Colonization Of The Stars And Contact With Aliens: The Last False Hope Of The Secularists

http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/i...2&art_id=31576


We're Hardly Alone in the Universe


7/5/2006


by Mark P. Shea

Bible Study and Truth Tracts Author





One thing I have discovered (to my surprise) is how shocked some folks
get when I express my opinion that we humans are never getting off the
earth in any serious way.


We're Staying Right Here on Earth

Oh sure, we might get a couple of people to Mars to walk around. Maybe
a long-term space station with more than a handful of astronauts in
near-Earth orbit. Maaaaaaaybe a moon station. But we're never, I think,
going to colonize the planets. And we're most emphatically never going
to go to another star. This earth is pretty much it. We must learn to
face the fact that the frontier period is past and we ain't going
anywhere.

These are not, by the way, religious opinions. They are opinions based,
not on my theological views, but on cold, practical considerations
about things like "what it takes to get there." I'll be willing to
change my opinion when we establish a thriving metropolis in
Antarctica, which is infinitely easier than establishing a serious,
self-supporting colony on Mars or the Moon.

Rare Earth

Similarly, to devotees of SETI and the quest for extraterrestrial life,
I say my mind is strongly persuaded by a book called Rare Earth that
the assumption of a densely populated cosmos is all wet and that
intelligent (or even multicellular) life is a lot rarer than you'd
think from watching Star Trek. In short, I think that we are, for all
practical purposes, all alone. If there's somebody out there, we'll
never know it, because the odds are that intelligent physical life is
so remote from us - if it exists at all - that we can't hear it if
it is broadcasting electromagnetic signals.

Again, I say this not due to my theological views, but because the
science is on my side. As Rare Earth demonstrates, over 20 factors all
have to line up just so in order to even have a shot at intelligent
life arising on a planet. The odds against all those factors working
out with such fine tuning are extremely slight. So the odds of life
existing in most of our galaxy are likewise extremely slight. Indeed,
the vast majority of stars in the Milky Way cannot have inhabitable
planets, since they are concentrated in the center, where stellar
radiation makes the chemical conditions of life impossible.

Secular Eschatology

Why this digression on science? Because while my views are not
theological, what I discover is that the faith in ET and our eventual
trek to the stars is deeply theological with many people. Very typical
of what I mean is the remark made to me by a friend a few years ago:
"As thought experiments go, speculation about extraterrestrials have
been (for me, anyway) a devotional exercise." And not just for him.
Note this weirdly eucharistic anecdote about science fiction writer Kim
Stanley Robinson from the Chicago Tribune:

In the middle of writing Blue Mars, [Robinson] recalled, he took a
small Martian meteorite he had purchased from a dealer and climbed to
the roof of his home. At sunset, he popped the tiny stone into his
mouth and swallowed it, hoping that having a piece of Mars inside him
would enhance his creative process.

Communing with the Real Presence of our Great God and Savior, Mars
Ares. Nope. Nothing religious going on here.

This is why the longer I live, the more persuaded I become that aliens
fill, in a secular age, the imaginative and emotional niche that was
once occupied by angels and demons just as Our Destiny in Space fills
what used to be the Christian hope of our Destiny in Heaven. It is, I
think, a profound illustration of the fact that our hearts are
God-shaped vacuums, sucking in whatever comes to hand in the search for
God or His nearest approximation.

Hope or Despair?

Some will argue that Christians "fear" the notion of contact with ET
because it will definitively remove us from our "privileged" position
as children of God and show that we are but one of many intelligent
species throughout the cosmos. But this simply goes to prove my point
about the way in which angels and demons have receded from popular
imagination and left a void. For the trouble with this criticism is
that the Christian revelation already tells us there are myriad
intelligent beings throughout Creation. That is, after all, what angels
and demons are. So I see no reason that finding ET should trouble us as
Christians. I merely think that there is plenty of scientific - not
theological - reason to think that such biological creatures will
never be found.

Colonization of the stars and contact with ET (sort of) fills the void
left by modernity's abandonment of the true eschatological hope of the
return of Christ. Sooner or later, it will become evident to
secularists that this hope is as chimerical as the Marxist hope of the
Withering Away of the State. I wonder whether that will prompt a return
to Christian hope or simply lead to final despair?





