Refining the search for what's 'out there'

Oct 15, 2010 By Lori Kozlowski

Gregory Benford, his brother James and his nephew Dominic decided to combine their knowledge of astrophysics, space, microwaves and economics to look at the search for extraterrestrial life from a money perspective. They posed a simple question: What would beacon transmitters be like if built by civilizations that cared about cost?

Imagining and pricing out how much it would cost for aliens to create a beacon to send a signal deep into space, they concluded that sending messages between life forms could be very pricey and that our current searches for may thus be looking for the wrong things. Instead of blasting continuous signals widely into space, money-minded aliens would design transmitters that send signals in short, narrowly targeted pulses -- the "Benford beacon" concept.

The University of California-Irvine astrophysicist talked with the Los Angeles Times.

Q: Talk about "Benford beacons."

A: Others have started to call them "Benford beacons" -- we didn't. We thought that on the 50th anniversary of SETI (the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence), it would be good to re-examine SETI and put it on more quantitative footing.

A beacon is something that attracts you from a great distance. For 50 years, SETI has examined thousands of and found nothing. So we thought to look further away. My brother and I sat down and figured out that it was costly to attract the attention of others 1,000 light-years or more away.

It would cost billions of dollars just to build (such a beacon) and hundreds of millions to pay the power cost. It would take thousands of years for a message to get there, and thousands of years to get a message back. We discovered, by looking from the perspective of the alien who pays the bills, how beacons should be designed thriftily and therefore what kinds of signals we should be looking for. Unfortunately, that's not what radio astronomers have been doing.

Q: Your brother James said that alien signals are less like "War and Peace" and more like Twitter.

A: What you'd see is brief burst to attract your attention. Not a long signal. It's really a lead-in. Perhaps after the short burst, at lower power at broader bandwidth to get more bits per second, there's a message there. The SETI searches of the past have assumed that aliens will bear any costs to make it easy for us. I don't subscribe to that idealism.

Q: If alien life is out there, where is "out there"?

A: There is obviously not any intelligent life in this solar system -- maybe including us. SETI has been all about looking to the nearest stars, but that easy model of SETI has not worked.

SETI's 50 years of occasional looking have falsified several tempting ideas that signals will be always broadcasting, that wealthy advanced societies will build powerful beacons, probably omnidirectional, that these elder gods will make it easy for entry-level societies to find their . Frank Drake (the U.S. astronomer who founded SETI) once told me that many assumed they'd find a signal by the 1970s.

Q: What might alien signals sound like?

A: Probably a pulsed message that could be readily unwrapped numerically to present, say, simple pictures. Later, once language is established by a point-and-say method, they could send science, great cultural works, music, even photographs of themselves.

Q: What would be the benefits of discovering extraterrestrial life?

A: You'd be listening to something you couldn't reply to for centuries, anyway. So the discovery is the signal itself -- that there is other intelligent life out there. Aliens may have motives we cannot even understand. Some examples of possible motives: The Funeral Pyre: They are attracting attention, proclaiming the wonders of a dead civilization. High Church: "We are a great culture. Here's what we have done." It's meant to convey the culture's highest achievements. Help Us: We have a problem we can't understand. Help us with it.

Q: Stephen Hawking has said that contact with extraterrestrials would be a threat, since aliens may be "looking to conquer and colonize." Do you agree?

A: Not particularly, because we're talking about immense distances. It's much too expensive to come here.

We're talking about listening, not broadcasting. It's probably not smart to shout in a jungle, where you don't know where the predators are. It is smart to listen and figure out what the predator sounds like.

It seems to me, evil aliens are not something worth worrying about. Smart aliens probably just stay home and listen to us, or anyone who ever broadcasts. Our TV cannot be picked up more than a few light-years away, without expensive efforts, so that's not a worry.

Explore further: Image: Rosetta's comet looms

More information: This interview was edited for clarity and brevity from a longer discussion.

4.8 /5 (13 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Widening the search for extraterrestrial intelligence

Mar 01, 2010

"The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) has been dominated for its first half century by a hunt for unusual radio signals. But as he prepares for the publication of his new book The Eerie Silence: Are We Alone?," ...

Too risky to phone ET? Too late -- NASA's tried it

Apr 28, 2010

(AP) -- Stephen Hawking says it is too risky to try to talk to space aliens. Oops. Too late. NASA and others have already beamed several messages into deep space, trying to phone E.T. ...

