What if we confirmed Aliens around KIC 8462852?

[Darnok]

6 hours ago, peadar1987 said:

The past century, with its huge strides towards equality and democracy, has seen the greatest leap in scientific knowledge in the history of our species. I don't think we're being held back because there aren't many absolute monarchies these days.

What is equality?

We should go towards justice and freedom, because only then science and knowledge will have value.

French revolution started to destroy monarchies and look where Europe is today... instead of having colonies we are colony with public debt and collapsing economy.

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, Darnok said:

What is equality?

We should go towards justice

In terms of French Revolution "equality" means "equality before the law", so these two statements look contradictory.

[peadar1987]

2 hours ago, Darnok said:

What is equality?

We should go towards justice and freedom, because only then science and knowledge will have value.

French revolution started to destroy monarchies and look where Europe is today... instead of having colonies we are colony with public debt and collapsing economy.

Yup, life sure was better for all us Europeans in the early 1700s, when life expectancy was 35, Europe was in a perpetual state of war, and one man born to the right parents had the power to execute you if you looked at him funny.

[magnemoe]

Don't think so much will change, its to far away to affect us in any way. 
They should know its life on earth, we are close to detect life on this distances and they would not have much issues with kilometer sized telescopes. 

Yes it would have some cultural and scientist effects. We would know it exist civilizations far more advanced than our.
Seti would get lots more funding, It would be used in an bunch of sci-fi movies, not much other changes. 

 

[Darnok]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

In terms of French Revolution "equality" means "equality before the law", so these two statements look contradictory.

But that kind of equality is called justice, so why use different word for that? He wasn't talking about justice.

 

19 minutes ago, peadar1987 said:

Yup, life sure was better for all us Europeans in the early 1700s, when life expectancy was 35, Europe was in a perpetual state of war, and one man born to the right parents had the power to execute you if you looked at him funny.

Don't play stupid, those statistics can be interpret in many ways.

Regime had nothing to do with life expectancy, that is matter of medicine and technology. If in 1700s in Europe you would have democracy then life expectancy would be better? If today we would have monarchy in Europe life expectancy would go back to 35?

As for wars it was sign that European countries were independent and they were trying to establish order, who was stronger and should rule in region.

If you look funny at some clique boss child you won't be executed just beaten to death, so nothing has changed in that matter. There are still people that care more about their reputation than your life.

So what is equality?

[peadar1987]

12 minutes ago, Darnok said:

 

Don't play stupid, those statistics can be interpret in many ways.

Regime had nothing to do with life expectancy, that is matter of medicine and technology. If in 1700s in Europe you would have democracy then life expectancy would be better? If today we would have monarchy in Europe life expectancy would go back to 35?

As for wars it was sign that European countries were independent and they were trying to establish order, who was stronger and should rule in region.

If you look funny at some clique boss child you won't be executed just beaten to death, so nothing has changed in that matter. There are still people that care more about their reputation than your life.

So what is equality?

Yes, and medicine and technology have advanced far faster in the last 200 years, now that the general populace isn't beholden to the whims of a hereditary dictator. If we had absolute monarchies today in Europe, one by one, the monarchs would be likely to roll back things like universal healthcare, education, and a social safety net, all of which would indeed shorten life expectancy. Also their tendency to start wars with each other wouldn't exactly help.

As for your "who is stronger" argument. If you really think might makes right, all of your beloved monarchies were overthrown or neutered by the might of the people. Democracy proved stronger. Plus there is the very good moral argument that going to war and killing tens of thousands, possibly millions, just to prove who is stronger is not a particularly great thing to do.

So yeah, equality is equal treatment under the law for all, regardless of class, political beliefs, gender, religion, sexual orientation or race. 

[Darnok]

15 minutes ago, peadar1987 said:

Yes, and medicine and technology have advanced far faster in the last 200 years, now that the general populace isn't beholden to the whims of a hereditary dictator. If we had absolute monarchies today in Europe, one by one, the monarchs would be likely to roll back things like universal healthcare, education, and a social safety net, all of which would indeed shorten life expectancy. Also their tendency to start wars with each other wouldn't exactly help.

As for your "who is stronger" argument. If you really think might makes right, all of your beloved monarchies were overthrown or neutered by the might of the people. Democracy proved stronger. Plus there is the very good moral argument that going to war and killing tens of thousands, possibly millions, just to prove who is stronger is not a particularly great thing to do.

