60% Of U.S. Believe Life Exists On Other Planets 943
jangobongo writes "Does intelligent life exist anywhere besides Earth? Are regular churchgoers less likely to believe life has evolved on other planets? Do more Democrats or Republicans believe in extraterrestrials? And if alien life makes contact, what should we do? These questions were asked on a poll released last week that shows that two-thirds of Americans do believe that life exists on other planets, and of that group, 90% say if we receive a message from another planet we should reply. The poll was commissioned by the SETI Institute and the National Geographic Channel."
Survey says, (Score:5, Insightful)
Q. Do you believe UFOs exist?
A. Yes. (Well duh, anything we see in the sky but can't immediately identify is a UFO. Was I supposed to answer 'No'?)
Q. Do you believe aliens exist?
A. Yes. (With billions of galaxies each containing billions of stars, it's a pretty safe guess that somewhere out there is another planet with life.)
As a result, I'm recorded as just one more nut-job who believes that little green men are abducting our sheep. That particular survey was merely incompetent. Much more entertaining results can be obtained from surveys which are actively rigged.
In this SETI-National Geographic poll they appeared to have asked people if they thought that life exists somewhere out there. They got a 60% yes. It would have been interesting to ask half of those people if they thought that we are the only life in the universe. My guess is that those opposite questions when added up wouldn't even come close to 100%.
Re:Survey says, (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Survey says, (Score:4, Insightful)
there is life on earth outside of America.
--
Have a Pheasant Plucking day!
Re: Aliens quote.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Survey says, (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Survey says, (Score:5, Funny)
Hope you're dumping lots of money into an IRA, kids. You'll thank yourselves later.
Re:Survey says, (Score:5, Funny)
Remember, only the Sith deal in absolutes
Re:Survey says, (Score:3, Interesting)
and when they raid your IRA, what then??? people in the UK have completely lost faith in the pensions industry and the Labour government doing a raid (hitting them with a "Windfall Tax") on the pensions funds didn't do anyone any favours either...
Re:Survey says, (Score:3)
Re:Survey says, (Score:3, Insightful)
frank drake (Score:3, Informative)
Re:frank drake (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep. Too bad it's so often abused [crichton-official.com] by people who call the abuse "science." Crichton quote:
This serious-looking equation gave SETI an serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we're clear-are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be "informed guesses." If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It's simply prejudice.
As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion.
I can't disagree.
Re:frank drake (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's an appropriate scene (Score:5, Insightful)
Sir Humphrey: "You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Oh...well, I suppose I might be."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes or no?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one."
Bernard Woolley: "Is that really what they do?"
Sir Humphrey: "Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result."
Bernard Woolley: "How?"
Sir Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample."
Re:Survey says, (Score:3, Insightful)
And where
And where
Re:Survey says, (Score:3, Interesting)
Angels
Christian theology (as in walking on water.)
God
Aliens
Bible
Witches (that can use magic to do thins)
As far as I can tell they are all beliefs people hold without reasonable levels of proof. What in your mind separates these things?
Re:Survey says, (Score:3, Insightful)
In other galactic news.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In other galactic news.. (Score:2)
Re:In other galactic news.. (Score:3, Insightful)
They've also been subjected to 40 years of soap operas. We've already seen the brain damage they can inflict on native species here on earth - it would be ironic if aliens find our trash entertainment so offensive they decide to remove the whole damn planet to make room for a hypers
Re:In other galactic news.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:In other galactic news.. (Score:2)
Re:In other galactic news.. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:In other galactic news.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In other galactic news.. (Score:3, Funny)
Vox populi vox dei (Score:2)
Mandatory Python quote (Score:2, Funny)
May I have your liver then?
Re:Mandatory Python quote (Score:2)
Always look on the bright side of life
More polls (Score:3, Funny)
Re:More polls (Score:5, Funny)
Or at the very least that it should be, and will be as soon as they find oil there.
This will probably get modded down. Hint to mods: it's funny, laugh.
Re:More polls (Score:3, Insightful)
Or at the very least that it should be, and will be as soon as they find oil there.
I hope that's Funny, but I fear it's more Insightful.
