From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@www.aeiveos.com)
Date: Sat Sep 11 1999 - 13:19:12 MDT
On Sat, 11 Sep 1999, Brian Manning Delaney wrote:
>
> "J. R. Molloy" wrote:
>
> > I don't see that the rarity of intelligent
> > life lowers the risk that we'll self-annihilate.
>
> Moi, I just meant that it increases the probability that the
> apparent absence of aliens has causes that aren't the
----------------!
> self-annihilation of technical cultures, ergo....
>
The argument that intelligent life is rare or "apparently"
absent are totally and completely *specious*.
I dealt with this extensively in SETI@home discussions in
mid-late July. Fundamentally it comes down to the fact
that we do not have the nano-capabilities to detect
nanobots if they are here and we either do not have or only
barely have the astronomical capabilities to detect SIs in space
and to detect them you would have to look in "counterintuitive"
locations (where we don't see stars).
The only statements that can be made with putting yourself squarely
in the swamp is: "We don't see aliens that are our size nearby
(literally walking around on earth)" and "Aliens do not appear
to have restructured or consumed *all* of the stars in the galaxy".
Them's the facts man, just the facts.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:06 MST