Fermi Paradox Paradox

[JohnB]

(I didn't want to derail a good thread in the Cosmology area so I thought one here would be more appropriate.)

 

Just something that struck me as interesting. In this thread on the Fermi Paradox Sceptic Lance says

The Fermi Paradox states that, with all the billions of star systems in the galaxy, how is it that none seem to have spawned an intelligence that has visited Earth?

To which I can only add "Especially since anyone who thinks they may have found evidence of such a visit is obviously a fool or fraud and should not be listened to".

 

On the one hand is the complaint about the lack of evidence for a visit, yet on the other is the automatic assumption that those who think visits have been or are occurring are crackpots. (And most of them are.)

 

I find this dichotomy interesting. Please note, I'm not talking about the evidence or lack of itself, but about the thought processes involved and the attitude towards the possibility of the existence of such evidence.

 

Thoughts?

[Reaper]

 

On the one hand is the complaint about the lack of evidence for a visit, yet on the other is the automatic assumption that those who think visits have been or are occurring are crackpots. (And most of them are.)

 

I find this dichotomy interesting. Thoughts?

 

 

Well, the main reason that people who claim evidence for extraterrestrial visits are considered crackpots is mainly to do with the fact that most of those people are either conspiracy theorists or unreliable witnesses.

 

The story always seems to be the same:

 

It takes place in some remote area to few, if any, witnesses.

 

or

 

Any pictures taken of such are always not very crisp and clear. All pictures or any other evidence is always rather obscure. It is quite possible that they are making it up, or are seeing illusions, or can be explained by natural phenomena.

 

or

 

The government or military is hiding it in Area 51, Yapustin Yar, etc.

 

or

 

They don't have any recollection of the abduction, unless they through hypnosis.

 

 

I've heard of experiments that, when using some form of magnetic stimulation, people do see and feel things similar to that described by people who claim to be abducted.

 

Also, hypnosis can be used to implant memories of events that never happened.

 

 

 

IMO, I'm pretty sure that evidence for aliens visiting Earth would be quite obvious. For one, they would probably be transmitting back to their home planet, which can be detected. Any organisms that hitchhiked with the beings would more than likely inhabit and thrive on Earth and would probably have a profound impact on our ecosystem. We would know that they are alien because their DNA would probably not be traceable to any common ancestor on Earth, or if we find that they are not DNA based that would be an indicator. Also, history shows that when technologically advanced civilizations discover more primitive ones, the results can be quite disastrous for the more primitive one. There are many more I can list, but this is just what I think.

[JohnB]

Most of those who claim a "Close Encounter" are indeed crackpots but some are experienced witnesses.

 

I'm not talking about the veracity of the claims, but the attitude toward them. That is what I find interesting.

 

Example; Officer Smith is describing to you (the jury) how while on patrol he observed a vehicle doing "whatever" and in a calm and logical way describes the events leading up to the arrest of the suspects. By doing this he would (probably) impress you as a thorough and credible witness.

 

However, if he were to give the same type of concise account of seeing an object land and occupants get out, he suddenly moves from the "reliable and cedible" category into the "crackpot" group.

 

The question is "Why?". I think this tells us more about those consigning him to the "crackpot" group than it tells us about him. He is deemed a crackpot because his testimony threatens the belief systems of a large number of people, even if they aren't aware of it.

 

You're comment, "Also, history shows that when technologically advanced civilizations discover more primitive ones, the results can be quite disastrous for the more primitive one." is a telling one and led to a thought. This has never happened to us, us as in "Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman" descended western society.

 

We have always been the advanced society messing up the others. We have always been top dog. Even though the Greek and Roman societies fell, they weren't conquered but went into "remission" and came back stronger than ever. We have never been the technological underdog.

 

After 2,500 years of always being on top (and 2,000 years of a Holy Book that tells us we are the ultimate creation of God) does western society have an unconscious belief that we are the top? What happens when this belief is threatened? Does western society have a "Superiority Complex"?

 

The simple idea that someone else can come here when we can't go there would relegate us to underdog status. No longer the "Lords of Creation" but now a Neolithic savage gazing in wonder at a Nuclear Reactor with no hope of understanding what we see. Does the idea of being so far behind as to not even be in the race frighten us so much?

 

Personally, it doesn't worry me in the slightest, but then it threatens neither my religious beliefs nor my faith in the intelligence of our physicists.

