Talk:Extraterrestrial/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 26 June 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Reverted edit

I reverted this edit. Don't get it. If aliens existed, we would definitely know about it by now? Why? It contradicts the tone of the rest of the article - i.e. that we have no firm evidence either way. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:59, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

I'm not understanding many of the recent additions. I can't tell when they are snark, when they are just poorly constructed arguments, or when they are misunderstandings. This is about the 5th major edit today I've said "whatth'" to. --En attendant Godot_{"«Poetry involves the mysteries of the irrational perceived through rational words. V.Nabokov»} 18:03, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

... (criticism)

I just had a very bright idea to do something useful and write something smart and true about the possibility of extraterrestrial life. Not unexpectedly, I found that the reference models of rationality have turned this article into simple mockery that I could read from Uncyclopedia as well, and as usual, it contains almost nothing factual or useful. (Comparison with Santa does not count).--Earthland (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The possibility that aliens walk amongst us would seem to be about on par with Santa delivering gifts at Christmas. But if you want to write something sensible (and within the mission statements) about the possibility of extraterrestrial life living somewhere else why not go ahead?--Bob^{Not Jim} 18:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the point Earthland is trying to make is that, by making that joke, we allow ourselves to think we have done a fine job of debunking the subject—which we haven't—, and we guffaw at our brilliance and forget to do anything substantial. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

EC) Stop whining & start editing Earthy. This is a Wiki, anyone can edit it, even you. RA: this is Earthy's m.o. he whinges at us without doing anything to rectify the situation. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 18:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

("Earthy"?) I think you can't make difference between ufology ("aliens") and and extraterrestrial life. The article should at least mention SETI, Drake equation and the Fermi paradox. Cynicism masks a failure to cope - who brought the Santa in?

Why am I whining here? I should delete the entire article to make it at least seem rational.--Earthland (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

As I suggested in my earlier comment. You can make the article better by considering the mission objectives and adding these points if they further the objectives. RA can as well.--Bob^{Not Jim} 18:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

PS - it is better to add than delete.--Bob^{Not Jim} 18:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

BS. This article is fine. We have exobiology to deal with the reality of the possibilities which pretty much has everything discussed above but could still do with a clean up, however. ^moral 18:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Alien forms

Why do all the extraterrestials posited by the 'encounterists etc' look vaguely humanoid?

The assumption that 'if sentient lifeforms evolved once they will evolve elsewhere in the universe' is plausible (what is 'the theory about the general sameness/resemblance of different parts of the universe' called) - but not centipedes, plant creatures, swarm/hive creatures, mice etc? Science fiction is somewhat more creative (Daleks, Triffids, Jabba the Slug etc, etc). Nor should they be able to tolerate our atmosphere, climate, gravity etc without any modification, breathing masks etc

Anyone care to develop 'what aliens should look like' further? Jackiespeel (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Even in War of the Worlds, it was simply being on Earth that killed the aliens in the end. ħuman 01:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And why is it little green #men#? Apart from WotW and 'Daleks and stairs' how often do 'Environmentally inconvenienced' aliens appear in science fiction? Jackiespeel (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the thing is that aliens most likely to tolerate earth-like conditions are the ones most likely to visit earth. They are also the ones we are most likely to encounter on other earth-like planets. --Bob^{Bring back the hat!} 13:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

We-as-humans have to wear protective clothing for certain environments - and 'those living at sea level' have problems where 'those living up mountains' do not. Adaptations to differences in atmospheric composition, gravity etc are likely to cause problems at least initially with a new environment - and why shouldn't sentient centipedes visit Earth? Jackiespeel (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think they'd be more likely just to run a scoop-by mission to grab some methane from Jupiter. If they came here it would be to tank-up on oxygen or, much less likely, water. ħuman 22:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