SETI may be looking in the wrong places: astronomer

Aug 24, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- A senior astronomer with the Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence (SETI) Institute, Dr Seth Shostak, has reported in an article published online that perhaps we should be seeking alien ...

SETI@home completes a decade of ET search

May 01, 2009

The SETI@home project, which has involved the worldwide public in a search for radio-wave evidence of life outside Earth, marks its 10th anniversary on May 17, 2009.

How to Respond When E.T. Says Hello

Apr 01, 2010

Scientists are studying the best ways to compose messages meant for alien eyes in case we ever do get the chance to communicate with extraterrestrials.

Recommended for you

Informing NASA's Asteroid Initiative: A citizen forum

9 hours ago

In its history, the Earth has been repeatedly struck by asteroids, large chunks of rock from space that can cause considerable damage in a collision. Can we—or should we—try to protect Earth from potentially ...

Image: Rosetta's comet looms

14 hours ago

Wow! Rosetta is getting ever-closer to its target comet by the day. This navigation camera shot from Aug. 23 shows that the spacecraft is so close to Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko that it's difficult to ...

A salty, martian meteorite offers clues to habitability

15 hours ago

Life as we know it requires energy of some sort to survive and thrive. For plants, that source of energy is the Sun. But there are some microbes that can survive using energy from chemical reactions. Some ...

User comments : 65

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dirk_bruere
5 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2010
Why should aliens who outclass us to the degree we outclass mice want to talk to us? Only civilizations at our (temporary, pre-Singularity) level might want to, but probably cannot or will not due to expense.
DamienS
5 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2010
Why should aliens who outclass us to the degree we outclass mice want to talk to us?

Why do humans study mice?
Cheerio
5 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2010
All of these perspectives are based on Earth, with human social models, human problems, and human solutions.

We have no legitimate way of predicting the behavior of a life-form so fundamentally foreign to us, and our entire biosphere.
DamienS
5 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2010
We have no legitimate way of predicting the behavior of a life-form so fundamentally foreign to us, and our entire biosphere.

I understand what you mean, but I don't totally agree. If they've evolved in a plantery biosphere then there ought to be similarities. They would have had to compete with other animals, find food and shelter. They're likely to be social and cooperative rather then solitary (otherwise high technological development would be unlikely). They must have likes, dislikes and preferences which motivate them. They must be able to predict behaviours of others and of the physical world. They would use material resources which would have costs or value. In short, these are concepts we're familiar with and can understand. The details and implementation will be different for sure, but to say that we can't predict anything about them is too pessimistic.

If course, if they're an artificial, self-modifying species (robotic), then all bets are off...
mg1
5 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2010
Thankyou DamienS, succinct.

If you go with the probabilities, you say yes there is an EVIL race and also GOOD races out there. Seeing as we are one of them are we GOOD or EVIL. If we are GOOD we would have heard from others...(probabilities) but seeing as we havent we must conclude by Sherlockingen wisdom that we are EVIL.

I must say then...we come in peace..shoot to kill..shoot to kill ...

(I laughed too..the captains log...)
mg1
not rated yet Oct 16, 2010
I also proposed the point to point communication a long time ago on another forum, but oh well some people have all the luck and attention.
nuge
not rated yet Oct 16, 2010
Why would anything bother sending a signal 1000 light years? What's the point?
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2010
Why would anything bother sending a signal 1000 light years? What's the point?


For the sake of argument, suppose you were a ridiculously advanced, benevolent alien, and suppose you thought there were other intelligent, benevolent aliens in the universe who might benefit from your knowledge...

As an example, the U.S. basicly gives away all our technology anyway, so maybe the aliens are like that too. This seems unlikely, but is still possible.

If it is a type 2 civilization, they might be sharing technology or astronomical information with other colonies within their own species.

You might say, it's 1000 light years, surely the other planet would make the same discovery by the time the signal got there anyway. Not necessarily. Native Americans were like 2000 years behind Europeans and Middle easterners during the age of exploration and the colonial period. Technological discovery isn't guarantted, so communication is still worth it...
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Oct 18, 2010
Not necessarily. Native Americans were like 2000 years behind Europeans and Middle easterners during the age of exploration and the colonial period.
That's not accurate. Other than the use of Iron and Steel, technologically they two sides were not much different in what they knew about the world. Iron was a huge leap due to durability and usefulness as a tool.
Modernmystic
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 18, 2010
Not necessarily. Native Americans were like 2000 years behind Europeans and Middle easterners during the age of exploration and the colonial period.
That's not accurate. Other than the use of Iron and Steel, technologically they two sides were not much different in what they knew about the world. Iron was a huge leap due to durability and usefulness as a tool.


