Kevin's Watch

I loved the simplicity of H G Well's solution in WOTW. It was the small stuff that nobody took any notice of that did for the invaders (as in the great Shyamalan film '.....')[mental block] rather than the main participants themselves. This is how I think it would be.

Hashi - call me dull but I like my alien contact free monotony just as it is thankyou!

Except it would be highly unlikely that something from earth could work on an alien biology, and vice versa.

--A

Why should that be Av. Those aliens will be made of the same stuff, subject to the the same laws of physics, chemistry and ultimately biology that formed us. There is no reason why the 'convergent evolution' that resulted in the 'eye' adopting a similar form in the squid/octopus family (gastropods I think) and the vertibrates although developed independantly of one another (ie that to make an eye that works given the physics of light you have to have a lens, a receptive surface) [and indeed the camera now I think of it] should not opperate here also.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:I concur. If an extraterrestrial species is based on carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen like we are then the possibility of biological interaction or cross-contamination exists.

Yea...proteins are weird things [probably because so complex]. They interact [or fail to do so] in unpredictable ways...and that mix of the basics seems to always result in protein structures eventually.

Why should it be based on carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen like us? They're alien.

Even if just one of those elements was different it would make a difference I'd think.

In addition, a virus is essentially self-tailored to specific DNA, which means it wouldn't have any effect on an alien DNA.

Now maybe bacteriologically, you might get lucky...bacteria can survive anywhere, and some can be deadly. But even that assumes that the aliens, having crossed immeasurable distances, are ignorant of decontamination measures etc.

--A

Avatar wrote:Why should it be based on carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen like us? They're alien.

Even if just one of those elements was different it would make a difference I'd think.

In addition, a virus is essentially self-tailored to specific DNA, which means it wouldn't have any effect on an alien DNA.

Now maybe bacteriologically, you might get lucky...bacteria can survive anywhere, and some can be deadly. But even that assumes that the aliens, having crossed immeasurable distances, are ignorant of decontamination measures etc.

--A

Well, presuming said aliens are complex life-forms, unless they operate in a dimension that we don't know about with entirely different physical rules, carbon at least is pretty much a given. It's the only viable element capable of forming long chains of complex molecules - a carbon atom is pretty much a particulate swinger, ready to join up with almost anything else to complete the number of electrons in its outer shell. Don't ask me to explain further, because I'm absolutely no atomic physicist.

And before someone starts wibbling on about silicon, that just doesn't cut the mustard, however much it may be proposed as a viable alternative by pop sci-fi shows (sorry to disappoint Trekkies here). I forget exactly why silicon is unsuitable, but I think it's because in compound form it's non-reactive and crystalline, so completely unsuited to protein formation and transporting stuff from cell to cell.

If you guys haven't read it yet, can I massively recommend the following book...



It'll fill you in with an extremely well-written and wide-ranging selection of information on just about every field of science - and it's absolutely not aimed at propeller heads. A thing which is entirely unsurprising given both a) the nature of the author and b) the fact that I myself have managed to read through the book numerous times with huge enjoyment.

Read it and loved it! The next step up the ladder in the same vein is Asimov's Guide to Science. 1000 pages of tight script detailing the history of advancement in every branch of science there is - no humor as in Brysons, but somehow gripping in the hands of a master writer.

One bridge we are always going to have to cross in a debate like this is whether we consider 'life' to be an essential component of 'inelligence and self-awareness'. If not we may yet experience 'first-contact' not in some far flung reach of the galaxy - but right here at home!

Avatar wrote:Why should it be based on carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen like us? They're alien.

Even if just one of those elements was different it would make a difference I'd think.

In addition, a virus is essentially self-tailored to specific DNA, which means it wouldn't have any effect on an alien DNA.

Now maybe bacteriologically, you might get lucky...bacteria can survive anywhere, and some can be deadly. But even that assumes that the aliens, having crossed immeasurable distances, are ignorant of decontamination measures etc.

