My relationship with Brexit is like a long tennis rally. Before the 2016 referendum I was pi**ed off with the EU, and critical of it. But I didn't believe leave had any coherent plan, so reluctantly voted remain. Since then, events have had me going over the net from one side to the other: the EUs stupidity over vaccines or intransigence over NI, or Germany's attitude towards Ukraine, see me going towards leave. Then all the other sh*t going on with Brexit on our side sees me going back to remain.
But it's all academic, as I would not support another referendum. We have made our bed; we need adults to remove the soiled sheets and tidy the room.
By the way on the other thing after I went to bed last night, you made the point that most people underestimate how big the scale of the universe is and how hard it is to traverse. I would counter that most people underestimate how vast time is and how even astronomical distances can be swallowed easily with patience, without new physics.
If you sent self replicating probes to the 100 nearest star systems that could travel at 0.1 C, they’d reach them inside a century. Assume it takes some period of time X for said probe to self replicate using that planet’s resources. 50 years? Doesn’t really matter. It then sends off 100 of its own to the next nearest stars. In quite a trivial amount of time, perhaps under a million years depending on your assumption for X, the Milky Way would be “conquered”.
You could imagine even humans having the technical ability to kickstart this unstoppable process within a couple of centuries. Given this, where are the probes? Either they are here and we don’t see them, because either they are tiny and we’re not looking, or they’re tic tacs and we can’t get around to acknowledging it. Or, perhaps within a short time of the process being kickstarted, vastly superior “new physics” tech catches them up and stops the autonomous “digital panspermia” process in its tracks for reasons we can only speculate at.
Indeed - it's surprising how few years (relatively) colony ships travelling at sublight speeds could colonise the galaxy.
But... why would you bother? Perhaps the galaxy has essentially infinite resources and space. Would alien races actually want to travel to our mostly harmless speck of the galaxy?
Then there's the final term in the Drake Equation: the length of time that civilizations can communicate before they destroy themselves.
I can’t speak for other civilisations but launching such probes across the cosmos sound exactly in keeping with the curious human mindset of always wanting to peer beyond the horizon. Also that term of the Drake Equation is essentially irrelevant for this thought experiment, as once the first set of probes have been despatched, it doesn’t matter if the original source ceases to be.
The real question is what proportion of human endeavour should be expended to look for such probes? We can argue all we want about that but it’s hard to justify that the answer should be zero, as it has been until now (at least officially). That is until Avi Loeb kickstarted the conversation in academia and now has funding to start looking. Finding such a probe would not only have a profundity beyond measure but could kickstart a technological revolution if they contain a message in a bottle, or even through basic reverse engineering. And the chances of success should be greater than SETI, which assume a) feel space radio comms are used for a long period of time by civilisations, b) civilisations last a long time.
There is of course the sand on the beach theory of aliens.
When you go to the beach and are sitting on the sand, say, two feet away from you and two feet down into the sand could be an ant colony. You would never see or know about it despite being close to it.
The aliens could be in the vicinity, cosmic-wise but they never bother to investigate or happen upon the infinitesimally tiny part that is our planet.
There's a lot of sci fi on a similarish theme - Roadside Picnic, William Gibson short whose name I forget, Gateway in reverse: if we do encounter aliens, it won't do us much good, any more than it would a swarm (?) of ants investigating the remains of a human picnic. might get a discarded apple core out of it.
The experience of the Aztec, the Incas, the tribes of Africa, the Natives of North America, the indigenes of Japan, the aborigines of Australia, the locals in Papua New Guinea, even the Neanderthals, all suggest that when a relatively inferior civilisation (in terms of tech, etc) meets an obviously superior civilisation, the result is a catastrophe for the more primitive lifeform
I see no reason why we would be different; I was amazed last night by the number of PB-ers who think humans would just shrug and continue as normal if it was proved we are being visited by super-powerful aliens
All human on human interactions: narcissism of small differences. How much change did the kangaroos and funnel web spiders notice?
The dodo noticed. The woolly mammoth noticed. The American bison noticed. The passenger pigeon noticed. The giant sloth noticed. The thylacines noticed. The bears, wolves, lynx and beavers of Britain noticed
And so on and so forth, ad fucking infinitum, sadly
Hmm, what do we reckon? Is this just a bit of grumbling that will blow over (but ensure that Liz wins the vote for the new leader) or is this a sign of trouble ahead for Tory MPs with their grassroots?
One imagines that if Johnson goes to the Conservative Party conference that he might cause a bit of a splash. Does he want to?
I was thinking about Cicero's reported rumours in Finland.
1 - Recently the Finns are nervous about the Russians, hence the NATO moves 2 - The story is said to involve a high level Cabinet member 3 - The story is said to be extremely damaging
This morning you read a week-old story. Why would that be banned?
@Beibheirli_C is quite right though, Finlandgate is much most likely to put flesh on the bones of that story. It is even possible to speculate what the flesh might be, 🎻.
We've all heard the story now, anyone with an internet connection has heard it, why are they bothering to stay so shtoom?
It is *exciting* if you like fishing
Hmm. That's the second time someone has emphasised the word "exciting" wrt Finland but this looks like a dull AI-powered recycling of rcs's post which itself may have been fishing.
Space is quite big. It would be a miracle if we could colonise Proxima Centauri, about the nearest one. Four light years away. 0.1c was suggested, so, with a following wind, a round trip in 40 years, half a life time.
Earth suits us very well, because we evolved here. Nowhere else will have that advantage. With a massive number of stars, the Drake number mght look encouraging. But some of them are 13 billion light years away, and we won't be traveeling anwhere near light speed. Well have evolved on a travelling space ship, and we might revert to bacteria, Who knows. Although if we travel at light speed (impossible), it wouldn't ake long in our F.O,R.
If space is expanding too some of the planets will be disappearing over the horizon, If we had an horizon to disappear over.
People can suggest 0.1C till they are blue in the face. Sleight of hand, surely 0.1 of something is not very much? In fact, 10% of a stupendous, unimaginably large thing is stupendously fucking large. Also, slowing down costs as much as speeding up. you can go 4 ly in 40 years at 0.1C but only if you don't mind shooting straight past your endpoint at 0.1C, or colliding with it.
At acceleration/deceleration of 1g it takes just under a year to accelerate to, or decelerate from, 0.1C. So, if you have enough propellant, and you can chuck it out the right end of your spaceship fast enough, there's nothing particularly difficult about 0.1C. We currently can't do the fast enough, but if we avoid nuclear war for another century we will likely be closer to it.
Carrying propellant for prolonged 1g acceleration - even at crazy ISP that is simply not going to happen... Maybe if you invented conversion of matter to energy at 99% efficiency....
There is Starshot, if you don't need to send anything bigger han a postage stamp
The thing is, even if the stamp got to Alpha centauri, we wouldn't know for 4.7 years right? Any 'we've arrived' communication travelling at the speed of light from there would take 4.7 years to get here...?
And it would take us a further 4.7 years to instruct it what to do next?
Starshot will actually take a few decades to get there, as it is only going at a few tens of percent the speed of light. And we won't tell it to to anything: it'll just zip through the Centauri system without stopping (unless it hits anything on the way).
I just wanted it noted on the PB Official Gazette that @IshmaelZ and @TOPPING think the advent of human hegemony on planet earth was just fine and dandy for all the plants and animals sharing the globe, indeed they have "barely noticed" our ascent, except for maybe a couple of smarter pigs right this minute living in a box
There is of course the sand on the beach theory of aliens.
When you go to the beach and are sitting on the sand, say, two feet away from you and two feet down into the sand could be an ant colony. You would never see or know about it despite being close to it.
The aliens could be in the vicinity, cosmic-wise but they never bother to investigate or happen upon the infinitesimally tiny part that is our planet.
There's a lot of sci fi on a similarish theme - Roadside Picnic, William Gibson short whose name I forget, Gateway in reverse: if we do encounter aliens, it won't do us much good, any more than it would a swarm (?) of ants investigating the remains of a human picnic. might get a discarded apple core out of it.
The experience of the Aztec, the Incas, the tribes of Africa, the Natives of North America, the indigenes of Japan, the aborigines of Australia, the locals in Papua New Guinea, even the Neanderthals, all suggest that when a relatively inferior civilisation (in terms of tech, etc) meets an obviously superior civilisation, the result is a catastrophe for the more primitive lifeform
I see no reason why we would be different; I was amazed last night by the number of PB-ers who think humans would just shrug and continue as normal if it was proved we are being visited by super-powerful aliens
If they are that much smarter than us presumably resistance would indeed be useless, in which case shrugging and carrying as normal would be able all we could do.
If they were much smarter than us and wanted to colonise us they would likely have done so by now
There is of course the sand on the beach theory of aliens.
When you go to the beach and are sitting on the sand, say, two feet away from you and two feet down into the sand could be an ant colony. You would never see or know about it despite being close to it.
The aliens could be in the vicinity, cosmic-wise but they never bother to investigate or happen upon the infinitesimally tiny part that is our planet.
There's a lot of sci fi on a similarish theme - Roadside Picnic, William Gibson short whose name I forget, Gateway in reverse: if we do encounter aliens, it won't do us much good, any more than it would a swarm (?) of ants investigating the remains of a human picnic. might get a discarded apple core out of it.
The experience of the Aztec, the Incas, the tribes of Africa, the Natives of North America, the indigenes of Japan, the aborigines of Australia, the locals in Papua New Guinea, even the Neanderthals, all suggest that when a relatively inferior civilisation (in terms of tech, etc) meets an obviously superior civilisation, the result is a catastrophe for the more primitive lifeform
I see no reason why we would be different; I was amazed last night by the number of PB-ers who think humans would just shrug and continue as normal if it was proved we are being visited by super-powerful aliens
Is the human race a catastrophe for the gnat population?
lol. Are you arguing we are NOT a catastrophe for thousands of animal and plant species across the world?
The megafauna of Australia say Hi
99.99% of all species who ever existed are extinct and humans had nothing to do with almost all of that.
Going extinct is normal, and one day it will be our turn.
There is of course the sand on the beach theory of aliens.
When you go to the beach and are sitting on the sand, say, two feet away from you and two feet down into the sand could be an ant colony. You would never see or know about it despite being close to it.
The aliens could be in the vicinity, cosmic-wise but they never bother to investigate or happen upon the infinitesimally tiny part that is our planet.
There's a lot of sci fi on a similarish theme - Roadside Picnic, William Gibson short whose name I forget, Gateway in reverse: if we do encounter aliens, it won't do us much good, any more than it would a swarm (?) of ants investigating the remains of a human picnic. might get a discarded apple core out of it.
The experience of the Aztec, the Incas, the tribes of Africa, the Natives of North America, the indigenes of Japan, the aborigines of Australia, the locals in Papua New Guinea, even the Neanderthals, all suggest that when a relatively inferior civilisation (in terms of tech, etc) meets an obviously superior civilisation, the result is a catastrophe for the more primitive lifeform
I see no reason why we would be different; I was amazed last night by the number of PB-ers who think humans would just shrug and continue as normal if it was proved we are being visited by super-powerful aliens
All human on human interactions: narcissism of small differences. How much change did the kangaroos and funnel web spiders notice?
The dodo noticed. The woolly mammoth noticed. The American bison noticed. The passenger pigeon noticed. The giant sloth noticed. The thylacines noticed. The bears, wolves, lynx and beavers of Britain noticed
And so on and so forth, ad fucking infinitum, sadly
And the various parasites, commensals, scavengers and predators of all those animals noticed. Maybe several dozen parasite species, more if one includes microbes, dependent on each species. Also the plants dependent on those for pollination, habitat preservation, and so on.
There is of course the sand on the beach theory of aliens.
When you go to the beach and are sitting on the sand, say, two feet away from you and two feet down into the sand could be an ant colony. You would never see or know about it despite being close to it.
The aliens could be in the vicinity, cosmic-wise but they never bother to investigate or happen upon the infinitesimally tiny part that is our planet.
There's a lot of sci fi on a similarish theme - Roadside Picnic, William Gibson short whose name I forget, Gateway in reverse: if we do encounter aliens, it won't do us much good, any more than it would a swarm (?) of ants investigating the remains of a human picnic. might get a discarded apple core out of it.
The experience of the Aztec, the Incas, the tribes of Africa, the Natives of North America, the indigenes of Japan, the aborigines of Australia, the locals in Papua New Guinea, even the Neanderthals, all suggest that when a relatively inferior civilisation (in terms of tech, etc) meets an obviously superior civilisation, the result is a catastrophe for the more primitive lifeform
I see no reason why we would be different; I was amazed last night by the number of PB-ers who think humans would just shrug and continue as normal if it was proved we are being visited by super-powerful aliens
Is the human race a catastrophe for the gnat population?
You are, understandably, suffering from a solipsistic view of the world.
If the dodo had a written culture, what do you think they would have said about humans?
I just wanted it noted on the PB Official Gazette that @IshmaelZ and @TOPPING think the advent of human hegemony on planet earth was just fine and dandy for all the plants and animals sharing the globe, indeed they have "barely noticed" our ascent, except for maybe a couple of smarter pigs right this minute living in a box
Oh welcome back Leon, I do prefer this name to that Xipe one you used temporarily
I just wanted it noted on the PB Official Gazette that @IshmaelZ and @TOPPING think the advent of human hegemony on planet earth was just fine and dandy for all the plants and animals sharing the globe, indeed they have "barely noticed" our ascent, except for maybe a couple of smarter pigs right this minute living in a box
Again, you are exceptionalising. you are ranking us with a few dozen stand-out species which represented outrageously large and irresistible meat value, vs billions of protists, fungi, plants, insects and animals which didn't and don't give a fuck about us. To any likely alien you are unlikely to have even meat value. you think you are an elephant when you are a nematode worm.
There is of course the sand on the beach theory of aliens.
When you go to the beach and are sitting on the sand, say, two feet away from you and two feet down into the sand could be an ant colony. You would never see or know about it despite being close to it.
The aliens could be in the vicinity, cosmic-wise but they never bother to investigate or happen upon the infinitesimally tiny part that is our planet.
There's a lot of sci fi on a similarish theme - Roadside Picnic, William Gibson short whose name I forget, Gateway in reverse: if we do encounter aliens, it won't do us much good, any more than it would a swarm (?) of ants investigating the remains of a human picnic. might get a discarded apple core out of it.
The experience of the Aztec, the Incas, the tribes of Africa, the Natives of North America, the indigenes of Japan, the aborigines of Australia, the locals in Papua New Guinea, even the Neanderthals, all suggest that when a relatively inferior civilisation (in terms of tech, etc) meets an obviously superior civilisation, the result is a catastrophe for the more primitive lifeform
I see no reason why we would be different; I was amazed last night by the number of PB-ers who think humans would just shrug and continue as normal if it was proved we are being visited by super-powerful aliens
Is the human race a catastrophe for the gnat population?
lol. Are you arguing we are NOT a catastrophe for thousands of animal and plant species across the world?
The megafauna of Australia say Hi
99.99% of all species who ever existed are extinct and humans had nothing to do with almost all of that.
Going extinct is normal, and one day it will be our turn.
Another ridiculous post
We can make species extinct in a couple of centuries, even decades, maybe even years if we put our mind to it
See the passenger pigeon, which numbered maybe 5 BILLION in 1750, and was all gone - every last one - by 1914
Hmm, what do we reckon? Is this just a bit of grumbling that will blow over (but ensure that Liz wins the vote for the new leader) or is this a sign of trouble ahead for Tory MPs with their grassroots?
One imagines that if Johnson goes to the Conservative Party conference that he might cause a bit of a splash. Does he want to?