If you ever get the chance, go have a peek at Barlowe's Guide to Extraterrestrials. It's a classic, borne of the artist's frustration at not getting a look at the author's description before doing book covers, and wanting to do it the right way. Fabulous stuff. --Kels (talk) 23:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Regarding "what aliens look like" I think the book to read is called Evolving the Alien (though I think it goes by different names in the US and Europe), by the same guys who wrote Science of Discworld I think. I've been meaning to get it for a while as it sounds interesting - but of course, this is almost realistic so would (as mentioned above) be required for the exobiology article. What abductees see aliens as and sci-fi films use tends to be very cultural, hence you see Greys in the US, Nordics in Europe and so on. "Cigar shaped" UFOs were more popular than disks until the "first" encounter in the 40s/50s (can't recall exactly off the top of my head) when "flying saucer" was coined; and even then, the actual description of those craft were triangular dart-like objects, so the flying disc meme really only came from a newspaper headline, rather than an actual description. Obviously, humanoid ("forehead aliens") figures are popular because they're easy to interact with, you have some familiarity to work with - although there is the prospect of convergent evolution too. ^moral 23:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I often/sometimes amuse myself by trying to come up with "features" we might expect to encounter in ETs/intelligent ETs, simply because they would be very likely to evolve. The first one I usually come up with bilateral (or multilateral) symmetry, because it is so easy to "program" and provides so many benefits (mobility, redundancy, etc.). Then I usually can't think of the second one, although the whole CO2/hydrocarbon/oxygen thing we got going here on Earth does seem likely to occur in some fashion elsewhere, due to the ubiquity of light energy to harness (assuming the life is on a planet orbiting a star), and the concurrent usefulness of using oxygen for metabolic processes once its available. And, oh yeah, the whole carbon chemistry thing. Amusingly, this line of "thought" leads to the realization that there might be many, many places in the universe that could support life alien to them, except that native "food" would likely not be available. ħuman 23:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The chemical aspects of the whole basis of life have a certain inevitability to them. You're going to be looking at some very similar chemistry with aliens. It most certainly will be "carbon based" (anything else being just a pipe dream of sci-fi nerds) as you really can't get the structural complexity required to have anything else do it. For similar reasons, it will probably also be based on consuming oxygen - although there's an odd chance that they may evolve in a reducing atmosphere rather than an oxidising atmosphere, the reactions to get energy this way are usually far less efficicent and I'm not convinced it'd be a stable system or be able to evolve very far. You'd probably also get protein like material, although the exact form of the indiviudal components may differ, they probably won't be amazingly different, these are very small molecules and there's only so many viable combinations (most of which we've already seen here on Earth). Larger chemical units may differ, I'm not sure we'd see the steroid backbone replicated, for example, but polycyclic carbon molecules may well appear often, they're just stable that way. After that, you can go as crazy as you like. The mechanism for information transfer I think will be the most interesting, will it be a system as complex as our DNA, or less complex (binary, perhaps?) or more complex (using full proteins as was the theory before DNA was noticed). ^moral 23:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I was referring more to the externalities - for example some means of manipulating the external environment would be required (hands, centipede-limbs etc) and a degree of 'adaptability to food sources' (though 'use of substances sprinkled on local foods and vitamin tablet equivalents etc to provide essential nutrients' would get round some little local difficulties) and there are likely to be certain other limitations - excessive complexity (15 genders are unlikely: the equivalent of caterpillars and butterflies possible) Jackiespeel (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional comment (not by original poster my personal two cents)

Not that i believe any of this stuff but many die hard theorists in little green men do tend to rationalise this stuff to some extent, like did you know the smaller greys are grey, they're pink, like us in some stories, the grey skin and big black eyes are simple space suits and shades. Apparently their sun isn't as bright and they're very careful not to be exposed to earth full bacterial environment. In the case of other races arguments such as similar evolutionary paths are made ie a similar environment to earth will mostly produce a humanoid spechies as it's dominant life (which is plausible, sort of) or even that we share a common ancestor or source of genetic material. In fact the more scientists prove that planets and stars are connected by electromagnetic currents and that objects such as comets shed water and could even seed the building blocks of DNA onto planets they pass close to the more apparent credence these arguments seem to get. Seem is the important word though, very few of these arguments take into the force of gravity, the simple fact is, so far nearly every corner of the universe we've seen that could possibly contain some form of life, also seems to have crushing gravity or immense pressures. Every exo earth looked at so far has had several times the mass of our own planet, Titan if it does have any sort of liquids, has them under extream pressure and huge variations in temperature.