Mark Shea is Senior Content Editor for Catholic Exchange and a weekly
columnist for the National Catholic Register. You may visit his website
at www.mark-shea.com check out his blog, Catholic and Enjoying It!, or
purchase his books and tapes here.

Sound of Trumpet wrote:
One thing I have discovered (to my surprise) is how shocked some folks
get when I express my opinion that we humans are never getting off the
earth in any serious way.


We're Staying Right Here on Earth

Oh sure, we might get a couple of people to Mars to walk around. Maybe
a long-term space station with more than a handful of astronauts in
near-Earth orbit. Maaaaaaaybe a moon station. But we're never, I think,
going to colonize the planets. And we're most emphatically never going
to go to another star. This earth is pretty much it. We must learn to
face the fact that the frontier period is past and we ain't going
anywhere.

I suppose as you presumably agree with Intelligent Design you would
consider a Von Neumann machine impossible. That is a necessary (and
largely sufficient) condition that has to be met before space is
colonized.

BTW - Do Evangelical Christians have any definte views on IKEA and
robotic flatpack assembly. - A vital first step.

These are not, by the way, religious opinions. They are opinions based,
not on my theological views, but on cold, practical considerations
about things like "what it takes to get there." I'll be willing to
change my opinion when we establish a thriving metropolis in
Antarctica, which is infinitely easier than establishing a serious,
self-supporting colony on Mars or the Moon.


Thety are based on ID and on the impossibilty of us achieving self
replication. Of couse VN will be intelligently designed - BY US!

Rare Earth

Similarly, to devotees of SETI and the quest for extraterrestrial life,
I say my mind is strongly persuaded by a book called Rare Earth that
the assumption of a densely populated cosmos is all wet and that
intelligent (or even multicellular) life is a lot rarer than you'd
think from watching Star Trek. In short, I think that we are, for all
practical purposes, all alone. If there's somebody out there, we'll
never know it, because the odds are that intelligent physical life is
so remote from us - if it exists at all - that we can't hear it if
it is broadcasting electromagnetic signals.

Again, I say this not due to my theological views, but because the
science is on my side. As Rare Earth demonstrates, over 20 factors all
have to line up just so in order to even have a shot at intelligent
life arising on a planet. The odds against all those factors working
out with such fine tuning are extremely slight. So the odds of life
existing in most of our galaxy are likewise extremely slight. Indeed,
the vast majority of stars in the Milky Way cannot have inhabitable
planets, since they are concentrated in the center, where stellar
radiation makes the chemical conditions of life impossible.

Secular Eschatology


I don't believe it is. Science tells us - my pet subject is AI as you
probably all know, that a UFO visit to Earth is virtually impossible.
Not for any reasons that it is inherently impossible, but because of
the way in which our science and technology is advancing. Not for
reasons that Earth is rare. It may be, but we do not know for sure. My
stock reply to UFO buffs is now "!puerde lectar en espagnol!" This
simply means that AI (their's) is doing the postings - in all
languages.

Is SETI a waste of time? It probably is, but again for different
reasons. If ET REALLY wanted to communicate with us he would find a way
of doing so. If he did not he would make damn sure that powerful
encryption was used and we saw only a noise signal.

Why this digression on science? Because while my views are not
theological, what I discover is that the faith in ET and our eventual
trek to the stars is deeply theological with many people. Very typical
of what I mean is the remark made to me by a friend a few years ago:
"As thought experiments go, speculation about extraterrestrials have
been (for me, anyway) a devotional exercise." And not just for him.
Note this weirdly eucharistic anecdote about science fiction writer Kim
Stanley Robinson from the Chicago Tribune:

In the middle of writing Blue Mars, [Robinson] recalled, he took a
small Martian meteorite he had purchased from a dealer and climbed to
the roof of his home. At sunset, he popped the tiny stone into his
mouth and swallowed it, hoping that having a piece of Mars inside him
would enhance his creative process.

From a religious perspective the absence of life is a rather mixed
result. God has created a Universe of (at least) 80 G Parsecs with life
only on one planet. What a waste! If we colonized, the earth being
4.55e9 years old means that we might have a comperable period ahead of
us. That is if we are not silly. We will certainly send VN probes
throughout the Galaxy.


