Home
In response to my previous post, some noted that if another planet of humans had terraformed our own Earth for their future use, millions of years ago, they made a big mistake because Earth got populated by people who evolved here before they could use it.

To that I say once again you make the mistake of assuming Earth is special. If we had the technology to terraform planets, and the predicted need, we wouldn't take a chance on just one other planet. We'd spray a thousand probes into space all searching for their own planets to seed. Then when the time came, millions of years later, we'd colonize whichever one came out best, pushing aside any prehuman species that got in the way.

Therefore, if Earth was seeded for life by earlier humans, there is actually a very small chance they would choose Earth as one of the new planets they colonized. And that might be especially true if we evolved and populated the planet with humans before they had need for this planet.


 
Rank Up Rank Down Votes:  +3
  • Print
  • Share
  • Share:

Comments

Sort By:
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 14, 2009
You get the time peridos wrong -- according to everything known at the moment, the time was "just right" to have the life on Earth. You see, after the big bang there were no heavier elements. Had Solar system formed earler it wouldn't have the heavier elements and there would be no life. To produce heavier elements the stars of earlier generations had to die to produce them! That was what took 8 billion years, and then Earth got formed 4.5 billion years ago, the life started to develop only half a billon years later. It took 4 billion years from the first life forms to what we have now. There was no time to do all that more times either here or on other places of the Universe we know. An average planet in the Universe is only 1/4th of the Earth's life older than the Earth. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0012399
 
 
Feb 11, 2009
Unless of course, Scott, they did not have the resources or the means to terraform thousands of worlds. What if they had only enough resrouces to terraform a handful, if not one?
 
 
Feb 10, 2009
Um, what are the chances that a terraformed planet just happened to evolve the same species (humans) that terraformed it? Either the terraforming process included something to cause the evolution of humans (in which case evolution is NOT due to random mutations after all), or the terraformers were not humans. Or we're not humans. Take your pick.
 
 
Feb 9, 2009
maybe that explanation explains UFOs. if aliens did terraform this planet (and possibly others) for their own life, theyd be remiss to not come and check up on it every so often.
 
 
Feb 9, 2009
Humans probably are aliens.
In reality, there are only finite set of souls. Some are morphed as trees or insects or bacteria or humans.
When one goes down the same soul comes out in a different form which is not necessarily good.
Take for instance. When a beautiful forest goes down the trees are replaced with humans and obviously bacterias. So most likely sum of trees birds insect souls = sum of humans bacteria virus.
So we get to chose how the world looks like.
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 9, 2009
reminds me of a joke

A scientists says to God "I have aquired the knowledge to create life from basic elements."
God says, "wow, cool, show Me"
The scientist bends down to scoop up some soil and God says "whoa fella, use your OWN dirt."
 
 
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 9, 2009
So maybe crop circles are the alien way of marking territory. Maybe the dogs are howling with laughter.
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 8, 2009
What you need to terraform a planet: (1) bacteria; or (2) nanobots. You can stick either of them into asteroids or comets and fire them off in all directions. In fact, the panspermists believe that Nature can do this simply by bombarding colonized planets with asteroids at oblique angles.
 
 
Feb 8, 2009
OK, but by that logic the terraformers are not likely to be humans. They just need to be a species that can thrive in Earth's environment.

 
 
Feb 8, 2009
Scott,

I don't buy the notion that a creator-species capable of technological advancements you describe would create and destroy inhabitants that evolved in their "garden". I don't think the creator-species would allow a weed species to form in the first place - if that was important. It assumes that the creator-species would not have advancements in spirituality. I don't think technological advancements are sustained without spiritual advancements. It makes sense that humans didn't evolve from apes and we were placed here by or as the other species in the scenario that you describe. The creator-species would inject some aspect of free-will into the newly terraformed planet, which doesn't support the idea that genocide would be performed to make room for the creator's species.

Your scenario plays on the fears that God (or a creator) has some agenda. God doesn't care; he has no need to be met.
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 8, 2009
I love the concept, but it seems like a big assumption that humans are the driving species instead of an unwanted byproduct. The Jellyfish Overloards are already here humping themselves back to adolecence indefinately. Once they grow to the size of house and start walking on land, were all going to be on the wrong end of billions of stingers.
 