So...astronomy, scientific method, chemistry, physics, the beginnings of industrialization....

The Europeans AND the Eastern civilizations knew a hell of a lot more about the world than native Americans beyond the use of iron and steel.

Did you read your history off the back of a cracker jack box?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Oct 18, 2010
So...astronomy, scientific method, chemistry, physics, the beginnings of industrialization....
The beginnings of industrialization were based on steel. The native americans had a greater understanding of astronomy, nothing groudbreaking on the physics front for another 150 years and very little chemistry that hadn't been stolen from the chinese. The NAs were more advanced in medicine, the natural world, and basic environmental biology. Perhaps you only read the half of history written by the victors without ever reading further, you know, like everything else in your life. Fox news economic opinion, faith based lunacy for a religion, and lack of depth in your understanding of just about everything ever discussed on these boards.
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2010
The beginnings of industrialization were based on steel. The native americans had a greater understanding of astronomy,


Incorrect. Did they know Jupiter had moons or Saturn had rings for instance? Did they know planets were planets and not stars? Do I really need to go on, I mean why the hell am I even responding to this idiocy??

nothing groudbreaking on the physics front for another 150


The Principia?

years and very little chemistry that hadn't been stolen from the chinese.


I'm not even talking about practical stuff, I'm talking about the friggin CONCEPT. They didn't even have a CONCEPT of proper science much less chemistry.

The NAs were more advanced in medicine,


http://en.wikiped...0.931800

Not a Native American name between 1500-1800. Fail.

the natural world


Whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.

cont.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2010
and basic environmental biology.


Did they write that treatise on a deerskin somewhere and we missed it? Oh that's right most of them didn't even have a written language... Did they even have a concept of scientific biology? Uh no they didn't.

I'd read the books written by Native Americans at the time, but they didn't do that kind of stuff back then. They made arrows and shot each other and buffalo...that's about it.

You expect me to read a revisionist book written by them now, then ya, you're crazy. Just like you wouldn't bother to read a book about why the Earth was flat, unless it was written by a Native American and it might assuage some of that "white guilt" you lefties LOVE to punish yourselves with...

Skeptic_Heretic
3.8 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2010
Not a Native American name between 1500-1800. Fail.
You mean after we inadventently then overtly committed genocide against them?
The Principia?
1687. That would be the 150 years or so.
Did they know Jupiter had moons or Saturn had rings for instance?
That was 1610, 100 years later.
Did they know planets were planets and not stars?
Everyone did, the Aztecs and Mayans knew long ago. Evidence suggests the Olmecs did as well.
Do I really need to go on
Did you ever really start?
I mean why the hell am I even responding to this idiocy??
Because you have a self inflated sense of importance and think you're proving me wrong when your knowledge of history and culture is abhorrently short.
Did they even have a concept of scientific biology?
Neither did we until the 1850's.
it might assuage some of that "white guilt" you lefties LOVE to punish yourselves with
Better than blind ignorance.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2010
You're years are off we were talking about the colonial period. Read up the thread.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2010
You're years are off we were talking about the colonial period. Read up the thread.

No, we're talking the re-discovery of the new world by the Spanish. Pay attention.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2010
You're years are off we were talking about the colonial period. Read up the thread.

No, we're talking the re-discovery of the new world by the Spanish. Pay attention.


No we weren't I'll quote the initial post by Quantum that you responded to...

Native Americans were like 2000 years behind Europeans and Middle easterners during the age of exploration and the *colonial period*.

Asterisks mine.

To which you responded:

That's not accurate. Other than the use of Iron and Steel, technologically they two sides were not much different in what they knew about the world. Iron was a huge leap due to durability and usefulness as a tool.


Idiot...
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2010
You're years are off we were talking about the colonial period. Read up the thread.

No, we're talking the re-discovery of the new world by the Spanish. Pay attention.


No we weren't I'll quote the initial post by Quantum that you responded to...

Native Americans were like 2000 years behind Europeans and Middle easterners during the age of exploration and the *colonial period*.