Some will argue that Christians "fear" the notion of contact with ET
because it will definitively remove us from our "privileged" position
as children of God and show that we are but one of many intelligent
species throughout the cosmos. But this simply goes to prove my point
about the way in which angels and demons have receded from popular
imagination and left a void. For the trouble with this criticism is
that the Christian revelation already tells us there are myriad
intelligent beings throughout Creation. That is, after all, what angels
and demons are. So I see no reason that finding ET should trouble us as
Christians. I merely think that there is plenty of scientific - not
theological - reason to think that such biological creatures will
never be found.

Colonization of the stars and contact with ET (sort of) fills the void
left by modernity's abandonment of the true eschatological hope of the
return of Christ. Sooner or later, it will become evident to
secularists that this hope is as chimerical as the Marxist hope of the
Withering Away of the State. I wonder whether that will prompt a return
to Christian hope or simply lead to final despair?

No, SETI is not done from any secularist stand-point. It is done as a
help to understanding the Universe in which we live.


- Ian Parker

In article . com,
wrote:

I suppose as you presumably agree with Intelligent Design you would
consider a Von Neumann machine impossible. That is a necessary (and
largely sufficient) condition that has to be met before space is
colonized.

No, Ian, it's not. Space can be colonized just fine without any Von
Neumann machines (and I sincerely hope it would be -- even if such
technology is developed, it should probably be banned, or at least
tightly regulated).

Is SETI a waste of time? It probably is, but again for different
reasons. If ET REALLY wanted to communicate with us he would find a way
of doing so. If he did not he would make damn sure that powerful
encryption was used and we saw only a noise signal.

I agree with this. When and if ET wants to talk to us, it's unlikely to
be subtle.

Joe Strout wrote:
I suppose as you presumably agree with Intelligent Design you would
consider a Von Neumann machine impossible. That is a necessary (and
largely sufficient) condition that has to be met before space is
colonized.

No, Ian, it's not. Space can be colonized just fine without any Von
Neumann machines (and I sincerely hope it would be -- even if such
technology is developed, it should probably be banned, or at least
tightly regulated).

I am talking about MEANINGFUL colonization. Not just a few people
living in expedition conditions. We also ought to look at timescales.
10 years for IKEA. If you have CAD/CAM specification true VN is not far
away.

The question of Intelligent Design is in itself interesting. "Religion
is the opiate of the people" proclaims Marx. Yet Marxism has at its
core a belief in ID. "Only workers can create value". This to me
precudes a VN machine and constitutes an ID statement. If chemicals
came together 3.8 billion years ago and created a closed loop we can
create a closed loop now (in fact all that is required for a closed
loop is CAD/CAM). I would be interested to know how ateism views Marx.
Is he totally repudiated? - As he should be.

The basic igredient for interstellar travel (assuming that warp drive
is impossible - as I personally believe it to be) is a system of phased
lasers propelling a spacecraft with a sail.

One further point about ET. People are taking of memory cubes by 2020.
Perhaps optimistic, but molecular memory the size of a sperm contains
4GB (a DVD). Clearly GENUINE flying saucers could be very small. This
is why antimatter is a perfectly feasible method of braking.


- Ian Parker

In article .com,
wrote:

No, Ian, it's not. Space can be colonized just fine without any Von
Neumann machines (and I sincerely hope it would be -- even if such
technology is developed, it should probably be banned, or at least
tightly regulated).

I am talking about MEANINGFUL colonization. Not just a few people
living in expedition conditions.

Me too.

We also ought to look at timescales.
10 years for IKEA. If you have CAD/CAM specification true VN is not far
away.

I respectfully disagree. Have you looked at the size of chip factories
lately?

The question of Intelligent Design is in itself interesting. "Religion
is the opiate of the people" proclaims Marx. Yet Marxism has at its
core a belief in ID. "Only workers can create value".

That's a nice non-sequitur. An economic statement has nothing to do
with religious beliefs.

This to me precudes a VN machine and constitutes an ID statement.

You have a very strange outlook, then. Marx was quite right: value
is created by the efforts of workers (including workers who build and
maintain machines, of course). This in no way, shape, or form implies a
belief that the universe was created by an intelligent designer.

I would be interested to know how ateism views Marx.
Is he totally repudiated? - As he should be.

Who or what is ateism?

The basic igredient for interstellar travel (assuming that warp drive
is impossible - as I personally believe it to be) is a system of phased
lasers propelling a spacecraft with a sail.

