Human Universe

branie2

Anyone here following this on BBC 2 at the moment? It's quite good so far

quickbeam

I love Brian Cox. But this show isn't as good as I'd hoped. Like the second episode spent too much time on cricket and sword-making in some sort of metaphor for life that I didn't really get, and certainly wasn't needed.

Cox is still watchable and there are some nice moments like when he was trying to get a cell sample from a camel's cheek. But overall, it's not that great.

Akrasia

It's great that he went to all ends of the earth to find the best way to demonstrate complex physics.

I can't think of anywhere other than a tibettan salt mine where he could have demonstrated the 3 phases of water.

I like the show, It's about the images and the ideas, and I think Brian is going a bit saganistic in using cosmology to implore everyone to take better care of our planet and rise above petty racial and ethnic differences to work together as a species to survive and explore the universe.

robindch

Akrasia wrote: »

I think Brian is going a bit saganistic in using cosmology to implore everyone to take better care of our planet and rise above petty racial and ethnic differences to work together as a species to survive and explore the universe.

Perhaps, but he finished on a cracking note last night and one I've not heard expressed many times - if our planet holds the only sentient life in the universe, and we have no information to the contrary yet, then what we have and hold is inexpressibly precious.

Akrasia

robindch wrote: »

Perhaps, but he finished on a cracking note last night and one I've not heard expressed many times - if our planet holds the only sentient life in the universe, and we have no information to the contrary yet, then what we have and hold is inexpressibly precious.

Yeah. And by extention, given how important it is that we and our capacity to either destroy ourselves, or find a way to overcome our political and environmental challenges, it can be argued, that this particular century is one of the most important times in the history of the galaxy

The choices we make this century may decide whether the we can seed life throughout the milky way, and even beyond, or whether we die out on this rock and with that, possibly the only chance that the universe could ever be populated with sentient self aware lifeforms.

Kinda makes the water charges debate seem a little bit parochial

Piliger

robindch wrote: »

Perhaps, but he finished on a cracking note last night and one I've not heard expressed many times - if our planet holds the only sentient life in the universe, and we have no information to the contrary yet, then what we have and hold is inexpressibly precious.

A very unlikely 'if'. I have no interest in scientists who think they have this obligation to wax on and on based on completely and totally unscientific information or lack thereof.

magicbastarder

he explained that there is a reason to consider we are the only 'communicating' life form in the galaxy.
and it's not a science program per se. he's not bound by the rules of science.

robindch

Piliger wrote: »

I have no interest in scientists who think they have this obligation to wax on and on based on completely and totally unscientific information or lack thereof.

He's posing a reasonable hypothetical. Which reminds me of this cartoon:

nozzferrahhtoo

I had not heard of this show somehow until 5 seconds ago so I have just opened the first episode to listen to as I work. I quite like Brian Cox and loved the interview he did with Robert Llewellyn (though in faireness most of Robert Llewellyn's interviews are great, watch them all). So all excited to get through the episodes now.

Not a great start though. His very first sentence is "Beyond Earth's atmosphere life is impossible."

That is quite the assumption right there. Though I read above hints that he continues on with this assumption in one form or another later in the series too? And calling the space station an outpost "amongst the stars" is a bit hyperbole for my liking. But still I expect a series by Cox will be satisfying even if it is punctuated with the occasional irksome throw away line like these two.

Arne_Saknussem

Piliger wrote: »

A very unlikely 'if'. I have no interest in scientists who think they have this obligation to wax on and on based on completely and totally unscientific information or lack thereof.

He used the lack of any evidence of alien "Von Neumann machines" to hypothesize that we are the only advanced civilization this galaxy has seen, not that there is no other life in the Universe.

Standman

Yea he never actually said that we are most likely the only life in the universe, he said there's a good chance we're the only civilisation in the galaxy. That's a fairly reasonable statement I think. It's amazing to see how so many people, including a lot of news outlets, have been saying, "Brian Cox thinks we're the only life in the universe". Reminds me so much of this comic strip:



Re the show itself, some parts of it drag on a bit but overall it's is pretty good. The part in episode 1 where they were in the wilds of Russia searching for the returned Astronauts from the ISS was brilliant.

It hasn't really introduced me to anything that I hadn't heard of before though. I suppose you can only watch so many physics/astronomy documentaries before they start to repeat themselves.

nozzferrahhtoo

Yeah I think I am on the episode that has caused that minor media storm. Episode 3. I am 3 minutes into it and he says "As far as we know we humans are unique in the universe".