--A

Because those are damn common, we know they work, and many many many places have all of them.
Which doesn't mean other things aren't possible.
Nor that, just cuz they have the same bricks they'll be built exactly the same way. Even on Earth, where certain fundamental things are true for almost every living thing, the variety in end result is amazing.

But: viruses are tricky and dangerous and rapidly mutate.
IF aliens are protein based, viruses are a serious threat...if not "on contact," at least over time.
-----------------------------------
The Bryson book is pretty good.

Avatar wrote:Why should it be based on carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen like us? They're alien.

Carbon and silicon are chemically very similar but carbon more readily forms the types of bonds necessary for amino acids that form the foundation of biochemical life. Here is the wikipedia article on silicon-based biochemistry for a little light reading. The article notes something interesting: the ratio of carbon to silicon in the observable universe is about 10 to 1, yet despite the fact that the ratio of carbon to silicon in the Earth's crust is 1 to 925 terrestrial life is carbon-based. Perhaps it has something to do with the quasi-metallic nature of many silicate compounds, perhaps they aren't as stable, or maybe it simply isn't as efficient due to its heavier weight and greater number of electons in the outer shell. Silicon is found in some sea life and various plants, though.

I concur with peter--"life" is not a prerequisite for "intelligence" or possibly even "self-awareness". I will have to hunt for this article, but I seem to recall reading about an AI system someone was building where it would continually make connections between pieces of data then ask questions. One day the system asked "am I a computer?" which surpirsed the researchers. With sufficiently fast processers and a sufficiently complex program a computer could attain some level of self-awareness. As a computer it "consumes" electricity, it "excretes" heat, and if it builds another computer is engages in self-replication which typically qualifies for basic definitions of "life".

Self-aware computers, especially if we cyborg ourselves with them, will result in a dramatically-transformed human race and be the only viable option for reaching exoplanets. We may die after only 100 years but a self-aware computer can live as long as it has power and its essential components do not break down.

Vraith wrote: But: viruses are tricky and dangerous and rapidly mutate.
IF aliens are protein based, viruses are a serious threat...if not "on contact," at least over time.

Over time I'll grant you. But not at once. And assuming that these hypothetical aliens, while capable of crossing interstellar distances, take no precautions against contamination.

--A

Perhaps the melding of human and computer is indeed our future. If we get to the point where we can 'download our mind ('Matrix' style) into a virtual world of our own creation the the sky is the limit. When your body dies - so what, the bit you are interested in is preserved ie you, your mind. This is immortality. if we f*** up the Earth, so what. We don't need it anyway because we can create worlds beyond our imagining for our virtual selves to inhabit. As long as the dead landscape will provide materials and energy enough to support the massive banks of super-computers within which we exist in our multitude of worlds, what matter the World. God - why can I not feel good about this!

Hashi, there's a good reason to suppose that alien civilizations would be much more advanced than our own: our sun is a second generation star (formed from the gas/dust/debris of a previous super nova). It's not very old in terms of the universe. There could be other civilizations that formed before our own solar system, putting them billions of years ahead of us. Besides, the only ones we could possibly contact would be the ones with technology greater than ours, since ours isn't sufficient to conact any on our own, as you point out.

I think that if a lifeform advances far enough that it can start leaving its own planet, it will meet a threshold where it can hold the power of its own destruction in its hands--much like ourselves. The technology for leaving a planet is closely linked to the technology for destroying all life on that planet. If this civilization can pass this threshold safely, it means that this lifeform has solved the violence/aggression problem. This won't be a hostile or conquering race. It will be an intelligent, curious, life-valuing race.

Crossing the barrier between civilizations itself is a kind of filter for "higher" beings. Only a certain kind of enlightened lifeform can do it. The necessary knowledge can only come from a communal sharing of experience and learning through generations of scientists, and the resources necessary for putting that knowledge to use requires a social structure that encompasses most of the planet's population, meaning that it must have a stable global society working in concert to muster the energy requirements for interplanetary exploration. The endeavor is literally too large and too difficult for a few rogue players. This is an endeavor that can only come from a peaceful, intelligent, cooperative species.