Asterisks mine.
Good, When was the age of exploration MM?

To which you responded:

That's not accurate. Other than the use of Iron and Steel, technologically they two sides were not much different in what they knew about the world. Iron was a huge leap due to durability and usefulness as a tool.


Idiot...

You couldn't have described yourself more perfectly. Look at my statement, pickup the context, learn to read.
Quantum_Conundrum
3 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2010
SH:

You are a joke man. The Native Americans, with the exception of the Mayans and whoever made Puma Punku, had no real metallurgy and no writing.

In the 1500's and 1600's, the native americans were still pretty much equivalent to stone age europeans and middle easterners. They had stone and bone knives, arrows, and spears. They didn't even have the wheel or bronze, for goodness sake. Israel and Egypt had bronze and iron weapons and chariots sometime between 1600B.C. and 1000 B.C. Iron Chariots are seen in the book of Judges, a couple hundred years before David, for example.

In most cases, the Native Americans were so far behind it's a wonder we even call them a civilization.
nuge
4 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2010
Just to clarify, read some of this:

http://en.wikiped...lization

And now have a quick look here, in particular, on mathematics, architecture, agriculture and language:

http://en.wikiped...lization

I don't think it is reasonable to dispute that the Mayans had impressively large and densely populated cities, a huge agricultural system, a sophisticated language, and a well organised society. Okay, so technologically they were missing a few of the key ingredients that the Europeans had, but they certainly were worthy of being called a civilisation. More so than many of the other native peoples that the Europeans came across, such as the Australian aboriginals, Pacific Islanders or many African peoples. In at least some respects the Mayans were more advanced than the Europeans.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2010
Good, When was the age of exploration MM?


Oh don't take my word for it.

http://geography....tion.htm

So your dates are STILL screwed up even with your PATHETIC attempt to weasel out of it...

You couldn't have described yourself more perfectly. Look at my statement, pickup the context, learn to read.


I'm not going to help you pretend you said something you didn't say in "context". Your dates are wrong REGARDLESS of context.

Idiot...
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2010
Oh don't take my word for it.

http://geography....tion.htm

So your dates are STILL screwed up even with your PATHETIC attempt to weasel out of it...
From your source:
The Age of Exploration or Age of Discovery as it is sometimes called, officially began in the early 15th century and lasted until the 17th century.
You're right, I was off by 100 years. It started in the 1400's, not the 1500's. Making my statements inaccurate in so much that rather than being 150 years to Principia, it was 250 years.

You've proved yourself even more inaccurate and woefully ignorant of history and culture.

@QC, that goes double for you.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2010
Oh don't take my word for it.

http://geography....tion.htm

So your dates are STILL screwed up even with your PATHETIC attempt to weasel out of it...
From your source:
The Age of Exploration or Age of Discovery as it is sometimes called, officially began in the early 15th century and lasted until the 17th century.
You're right, I was off by 100 years. It started in the 1400's, not the 1500's. Making my statements inaccurate in so much that rather than being 150 years to Principia, it was 250 years.

You've proved yourself even more inaccurate and woefully ignorant of history and culture.

@QC, that goes double for you.


It may have STARTED in the 15th centruy but it didn't END until 1700. Which does indeed STILL make your dates wrong...despite your weasel attempt with the "context" play.

Sorry SH you lose.

Idiot...
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2010
It may have STARTED in the 15th centruy but it didn't END until 1700. Which does indeed STILL make your dates wrong.

Sorry SH you lose.

Idiot...
I addressed and impeached this statement of yours
Not necessarily. Native Americans were like 2000 years behind Europeans and Middle easterners during the age of exploration and the colonial period.
So during the age of exploration, you're wrong. During the age of colonialism, you're still wrong. So would you like to provide a source, or maybe use the source that nuge presented, to exemplify where you're correct, if at all when faced with my statement?

That's right, you can't. You're one of those "scholars" who refuses to read.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2010
I addressed and impeached this statement of yours


No you didn't if the age lasted until 1700 then every European discovery UP to that point is included in my statement...period. What part of that is your pea brain having trouble grasping?

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

You STILL lose.

So during the age of exploration, you're wrong.


Every single discovery I listed happened before 1700. So I'm right.

During the age of colonialism, you're still wrong.


Since this was later than the age of exploration, I'm STILL right.