I think that phrasing is a bit misleading but I guess I am just being linguistically pedantic really. But it suggests that we have looked at our current dataset and the idea we are unique has been moved towards the "no" side of 50:50.

And I think we have no such data in our data set. _At the very least_ we are simply at the "We do not know" points of the continuum. There _is_ no "as far as we know we are unique". As far as we know we simply do not know.

But we have at least some reasons to push in the other direction. For a start the universe does not tend to do things in ones. We once thought we were the only planet, but we found more. The only solar system, but then we learned what the starts were. The only galaxy, but now we know there is innumerable numbers of those. The trend here suggests that an expectation that there is one of anything in this universe (or even one universe) is probably not the safest expectation to maintain.

There is also the fact that we are, pretty much, 1 for 1 identical to the universe anyway. If you list in order the most common elements in the universe and then list in order the most common constituents of our life form.... they are pretty much 1:1 the same list.

But as I said this is pretty much a minor pedantic linguistic point exploded out into a stream of thought. I will continue to follow this episode and see how he develops the point.

nozzferrahhtoo

I have to say that having listened to his arguments against the possibility of life in our "direct" area..... the milky way and so forth.... I am actually SOMEWHAT a "convert". His arguments are well thought out and presented.

The two most convincing ones for me, which I will just vaguely refer to for those who have watched the series already....... are the ones about passing through a field past a flower that only blooms for 10 minutes a day...... and the argument that if we are now near the capability of sending out self replicating drones into the galaxy that will disperse at an exponential rate.... why have we ourselves not detected such drones from others.

I am still pedantically dismissive in an anal fashion to anyone who makes declarations of life or no life in our universe other than "us", but I have to admit that my expectations of it have been heavily altered by the rational arguments offered by Cox in this series, despite how distasteful they may be to the hope I will ever hold out that we might find life other than ours.

But there is a tragic beauty in it too. The idea he presents that life may bloom many times in our universe but the chances of it happening around the same "time" in order for 2 or more of them to communicate, has a tragic tinge of beauty to it. If SETI ever do find a "signal" it is many times more likely it will be from a dead civilisation than a live one.

Yeah despite the initial scepticism I had entering the thread and leaving it, I have not remained unaltered by his perspective, I will give him that.

magicbastarder

there was a program on recently where himself, alice roberts, and brian blessed discussed science documentaries and the onus on the documentary makers to provide impartial balance or informed opinion, etc.
would have been much more interesting if brian cox hadn't spent 90% of his time addressing his questions to just alice roberts. i felt sorry for brian blessed.

Akrasia

magicbastarder wrote: »

there was a program on recently where himself, alice roberts, and brian blessed discussed science documentaries and the onus on the documentary makers to provide impartial balance or informed opinion, etc.
would have been much more interesting if brian cox hadn't spent 90% of his time addressing his questions to just alice roberts. i felt sorry for brian blessed.

In fariness to Brian(s) The show with Alice and Brian Blessed was just one part of an entire evening's science programming introduced by Brian Cox all on the same theme. Brian Blessed was very well represented through the re-broadcasting of 'Into Infinity' (which kept me up way past my bed-time)

I don't think Brian Blessed was treated poorly at all. He got a montage and plenty of time to express his sentiments on science communication.

Akrasia

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have to say that having listened to his arguments against the possibility of life in our "direct" area..... the milky way and so forth.... I am actually SOMEWHAT a "convert". His arguments are well thought out and presented.

The two most convincing ones for me, which I will just vaguely refer to for those who have watched the series already....... are the ones about passing through a field past a flower that only blooms for 10 minutes a day...... and the argument that if we are now near the capability of sending out self replicating drones into the galaxy that will disperse at an exponential rate.... why have we ourselves not detected such drones from others.

I am still pedantically dismissive in an anal fashion to anyone who makes declarations of life or no life in our universe other than "us", but I have to admit that my expectations of it have been heavily altered by the rational arguments offered by Cox in this series, despite how distasteful they may be to the hope I will ever hold out that we might find life other than ours.

But there is a tragic beauty in it too. The idea he presents that life may bloom many times in our universe but the chances of it happening around the same "time" in order for 2 or more of them to communicate, has a tragic tinge of beauty to it. If SETI ever do find a "signal" it is many times more likely it will be from a dead civilisation than a live one.

