Technologically/Intellectually Superior Aliens: "Unpleasant Visits"?

[tristan]

In his famous Life in the Universe lecture, Stephen Hawking postulated that earth has not been visited by aliens, and that "any visits by aliens, would be much more obvious, and probably also, much more unpleasant."

 

Why?

 

I wonder, that if an alien species had evolved to the point of expanding interstellarly, would they not presumably be intelligent enough to realize the sort of chaos that an "obvious" appearance would cause? Even if the ET's were looking to wipe out our species and colonize our planet, humans faced with an "unpleasant" alien encounter would most likely react nuclearly, and destroy themselves and possibly earth. Its in the best interest for an extrastellar race to make contact in the least conspicuous way, or to at least wait until humans have evolved to a less barbaric point themselves.

 

What do you think?

[Mr Skeptic]

Well if you consider how evolution works, the aliens are likely to be very self-interested. Consider how we treat other animals, even though we know that they are sentient and intelligent. Consider also how we treat other humans. It is quite likely the aliens would try to exploit earth and maybe also us.

 

Now if we are lucky, the effects of society (which might be necessary for a technologically advanced civilization so they can build a space ship to visit earth) might counteract a bit of the tendencies that evolution would give them. Maybe we just get a scientist alien, which might take samples earth life (probably including humans), and if we are very lucky they might deign to try to communicate with us.

 

Also, we can't destroy the earth. We might wipe all intelligent life off the earth, but won't destroy it. Considering that space travel takes a long time, and there are other planets around here, they just might not care. Why would they want Earth life anyways?

[Moontanman]

Why would aliens even want a planet? Artificial space habitats make much more sense than trying to colonies hostile planets. Gravity wells would be something a space faring species would avoid. Asteroid type belts would be much more of a target, materials to build more colonies and easy to move around, not like launching a space craft from a planet.

[tristan]

In response to Mr. Skeptic:

 

Well if you consider how evolution works, the aliens are likely to be very self-interested. Consider how we treat other animals, even though we know that they are sentient and intelligent. Consider also how we treat other humans. It is quite likely the aliens would try to exploit earth and maybe also us.

 

From my point of view, it seems that as a civilization, we might actually be moving in the opposite direction. As our society becomes more and more self-sufficient, interconnected and complex, we are also becoming less barbaric. Incidences of racism and hate crimes seems to fall as countries become more civilized and developed. Dodgeball has been eliminated from gym classes because our society empathizes with failure to an unprecedented level.

Perhaps it's our collective removal from life threatening situations that leaves room for magnanimity and altruism. Technology works to provide humans with comfort and security. It was the rise of agriculture that spawned complex thought in humans; we were no longer forced to concern ourselves with the acquisition of food on a day to day basis, and could therefore put more time into intellectual endeavors. Instead of competing with each other, we began to work together because we were intelligent enough to recognize that life is easier when "we all get along".

Sure, we still have wars. We still have genocide. Its 2009 and there are horrible things that people still do to each other every day, but a majority of the population recognizes these actions as "wrong". I guess what I'm trying to say is that maybe with increased intelligence comes a rise in understanding and peace.

 

 

In response to Moontanman:

 

Why would aliens even want a planet? Artificial space habitats make much more sense than trying to colonies hostile planets.

 

Resources, a habitable environment, a relatively stable launching point, a means of catching overflow populations? I definitely see where you're coming from, but think about our own progress; as we begin to explore the space outside of our own planet, we are constantly searching for bodies that parallel our earth. We are reaching a critical mass both in population, and use of resources. For humans, "artificial space habitats" that can house entire societies are just impractical. Wouldn't it be just as unrealistic for an alien race?

[Moontanman]

Moving entire populations to a newly build habitat would be far more practical than moving entire populations to another planet in another star system. But for the most part populations in space habitats would move slowly as habitats were build, not in mass. We will never be able to move a significant number of people off the face of the earth. We have babies far faster than any possible number of space craft could move them off the earth much less to another planet. But orbiting colonies or space habitats built from the easily obtained resources of space could be built almost like cookies laying on top of each other in a stack, a never ending construction project. each stack of colonies could contribute to other stacks and populations could move among them freely. the population on the earth could contribute to the populations in space but billions or even millions of people could never be moved off planet in periods of time short enough affect the earth's own population.

