This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
You’ve set up a nice strawman there batting down an ET explanation.
It seems to me that more people than ever are exploring non ET explanations.
The point of all of this is that there is a very long list of observations that do not comport to known phenomenon.
We also have a long list of government insiders who have talking about seeing, hearing, and being involved programs that are related to unexplained or unacknowledged phenomenon.
It sounds like you are bit hostile to the idea that there is something going on here that doesn’t fit neatly into our current understanding of how nature works. Why is that?
Someone above suggested I was being a hard on Science. I think this is exactly it right here.
Most of the insiders are unnamed, and given that they’re working various forms of espionage and intelligence, they’d be more likely than the average American to concoct a cover story, especially if the truth is something they don’t want other countries to know about.
My best be it that this is about explaining away things that are being tested by the government in ways that would make sense to other countries.
More options
Context Copy link
There is a difference between being skeptical and being hostile. I am immensely skeptical, but I am perfectly willing to accept the proposition that "advanced alien civilizations exist in the observable universe". Unfortunately, the balance of evidence is against it. Our telescopes would have spotted Kardashev 3s. The universe has had plenty of time for even a slightly temporally privileged civilization to make a dent in their astrographical vicinity, to a degree we can see from here.
Why rely on the Kardashev scale? Because energy-consumption, while imperfect as a scale for gauging technological progress, is far better than alternatives in the sense that it would be something we could observe, and what we would expect to observe barring a dramatic upsets. Moar energy = Moar good. Why leave all those stars alone, wasting perfectly good negentropy shining into empty rooms?
Then thermodynamics itself imposes constraints in the form of waste heat. It would be extremely implausible that an advanced, older civilization wouldn't make use of available resources, or that it could completely disguise their heat signature.
K2 and below? They still be very likely to leave obvious signatures on interstellar travel. They don't have the same resources, though interstellar travel is hardly out of the question if you own even a thousandth of a Dyson swarm. The question is why you aren't something useful with that capability, instead of engaging in glorified voyeurism on primitive neighbors. For a more mundane example, the CIA could gang-stalk a random farmer in sub-Saharan Africa. But they don't, because they have better uses for their time and energy.
If there are aliens out there, then they're most likely to be pond scum if they're in our galaxy. If they're more advanced, then they're almost certainly further away, and we have pretty decent limits on what is plausible. If you want more, read up on Grabby Aliens (and lack thereof) as an explanation for the Fermi Paradox.
Length and verbosity is a very poor metric for quality of evidence. You can collect a million people willing to swear on the benefits of homeopathy, still doesn't best placebo.
I think you may have missed my point. You’re confidently suggesting that because ETs are unlikely, the evidence of unexplained phenomena are uninteresting, unimpressive, and not worth further investment.
I want to ask you specifically, have you considered the following:
[https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/many-big-pre-sputnik-earth-orbit](Pre Sputnik Sky Survey) showing anomalous things in our sky
[https://a.co/d/068TpBaG](UFOs and Nukes by Robert Hastings), a clinical examination of UFO observations around US and Soviet nuclear weapons. Includes the record interviews with some of our most well trained service members in control of nuclear weapons. People that are under constant monitoring for substance abuse and mental issues.
Official USA releases of the GoFast, Gimbal, and other AARO videos/pictures showing objects that defy conventional explanation or at the very least, would require other tenuous explanations.
Hundreds of interviews with people who worked in some official capacity at the government that say, on the record, I saw something that is not explained by conventional science.
Historical accounts of similar experiences, e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1561_celestial_phenomenon_over_Nuremberg](Nuremberg 1951) or [https://unidentifiedphenomena.com/people/diana-pasulka/](Diana Pasulka)’s academic research comparing historical religious accounts of encounters that map closely to modern UAP)
Any one story or observation can be explained away. When taken together, in my opinion, there is something happening that that explains all of this that is unknown or concealed from the general public. There’s too much smoke here for it to be nothing. ETs are just one possibility.
I suspect you have not thought too deeply about the specifics here. Especially what’s new to public since 2015. And that’s okay. It’s a niche interest. But to confidently express “I’m not impressed”, and then go on to emphatically explain why one narrow explanation is clearly false… is closed minded.
With all of that said I ask your opinion on this: do you think there is some unexplained here worth further time money and interest to investigate? Or is it a big jerk off waste?
Look dude. You're not telling me anything really new, I've already explained that the kind of big, impossible to miss, incontrovertible and dramatic evidence that would make me sit up straight and take this more seriously. If Oumuamua deployed radiators and then settled into a parking orbit, I wouldn't be making this argument.
Anything less than that moves the needle by negligible amounts. It's one more floppy disk at best, against mountain that is the other evidence suggesting the wider evidence is empty, or that if the aliens do exist, they have to remarkably stupid/incompetent.
In short, I think this is a massive waste of time. Not the search for aliens, in general. They might be out there. We might spot a K2 in Andromeda or something. Maybe someone is laying the foundation on a new Dyson swarm, which will affect property prices and escalate the race for the light cone. I'll believe it when I see it. We should keep spending some money on observing the cosmos in detail. But if you're looking on Earth, with evidence this scanty, with a claim this enormous? I'm not moved, the lever isn't long enough.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More people than ever can be wrong. Popularity does not measure truth.
Observations are often flawed in a variety of ways.
I can't speak for him, but I've observed that UFOology is a Shepherd Tone, always approaching, never arriving. At this point, I am confident that it never will arrive, and am confident enough to want to stake my position clearly. None of this is going to cash out in significant changes to consensus reality. There will be no new tech, no new avenues of research, nothing productive, just an endless series of what-ifs.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link