 
Feb 8, 2009
Scott,
Been an avid follower of your work for years.
still like God's debris the best.

Just wondering your take on an issue

If a guy predicted the stock market crash on sept last year down to the day several months in advance I'll say he's 1/365 lucky.

If he predicts the same for the 9th of February (also several months in advance) and he is right the second time what the h*ll am I supposed think?

And he ties it into some catholic Davinci code mumbo-jumbo called Legatus.

I hope come the 9th this post makes me look like a fool.
else, I'll like2know what u think.
 
 
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 8, 2009
For those without imagination. What do you think the burning bush in the old testament was? God or a UFO.
 
 
Feb 8, 2009
This is founded on some well-known misconceptions:

(1) It is far from obvious that other planets have life. The usual argument is that there are a hundred billion galaxies each with a hundred billion stars, most of which have planets, so with many billion billion planets around it only needs a tiny chance for life to start on any given planet for the universe to be teeming with life. But the chance may be incredibly tiny. There are respectable arguments by Fred Hoyle (the greatest ever astrophysicist by far) and by Freeman Dyson (a first rate physicist) that the chance is so incredibly small that it is a complete mystery how it managed to get started here on earth.

(2) there is a timing and travel-time problem. Getting from one star to another is a real pain and takes forever. Useful communication is essentially impossible (a phone call with a years or worse wait for each response) . Ah, but wormholes or whatever! That is moonshine. There is zero evidence that they are theoretically viable, let alone actually exist.
 
 
Feb 7, 2009
It is really funny that I read this while I am watching Serenity. So, note to future selves, if you terraform, no drugs to calm the population... And since I watched Battlestar Gallactica earlier today, future selves, no cylons either.
 
 
Feb 7, 2009
Scott my main man,

I'm thinking its time for some tequila shots. Or am I too late???
 
 
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 7, 2009
Unless the terraformers DID live here until they blew themselves and their entire civilization back beyond the Stone Age to protozoa.
 
 
Feb 7, 2009
@Aardwizz : the idea that the overlords are reptilian is pretty stupid. evolutionarily, WAY before cognitive thought comes the mammalian brain. reptiles can't think, let alone feel sad, happy, angry, or disgusted. the reptile brain only processes pain and pleasure. that brain is in birds, fish, all chordates except mammals.

if there was a master reptile that developed from evolution, it would start with the mammalian brain, and the mamalian brain is a survival advantage which would be passed on to current reptiles.

i find it hard to believe that ANY other planet's evolution would turn out different from out own. the conditions that brought about brain growth were complexities in survival conditions (disaster induced winter, earthquakes), which brought about the mammalian brain with stored emotional responses/memories. this is the first building block of learning (besides say muscle memory).

technology would not come before the mammalian brain. it would take a planet of serious size to allow evolution to progress that long uninterupted. this means you wouldn't have planets with funny gravity or covered in water advancing past lower life forms, until they had necessary changes to spur progress.

in the end, everyone alien would look exactly like us. aliens look like asians with overdeveloped brains and underdeveloped bodies.

@scott adams: its a little presumptuous to think that humans are the end product, why not another million years after asians take over the planet, develop spaceships and get grey skin? china is looking to gain a lot of power here soon. china islam would be a crazy strong combo. if i see an alien, i will ask him if he worships allah. religion is a very strong way to keep people in line. the future will need that.
 
 
Feb 7, 2009
Your idea about transforming is quite astute...perhaps the intelligent lifeforms also included us in the terraforming program. Our drive to live and shape our world may not be an accident, perhaps we are in the process of finishing the terraforming process for our creators. Something like the concept put forward in Douglas Adam's The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
 
 
Feb 7, 2009
By that logic, Scott, it's equally likely that the Grand Terraformers terrafored the planet for their reptilian needs, but something went wrong, and the dinosaurs they left here died out, and we popped up instead..

Similarlyl, they might be on their way, being ready to push US aside. Get Will Smith!!!
 
 
 
Get the new Dilbert app!
Old Dilbert Blog