this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2024
217 points (95.8% liked)

politics

19170 readers
5692 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick had a few choice words for the public on his way out the door of the Pentagon's All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office

Sean Kirkpatrick was once the man in charge of a D.C.-backed agency tasked with investigating claims into unidentified anomalous phenomena, the new term for what most people still call UFOs. He stepped down from the position in December, and has now published a excoriating farewell letter in Scientific American detailing some of the reasons why.

So why did he stop hunting for UFOs on behalf of the American government? In short: Because congressional leaders believe in conspiracy theories with absolutely no substantial proof. “Our efforts were ultimately overwhelmed by sensational but unsupported claims that ignored contradictory evidence yet captured the attention of policy makers and the public, driving legislative battles and dominating the public narrative,” Kirkpatrick said in Scientific American.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world -2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I contradicted myself?

Where?

According to our understanding of physics, the only two ways to get stuff from point a to point b in an apparently FTL (but not really) manner is to go outside of spacetime to do it. Either by going in to some other kind of space time (hyperspace- Star Wars, Babylon 5; Slip space of Andromeda,) or simply jumping from one point to another (as in Stargate, or battle star galactica)

Whatever is being moved never actually goes FTL; and therefore never violated causality or consumes shitloads of energy. (Read: consumed all the energy in the universe then fails because physics is uncaring.)

Von Newman probes are interesting, but it’s really unlikely. First the theories assert that they’re here and in regular interaction. We’d notice the extraction of materials if it was happening on earth, or the moon. Or any body we have under regular surveillance.

Remember, as far as we know, the only thing that makes earth special is its life. We know this because we can detect composition of things like stars and gas giants and the atmosphere if rocky worlds. (Isn’t the JWST amazing?). While I wouldn’t say we know if life exists elsewhere, we do know that there’s not much point in coming here for inert resources.

Iron, rare earth elements, water, oxygen, carbon, unobtainium, obtainium. They’re all equally rare or not-all-that-rare here and in other places.

The only thing actually unique to earth is its life- and that may just be a question of flavor over actual scarcity. (We don’t know.)

The only reasons to come here are to study us (xenopology? Or whatever you want to call alien anthropology.) which largely can happen remotely. Fuck we even sent a message out including genetic structure. It would consist of scientific curiosity to come and study us further, and most of that can be done without ever coming into the system, nevermind directly visiting earth.

Did I mention the nukes? Radio isotopes are in our atmosphere and presumably detectable by anyone one with more than our current level of technology. That we do that to ourselves is a good indication they should maybe not introduce themselves, and leave us as an uncontacted species.

Similar to how we leave the Solomon Islanders mostly uncontacted. Because they tend to kill whoever shows up. (Yeah, that missionary guy… I don’t blame them.)

Which leaves the illicit or the religious. The illicit would have to be us- slaves for labor, or something else. Entertainment, maybe. Or a zoo. The religous sorts are probably not anything like actual Mormons. I just thing “Space Mormons” sounds more exciting than “Space Evangelicals” and I like keeping my head firmly attached so I won’t be making any jokes about “Space Muslims”. No matter what analogue you go with, though, their motives would be to proselytize.

Unless, of course they had some cultural imperative to conquer.

None of these options really explain why they’re not immediately obvious, however. Religious sorts would want broad exposure, slavers… wouldn’t care to be subtle and would likely not be able to profit significantly off just a few handfuls of people. Conquerors would make themselves known,

Of course all this is rampant speculation. It’s unlikely we’d even recognize whatever is even alive nevermind sentient. It’s psychology and motivations are its own and probably only understandable in the most basic levels.