Why havent aliens landed yet on earth?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why does everyone talks as if the "Aliens" were all the same race/civilization?

if technological advanced species are relatively common, one should expect different motivations from them, enough that no prime directive or war or whatever would stop all of them.

this leads to the only real possible explanation, space faring civilization are rare to the point that we are effectively alone in the galaxy
 
Because the actual universe is like a bigger version of No Man's Sky without actual FTL travel and no contrived incentive to visit every planet possible.
 
Because there's still the chance a rock might slam into it one day.

If humanity is going to survive beyond a few million years or whatever, we probably need to be living on more than one planet. Our chances and longevity increase even more if we actually manage to live in more than one solar system.

Dude, we can't even manage to get the "leaders of the free world" to think 4 years ahead of the next ellection cycle, much less 1000 years. Imagine trying to win an ellection platafform built around "survivability of the human species" while your ellectorate dwelves in post-scarcity abundance. Snowball in hell chance.

I wouldn't be surprised if most intelligent alien civilizations are trapped inside a cycle of technological utopian apex => meteorite smash => rebuilding civilization from scratch. Hell, several human civilizations have had to start all over here on Earth due to short-sighteness. Technological and social progress is much less linear and inevitable than we would like to think.
 
Dude, we can't even manage to get the "leaders of the free world" to think 4 years ahead of the next ellection cycle, much less 1000 years. Imagine trying to win an ellection platafform built around "survivability of the human species" while your ellectorate dwelves in post-scarcity abundance. Snowball in hell chance.

I wouldn't be surprised if most intelligent alien civilizations are trapped inside a cycle of technological utopian apex => meteorite smash => rebuilding civilization from scratch. Hell, several human civilizations have had to start all over here on Earth due to short-sighteness. Technological and social progress is much less linear and inevitable than we would like to think.

I agree if we are talking about the early days of civilization.

But today an asteroid could wipe out life in America or Asia, and we wouldn't need to start tecnology again, thanks to globalization and the ease of knowledge storage. We would face a huge crisis, and it would be the greatest catastroph ever, but we would still know how to split the atom.
 
Dude, we can't even manage to get the "leaders of the free world" to think 4 years ahead of the next ellection cycle, much less 1000 years. Imagine trying to win an ellection platafform built around "survivability of the human species" while your ellectorate dwelves in post-scarcity abundance. Snowball in hell chance.

I wouldn't be surprised if most intelligent alien civilizations are trapped inside a cycle of technological utopian apex => meteorite smash => rebuilding civilization from scratch. Hell, several human civilizations have had to start all over here on Earth due to short-sighteness. Technological and social progress is much less linear and inevitable than we would like to think.

It's possible the private sector might eventually become better at space travel and all the things associated. I think if anything will get us out into space, it will be the discovery of natural resources. It's just a matter of reaching a point technologically where we can get those natural resources to customers in a cost-effective way.

Who's to say we could even reach a post-scarcity society with what we currently have on Earth? Especially with the population growing as much as it is? In your earlier post you mentioned Dyson Spheres, I assume meaning the kind you build around a star. The construction of one in itself would require significant space travel.
 
Personally I think we have hit an evolutionary dead end and won't advance much further unless it's by complete chance. If there are aliens who have been watching they're likely to leave us alone and wait for the birth of new species after our extinction IMHO.
 
Personally I think we have hit an evolutionary dead end and won't advance much further unless it's by complete chance. If there are aliens who have been watching they're likely to leave us alone and wait for the birth of new species after our extinction IMHO.

Genetic manipulation of cells is just in it's infancy and once humans get past the morality of that, then evolutionary advancement wont be all that significant. That's a pretty big rabbit hole and only one branch of science that has the possibility of expansion.
 
I've always wondered if the universe is made of the same materials then aliens of our level or beyond would still be working within the similar limits as us so the chances of them being so advanced as to travel through space, to other planets and solar systems effortlessly and explore Sci fi tv style is unlikely.
 
The idea that there *must* more advanced life is really just a secular re-jig on one version of the idea of a supreme being. There's as much a chance that we're #1 as there is we're #33123 on the 'Most Advanced Civ' list.

Imagine one day we do find hard evidence of alien life. But rather than being super cool advanced aliens, they're super dumb neanderthal aliens that are tens of thousands of years behind us on the evolutionary arc.

That would be such a buzz kill.
 
The idea that there *must* more advanced life is really just a secular re-jig on one version of the idea of a supreme being. There's as much a chance that we're #1 as there is we're #33123 on the 'Most Advanced Civ' list.

Imagine one day we do find hard evidence of alien life. But rather than being super cool advanced aliens, they're super dumb neanderthal aliens that are tens of thousands of years behind us on the evolutionary arc.

That would be such a buzz kill.

Haha, I never thought of it that way
 
At what level of technological advance is intergalactic travel possible? There are too many variables. Also I believe that bending space itself to travel between points isn't possible.
 
The common fear is that a civilization that advanced would most likely be a conquering one.

I'm not sure about this. Civs with the wrong priorities like warmongering or conquest would far more likely destroy themselves first over internal conflicts before reaching interstellar tech level. To reach that kind of tech you'd need a very long period of worldwide political stability with a prime focus on scientific research and a high degree of cooperation.
 
Why does everyone talks as if the "Aliens" were all the same race/civilization?

if technological advanced species are relatively common, one should expect different motivations from them, enough that no prime directive or war or whatever would stop all of them.

this leads to the only real possible explanation, space faring civilization are rare to the point that we are effectively alone in the galaxy

image.php
 
We're slowly destroying the Earth, why would they want to land here?