GP is right. (Score:5, Interesting)
No one is threatening the rights of Christian Americans by summarily imprisioning them; the same can't be said for those of the Muslim faith in America. Don't give me the crap about the new rise of secularists in America; take a good hard look at the US Senate/House (Hint: what state is the Senate majority leader from?) and who has more sway there before you start spouting random rebuttals about prayer in schools/pledge of allegiance. After that, think hard about those new evolution stickers.
Besides, there's no need to make fun of Muslims when there's already deep-seated hatred in this country of people from the Middle East who aren't Israeli. In short, it's very different to make fun of a persecuted minority vs. a dominant majority with powerful lobbysts.
Re:More polls (Score:3, Interesting)
You keep using that word [Wiccan].
It doesn't mean what I think you must think it means.
Re:More polls (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, life is certainly a lot more interesting thinking that magic, esp, ufos, auras, etc are real..
that doesn't make it so though, sorry.
On topic BTW, if anyone has vivid evidence of aliens, that does not involve hypnosis therapy, and other hocus pocus, please forward the info.
Re:Yes, but.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yes, but.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because someone's reason for believing something isn't enough to convince you, doesn't mean it isn't enough to convince them. Whether their reason for believing it is a book they read or a personal experience they've had or mountains of scientific data, it's still a reason that they have for believing it.
Re:Yes, but.. (Score:3, Insightful)
In order to have intelligent life on a planet, the conditions needed for life to develop must be met. One of these is the right temperature range. Because the laws of physics appear to operate uniformly throughout the Universe as far as we have observed until now, the only physical life allowed must be based on carbon, just like life on Earth. It is no accident that the internal temperature of warm blooded creatures is in the narrow range it
Re:Yes, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm confused about how people seem to believe that "the conditions for life have to be equal to the conditions we've had here that might've lead to springing earths' life" as if there is just one magic mix for life which earth coïncidentally had. You just gave a definition of planet earth.
It's a bit of a limited observation in my view; what if life could have another "life form"? We cannot perceive that cause our brains aren't able to visualize that; all we know is our planet and how things work around here. Everything is based on the influence and have evolved to the conditions in our solarsystem/planet.
eg. our eyes pick up light; their use and evolution depends on a sun providing the ability to pick up a certain range of the spectrum of light which we use as orientation. Why would that be equal across the universe -if there would be another lifeform? (even on our puny planet we already have differences in the way creatures 'see'.) Without our type of gravity, why would one evolve into having legs or needing to walk? Earth is made for 75% out of water, no wonder our life has 'sprung from water'. Does that mean that life only can come forth out of water? Noone knows, but I think it's very likely there's life somewhere in our universe in a form we cannot comprehend.
Re:Yes, but.. (Score:3, Funny)
I was talking about PHYSICAL life forms, limited to the laws of physics. These laws appear to operate uniformly throughout the known universe. The SETI project is endeavoring to find electromagnetic signals from some sort of intelligent life form. Electromagnetic signals are physical means of communication that have severe limitations for communications across the vast gulf of intergalactic space. Any physical life
Solaris (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a anthropocentric prejudice, similar to thinking that Earth is the center of the universe (isn't it obvious?). Also your phrase "Because the laws of physics appear to operate uniformly throughout the Universe as far as we have observed until now, the only physical life allowed must be based on carbon, just like life on Earth" is more a guess than an established fact.
Have you s
Re:Yes, but.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Kinda makes you wonder the benefits of democracy, now doesn't it?
Re:Yes, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bugger Off!
The purpose of democracy is not to be infallible, omniscient or omnipotent. No one ever envisioned that it would usher in a utopia or paradise or terrestrial heaven. But what it was meant to do it does very well. Democracy has given humans the greatest amount of self-rule and self-determination ever in history.
Those of you who want to take away democracy just because your candidate lost an election can kiss my hairy ass!
Re:Yes, but.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Yes, but.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Democracy lets majority take advantage of the minority. It lets large, organized groups plunder smaller, less organized groups through theft and redistribution. My views have never been represented by my "democratic representatives", so I fail to see how it has given me any self-rule or self-determination.
