No Aliens in the Serenity Universe

POSTED BY: Windwalker
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 6, 2007 18:36
VIEWED: 14161
PAGE 3 of 6

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE

NOSADSEVEN

Friday, January 26, 2007 5:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by reginaroadie:
While I like the "no aliens" policy, I can't help but feel that maybe they missed out on an intersting metaphor. Hear me out.

The show is supposed to be a sci-fi western, right? And there are supposed to be parallels between this verse and the Old West. Well, one big aspect of the Old West was the Native American population and the culture clash between the settlers and cowboys and the Natives. I just think that there could have been an opportunity for some great metaphors and analogies.

I think the Reavers fulfilled that metaphor. Granted, due to their nature, the metaphor only covered the threat aspect - the ever present danger of the misunderstood Other - but then, that's as far as the metaphor went in most westerns. Firefly wasn't channeling Dances With Wolves, as much as Stagecoach.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ain't. We. Just.

CYBERSNARK

Friday, January 26, 2007 6:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SpacemanSpiff76:
how long will it take for the broadcasts of firefly to reach an inhabited world and be seen by them? maybe by then we will be worth dealing with and the premise of our show will be as new to them as it was to us.

I'm kinda hoping the aliens invade soon and demand that Fox reinstate production on Firefly, or they'll nuke our planet's capital cities.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

DECAF

Friday, January 26, 2007 6:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SpacemanSpiff76:
for the firefly world: the no-aliens policy is a nice break. its one of the things i enjoy about the show. for the real world: i know there are space aliens. the mathematical law of averages pretty much proves that something besides ourselves exists on an equal level with ourselves. also, abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. just because we havent been contacted yet doesnt mean theres no one there. i bet they think that we're not worth dealing with as they are just now watching war reports on hitler. how long will it take for the broadcasts of firefly to reach an inhabited world and be seen by them? maybe by then we will be worth dealing with and the premise of our show will be as new to them as it was to us. you just gotta learn to unhurry.

Wash> but thats like science fiction
Zoe> you live on a spaceship, dear

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." ~Albert Einstein, Sidelights on Relativity

I'm not sayin' that extraterrestrial life is not an option... but for all we know there may be a flying spaghetti monster out there too.

I was thrilled to hear of a serious sci-fi production without aliens, and even more thrilled when I finally saw it. In my opinion aliens act as a crutch. They allow us to step past our prejudices, but without the epiphany of realizing the character. It allows us to create a world that seems "good" (humans don't have to do evil if aliens take up the slack). Unfortunately when aliens start taking on human-like characteristics it becomes necessary to remove those same traits from the human characters to allow for contrast. Humans become even less relatable because you can't have a man who acts like a Vulcan, or a Ferengi. It would undermine some of the imposed exoticness of the setting.

As far as I'm concerned, we could use a few less Klingons.

_________________________________
"The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just."
- Abraham Lincoln

CITIZEN

Friday, January 26, 2007 8:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Egotistical and pig-headed? How do you figure?

And the mere fact that there's lots of space in the universe doesn't entail that there are other forms of intelligent life out there (i.e. you're going to need more premises).

Also, not to pick nits, but the universe isn't infinite.

Given the extremes of environment where life can exist on Earth it seems ridiculous to believe that there is not non-terran life, indeed some theories put forth that Earth's life origins were bought here on a comet. I'm fairly confident that if we push out into the Solar system and later the galaxy at large we'll find it teeming with non-terran microbial life.

When talking about Aliens though people tend to mean the complex intelligent kind. For complex life at least I'd say it is certain that such will evolve as long as microscopic early life appears as it did on the Earth around 4.6 Billion years ago assuming. That is too say if you get a planet with an environment that can support complex life, that has early life on it and doesn't suffer heavy radiation baths from Gamma Ray Burster's and isn't constantly bombarded with natural disasters such as super-volcanoes and meteorite strikes you will eventually get complex life forms.