 

I find the whole "UFO" thing quite fascinating and have seen many pictures and read many accounts. The accounts are interesting in that they show a definite progression in the technology described for the "craft". (In the 1800's accounts tell of airships with clearly visible propellors.) By the 1950's the descriptions nearly all included some sort of "flames" at the rear end. Now it's some sort of "Reactionless" drive. Always just a couple of steps ahead of us. I'm sure this should tell us something important, but I have no idea what.

 

Likewise the accounts of "contactees". In the accounts from the 40's and 50's the aliens say they're from Mars and Venus. When probes showed this was not possible they claimed to be from Jupiter. When science disproved that idea, lo and behold, they come from the stars.

 

This leads me to conclude that either a) The contactees are frauds or delusional or b) We have been contacted by a race of amazingly technologically advanced pathological liars. I tend towards "a".

 

As for the photos, they provide enough evidence for me to make this statement. "Apparently solid objects have been seen and photographed that appear to be of artificial construction. If real, they don't appear to match the silhouette or flight characteristics of any known aircraft."

[swansont]

I find the whole "UFO" thing quite fascinating and have seen many pictures and read many accounts. The accounts are interesting in that they show a definite progression in the technology described for the "craft". (In the 1800's accounts tell of airships with clearly visible propellors.) By the 1950's the descriptions nearly all included some sort of "flames" at the rear end. Now it's some sort of "Reactionless" drive. Always just a couple of steps ahead of us. I'm sure this should tell us something important, but I have no idea what.

 

I do have an idea what. It tells us that the "witnesses" are hallucinating/making it up, and their era's technology is limiting their imagination. The time constant for technological improvements showing up in craft visiting us should be very different than what is observed, given the distances involved. One could easily justify the arguement that newer technology should have shown up first, since it would travel faster, and literally overtake the older technology. Without even having to mention the ridiculousness of propeller-driven craft moving in interstellar space.

[JohnB]

I do have an idea what. It tells us that the "witnesses" are hallucinating/making it up, and their era's technology is limiting their imagination.

To a degree certainly. However the reports come from a period before there were Airships (1897), Blimps (1916) or aircraft (1903). It makes me wonder if the human mind has a greater ability for extrapolation than we give it credit for.

 

Some of the reports BTW have a decidedly "modern" flavour in their descriptions.

 

Don't get me wrong here, while I accept that the ufo phenomena is real, as in "People report seeing things in the sky" that doesn't mean that I think we are being visited. Because of the poor and circumstantial nature of the "evidence" I look at the thing forensically, collate the data and see where it leads.

 

It's like putting together a 5,000 piece jigsaw without the Box top. I don't actually care what the final picture looks like, I'm just curious to find out what it is.

[swansont]

To a degree certainly. However the reports come from a period before there were Airships (1897), Blimps (1916) or aircraft (1903). It makes me wonder if the human mind has a greater ability for extrapolation than we give it credit for.

 

Define "Airship." Hot air balloons predate 1800. And certainly the concept of these inventions predates their actual demonstration. Leonardo da Vinci's sketches, and the like.

[Fuzzwood]

Simple: mankind is both arrogant and scared.

[Sayonara]

The Fermi Paradox and its derivative arguments are basically arguments from incredulity.

 

Although we have discussed the "many races yet no visitors" issue at great length with some very good arguments, some people simply won't accept the loss of such a reputable safety blanket.

[ParanoiA]

I do have an idea what. It tells us that the "witnesses" are hallucinating/making it up, and their era's technology is limiting their imagination. The time constant for technological improvements showing up in craft visiting us should be very different than what is observed, given the distances involved. One could easily justify the arguement that newer technology should have shown up first, since it would travel faster, and literally overtake the older technology. Without even having to mention the ridiculousness of propeller-driven craft moving in interstellar space.

 

Or, is our atmosphere something they are accustomed to or are used to? How do we know they didn't copy us in negotiating getting around down here, while the mothercraft parties over the space station? Just a thought...

 

However' date=' if he were to give the same type of concise account of seeing an object land and occupants get out, he suddenly moves from the "reliable and cedible" category into the "crackpot" group.

 

The question is "Why?". I think this tells us more about those consigning him to the "crackpot" group than it tells us about him. He is deemed a crackpot because his testimony threatens the belief systems of a large number of people, even if they aren't aware of it.[/quote']

 

It's a great question and I think you really nailed it yourself. Also, consider the reluctance of others, who believe him, to support him because of that same public ridicule. This keeps him isolated and all the more "kooky".