[tristan]

Good point, I didn't think about complications of distance. Then again, and I hate to use the cliche Christopher Columbus analogy, but if Europeans followed your notion, (Oceans = Space, North America = Earth-like body) they would have built artificial, dock-like habitats just off the shore, instead of traveling across the Atlantic. And even still, it was less of an entire population migration,and more of a branching and expanding effect.

 

Please, don't hesitate to tell me that I'm wrong, as you can probably tell, these are just unfounded musings

[Mr Skeptic]

On the other hand, a planet has such a gravity well because there is so much mass concentrated in one place. Now, considering the sort of energy source that would be required to do interstellar travel, you'd also have to consider the possibility that aliens would have the capability to disassemble the entire planet into space habitats if they preferred space habitats to planets.

[Moontanman]

Good point, I didn't think about complications of distance. Then again, and I hate to use the cliche Christopher Columbus analogy, but if Europeans followed your notion, (Oceans = Space, North America = Earth-like body) they would have built artificial, dock-like habitats just off the shore, instead of traveling across the Atlantic. And even still, it was less of an entire population migration,and more of a branching and expanding effect.

 

Please, don't hesitate to tell me that I'm wrong, as you can probably tell, these are just unfounded musings

 

First i think you have to consider how very few people actually traveled to the "new world" compared to how many stayed behind. Then there is the issue of how easy it was to live in the new world. Notice how Antarctica was never actually colonized, a new planet would be a very hostile, even an Earth like planet would be unlikely to be as livable as North America and even North American colonies failed. A strange ecosystem, lack of important trace elements or too much of poisonous trace elements, no friendly natives to help out (my ancestors were Native Americans) extreme logistical problems. Colonizing another star system via it's planets seems to be the hardest way to me. A small difference in mercury or arsenic could make a planet virtually uninhabitable to us. Lack of other trace elements could mean the same thing in the long term. A star with a huge asteroid belt instead of planets would seem to be the place to find star fairing aliens.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

On the other hand, a planet has such a gravity well because there is so much mass concentrated in one place. Now, considering the sort of energy source that would be required to do interstellar travel, you'd also have to consider the possibility that aliens would have the capability to disassemble the entire planet into space habitats if they preferred space habitats to planets.

 

Just a small group of asteroids such as the Trojan asteroids around Jupiter represent enough material to build habitats for billions of individuals. breaking up a planet and all the bits going off in wild orbits seems to be a bit messy and maybe showy to be realistic to me.

[Genecks]

The way I see it, if the aliens have enough energy and technology to swing over to this part of the universe, then they have enough energy and technology to use whatever resources around them before coming to Earth.

 

However, be it they 'needed' to come to Earth from lack of resources, my guess is that aliens would have the intent of obliterating us. Perhaps such a situation would include the fifth generation of a species that's been inhabiting a spaceship in autopilot for the past 500 years; and then eventually the ship reaches Earth, docks, and releases the aliens.

 

Then again, I would suspect if they couldn't gain enough education to take control of the ship and use the advanced technology available to them, they more than likely would not provide much of a threat to the human species. However, I think they could provide a temporary threat to the ecology if unnoticed for too long. Furthermore, if there is a virus they are carrying in their bodies (perhaps unknowingly), I suspect its pathogenic potential would be more of a worry.

[Mr Skeptic]

Just a small group of asteroids such as the Trojan asteroids around Jupiter represent enough material to build habitats for billions of individuals. breaking up a planet and all the bits going off in wild orbits seems to be a bit messy and maybe showy to be realistic to me.

 

Well, I was thinking of something more along the lines of draining the atmosphere and then shooting up useful material with a railgun. Not nuking the planet into little bits. Here's a thought: how much mass is there in asteroids in the solar system compared to a planet like earth?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Furthermore, if there is a virus they are carrying in their bodies (perhaps unknowingly), I suspect its pathogenic potential would be more of a worry.

 

Nope, an alien virus would be completely harmless to us. An alien bacterium, on the other hand, could pose more of a threat.

[Moontanman]

The way I see it, if the aliens have enough energy and technology to swing over to this part of the universe, then they have enough energy and technology to use whatever resources around them before coming to Earth.