I was thinking about Cicero's reported rumours in Finland.
1 - Recently the Finns are nervous about the Russians, hence the NATO moves 2 - The story is said to involve a high level Cabinet member 3 - The story is said to be extremely damaging
This morning you read a week-old story. Why would that be banned?
@Beibheirli_C is quite right though, Finlandgate is much most likely to put flesh on the bones of that story. It is even possible to speculate what the flesh might be, 🎻.
We've all heard the story now, anyone with an internet connection has heard it, why are they bothering to stay so shtoom?
It is *exciting* if you like fishing
My skills must be declining, I know nothing beyond what is in the open in the UK. Merely speculating that the Finland stuff adds to the story which it might do spectacularly: kompromat videos, or something.
Agreed, I'm usually a decent sniffer-out online but struggling with this one.
Space is quite big. It would be a miracle if we could colonise Proxima Centauri, about the nearest one. Four light years away. 0.1c was suggested, so, with a following wind, a round trip in 40 years, half a life time.
Earth suits us very well, because we evolved here. Nowhere else will have that advantage. With a massive number of stars, the Drake number mght look encouraging. But some of them are 13 billion light years away, and we won't be traveeling anwhere near light speed. Well have evolved on a travelling space ship, and we might revert to bacteria, Who knows. Although if we travel at light speed (impossible), it wouldn't ake long in our F.O,R.
If space is expanding too some of the planets will be disappearing over the horizon, If we had an horizon to disappear over.
People can suggest 0.1C till they are blue in the face. Sleight of hand, surely 0.1 of something is not very much? In fact, 10% of a stupendous, unimaginably large thing is stupendously fucking large. Also, slowing down costs as much as speeding up. you can go 4 ly in 40 years at 0.1C but only if you don't mind shooting straight past your endpoint at 0.1C, or colliding with it.
At acceleration/deceleration of 1g it takes just under a year to accelerate to, or decelerate from, 0.1C. So, if you have enough propellant, and you can chuck it out the right end of your spaceship fast enough, there's nothing particularly difficult about 0.1C. We currently can't do the fast enough, but if we avoid nuclear war for another century we will likely be closer to it.
Carrying propellant for prolonged 1g acceleration - even at crazy ISP that is simply not going to happen... Maybe if you invented conversion of matter to energy at 99% efficiency....
There is Starshot, if you don't need to send anything bigger han a postage stamp
The thing is, even if the stamp got to Alpha centauri, we wouldn't know for 4.7 years right? Any 'we've arrived' communication travelling at the speed of light from there would take 4.7 years to get here...?
And it would take us a further 4.7 years to instruct it what to do next?
Starshot will actually take a few decades to get there, as it is only going at a few tens of percent the speed of light. And we won't tell it to to anything: it'll just zip through the Centauri system without stopping (unless it hits anything on the way).
Yes but my point stands. Say the stamp gets there safe and sound in 30 years. It sends a 'we're here hooray!'' communication to earth. But...er.....earth is now 4.7 light years away, which means the 'we're here!! communication we get from the stamp will arrive five years after it was sent. Anything we send to it in response will take a further five years to arrive.
Essentially, a 10-year turnaround in communications. At least.
IF we're going to go to the stars, we better hope that Alcubierre was right.
There is of course the sand on the beach theory of aliens.
When you go to the beach and are sitting on the sand, say, two feet away from you and two feet down into the sand could be an ant colony. You would never see or know about it despite being close to it.
The aliens could be in the vicinity, cosmic-wise but they never bother to investigate or happen upon the infinitesimally tiny part that is our planet.
There's a lot of sci fi on a similarish theme - Roadside Picnic, William Gibson short whose name I forget, Gateway in reverse: if we do encounter aliens, it won't do us much good, any more than it would a swarm (?) of ants investigating the remains of a human picnic. might get a discarded apple core out of it.
The experience of the Aztec, the Incas, the tribes of Africa, the Natives of North America, the indigenes of Japan, the aborigines of Australia, the locals in Papua New Guinea, even the Neanderthals, all suggest that when a relatively inferior civilisation (in terms of tech, etc) meets an obviously superior civilisation, the result is a catastrophe for the more primitive lifeform
I see no reason why we would be different; I was amazed last night by the number of PB-ers who think humans would just shrug and continue as normal if it was proved we are being visited by super-powerful aliens
Is the human race a catastrophe for the gnat population?
lol. Are you arguing we are NOT a catastrophe for thousands of animal and plant species across the world?
The megafauna of Australia say Hi
99.99% of all species who ever existed are extinct and humans had nothing to do with almost all of that.
Going extinct is normal, and one day it will be our turn.
That's assuming a constant steady state. But extinction comes in peaks, e.g. the plateau lavas/asteroid impact that did in most of the dinosaurs. The impact of humans is another of those, one of the half dozen or so great peaks in the recortd.
@BartholomewRoberts just curious, if you voted Labour in 2019 were you endorsing anti-Semitism or not
Not. I've said not to you many times.
I think it would be an offensive slur to suggest 10 million Britons were endorsing anti-Semitism.
Fair enough but yours is definitely a minority POV.
I have never been against taking a minority or unique POV. My POV is my own, not anybody else's.
But I don't think the notion that 10 million people weren't all endorsing anti-semitism is unique or that minority either. Corbyn and his ilk were, but not all Labour voters. I'll quote a part of a reply I wrote to you yesterday.
There were a vast number of Labour MPs who objected to Corbyn, objected to anti Semitism and made that vocally clear and resigned to the back benches. People like Stella Creasy were prepared to not just vote Labour but hold the Labour whip and were still willing to call out anti Semitism even while voting Labour. I may not agree with her politics much, but I really respect her and MPs like her let alone voters like her.
Parties are big tents, just because Corbyn was an anti-Semite doesn't mean every Labour voter was. Many Labour voters were anti-Corbyn, many Labour MPs were.
Tbf to Conservative supporters pointing out the error of Corbyn, he did kick out most of the MPs he disagreed with, particularly those of the Jewish faith like Luciana Berger.
Corbyn did not kick out MPs he disagreed with, not even Luciana Berger who left and founded TIG or one of the other names they churned through.
Constructive dismissal.
Berger was in no way constructively dismissed. She was actively briefing against her party leader, who was massively popular with her local constituency party. They were following the proper process to have her deselected, as was their right, and she jumped before she was pushed.
I sympathise with her to the extent that it's obvious why she was so against the party leader, but that wouldn't have been such an issue if she hadn't been parachuted into a seat she wasn't particularly suited for in the first place.
So if an anti-Semite had been parachuted in to that seat it would have been fine?
No, they just might not have had that specific issue with the local party.
Obviously none of this is "fine". The point is that Berger had plenty of opportunities to be a victim, and refused them - she put her career ahead of doing the right thing, and ultimately lost both her job, and the right to play the victim.
Berger was targeted by both the Far RIght (especially after a Far Right activist was imprisoned for harassing her), and by the left / far left within Labour for her attitude to Corbyn - the likes of Momentum and others.
I think the Constructive Dismissal thing is a bit of a red herring. Was she even an employee rather than an office-holder?
My relationship with Brexit is like a long tennis rally. Before the 2016 referendum I was pi**ed off with the EU, and critical of it. But I didn't believe leave had any coherent plan, so reluctantly voted remain. Since then, events have had me going over the net from one side to the other: the EUs stupidity over vaccines or intransigence over NI, or Germany's attitude towards Ukraine, see me going towards leave. Then all the other sh*t going on with Brexit on our side sees me going back to remain.
But it's all academic, as I would not support another referendum. We have made our bed; we need adults to remove the soiled sheets and tidy the room.
By the way on the other thing after I went to bed last night, you made the point that most people underestimate how big the scale of the universe is and how hard it is to traverse. I would counter that most people underestimate how vast time is and how even astronomical distances can be swallowed easily with patience, without new physics.
If you sent self replicating probes to the 100 nearest star systems that could travel at 0.1 C, they’d reach them inside a century. Assume it takes some period of time X for said probe to self replicate using that planet’s resources. 50 years? Doesn’t really matter. It then sends off 100 of its own to the next nearest stars. In quite a trivial amount of time, perhaps under a million years depending on your assumption for X, the Milky Way would be “conquered”.
You could imagine even humans having the technical ability to kickstart this unstoppable process within a couple of centuries. Given this, where are the probes? Either they are here and we don’t see them, because either they are tiny and we’re not looking, or they’re tic tacs and we can’t get around to acknowledging it. Or, perhaps within a short time of the process being kickstarted, vastly superior “new physics” tech catches them up and stops the autonomous “digital panspermia” process in its tracks for reasons we can only speculate at.
Indeed - it's surprising how few years (relatively) colony ships travelling at sublight speeds could colonise the galaxy.
But... why would you bother? Perhaps the galaxy has essentially infinite resources and space. Would alien races actually want to travel to our mostly harmless speck of the galaxy?
Then there's the final term in the Drake Equation: the length of time that civilizations can communicate before they destroy themselves.
I can’t speak for other civilisations but launching such probes across the cosmos sound exactly in keeping with the curious human mindset of always wanting to peer beyond the horizon. Also that term of the Drake Equation is essentially irrelevant for this thought experiment, as once the first set of probes have been despatched, it doesn’t matter if the original source ceases to be.
The real question is what proportion of human endeavour should be expended to look for such probes? We can argue all we want about that but it’s hard to justify that the answer should be zero, as it has been until now (at least officially). That is until Avi Loeb kickstarted the conversation in academia and now has funding to start looking. Finding such a probe would not only have a profundity beyond measure but could kickstart a technological revolution if they contain a message in a bottle, or even through basic reverse engineering. And the chances of success should be greater than SETI, which assume a) feel space radio comms are used for a long period of time by civilisations, b) civilisations last a long time.
There are so many issues with this discussion. We are immensely small, and almost certainly not unique. We are quite possibly boring. The probes could have reached here 10,000 years ago, and scanned a planet whose most advanced lifeform had barely even developed agriculture. BORING! And there are so many targets.
Or perhaps Oumuamua was such a probe, and it either remained silent, was crippled or used a communication form we have not yet developed.
But it's a science fiction conversation rather than a scientific one.
I just wanted it noted on the PB Official Gazette that @IshmaelZ and @TOPPING think the advent of human hegemony on planet earth was just fine and dandy for all the plants and animals sharing the globe, indeed they have "barely noticed" our ascent, except for maybe a couple of smarter pigs right this minute living in a box
Again, you are exceptionalising. you are ranking us with a few dozen stand-out species which represented outrageously large and irresistible meat value, vs billions of protists, fungi, plants, insects and animals which didn't and don't give a fuck about us. To any likely alien you are unlikely to have even meat value. you think you are an elephant when you are a nematode worm.
How many species of plant, fungi, insects, tiny crustacea, protozoa, etc, have we wiped out without even noticing? Surely many thousands, maybe millions
We notice the big ones - the Tasmanian devil, the poignant quagga - because they are big and noticeable. It does not mean we are not enacting similar carnage lower down the pecking order. I am sure we are. See insect die-off
There is of course the sand on the beach theory of aliens.
When you go to the beach and are sitting on the sand, say, two feet away from you and two feet down into the sand could be an ant colony. You would never see or know about it despite being close to it.
The aliens could be in the vicinity, cosmic-wise but they never bother to investigate or happen upon the infinitesimally tiny part that is our planet.
A couple of thoughts on this.
Human society is generally dominated at present with an expansionist mindset. The economy must grow, we must explore every nook and cranny of our world, and our cosmic surroundings. This restlessness has led to startling developments over the last few thousand years, but it is inherently unstable, and we now face issues with supporting our population, or of coping economically with a transition to a stable or declining population. Any alien species that manages to exist for a long period of time is either still expanding into every available galactic niche, or, more likely, has managed to achieve a transition to a stable steady state that can more easily persist indefinitely. If the former, then they're very likely to find us, if the latter then much less so.
It's generally accepted that an alien species that persists for ~millions of years has a long time to make it to us, and so the size of the galaxy is not much of a barrier, but the question then arises - how often would they visit? Earth may have received a survey visit a few hundred thousand years ago, which may have noted some promising hominid species and scheduled a repeat survey that's due to reach us in fifteen thousand years or so. Just because aliens have made it here, wouldn't necessarily mean that they would be here *now*.
There is of course the sand on the beach theory of aliens.
When you go to the beach and are sitting on the sand, say, two feet away from you and two feet down into the sand could be an ant colony. You would never see or know about it despite being close to it.
The aliens could be in the vicinity, cosmic-wise but they never bother to investigate or happen upon the infinitesimally tiny part that is our planet.
There's a lot of sci fi on a similarish theme - Roadside Picnic, William Gibson short whose name I forget, Gateway in reverse: if we do encounter aliens, it won't do us much good, any more than it would a swarm (?) of ants investigating the remains of a human picnic. might get a discarded apple core out of it.
The experience of the Aztec, the Incas, the tribes of Africa, the Natives of North America, the indigenes of Japan, the aborigines of Australia, the locals in Papua New Guinea, even the Neanderthals, all suggest that when a relatively inferior civilisation (in terms of tech, etc) meets an obviously superior civilisation, the result is a catastrophe for the more primitive lifeform
I see no reason why we would be different; I was amazed last night by the number of PB-ers who think humans would just shrug and continue as normal if it was proved we are being visited by super-powerful aliens
If they are that much smarter than us presumably resistance would indeed be useless, in which case shrugging and carrying as normal would be able all we could do.
If they were much smarter than us and wanted to colonise us they would likely have done so by now
There is of course the sand on the beach theory of aliens.
When you go to the beach and are sitting on the sand, say, two feet away from you and two feet down into the sand could be an ant colony. You would never see or know about it despite being close to it.
The aliens could be in the vicinity, cosmic-wise but they never bother to investigate or happen upon the infinitesimally tiny part that is our planet.
There's a lot of sci fi on a similarish theme - Roadside Picnic, William Gibson short whose name I forget, Gateway in reverse: if we do encounter aliens, it won't do us much good, any more than it would a swarm (?) of ants investigating the remains of a human picnic. might get a discarded apple core out of it.
The experience of the Aztec, the Incas, the tribes of Africa, the Natives of North America, the indigenes of Japan, the aborigines of Australia, the locals in Papua New Guinea, even the Neanderthals, all suggest that when a relatively inferior civilisation (in terms of tech, etc) meets an obviously superior civilisation, the result is a catastrophe for the more primitive lifeform
I see no reason why we would be different; I was amazed last night by the number of PB-ers who think humans would just shrug and continue as normal if it was proved we are being visited by super-powerful aliens
Is the human race a catastrophe for the gnat population?
lol. Are you arguing we are NOT a catastrophe for thousands of animal and plant species across the world?
The megafauna of Australia say Hi
99.99% of all species who ever existed are extinct and humans had nothing to do with almost all of that.
Going extinct is normal, and one day it will be our turn.
Another ridiculous post
We can make species extinct in a couple of centuries, even decades, maybe even years if we put our mind to it
See the passenger pigeon, which numbered maybe 5 BILLION in 1750, and was all gone - every last one - by 1914
There is of course the sand on the beach theory of aliens.
When you go to the beach and are sitting on the sand, say, two feet away from you and two feet down into the sand could be an ant colony. You would never see or know about it despite being close to it.
The aliens could be in the vicinity, cosmic-wise but they never bother to investigate or happen upon the infinitesimally tiny part that is our planet.
There's a lot of sci fi on a similarish theme - Roadside Picnic, William Gibson short whose name I forget, Gateway in reverse: if we do encounter aliens, it won't do us much good, any more than it would a swarm (?) of ants investigating the remains of a human picnic. might get a discarded apple core out of it.