Rather, what little self-rule and determination I have left exists in spite of what politicans 1000 ki
Re:Yes, but.. (Score:5, Interesting)
What's truly weird is how so many of us delude ourselves into believing that we live in democracies (ie. rule of the people) simply because we hold elections. The main function of an election is not to give the people a voice, but to periodically renew the governmental entity (congress, parliament, legislature, judiciary, whatever). It's a way of cleaning out the old and bringing in the new -- but it's always the same political parties in roughly the same mixture.
Even here in Canada, in one election we wiped the Progressive Conservative party off the electoral map in 1993. But all of the Progressive Conservative policies remained intact (the GST, Free Trade, the public service cuts, low inflation policy, etc. etc). Elected governments rarely contradict or rescind the policies of the previous government. In Canada and the US after a legislative election, generally 80% to 90% of the incumbents win.
Which is good for the people in power. It gives the illusion of listening to the voice of the people but doesn't disrupt the reign held on power by the parties, corporations and unions. Elections are, in fact, essential to ensuring that the powerful maintain a fresh, strong grip on power.
True democracy is not about giving the people a choice: it's about giving the people a voice. If the powers-that-be simply give people a choice, they limit what power the people have and reserve the real power for themselves.
What would a real democracy look like?
Probably the most genuine democracy would draft their legislators at random (like juries are or mandatory military service) from all walks of life and force them to go to Washington or London or Ottawa and do their duty. Namely, if any laws need to be made, make them -- otherwise, don't. This would solve many problems such as the underrepresentation of minorities and women in government. They could even remain anonymous and we could make it a crime to reveal the identity of a legislator.
Other things that would make democracy less illusionary:
* Give the vote to every citizen above the age of zero (obviously until a child was able to claim the right to vote themselves, their parents would vote for them). In most places, there is no IQ pre-requisite to being an elector and children should have the right to be represented by their government. I suspect if kids could vote (or parents voting for them) education and health care would be a higher priority. If teenagers voted, maybe we'd actually get some movement on the environment. I wonder what promises a politician would make when visiting a high-school campus if the kids there could actually vote...
* Make voting continuous -- not just once every 4 years or whatever. Register our votes and give every citizen the right to change their vote whenever they want to. Thus an incumbent could effectively be recalled any time his/her constituents lose confidence in him/her.
But those are wishy-washy measures. As long as we have any form of voting, we dilute any power vested in the people.
Re:Yes, but.. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's well-known that democracy is the worst form of government (apart from all the other kinds)
Re:Yes, but.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Yes, but.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Yes, but.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Exactly how much evidence do you have to prove that these statements are not true?
I don't believe them either, but I don't really concern myself with people believe things where there really isn't much evidence one way or the other. I'm a lot more worried about people believing things that are provably untrue, like, say, that the Earth is only 6000 years old...
Re:Yes, but.. (Score:3, Insightful)
You should be careful with the word "prove" in all its conjugations. You can only ever prove something in an abstract system, given a set of initial, abstract premises. I can invent plenty of premises in which "the Earth is millions of years old" is untrue. Likewise, I can disagree with any of your premises and honestly not be convinced by your argument.
Like it or not, any "pr
Re:Yes, but.. (Score:3)
Polls, gotta love 'em.
Only 60%? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Only 60%? (Score:2)
Re:Only 60%? (Score:2)
Re:Only 60%? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Only 60%? (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps the other 40% adhere to the principle that Belief gets in the way of learning.
(R.A. Heinlein - "Time Enough for Love")
Re:Only 60%? (Score:5, Interesting)
So, how about Fermi's Paradox?
Re:Only 60%? (Score:5, Insightful)
Beliefs get in the way of science. At least when those beliefs are not grounded in facts.
Re:Only 60%? (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Intelligence, such as it is, has evolved at least once.
2) The Universe is unimaginably huge. Just our own galaxy is vast beyond the ability of humans to even imagine. One of the early Hubble Deep Field studies, looking at one of the darkest places in the sky, saw 40,000 GALAXIES in an area of the sky equivalent to a grain of sand held at arm's length.
Given those two facts, doubting alien intelligence strikes me as profoundly stupid. However, unless it is extremely common (which I doubt), the chances of any of that intelligence being within a distance we could detect is pretty darn small.