Besides, I'm pretty sure we've already been in contact.

Zarathustra wrote:Hashi, there's a good reason to suppose that alien civilizations would be much more advanced than our own: our sun is a second generation star (formed from the gas/dust/debris of a previous super nova). It's not very old in terms of the universe. There could be other civilizations that formed before our own solar system, putting them billions of years ahead of us. Besides, the only ones we could possibly contact would be the ones with technology greater than ours, since ours isn't sufficient to conact any on our own, as you point out.

I think that if a lifeform advances far enough that it can start leaving its own planet, it will meet a threshold where it can hold the power of its own destruction in its hands--much like ourselves. The technology for leaving a planet is closely linked to the technology for destroying all life on that planet. If this civilization can pass this threshold safely, it means that this lifeform has solved the violence/aggression problem. This won't be a hostile or conquering race. It will be an intelligent, curious, life-valuing race.

I completely forgot about how young our local star is, relatively speaking.

Very interesting point you make--the flip side of the coin of mutually assured destruction must be mutually assured survivial. Although variety is the spice of life and if everyone were the same then it would be a very boring world, I suspect that we are going to have to attain some level of homogeneity of religious thought and homogeneity of phenotype (our outward appearance) before we stop trying to bludgeon one another out of some perceived threat. Failing that, we are going to have to take the mad dogs from among our numbers and exile them to a place where they no longer can bother the rest of us. Even if we had the technology to reach other planets and begin spreading out, we aren't ready to spread out yet--we would carry our current problems with us no matter where we go.

I walk to work each day (or some days at least ) and as I walk I notice with each passing week that the 'wild stuff' between the roads increases untill it begins to encroach on the path and road itself. Then the Council comes along and cuts/sprays/burns it back and it must start all over again. Weird as it sounds this makes me feel reasured as to the future of our planet. It was here before we were and it will remain when we are gone. It waits and it is nothing if not patient. We have been good, even beautiful at times - but when I look at a tiger or a humming-bird I cannot but think that if we do for ourselves, it will be long before the point where life cannot survive, and when it repairs itself comes back in all it's former glory it will be none the worse for our not being here.

Sure we've got a young planet (4.54 billion years) orbiting around a young star (4.57 billion years). Based on these timescales - which themselves are relatively short, compared to the age of the universe at 13.8 billion years - the entire span of the existence of human life pretty much falls into the area of inconsequential measuring error at only 200,000 years or so. I forget who it was who said it, but if you stretch out your arms as wide as you can and that span represents the time that the earth has existed, then you can wipe out all of human existence with just three strokes of a nail file.

Peter, you're right to suggest that the earth can pretty much look after itself, when viewed against a geological timescale. Okay, we may be screwing it up environmentally at the moment - we're the only species which has ever had the opportunity to do so - but from the earth's point of view, we're not much more than a slight embarrassing and temporary itch.

There's not much doubt that, if we managed to wipe ourselves and all higher life forms out, life would start over. There's a well-established school of thought that states "where life can exist, it does exist". Discoveries of extremophile organisms over the last three or so decades has led scientists to dramatically broaden their views on environments suitable to give rise to life. Life just wants to be and it's pretty good (over eons) at coming about.

All life strives.

--A

I see photographs in the *National Geographic* magazine each month that display the natural world in it's most extreme and beautiful aspects. As I said above, not to be maudlin about it, but we do seem to have added very little of value to thw whole. It would be great to get back to a point where we could really act as the trustees of this beautiful planet rather than just being exploiters of our environment. I guess this would take depopulation on a massive scale to achieve though and a return to almost medieval lifestyles for the bulk of us. Difficult to see how it could be done ant other way.

We were never trustees of it. We just got better and better at exploiting it.

Anyway, at least we've reached the point where it has an impact on us...we can appreciate it.

--A