So yeah, equality is equal treatment under the law for all, regardless of class, political beliefs, gender, religion, sexual orientation or race. 

What makes you so sure that if last 200 years would be under monarchy technology would develop any slower? Can you provide any proof of that claim?

I dare not speak for someone, I do not know what the monarch would have done today. I only imagine each monarch probably would have found such system he or she would think to be appropriate. I am sure that none of them would want to rule poor country, so if the system force in neighboring country would be better, they would have to change system or... the monarch in time.

Good thing in monarchy was responsibility, people knew who is responsible for their happiness or misfortune. In democracy country may have debts, fall into chaos and nobody take responsibility for that.

So this is not equality this is justice, but why you are using it under different name? Also you don't have justice today, some opinions and beliefs are banned or mocked and about other opinions you can't say bad word or you will be punished. You are allowed to have only one way of thinking the one that majority of mass media has.

 

[magnemoe]

2 minutes ago, Darnok said:

What makes you so sure that if last 200 years would be under monarchy technology would develop any slower? Can you provide any proof of that claim?

I dare not speak for someone, I do not know what the monarch would have done today. I only imagine each monarch probably would have found such system he or she would think to be appropriate. I am sure that none of them would want to rule poor country, so if the system force in neighboring country would be better, they would have to change system or... the monarch in time.

Good thing in monarchy was responsibility, people knew who is responsible for their happiness or misfortune. In democracy country may have debts, fall into chaos and nobody take responsibility for that.

So this is not equality this is justice, but why you are using it under different name? Also you don't have justice today, some opinions and beliefs are banned or mocked and about other opinions you can't say bad word or you will be punished. You are allowed to have only one way of thinking the one that majority of mass media has.

Dictatorship has rarely been hotspots of creativity. 
Few absolute kingdoms today, even if we include Syra and North Korea where the dictator inherited the position after his father. 
Majority is either gulf states with lots of oil income or very small states who is easy to run.
Countries was much easier to run 200 years ago as the state was very small and did not have many services. 

However fail to see how this relates to the tread. 

[Darnok]

Just now, magnemoe said:

Dictatorship has rarely been hotspots of creativity. 
Few absolute kingdoms today, even if we include Syra and North Korea where the dictator inherited the position after his father. 
Majority is either gulf states with lots of oil income or very small states who is easy to run.
Countries was much easier to run 200 years ago as the state was very small and did not have many services. 

However fail to see how this relates to the tread. 

Dictatorship isn't monarchy.

If aliens exist they have some regime system. Now we have lack of tolerance towards systems other than democracy, so our contact with aliens civilization could be difficult.

We have kingdoms today, but problem is zero tolerance towards them, they are poor because democratic countries made economic sanctions... what in time causes social stress and leads to wars.

 

[peadar1987]

7 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Dictatorship isn't monarchy.

If aliens exist they have some regime system. Now we have lack of tolerance towards systems other than democracy, so our contact with aliens civilization could be difficult.

We have kingdoms today, but problem is zero tolerance towards them, they are poor because democratic countries made economic sanctions... what in time causes social stress and leads to wars.

 

But monarchy is dictatorship.

It's funny how you moan about democracies placing sanctions on monarchies (usually for actual things the monarchy have done, as opposed to pure prejudice against hereditary leaders), but then defend the right of monarchies to invade whoever they want to prove which monarchy is stronger.

[Darnok]

25 minutes ago, peadar1987 said:

But monarchy is dictatorship.

It's funny how you moan about democracies placing sanctions on monarchies (usually for actual things the monarchy have done, as opposed to pure prejudice against hereditary leaders), but then defend the right of monarchies to invade whoever they want to prove which monarchy is stronger.

Democracy targets other systems just because they are not democratic... it enforces one way of thinking which is bad for progress.

Monarchy target county when it is weak, no matter what regime there is, rulers wants glory, lands and gold.

It is different more natural approach, monarchy is like predator that attacks weakest member of group, while democracy is like religious fanatic that attacks everything that doesn't have same beliefs system. Its funny how you skipped my questions from previous posts.

[peadar1987]

44 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Democracy targets other systems just because they are not democratic... it enforces one way of thinking which is bad for progress.