The probability of alien intelligence, in other words, is essentially indistinguishable from 1. Given the constraints of lightspeed, however, the chance that we could ever meet and TALK TO such aliens is probably very close to 0.
Based on past experience (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should be be astonished about finding life elsewhere?
Oh Yea? (Score:5, Interesting)
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE
Pretty cool.
-Matt
Re:Oh Yea? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Oh Yea? (Score:2)
Re:Oh Yea? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now there's arrogance for you. Where most cult leaders claim to be the second coming of Christ, this one claims to be the Almighty himself.
Re:Looks like an Iridium Flare (Score:3, Insightful)
No idea what it was. Looked like a balloon from a distance, really. But I'd say not an orbiting satellite of any kind. Looks entirely wrong for that.
The other 40%... (Score:2, Funny)
And 70% believe in angels... (Score:4, Insightful)
60% of US? (Score:2, Insightful)
What percent can prove it? (Score:3, Funny)
What percent of Americans can prove life exists beyond the Earth? Surely, a more interesting statistic.
Re:What percent can prove it? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't anticipate that knowing how many Americans can prove life exists beyond Earth would be particularly interesting at all. (I presume you're excluding any life in human-generated artifacts, particularly those in orbit; and Americans posessing nonconclusive evidence [ie. those involved in studying the potential and/or evidence for present or former microbial life on Mars]? If not, perhaps I'm off by a bit).
Re:What percent can prove it? (Score:3, Informative)
First question for alien intelligence . . . (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:First question for alien intelligence . . . (Score:3, Funny)
Re:First question for alien intelligence . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like us? (Score:5, Insightful)
But really, intelligent I could see. But like us? That just demonstrates a lack of imagination.
Why not? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do Christians not want to believe in aliens? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why do Christians not want to believe in aliens (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why do Christians not want to believe in aliens (Score:5, Insightful)
You're anthropomorphizing. Big mistake.
So it's official! (Score:4, Funny)
Democracy at its finest!
Self Destruction Theory? (Score:2, Interesting)
Isn't there some theory that states that even if we did get a message from an advanced civilization, by the time we could reply they would have already destroyed themselves. In other words, by the time someone gets our messages, we'll have already nuked ourselves.
Americans watch too much Sci-Fi (Score:4, Insightful)
Chances are we're just going to find living martian bacteria in the near future, not just the fossilized remains. I highly doubt we'll find a super-advanced civilization.
We Do The First Thing We Always Do... (Score:2)
We do the first thing we always do: Figure out how to kill it, if necessary.
Then we sign it to a 3-picture deal in Hollywood.
Requires qualification... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) The chances of it being near us or even in our galaxy is not so good.
2) The chance of it existing concurrently with our little blip of time is even smaller.
-matthew
Homocidal Xenophobes Welcome Extraterrestrials (Score:5, Insightful)
just my $.01
Re:Homocidal Xenophobes Welcome Extraterrestrials (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, or some day our technology will advance to the point that we can see in great detail across billions and billions of light years and we'll realize that we're sitting in a vast wasteland, a graveyard, of dead civilizations. All imploding on themselves.
Why is it that we alwasy assume that more "advanced" extraterrestrial life has anything even close to our moral structure? What if other life had Hitlers who won? Or came from environments which were so sparsely populated wi
Obligatory Bill Watterson Quote (Score:5, Funny)
--Calvin, to Hobbes
LIfe? Yes. Intelligent? doubtfull. (Score:3, Interesting)
However, the fact we are pretty late in the 'cosmic timeline' would lead one to think that most intelligent life has long since died out.
But space is vast.. and anything is possible if you use large enough numbers..
Re:LIfe? Yes. Intelligent? doubtfull. (Score:3, Interesting)
Your logic is flawed, and based on comparing the lifespan of "intelligent life" with the lifespan of human life.
Just because we're (self-rated as) the most intelligent, advanced creatures on Earth, does not mean that same scale exists across the entire universe. We could be seen as after-dinner mints to some further advanced race of eating machines. Are we ready
The Problem with Polls (Score:3, Interesting)
First, because I don't believe the very small sample sizes can really fully show an accurate picture of the entire population's feelings. 1,000 out of 250+ million with only a ~3% margin of error? I'm sorry, but no. (I should note that my failure to trust in the accuracy of small sample sizes, no matter how much math you throw at it, made statistics a difficult course for me).