 

I see no reason to assume star traveling aliens would have magical god like technology. An enclosed space habitat could make the rip from one star to another in a few hundred years and with technology quite conceivable by us at the very least. Such a society would simply make use of native materials to make more habitats, eventually sending out more colony habitats to "infect" other star systems. No planets needed and maybe stars with huge debris fields instead of planets would be more desirable than stars with planets. A society that has made such a trip in a enclosed habitat might not even like the idea of a planet, having lived for generations inside what is basically a mega city a planet would seem a strange and dangerous s place.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_habitat

 

However, be it they 'needed' to come to Earth from lack of resources, my guess is that aliens would have the intent of obliterating us. Perhaps such a situation would include the fifth generation of a species that's been inhabiting a spaceship in autopilot for the past 500 years; and then eventually the ship reaches Earth, docks, and releases the aliens.

 

What resources could the Earth have that wouldn't be easier to get from asteroids and comet like materials?

 

 

Then again, I would suspect if they couldn't gain enough education to take control of the ship and use the advanced technology available to them, they more than likely would not provide much of a threat to the human species. However, I think they could provide a temporary threat to the ecology if unnoticed for too long. Furthermore, if there is a virus they are carrying in their bodies (perhaps unknowingly), I suspect its pathogenic potential would be more of a worry.

 

 

You've been reading Heinlein I'm not sure about the idea of disease being transmitted between totally isolated ecosystems, Life on another planet may not even be based on the same nucleic acids as Earth's, or even the same Chirality. I think that debate is fodder for another thread.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Here's a thought: how much mass is there in asteroids in the solar system compared to a planet like earth?

.

 

All the Asteroids together make up about 4% of the mass of the Earth's moon, still a huge mass, and that doesn't count Jupiter's Trojan asteroids, comets or other asteroid like bodies outside the main belt.

[Genecks]

I'm guessing none of you believe in species-jumping microorganisms?

They do exist, by the way.

 

Maybe it could be harmless to us, but perhaps not another species.

And from there, species jumping might eventually reach Homo sapiens.

[Moontanman]

I'm guessing none of you believe in species-jumping microorganisms?

They do exist, by the way.

 

Maybe it could be harmless to us, but perhaps not another species.

And from there, species jumping might eventually reach Homo sapiens.

 

You are 100% correct species-jumping microorganisms do indeed exist but all life on Earth is related, we all share the same basic genetic codes. All of Earths infectious microorganisms have evolved to infect Earths life forms by using this similarity to their advantage. Life forms who share no history what so ever with us would be very unlikely to infect Earthly life forms. I once heard it described as us being infected by alfalfa wilt but many times more unlikely.

[Mr Skeptic]

Hm, why limit ourselves to technological and intelligent aliens? What if we get a visit from alien microbes that just got carried around by asteroid collisions? What if an alien species evolved to thrive in space and managed to travel here? While it would be inconceivable for us to travel the stars without using our intelligence and technology, are those really necessary?

[Moontanman]

Hm, why limit ourselves to technological and intelligent aliens? What if we get a visit from alien microbes that just got carried around by asteroid collisions? What if an alien species evolved to thrive in space and managed to travel here? While it would be inconceivable for us to travel the stars without using our intelligence and technology, are those really necessary?

 

Well there is the school of thought that suggests life on earth was started by microbes from someplace else. Until we go someplace else it will be difficult to know if life everywhere is similar to life on Earth or if all life is unique or even if there is other life.

 

There is the possibility that a species could develop technology with no real intelligence, why not an Ant or Termite type species that develops technology but not intelligence and manages to travel to other planets? Colonial insects do many of the things we equate with technology, farming, livestock, building. Could star travel develop this way?

[zombie]

I think the more intelligent something becomes, the less intentional harm that organism would impose upon others.

 

Think about how that which has less intelligence, is always more dangerous and destructive, a universal pattern that seems to hold true with no exceptions; But I consider sociopaths as not truly sentient beings, and often below compassionate intellectuals, as true self-preservation can only be accomplished with the aid of others.

 

Sentient Human Computer Nerd (a non-sociopathic one) = Harmless, does not want to harm others

^

Less intelligent Football Player (brain damage) = Can snap like a gorilla and murder without good justification

^

Frat boys, constantly drinking (Additional brain damage) = Will tie an innocent person to a post and cut open their stomachs

^

Religious people = Crusades killing others ruthlessly

^

Gorillas, chimpanzees = will tear people apart, literally, without torment

^

Bacteria = instinctual destruction

^

Black Holes (AFAIK; most destructive force in the universe) = No intelligence/DNA whatsoever

 

 

While one may say a person can be smart and evil at the same time, this is true, as more than 10% of the human population consists of psychopaths that live and walk among us, pretending to have emotion to blend in, however, the truest danger, in my opinion, is that which has lesser intelligence. In all history no known genius has been a psychopath. As far as I know, Einstein didn't torture kittens for pleasure, and if someone goes and says hitler was smart, you're totally wrong, he was not.