The experience of the Aztec, the Incas, the tribes of Africa, the Natives of North America, the indigenes of Japan, the aborigines of Australia, the locals in Papua New Guinea, even the Neanderthals, all suggest that when a relatively inferior civilisation (in terms of tech, etc) meets an obviously superior civilisation, the result is a catastrophe for the more primitive lifeform
I see no reason why we would be different; I was amazed last night by the number of PB-ers who think humans would just shrug and continue as normal if it was proved we are being visited by super-powerful aliens
Is the human race a catastrophe for the gnat population?
lol. Are you arguing we are NOT a catastrophe for thousands of animal and plant species across the world?
The megafauna of Australia say Hi
99.99% of all species who ever existed are extinct and humans had nothing to do with almost all of that.
Going extinct is normal, and one day it will be our turn.
That's assuming a constant steady state. But extinction comes in peaks, e.g. the plateau lavas/asteroid impact that did in most of the dinosaurs. The impact of humans is another of those, one of the half dozen or so great peaks in the recortd.
Hmm, what do we reckon? Is this just a bit of grumbling that will blow over (but ensure that Liz wins the vote for the new leader) or is this a sign of trouble ahead for Tory MPs with their grassroots?
One imagines that if Johnson goes to the Conservative Party conference that he might cause a bit of a splash. Does he want to?
I was thinking about Cicero's reported rumours in Finland.
1 - Recently the Finns are nervous about the Russians, hence the NATO moves 2 - The story is said to involve a high level Cabinet member 3 - The story is said to be extremely damaging
This morning you read a week-old story. Why would that be banned?
@Beibheirli_C is quite right though, Finlandgate is much most likely to put flesh on the bones of that story. It is even possible to speculate what the flesh might be, 🎻.
We've all heard the story now, anyone with an internet connection has heard it, why are they bothering to stay so shtoom?
It is *exciting* if you like fishing
My skills must be declining, I know nothing beyond what is in the open in the UK. Merely speculating that the Finland stuff adds to the story which it might do spectacularly: kompromat videos, or something.
I don't want to get UNJUSTIFIABLY banned again, and Mike Smithson won't even let Junior talk about it, so mum's the word for me
Mum
Mum is the word
So the clues are "Finland" "exciting" and "Mum"? But TSE hasn't said anything?
There is of course the sand on the beach theory of aliens.
When you go to the beach and are sitting on the sand, say, two feet away from you and two feet down into the sand could be an ant colony. You would never see or know about it despite being close to it.
The aliens could be in the vicinity, cosmic-wise but they never bother to investigate or happen upon the infinitesimally tiny part that is our planet.
There's a lot of sci fi on a similarish theme - Roadside Picnic, William Gibson short whose name I forget, Gateway in reverse: if we do encounter aliens, it won't do us much good, any more than it would a swarm (?) of ants investigating the remains of a human picnic. might get a discarded apple core out of it.
The experience of the Aztec, the Incas, the tribes of Africa, the Natives of North America, the indigenes of Japan, the aborigines of Australia, the locals in Papua New Guinea, even the Neanderthals, all suggest that when a relatively inferior civilisation (in terms of tech, etc) meets an obviously superior civilisation, the result is a catastrophe for the more primitive lifeform
I see no reason why we would be different; I was amazed last night by the number of PB-ers who think humans would just shrug and continue as normal if it was proved we are being visited by super-powerful aliens
Is the human race a catastrophe for the gnat population?
lol. Are you arguing we are NOT a catastrophe for thousands of animal and plant species across the world?
The megafauna of Australia say Hi
99.99% of all species who ever existed are extinct and humans had nothing to do with almost all of that.
Going extinct is normal, and one day it will be our turn.
That's assuming a constant steady state. But extinction comes in peaks, e.g. the plateau lavas/asteroid impact that did in most of the dinosaurs. The impact of humans is another of those, one of the half dozen or so great peaks in the recortd.
Alternate view: Sunak would've won comfortably in the exact same contest a year ago, but since then a) he has put up taxes in a way that has miffed a lot of natural conservatives (including almost all the saner right-wing voices on this forum), b) we have discovered his wife is not paying UK taxes, which makes him a much easier target for Starmer and Labour, as well as raising questions around his judgment* and c) we're in a high inflation period, which turns his (family's) enormous wealth from a minor inconvenience into a massive problem.
Note that none of the above developments have anything much to do with Brexit. This contest is not about Brexit.
*even though it's really not his fault, but them's the breaks, as a wise man once said
There is of course the sand on the beach theory of aliens.
When you go to the beach and are sitting on the sand, say, two feet away from you and two feet down into the sand could be an ant colony. You would never see or know about it despite being close to it.
The aliens could be in the vicinity, cosmic-wise but they never bother to investigate or happen upon the infinitesimally tiny part that is our planet.
There's a lot of sci fi on a similarish theme - Roadside Picnic, William Gibson short whose name I forget, Gateway in reverse: if we do encounter aliens, it won't do us much good, any more than it would a swarm (?) of ants investigating the remains of a human picnic. might get a discarded apple core out of it.
The experience of the Aztec, the Incas, the tribes of Africa, the Natives of North America, the indigenes of Japan, the aborigines of Australia, the locals in Papua New Guinea, even the Neanderthals, all suggest that when a relatively inferior civilisation (in terms of tech, etc) meets an obviously superior civilisation, the result is a catastrophe for the more primitive lifeform
I see no reason why we would be different; I was amazed last night by the number of PB-ers who think humans would just shrug and continue as normal if it was proved we are being visited by super-powerful aliens
Yes but we have nuclear weapons unlike the aborigines, Indians Aztecs etc.
Aliens would have to be super powerful to neutralise a nuclear weapon if our weapon of last resort if they attacked us or tried to colonise us
Yeah hate to break it to you but there’s been quite a bit of on the record testimony now that UAP sightings have coincided with mysterious and inexplicable shutdowns in nuclear facilities. Both US and Soviet.
Read between the lines on this from the Canadians last month too:
There is of course the sand on the beach theory of aliens.
When you go to the beach and are sitting on the sand, say, two feet away from you and two feet down into the sand could be an ant colony. You would never see or know about it despite being close to it.
The aliens could be in the vicinity, cosmic-wise but they never bother to investigate or happen upon the infinitesimally tiny part that is our planet.
There's a lot of sci fi on a similarish theme - Roadside Picnic, William Gibson short whose name I forget, Gateway in reverse: if we do encounter aliens, it won't do us much good, any more than it would a swarm (?) of ants investigating the remains of a human picnic. might get a discarded apple core out of it.
The experience of the Aztec, the Incas, the tribes of Africa, the Natives of North America, the indigenes of Japan, the aborigines of Australia, the locals in Papua New Guinea, even the Neanderthals, all suggest that when a relatively inferior civilisation (in terms of tech, etc) meets an obviously superior civilisation, the result is a catastrophe for the more primitive lifeform
I see no reason why we would be different; I was amazed last night by the number of PB-ers who think humans would just shrug and continue as normal if it was proved we are being visited by super-powerful aliens
Is the human race a catastrophe for the gnat population?
lol. Are you arguing we are NOT a catastrophe for thousands of animal and plant species across the world?
The megafauna of Australia say Hi
99.99% of all species who ever existed are extinct and humans had nothing to do with almost all of that.
Going extinct is normal, and one day it will be our turn.
Another ridiculous post
We can make species extinct in a couple of centuries, even decades, maybe even years if we put our mind to it
See the passenger pigeon, which numbered maybe 5 BILLION in 1750, and was all gone - every last one - by 1914
Very few natural processes - maybe none, apart from asteroid impact - can kill a species that numerous and widespread with such amazing efficiency
So humans are about as bad as a catastrophic asteroid impact
Perhaps you could explain the P-T extinctions and what happened to all the trilobites even before the P-T events?
Since the Trilobites were gone by around 300 million years ago, we cannot really blame humans. Or asteroids.
I don't need to explain them, extinctions happen, just as every animal dies
But extinctions are happening faster now than at any other moment in history, bar a few absolute calamities (as @Carnyx says below)
Look at it this way. Victorian prostitutes in Whitechapel in the late 19th century. They all died in the end. But the advent of Jack the Ripper was still unusually bad news for them, in the 1890s, just as humans have been unusually bad news for so much flora and fauna, beyond the normal run of mortality
I hereby submit this comment for the PB Good Taste Award of 2022
There is of course the sand on the beach theory of aliens.
When you go to the beach and are sitting on the sand, say, two feet away from you and two feet down into the sand could be an ant colony. You would never see or know about it despite being close to it.
The aliens could be in the vicinity, cosmic-wise but they never bother to investigate or happen upon the infinitesimally tiny part that is our planet.
There's a lot of sci fi on a similarish theme - Roadside Picnic, William Gibson short whose name I forget, Gateway in reverse: if we do encounter aliens, it won't do us much good, any more than it would a swarm (?) of ants investigating the remains of a human picnic. might get a discarded apple core out of it.
The experience of the Aztec, the Incas, the tribes of Africa, the Natives of North America, the indigenes of Japan, the aborigines of Australia, the locals in Papua New Guinea, even the Neanderthals, all suggest that when a relatively inferior civilisation (in terms of tech, etc) meets an obviously superior civilisation, the result is a catastrophe for the more primitive lifeform
I see no reason why we would be different; I was amazed last night by the number of PB-ers who think humans would just shrug and continue as normal if it was proved we are being visited by super-powerful aliens
Is the human race a catastrophe for the gnat population?
lol. Are you arguing we are NOT a catastrophe for thousands of animal and plant species across the world?
The megafauna of Australia say Hi
99.99% of all species who ever existed are extinct and humans had nothing to do with almost all of that.
Going extinct is normal, and one day it will be our turn.
Another ridiculous post
We can make species extinct in a couple of centuries, even decades, maybe even years if we put our mind to it
See the passenger pigeon, which numbered maybe 5 BILLION in 1750, and was all gone - every last one - by 1914
Hmm, what do we reckon? Is this just a bit of grumbling that will blow over (but ensure that Liz wins the vote for the new leader) or is this a sign of trouble ahead for Tory MPs with their grassroots?
One imagines that if Johnson goes to the Conservative Party conference that he might cause a bit of a splash. Does he want to?
I was thinking about Cicero's reported rumours in Finland.
1 - Recently the Finns are nervous about the Russians, hence the NATO moves 2 - The story is said to involve a high level Cabinet member 3 - The story is said to be extremely damaging
This morning you read a week-old story. Why would that be banned?
@Beibheirli_C is quite right though, Finlandgate is much most likely to put flesh on the bones of that story. It is even possible to speculate what the flesh might be, 🎻.
We've all heard the story now, anyone with an internet connection has heard it, why are they bothering to stay so shtoom?
It is *exciting* if you like fishing
My skills must be declining, I know nothing beyond what is in the open in the UK. Merely speculating that the Finland stuff adds to the story which it might do spectacularly: kompromat videos, or something.
I don't want to get UNJUSTIFIABLY banned again, and Mike Smithson won't even let Junior talk about it, so mum's the word for me
Mum
Mum is the word
So the clues are "Finland" "exciting" and "Mum"? But TSE hasn't said anything?
There is of course the sand on the beach theory of aliens.
When you go to the beach and are sitting on the sand, say, two feet away from you and two feet down into the sand could be an ant colony. You would never see or know about it despite being close to it.
The aliens could be in the vicinity, cosmic-wise but they never bother to investigate or happen upon the infinitesimally tiny part that is our planet.
There's a lot of sci fi on a similarish theme - Roadside Picnic, William Gibson short whose name I forget, Gateway in reverse: if we do encounter aliens, it won't do us much good, any more than it would a swarm (?) of ants investigating the remains of a human picnic. might get a discarded apple core out of it.
The experience of the Aztec, the Incas, the tribes of Africa, the Natives of North America, the indigenes of Japan, the aborigines of Australia, the locals in Papua New Guinea, even the Neanderthals, all suggest that when a relatively inferior civilisation (in terms of tech, etc) meets an obviously superior civilisation, the result is a catastrophe for the more primitive lifeform
I see no reason why we would be different; I was amazed last night by the number of PB-ers who think humans would just shrug and continue as normal if it was proved we are being visited by super-powerful aliens
Yes but we have nuclear weapons unlike the aborigines, Indians Aztecs etc.
Aliens would have to be super powerful to neutralise a nuclear weapon if our weapon of last resort if they attacked us or tried to colonise us
Yeah hate to break it to you but there’s been quite a bit of on the record testimony now that UAP sightings have coincided with mysterious and inexplicable shutdowns in nuclear facilities. Both US and Soviet.
Read between the lines on this from the Canadians last month too:
There is of course the sand on the beach theory of aliens.
When you go to the beach and are sitting on the sand, say, two feet away from you and two feet down into the sand could be an ant colony. You would never see or know about it despite being close to it.
The aliens could be in the vicinity, cosmic-wise but they never bother to investigate or happen upon the infinitesimally tiny part that is our planet.
There's a lot of sci fi on a similarish theme - Roadside Picnic, William Gibson short whose name I forget, Gateway in reverse: if we do encounter aliens, it won't do us much good, any more than it would a swarm (?) of ants investigating the remains of a human picnic. might get a discarded apple core out of it.
The experience of the Aztec, the Incas, the tribes of Africa, the Natives of North America, the indigenes of Japan, the aborigines of Australia, the locals in Papua New Guinea, even the Neanderthals, all suggest that when a relatively inferior civilisation (in terms of tech, etc) meets an obviously superior civilisation, the result is a catastrophe for the more primitive lifeform
I see no reason why we would be different; I was amazed last night by the number of PB-ers who think humans would just shrug and continue as normal if it was proved we are being visited by super-powerful aliens
Is the human race a catastrophe for the gnat population?
lol. Are you arguing we are NOT a catastrophe for thousands of animal and plant species across the world?
The megafauna of Australia say Hi
99.99% of all species who ever existed are extinct and humans had nothing to do with almost all of that.
Going extinct is normal, and one day it will be our turn.
Another ridiculous post
We can make species extinct in a couple of centuries, even decades, maybe even years if we put our mind to it
See the passenger pigeon, which numbered maybe 5 BILLION in 1750, and was all gone - every last one - by 1914
Very few natural processes - maybe none, apart from asteroid impact - can kill a species that numerous and widespread with such amazing efficiency
So humans are about as bad as a catastrophic asteroid impact
Was Speckled Jim, chomped by Edmond Blackadder in the trenches, the last one? That scene is sad now not funny.
The extinction of entire species, at the hands - witting or otherwise - of man, is one of the hardest things to read about, for me. I get species guilt
There is of course the sand on the beach theory of aliens.
When you go to the beach and are sitting on the sand, say, two feet away from you and two feet down into the sand could be an ant colony. You would never see or know about it despite being close to it.
The aliens could be in the vicinity, cosmic-wise but they never bother to investigate or happen upon the infinitesimally tiny part that is our planet.
There's a lot of sci fi on a similarish theme - Roadside Picnic, William Gibson short whose name I forget, Gateway in reverse: if we do encounter aliens, it won't do us much good, any more than it would a swarm (?) of ants investigating the remains of a human picnic. might get a discarded apple core out of it.
The experience of the Aztec, the Incas, the tribes of Africa, the Natives of North America, the indigenes of Japan, the aborigines of Australia, the locals in Papua New Guinea, even the Neanderthals, all suggest that when a relatively inferior civilisation (in terms of tech, etc) meets an obviously superior civilisation, the result is a catastrophe for the more primitive lifeform
I see no reason why we would be different; I was amazed last night by the number of PB-ers who think humans would just shrug and continue as normal if it was proved we are being visited by super-powerful aliens
There is a big difference between the scenario posited - Biden announcing the existence of aliens - and aliens actually physically walking among us, interacting with us, and offering us glass bead equivalents. One is much more consequential than the other.