Second, because I think polls are often constructed in such a way where questions manage to get worded so they don't really get after the original intent. I had the opportunity to work as an outside consultant a few years back for an IT build out imitative for a large public university system. As we were developing the guidelines for the build out, the powers that be brought in an polling firm. It turned out developing the questions for the survey became the most difficult and frustrating portion of the entire project. It also became very clear that the polling firm was "modifying" the intent of the questions to fit the agenda of the administration.
For example, the subject came up about putting new computers in computer labs, and the age old debate of "should we buy PCs or Macs" started up (these were non-CS labs, and it was decided by everyone against something like Linux for a number of reasons I don't want to get into).. "Aha, we'll find that out in the poll" says the administration. The question submitted to the polling company was "While in campus computer labs, would you prefer to work on a PC or a Macintosh?" By the time it went through the administration, the question became "While on campus, do you normally use a PC or a Macintosh?" A subtle difference, but important.
When the poll was finally administered, it turns out that the answer to that question reflected the percentage of PCs to Macintoshes currently on the school campuses (about 70% PC, 30% Mac). This is despite the fact that most students I spoke with would much prefer to use the PCs, but often just went to the Macs because the lines were always shorter in the Mac labs. Had the question been asked as it was written, most of us involved with the project expected we'd see more around an 85%-15%.
When I hear about polls that make statements like "60% of Americans believe there is life on other planets", I always wonder what, exactly the question they asked was. Most polls don't say this, but thankfully this one had a link where you could see what the questions actually are. The first question, the big one read:
Do you believe that there is life on other planets in the universe besides earth?
With possible answers of "Yes, No, and I don't know".
Seems pretty straightforward, right? Well, not really. If I had been asked that question, I'd probably end up in the "I don't know" category. To me, the word "believe" implies certainty. I would say that it's highly likely that there is extraterrestrial life, but I really don't know for sure. Had there been an option of "Probably", or if the question was "Do you think it's likely that there is life on other planets in the universe besides Earth", I would have no problem saying yes, and I think the results would be different.
I mean, if someone asked me "Do you believe the 101 Freeway will be congested tomorrow morning during rush hour?" and only give "Yes", "No" and "I don't know" as options, I'd answer I don't know, despite the fact that unless something very major was going on that I didn't know about I'm pretty much sure that the 101 is going to have heavy traffic.
What gets me is I've been polled a few times by telephone, and ended up frustrating the pollsters because they often asked for "yes" or "no" answers to questions that needed better qualification. One I remember well was from a large alcohol company that made rum. After asking me about the fre
But, we've known this... (Score:3, Interesting)
Only more open minds will change things (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is compounded when you still have a few kooks mixed in with the credible people. Anytim
Not a big deal (Score:3, Funny)
This isn't exactly news. Nor is it really news that Iran is ordering its military to shoot them down [unknowncountry.com].
Re:Says something about education? (Score:5, Insightful)
The same reason a lot of people don't believe there is a god. No proof.
Re:Says something about education? (Score:3, Funny)
Funny how so far nobody's hit on the topic of collective intelligences, or hive minds, like termites, so far. Guess we're really into anthropomorphizing everything tonight.
Re:Of course life exists on other planets (Score:3, Insightful)
Now as to the question of if they have visited us or even know we are here. The answer is almost certainly no. People have used alien visitation to try to explain things they don't understand. And it is a handy insurance write off for the cattle ranchers when one of their cows dies.
Of course I'm not convinced that there is intell
Re:Um... No... (Score:4, Interesting)
Suicide is killing yourself. A lot of smokers have underlying mental problems, and smoking is a form of "self-medication". Google for smoking mental illness self-medication.
here is just one result [smokefreedom.net]
... it makes sense - you have to be nuts to smoke.Sagan was an Atheist. (Score:3)
Are you nuts? Or just like making stuff up? Devoutly religious?? It is extremely clear that he was a non theist.
"In a March 1996 profile by Jim Dawson in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Sagan talked about his then-new book The Demon Haunted World and was asked about his personal spiritual views: "My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it," he said. "An agnostic is somebody who doesn't believe in something u