I believe that it is all three or none. Science is a construct that allows us to quantify and multiply cumulative knowledge, but it needs to be tempered with wisdom. Does this lead to a higher level of thinking? Wisdom?
I don't share your optimism about the possiblity of finding other intelligent life out there: I do however commend it.
I think that upon finding other life and presented with your chocie humanity might just stray down the path it has now so many times before when its confronted with something alien: with fear and hatred and we might seek to "conquer" this life nad pass judgement on it. Which would be extremly unfortunate especailly since the vote is still out on weather we're the smartest species on this planet: let only any others......
So thats why I say that hopefully humans will never encounter this ET life as the universe is simply too large and as dear old einstein proved: one can't travel faster than the speed of light. It would be lovely to find new life out there but I fear that humans would mess it up.
it has been proven that FTL communications can be done with ACTUAL FTL communication. The question is how long till matter can go FTL... The chances for us being the only intelligent life is so big that life has to be out... Intelligent too... The question will be who influences who and by how much. what will need to happen is an equal exchange .... Similar to a Star Trek universe of first contact, but more grandiose. Of course it is just easier to wipe them out, but harder to do that too all life forms out there and to hold it against others... force always is self defeating in the end.
I agree with you that there probably is life out there: in fact if the universe is infinate then thats a certainity.
I'm just saying thats its extremly unlikly that we will be able to get in contact with them.
when you talk about FTL comms I assume your talking quantum phyics were using the uncertainity principle you can send information insantly? beacause that by its very nature doesn't work on matter. unless we can make value of "h" bigger that is (and wouldn't that be fun?).
That is as we understand it now. Radio waves can be transmitted faster than light, but matter can not yet. Radio waves have a force that acts like a particle, but is not matter. The force and matter are two separate things. Matter is "dumb" energy congealed. If we can understand how the force of particle attaches to matter then we can go faster than light. we just compensate.
Well, all this ET life assumptions are considering they will be less "developed" or that we are going to have some sort of communication compatibility. Let's not forget evolution took millions of years and a lot of conditions that were provided by the Earth, so thinking there will be an intelligent form of life in the outer space is possible and even probable, but to consider they will be somewhat like us is very unlikely to happen.
I agree, but we will share things in common. We will utilize energy, be encountering aliens either for the first time or have previous experience, and will try to communicate. the message might be "DIE!!!!' or something a a little more sociable.
Only people have the decision making ability to be classified as good or evil. More specific term would be good decision and evil decision. Science in itself is cannot be good nor evil. There might be good science that turned out to be right and bad science that turned out to be wrong. There could be bad use of science. But is the pursue of a particular field of science bad? The extreme example would be bio weapon. On the surface it is all bad as it have potential damage, but could it ever be good? I wonder about it a bit.
Side note: Sci-fi movies fan who like 28 days, Resident Evil. Plus a background in biochemistry.
Bio Weapons utilize a vast array of science to either genetically alter the pathogen or even the science of dispersion and computer models of deployment. All of this could be used for a good cause. Treat bio hazards in the world and to make cures. What we need is to grow as a species to aid humanity and not harm it. Science should benefit society while keeping the possible "evils" in check. Even good intentions can be turned evil. So do not target the science, but the society behind it to guide it towards a beneficial purpose.
What I was thinking about is the biochemists who do not have much decision making power, but might work in research to develop into something that have potential to do a lot of harm. What is the use of making potential weapon that harm? But it might become a necessity if the terrorists are doing it and it is need to make it in order to study it and make up an emergency contingency plan. But who know if it is develop as a study to prevent harm or cause harm? It is probably the problem in working in such field that I am currently not good enough to work at.
The terrorist may have smart people, but the labs you would need to do this work is beyond them. they will not be able to ship it to a cave in Pakistan. Also we make the technology and then they use it. If we do not research it they will not be able to make it. The terrorist's (Islamic types) can not go into new research because it is against their narrow religious of Islam does not allow them to think outside the box.
This is for RADICAL ISLAM only. Islam as a religion is a great religion and this post SHOULD NOT BE seen as blast against main stream moderate Islam, but against Radical extreme hateful versions of religions anywhere.
If the technology started in lab somewhere, how do the terrorists got the technology? Science could be misused, and science itself could not be responsible for how it is being misused. So, it is netural. Wouldn't it?
And don't worry about Islam or Christian or whoever nerve you might touched. I see nerdfighteres as someone who could see the good with the bad of all religions.