Monarchy target county when it is weak, no matter what regime there is, rulers wants glory, lands and gold.

It is different more natural approach, monarchy is like predator that attacks weakest member of group, while democracy is like religious fanatic that attacks everything that doesn't have same beliefs system. Its funny how you skipped my questions from previous posts.

But if a monarchy can't stand up to a democracy's sanctions, then it too is weak. Natural selection. Monarchies get weeded out because they are overthrown by their people, or they are destroyed by democracies.

Cute that you say that democracy enforces one way of thinking, and that is bad for progress. What do you think happens in a monarchy? Do you think people who thought differently from the king were treated well?

If you really want your questions from previous posts answered, okay:

Quote

What makes you so sure that if last 200 years would be under monarchy technology would develop any slower? Can you provide any proof of that claim?

The previous several thousand years of monarchies, mainly. Having a rigid class system with negligible social mobility that necessarily freezes out most of the creativity and talent of the nation is hardly a great driver of innovation.

Quote

I dare not speak for someone, I do not know what the monarch would have done today. I only imagine each monarch probably would havefound such system he or she would think to be appropriate. I am sure that none of them would want to rule poor country, so if the systemforce in neighboring country would be better, they would have to change system or... the monarch in time.

So the only accountability is that the monarch must ensure they don't quite enrage the population enough to make them rise up against the army and risk a gruesome death. That's not much accountability at all, and it doesn't give much of an incentive for the monarch to make conditions good for their subjects.

Quote

Good thing in monarchy was responsibility, people knew who is responsible for their happiness or misfortune. In democracy country may have debts, fall into chaos and nobody take responsibility for that.

Destroying your country's economy isn't a great way to get reelected in a democracy. And it's not as though monarchies never fall into chaos. I'd rather a bit of a recession than a king being able to declare war whenever he wants.

 

Quote

So this is not equality this is justice, but why you are using it under different name? Also you don't have justice today, some opinions and beliefs are banned or mocked and about other opinions you can't say bad word or you will be punished. You are allowed to have only one way of thinking the one that majority of mass media has.

Trust the native English speaker, it's equality. Justice is a different concept.

And you think that a king would allow more freedom of opinion and conscience? Really?!

[PB666]

10 minutes ago, peadar1987 said:

But if a monarchy can't stand up to a democracy's sanctions, then it too is weak. Natural selection. Monarchies get weeded out because they are overthrown by their people, or they are destroyed by democracies.

Cute that you say that democracy enforces one way of thinking, and that is bad for progress. What do you think happens in a monarchy? Do you think people who thought differently from the king were treated well?

If you really want your questions from previous posts answered, okay:

The previous several thousand years of monarchies, mainly. Having a rigid class system with negligible social mobility that necessarily freezes out most of the creativity and talent of the nation is hardly a great driver of innovation.

So the only accountability is that the monarch must ensure they don't quite enrage the population enough to make them rise up against the army and risk a gruesome death. That's not much accountability at all, and it doesn't give much of an incentive for the monarch to make conditions good for their subjects.

Destroying your country's economy isn't a great way to get reelected in a democracy. And it's not as though monarchies never fall into chaos. I'd rather a bit of a recession than a king being able to declare war whenever he wants.

 

Trust the native English speaker, it's equality. Justice is a different concept.

And you think that a king would allow more freedom of opinion and conscience? Really?!

The difference between a monarchy and a democracy is that in a Monarchy only the elite in society need to know how the economic system and international trading work for the monarchy to survive. In a representative democracy the voters need to be educated in many aspects of how society work to survive.

[kerbiloid]

32 minutes ago, PB666 said:

The difference between a monarchy and a democracy is that in a Monarchy only the elite in society need to know how the economic system and international trading work for the monarchy to survive. In a representative democracy the voters need to be educated in many aspects of how society work to survive.

That's why instead of direct democracy , which you've described, there is almost always used representative democracy.

Edited May 9, 2016 by kerbiloid

[Red Iron Crown]

Please move the topic away from political systems, per Rule 2.2b.