That's one way, but I hardly think it's the only way. I think fusion
rockets, using hydrogen (plentiful in the Oort cloud) as both fuel and
reaction mass, are more likely, as they're far more flexible. In a few
thousand years we're going to have people zipping around in our own Oort
cloud with such machines anyway; sooner or later somebody will get the
itch to go just a little bit further to Centauri's Oort cloud, and
presto, interstellar colonization has begun. Come back in a few hundred
million years, and humanity (and its descendants) have spread throughout
the galaxy.

One further point about ET. People are taking of memory cubes by 2020.
Perhaps optimistic, but molecular memory the size of a sperm contains
4GB (a DVD). Clearly GENUINE flying saucers could be very small. This
is why antimatter is a perfectly feasible method of braking.

Ah yes, but when you consider that there are over a million different
species of insects, it's obvious that Mike Combs loves pizza.

Best,
- Joe

Joe Strout wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

The question of Intelligent Design is in itself interesting. "Religion
is the opiate of the people" proclaims Marx. Yet Marxism has at its
core a belief in ID. "Only workers can create value".

That's a nice non-sequitur. An economic statement has nothing to do
with religious beliefs.

It may well be true that this statement of Marx has nothing to do with
Intelligent Design...

This to me precudes a VN machine and constitutes an ID statement.

You have a very strange outlook, then. Marx was quite right: value
is created by the efforts of workers (including workers who build and
maintain machines, of course). This in no way, shape, or form implies a
belief that the universe was created by an intelligent designer.

But Marx was still wrong. Of course workers do create value. But it
isn't *only* workers who create value. Raw materials have value.
Capital - tools, facilities - have value. They make it more efficient
for workers to create value, so they're worth something too.

What Marx was going on about was that since only workers *spend* the
money they're paid right away, if some of the money paid for goods and
services goes to the owners of natural resources or factories, then
there isn't enough purchasing power in the hands of consumers to buy
the things produced. This was the theory of surplus value.

The pros and cons of which I won't get into, this being far enough OT
as it is.

John Savard

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:44:22 -0700, in a place far, far away, Joe
Strout made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

In article .com,
wrote:

No, Ian, it's not. Space can be colonized just fine without any Von
Neumann machines (and I sincerely hope it would be -- even if such
technology is developed, it should probably be banned, or at least
tightly regulated).

I am talking about MEANINGFUL colonization. Not just a few people
living in expedition conditions.

Me too.

We also ought to look at timescales.
10 years for IKEA. If you have CAD/CAM specification true VN is not far
away.

I respectfully disagree.

Why would you have any respect for ianparker?

Joe Strout wrote:

We also ought to look at timescales.
10 years for IKEA. If you have CAD/CAM specification true VN is not far
away.

I respectfully disagree. Have you looked at the size of chip factories
lately?

This is a good point. However we may not start off with a complete VN
machine. We may well send chips to the Moon even if we don't have to
send anything else.

There is one other thing which will probably be kept on Earth - At any
rate until there is interstellar travel and that is the basic genome.


- Ian Parker

Joe Strout wrote:

:You have a very strange outlook, then. Marx was quite right: value
:is created by the efforts of workers (including workers who build and
:maintain machines, of course).

No, Marx was quite wrong. Even Marx knew it by the time he died.

'Value' is essentially a market fiction that wanders around with
supply and demand. The expenditure of labour has nothing to do with
'value'.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

On 18 Jan 2007 14:31:19 -0800, wrote:


Joe Strout wrote:
I suppose as you presumably agree with Intelligent Design you would
consider a Von Neumann machine impossible. That is a necessary (and
largely sufficient) condition that has to be met before space is
colonized.

No, Ian, it's not. Space can be colonized just fine without any Von
Neumann machines (and I sincerely hope it would be -- even if such
technology is developed, it should probably be banned, or at least
tightly regulated).

I am talking about MEANINGFUL colonization. Not just a few people
living in expedition conditions. We also ought to look at timescales.
10 years for IKEA. If you have CAD/CAM specification true VN is not far
away.

The question of Intelligent Design is in itself interesting. "Religion
is the opiate of the people" proclaims Marx. Yet Marxism has at its
core a belief in ID. "Only workers can create value". This to me
precudes a VN machine and constitutes an ID statement.

My goodness what an inane interpretation of an already kind of silly
statement. Value only exists when there are people to buy and sell
whatever it applies to.