PatsFans.com - Mobile
PatsFans.com
Search

Let’s talk about UFOs.

2021 Patriots Season:
Upcoming Opponent:
Next Up: vs Saints
Pick Results: NO: 11.9% at NE: 88.1%

Sun
Sep 26th

Current Patriots Twitter Feed:

Tunescribe

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
2019 Weekly Picks Winner
Well, I believe Carl Sagans POV was that intelligent life might not be able to survive its own technological advancement.

He referred to it as our "nuclear adolescence." I don't remember him addressing climate change specifically.
 

Tony2046

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
2019 Weekly Picks Winner
Well, I believe Carl Sagans POV was that intelligent life might not be able to survive its own technological advancement. Whether that turns out to be a specific time and place perspective, or the truth, is so far unknown.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. "Intelligent life might not be able to survive its own technological advancement." ? What does that even mean? Do we know how intelligent life can be? And do we know what advancements are possible? No we don't.
 

Ice_Ice_Brady

Disputed Winner - Week 2 Predict the Score Contest
PatsFans.com Supporter
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. "Intelligent life might not be able to survive its own technological advancement." ? What does that even mean? Do we know how intelligent life can be? And do we know what advancements are possible? No we don't.

I think it means we will either nuke ourselves into oblivion, destroy the environment to the point it's not inhabitable, or create an AI army that destroys us.
 

Tunescribe

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
2019 Weekly Picks Winner
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. "Intelligent life might not be able to survive its own technological advancement." ? What does that even mean? Do we know how intelligent life can be? And do we know what advancements are possible? No we don't.

Sagan saw splitting the atom as a potential tipping point for the fate of mankind. We still have enough nukes pointed at each other to kill all living things many times over. It's pure madness and a pretty sad assessment of where we are as a species.
 

BobDigital

Pro Bowl Player
The Zimbabwe school sighting is an interesting one. If these things were going to appear, why appear to school children there? But also, why would the children make that up. It’s hard enough to coordinate two kids in a lie. For example, a father taking two children for ice cream before coming home to dinner and asking them not to tell mom. It would be exceptionally hard to coordinate a bigger lie amongst dozens of kids. It seems difficult to believe that a child that age would make up a warning about technology, especially if you find the nuke stories closer to reality. When I watched that documentary, I didn’t get a sense that the children were lying when initially recounting the encounter. Their eyes were straight forward, they didn’t look away, down, and were pretty sure of themselves. Hard to know what to make of it. But they described the beings in the same way (look, method of communication) that Betty and Barney Hill did.
The Zimbabwe school sighting is an interesting read, but I don't consider it a credible report. Witnesses alone don't matter without corroborating evidence to me. Particularly children. There are lights in the sky for days and then they finally land and no one is ready with a camera or photo? Seems kind of unbelievable. Not to mention, if aliens were to land and make contact, it makes no logical sense that they would make contact like that with a bunch of children and give them a message.
 

tom444

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal
He referred to it as our "nuclear adolescence." I don't remember him addressing climate change specifically.
We're warming the planet because of prior technological advances. So the statement holds. (Well, I believe Carl Sagans POV was that intelligent life might not be able to survive its own technological advancement. Whether that turns out to be a specific time and place perspective, or the truth is so far unknown.)

BTW:

Here's Carl Sagan's original essay on the dangers of climate change​


Ballantine has issued a shiny new edition of Sagan's book Cosmos, with a foreword from Cosmos reboot host Neil deGrasse Tyson. We've got an excerpt, which reveals how deeply Sagan was concerned about climate change in 1980 when the book was originally published.

With an introduction by original Cosmos series writer and producer Ann Druyan, the reissue of Cosmos is now available in stores. It's incredible how much this chapter from the book, excerpted below, sounds like it could have been written yesterday. It's as if we forgot everything we knew about the environment in 1980, and only remembered it again in 2010.
Here's Carl Sagan's original essay on the dangers of climate change
 
Last edited:

Tony2046

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
2019 Weekly Picks Winner
Sagan saw splitting the atom as a potential tipping point for the fate of mankind. We still have enough nukes pointed at each other to kill all living things many times over. It's pure madness and a pretty sad assessment of where we are as a species.

That's kinda of my question. Would more intelligent life do that? I don't think so. Sagan's opinion is based on his human experience imo.
 

Tony2046

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
2019 Weekly Picks Winner
I think it means we will either nuke ourselves into oblivion, destroy the environment to the point it's not inhabitable, or create an AI army that destroys us.

Then it seems that his opinion is based solely on what we're doing here on earth. We have no idea how that would play out on a planet with a more intelligent species.
 

tom444

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal
Then it seems that his opinion is based solely on what we're doing here on earth. We have no idea how that would play out on a planet with a more intelligent species.

But that's his question. Can intelligent life get beyond the stage where technological advancement has profoundly negative effects? That's any intelligent life, anywhere.
 

Tunescribe

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
2019 Weekly Picks Winner
Then it seems that his opinion is based solely on what we're doing here on earth. We have no idea how that would play out on a planet with a more intelligent species.

Seems to me where humanity is messed up is regarding EMOTIONAL intelligence. We haven't matured much in that area over the last 100 years while technology keeps advancing at warp speed.
 