This sort of study of aliens is the 20th and 21st centuries Demonology and is just as inventive and imaginative, if not more so. As a measure of a collective phycology that revolves around modern day fears and hopes it really is quite intresting. The good human like aliens are essentially angels, the bad ones, demons. it's even suggested that these spechies spawned these legends and even in some cases religion it's self (in which case they've done us no favours in my opinion.) and I have a feeling its the same basic needs and fears which drive the creation of these idea's. The only really scary thing is how sophisticated some of our collective nightmares are becoming. No longer are we scared of the instinctual creature which drags us off to hell to torture us, as a spechies this specter is now the alien which abducts us for our DNA , as slaves or to further their own understanding of the universe and themselves, all usually in ways that are detrimental to the abductee. Collective guilt of how we've treated our fellow humans in the past perhaps?

dont be as biased as conservapedia

sure most of you guy dont believe in alien and stuff.

but at least dont disrespect those who do. this is not conservapedia.

i believe that we cant be alone in this big universe.War on stupidity_Talk February 16, 2010

While this is not CONservapedia, we do maintain an snarky point of view on topics such as aliens anf flying saucers. The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 07:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think many people here disagree with you when you say we can't be alone. Look at the disclaimer at the top of the article. Aceⁱ⁹ 07:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We mock most religions and you want us to take people who believe in alien visitations seriously? - π 08:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

dude i didn't talk about visit.

but about the fact that we CANT be alone in the universe.War on stupidity_Talk

Read the first line of the article FAFUXAKE. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 08:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The introduction says: Many people would argue that the possibility is remote that we are the only form of life in the universe and that some form of life is likely to exist on other planets. also read our Exobiology article.--Bob^{It's cold!} 08:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

As Ace said, most people here would certainly be open to alien life. But visits and conspiracies, governments being in cahoots with them, aliens building the pyramids and so on, ver, very unlikely. Well, perhaps they have visited, but I doubt we would have actually noticed at all. ^moral 15:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

hollow earth and extra-dimensional entities ?

should this page link into Hollow earth (where advanced civilizations run the UFOs) or Extra-dimensional entities (those who poof into our plane of existance from elsewhere) ? Hamster (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course! Those both sound like great sections... ħuman 19:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, both have been put forward as explanations, so both are quite relevant. ^moral 20:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Shermer and the Drake equation

An interesting blog post at Aardvarcheology about why Shermer's estimate is wrong: http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/2008/08/shermer_and_the_drake_equation.php (Fun fact: I came up with this section's title before I dug up the link from my bookmarks. :)) --ZooGuard (talk) 10:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, no, his estimate isn't wrong; you can't really make a wrong choice in the Drake Equation. It's just that his reasoning is a bit iffy (which is what I was thinking when reading it, but I think it's an interesting contrast to Drake's own original estimate) but I can see where he's coming from. It's all about civilisations that can be contacted (and at range, you're not going to detect a farming settlement from 100 lightyears away), he just makes a model where you get a civilisation (like a country or Empire) that's capable of contact and based on the average length of time such Empires last, it will disappear after 420 years. Thus, contact is only possible for the duration of ca. 400 years. That's making some pretty wild assumptions, of course, such as one that says a replacement civilisation won't arrive afterwards or overlap it that can also be capable of contact. However, current thinking is that this figure isn't limited by civilisations ending or destroying themselves, but by going silent due to switching transmission mediums to something more efficient. By that reckoning, we're looking at transmitting for only 100 years at most. ^moral 21:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"Justified" belief in aliens

One can sympathise with the chap whose house has been hit six times by meteorites who believes the "aliens are agin him." ^{— Unsigned, by: 212.85.6.26 / talk / contribs}

I will always sympathise with harmless people like him. I hope he gets helps soon.--Brendiggg (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

here's a link to the story. Hands up those who find it difficult to believe. (hand)--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Redirect request

Can greys/grays be redirected to here (as the term is common enough). ^{— Unsigned, by: 82.198.250.2 / talk / contribs}

Well they can.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Aliens

Have their equivalent of Wikipedia and Rationalwiki, in which there is discussion of "humans". 212.85.6.26 (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

No, undoubtedly aliens would be discussing aliens. Do you think they'd refer to themselves as aliens? Do the French refer to themselves as foreigners? ADK^{...I'll crinkle your document!} 19:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, given that they are French, I'm sure they take delight in doing just that. --GodotGet over it!. 17:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I was assuming people would deduce the reversal of terms.

'Humans' being one type of 'aliens' (as they would refer to them).

And - 'as any fule knows' the aliens shot JFK.

