears to me that you have some sort of extreme political agenda, such as continuing the support of racketeering and extortion. Also, presuming your username is not your real name, I'm under the impression that you're suffering from some delusional disorder, categorically some form of dissociative identity disorder, thus preventing you from making logical sense out of things.

Why any advanced civilisation would wanna communicate anything to a civilisation which can not even speak the same universal math they do. Like someone would expect from Einstein to repeatedly explain on different channels the theory of Relativity to a streptococcus bacteria.