 

My theories are not intended to hurt anyones feelings; I do believe a person can be intelligent, and religious, and often compassionate and kind, its just that which makes them dangerous is their hindered grasp on reality (due to delusions imposed by religious manipulation), and lack of strong self preservation values.

 

So ultimately, if we encounter intelligent, sentient (non sociopath) aliens, they will only harm humans in self defense, and probably only seek knowledge, ideas in their quest for immortality.

[Edtharan]

The way I see it, if the aliens have enough energy and technology to swing over to this part of the universe, then they have enough energy and technology to use whatever resources around them before coming to Earth.

 

However, be it they 'needed' to come to Earth from lack of resources, my guess is that aliens would have the intent of obliterating us. Perhaps such a situation would include the fifth generation of a species that's been inhabiting a spaceship in autopilot for the past 500 years; and then eventually the ship reaches Earth, docks, and releases the aliens.

 

Then again, I would suspect if they couldn't gain enough education to take control of the ship and use the advanced technology available to them, they more than likely would not provide much of a threat to the human species. However, I think they could provide a temporary threat to the ecology if unnoticed for too long. Furthermore, if there is a virus they are carrying in their bodies (perhaps unknowingly), I suspect its pathogenic potential would be more of a worry.

Actually, it doesn't take massive amounts of energy to cross interstellar space. We could do it with today's technologies (if we had the will and funding to do it).

 

A nuclear power plant driving a bunch of ion engines could have us to nearby stars in a matter of decades (probably around 70 or 80 years). The ship would be under acceleration all the time (accelerate to just over half way and then slow down after that - the reason you can accelerate more than half way is that you are using fuel and so are lighter for the second half and can thus get a higher acceleration for slowing down).

 

So the ship would technically be a generation ship, but of only 3 (or 4 at most) generations and you would still have some of the original crew as well.

 

If we knew that the planet at the other end would be capable of supporting a colony, then this kind of ship could do it. You would send one (or two ships) out first to establish the base and get everything set up, then you would send out another fleet of ships carrying the actual colonists.

 

With current waste recycling systems it is possible to create a mostly closed cycle (there will be some losses), so not much in the way of supplies would be needed.

 

With slightly more advanced technologies it could be possible to create an almost completely closed cycle that would not need much in the way of raw materials. With ships like this you could cross hundreds of light years. But, if you can do that, why bother colonising other worlds? Mining asteroids for the raw materials you need to top up your supplies and to create new habitats would be enough.

 

Also, if you are looking for material, then you probably would want to stick around in the Kuiper Belts and Oort clouds of stars as there is probably more material in these than in the rest of the planets.

 

For powering ships you probably want to get fusion power working as the raw material for it is the most common element in the Universe (hydrogen) where as a Fission generator would need new radioactive materials to be mined (which would mean gravity wells and planets - and it is much more rare than Hydrogen).

 

And if you really need to get material off of a planet, shooting it up or launching it with rockets is actually a wasteful method. A better way is to use a space elevator (this is an other technology that we are close to being able to make - we probably have the materials to make one for Mars' gravity and definitely for the Moon, but not yet Earth's). With a space elevator you can generate energy as you send stuff down and then use this to lift stuff up.

 

If we put the resources we are currently spending on war, into developing the technologies needed, we could most likely have ships heading out to nearby stars within 50 years.

 

This, I think, is the best argument for a peaceful contact between species. War is expensive. Peaceful co-habitation is cheaper (and quiet likely profitable). But as the most likely place for an Alien colony is not here on Earth, but out in the Kuiper belt and Oort cloud, then we are not likely to bump into them unless it was on purpose

 

Oh, radio waves would be a poor method of communicating between colonies. A better way would be through a modulated neutrino beam as radio waves would be blocked by solid matter, which would mean that unless they maintain lots of receivers to cover the entire sky at all times, then if your receivers are pointing the wrong way you won't pick up the transmission and the delay between sending and confirmation of receiving it could be in the hundreds of years.

 

With a Neutrino beam it would pass through any solid matter and you would only need a single receiver to pick up the transmission from wherever it originated from. It would mean a much more reliable communication system.

 

It would have a much lower bandwidth (due to neutrinos being had to detect), but because of the delay cause by a bad reception, it could actually work out better (although short distance transmissions would still probably use radio waves).