As sentient life evolved once, it is logical to assume it evolved elsewhere - and if they did reach Earth, why not teach 'the backward locals' how to improve things? Or alien missionaries (fun with fundamentals?) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

"Why not?" indeed, or, for that matter "Why?" One can speculate a myriad things. But what you need is evidence.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Venusian question

How come all the 'aliens' who claimed to come from Venus didn't admit to humans that it was 'a tad hotter than a barbie'? Or did they wish to 'not frighten the locals, and mentioned one of the local planets rather than where they actually came from'? (Not that long ago, apparently, villagers would describe anyone from the next village as 'foreigners') 212.85.6.26 (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Barbie dolls are hot?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Cos they vibrated on different planes, and, as a consequence, were having such a great time, they hadn't noticed reality. Scherben (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Grey Psychology Discussion Point.

It's intresting that the article mentions Greys as fictional but doesn't mention that almost every human culture has scare myths that basically involve a grey humanoid turning up in the middle of the night, paralysing their victims and then doing nasty things to them. Not saying that the myths are evidence the Greys are real, more that the Grey archetype is a modern version of Russia's Babba Yagga (the old grey crone) or the Roman grey ghosts that used to appear in the middle of the night to fortell disaster. It seems humanity just has an inbuilt fear of nondescript strangers turning up when your most vulnerable, we just keep putting a new face over it so it fits in better with our concept of the world and the things in it which we fear. Anyway, discuss, and if someone can get their hands on some hard research into this (I know it's been done, I watched a documentary on it years ago) please post the links and relevant summary info.

Probably some form of sleep paralysis and/or hypnogogic halucination.62.172.108.24 (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The Miniscule marvels

The Miniscule marvels are 6 inch long humanoids clearly looking like vertebrates that evolved on Earth. "Whether or not the little humanoid turns out to be from another planet or is a previously undiscovered species from good old Earth or is simply a hoax has yet to be determined." Still an extraterrestrial would be extremely unlikely to have a spine, ribcage and shoulder girdle so like those of human beings. A species from earth would not likely look so human either and would almost certainly be an animal since no known vertebrate can pack high intelligence into such a small brain. A hoax aimed at publicising a film about to be released is certainly possible.

I put this here because we don't know if they will become a major fad. If this film takes off like the Da Vinci Code we can put it back into the article. If the film is soon forgotten these aliens aren't worth researching.

There's a suggestion we need a Steven Greer article, see people connected with Ancient Aliens. If that article is ever written the mini marvels will be worth adding. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Colourism

Why are the aliens supposedly green (and why 'little' and why 'men'?) or grey?

Given the range of animal colours on Earth (skin and hair etc) surely the aliens would be other colours as well? 171.33.197.73 (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Memetics, really. ^pathetic 13:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Or lack of writers' imaginations. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Aliens aren't real

If they were, I'd shoot them. They have no right to live, and they're evil! Roomfan (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Bear in mind

Only certain types of 'sentient aliens' would be capable of (a) designing spaceships, and (b) travelling in them - which are different criteria.

The concept of developing a spaceship (including understanding escape velocities) is one thing (even if 'technobabble means of travelling between solar systems/planets/regions of the galaxy' is a step which humans have not yet reached).

Being able to actually create a spaceship (or even merely a space probe) - there have to be 'the geological and other resources' available #as well as# the capacity to manipulate such things into a spaceship. There

Actually being able to go on to a spaceship is a different aspect entirely.

Basically - butterflies, whales and Tyrannosaurus rex cannot take over the universe; the Ents, Daleks, hallucigenia, and Jabba the Hutt would require someone else to design the spaceships, even if they can then manipulate controls thereafter. 86.153.166.80 (talk) 09:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Aliens are real

They speak in voices not unlike a vocoder; and their currency is the Space Credit. If they aren't real, how comes I know this? Scherben (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Holy crap, I THINK YOU JUST PROVED THEY EXIST Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

My genius recognised at last... ;) I presented exactly the same amount of evidence as every other alien encounter. Scherben (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Aliens = Demons

Got any info with that um... hypothesis, seeing as the idea that the Greys are biblical demons is becoming more mainstream?--174.25.43.47 (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

What? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Basically, some groups of Christian conspiracy Theorists (And Muslim if you look hard enough) have realized that with the expanse of the universe, it's becoming common sense that extraterrestrial life somewhere has to exist. So instead of continuing to claim aliens can't exist because the bible says so.