I am in a particularly sentimental mood about animals today, perhaps - because my older daughter's beloved dog Bramble had a series of epileptic seizures this morning, and may not last the day
He's only 2 years old and she ADORES that bloody dog. If PBers have any spare prayers, donations are welcome
I am in a particularly sentimental mood about animals today, perhaps - because my older daughter's beloved dog Bramble had a series of epileptic seizures this morning, and may not last the day
He's only 2 years old and she ADORES that bloody dog. If PBers have any spare prayers, donations are welcome
There is of course the sand on the beach theory of aliens.
When you go to the beach and are sitting on the sand, say, two feet away from you and two feet down into the sand could be an ant colony. You would never see or know about it despite being close to it.
The aliens could be in the vicinity, cosmic-wise but they never bother to investigate or happen upon the infinitesimally tiny part that is our planet.
There's a lot of sci fi on a similarish theme - Roadside Picnic, William Gibson short whose name I forget, Gateway in reverse: if we do encounter aliens, it won't do us much good, any more than it would a swarm (?) of ants investigating the remains of a human picnic. might get a discarded apple core out of it.
The experience of the Aztec, the Incas, the tribes of Africa, the Natives of North America, the indigenes of Japan, the aborigines of Australia, the locals in Papua New Guinea, even the Neanderthals, all suggest that when a relatively inferior civilisation (in terms of tech, etc) meets an obviously superior civilisation, the result is a catastrophe for the more primitive lifeform
I see no reason why we would be different; I was amazed last night by the number of PB-ers who think humans would just shrug and continue as normal if it was proved we are being visited by super-powerful aliens
Is the human race a catastrophe for the gnat population?
lol. Are you arguing we are NOT a catastrophe for thousands of animal and plant species across the world?
The megafauna of Australia say Hi
99.99% of all species who ever existed are extinct and humans had nothing to do with almost all of that.
Going extinct is normal, and one day it will be our turn.
Another ridiculous post
We can make species extinct in a couple of centuries, even decades, maybe even years if we put our mind to it
See the passenger pigeon, which numbered maybe 5 BILLION in 1750, and was all gone - every last one - by 1914
Very few natural processes - maybe none, apart from asteroid impact - can kill a species that numerous and widespread with such amazing efficiency
So humans are about as bad as a catastrophic asteroid impact
Perhaps you could explain the P-T extinctions and what happened to all the trilobites even before the P-T events?
Since the Trilobites were gone by around 300 million years ago, we cannot really blame humans. Or asteroids.
I don't need to explain them, extinctions happen, just as every animal dies
But extinctions are happening faster now than at any other moment in history, bar a few absolute calamities (as @Carnyx says below)
(Snip)
I'm actually unconvinced by that argument. Deep time, even by life's standards, is vast, and the fossil record immensely spotty. We split current animals and plants up into nearly 9 million species. We know far fewer fossil species, and they almost certainly do not differentiate between (say) the passenger pigeon, racing pigeon or the and the speckled pigeon - let alone all the doves.
Put simply: we have differentiated vastly more species to go extinct.
Hmm, what do we reckon? Is this just a bit of grumbling that will blow over (but ensure that Liz wins the vote for the new leader) or is this a sign of trouble ahead for Tory MPs with their grassroots?
One imagines that if Johnson goes to the Conservative Party conference that he might cause a bit of a splash. Does he want to?
I was thinking about Cicero's reported rumours in Finland.
1 - Recently the Finns are nervous about the Russians, hence the NATO moves 2 - The story is said to involve a high level Cabinet member 3 - The story is said to be extremely damaging
This morning you read a week-old story. Why would that be banned?
@Beibheirli_C is quite right though, Finlandgate is much most likely to put flesh on the bones of that story. It is even possible to speculate what the flesh might be, 🎻.
We've all heard the story now, anyone with an internet connection has heard it, why are they bothering to stay so shtoom?
It is *exciting* if you like fishing
My skills must be declining, I know nothing beyond what is in the open in the UK. Merely speculating that the Finland stuff adds to the story which it might do spectacularly: kompromat videos, or something.
I don't want to get UNJUSTIFIABLY banned again, and Mike Smithson won't even let Junior talk about it, so mum's the word for me
Mum
Mum is the word
So the clues are "Finland" "exciting" and "Mum"? But TSE hasn't said anything?
No, I'm still stumped.
My suspicion is that Leon's having fun
So we have Leon fixated on both Aliens and a scandal that is only being reported in Finland.
So clearly the story is that a member of our Cabinet isn't a human being but is actually an alien Moomin...
There is of course the sand on the beach theory of aliens.
When you go to the beach and are sitting on the sand, say, two feet away from you and two feet down into the sand could be an ant colony. You would never see or know about it despite being close to it.
The aliens could be in the vicinity, cosmic-wise but they never bother to investigate or happen upon the infinitesimally tiny part that is our planet.
There's a lot of sci fi on a similarish theme - Roadside Picnic, William Gibson short whose name I forget, Gateway in reverse: if we do encounter aliens, it won't do us much good, any more than it would a swarm (?) of ants investigating the remains of a human picnic. might get a discarded apple core out of it.
The experience of the Aztec, the Incas, the tribes of Africa, the Natives of North America, the indigenes of Japan, the aborigines of Australia, the locals in Papua New Guinea, even the Neanderthals, all suggest that when a relatively inferior civilisation (in terms of tech, etc) meets an obviously superior civilisation, the result is a catastrophe for the more primitive lifeform
I see no reason why we would be different; I was amazed last night by the number of PB-ers who think humans would just shrug and continue as normal if it was proved we are being visited by super-powerful aliens
Yes but we have nuclear weapons unlike the aborigines, Indians Aztecs etc.
Aliens would have to be super powerful to neutralise a nuclear weapon if our weapon of last resort if they attacked us or tried to colonise us
Yeah hate to break it to you but there’s been quite a bit of on the record testimony now that UAP sightings have coincided with mysterious and inexplicable shutdowns in nuclear facilities. Both US and Soviet.
Read between the lines on this from the Canadians last month too:
If aliens were so powerful they could have destroyed all our nuclear weapons and nuclear facilities long ago.
If they wanted to colonise us they would have done.
In any case I believe in eternal life with the Lord aliens or no aliens
I agree, I am not a subscriber to Dark Forest theory. I suspect far more likely we are the end result of directed panspermia. I would also not be in the least surprised if almost all of Earth’s religious traditions have their routes in The Phenomona, whatever it turns out to be.
I suspect Leon’s mate is wrong and if a secret has been kept, it’s nothing to do with “their” hostile intent. It’s because those with the info worry about how it would unwind religion. Lue Elizondo formally accused his superiors of this in his complaint to the Pentagon’s IG - that evidence was getting wilfully stuck halfway up the chain of command due to various individuals’ religious beliefs getting in the way. Mind you Lue has also said we should be looking very carefully at human dna. If his implication turned out to be true, then it certainly would unwind global religions!
Again, what proportion of human endeavour should be spent looking for signs of intelligent design or external interference in human dna? More than none in my opinion.
There is of course the sand on the beach theory of aliens.
When you go to the beach and are sitting on the sand, say, two feet away from you and two feet down into the sand could be an ant colony. You would never see or know about it despite being close to it.
The aliens could be in the vicinity, cosmic-wise but they never bother to investigate or happen upon the infinitesimally tiny part that is our planet.
There's a lot of sci fi on a similarish theme - Roadside Picnic, William Gibson short whose name I forget, Gateway in reverse: if we do encounter aliens, it won't do us much good, any more than it would a swarm (?) of ants investigating the remains of a human picnic. might get a discarded apple core out of it.
The experience of the Aztec, the Incas, the tribes of Africa, the Natives of North America, the indigenes of Japan, the aborigines of Australia, the locals in Papua New Guinea, even the Neanderthals, all suggest that when a relatively inferior civilisation (in terms of tech, etc) meets an obviously superior civilisation, the result is a catastrophe for the more primitive lifeform
I see no reason why we would be different; I was amazed last night by the number of PB-ers who think humans would just shrug and continue as normal if it was proved we are being visited by super-powerful aliens
Is the human race a catastrophe for the gnat population?
lol. Are you arguing we are NOT a catastrophe for thousands of animal and plant species across the world?
The megafauna of Australia say Hi
99.99% of all species who ever existed are extinct and humans had nothing to do with almost all of that.
Going extinct is normal, and one day it will be our turn.
Another ridiculous post
We can make species extinct in a couple of centuries, even decades, maybe even years if we put our mind to it
See the passenger pigeon, which numbered maybe 5 BILLION in 1750, and was all gone - every last one - by 1914
Very few natural processes - maybe none, apart from asteroid impact - can kill a species that numerous and widespread with such amazing efficiency
So humans are about as bad as a catastrophic asteroid impact
Perhaps you could explain the P-T extinctions and what happened to all the trilobites even before the P-T events?
Since the Trilobites were gone by around 300 million years ago, we cannot really blame humans. Or asteroids.
I don't need to explain them, extinctions happen, just as every animal dies
But extinctions are happening faster now than at any other moment in history, bar a few absolute calamities (as @Carnyx says below)
Look at it this way. Victorian prostitutes in Whitechapel in the late 19th century. They all died in the end. But the advent of Jack the Ripper was still unusually bad news for them, in the 1890s, just as humans have been unusually bad news for so much flora and fauna, beyond the normal run of mortality
I hereby submit this comment for the PB Good Taste Award of 2022
I wonder if there is a terminological confusion in the thread between species extinction and mass extinction.
There is a difference between the extinvtion of a species (a single population or linked populations. 'admittedly including its obligate parasites and commensals etc), and that of a number of species. Indeed there was a substantiasl turnover in dino species for tens and scores of Myr till the asteroid plus Deccan traps etcs. did in all the dinos at once, except the ones which became pigeons etc.
As for the trilobites, they actually lasted till the Permo-Triassic event when they went west as did much erlse (if in their later times admittedly less dominant than theyt had been). What is so uncomfortable about the P-TR event is how close to home it may be - global warming, species and ecosystem depauperization (if that is a word?), acid rain, methane leaks ... cheerfuil stuff.
I am in a particularly sentimental mood about animals today, perhaps - because my older daughter's beloved dog Bramble had a series of epileptic seizures this morning, and may not last the day
He's only 2 years old and she ADORES that bloody dog. If PBers have any spare prayers, donations are welcome
There is of course the sand on the beach theory of aliens.
When you go to the beach and are sitting on the sand, say, two feet away from you and two feet down into the sand could be an ant colony. You would never see or know about it despite being close to it.
The aliens could be in the vicinity, cosmic-wise but they never bother to investigate or happen upon the infinitesimally tiny part that is our planet.
There's a lot of sci fi on a similarish theme - Roadside Picnic, William Gibson short whose name I forget, Gateway in reverse: if we do encounter aliens, it won't do us much good, any more than it would a swarm (?) of ants investigating the remains of a human picnic. might get a discarded apple core out of it.
The experience of the Aztec, the Incas, the tribes of Africa, the Natives of North America, the indigenes of Japan, the aborigines of Australia, the locals in Papua New Guinea, even the Neanderthals, all suggest that when a relatively inferior civilisation (in terms of tech, etc) meets an obviously superior civilisation, the result is a catastrophe for the more primitive lifeform
I see no reason why we would be different; I was amazed last night by the number of PB-ers who think humans would just shrug and continue as normal if it was proved we are being visited by super-powerful aliens
Yes but we have nuclear weapons unlike the aborigines, Indians Aztecs etc.
Aliens would have to be super powerful to neutralise a nuclear weapon if our weapon of last resort if they attacked us or tried to colonise us
I preferred (actually liked) your other post where you said that if they existed and wanted to colonise us they would have done so by now. That is of course assuming that they didn't just arrive in the last few minutes and were having a quick nap before getting on with it.
I suspect that any aliens that has the technology to get here will not be too bothered by a pitiful nuclear weapon.
I am in a particularly sentimental mood about animals today, perhaps - because my older daughter's beloved dog Bramble had a series of epileptic seizures this morning, and may not last the day
He's only 2 years old and she ADORES that bloody dog. If PBers have any spare prayers, donations are welcome
It's tough to lose a much loved animal but you have to bite that bullet or they would never know that love in the first place. Give them both a cyber-pat from me.
And welcome back. Site much better with you than without.
I am in a particularly sentimental mood about animals today, perhaps - because my older daughter's beloved dog Bramble had a series of epileptic seizures this morning, and may not last the day
He's only 2 years old and she ADORES that bloody dog. If PBers have any spare prayers, donations are welcome
All good wishes to Bramble, and you and her - amazing recoveries do happen sometimes, and at least Bramble's obviously had a good life with you both.
There is of course the sand on the beach theory of aliens.
When you go to the beach and are sitting on the sand, say, two feet away from you and two feet down into the sand could be an ant colony. You would never see or know about it despite being close to it.
The aliens could be in the vicinity, cosmic-wise but they never bother to investigate or happen upon the infinitesimally tiny part that is our planet.
There's a lot of sci fi on a similarish theme - Roadside Picnic, William Gibson short whose name I forget, Gateway in reverse: if we do encounter aliens, it won't do us much good, any more than it would a swarm (?) of ants investigating the remains of a human picnic. might get a discarded apple core out of it.
The experience of the Aztec, the Incas, the tribes of Africa, the Natives of North America, the indigenes of Japan, the aborigines of Australia, the locals in Papua New Guinea, even the Neanderthals, all suggest that when a relatively inferior civilisation (in terms of tech, etc) meets an obviously superior civilisation, the result is a catastrophe for the more primitive lifeform
I see no reason why we would be different; I was amazed last night by the number of PB-ers who think humans would just shrug and continue as normal if it was proved we are being visited by super-powerful aliens
Yes but we have nuclear weapons unlike the aborigines, Indians Aztecs etc.
Aliens would have to be super powerful to neutralise a nuclear weapon if our weapon of last resort if they attacked us or tried to colonise us
I preferred (actually liked) your other post where you said that if they existed and wanted to colonise us they would have done so by now. That is of course assuming that they didn't just arrive in the last few minutes and were having a quick nap before getting on with it.
I suspect that any aliens that has the technology to get here will not be too bothered by a pitiful nuclear weapon.
Yeah. Sounds like aborigines saying we've got spears.
There is of course the sand on the beach theory of aliens.
When you go to the beach and are sitting on the sand, say, two feet away from you and two feet down into the sand could be an ant colony. You would never see or know about it despite being close to it.
The aliens could be in the vicinity, cosmic-wise but they never bother to investigate or happen upon the infinitesimally tiny part that is our planet.
There's a lot of sci fi on a similarish theme - Roadside Picnic, William Gibson short whose name I forget, Gateway in reverse: if we do encounter aliens, it won't do us much good, any more than it would a swarm (?) of ants investigating the remains of a human picnic. might get a discarded apple core out of it.
The experience of the Aztec, the Incas, the tribes of Africa, the Natives of North America, the indigenes of Japan, the aborigines of Australia, the locals in Papua New Guinea, even the Neanderthals, all suggest that when a relatively inferior civilisation (in terms of tech, etc) meets an obviously superior civilisation, the result is a catastrophe for the more primitive lifeform
I see no reason why we would be different; I was amazed last night by the number of PB-ers who think humans would just shrug and continue as normal if it was proved we are being visited by super-powerful aliens
Yes but we have nuclear weapons unlike the aborigines, Indians Aztecs etc.