Add to this that given reasonable estimates (half way between minimum and maximum) for various factors (the number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy, how many of those will have planets, how many of those planets will be suitable for complex life) you get a somewhat large number, roughly 23 Billion systems in our galaxy alone. Given fairly conservative estimates for how many may end up seeing life develop you are still left with 2 Billion systems.

It took 4.6 Billion years from the first recorded life to give rise to intelligent life (and Humans

) on Earth. Since we've only got the Earth as a model it seems reasonable to accept this figure as a rough average for how much time it takes intelligent life to evolve. That's along time. If life has just started on some planet somewhere, that means it won't be transmitting until long after we're either extinct or beyond the point where such unsophisticated attempts at communication are understandable, I experienced this exact same situation myself when trying to talk to a Rail worker yesterday.

There are still more factors, for instance gamma ray burster activity has only reduced to a point that allows intelligent life to evolve, and concentrations of Carbon have only reached a point relatively recently where systems forming would have enough Carbon for complex Carbon based life. Although its true there are other elements and arrangements that could make life a possibility (ranging from Silicone to Boron and Nitrogen) all these seem somewhat less suitable than Carbon. There's even suggested possibilities where water can be replaced as the solvent by substances such as Liquid Ammonia. But nonetheless we only know for a fact that Carbon based life can exist. So these factors build up to the very real possibility that although intelligent life may exist elsewhere the Human species may be it's oldest example. Perhaps while we're cooking with microwaves the next oldest intelligent species may have just discovered how to create fire.

There's actually an equation, the Drake Equation, which attempts to estimate how many communicating intelligent life forms there are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

Now frankly I think it was a smart move to remove aliens from the FireFly equation. They tend to add little too TV shows, since they tend to be caricatures of Human aspects, mainly used to expose the Human condition. Think of Klingons, Romulans, Bajorans or any number of other species in just about every show. Respectively in the above cases caricatures of Aggression, Suspicion and Spirituality, giving nothing but a distinctly Human and not Alien but still very two dimensional species.

It'll be very difficult to produce a convincing Alien species, because they'll be so Alien we may not even reco

KHYRON

Friday, January 26, 2007 9:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
...indeed some theories put forth that Earth's life origins were bought here on a comet.

I always wonder about the necessity of these theories, though. I don't deny that it's theoretically possible (based on what I've heard; I'm not a biochemist) for primitive life to be created on comets, but I don't see the need to say "Earth's life origins may have come from comets". If it's possible for life to be created on comets, why shouldn't it be possible for it to be created on Earth? Even the early Earth had a much wider range of environments than comets can offer, so I think that it's far more likely for life to be created on Earth instead of being a foreign import.

If one finds an ancient vase in China, does an archeologist assume it came from Italy? The more likely explanation would be that it was made in China.

Where life came from can't ever be proven anyway, but I wish headline-seeking scientists would just veer away from these exotic explanations that ignore the simplest answer.

Since I'm in a bitching mood today, I also object to the use of the term 'theories' (not by you, Citizen, by people who come up with and/or actively promote these things). They are NOT theories. They are hypotheses. And rather bad ones at that, since they're based on wishful, "wouldn't it be cool"-type thinking and not on facts. In science, a theory is the highest logical construct, based on a hypothesis that has been verified over and over again. Life-giving comets are not a theory, they're a hypothesis, an educated guess that's been thrown out there to be tested using the scientific process, something that this problem conveniently can't be subjected to.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

CITIZEN

Friday, January 26, 2007 11:07 PM

The point is to find out what really happened. It wasn't merely a whim someone had someday, the idea that life or at least it's building blocks may have come from space on a comet came from finding Amino-Acids on meteorite fragments. The idea is that life here could have been started with organic chemicals from up there.

