"The Paperclip Maximizer" & UFOlogy

a reply to: 38181

Well, According to Isaac Arthur, intelligent life might
often destroy itself. It's hard to put a number on it.

Humans are mammals, and most mammal
species go extinct, I think on average, what?
6 million years? I could look it up.

If humans make it into space, with enough tech,
yes, we will spill out and make a mess of things.

Life is messy.

I don't know what's going to happen for certain..
nobody does.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

well , i wonder if any of our black project alphabet agencies have already take measures and put some eggs in another basket
the moon or mars already

maybe we already have another civilisation up and running we just arent aware of , id like to think so

I just cant see humans buying it that early , we adapt and we survive , im surprised we didnt go the moment we discoverd the atom bomb

or chernobyl for example

we make mistakes but we learn and change , hopefully for the better
I hope so

a reply to: sapien82

We ARE rather good at survival.

We've killed and looted our way to the top.

That was rather my entire point about humans.

Humans are a dangerous and psychologically damaged
species.

but then again, it's a hostile world, in a hostile universe,
and ANY apex predator would probably turn out like we
have.. utterly insane and destructive.

Now.. would I wish that we could undergo more cultural
evolution? That we could become 'better'?

Yes, of course.

And that won't happen, until every human has a cybernetic
control bolt installed in their head.

Don't blame me.. I never wanted it.

I'd rather make love not war.

Kev

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear


I just cant see humans buying it that early , we adapt and we survive , im surprised we didnt go the moment we discoverd the atom bomb

or chernobyl for example

Maybe “they, it” or what ever won’t allow us to destroy our selfs completely, there are reports of things over nuke bases, and things when we were rampantly testing nukes back in the day. Who knows.

originally posted by: 38181
Maybe “they, it” or what ever won’t allow us to destroy our selfs completely, there are reports of things over nuke bases, and things when we were rampantly testing nukes back in the day. Who knows.

Maybe, however: 1) I've never seen any statistics that show UFOs are seen over military bases or missile sites any more frequently than anyplace else, and 2) if they really wanted to protect us, they wouldn't just cut power to the damn things, they'd disable them permanently or take them far away. Those damn things were constantly breaking down and being repaired and replaced. Which they let us do with no issues.

So they maybe like to give lip service to helping us protect ourselves, or maybe they're just attracted to the nuclear material in the warheads, or maybe even the RADAR signals the site constantly sends out from their little radar ground motion detectors. (They probably have something better and more sophisticated these days. Or not.)

a reply to: Blue Shift

If I were an alien race seeking ti prevent mankinds destruction id relase my army of nanobots to alter every radioactive fissile material on earth in the warheads and render them inert
and as if by magic the worlds nuclear arsenal was gone , and any time a new one is made it magically turns into a pile of dust , thanks to the nanomachines who wait and as soon as they detect the new materials made for bombs , they render them inert

a reply to: sapien82
It would be a dead giveaway that “it” exists.

Why do some people have just plain bad luck while others seems to have things go their way, it’s like we live on rail road tracks and something pulls that switch track for us without us even knowing.

a reply to: Blue Shift

As you know, KG said that at least some of the 'UFO'
encounters at missile sites were USG fakes, for
some sort of operational testing.

But yes.. 'it' has shown no actual love or care for us
in the tiniest manner.

Everything has been lies and deception.

Rather like human behavior, wouldn't you say?

a reply to: sapien82

It's too bad you aren't in charge of an alien race ;-)

a reply to: 38181

Well, there is the thought, that we are
100% utterly alone, as we can't play
nicely with others; we'd kill and consume
all resources; so we are quarantined.

Seems a bit extreme, but one never knows.

Quarantined, as in having our own universe
to foul up.. I mean after all, at it's heart,
it seems that the algorithm that runs
physical reality is pretty simple (according
to physics).

Hell, we might just be 3-d printed, by some
snot-nosed kid in his garage.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

well I have your vote , maybe I can convince some of them to vote for me too
if they have space democracies and arent a technocratic totalitarian predator race

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear
Yes!
Quarantined from traveling our galaxy let alone our nearest star while surviving to breed is basically impossible.

a reply to: 38181

we are not physically quarantined that much is obvious as we went to the moon etc , I think the quarantine is psychological.
We are so opposed to our differences no matter how tiny they are we cant unite as one species
even though we all ready are one

that is our greatest hurdle

a reply to: sapien82

'psychological quarantine' is the most wicked/effective
sort of all.

Like in Isaac Asimov's Foundation Trilogy.

What is more effective/efficient?

to send in a huge army and attack a country?

Or make that countries leader go insane, by making
him hear a tone nobody else can hear?

All that said,

We are our own worst enemeis,

we do NOT need to postulate a boogey man
that forces us to make bad decisions.

Simple human evolution, simple cultureal
evolution shows what's happening.

a reply to: sapien82

I think currently we are still physically quarantined, unless there’s some crazy advanced tech we don’t know about. Our Rockets still use basically the same technology, just better. Like aircraft, basic concepts, better material. Bernoulli’s principle.

Yes we have gone to the moon, I hope. But that’s like walking to the fridge off the couch between commercials. Going to another solar system would be like walking from NY to CA with a can of spam and a bottle of water.

I day dream and think about interstellar travel, helps me fall asleep at bedtime too. I’d be the first to raise their hand to go to Mars even if that meant a one way trip.

a reply to: 38181

maybe we should be sending drones first anyway , we arent designed for the harsh environment of space
those boston dynamics robots seem pretty good , even if they had some sort of neural link to a human back on earth

although maybe we should be exploring space using remote viewing that seemed to work pretty well , I wonder if that would be a good way of communicating over vast distances in space rather than finding some exotic form of physics as an answer to FTL communication
surely consciousness is faster than light
so youd have one remote viewer on earth and one on mars , and they would somehow link psyche
and when they communicate they would write down their message and then send the coordinates , or the coordinates would be previously given and communciation would be as simnple as getting your remote viewer to remote view a document on mars and earth etc.

One other thing that we have probably never considered, what if consciousness is a field generated by the earth and after a certain distance humans no longer have access to it ?
What if we send humans to mars and once they reach a certain distance they just go unconscious ?

maybe that is the prison we are talking about

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

I would consider it less "quarantine" than "willful choice of path". Not so much to add about the universe (well, as far the limit of actual human comprehension of the universe goes, or my own understanding of this "actual comprehension that is"), it seems to follow adversity as its main "fuel", so to speak.

Nietzche called it "The Will of Power".

a reply to: IgnorantGod

As I've said quite often,

we are indeed our own worst enemies, and don't
need to invent boogey men.

That said, if that is your 100% stance, then per
the Fermi Paradox, you are saying that we are
functionally 100% alone in a vast empty Universe.

That's why they call it a paradox of course.

Now, if you don't like this conclusion, or wish
to appear 'fancy' and super-educted on the
topic, you can start the usual handwaving
exercises,

but it will quickly come down the the limited
choices of this post.

Oh sure, you can handwave rare life (we are
first), any of the great filters, mismatched
time slices, yada yada yada,

but it will still come down to first (you can
quibble over galaxy or universe),
or replication wave already happened.

;-)

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

No, I'm not super-educated, and I don't consider my opinions as 100% stances to defend, nor do I have anything to defend, really.

Considering waves to be motion around the circumference of a circle, I guess they are replication by definition?

a reply to: IgnorantGod

I don't follow.

And by the way, If I was too forceful in my
response, I apologize. i just don't like handwaving
and like real discussion.