Aliens would have to be super powerful to neutralise a nuclear weapon if our weapon of last resort if they attacked us or tried to colonise us
I preferred (actually liked) your other post where you said that if they existed and wanted to colonise us they would have done so by now. That is of course assuming that they didn't just arrive in the last few minutes and were having a quick nap before getting on with it.
I suspect that any aliens that has the technology to get here will not be too bothered by a pitiful nuclear weapon.
Depends, we have already been to the Moon and sent probes beyond that.
Just because hypothetical aliens managed to travel here does not mean they have weapons more powerful than nuclear weapons
Hmm, what do we reckon? Is this just a bit of grumbling that will blow over (but ensure that Liz wins the vote for the new leader) or is this a sign of trouble ahead for Tory MPs with their grassroots?
One imagines that if Johnson goes to the Conservative Party conference that he might cause a bit of a splash. Does he want to?
I was thinking about Cicero's reported rumours in Finland.
1 - Recently the Finns are nervous about the Russians, hence the NATO moves 2 - The story is said to involve a high level Cabinet member 3 - The story is said to be extremely damaging
This morning you read a week-old story. Why would that be banned?
@Beibheirli_C is quite right though, Finlandgate is much most likely to put flesh on the bones of that story. It is even possible to speculate what the flesh might be, 🎻.
We've all heard the story now, anyone with an internet connection has heard it, why are they bothering to stay so shtoom?
It is *exciting* if you like fishing
My skills must be declining, I know nothing beyond what is in the open in the UK. Merely speculating that the Finland stuff adds to the story which it might do spectacularly: kompromat videos, or something.
I don't want to get UNJUSTIFIABLY banned again, and Mike Smithson won't even let Junior talk about it, so mum's the word for me
Mum
Mum is the word
So the clues are "Finland" "exciting" and "Mum"? But TSE hasn't said anything?
Mr. HYUFD, they don't need them. They could just bombard the Earth with mass (asteroids or tungsten rods of sufficient size) and the result would be far worse (cf the dinosaurs).
I am in a particularly sentimental mood about animals today, perhaps - because my older daughter's beloved dog Bramble had a series of epileptic seizures this morning, and may not last the day
He's only 2 years old and she ADORES that bloody dog. If PBers have any spare prayers, donations are welcome
It's tough to lose a much loved animal but you have to bite that bullet or they would never know that love in the first place. Give them both a cyber-pat from me.
And welcome back. Site much better with you than without.
Yep, my girlfriends little kitten, 9 months old got run over yesterdays and I've been in bits myself as well.
There is of course the sand on the beach theory of aliens.
When you go to the beach and are sitting on the sand, say, two feet away from you and two feet down into the sand could be an ant colony. You would never see or know about it despite being close to it.
The aliens could be in the vicinity, cosmic-wise but they never bother to investigate or happen upon the infinitesimally tiny part that is our planet.
There's a lot of sci fi on a similarish theme - Roadside Picnic, William Gibson short whose name I forget, Gateway in reverse: if we do encounter aliens, it won't do us much good, any more than it would a swarm (?) of ants investigating the remains of a human picnic. might get a discarded apple core out of it.
The experience of the Aztec, the Incas, the tribes of Africa, the Natives of North America, the indigenes of Japan, the aborigines of Australia, the locals in Papua New Guinea, even the Neanderthals, all suggest that when a relatively inferior civilisation (in terms of tech, etc) meets an obviously superior civilisation, the result is a catastrophe for the more primitive lifeform
I see no reason why we would be different; I was amazed last night by the number of PB-ers who think humans would just shrug and continue as normal if it was proved we are being visited by super-powerful aliens
Yes but we have nuclear weapons unlike the aborigines, Indians Aztecs etc.
Aliens would have to be super powerful to neutralise a nuclear weapon if our weapon of last resort if they attacked us or tried to colonise us
Yeah hate to break it to you but there’s been quite a bit of on the record testimony now that UAP sightings have coincided with mysterious and inexplicable shutdowns in nuclear facilities. Both US and Soviet.
Read between the lines on this from the Canadians last month too:
If aliens were so powerful they could have destroyed all our nuclear weapons and nuclear facilities long ago.
If they wanted to colonise us they would have done.
In any case I believe in eternal life with the Lord aliens or no aliens
I agree, I am not a subscriber to Dark Forest theory. I suspect far more likely we are the end result of directed panspermia. I would also not be in the least surprised if almost all of Earth’s religious traditions have their routes in The Phenomona, whatever it turns out to be.
I suspect Leon’s mate is wrong and if a secret has been kept, it’s nothing to do with “their” hostile intent. It’s because those with the info worry about how it would unwind religion. Lue Elizondo formally accused his superiors of this in his complaint to the Pentagon’s IG - that evidence was getting wilfully stuck halfway up the chain of command due to various individuals’ religious beliefs getting in the way. Mind you Lue has also said we should be looking very carefully at human dna. If his implication turned out to be true, then it certainly would unwind global religions!
Again, what proportion of human endeavour should be spent looking for signs of intelligent design or external interference in human dna? More than none in my opinion.
I don't see why it should affect religions.
God created the earth and ultimately humans whatever our dna, there is no mention of specific dna in the bible.
Even if we are destroyed by aliens that could just be an implementation of the Book of Revelation, we turned too far away from God and Christ and God sent alien beings to destroy humanity before the second coming of Christ
Mr. Leon, do you get 'species pride' from knowing being a tasty animal almost guarantees survival at the hands of man?
Not perfect, of course, as the giant tortoises on the Galapagos found out.
I cannot fathom the mindset that feels pride or shame because of things other people have done.
Do you honestly never feel shame at the way we have plundered and ransacked the planet? And degraded it?
I do, it might be irrational, but I do
Equally I can feel pride in mankind's nobler achievements - extending human lifespan, ending famine, reaching the moon - that's maybe equally irrational, but it is a thing for me
@BartholomewRoberts just curious, if you voted Labour in 2019 were you endorsing anti-Semitism or not
Not. I've said not to you many times.
I think it would be an offensive slur to suggest 10 million Britons were endorsing anti-Semitism.
Fair enough but yours is definitely a minority POV.
I have never been against taking a minority or unique POV. My POV is my own, not anybody else's.
But I don't think the notion that 10 million people weren't all endorsing anti-semitism is unique or that minority either. Corbyn and his ilk were, but not all Labour voters. I'll quote a part of a reply I wrote to you yesterday.
There were a vast number of Labour MPs who objected to Corbyn, objected to anti Semitism and made that vocally clear and resigned to the back benches. People like Stella Creasy were prepared to not just vote Labour but hold the Labour whip and were still willing to call out anti Semitism even while voting Labour. I may not agree with her politics much, but I really respect her and MPs like her let alone voters like her.
Parties are big tents, just because Corbyn was an anti-Semite doesn't mean every Labour voter was. Many Labour voters were anti-Corbyn, many Labour MPs were.
Tbf to Conservative supporters pointing out the error of Corbyn, he did kick out most of the MPs he disagreed with, particularly those of the Jewish faith like Luciana Berger.
Corbyn did not kick out MPs he disagreed with, not even Luciana Berger who left and founded TIG or one of the other names they churned through.
Constructive dismissal.
Berger was in no way constructively dismissed. She was actively briefing against her party leader, who was massively popular with her local constituency party. They were following the proper process to have her deselected, as was their right, and she jumped before she was pushed.
I sympathise with her to the extent that it's obvious why she was so against the party leader, but that wouldn't have been such an issue if she hadn't been parachuted into a seat she wasn't particularly suited for in the first place.
So if an anti-Semite had been parachuted in to that seat it would have been fine?
No, they just might not have had that specific issue with the local party.
Obviously none of this is "fine". The point is that Berger had plenty of opportunities to be a victim, and refused them - she put her career ahead of doing the right thing, and ultimately lost both her job, and the right to play the victim.
I didn't follow the minutiae but didn't it boil down to Berger being a jew and the Labour Party being anti-semitic?
Mr. HYUFD, they don't need them. They could just bombard the Earth with mass (asteroids or tungsten rods of sufficient size) and the result would be far worse (cf the dinosaurs).
We don't need aliens to be hit by asteroids, we do need an effective missile defence system
There is of course the sand on the beach theory of aliens.
When you go to the beach and are sitting on the sand, say, two feet away from you and two feet down into the sand could be an ant colony. You would never see or know about it despite being close to it.
The aliens could be in the vicinity, cosmic-wise but they never bother to investigate or happen upon the infinitesimally tiny part that is our planet.
There's a lot of sci fi on a similarish theme - Roadside Picnic, William Gibson short whose name I forget, Gateway in reverse: if we do encounter aliens, it won't do us much good, any more than it would a swarm (?) of ants investigating the remains of a human picnic. might get a discarded apple core out of it.
The experience of the Aztec, the Incas, the tribes of Africa, the Natives of North America, the indigenes of Japan, the aborigines of Australia, the locals in Papua New Guinea, even the Neanderthals, all suggest that when a relatively inferior civilisation (in terms of tech, etc) meets an obviously superior civilisation, the result is a catastrophe for the more primitive lifeform
I see no reason why we would be different; I was amazed last night by the number of PB-ers who think humans would just shrug and continue as normal if it was proved we are being visited by super-powerful aliens
Yes but we have nuclear weapons unlike the aborigines, Indians Aztecs etc.
Aliens would have to be super powerful to neutralise a nuclear weapon if our weapon of last resort if they attacked us or tried to colonise us
I preferred (actually liked) your other post where you said that if they existed and wanted to colonise us they would have done so by now. That is of course assuming that they didn't just arrive in the last few minutes and were having a quick nap before getting on with it.
I suspect that any aliens that has the technology to get here will not be too bothered by a pitiful nuclear weapon.
My personal (ie very unlikely) theory is that aliens who are are intelligent enough to have "the technology to get here" are also intelligent enough to keep themselves hidden from any civilisation that hasn't yet evolved past warfare. They will observe us but we won't know it.
Hmm, what do we reckon? Is this just a bit of grumbling that will blow over (but ensure that Liz wins the vote for the new leader) or is this a sign of trouble ahead for Tory MPs with their grassroots?
One imagines that if Johnson goes to the Conservative Party conference that he might cause a bit of a splash. Does he want to?
I was thinking about Cicero's reported rumours in Finland.
1 - Recently the Finns are nervous about the Russians, hence the NATO moves 2 - The story is said to involve a high level Cabinet member 3 - The story is said to be extremely damaging
This morning you read a week-old story. Why would that be banned?
@Beibheirli_C is quite right though, Finlandgate is much most likely to put flesh on the bones of that story. It is even possible to speculate what the flesh might be, 🎻.
We've all heard the story now, anyone with an internet connection has heard it, why are they bothering to stay so shtoom?
It is *exciting* if you like fishing
My skills must be declining, I know nothing beyond what is in the open in the UK. Merely speculating that the Finland stuff adds to the story which it might do spectacularly: kompromat videos, or something.
I don't want to get UNJUSTIFIABLY banned again, and Mike Smithson won't even let Junior talk about it, so mum's the word for me
Mum
Mum is the word
So the clues are "Finland" "exciting" and "Mum"? But TSE hasn't said anything?
No, I'm still stumped.
You need to take the next *step*.
To paraphrase Nicola Murray, I feel like I'm in a cryptic crossword designed by Rumpelstiltskin
There is of course the sand on the beach theory of aliens.
When you go to the beach and are sitting on the sand, say, two feet away from you and two feet down into the sand could be an ant colony. You would never see or know about it despite being close to it.
The aliens could be in the vicinity, cosmic-wise but they never bother to investigate or happen upon the infinitesimally tiny part that is our planet.
There's a lot of sci fi on a similarish theme - Roadside Picnic, William Gibson short whose name I forget, Gateway in reverse: if we do encounter aliens, it won't do us much good, any more than it would a swarm (?) of ants investigating the remains of a human picnic. might get a discarded apple core out of it.
The experience of the Aztec, the Incas, the tribes of Africa, the Natives of North America, the indigenes of Japan, the aborigines of Australia, the locals in Papua New Guinea, even the Neanderthals, all suggest that when a relatively inferior civilisation (in terms of tech, etc) meets an obviously superior civilisation, the result is a catastrophe for the more primitive lifeform
I see no reason why we would be different; I was amazed last night by the number of PB-ers who think humans would just shrug and continue as normal if it was proved we are being visited by super-powerful aliens
Yes but we have nuclear weapons unlike the aborigines, Indians Aztecs etc.
Aliens would have to be super powerful to neutralise a nuclear weapon if our weapon of last resort if they attacked us or tried to colonise us
Yeah hate to break it to you but there’s been quite a bit of on the record testimony now that UAP sightings have coincided with mysterious and inexplicable shutdowns in nuclear facilities. Both US and Soviet.
Read between the lines on this from the Canadians last month too:
If aliens were so powerful they could have destroyed all our nuclear weapons and nuclear facilities long ago.
If they wanted to colonise us they would have done.
In any case I believe in eternal life with the Lord aliens or no aliens
I agree, I am not a subscriber to Dark Forest theory. I suspect far more likely we are the end result of directed panspermia. I would also not be in the least surprised if almost all of Earth’s religious traditions have their routes in The Phenomona, whatever it turns out to be.
I suspect Leon’s mate is wrong and if a secret has been kept, it’s nothing to do with “their” hostile intent. It’s because those with the info worry about how it would unwind religion. Lue Elizondo formally accused his superiors of this in his complaint to the Pentagon’s IG - that evidence was getting wilfully stuck halfway up the chain of command due to various individuals’ religious beliefs getting in the way. Mind you Lue has also said we should be looking very carefully at human dna. If his implication turned out to be true, then it certainly would unwind global religions!
Again, what proportion of human endeavour should be spent looking for signs of intelligent design or external interference in human dna? More than none in my opinion.
I don't see why it should affect religions.
God created the earth and ultimately humans whatever our dna, there is no mention of specific dna in the bible.
Even if we are destroyed by aliens that could just be an implementation of the Book of Revelation, we turned too far away from God and Christ and God sent alien beings to destroy humanity before the second coming of Christ
Fair do’s. There are also far more pressing things to worry about than being destroyed by aliens, which the Serenity Prayer covers off in any case.
Hmm, what do we reckon? Is this just a bit of grumbling that will blow over (but ensure that Liz wins the vote for the new leader) or is this a sign of trouble ahead for Tory MPs with their grassroots?
One imagines that if Johnson goes to the Conservative Party conference that he might cause a bit of a splash. Does he want to?
I was thinking about Cicero's reported rumours in Finland.
1 - Recently the Finns are nervous about the Russians, hence the NATO moves 2 - The story is said to involve a high level Cabinet member 3 - The story is said to be extremely damaging
This morning you read a week-old story. Why would that be banned?
@Beibheirli_C is quite right though, Finlandgate is much most likely to put flesh on the bones of that story. It is even possible to speculate what the flesh might be, 🎻.
We've all heard the story now, anyone with an internet connection has heard it, why are they bothering to stay so shtoom?
It is *exciting* if you like fishing
My skills must be declining, I know nothing beyond what is in the open in the UK. Merely speculating that the Finland stuff adds to the story which it might do spectacularly: kompromat videos, or something.
I don't want to get UNJUSTIFIABLY banned again, and Mike Smithson won't even let Junior talk about it, so mum's the word for me
Mum
Mum is the word
So the clues are "Finland" "exciting" and "Mum"? But TSE hasn't said anything?
No, I'm still stumped.
My suspicion is that Leon's having fun
So we have Leon fixated on both Aliens and a scandal that is only being reported in Finland.