So would you like to provide a source, or maybe use the source that nuge presented, to exemplify where you're correct, if at all when faced with my statement?


I already did, you apparently can't comprehend the concepts of dates, before, after..time?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2010
No you didn't if the age lasted until 1700 then every European discovery UP to that point is included in my statement...period. What part of that is your pea brain having trouble grasping?
When you combine "Age of Exploration" with Colonialism you're not talking about the 1700's, or the 1600's, you're talking about the entire period. What you're asserting, for the whole period of time, is factually incorrect. What are you not getting? This is basic logic and problem solving. Something that you should be capable of but seem somewhat behind the curve in recognizing.
Every single discovery I listed happened before 1700. So I'm right.
No, you're not right, and no, not everything you listed occured before 1700.
I already did, you apparently can't comprehend the concepts of dates, before, after..time?
You used wikipedia to tell me there were no Native American doctors. You've sourced nothing.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2010
When you combine "Age of Exploration" with Colonialism you're not talking about the 1700's, or the 1600's, you're talking about the entire period.


The entire period includes everything between the starting and ending dates of those ages, later if you're actually going to admit the discussion included the colonial period.

Moreover since the entire discussion is about what the Europeans/Eastern civilizations knew before the Native Americans. Therefore any discovery made by Europeans before the YEAR 1700 and they Native Americans didn't know themselves (even using your weasel tactic) is what we're talking about; since that's when the age of exploration ended. If there's anything I listed that falls after that date feel free to point it out. Otherwise kindly admit your error, or STFU either way I don't care.

Here's a source if you really, REALLY need it...

http://en.wikiped...coveries

Plenty on there I didn't include too.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2010
There's some here that occurred prior to 1700 at the top of the page...

http://www.scienc...1651.htm

physics...

http://www.weburb...oria.htm
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2010
Here's some more...

http://www.scienc...tory.htm
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2010
Here's an interesting one by google...

http://www.google...f535a7fe

hopefully the whole link comes through.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2010
All of which occur well after the introduction of the European civilizations to the Native Americans. This isn't even entertaining anymore. You've picked an arbitrary date in your mind but you're not sharing it with us.

When are you measureing the two civilizations, pick an exact year and we'll make the comparison. Then tell us what age that year is in.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2010
When are you measureing the two civilizations, pick an exact year and we'll make the comparison. Then tell us what age that year is in.


I didn't pick the dates, Quantum did and then you made a bull**** statement that the Native Americans weren't that far behind the Europeans during the time frames he referenced...which were as WE ALL KNOW BY NOW from the age beginning of the age of exploration to the end of the colonial period...say 1450 to say 1780.

However in comparing civilizations you have to take ALL their accumulated knowledge prior to 1450 into account as well. Quantum said the Europeans/Eastern civilizations were about 2000 years ahead of the Native Americans. Therefore let's say Sumeria in 3500 BC as a starting date for Euro-Eastern civilization.

So we're talking about everything the Europeans/Eastern civilizations knew that the Native Americans DIDN'T excluding the use of iron and steel between 3500 BC and 1780.

That make it clear enough for you YET baby Huey?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 20, 2010
I said:
Other than the use of Iron and Steel, technologically they two sides were not much different in what they knew about the world.

So I think you need to go back and reread what was actually said, as opposed to what your diseased little mind made up.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2010
I said:
Other than the use of Iron and Steel, technologically they two sides were not much different in what they knew about the world.


Which was, and is complete BS. The Euro-Eastern civilizations knew a lot more, as I've amply demonstrated and as you've utterly failed to show otherwise.

Moreover you've been completely intellectually dishonest trying to shift and move your position constantly just so you won't have to admit you're full of ****. Quite amusing actually, or sad...actually both.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2010
The Euro-Eastern civilizations knew a lot more, as I've amply demonstrated and as you've utterly failed to show otherwise.

Moreover you've been completely intellectually dishonest trying to shift and move your position constantly just so you won't have to admit you're full of ****. Quite amusing actually, or sad...actually both.
First off, you can type the word. There's no need for puerile asterisks if you're unable to use proper verbiage due to a limited vocabulary. Second, you've proved nothing. As this conversation is now a "NO YOU ARE" waste of time, enjoy speaking with yourself going forward.
otto1932
3 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2010
Anybody post this link yet?
http://en.wikiped...oamerica
-They had an extensive knowledge of metallurgy. The mystery is why they did not develop it. Ditto the wheel. A similar mystery is why orientals failed to capitalize on gunpowder. One explanation was that these technologies were selectively suppressed by an Informed Leadership, so that world consolidation could proceed unimpeded.