Tony2046

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
2019 Weekly Picks Winner
But that's his question. Can intelligent life get beyond the stage where technological advancement has profoundly negative effects? That's any intelligent life, anywhere.

We know it can. We have the answers here on this forum about how to deal with global warming or whatever. To assume that another species could not be more successful than us is extremely arrogant and imo naive.
 

BobDigital

Pro Bowl Player
https://daretoknow.ca/2020/06/22/intelligent-life-on-other-planets-odds-of-finding-it/#:~:text=Summing%20up%2C%20there’s%20a%20fair%20chance%20that%20intelligent,it%20or%20be%20able%20to%20communicate%20with%20it.

“A FEW DOZEN ACTIVE CIVILIZATIONS IN OUR GALAXY”​

Professor Christopher Conselice led the research. He shared the team’s conclusion that “There should be at least a few dozen active civilizations in our Galaxy under the assumption that it takes 5 billion years for intelligent life to form on other planets, as on Earth.”

The final number that the team landed on was 36. So, out of 400 billion stars in the galaxy, there might be three dozen cases of intelligent life on other planets.



“The analysis can’t provide certainties or guarantees, only statistical probabilities based on what happened here on Earth.”

Those probabilities put the chances of intelligent aliens at about 50:50. Despite the results, Kipping adds that the case for basic life on other worlds is very strong and the human race shouldn’t give up on the hope that someone out there may be able to talk to us one day.

“The case for a universe teeming with life emerges as the favored bet. The search for intelligent life in worlds beyond Earth should be by no means discouraged.”
Bu
The study was published in the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences.



The Kepler spacecraft has identified 3,538 planet candidates. Scientists working with the data collected from the spacecraft “have statistically determined that twenty percent of Sunlike stars in our galaxy have Earth-sized planets that could host life.” In other words, 1 in 5 of the Sun-like stars in the Milky Way galaxy have habitable planets, that’s at least 8.8 billion. Study co-author, Geoff Marcy of the University of California at Berkeley commented to the Associated Press that this statistical analysis of the data means that
36 in our galaxy seems rather low to me. There are literally millions of planets is our galaxy alone that are either just as habitable if not MORE habitable than earth. I'm not a scientist, and so i don't fully understand how they are making this mathematical determination. But considering that literally millions of habital planets exist in our galaxy (maybe a billion or more), I just don't know how they can say the number is so low. Particularly when the earth wasn't super cooperative for much of that time compared to a more ideal start.
 

tom444

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal
We know it can. We have the answers here on this forum about how to deal with global warming or whatever. To assume that another species could not be more successful than us is extremely arrogant and imo naive.
No, you don't know it can. We're still in the middle of it.

I think Sagan asked a salient question but as I said, is the question locked in time and place, or is it the truth?
 

tom444

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal
Seems to me where humanity is messed up is regarding EMOTIONAL intelligence. We haven't matured much in that area over the last 100 years while technology keeps advancing at warp speed.
One of the big problems, as I see it, is the fact that we're predators, hunters, meat eaters. Hunters are killers.

Bring 'em on.

 
Last edited:

Tony2046

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
2019 Weekly Picks Winner
No, you don't know it can. We're still in the middle of it.

I think Sagan asked a salient question but as I said, is the question locked in time and place, or is it the truth?

It's none of the above. It's an unknown. We could logically assume that other civilizations exist somewhere in the universe. We can ponder whether they are more intelligent than us. But to assume that they are as dumb as us? I disagree. Or to assume that intelligent life elsewhere, assuming that we are, would make the same choices as we have? I personally don't think that we are that intelligent for the very reasons Sagan questioned other's.
 

tom444

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal
It's none of the above. It's an unknown. We could logically assume that other civilizations exist somewhere in the universe. We can ponder whether they are more intelligent than us. But to assume that they are as dumb as us? I disagree. Or to assume that intelligent life elsewhere, assuming that we are, would make the same choices as we have? I personally don't think that we are that intelligent for the very reasons Sagan questioned other's.
This means it's an unknown: "is the question locked in time and place, or is it the truth?"
 

Tony2046

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
2019 Weekly Picks Winner
This means it's an unknown: "is the question locked in time and place, or is it the truth?"

It means it's an arrogance based on all three. He never knew and only assumed based on his human experience. That's all.
 

Tony2046

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
2019 Weekly Picks Winner
Relax, no one is trying to take your aliens away from you. We're just having a discussion.

Relax about what? I was simply giving you my opinion. What did I say that caused this response?
 

Tunescribe

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
2019 Weekly Picks Winner

Ice_Ice_Brady

Disputed Winner - Week 2 Predict the Score Contest
PatsFans.com Supporter
Then it seems that his opinion is based solely on what we're doing here on earth. We have no idea how that would play out on a planet with a more intelligent species.

Agree. Seems that some of earth/human features are projected on other “intelligent life.” To conclude their advanced thinking and technology becomes a threat to their existence presumes a lot about them...example: presumes they are capable of harming themselves or likely to harm selves because they harm others. We don’t know if human nature is anything like the nature of other intelligent life.

But I don’t know Sagan or most of this stuff…just going by comments here, including my own guesses.
 

Top