[PB666]

http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2016/05/new-study-supports-natural-causes-not-alien-activity-explain-mystery-stars-behavior/

Not aliens, An archival artifact. Much adieu about nothing.

http://qz.com/680259/that-blinking-star-isnt-surrounded-by-alien-megastructures-but-its-still-really-weird/

 

Edited May 10, 2016 by PB666

[justidutch]

4 minutes ago, PB666 said:

http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2016/05/new-study-supports-natural-causes-not-alien-activity-explain-mystery-stars-behavior/

Not aliens, An archival artifact. Much adieu about nothing.

 

Not entirely accurate.  While this new study has explained the 'gradual dimming of the star', it does nothing to explain the periodic dips in light.  From the end of the article:

Quote

“What does this mean for the mystery? Are there no aliens after all? Probably not! Still, the dips found by Kepler are real. Something seems to be transiting in front of this star and we still have no idea what it is!” Hippke summarized.

 

[PB666]

15 minutes ago, justidutch said:

Not entirely accurate.  While this new study has explained the 'gradual dimming of the star', it does nothing to explain the periodic dips in light.  From the end of the article:

 

A brown dwarf that is tilted 90 and has a very fast rotation, spinning its equator out far enough to dim the stars light that or a black hole.

 

Its just a big transit, bigger than any transit observed, but alas, bigger than the previous is an expectation when you have only to date characterized 2900 confirmed planets.

Edited May 10, 2016 by PB666

[Gojira1000]

Learning there were neighbors would have almost no overall impact on the majority of the Earth's population after a few months of interest. Of course for us in the spacenerd set, it would be endlessly fascinating.

If something like Clarke's Rama rumbled through, I might expect more interest of the lasting sort.

[Bill Phil]

5 hours ago, Gojira1000 said:

Learning there were neighbors would have almost no overall impact on the majority of the Earth's population after a few months of interest. Of course for us in the spacenerd set, it would be endlessly fascinating.

If something like Clarke's Rama rumbled through, I might expect more interest of the lasting sort.

Especially multiple times.

[magnemoe]

8 hours ago, PB666 said:

A brown dwarf that is tilted 90 and has a very fast rotation, spinning its equator out far enough to dim the stars light that or a black hole.

 

Its just a big transit, bigger than any transit observed, but alas, bigger than the previous is an expectation when you have only to date characterized 2900 confirmed planets.

An brown dwarf close in should also move the star, the star would orbit an black hole.
Most probably is an lots of comets, compare with the late heavy bombardment in our solar system. 

[kerbiloid]

Can't this be an ice giant teared to pieces, say, due to a planets collision?
Probably this would spawn a lot of comets.

[PB666]

6 hours ago, magnemoe said:

An brown dwarf close in should also move the star, the star would orbit an black hole.
Most probably is an lots of comets, compare with the late heavy bombardment in our solar system. 

Ok its two brown dwarves one spiining very rapidly and the other one at L3 not spinning at all. 

Ah, ive got it, its a black hole spinning so fast the it forms the shape of a donut, lol. 

[KSK]

On 02/05/2016 at 3:59 AM, Andem said:

Well, as said above, the hubbub will die down within a few months. What I'd be interested in is how are society reacts in the future with the knowledge that a Dyson Swarm is a practical method of generating energy, and that we have competition in our interstellar colonization efforts.

What interstellar colonization efforts?

Besides, I think 'interstellar colonization' and 'ability to build Dyson Swarms' don't really fit together. If you've got the technology and resources to effectively build all the living space you'll ever need, why bother colonizing a random lump of rock in the middle of nowhere. Far easier to jam a couple of thousand asteroids together and build yourself a new planet to spec.

Same argument goes for a hostile first contact scenario - if you're building Dyson Swarms, trying to forcibly colonize somebody else's home becomes a waste of effort. Why bother taking over a soggy lump of rock populated by irritable, squabbling hominids who, by the time you've fought them to a standstill (or deployed sufficiently nasty weaponry that the 'war' is a foregone conclusion)  probably won't have left much of any use on their soggy rock anyway.

Again - easier to build your own living space to order. Then you also get the bonus of round the clock  'Can you believe what these primitives are up to now' reality TV entertainment and possibly peaceful access to their planet as a tourist destination.

Edit: In case it wasn't obvious, I subscribe to Ian M Bank's notion that a truly spacefaring civilization would live in space and regard planets as annoying sources of excess gravity.

 

 

Edited May 11, 2016 by KSK