I remember listening to Neil Degrasse Tyson; it was either him or a book I read, but they were talking about how the earth, regardless or now whether its a living being, it is looking after itself. And I can see it with all this global warming shit going on. It seems to me earth has survived 65 million years or what ever, I imagine it has another couple million under it's belt.

Looks like the humans are the next dinosaurs.
 
"Prime Directive" is one of the theories postulated for the Fermi Paradox. Something similar is the "Earth as a zoo" theory. Basically, they're watching us and making sure no one impedes our natural development.

Except they have impeded our natural development by seeding the idea of religion into our ancient cultures
 
The idea that there *must* more advanced life is really just a secular re-jig on one version of the idea of a supreme being. There's as much a chance that we're #1 as there is we're #33123 on the 'Most Advanced Civ' list.

I would say there is less chance of us being #1 than there is of something else out there being #1. As I said before, we've not been here very long at all. Life developing on another planet just 500 years earlier could look like gods to us. Let alone at some point in the billions of years before that.

Imagine going back to the 1500s and what they'd think of the shiny things you'd take back (and not be able to use because no electricity)
 
I would say there is less chance of us being #1 than there is of something else out there being #1. As I said before, we've not been here very long at all. Life developing on another planet just 500 years earlier could look like gods to us. Let alone at some point in the billions of years before that.

Imagine going back to the 1500s and what they'd think of the shiny things you'd take back (and not be able to use because no electricity)

What if the dinossaurs have never existed? Would the mammals had dominated the world much early, and so the Home Sapiens could also have arrived earlier?
 
What if the dinossaurs have never existed? Would the mammals had dominated the world much early, and so the Home Sapiens could also have arrived earlier?

Well, that's hard to say since the Dinosaurs are the aliens. If they hadn't left after decimating the planet then who knows if we would have evolved or not.
 
Man, imagine a probe landing, sucking in organic matter and having machines create a living being from scratch with memories intact (transferred from storage). It would be a brand new creature but with all the knowledge and memories of its creator.
 
I'm not sure about this. Civs with the wrong priorities like warmongering or conquest would far more likely destroy themselves first over internal conflicts before reaching interstellar tech level. To reach that kind of tech you'd need a very long period of worldwide political stability with a prime focus on scientific research and a high degree of cooperation.

I don't think we should be assigning human values/traits and social structure on beings that might not even be DNA-based or even posses individuality. We only have a single sample size of both a planet and species that has robust civilization.
 
I'm not sure about this. Civs with the wrong priorities like warmongering or conquest would far more likely destroy themselves first over internal conflicts before reaching interstellar tech level. To reach that kind of tech you'd need a very long period of worldwide political stability with a prime focus on scientific research and a high degree of cooperation.

I agree, that is a great point,

however when a civ that advanced props up it most likely because it is old and could be dealing with overpopulation and exhaustion of its resources. These are the same issues that will force us as a species to become a space-faring interstellar race. Or perhaps their home-world is no more due to some catastrophe (asteroid, blackhole, depleted star) and are looking settle elsewhere. Then again that would be presumptuous because Earth may not be able to sustain them as it does us....


so many variables...
 
lets clone our planet and everything in it and send it 20k light years away.

How will we detect ourselves from that distance, how will we know that intelligent life lives in Planet X (earth) from that distance?
 
What if we are the aliens and the original Human race are living underneath the earth and we're slowly killing them with global warming.
 
I always say, we do not know if Aliens ever been here... I mean this planet is how old exactly? And long have humans been around?

But is something like that even possible?...Maybe...

Well Aliens or not, this is in interesting topic :)
 
What if we are the aliens and the original Human race are living underneath the earth and we're slowly killing them with global warming.

Or maybe we were exiled from our Homeworld for being warmongers. Only in the future to find a hyperspace core and return to the stars.
 
I'm sure we have all heard or read this as discussion with the Fermi paradox, but it is interesting anyways.

There has been more than enough time for an intelligent civilization to create self replicating probes and have them go to every corner of our galaxy.

Since as far as we know they have not been here just adds evidence that civilizations don't make it that far along, or they don't exist at all.

Maybe they have been here or are here and we don't know it though.
 
Come on, we can identify which bacterium lived in which dino's anus 200 million years ago. Don't you think if aliens already visited us, we wouldn't have found out?


It's difficult not to sound like a conspiracy theorist when you say that maybe the government didn't want us to know. However, maybe the government didn't want us to know.
 
Since as far as we know they have not been here just adds evidence that civilizations don't make it that far along, or they don't exist at all.

As far as we know is kind of a key part.

We thought we knew a lot throughout history. What we know now will be laughed at in 100 years.
 
I think it can....
Yeah well, you wrote a lot but the amount of dismissal and mental gymnastics you have to perform to convince yourself that it was nothing far and away surpasses the typical amount of effort it takes to dismiss an occurrence. Books have been written about this incident. Our own military described it as "a classic which meets all the criteria necessary for a valid study of the UFO phenomenon". Your "big meteor shower." disabled then re-enabled an F4 Phantom's weapon systems, not its' nav, not its radar. Multiple primary radar rerturns. Transponder singnals. Meteor shower = swamp gas, in this case.

I have seen your general skepticism elsewhere and as I said, it takes way too much effort to describe that one away. Which is the exact argument that normally gets applied to UFO sightings and is almost always 100% correct. This one is so eerie to me.

That one defies the litmus test though, because to me that one is very, very different - and singular in its importance.
Not like I'm running around this thread citing example after example. That's the 'one' that needs to be better understood, not denied.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom