Interesting idea raised by Jimmy in another thread - if an advanced race fully understood their DNA they could recreate themselves as they saw fit.  Topic for discussion: What would be the ultimate modifications?

I'm imagining almost all brain, living in an almost indestructible metal shell connected to robotic limbs that could be changed out as necessary.  What do YOU think?

Views: 1201

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

They might view our planet as a terrible candidate being that it's almost entirely covered in water - bleh!

If 'they' had a very good propulsion system how much do you think this logic would hold? Would an alien culture hold to the galactic core and arms or look for other interesting places off the beaten path? A similar point comes up compairing this to how our early explorers traveled. They did not always follow the continental margins, but sometimes tested areas much further out from home. I expect that they might not have similar hangups, to be affraid of dropping off the edge of the world/galaxy.

I expect 'finding your way home' might still be a problem given the vast territories to explore. Using references for location might be difficult in some areas.  

If 'they' had a very good propulsion system how much do you think this logic would hold?

Pretty well. Light speed is as good as propulsion gets. Even then, in a galaxy 100,000 light years across and 1,000 light years thick, a typical trip means a commitment of resources and many years (one way) including the time it takes to accelerate and decelerate.

Would an alien culture hold to the galactic core and arms or look for other interesting places off the beaten path?

I suppose, but wild statistical anomalies like "they're just nuts" aside, why would a people do that? Whatever your reason for "looking"-- exploration, conquest, colonization, resource exploitation-- you're better off heading for regions where stars with rocky planets are light-months or light-years apart, rather than light-decades, light-centuries, or light-millenia apart. You increase your chances for a "hit" by looking in places where there's just more of what you're looking for. If you want to see lots of horses, head for the Kentucky derby, not a one-horse town.

A similar point comes up compairing this to how our early explorers traveled. They did not always follow the continental margins, but sometimes tested areas much further out from home. I expect that they might not have similar hangups, to be affraid of dropping off the edge of the world/galaxy.

This is loosely akin to the notion of the 'galactic habitable zone' which nobody really has defined as an actual region of the galaxy so much as a concept.

Single stars, more widely spaced, are better for producing hospitable planets. You're more likely to end up with worlds like earth, circling a star in a neat, calm, mostly round orbit. You get mostly steady and predictable temperatures at the equator. Our nearest galactic neighbors are two light years away; a pair of stars that never do anything unexpected.

Be glad, because binary systems or other complex arrangements of stars, all bunched together, are mostly awful places to be. You get planets racing around two or three suns, freezing one moment and boiling the next while they're swapped around like a basketball at a Harlem Globetrotters game. There are stars all around, dumping radiation, going supernova, throwing gravitational temper tantrums, heaving out gamma ray bursts, and every time one does it: your primordial soup of life (or your advanced civilization) gets frozen, boiled, incinerated, smashed to bits, or sterilized. It only has to happen once every couple of hundred million years.

These would be the galactic 'uninhabitable zones'. The extreme center of the galaxy probably is one. You won't drop off the edge, but it's best to avoid such places, especially if you're looking for other civilizations or have colonization in mind. 

(Click on the image to see all of it)

Seems to be a very good evaluation.

Some details:

Would a species with ~C propulsion have equipment for deep space planet fall sensing?

I would expect that a search such as this would be mostly continuous and would be part of a mapping program. Given the distances involved they would need natural references for both flight and planet fall.

Also given the distances, mapping of materials for craft repairs and food would be needed. I expect that they would be 'living off the land' with a highly developed technology for raw materials processing, fabrication, fuel. This might mean very large ships, with an active population on the craft. They might be involved with establishing stations on habitiable planets or in useful nebula, which might again offer a very visiable reference from great distances away. I wonder if they might establish fuel depots in nebula or around gas giants?

I would expect that star systems that are more issolated from others to have more stable planetary orbits due to reduced perterbations from other systems. Also older systems, or main sequence stars, would have suns that are less prone to ugly transitions or flares. Having your station cooked by the local star could be a horrble loss of life and cultural investment.

Flight through nebula with very active star formation might be hard on equipment and personel, due to heavy radiation load.

I think we could build logic models for different 'exploration plans' to determine where we might look for both habitable planets and possible civilizations. 'If we were them, where would we look and live?'

Given that thay might not be that different from us, they might have the same needs, but cultures might be very different with their own obsessive concerns.          

I really don't believe ETs will be travelling, much. It would make so much more sense to send off small probes filled with eggs, filled with genetic code that can be updated via wireless, ala Google Docs.

Well you could have atleast humored me..;p).

The 'Poor Alien' protocol is the more likely....

I read today that lobsters are basically immortal. Alive until killed somehow.

"No one alive today would get to live - we can't change your current DNA."

Obviously. But as there would be a considerable financial outlay. who decides who gets to live "forever" - presumably without pain. Just the rich? I'll pass, thanks.

This would, at the same time, be central to the idea and off-topic.

Eventually population controls will be put in place - either by us or by nature.  Nature is not known for being humane, even in comparison with the most despicable humans.  I think our future likely lies with a group that sets itself apart in ruthlessness to pursue such goals - much as our history has shown.

Bigger penises for white and Asian men.

Or perhaps separate organs for sex and waste disposal!

RSS

Blog Posts

Invictus

Posted by Marinda on September 11, 2014 at 4:08pm 0 Comments

Ads

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service