So clearly the story is that a member of our Cabinet isn't a human being but is actually an alien Moomin...
I find that hard to believe. John Redwood isn’t in the cabinet yet.
1. Does life exist outside of Earth? Certainly, the Universe is incomprehensibly large.
2. Will some of that life be intelligent? Again, yes, but probably only a small subset of planets hospitable to life.
3. Will some of the intelligent life be more advanced that humans? Again, most likely yes. Relatively modern human civilisation is only a few thousands years old, a blink of an eye in this context. Some civilisations may be hundreds of thousands or millions of years' more advanced depending on their planet's evolution.
4. Do the laws of physics limit or stop the ability of different civilisations to interact? Most likely, yes.
The last point is hugely frustrating for humans for whom we like to think of science as a constant advancement and that nothing is beyond reach. But some things are. Maybe we'll stumble across life in the future if some exists nearby in our little corner of our galaxy, but otherwise we should just focus on making sure our civilisation is sustainable in such a way that we can look back on the early 21st century in the same way as we do now the 1st century in terms of our sophistication.
There is of course the sand on the beach theory of aliens.
When you go to the beach and are sitting on the sand, say, two feet away from you and two feet down into the sand could be an ant colony. You would never see or know about it despite being close to it.
The aliens could be in the vicinity, cosmic-wise but they never bother to investigate or happen upon the infinitesimally tiny part that is our planet.
There's a lot of sci fi on a similarish theme - Roadside Picnic, William Gibson short whose name I forget, Gateway in reverse: if we do encounter aliens, it won't do us much good, any more than it would a swarm (?) of ants investigating the remains of a human picnic. might get a discarded apple core out of it.
The experience of the Aztec, the Incas, the tribes of Africa, the Natives of North America, the indigenes of Japan, the aborigines of Australia, the locals in Papua New Guinea, even the Neanderthals, all suggest that when a relatively inferior civilisation (in terms of tech, etc) meets an obviously superior civilisation, the result is a catastrophe for the more primitive lifeform
I see no reason why we would be different; I was amazed last night by the number of PB-ers who think humans would just shrug and continue as normal if it was proved we are being visited by super-powerful aliens
Yes but we have nuclear weapons unlike the aborigines, Indians Aztecs etc.
Aliens would have to be super powerful to neutralise a nuclear weapon if our weapon of last resort if they attacked us or tried to colonise us
I preferred (actually liked) your other post where you said that if they existed and wanted to colonise us they would have done so by now. That is of course assuming that they didn't just arrive in the last few minutes and were having a quick nap before getting on with it.
I suspect that any aliens that has the technology to get here will not be too bothered by a pitiful nuclear weapon.
My personal (ie very unlikely) theory is that aliens who are are intelligent enough to have "the technology to get here" are also intelligent enough to keep themselves hidden from any civilisation that hasn't yet evolved past warfare. They will observe us but we won't know it.
Pretty wise not to advertise ones presence. I imagine in a few decades we'll start to try to limit our stray signals.
Any aliens hereabouts are likely to be drones or the very barest of bare-bone scouts. The only thing we're likely to have that merits any interest is just the biology of earth. All the resources will be available in a myriad of locations, and its pretty unlikely that our planet will seem like a Gaia world to any but us.
Kemi Badenoch promised she’d tell us the truth about the circumstances we’re in. She didn’t, but I wish someone in the Conservatives would. Truss mainly but Sunak too is peddling these fantasies that you can go on asking public services to make “efficiency savings” as a substitute for proper funding, that tax cuts will always magically produce higher revenue.
There is a debate to be had about what government should do and, concomitantly, what tax income is needed. But don’t pretend you can do everything and cut taxes.
There is of course the sand on the beach theory of aliens.
When you go to the beach and are sitting on the sand, say, two feet away from you and two feet down into the sand could be an ant colony. You would never see or know about it despite being close to it.
The aliens could be in the vicinity, cosmic-wise but they never bother to investigate or happen upon the infinitesimally tiny part that is our planet.
There's a lot of sci fi on a similarish theme - Roadside Picnic, William Gibson short whose name I forget, Gateway in reverse: if we do encounter aliens, it won't do us much good, any more than it would a swarm (?) of ants investigating the remains of a human picnic. might get a discarded apple core out of it.
The experience of the Aztec, the Incas, the tribes of Africa, the Natives of North America, the indigenes of Japan, the aborigines of Australia, the locals in Papua New Guinea, even the Neanderthals, all suggest that when a relatively inferior civilisation (in terms of tech, etc) meets an obviously superior civilisation, the result is a catastrophe for the more primitive lifeform
I see no reason why we would be different; I was amazed last night by the number of PB-ers who think humans would just shrug and continue as normal if it was proved we are being visited by super-powerful aliens
Yes but we have nuclear weapons unlike the aborigines, Indians Aztecs etc.
Aliens would have to be super powerful to neutralise a nuclear weapon if our weapon of last resort if they attacked us or tried to colonise us
Yeah hate to break it to you but there’s been quite a bit of on the record testimony now that UAP sightings have coincided with mysterious and inexplicable shutdowns in nuclear facilities. Both US and Soviet.
Read between the lines on this from the Canadians last month too:
If aliens were so powerful they could have destroyed all our nuclear weapons and nuclear facilities long ago.
If they wanted to colonise us they would have done.
In any case I believe in eternal life with the Lord aliens or no aliens
I agree, I am not a subscriber to Dark Forest theory. I suspect far more likely we are the end result of directed panspermia. I would also not be in the least surprised if almost all of Earth’s religious traditions have their routes in The Phenomona, whatever it turns out to be.
I suspect Leon’s mate is wrong and if a secret has been kept, it’s nothing to do with “their” hostile intent. It’s because those with the info worry about how it would unwind religion. Lue Elizondo formally accused his superiors of this in his complaint to the Pentagon’s IG - that evidence was getting wilfully stuck halfway up the chain of command due to various individuals’ religious beliefs getting in the way. Mind you Lue has also said we should be looking very carefully at human dna. If his implication turned out to be true, then it certainly would unwind global religions!
Again, what proportion of human endeavour should be spent looking for signs of intelligent design or external interference in human dna? More than none in my opinion.
I don't see why it should affect religions.
God created the earth and ultimately humans whatever our dna, there is no mention of specific dna in the bible.
Even if we are destroyed by aliens that could just be an implementation of the Book of Revelation, we turned too far away from God and Christ and God sent alien beings to destroy humanity before the second coming of Christ
IANAT* but I have never really understood this idea that God requires us to worship him** and would get so angry about us not doing it that he would wipe out humanity in response. Would a supreme being capable of creating an entire universe of such infinite beauty and variety really be such a needy prick?
*I am not a theologian **may seem sexist but if God was really like this he would definitely be a he.
1. Does life exist outside of Earth? Certainly, the Universe is incomprehensibly large.
2. Will some of that life be intelligent? Again, yes, but probably only a small subset of planets hospitable to life.
3. Will some of the intelligent life be more advanced that humans? Again, most likely yes. Relatively modern human civilisation is only a few thousands years old, a blink of an eye in this context. Some civilisations may be hundreds of thousands or millions of years' more advanced depending on their planet's evolution.
4. Do the laws of physics limit or stop the ability of different civilisations to interact? Most likely, yes.
The last point is hugely frustrating for humans for whom we like to think of science as a constant advancement and that nothing is beyond reach. But some things are. Maybe we'll stumble across life in the future if some exists nearby in our little corner of our galaxy, but otherwise we should just focus on making sure our civilisation is sustainable in such a way that we can look back on the early 21st century in the same way as we do now the 1st century in terms of our sophistication.
Point 4 - would you care to give us a proper explanation of what is causing the 95% of gravity in the observable universe, normally coined as dark matter and dark gravity? What makes you so sure that our understanding of the laws of physics are in any way complete enough to draw the conclusion that you do?
Wife's cousin's daughter hosts a couple of refugees from Luhansk on her small farm here in Finland. We met them yesterday. The refuge was set up and organised by local private enterprise charity Facebook groups. This is the first time I have a positive view of fb.
Can you speak Finnish? If so, we have an “exciting” wee task for you! Kiitos!
Kyllä, mutta luen parempi kuin puhun. Vaikka ymmärän helposti.
Kuinka mukavaa! Katso, voitko paljastaa mehukkaan skandaalin, johon liittyy Yhdistyneen kuningaskunnan hallituksen ministeri. Saatavilla tietojen mukaan vain suomenkielisissä medioissa.
Yebbut you can always use Google translate if you find such. Muuten olisi hauskaa jos sen löysit.
Kemi Badenoch promised she’d tell us the truth about the circumstances we’re in. She didn’t, but I wish someone in the Conservatives would. Truss mainly but Sunak too is peddling these fantasies that you can go on asking public services to make “efficiency savings” as a substitute for proper funding, that tax cuts will always magically produce higher revenue.
There is a debate to be had about what government should do and, concomitantly, what tax income is needed. But don’t pretend you can do everything and cut taxes.
This country is proper fucked in the short term. This winter will be written about for decades in the same "how did they let that happen" tone as I learned about the Winter of Discontent in A-Level politics.
A lot of things have been predicted in this war that haven't happened. And quite a few things have been said to happen that never happened. So I'm trying to concentrate on what can be verified. This is quite a nice recent example of where a more reliable twitterer is deflating some of the over-excitement.
Ukraine have been doing well using HIMARS to attack the Russian rear, but I think it's very unlikely that they have sufficient reserves available to launch a major counteroffensive.
There is of course the sand on the beach theory of aliens.
When you go to the beach and are sitting on the sand, say, two feet away from you and two feet down into the sand could be an ant colony. You would never see or know about it despite being close to it.
The aliens could be in the vicinity, cosmic-wise but they never bother to investigate or happen upon the infinitesimally tiny part that is our planet.
There's a lot of sci fi on a similarish theme - Roadside Picnic, William Gibson short whose name I forget, Gateway in reverse: if we do encounter aliens, it won't do us much good, any more than it would a swarm (?) of ants investigating the remains of a human picnic. might get a discarded apple core out of it.
The experience of the Aztec, the Incas, the tribes of Africa, the Natives of North America, the indigenes of Japan, the aborigines of Australia, the locals in Papua New Guinea, even the Neanderthals, all suggest that when a relatively inferior civilisation (in terms of tech, etc) meets an obviously superior civilisation, the result is a catastrophe for the more primitive lifeform
I see no reason why we would be different; I was amazed last night by the number of PB-ers who think humans would just shrug and continue as normal if it was proved we are being visited by super-powerful aliens
Yes but we have nuclear weapons unlike the aborigines, Indians Aztecs etc.
Aliens would have to be super powerful to neutralise a nuclear weapon if our weapon of last resort if they attacked us or tried to colonise us
I preferred (actually liked) your other post where you said that if they existed and wanted to colonise us they would have done so by now. That is of course assuming that they didn't just arrive in the last few minutes and were having a quick nap before getting on with it.
I suspect that any aliens that has the technology to get here will not be too bothered by a pitiful nuclear weapon.
My personal (ie very unlikely) theory is that aliens who are are intelligent enough to have "the technology to get here" are also intelligent enough to keep themselves hidden from any civilisation that hasn't yet evolved past warfare. They will observe us but we won't know it.
Pretty wise not to advertise ones presence. I imagine in a few decades we'll start to try to limit our stray signals.
Any aliens hereabouts are likely to be drones or the very barest of bare-bone scouts. The only thing we're likely to have that merits any interest is just the biology of earth. All the resources will be available in a myriad of locations, and its pretty unlikely that our planet will seem like a Gaia world to any but us.
And yet, there were Victorian naturalists who spent their entire careers categorising nothing but species of worms, often undertaking extremely expensive and dangerous intercontinental expeditions to do so.
There is of course the sand on the beach theory of aliens.
When you go to the beach and are sitting on the sand, say, two feet away from you and two feet down into the sand could be an ant colony. You would never see or know about it despite being close to it.
The aliens could be in the vicinity, cosmic-wise but they never bother to investigate or happen upon the infinitesimally tiny part that is our planet.
There's a lot of sci fi on a similarish theme - Roadside Picnic, William Gibson short whose name I forget, Gateway in reverse: if we do encounter aliens, it won't do us much good, any more than it would a swarm (?) of ants investigating the remains of a human picnic. might get a discarded apple core out of it.
The experience of the Aztec, the Incas, the tribes of Africa, the Natives of North America, the indigenes of Japan, the aborigines of Australia, the locals in Papua New Guinea, even the Neanderthals, all suggest that when a relatively inferior civilisation (in terms of tech, etc) meets an obviously superior civilisation, the result is a catastrophe for the more primitive lifeform
I see no reason why we would be different; I was amazed last night by the number of PB-ers who think humans would just shrug and continue as normal if it was proved we are being visited by super-powerful aliens
Yes but we have nuclear weapons unlike the aborigines, Indians Aztecs etc.
Aliens would have to be super powerful to neutralise a nuclear weapon if our weapon of last resort if they attacked us or tried to colonise us
Yeah hate to break it to you but there’s been quite a bit of on the record testimony now that UAP sightings have coincided with mysterious and inexplicable shutdowns in nuclear facilities. Both US and Soviet.
Read between the lines on this from the Canadians last month too:
If aliens were so powerful they could have destroyed all our nuclear weapons and nuclear facilities long ago.
If they wanted to colonise us they would have done.
In any case I believe in eternal life with the Lord aliens or no aliens
I agree, I am not a subscriber to Dark Forest theory. I suspect far more likely we are the end result of directed panspermia. I would also not be in the least surprised if almost all of Earth’s religious traditions have their routes in The Phenomona, whatever it turns out to be.
I suspect Leon’s mate is wrong and if a secret has been kept, it’s nothing to do with “their” hostile intent. It’s because those with the info worry about how it would unwind religion. Lue Elizondo formally accused his superiors of this in his complaint to the Pentagon’s IG - that evidence was getting wilfully stuck halfway up the chain of command due to various individuals’ religious beliefs getting in the way. Mind you Lue has also said we should be looking very carefully at human dna. If his implication turned out to be true, then it certainly would unwind global religions!
Again, what proportion of human endeavour should be spent looking for signs of intelligent design or external interference in human dna? More than none in my opinion.
I don't see why it should affect religions.
God created the earth and ultimately humans whatever our dna, there is no mention of specific dna in the bible.
Even if we are destroyed by aliens that could just be an implementation of the Book of Revelation, we turned too far away from God and Christ and God sent alien beings to destroy humanity before the second coming of Christ
IANAT* but I have never really understood this idea that God requires us to worship him** and would get so angry about us not doing it that he would wipe out humanity in response. Would a supreme being capable of creating an entire universe of such infinite beauty and variety really be such a needy prick?
*I am not a theologian **may seem sexist but if God was really like this he would definitely be a he.
He expects us to follow the teachings in the Bible and his Word and the Word of Christ, as the Bible clearly states
I am in a particularly sentimental mood about animals today, perhaps - because my older daughter's beloved dog Bramble had a series of epileptic seizures this morning, and may not last the day
He's only 2 years old and she ADORES that bloody dog. If PBers have any spare prayers, donations are welcome
It's tough to lose a much loved animal but you have to bite that bullet or they would never know that love in the first place. Give them both a cyber-pat from me.
And welcome back. Site much better with you than without.
Yep, my girlfriends little kitten, 9 months old got run over yesterdays and I've been in bits myself as well.
@BartholomewRoberts just curious, if you voted Labour in 2019 were you endorsing anti-Semitism or not
Not. I've said not to you many times.
I think it would be an offensive slur to suggest 10 million Britons were endorsing anti-Semitism.
Fair enough but yours is definitely a minority POV.
I have never been against taking a minority or unique POV. My POV is my own, not anybody else's.
But I don't think the notion that 10 million people weren't all endorsing anti-semitism is unique or that minority either. Corbyn and his ilk were, but not all Labour voters. I'll quote a part of a reply I wrote to you yesterday.
There were a vast number of Labour MPs who objected to Corbyn, objected to anti Semitism and made that vocally clear and resigned to the back benches. People like Stella Creasy were prepared to not just vote Labour but hold the Labour whip and were still willing to call out anti Semitism even while voting Labour. I may not agree with her politics much, but I really respect her and MPs like her let alone voters like her.
Parties are big tents, just because Corbyn was an anti-Semite doesn't mean every Labour voter was. Many Labour voters were anti-Corbyn, many Labour MPs were.
Tbf to Conservative supporters pointing out the error of Corbyn, he did kick out most of the MPs he disagreed with, particularly those of the Jewish faith like Luciana Berger.
Corbyn did not kick out MPs he disagreed with, not even Luciana Berger who left and founded TIG or one of the other names they churned through.
Constructive dismissal.
Berger was in no way constructively dismissed. She was actively briefing against her party leader, who was massively popular with her local constituency party. They were following the proper process to have her deselected, as was their right, and she jumped before she was pushed.
I sympathise with her to the extent that it's obvious why she was so against the party leader, but that wouldn't have been such an issue if she hadn't been parachuted into a seat she wasn't particularly suited for in the first place.
So if an anti-Semite had been parachuted in to that seat it would have been fine?
No, they just might not have had that specific issue with the local party.
Obviously none of this is "fine". The point is that Berger had plenty of opportunities to be a victim, and refused them - she put her career ahead of doing the right thing, and ultimately lost both her job, and the right to play the victim.
I didn't follow the minutiae but didn't it boil down to Berger being a jew and the Labour Party being anti-semitic?
Corbyn, rather than the Labour Party (in her view) and hence my partial sympathy.
It's difficult to articulate what exactly Liverpool Wavertree CLP did wrong. They were within their rights to deselect a candidate, and they certainly have (at absolute minimum) plausible deniability that it was because of her sniping at the leader, not specifically because she was Jewish. Going after her while she was heavily pregnant was terrible optics, but not obviously out of order, especially since there was a good chance of another election in short order at the time. And Berger had shown no inclination to leave the party until she was on the verge of being deselected. So, how, exactly, was she "thrown out"?
1. Does life exist outside of Earth? Certainly, the Universe is incomprehensibly large.
2. Will some of that life be intelligent? Again, yes, but probably only a small subset of planets hospitable to life.
3. Will some of the intelligent life be more advanced that humans? Again, most likely yes. Relatively modern human civilisation is only a few thousands years old, a blink of an eye in this context. Some civilisations may be hundreds of thousands or millions of years' more advanced depending on their planet's evolution.
4. Do the laws of physics limit or stop the ability of different civilisations to interact? Most likely, yes.
The last point is hugely frustrating for humans for whom we like to think of science as a constant advancement and that nothing is beyond reach. But some things are. Maybe we'll stumble across life in the future if some exists nearby in our little corner of our galaxy, but otherwise we should just focus on making sure our civilisation is sustainable in such a way that we can look back on the early 21st century in the same way as we do now the 1st century in terms of our sophistication.
Point 4 - would you care to give us a proper explanation of what is causing the 95% of gravity in the observable universe, normally coined as dark matter and dark gravity? What makes you so sure that our understanding of the laws of physics are in any way complete enough to draw the conclusion that you do?
I'm not sure, but I fail to see how the limitations of our understanding of physics are likely to facilitate organic matter to travel at or close to the speed of light in a controlled way. Sure, it's possible, but really it's just wishful thinking for those who want us to be able to interact with other life.
@BartholomewRoberts just curious, if you voted Labour in 2019 were you endorsing anti-Semitism or not
Not. I've said not to you many times.
I think it would be an offensive slur to suggest 10 million Britons were endorsing anti-Semitism.
Fair enough but yours is definitely a minority POV.
I have never been against taking a minority or unique POV. My POV is my own, not anybody else's.
But I don't think the notion that 10 million people weren't all endorsing anti-semitism is unique or that minority either. Corbyn and his ilk were, but not all Labour voters. I'll quote a part of a reply I wrote to you yesterday.
There were a vast number of Labour MPs who objected to Corbyn, objected to anti Semitism and made that vocally clear and resigned to the back benches. People like Stella Creasy were prepared to not just vote Labour but hold the Labour whip and were still willing to call out anti Semitism even while voting Labour. I may not agree with her politics much, but I really respect her and MPs like her let alone voters like her.
Parties are big tents, just because Corbyn was an anti-Semite doesn't mean every Labour voter was. Many Labour voters were anti-Corbyn, many Labour MPs were.
Tbf to Conservative supporters pointing out the error of Corbyn, he did kick out most of the MPs he disagreed with, particularly those of the Jewish faith like Luciana Berger.
Corbyn did not kick out MPs he disagreed with, not even Luciana Berger who left and founded TIG or one of the other names they churned through.
Constructive dismissal.
Berger was in no way constructively dismissed. She was actively briefing against her party leader, who was massively popular with her local constituency party. They were following the proper process to have her deselected, as was their right, and she jumped before she was pushed.
I sympathise with her to the extent that it's obvious why she was so against the party leader, but that wouldn't have been such an issue if she hadn't been parachuted into a seat she wasn't particularly suited for in the first place.
So if an anti-Semite had been parachuted in to that seat it would have been fine?
No, they just might not have had that specific issue with the local party.
Obviously none of this is "fine". The point is that Berger had plenty of opportunities to be a victim, and refused them - she put her career ahead of doing the right thing, and ultimately lost both her job, and the right to play the victim.
I didn't follow the minutiae but didn't it boil down to Berger being a jew and the Labour Party being anti-semitic?
Corbyn, rather than the Labour Party (in her view) and hence my partial sympathy.
It's difficult to articulate what exactly Liverpool Wavertree CLP did wrong. They were within their rights to deselect a candidate, and they certainly have (at absolute minimum) plausible deniability that it was because of her sniping at the leader, not specifically because she was Jewish. Going after her while she was heavily pregnant was terrible optics, but not obviously out of order, especially since there was a good chance of another election in short order at the time. And Berger had shown no inclination to leave the party until she was on the verge of being deselected. So, how, exactly, was she "thrown out"?
ISTR there was plenty of reportage of meetings where the new nutter members were openly anti-semitic in front of her. Hence her decision to quit. Either way, whilst a process to deselect unwanted candidates does exist, it was used as a blunt weapon by the hard left to go after MPs they saw as everything that is wrong with the party.
I am not suggesting that Berger was seen as wrong because she was Jewish - her policies seemed to have been the objection. But as a Jew there was a group of people who saw that as fair game as well. And not just her. There were several Jewish members in my own CLP who were on the end of all kinds of outrageous comments and questions - we dealt with those, but clearly not all CLPs did.
A lot of things have been predicted in this war that haven't happened. And quite a few things have been said to happen that never happened. So I'm trying to concentrate on what can be verified. This is quite a nice recent example of where a more reliable twitterer is deflating some of the over-excitement.
Ukraine have been doing well using HIMARS to attack the Russian rear, but I think it's very unlikely that they have sufficient reserves available to launch a major counteroffensive.
I would like to point out that Threshed Thought has been far ahead of the curve on most aspects of this war so far. He was wrong that Putin wouldn’t launch a full invasion but since then he’s been spot on.
Go back to the early days in Feb and against the narrative of the time, he was one of the very first who called it correctly that the invasion was going to fail (this was actually the reason why he wasn’t expecting the invasion, he knew it would likely end in Russian defeat). He has more or less exactly predicted how the Battle of Kharkiv and Battle of Donbas would play out. And he started speaking many weeks ago about how Donbas was the military side show and that attention should instead be on what was happening in the south around Kherson. At the time this was a fringe view but is now generally accepted.
If he says we’re about to see a full counter thrust around Kherson, he has earned the right to be listened to. He has also by the way been saying for a long time that Ukraine can and will eventually end up attacking and retaking Crimea.
He’s no mug this dude, impressive cv on this subject and a growing roll call of media citations.
There is of course the sand on the beach theory of aliens.
When you go to the beach and are sitting on the sand, say, two feet away from you and two feet down into the sand could be an ant colony. You would never see or know about it despite being close to it.
The aliens could be in the vicinity, cosmic-wise but they never bother to investigate or happen upon the infinitesimally tiny part that is our planet.
There's a lot of sci fi on a similarish theme - Roadside Picnic, William Gibson short whose name I forget, Gateway in reverse: if we do encounter aliens, it won't do us much good, any more than it would a swarm (?) of ants investigating the remains of a human picnic. might get a discarded apple core out of it.
The experience of the Aztec, the Incas, the tribes of Africa, the Natives of North America, the indigenes of Japan, the aborigines of Australia, the locals in Papua New Guinea, even the Neanderthals, all suggest that when a relatively inferior civilisation (in terms of tech, etc) meets an obviously superior civilisation, the result is a catastrophe for the more primitive lifeform
I see no reason why we would be different; I was amazed last night by the number of PB-ers who think humans would just shrug and continue as normal if it was proved we are being visited by super-powerful aliens
Yes but we have nuclear weapons unlike the aborigines, Indians Aztecs etc.
Aliens would have to be super powerful to neutralise a nuclear weapon if our weapon of last resort if they attacked us or tried to colonise us
I preferred (actually liked) your other post where you said that if they existed and wanted to colonise us they would have done so by now. That is of course assuming that they didn't just arrive in the last few minutes and were having a quick nap before getting on with it.
I suspect that any aliens that has the technology to get here will not be too bothered by a pitiful nuclear weapon.
My personal (ie very unlikely) theory is that aliens who are are intelligent enough to have "the technology to get here" are also intelligent enough to keep themselves hidden from any civilisation that hasn't yet evolved past warfare. They will observe us but we won't know it.
Pretty wise not to advertise ones presence. I imagine in a few decades we'll start to try to limit our stray signals.
Any aliens hereabouts are likely to be drones or the very barest of bare-bone scouts. The only thing we're likely to have that merits any interest is just the biology of earth. All the resources will be available in a myriad of locations, and its pretty unlikely that our planet will seem like a Gaia world to any but us.
And yet, there were Victorian naturalists who spent their entire careers categorising nothing but species of worms, often undertaking extremely expensive and dangerous intercontinental expeditions to do so.
They didn't travel mob-handed though did they. Cleft sticks obviously. but not so much kit.
Mr. kamski, a proliferation of lions is not good for zebras either.
It's ridiculous to feel guilty for the sin of existence.
Mr. Leon, no, to both aspects. I've never held a slave or painted the Mona Lisa. Feeling shame and pride in those things is irrational.
Hmmm, lions aren't causing a mass extinction, and I assume don't have much choice about what they do or don't do, and are probably incapable of feeling guilt or shame.
And when people post emotions here about eg the England football or cricket team doing well or badly, I don't remember you picking them up on it (assuming they weren't personally involved in the success or failure). Which seems to be more irrational than Leon's species shame: at least all the flying around is actively contributing to the harm humans are doing, I suppose.
A lot of things have been predicted in this war that haven't happened. And quite a few things have been said to happen that never happened. So I'm trying to concentrate on what can be verified. This is quite a nice recent example of where a more reliable twitterer is deflating some of the over-excitement.
Ukraine have been doing well using HIMARS to attack the Russian rear, but I think it's very unlikely that they have sufficient reserves available to launch a major counteroffensive.
They don't need HIMARS to attack Kherson and its environs aiui.
Even the bridge recently hit is only about 20km from the frontline. It is within range of a lot of systems.
Have done some more looking into what has happened in the garden. Appears that a Bumble Bee nest has been created in what I assume to be a void under the grass close to a tree. And the local badger badger badger population have found out. Hence the huge hole dug overnight and the swarm of bumble bees in the area and busying themselves in the hole.
Have positioned one of our ring cameras to try and catch them at it tonight.
There is of course the sand on the beach theory of aliens.
When you go to the beach and are sitting on the sand, say, two feet away from you and two feet down into the sand could be an ant colony. You would never see or know about it despite being close to it.
The aliens could be in the vicinity, cosmic-wise but they never bother to investigate or happen upon the infinitesimally tiny part that is our planet.
There's a lot of sci fi on a similarish theme - Roadside Picnic, William Gibson short whose name I forget, Gateway in reverse: if we do encounter aliens, it won't do us much good, any more than it would a swarm (?) of ants investigating the remains of a human picnic. might get a discarded apple core out of it.
The experience of the Aztec, the Incas, the tribes of Africa, the Natives of North America, the indigenes of Japan, the aborigines of Australia, the locals in Papua New Guinea, even the Neanderthals, all suggest that when a relatively inferior civilisation (in terms of tech, etc) meets an obviously superior civilisation, the result is a catastrophe for the more primitive lifeform
I see no reason why we would be different; I was amazed last night by the number of PB-ers who think humans would just shrug and continue as normal if it was proved we are being visited by super-powerful aliens
Yes but we have nuclear weapons unlike the aborigines, Indians Aztecs etc.
Aliens would have to be super powerful to neutralise a nuclear weapon if our weapon of last resort if they attacked us or tried to colonise us
Yeah hate to break it to you but there’s been quite a bit of on the record testimony now that UAP sightings have coincided with mysterious and inexplicable shutdowns in nuclear facilities. Both US and Soviet.
Read between the lines on this from the Canadians last month too:
If aliens were so powerful they could have destroyed all our nuclear weapons and nuclear facilities long ago.
If they wanted to colonise us they would have done.
In any case I believe in eternal life with the Lord aliens or no aliens
I agree, I am not a subscriber to Dark Forest theory. I suspect far more likely we are the end result of directed panspermia. I would also not be in the least surprised if almost all of Earth’s religious traditions have their routes in The Phenomona, whatever it turns out to be.
I suspect Leon’s mate is wrong and if a secret has been kept, it’s nothing to do with “their” hostile intent. It’s because those with the info worry about how it would unwind religion. Lue Elizondo formally accused his superiors of this in his complaint to the Pentagon’s IG - that evidence was getting wilfully stuck halfway up the chain of command due to various individuals’ religious beliefs getting in the way. Mind you Lue has also said we should be looking very carefully at human dna. If his implication turned out to be true, then it certainly would unwind global religions!
Again, what proportion of human endeavour should be spent looking for signs of intelligent design or external interference in human dna? More than none in my opinion.
I don't see why it should affect religions.
God created the earth and ultimately humans whatever our dna, there is no mention of specific dna in the bible.
Even if we are destroyed by aliens that could just be an implementation of the Book of Revelation, we turned too far away from God and Christ and God sent alien beings to destroy humanity before the second coming of Christ
IANAT* but I have never really understood this idea that God requires us to worship him** and would get so angry about us not doing it that he would wipe out humanity in response. Would a supreme being capable of creating an entire universe of such infinite beauty and variety really be such a needy prick?
*I am not a theologian **may seem sexist but if God was really like this he would definitely be a he.
He expects us to follow the teachings in the Bible and his Word and the Word of Christ, as the Bible clearly states
Yes, but, the question is WHY would He do that? What is His motivation? What does He get out of it?