Try to think of a loose combination of Demonic possession, alien abductions, and "Evul Scientists trying to convince us God doesn't exist with fake evidence" if my explanation is shit.--174.25.43.47 (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I suspect this is just a limitation in language (and the fact that I'm tired), but - please explain your original point once more for me. You're saying, like (for example) I am, that it's likely that a growth of the alien phenomena is because the demon phenomena has been faded out at the same pace? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

If you're tired, that makes two of us (That and english isnt my first language) but basically... Aliens can't exist because bible says so. Since the vastness of space makes it common sense that theres some form of life SOMEWHERE besides here, Christians went from saying "aliens don't exist and are an idea created by scientists to turn us away from God" to "Scientists and us alike are being tricked into thinking aliens exist by demons disguising as them to deconvert us". That, or the evil scientists are working with them. Take your pick.

Google "Aliens are Demons in disguise" if you still don't understand.--174.25.43.47 (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I gotta tell you, I'm still not sure if this is the opinion that you hold, or if you're just pointing out that crazy people hold this opinion. But it's certainly very on-mission, we love covering this type of nutty fringe stuff. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not an opinion I hold, however, I've watched a few videos about the topic. I have no idea how I can incorporate it into the article with any degree of readability, however, because my writing is pretty godawful.--174.25.43.47 (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Here we are. Makes David Icke look almost sane [1] .--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Godwin's Law invoked in almost no time at all, also. Nuttery like that makes me depressed. Scherben (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

(reset) What about 'Quatermass and the Pit'? 31.49.137.168 (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Or 'The Monsters from the Id' (Forbidden Planet) 31.51.113.64 (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Woking

How come there is no mention of the place when it has a genuine statue of an alien [2])? 31.49.137.168 (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Here is a Wikimedia commons picture [3]. Anna Livia (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

For Any Aliens Reading This

Our planet is pronounced "erth", not "e-arth". Also, don't worry about invading us. We should be gone soon. -Bigljbigl (talk/stalk) 23:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Merge

Why don't we merge the history of this page and its improperly-spelled brother, extraterrestial? The other one has been transformed into a redirect, and it seems a shame to strand the article history there. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 16:01, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Alien invasions

How come there is never an alien invasion when it would be #really, really, useful#? Anna Livia (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Disproving the aliens

Where would it be appropriate to add [4]? Anna Livia (talk) 10:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Another disproof

None of the supposed aliens ever says 'Take me to your leader.' Anna Livia (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe they're anarchists? --Scherben (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

A comment from a TV show

(Korean drama Stranger) The narrator character asked if he believes in aliens, says yes, and when asked why says it would otherwise be a waste of Space. Anna Livia (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

He didn't consider that nearly everything is just empty space? Even ourselves? --Scherben (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Alien radios

Any conspiracies about this topic yet? Anna Livia (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracies? Not that I'm aware of. Since there's not yet a reasonable scientific explanation, there's just people saying "it's aliens" without substantiation. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

As there are a number of them and they are 'regular' logically they are a natural, non-intelligence-created phenomenon - but RWians can observe the evolution of any 'odd theories' relating to the subject. Anna Livia (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The logic "x is regular, there is more than 1 of x, x is natural" doesn't hold. Blinking lights on radio towers, for example. Natural causes are the thus-far only valid explanation for previously unexplained, now explained astronomical phenomena, but the strict logic you're laying out isn't consistent with real examples of artificial phenomena. We should have a substantiated physical theory before we start concluding with certainty. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 03:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

As they all occurred at roughly the same period in the history of the universe and seem to be of 'the same kind' while widely dispersed, and given that pulsars were initially thought to be of sentient origin but turned out to be natural, there is a reasonable chance that these phenomena are 'natural' in origin. (But 'we are of natural origin.') If they were more dispersed in time then the possibility of 'high-technologic stage organic and/or constructed life intervention' might well increase (with 'the rules of science' leading to the same Doomsday Weapon being created by various routes.) 'Something involving a number of the first galaxies of a particular type to evolve reaching the ends of their lifespans' is probably slightly more plausible (as a non-astrophysicist). Anna Livia (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

If FRBs are artificial, I'll walk around Rationalwiki naked, and make you all sick. --Scherben (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

How would you be observed on RW?

Have there been any developments on the subject?

The trick is in knowing when 'natural phenomena didit' and when 'sentient entities (whether or not we would recognise them as such) didit' is the logical starting point. Anna Livia (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)