[Icefire]

To me in order to find the reason we just have to look at ourselves.

Let's say an alien lands in the Netherlands or whatever, says "Hallo," then files for citizenship. You can't honestly expect the entire world to just accept this and move on. In fact, there will always be at least ONE group that will consider the existence of aliens to be counter to their core beliefs, and will attempt to eliminate them.

Following this, we have three types of aliens:

1: the ones that know this, but still introduce themselves despite the threat. That means that they are confident that it will not be a problem, most likely because they plan on taking over our planet.

2. the ones that know this, and so avoid us. This is the best solution, because we will never know their existence.

3. the ones that know this, but have no choice but to arrive. chances are that this is just a guise of group 1, but otherwise they might be able to co-exsist with another species, but more likely one of us will end up destroying the other.

4. the ones that do not know this fact. Either due to politics or lack of analyzation they do not know what will happen when the arrive. this means that when they arrive with peace in their minds and are met with criticism, they could be shocked and believe that all of us are like that. then they may try to destroy us, worst case scenario.

[ydoaPs]

Actually, it doesn't take massive amounts of energy to cross interstellar space. We could do it with today's technologies (if we had the will and funding to do it).

Quite so. There would be some difficulties(I.E, food, raw materials, etc [which has been oddly overlooked by some members as a reason to stop on a planet]), but that can be limited to some extent as seen below.

 

The ship would be under acceleration all the time (accelerate to just over half way and then slow down after that

Yes, it would, and that is the key to minimizing problems such as resource scarcity and population control.

 

So the ship would technically be a generation ship, but of only 3 (or 4 at most) generations and you would still have some of the original crew as well.

Here's where I'm not sure I agree. IIRC, accelerating a constant 1g(which would be optimal since it would provide Earth gravity allowing farming and minimizes bone density/immunity issues from lack of gravity) would mean relativistic speeds very quickly. We could reach the nearest system in 10-15yr earth time, but it would be more like 4-5yr ship time.

 

Accelerating at 1g, then, would let us have a much shorter trip and would let us have a more terrestrial lifestyle en route.

 

If we knew that the planet at the other end would be capable of supporting a colony, then this kind of ship could do it.

Here's the big if. We know the universe is brimming with planets, but most of the ones we can detect are gas giants. It is reasonable that earthlike planets would be undetectable until you get within the system, but you'd still have to be really close to find out if it is Menshara class.

 

ld send one (or two ships) out first to establish the base and get everything set up, then you would send out another fleet of ships carrying the actual colonists.

This is a great plan, but it should be noted that this would substantially increase the time requirement of the project. The colony ships would need to wair for word from the scout ships before embarking(since we'd want to limit the number of people lost in space). The speed of light is the limiting factor as that is the speed at which the signal would be sent. We'd have to wait for the scout ship to reach its desitnation and then a significant fraction of the scout ship's travel time for the signal to arrive. Then the 'colony ship' can depart. It's rather artificial to call this ship THE 'colony ship', imo, since by the time it arrives, there would already be a decent colony(assuming the scout ship crew didn't all die) since the scout ship's crew(of probably at least 20 people) would likely reproduce.

 

So, essentially, it's a great idea, but there is a tradeoff.

 

you really need to get material off of a planet, shooting it up or launching it with rockets is actually a wasteful method. A better way is to use a space elevator (this is an other technology that we are close to being able to make - we probably have the materials to make one for Mars' gravity and definitely for the Moon, but not yet Earth's). With a space elevator you can generate energy as you send stuff down and then use this to lift stuff up.

Note that this method is in fact much more efficient since the end would already be outside the gravity well.

 

Radio waves would be a poor method of communicating between colonies. A better way would be through a modulated neutrino beam as radio waves would be blocked by solid matter, which would mean that unless they maintain lots of receivers to cover the entire sky at all times, then if your receivers are pointing the wrong way you won't pick up the transmission and the delay between sending and confirmation of receiving it could be in the hundreds of years.

 

With a Neutrino beam it would pass through any solid matter and you would only need a single receiver to pick up the transmission from wherever it originated from. It would mean a much more reliable communication system.

I don't think so. Neutrinos, because of the benefit you stated, are extremely hard to detect. If they don't readily interact with normal matter, how are we supposed to detect the modulated stream even remotely efficiently. I think your benefit of neutrinos is actually a larger detriment.

