ydoaPs Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 we aren't going to be roaming accross the universe looking for life any time soon, so lets just foreget about money for now. yes, we would learn if we found identical life, but we would learn vastly more if it were different. wat better way to find different life than to look in a different place?
Sayonara Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 we aren't going to be roaming accross the universe looking for life any time soon, so lets just foreget about money for now. yes, we would learn if we found identical life, but we would learn vastly more if it were different. wat better way to find different life than to look in a different place? Because it costs billions with little chance of getting anything out of it. You don't get to discard that fact just because it is inconvenient to you. Also, I would dispute that we would learn more. What we learned would be different.
ydoaPs Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 it's not that it's inconvenient, it's that mony will be different by the time we can explore the universe. it might even be like startrek where there is no money (although i seriously doubt it) u are forgetting, not only would we learn what we would if we found similar life, but we would learn about thier metabolic proccesses and genetic material and all the other stuff we already know about earth life
Sayonara Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 it's not that it's inconvenient, it's that mony will be different by the time we can explore the universe. it might even be like startrek where there is no money (although i seriously doubt it) Sorry, I didn't realise the reality we were discussing was the one in your head. u are forgetting, not only would we learn what we would if we found similar life, but we would learn about thier metabolic proccesses and genetic material and all the other stuff we already know about earth life No, I am not forgetting that. It's already provided for by my response. "Not more, but different".
ydoaPs Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 the reality we are talking about is hundreds maybe thousands of years away. yes more wat we would learn if we found similar life+thier metabolic proccesses and genetic material and all the other stuff we already know about earth life = more than we would learn if we found similar life. 1+1=2, not 1
J'Dona Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 Well, in that case, the Federation would need to divert significant resources and manpower toward the project of investigating gas giant atmospheres for life, whereas they could have spent less resources doing something like colonising Mars and getting the name "United Federation of Planets" to actually apply. Oh, and they find out decades later that there's an underwater civilization on Europa, but they never bothered to check it before. And they're tentacled squids with no heads the eat and breath out of... nevermind. No, seriously... the point is that there's a vastly greater chance of finding extraterrestrial life on another rocky planet than on a gas giant, and that in terms of overall efficiency it would be better to concentrate on the former. People can only send so many probes out into space, and since we're all very impatient we want to check out those incredibly more likely places first. If money still exists it wont be "different" in such a way that where it cost money to explore before, now it doesn't, so the issue holds.
superstorm Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 It isd very possible that there would be intelligent life somewhere out there. They wont look exactly LIKE us humans because of evolutionary courses but its possible theyll be humanoid.
ydoaPs Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 you'd rather do the same thing over and over than try something new?
J'Dona Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 If doing it over and over again carried large scientific benefits with a reasonable chance of success every time, as compared to similar benefits for something with hardly any chance at all, then yes.
Sayonara Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 the reality we are talking about is hundreds maybe thousands of years away. The future is not observable and does not - insofar as we know - have an impact on the present. Your arguments are void. yes morewat we would learn if we found similar life+thier metabolic proccesses and genetic material and all the other stuff we already know about earth life = more than we would learn if we found similar life. 1+1=2, not 1 You have a very simplistic view of biology. Let all the metabolisms we know of on Earth [acr=Metabolism Group 1]MG1[/acr]. Likewise let Earth genetics be [acr=Genetics Group 1]GG1[/acr]. Assume we find another life system with different metabolisms and genetics. Label them [acr=Metabolism Group 2]MG2[/acr] and [acr=Genetics Group 2]GG2[/acr]. Finding out about MG2 and GG2 does not mean we know more biology. We already know about metabolisms and genetics because we have MG1 and GG1. What we have found are simply different manifestations of the M-Group and the G-Group. You ask what we would learn from finding Earth-similar life: Primarily, we'd be able to answer old questions about life on Earth by testing against life off Earth. The more similar the alien life is to us, the fewer the variables that can interfere with the results. We'd be closer to understanding how common our life structure is in the galaxy. We'd have the possibility of establishing whether galactic ecology or panspermia play a role in the population of sterile worlds with life. Completely disimilar life would not afford this opportunity. There are many other possibilities for study but they are all rather contingent on the circumstances in which we find this life form/ecosystem: you haven't specified any such conditions and I'm not listing them all, because I don't have all day. Well actually I do have all day, but I'm not spending it on that.
JaKiri Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 you'd rather do the same thing over and over than try something new? Given that we haven't found any extraterrestrial life, you're a bit premature in saying we've done it once, let alone over and over again.
ydoaPs Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 i never said we found it. i said the same thing which refers to carbon-based life
Sayonara Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 i never said we found it. i said the same thing which refers to carbon-based life So, to use your algebra analogy from earlier, you are trying to solve 2+x=5 for Y.
ydoaPs Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 no. i said we should introduce a new problem instead of doin 2+x=5 a few billion times.
Sayonara Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 no.i said we should introduce a new problem instead of doin 2+x=5 a few billion times. What exactly is it that you are proposing?
ydoaPs Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 i have already said it several times. we would learn more from a different kind of life than our own
Sayonara Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 That's not a proposal, nor is it "introducing a new problem". Once again, it's a baseless statement that you haven't evidenced or reasoned out. I've already been through the whole "different biology != more biology" thing.
ydoaPs Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 how isn't it more? it's what re already know about earth life but for them plus what we would learn anyway.
Sayonara Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 how isn't it more? it's what re already know about earth life but for them plus what we would learn anyway. See post #60. Mechanisms of a function do not count as new functions. Oh, and that's not just for biology. It's for any object-oriented hierarcy.
ydoaPs Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 wat r u talkin bout? thats not wat i said at all. u said that we wouldn't learn more from different life, and i said that we would.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 Shouldn't ExtraDense be here arguing too? I thougt he would be proving how there are sheep on mars that eat berries made of rock.
ydoaPs Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 wat? who is stupid enough to say that? sheep dont eat the berries, the little green men do. lol
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 ExtraDense says there are sheep on mars. That eat the berries.
ydoaPs Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 ha, lmfao. ok, the berries are mineraldeposits. did u tell him that?
Sayonara Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 wat r u talkin bout? thats not wat i said at all. u said that we wouldn't learn more from different life, and i said that we would. I am going to lie down in a darkened room and try not to scream. If you are looking for ExtraSense, I have blocked him from posting anywhere other than the pseudoscience forum.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now