 

Any pictures taken of such are always not very crisp and clear. All pictures or any other evidence is always rather obscure. It is quite possible that they are making it up, or are seeing illusions, or can be explained by natural phenomena.

 

This is the reason why I think it's BS at this time. They've proven many of those "not very crisp" pictures are easily made - including remaking that classic disc in the sky picture by taking the picture from inside a car with a penny on the windshield.

 

IMO, I'm pretty sure that evidence for aliens visiting Earth would be quite obvious. For one, they would probably be transmitting back to their home planet, which can be detected.

 

May be detected. I don't know. They could be using something organic, something beyond your thinking capacity and certainly beyond our technical capacity. What if they're hundreds of thousands of years beyond us? Or even millions? There's no way to imagine what kind of voyeurism aliens could be practicing on us nor how that would work. We could be as stupid as dogs to them.

 

Also, history shows that when technologically advanced civilizations discover more primitive ones, the results can be quite disastrous for the more primitive one. There are many more I can list, but this is just what I think.

 

Hopefully they're nicer than us. We've been pretty aweful to each other.

[JohnB]

Define "Airship."

A rigid framed dirigable with control surfaces, motors and propellors.

 

While the steerable balloon predates the accounts, there was only one on American soil and it had no propellors. Certain European efforts did indeed have a propellor but it is unlikely that most people knew about them given the literacy levels at the time.

 

What I find interesting is that up until that time all steerable balloons had only one airscrew and a very rudimentary rudder so that is the only possible experience anyone from that time could have of one. This is a far cry from the horizontal and vertical stabilizers and multiple engines that are mentioned in some accounts I've read.

 

Hence my comment about the human mind's ability to extrapolate. I must admit, if someone is going to hallucinate I would expect them to see something relatively familiar, not something that won't appear in the skies for another 20-30 years. I just find it odd, that's all.

Although we have discussed the "many races yet no visitors" issue

Shouldn't that be "many races yet no known concrete evidence of visitors"? Of course we could postulate that the "visitors" go to great lengths to ensure they leave no evidence lying around to give the game away. Perhaps their bureaucracy is as silly as ours.

 

Alien Bureaucrat: "Remember to leave no evidence behind to show the humans you were there."

 

Alien Captain: "And then we'll just fly away, in our ship which glows in the dark, shall we?"

[Reaper]

This is the reason why I think it's BS at this time. They've proven many of those "not very crisp" pictures are easily made - including remaking that classic disc in the sky picture by taking the picture from inside a car with a penny on the windshield.

 

Yup.

 

I just recently saw this video by some guy who claims that UFO's he sees are disguised as clouds.

 

 

May be detected. I don't know. They could be using something organic, something beyond your thinking capacity and certainly beyond our technical capacity. What if they're hundreds of thousands of years beyond us? Or even millions? There's no way to imagine what kind of voyeurism aliens could be practicing on us nor how that would work. We could be as stupid as dogs to them.

 

Well, that probably depends on the method of exploration or transport. Or the mission they are doing, or where they landed. If it is organic, then it is likely that there were other alien organisms that probably would have hitched hiked on the craft. The same holds if some intelligent beings came in as well. There would be evidence of that. And if beings of intelligence did come there is a good chance that they will leave something behind, whether organic or technological.

 

If it was robotic, that would be far trickier to spot. If they are indeed using some sort of exotic communication, that would make it even harder to spot. But then of course you have to consider that if they are sending probes, they are very likely to leave behind equipment, would be more economical and would allow them to learn more by leaving it behind.

 

Location also matters. If it landed near a suburb or city, it would be spotted rather easily and quickly. But if it/they landed in an area like the Gobi desert, then it would be much more difficult to find evidence. So I do agree with you in this regard, it would be much harder to find evidence depending on the circumstances.

 

Even if it was millions of years ahead of us, they are still bound by the laws of nature, so I don't think intelligence or type of technology matters.

 

 

Hopefully they're nicer than us. We've been pretty aweful to each other.

 

I hope so too.

[Sayonara]

Shouldn't that be "many races yet no known concrete evidence of visitors"? Of course we could postulate that the "visitors" go to great lengths to ensure they leave no evidence lying around to give the game away. Perhaps their bureaucracy is as silly as ours.

It warms my cockles to find that - despite my actual words - you still knew what I meant. That is, in fact, the heart of the matter.

[JohnB]

I just try to get my exact meaning across. In this case I'm using "known" to mean "recognised". Too many people assume that because we haven't recognised something, it doesn't exist. I'm open to the possibility that we have seen evidence but haven't recognised it as such.