[forufes]

i tink it's kinda useless tying to postulate what advanced species would do, because for them to be truuely and seriously advanced from us, they should be able to predict any behaivours we are bound to take... including our attempt of predicting their behaivour..

 

if they were more evolved than us in the scientific sorta way but not that intellectually advanced to easily fool us, i wonder what exactly did they evolve from their "evolution"..

[King, North TX]

The way I see it, if the aliens have enough energy and technology to swing over to this part of the universe, then they have enough energy and technology to use whatever resources around them before coming to Earth.

 

...

 

The thing that's always puzzled me is the unnecessary requirement that 'they' would be able to travel interstellar distances.

 

I know I am gonna get tagged a "woo" for even bringing it up, but our historical record is literally filled with tales of "heavenly agents" being part of both our creation and our development. For as long as man could carve on walls, he has recorded the fact that there are 'objects' in the sky that could not be explained, and that these 'objects' are usually themed with having or possessing abilities beyond our own or godliness.

 

Again, I know that the likes of Daniken and Hancock aren't taken seriously in the 'scientific community'. I think that's because their theories are half-cocked.

 

That said, I am wholly and completely unable to disregard our written historical record as fiction. Hawking DID in his conclusion that 'they' would have the same effect that Columbus did on the Native Americans... Columbus had no 'extensive' history with North Americans.

 

While I am NOT suggesting that we take every religious text at it literally word, I think we have made the biggest mistake possible by relegating all ancient history to the make-believe section. Rather I think we should simply re-interpret such texts and remove the super-natural overtones.

 

God isn't "G"od, but rather simply something a bit more advanced than us.

 

Regardless, they have 'always' been in our heavens, we just haven't figured out what they are exactly... Who knows they 'could' be just a more advanced form of us.

[Mr Skeptic]

That said, I am wholly and completely unable to disregard our written historical record as fiction.

 

Once upon a time, a fairly long time ago, people thought that hares lay eggs in nests, due to the similarity of their nests to a certain bird. Long story short, they celebrated the fertility goddess Ēostre by placing colorful eggs in a nest the kids made in their bonnets (only for good kids of course), and lots of rabbit symbolism. Now the nest is a basket, the eggs made of chocolate, and bunnies of chocolate or marshmellow. The old idea just won't die, and now bunnies will forever be associated with eggs (in addition to the original hares).

[Moontanman]

Quite so. There would be some difficulties(I.E, food, raw materials, etc [which has been oddly overlooked by some members as a reason to stop on a planet]), but that can be limited to some extent as seen below.

 

This a pretty big assumption considering how different even very similar biologies could be. If the other planet had even a small difference food would be an unlikely thing to get from the planet. On the earth there are organisms that use arsenic in place of phosphorus, unusual on the earth but if it was turned around on the other planet all "food" would be deadly to us. Chirality is another possibility, reverse that and no food. Lots of possibilities for failure so planets would be an unlikely source of food and any other supplies would be easier to get from asteroids or kuiper belt like objects.

 

 

 

Here's where I'm not sure I agree. IIRC, accelerating a constant 1g(which would be optimal since it would provide Earth gravity allowing farming and minimizes bone density/immunity issues from lack of gravity) would mean relativistic speeds very quickly. We could reach the nearest system in 10-15yr earth time, but it would be more like 4-5yr ship time.

 

Accelerating at 1g, then, would let us have a much shorter trip and would let us have a more terrestrial lifestyle en route.

 

Accelerating at one G would be great but with current or even predicted technology this is highly unlikely.

[King, North TX]

Once upon a time, a fairly long time ago, people thought that hares lay eggs in nests, due to the similarity of their nests to a certain bird. Long story short, they celebrated the fertility goddess Ēostre by placing colorful eggs in a nest the kids made in their bonnets (only for good kids of course), and lots of rabbit symbolism. Now the nest is a basket, the eggs made of chocolate, and bunnies of chocolate or marshmellow. The old idea just won't die, and now bunnies will forever be associated with eggs (in addition to the original hares).

 

Yeah, I expected that...

 

Now, if you had stories from every continent of egg hiding earth goddesses, I'd believe the story 'might' have some validity.

[ydoaPs]

Yeah, I expected that...

 

Now, if you had stories from every continent of egg hiding earth goddesses, I'd believe the story 'might' have some validity.

 

Which is more likely: Thor is the commander of the Asgard Fleet or that lightning is a well-understood natural phenomena?