Yeah despite the initial scepticism I had entering the thread and leaving it, I have not remained unaltered by his perspective, I will give him that.

The connundrum of 'if they exist, where are they' is interesting, but just because we can't see or hear them, doesn't mean they do not exist. Star Trek uses 'Subspace communication' to send interstellar messages. While this is just made up for sci-fi convenience, we have no idea what kinds of communication technology advanced civilisations would use. It's possible we could be surrounded by advanced quantum digital communications that we're not tuned into.

We do know that conventional radiowaves aren't ideal for communicating at distances greater than a few AUs because the delay makes real time interaction impossible. If better systems are possible, then it's logical that advanced civilisations would have abandoned radio communication completely

nozzferrahhtoo

magicbastarder wrote: »

there was a program on recently

If you happen upon any links to this do let me know. I can find snippets of it on you tube, but not the full program.

Akrasia wrote: »

The connundrum of 'if they exist, where are they' is interesting, but just because we can't see or hear them, doesn't mean they do not exist.

My point exactly. But I actually had never considered the Cox argument about drones before. Assuming we are pretty much capable of, and we nearly are, producing drones that can self replicate, and disseminate themselves throughout the universe at a therefore exponentially increasing quantity..... then one would expect it is much more likely that the first thing we will ever detect is not another intelligent race, but their drones.

But we have not. And that is a genuinely interesting statistic. One I had never considered before despite it being obvious when someone points it out to you. IT has not convinced me of anything in either direction of course, but it has not left my perspective of the issue unaltered either.

recedite

The question of Von Neumann probes/drones was addressed by Carl Sagan years ago;

Now known as Sagan's Response, it pointed out that in fact Tipler had underestimated the rate of replication, and that von Neumann probes should have already started to consume most of the mass in the galaxy. Any intelligent race would therefore, Sagan and Newman reasoned, not design von Neumann probes in the first place, and would try to destroy any von Neumann probes found as soon as they were detected.

source

Even if it were possible to limit or control such devices, a responsible and intelligent civilisation would ensure that they returned data without being themselves observed by the target planet. So no interference, or "The Prime Directive" as trekkies would call it.

An irresponsible intelligent civilisation would have less qualms about sending out Von Neumann probes, but they would most likely self destruct before gaining the necessary ability.

Standman

The most convincing part of it for me was concerning the unlikelihood of the appearance of complex cells. Added to that the unlikelihood of the right sequence of events needed to lead to eventual intelligent life, it doesn't at all seem very far fetched to suppose that we may be the only civilization in the galaxy - even taking into account the vast numbers of stars and planets involved.

When you think about the fact that for 2 thirds of the history of life on earth there was essentially nothing but some sludge and scum covered rocks, and that modern humans have existed for barely a blink of an eye, it really makes you consider how exceedingly rare complex organisms might be in general.

Hotblack Desiato

The real question is how long 'sentient' beings can exist before they destroy themselves.

We're a blink of an eye in terms of animal life on earth, never mind life on earth. If our successors can succeed in existing for a very long time and eventually travel on to other planets then this long gestationary time won't matter. If we wipe ourselves out in short order (and I wouldn't lay odds against it) then it'll all have been rather a waste. Wouldn't you agree, god-who-created-the-universe-just-for-us?

Turtwig

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The real question is how long 'sentient' beings can exist before they destroy themselves.

I don't agree. The chances of sentient beings making themselves extinct should far smaller than the chances of sentient beings regressing technology wise. I don't think humans will ever make themselves extinct. I do however think it's plausible they'll sink back into the proverbial dark ages. With little to no potential of communication with sentient beings from other worlds.

Hotblack Desiato

Child of the 80s here

We regarded global thermonuclear war as the end of humanity, but that was probably far too pessimistic - merely the destruction of contemporary western civilsation. But in 10,000 years time, the descendants of the survivors won't give two sh1ts for our 'civilisation'.

We do need to look after this planet until we can colonise others, though...

Turtwig

Oh I agree. It's not about saving this planet though. The planet will be most likely be here in some shape or form billions of years for now. It's about saving the way the planet is currently hospitable for humans. I do believe it's not actually possible with out current level of tech to make humans extinct. Destroy civilisation, yes . Total absolute annihilation, no.

magicbastarder

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Child of the 80s here

We regarded global thermonuclear war as the end of humanity

did your parents mistakenly allow you to watch 'threads' too?

recedite

Turtwig wrote: »

I do believe it's not actually possible with out current level of tech to make humans extinct.