To run with your analogy it's like finding a Vase in china that has some similar decorations to ones in Italy and wondering if maybe it was imported.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KHYRON

Friday, January 26, 2007 11:33 PM

At the risk of hijacking the thread and boring everybody else (sorry everybody else):

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
The point is to find out what really happened. It wasn't merely a whim someone had someday, the idea that life or at least it's building blocks may have come from space on a comet came from finding Amino-Acids on meteorite fragments. The idea is that life here could have been started with organic chemicals from up there.

I don't think we'll ever be able to find out what happened, but one can make reasonable guesses and to me building blocks coming from comets is just unnecessary. I'm not saying it's most definitely impossible, of course it's possible, but I am saying one should stick to the more likely answer, even if it's "standard". As I said, I have no objection to the possibility of the basic building blocks, or even primitive life itself, forming on comets, but why should this mean that life came from comets and wasn't independently formed on Earth? Leaving aside the chances of surviving burn-up in the atmosphere, which I won't claim is zero but will claim that it must be fairly small (but I guess it only needs to happen once), out of the option of having terrestial life form on Earth and it coming from a comet, I don't see why the comet should be the more likely option, let alone preferred option.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
To run with your analogy it's like finding a Vase in china that has some similar decorations to ones in Italy and wondering if maybe it was imported.

Well, decorations would be added thrills, we're just talking about the basics here (amino acids = plain, old, undecorated vase). Besides, if we were to include decorations, having a "foreign" decoration (i.e. an Italian one) would definitely indicate that it came from elsewhere, but there's nothing in life's blueprint on Earth to definitely indicate that life came from somewhere else. So I don't think the decoration bit of the analogy really works.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

CITIZEN

Friday, January 26, 2007 11:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
out of the option of having terrestial life form on Earth and it coming from a comet, I don't see why the comet should be the more likely option, let alone preferred option.

Who said anything about preffered? Yet it is an option, and no more or less supported by the evidence than any of the others.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KHYRON

Saturday, January 27, 2007 12:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Who said anything about preffered?

The people who came up with the hypotheses and/or actively propagate them, and laypeople who, in a discussion about abiogenesis, mention something along the lines of "You know, some scientists believe that life came from comets" and make it sound all exciting and on-the-cutting-edge, thereby propagating the impression that it's the up-and-coming theory regarding the creation of life. Being a layperson when it comes to this topic myself, and having so far only discussed it at length with other laypeople, I've seen it happen many times already. A surprising number think it's really the preferred theory, or mention it as something that should be seriously considered.

Quote:
no more or less supported by the evidence than any of the others.

I agree, but I'm talking about likelihood and the necessity of the assumption. My point was that people, especially scientists, should go with what's simpler and more likely when explaining something.

I'm a big believer in the reductionist approach to scientific theory (i.e. the principle of Occam's razor). If you have a number of different sets of events that lead to the same result, go with the one that makes the fewest assumptions. In this case, we can use the razor to "shave off" the assumption of comets.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

CAUSAL

Saturday, January 27, 2007 12:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Egotistical and pig-headed? How do you figure?

And the mere fact that there's lots of space in the universe doesn't entail that there are other forms of intelligent life out there (i.e. you're going to need more premises).

Also, not to pick nits, but the universe isn't infinite.

Given the extremes of environment where life can exist on Earth it seems ridiculous to believe that there is not non-terran life, indeed some theories put forth that Earth's life origins...
[ lots of smart stuff ]
...the Drake Equation, which attempts to estimate how many communicating intelligent life forms there are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

Premises added. Nicely done.

For the record, Citz, I was actually just trying to keep Regina honest. She said, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." That means that not having evidence of something's existence does not entail that thing's non-existence (logically speaking), which is absolutely correct (interestingly, this is not just true of aliens; it's also true when someone says "There's no evidence of a god"). Then she said (something to the effect of) "If there's no other life, it's an awful waste of space." Now, just like a lack of evidence does not entail non-existence, the bigness of the universe does not entail the existence of non-terran life. So really, this is all just me playing with logic, and not really agreeing or disagreeing with anybody.

Better be careful--people will start to think that you and I enjoy intellectual interchange!

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE