Given the Star trek thread am I the only one with reservations that mankind
will ever find another space faring species? If you think about it. If in
fact evolution is a random series of advancement of a species, what are the
chances of developing to an intellectual scale at least as high as ours,
tp://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -
>>> From: "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 2:10 AM
>>> Subject: Re: OT:
On May 31, 2003 11:59 pm, Butch Black wrote:
> Given the Star trek thread am I the only one with reservations that mankind
> will ever find another space faring species? If you think about it. If in
Somebody did a series of statiscal estimates on this years ago. Basically
turns out that q
Nick Zentena wrote:
>
> On May 31, 2003 11:59 pm, Butch Black wrote:
> > Given the Star trek thread am I the only one with reservations that mankind
> > will ever find another space faring species? If you think about it. If in
>
> Somebody did a series of statiscal estimates on this yea
I just did look it up. Thanks.
http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/SETI/drake_equation.html
Redoing the existing formula's default parameters to some a bit less
optimistic, I come up with 200 possible communicating life forms within
OUR galaxy... The downloaded formula says 2400. I'm less
> If you think about it. If in fact evolution is a random series of
> advancement of a species, what are the chances of developing to an
> intellectual scale at least as high as ours, developing opposable
> thumbs necessary for tool use, create a society that develops and
> innovates new,complex to
I'm not a Sci Fi fan at all. I'm even less of a Star Trek fan (sorry, guys), so
I haven't been following this thread at all. But, I did read your post, Butch,
and you do pose some interesting questions, to which I have a few random
thoughts.
First, one of the things that pisses me off about much
- Original Message -
From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 07:40
Subject: Re: OT: The problems of E.T. (was Re: pentax smc 15mm A turned into Star Trek
Thread)
> I think you mean, more strictly, "it's pos
It seems the general feeling is one of the strangers' disposition being
benign. I don't believe that.
If they're anything like us, and why not, the chances are great for disaster...
One of us would end up being destroyed or the planet seriously crippled.
I don't trust our own government, why should
> If they're anything like us, and why not, the chances are great
> for disaster... One of us would end up being destroyed or the
> planet seriously crippled.
Heck, this doesn't even require two species... (Look no further
than Terra Firma.)
Fred
On June 1, 2003 07:56 am, Keith Whaley wrote:
> I just did look it up. Thanks.
>
> http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/SETI/drake_equation.html
>
> Redoing the existing formula's default parameters to some a bit less
> optimistic, I come up with 200 possible communicating life forms within
On June 1, 2003 08:14 am, Fred wrote:
>
> I'm not sure I'm so eager to have the universe populated with
> species such as ours (the most dangerous - and easily the most
> destructive - species on this planet we call "ours")...
Isn't that why it's "ours"? There is a quote in one of Niven'
On June 1, 2003 08:19 am, frank theriault wrote:
>
> First, one of the things that pisses me off about much sci fi that has to
> do with ET's is that aliens always bear such a striking resemblence to us!
Cheaper to slap green make up on your local out of work actor then to come up
with s
On June 1, 2003 10:27 am, Steve Desjardins wrote:
> Sci. Am had a special section on this a while back. (July 2000) My
> favorite arguemnt involves assuming that a tehcnoogocial species arises,
> sends one colony ship out at 0.1 c, it takes 400 years for that colonoy
> to send out another ship, e
> I'm actually of the view the Drake equation is too
> pessimetic. It's too
> human. Counting only plants like Earth.
One night on tv I saw a guy describing a hypothetical planet that
supported life. I was very curious as to what he would say, but he
proceeded to describe a planet...just
Your point is well taken. See below for some thoughts...
Nick Zentena wrote:
>
> On June 1, 2003 07:56 am, Keith Whaley wrote:
> > I just did look it up. Thanks.
> >
> > http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/SETI/drake_equation.html
> >
> > Redoing the existing formula's default parameters
Nick Zentena wrote:
>
> On June 1, 2003 10:27 am, Steve Desjardins wrote:
> > Sci. Am had a special section on this a while back. (July 2000) My
> > favorite arguemnt involves assuming that a tehcnoogocial species arises,
> > sends one colony ship out at 0.1 c, it takes 400 years for that colo
Sorry, but I just can't get excited by something that will happen in a
couple of hundred years, let along a "few hundred thousand years."
In fact, in a few 10's of years it may not matter much anymore ANYhow,
and inside 50 years, most of US will be dead, so...
Thanks for the reminder on the Crysta
På søndag, 1. juni 2003, kl. 20:28, skrev Keith Whaley:
Sorry, but I just can't get excited by something that will happen in a
couple of hundred years, let along a "few hundred thousand years."
In fact, in a few 10's of years it may not matter much anymore ANYhow,
and inside 50 years, most of US w
Plugging in my numbers, I get 0..3, so the probability is that we don't
exist.
There are two factors that SETI never seems to look at.
1. What percentage of intelligent species ares paranoid ("We don't want to
attract their attention, they are probably dangerous")?
2. Technology (already we are mo
På søndag, 1. juni 2003, kl. 22:01, skrev T Rittenhouse:
Plugging in my numbers, I get 0..3, so the probability is that we don't
exist.
There are two factors that SETI never seems to look at.
1. What percentage of intelligent species ares paranoid ("We don't
want to
attract their attention, they
The drake equation quantifies nothing. But it does look impressive, which
is the
point.
At 07:07 AM 6/1/03 -0400, you wrote:
On May 31, 2003 11:59 pm, Butch Black wrote:
> Given the Star trek thread am I the only one with reservations that mankind
> will ever find another space faring species? I
You can change the assumed parameters to come up with 1 as the number of
communicating life forms or lots more... As a tool it is useless as an
arguing point it's priceless. But basically it's a way to pull numbers
out of you a** that looks scientific.
At 04:56 AM 6/1/03 -0700, you wrote:
I just d
At 02:59 PM 6/1/03 +0100, you wrote:
Frank Theriault wrote:
>I'm not a Sci Fi fan at all. I'm even less of a Star Trek fan (sorry,
guys), so
>I haven't been following this thread at all. But, I did read your post,
Butch,
>and you do pose some interesting questions, to which I have a few random
>
t;
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 2:10 AM
Subject: Re: OT: The problems of E.T. (was Re: pentax smc 15mm A turned into
Star Trek Thread)
> The drake equation quantifies nothing. But it does look impressive, which
> is the
> point.
ED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 2:10 AM
> Subject: Re: OT: The problems of E.T. (was Re: pentax smc 15mm A
> turned into Star Trek Thread)
>
>
>> The drake equation quantifies nothing. But it does look impressive,
>> which is the
>> point.
> >
> > Ciao,
> > Graywolf
> > http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -----
> > From: "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 2:1
here between 1 (this one), and all the planets that possibly can
> > produce life.
> >
> > Ciao,
> > Graywolf
> > http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -----
> > From: "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTE
"Maris V. Lidaka Sr." wrote:
>
> I have studied this matter thoroughly while keeping silent.
>
> The number of planets that can possibly produce life turns out to be 69.
>
> (No joke in there - it's a scientific fact)
>
> Maris
Sure it is.
As scientific as any other I've heard recently...
29 matches
Mail list logo