Mesoamericans did have the technological wherewithall to have posed a significant threat to europe within a few generations; and the precious metals and drugs they had to trade for weapons and knowledge made the situation dire. They had million-man armies and their cities were bigger than those in europe. Together these factors made their complete destruction Essential.

This link describes the michigan copper culture:
http://en.wikiped...Michigan
otto1932
5 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2010
Heres another link:
http://en.wikiped..._America
Did you read your history off the back of a cracker jack box?
Did you get yours from watching Gunsmoke?

Heres a link for the Missippian culture:
http://en.wikiped..._culture

-Fortified cities, irrigation, extensive trade across the continent. Most of this had disappeared by the time settlers had arrived, as diseases spread by early explorers had already done its work.

I suggest the book '1491' for current info on these cultures.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2010
The Euro-Eastern civilizations knew a lot more, as I've amply demonstrated and as you've utterly failed to show otherwise.

Moreover you've been completely intellectually dishonest trying to shift and move your position constantly just so you won't have to admit you're full of ****. Quite amusing actually, or sad...actually both.
First off, you can type the word. There's no need for puerile asterisks if you're unable to use proper verbiage due to a limited vocabulary. Second, you've proved nothing. As this conversation is now a "NO YOU ARE" waste of time, enjoy speaking with yourself going forward.


I proved unequivocally using facts, rather than whiny white guilt leftist idiocy to show the Europeans and Eastern civilizations knew far FAR more than Native American civilizations.

Sometimes actual historical facts are better to rely on that politically correct lies.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 21, 2010
I proved unequivocally using facts, rather than whiny white guilt leftist idiocy to show the Europeans and Eastern civilizations knew far FAR more than Native American civilizations.
Don't take my word for it, go with the word of every other poster on the thread.

When you're the only person who holds a stance, perhaps it's time to re-evaluate whether it's true or not. You know, like adults do.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2010
Don't take my word for it, go with the word of every other poster on the thread.


http://philosophy...lar.html

Learn some logic, and how to argue...oh and THINK.

When you're the only person who holds a stance, perhaps it's time to re-evaluate whether it's true or not. You know, like adults do.


So far only YOU and otto seem to think that Native American civilizations were on par with Europeans and Eastern civilizations with their knowledge, and technology...excluding iron and steel.

Not exactly good company...

I wouldn't trust an opinion from either of you further than I could throw either of you.

I OTHO sourced historical FACTS and proved my case using FACTS, rather than mushy feely politically correct incorrectness.

enjoy speaking with yourself going forward.


Guess you lied again. Doesn't that make you evil? How do you feel about being evil and a liar?
panorama
not rated yet Oct 21, 2010
@MM & @SH You two are just adorable. If there is ever a Physorg reader meetup I'll buy both of you a beer.
otto1932
3 / 5 (2) Oct 21, 2010
So far only YOU and otto seem to think that Native American civilizations were on par with Europeans and Eastern civilizations with their knowledge, and technology...excluding iron and steel.
On par? Their cities were bigger, their armies were bigger, and they had little religionist-inspired fear of science. They also had potential access to more precious metals which would have ruined euro economies had it found its way over.

They also had extensive intracoastal maritime trade. They were armageddon waiting to happen to western culture.
Not exactly good company...
All youve proven with your extensive dumping here is that your education is woefully outdated at best. And youre in the company of similar willful godlovers who value opinion and posture over substance.

Your self-limiting knowledge of recent revelations about the past is no doubt due to the fact that much of the stuff you grew up on was religion-derived (you quote biblical evidence for chariot use?!?).
more-
otto1932
3 / 5 (2) Oct 21, 2010
Youre afraid to look too closely at recent historical revelations because people like SH and myself have pointed out that much of your most valued history source, the bible, has now been thoroughly discredited.

If you only accepted that FACT, you could learn so much MM! The bibles a lie- give it a try-
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2010
Their cities were bigger than China's? Their armies were bigger? They had the scientific method? They didn't even have a written language (most of them) The Europeans had coastal trade for thousands of years. You're not making the case at all that they were on par.

Sources please...