I still think there is a chance, that the tories scrape home, for a lot of the reasons others have outlined here, but if I were a Tory supporter, the best result in the long run, would be some sort of lib /lab coalition, at the next election.If the tories hang on they are in for the drubbing of all time at the election after that, it would make 1997 look like a good result for them.I think public opinion is just starting to turn on them, but it is not yet tsunami levels, it will be come 2028/9
Yes the best result for the Tories would be where they just fall short of the number of seats needed to govern, but still a long way ahead of any other party. Therefore there would have to be a rainbow coalition consisting of nearly every other party apart from the DUP, which probably wouldn't last long. The more parties you have in a coalition the more difficult it is for it to stay together or to achieve anything, a statement of the obvious maybe. Someone like Kemi Badenoch could then take over as leader.
An entertaining 5 minutes: 1. Get an email from Royal Mail saying my lost package is being delivered today 2. Doorbell rings. David the postie with my package 3. Neighbour waves me over. Big hole dug in my lawn next to his driveway. With bumblebees swarming around in the bottom of it
And??!? What happened next? Where did the hole come from? What are the bumblebees doing? Don’t leave us hanging!
Appears that a bumble bee nest had been founded under the grass near a big tree. And the badgers dug them out last night
Mr. kamski, a proliferation of lions is not good for zebras either.
It's ridiculous to feel guilty for the sin of existence.
Mr. Leon, no, to both aspects. I've never held a slave or painted the Mona Lisa. Feeling shame and pride in those things is irrational.
Hmmm, lions aren't causing a mass extinction, and I assume don't have much choice about what they do or don't do, and are probably incapable of feeling guilt or shame.
And when people post emotions here about eg the England football or cricket team doing well or badly, I don't remember you picking them up on it (assuming they weren't personally involved in the success or failure). Which seems to be more irrational than Leon's species shame: at least all the flying around is actively contributing to the harm humans are doing, I suppose.
Too many lions would be capable of causing a mass extinction. We're bad for the planet because there are far too many of us and we have additional tools that make our impact even worse. There is a bit of a chance though that we'll finish up being good for the planet if we ward off HYUFD's stray asteroids.
Mr. kamski, a proliferation of lions is not good for zebras either.
It's ridiculous to feel guilty for the sin of existence.
Mr. Leon, no, to both aspects. I've never held a slave or painted the Mona Lisa. Feeling shame and pride in those things is irrational.
Morris, please embed the quotes to which you are alluding in your posts. It is very frustrating having to scroll back to find the post and the point to which you are addressing.
An entertaining 5 minutes: 1. Get an email from Royal Mail saying my lost package is being delivered today 2. Doorbell rings. David the postie with my package 3. Neighbour waves me over. Big hole dug in my lawn next to his driveway. With bumblebees swarming around in the bottom of it
And??!? What happened next? Where did the hole come from? What are the bumblebees doing? Don’t leave us hanging!
Appears that a bumble bee nest had been founded under the grass near a big tree. And the badgers dug them out last night
Badgers in the area - my immediate thought is get a decent outside night-time camera up to watch what they do...
Get's to the next post to discover that's exactly what you've done - doh...
I still think there is a chance, that the tories scrape home, for a lot of the reasons others have outlined here, but if I were a Tory supporter, the best result in the long run, would be some sort of lib /lab coalition, at the next election.If the tories hang on they are in for the drubbing of all time at the election after that, it would make 1997 look like a good result for them.I think public opinion is just starting to turn on them, but it is not yet tsunami levels, it will be come 2028/9
Yes the best result for the Tories would be where they just fall short of the number of seats needed to govern, but still a long way ahead of any other party. Therefore there would have to be a rainbow coalition consisting of nearly every other party apart from the DUP, which probably wouldn't last long. The more parties you have in a coalition the more difficult it is for it to stay together or to achieve anything, a statement of the obvious maybe. Someone like Kemi Badenoch could then take over as leader.
I think parties likely to go into actual coalition probably just the LDs and maybe not even them, rest would all be conf & supply as with DUP under May
An entertaining 5 minutes: 1. Get an email from Royal Mail saying my lost package is being delivered today 2. Doorbell rings. David the postie with my package 3. Neighbour waves me over. Big hole dug in my lawn next to his driveway. With bumblebees swarming around in the bottom of it
And??!? What happened next? Where did the hole come from? What are the bumblebees doing? Don’t leave us hanging!
Appears that a bumble bee nest had been founded under the grass near a big tree. And the badgers dug them out last night
Badgers in the area - my immediate thought is get a decent outside night-time camera up to watch what they do...
Have nearly run the sodding things over enough times going up the side lane to get into our property!
A lot of things have been predicted in this war that haven't happened. And quite a few things have been said to happen that never happened. So I'm trying to concentrate on what can be verified. This is quite a nice recent example of where a more reliable twitterer is deflating some of the over-excitement.
Ukraine have been doing well using HIMARS to attack the Russian rear, but I think it's very unlikely that they have sufficient reserves available to launch a major counteroffensive.
I would like to point out that Threshed Thought has been far ahead of the curve on most aspects of this war so far. He was wrong that Putin wouldn’t launch a full invasion but since then he’s been spot on.
Go back to the early days in Feb and against the narrative of the time, he was one of the very first who called it correctly that the invasion was going to fail (this was actually the reason why he wasn’t expecting the invasion, he knew it would likely end in Russian defeat). He has more or less exactly predicted how the Battle of Kharkiv and Battle of Donbas would play out. And he started speaking many weeks ago about how Donbas was the military side show and that attention should instead be on what was happening in the south around Kherson. At the time this was a fringe view but is now generally accepted.
If he says we’re about to see a full counter thrust around Kherson, he has earned the right to be listened to. He has also by the way been saying for a long time that Ukraine can and will eventually end up attacking and retaking Crimea.
He’s no mug this dude, impressive cv on this subject and a growing roll call of media citations.
Who knows, but I generally think that the number of public statements that X is poised to attack Y soon is in inverse proportion to the likelihood of their doing it. So I take the numerous Russian claims of imminent offensive and the Ukrainian ones of pending assault of Kherson both with a pinch of salt. The fronts look pretty deadlocked to me.
Comments
The real question is what proportion of human endeavour should be expended to look for such probes? We can argue all we want about that but it’s hard to justify that the answer should be zero, as it has been until now (at least officially). That is until Avi Loeb kickstarted the conversation in academia and now has funding to start looking. Finding such a probe would not only have a profundity beyond measure but could kickstart a technological revolution if they contain a message in a bottle, or even through basic reverse
engineering. And the chances of success should be greater than SETI, which assume a) feel space radio comms are used for a long period of time by civilisations, b) civilisations last a long time.
And so on and so forth, ad fucking infinitum, sadly
Going extinct is normal, and one day it will be our turn.
We can make species extinct in a couple of centuries, even decades, maybe even years if we put our mind to it
See the passenger pigeon, which numbered maybe 5 BILLION in 1750, and was all gone - every last one - by 1914
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_pigeon#:~:text=The passenger pigeon or wild,refers to its migratory characteristics.
Very few natural processes - maybe none, apart from asteroid impact - can kill a species that numerous and widespread with such amazing efficiency
So humans are about as bad as a catastrophic asteroid impact
Essentially, a 10-year turnaround in communications. At least.
IF we're going to go to the stars, we better hope that Alcubierre was right.
I think the Constructive Dismissal thing is a bit of a red herring. Was she even an employee rather than an office-holder?
Or perhaps Oumuamua was such a probe, and it either remained silent, was crippled or used a communication form we have not yet developed.
But it's a science fiction conversation rather than a scientific one.
We notice the big ones - the Tasmanian devil, the poignant quagga - because they are big and noticeable. It does not mean we are not enacting similar carnage lower down the pecking order. I am sure we are. See insect die-off
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeting-insect-numbers-threaten-collapse-of-nature
Human society is generally dominated at present with an expansionist mindset. The economy must grow, we must explore every nook and cranny of our world, and our cosmic surroundings. This restlessness has led to startling developments over the last few thousand years, but it is inherently unstable, and we now face issues with supporting our population, or of coping economically with a transition to a stable or declining population. Any alien species that manages to exist for a long period of time is either still expanding into every available galactic niche, or, more likely, has managed to achieve a transition to a stable steady state that can more easily persist indefinitely. If the former, then they're very likely to find us, if the latter then much less so.
It's generally accepted that an alien species that persists for ~millions of years has a long time to make it to us, and so the size of the galaxy is not much of a barrier, but the question then arises - how often would they visit? Earth may have received a survey visit a few hundred thousand years ago, which may have noted some promising hominid species and scheduled a repeat survey that's due to reach us in fifteen thousand years or so. Just because aliens have made it here, wouldn't necessarily mean that they would be here *now*.
I will self-refer to the PB Pedantry Committee.
Since the Trilobites were gone by around 300 million years ago, we cannot really blame humans. Or asteroids.
No, I'm still stumped.
Note that none of the above developments have anything much to do with Brexit. This contest is not about Brexit.
*even though it's really not his fault, but them's the breaks, as a wise man once said
Read between the lines on this from the Canadians last month too:
https://www.larrymaguire.com/_files/ugd/ba2ab2_878aa8c5de7749bbb4196435c156271c.pdf
But extinctions are happening faster now than at any other moment in history, bar a few absolute calamities (as @Carnyx says below)
Look at it this way. Victorian prostitutes in Whitechapel in the late 19th century. They all died in the end. But the advent of Jack the Ripper was still unusually bad news for them, in the 1890s, just as humans have been unusually bad news for so much flora and fauna, beyond the normal run of mortality
I hereby submit this comment for the PB Good Taste Award of 2022
If they wanted to colonise us they would have done.
In any case I believe in eternal life with the Lord aliens or no aliens
He's only 2 years old and she ADORES that bloody dog. If PBers have any spare prayers, donations are welcome
Our warmest wishes to you all.
Put simply: we have differentiated vastly more species to go extinct.
So clearly the story is that a member of our Cabinet isn't a human being but is actually an alien Moomin...
I suspect Leon’s mate is wrong and if a secret has been kept, it’s nothing to do with “their” hostile intent. It’s because those with the info worry about how it would unwind religion. Lue Elizondo formally accused his superiors of this in his complaint to the Pentagon’s IG - that evidence was getting wilfully stuck halfway up the chain of command due to various individuals’ religious beliefs getting in the way. Mind you Lue has also said we should be looking very carefully at human dna. If his implication turned out to be true, then it certainly would unwind global religions!
Again, what proportion of human endeavour should be spent looking for signs of intelligent design or external interference in human dna? More than none in my opinion.
There is a difference between the extinvtion of a species (a single population or linked populations. 'admittedly including its obligate parasites and commensals etc), and that of a number of species. Indeed there was a substantiasl turnover in dino species for tens and scores of Myr till the asteroid plus Deccan traps etcs. did in all the dinos at once, except the ones which became pigeons etc.
As for the trilobites, they actually lasted till the Permo-Triassic event when they went west as did much erlse (if in their later times admittedly less dominant than theyt had been). What is so uncomfortable about the P-TR event is how close to home it may be - global warming, species and ecosystem depauperization (if that is a word?), acid rain, methane leaks ... cheerfuil stuff.
It's just a pet, but God, she loves that pet. I confess I have allowed myself to become attached to him, as well - much against my normal instincts
I suspect that any aliens that has the technology to get here will not be too bothered by a pitiful nuclear weapon.
And welcome back. Site much better with you than without.
Not perfect, of course, as the giant tortoises on the Galapagos found out.
I cannot fathom the mindset that feels pride or shame because of things other people have done.
Just because hypothetical aliens managed to travel here does not mean they have weapons more powerful than nuclear weapons
God created the earth and ultimately humans whatever our dna, there is no mention of specific dna in the bible.
Even if we are destroyed by aliens that could just be an implementation of the Book of Revelation, we turned too far away from God and Christ and God sent alien beings to destroy humanity before the second coming of Christ
I do, it might be irrational, but I do
Equally I can feel pride in mankind's nobler achievements - extending human lifespan, ending famine, reaching the moon - that's maybe equally irrational, but it is a thing for me
https://twitter.com/ThreshedThought/status/1550450333545123841
2. Will some of that life be intelligent? Again, yes, but probably only a small subset of planets hospitable to life.
3. Will some of the intelligent life be more advanced that humans? Again, most likely yes. Relatively modern human civilisation is only a few thousands years old, a blink of an eye in this context. Some civilisations may be hundreds of thousands or millions of years' more advanced depending on their planet's evolution.
4. Do the laws of physics limit or stop the ability of different civilisations to interact? Most likely, yes.
The last point is hugely frustrating for humans for whom we like to think of science as a constant advancement and that nothing is beyond reach. But some things are. Maybe we'll stumble across life in the future if some exists nearby in our little corner of our galaxy, but otherwise we should just focus on making sure our civilisation is sustainable in such a way that we can look back on the early 21st century in the same way as we do now the 1st century in terms of our sophistication.
Any aliens hereabouts are likely to be drones or the very barest of bare-bone scouts. The only thing we're likely to have that merits any interest is just the biology of earth. All the resources will be available in a myriad of locations, and its pretty unlikely that our planet will seem like a Gaia world to any but us.
It's ridiculous to feel guilty for the sin of existence.
Mr. Leon, no, to both aspects. I've never held a slave or painted the Mona Lisa. Feeling shame and pride in those things is irrational.
There is a debate to be had about what government should do and, concomitantly, what tax income is needed. But don’t pretend you can do everything and cut taxes.
*I am not a theologian
**may seem sexist but if God was really like this he would definitely be a he.
Ukraine have been doing well using HIMARS to attack the Russian rear, but I think it's very unlikely that they have sufficient reserves available to launch a major counteroffensive.
It's difficult to articulate what exactly Liverpool Wavertree CLP did wrong. They were within their rights to deselect a candidate, and they certainly have (at absolute minimum) plausible deniability that it was because of her sniping at the leader, not specifically because she was Jewish. Going after her while she was heavily pregnant was terrible optics, but not obviously out of order, especially since there was a good chance of another election in short order at the time. And Berger had shown no inclination to leave the party until she was on the verge of being deselected. So, how, exactly, was she "thrown out"?
I am not suggesting that Berger was seen as wrong because she was Jewish - her policies seemed to have been the objection. But as a Jew there was a group of people who saw that as fair game as well. And not just her. There were several Jewish members in my own CLP who were on the end of all kinds of outrageous comments and questions - we dealt with those, but clearly not all CLPs did.
Go back to the early days in Feb and against the narrative of the time, he was one of the very first who called it correctly that the invasion was going to fail (this was actually the reason why he wasn’t expecting the invasion, he knew it would likely end in Russian defeat). He has more or less exactly predicted how the Battle of Kharkiv and Battle of Donbas would play out. And he started speaking many weeks ago about how Donbas was the military side show and that attention should instead be on what was happening in the south around Kherson. At the time this was a fringe view but is now generally accepted.
If he says we’re about to see a full counter thrust around Kherson, he has earned the right to be listened to. He has also by the way been saying for a long time that Ukraine can and will eventually end up attacking and retaking Crimea.
He’s no mug this dude, impressive cv on this subject and a growing roll call of media citations.
And when people post emotions here about eg the England football or cricket team doing well or badly, I don't remember you picking them up on it (assuming they weren't personally involved in the success or failure). Which seems to be more irrational than Leon's species shame: at least all the flying around is actively contributing to the harm humans are doing, I suppose.
Even the bridge recently hit is only about 20km from the frontline. It is within range of a lot of systems.
Have positioned one of our ring cameras to try and catch them at it tonight.
What is His motivation? What does He get out of it?
Get's to the next post to discover that's exactly what you've done - doh...
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1550462471642791939
New Britain Predicts forecast:
Labour would win a majority (just!) if an election was held today
LAB: 327 MPs (+125)
CON: 223 (-142)
[No tactical voting applied.]
https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2022/06/britainpredicts/