A genetically engineered anti-personnel virus could do it. Our global inter-connectivity would be our downfall, nobody is 100% isolated any more. The virus might even exist already.

Turtwig

Madagascar will close it's borders.

Getting to isolated areas in a rural community would be quite difficult.

recedite

Turtwig wrote: »

Getting to isolated areas in a rural community would be quite difficult.

Have you not heard about that new fangled gadget, the motor car?

recedite

I saw the last episode of the programme, and at the very end he took a good old swipe at religion, referring to it as superstition, and said the reason humanity needs to look out for itself is that there is nobody else up there looking after us.

Hotblack Desiato

magicbastarder wrote: »

did your parents mistakenly allow you to watch 'threads' too?

Yep although I was in my early teens by then.

I was a child in the 80s but wasn't born in the 80s!

Found an old copy of Bas Beatha civil defence manual behind the gas meter under the stairs when I was about 8. Soon realised that nowhere in our house was suitable for a fallout room...

magicbastarder

i was 8 when it came out.

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Found an old copy of Bas Beatha civil defence manual behind the gas meter under the stairs when I was about 8. Soon realised that nowhere in our house was suitable for a fallout room...

Weird. I found a copy in my grandmother's house in Killarney in the mid -70's and remember reading it, somewhat twitchily in third or fourth class - why wasn't anybody in the family worried about this stuff? And was radioactive dust really bright red? And was leaping into the gutter and putting my head under my arm really going to do any good if a bomb went off nearby? And were the Russians really going to bomb Killarney? Even now, 30 years later, I still catch myself occasionally wondering which room you'd want to be in when things go pear-shaped. Made a change from worrying about burning in hell, I suppose.

http://brandnewretro.ie/2011/11/11/survival-in-a-nuclear-war-advice-from-irish-civil-service-1960s/

I was in a Siberian secondary school two years back. Just a few feet from the large posters in the main entrance hall advertizing the achievements of Putin's "United Russia" party in the field of education and that area of Siberia more generally, was a wall documenting what to do in a variety of emergency situations - my photo shows rules for nuclear accident, terrorist attacks including chemical and biological, suicide bombs and suspicious packages and a similar "Bas Beatha" "fallout room" recommendation (without saying where it was). There's also a picture of a frightened boy with a cloth over his nose on a page of tightly-written instructions labelled "Behavior of Victims". While I don't remember seeing emergency lighting or emergency exit signs, there was one small page documenting what to do in case of fire. The wall of instructions had far more to do with scaring the bejesus out of kids than doing anything to improve peoples' lives - priorities in Putin's Russia, I suppose.

</ramble>

PopePalpatine

Doesn't "Bás Beatha" mean "living dead"? That'd be enough to scare anyone who has a basic knowledge of Irish.

magicbastarder

robindch wrote: »

And were the Russians really going to bomb Killarney?

i was once told - and never verified this - that killybegs (and possibly killary harbour) had the dubious honour of being targets for both US and russian nukes; killybegs is a deep water port in a strategically useful location, so each side had it targetted in case the enemy got there first.

i'd love to know if there was any truth in that.

Hotblack Desiato

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Doesn't "Bás Beatha" mean "living dead"?

Dead or Alive




...I think.

Peregrinus

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Doesn't "Bás Beatha" mean "living dead"? That'd be enough to scare anyone who has a basic knowledge of Irish.

It means "Death . . . Life". It was published a couple of years after the Cuban Missile Crisis. And of course everybody had read On the Beach, a cheery best-seller by Neville Shute about the inevitable death of humanity following a nuclear exchange, or they had seen the film adaptation.

In short, there was no need to scare the bejasus out of anyone; they were already scared sh1tless. The purpose of the booklet was more to reassure than to scare. The perception at the time - or, at any rate, the hope - was that the most likely threat to Ireland was not from direct attack but from nuclear fallout following attacks on the UK, and this was in principle survivable. Or, at least, the booklet sought to give that impression.

the_monkey

I saw the episode on SETI/ Alien life (I think #3) and it was simply stunning, his passion for the subject is what makes it great .