I'll give you one for the cities...show me ONE Native American one on the list.

http://en.wikiped..._history

You and SH are so full of it your eyes are brown...
otto1932
5 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2010
"Their capital, Tenochtitlan, is the site of modern-day capital of Mexico, Mexico City. At its peak, it was one of the largest cities in the world with population estimates of 300,000." -And just to qualify my assertion a little bit, their cities were bigger than any in Europe at the time. Bigger than Paris for instance.
otto1932
3 / 5 (2) Oct 21, 2010
Link for the above Exerpt:
http://en.wikiped...bian_era
I proved unequivocally using facts, rather than whiny white guilt leftist idiocy
YOU'RE the one who's bought into a message, you know the earlier xianist manifest destiny stuff about the natives being less capable and deserving than gods chosen people- euros that is.

Truth is, had euros not sucker-punched them, they would have begun independent trade with euro and mediterranean (and chinese) merchants, bought all the tech they needed, and you would have seen Aztec triremes bristling with polished bronze cannon oaring through the strait of Gibraltar within a century.

China may have made the necessity of euro conquest even more urgent:
http://www.1421.tv/
otto1932
3 / 5 (2) Oct 21, 2010
You'll find the quote about 'far larger than any in europe' on this page:
http://books.goog...mp;hl=en
-I've seen it a number of times. As even this textbook tells you, the number is in dispute but the 300,000 figure is not the highest.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2010
"Their capital, Tenochtitlan, is the site of modern-day capital of Mexico, Mexico City. At its peak, it was one of the largest cities in the world with population estimates of 300,000." -And just to qualify my assertion a little bit, their cities were bigger than any in Europe at the time. Bigger than Paris for instance.


We were NEVER just talking about Europe, you'd know that if you knew how to read or follow an argument. Moreover this like refutes the 300,000 number and says it may have been as low as 200,000

http://en.wikiped...chtitlan

BUT again we were never really talking about city size we were talking about technology. Another thing you'd know if you were actually capable of reading. I don't hold it against you though as you're the typical brainwashed leftist idiot, I'd think something was wrong if you COULD argue logically or had a nit of reading comprehension.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2010
You'll find the quote about 'far larger than any in europe' on this page:
http://books.goog...mp;hl=en
-I've seen it a number of times. As even this textbook tells you, the number is in dispute but the 300,000 figure is not the highest.


My source refutes that number. Moreover since we're not just talking about Europe there were cities in China in the 1500s approaching one million people. So you fail.
otto1932
3 / 5 (2) Oct 21, 2010
You'll find the quote about 'far larger than any in europe' on this page:
http://books.goog...mp;hl=en
-I've seen it a number of times. As even this textbook tells you, the number is in dispute but the 300,000 figure is not the highest.
We were NEVER just talking about Europe
Who's we? I know what I was talking about- who ever knows WHAT you're trying to say?
you're the typical brainwashed leftist idiot
And I shall present my other asscheek for to be bitchslapped, as is the Xian way.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2010
As for native peoples being less deserving and me "buying into" manifest destiny. Well as an expert...the ONLY existing expert on my own beliefs I can tell you I never thought that, nor do I now think that.

You yourself could have deduced that because I clearly never left the Eastern Civilizations out of the conversation, but then again that would require a minimal level of reading comprehension and intellectual honesty on your part...
otto1932
3 / 5 (2) Oct 21, 2010
Uh, I didn't mention china. Anybody else ever call you anal retentive? You know, when even your own shits too precious to part with? Jesus treasures your creativity too.
I can tell you I never thought that, nor do I now think that.
I think that subconsciously you think that because that's what you were taught to think. From learning your history from Wagon Train and F Troop.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2010
Uh, I didn't mention china. Anybody else ever call you anal retentive? You know, when even your own shits too precious to part with? Jesus treasures your creativity too.
I can tell you I never thought that, nor do I now think that.
I think that subconsciously you think that because that's what you were taught to think. From learning your history from Wagon Train and F Troop.


Uh I know you didn't I did. That's what the whole argument has been about though, whether you know it or not, whether you bother to mention it or not I'M going to. Eastern civilizations have been a part of the argument since it started dingbat.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2010
I think that subconsciously you think that because that's what you were taught to think. From learning your history from Wagon Train and F Troop.


So we're going from non-existent non factual white guilt revisionist "I wish this is the way it was" logic to you ACTUALLY telling me what's in my subconscious.

I'm not surprised a bit...
otto1932
3 / 5 (2) Oct 21, 2010
Uh, I didn't mention china. Anybody else ever call you anal retentive? You know, when even your own shits too precious to part with? Jesus treasures your creativity too.
I can tell you I never thought that, nor do I now think that.
I think that subconsciously you think that because that's what you were taught to think. From learning your history from Wagon Train and F Troop.


Uh I know you didn't I did. That's what the whole argument has been about though, whether you know it or not, whether you bother to mention it or not I'M going to. Eastern civilizations have been a part of the argument since it started dingbat.
and your point is... what? Otto sees nothing in your responses that limits otto from making whatever point he wants to. Klar?

Perhaps this will help you understand your affliction:
http://en.wikiped...etentive
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2010
and your point is... what? Otto sees nothing in your responses that limits otto from making whatever point he wants to. Klar?


My point is that if you are going to jump into the middle of an argument and attempt to make a point then it helps to know what the argument is actually about...which is of course far beyond you. That doesn't mean you can't try though does it?

Besides there were larger cities even in Europe at the time. Paris, Venice, and Constantinople.
otto1932
5 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2010
Or perhaps this:
http://en.wikiped...xpulsive

-The Internet can help us to heal-
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2010
Or perhaps this:
http://en.wikiped...xpulsive

-The Internet can help us to heal-


Indeed it can.

http://en.wikiped...disorder
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 22, 2010
You and SH are so full of it your eyes are brown...
Green actually.
My point is that if you are going to jump into the middle of an argument and attempt to make a point then it helps to know what the argument is actually about...which is of course far beyond you.
Just so you're informed otto, the argument is about how ModernMystic is upset that he's a clown and I commonly point out his errors making others laugh at his antics. He has some sort of a grudge because I called him a liar, then he misread what I had wrote and attempted to project his idiocy on me.

Now that you're all caught up, have a go.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2010
You and SH are so full of it your eyes are brown...
Green actually.
My point is that if you are going to jump into the middle of an argument and attempt to make a point then it helps to know what the argument is actually about...which is of course far beyond you.
Just so you're informed otto, the argument is about how ModernMystic is upset that he's a clown and I commonly point out his errors making others laugh at his antics. He has some sort of a grudge because I called him a liar, then he misread what I had wrote and attempted to project his idiocy on me.

Now that you're all caught up, have a go.


Still don't have a source to prove that the Native Americans were the ones who actually ran the Apollo program?

Look harder, I'm sure you'll find some leftist revisionist loon who wrote a book about it you can quote...

Oh and you're still a liar, and therefore by your own standards evil. Do you like being an evil man?
otto1932
3 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2010
You and SH are so full of it your eyes are brown...
Green actually.
My point is that if you are going to jump into the middle of an argument and attempt to make a point then it helps to know what the argument is actually about...which is of course far beyond you.
Just so you're informed otto, the argument is about how ModernMystic is upset that he's a clown and I commonly point out his errors making others laugh at his antics. He has some sort of a grudge because I called him a liar, then he misread what I had wrote and attempted to project his idiocy on me.

Now that you're all caught up, have a go.
In other words, same shit different thread-
http://www.youtub...a_player
otto1932
3 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2010
This ones even more suitable:
http://www.youtub...a_player
Ha.
otto1932
3 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2010
Hold on now mm, as you may have guessed ICP are Xian religionist godlovers:
http://www.contac..._1172294

-Who's methods of thinking and reaching conclusions led them to the same place as you're did. Time for a little introspection, eh?

My favorite ICP line: 'When I stick a pencil in my eye, I can't see shit- why?'
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 22, 2010
Still don't have a source to prove that the Native Americans were the ones who actually ran the Apollo program?
You really are a clown. Are you content amusing us in this manner? Your silly statements are becomming entertaining again.
Oh and you're still a liar, and therefore by your own standards evil. Do you like being an evil man?
See what I'm talking about Otto? It's sad, he could have had such a bright future.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2010
I still see neither of you have provided proof or sources of information that shows that the Native American civilizations were even close to their European/Eastern counterparts technologically excluding the use of iron and steel.

Finally give up on that? Kinda like saying the Earth is flat...I know it must be hard to find sources to quote for such an idiotic position. Well CREDIBLE sources that is.