Let's switch topics for a while.

But the discipline is very poorly defined and it allows unscrupulous individuals (such as practising psychologists) to say almost anything about anybody, and as long as it is plausible not many people will question it. — RepThatMerch22

Well, unscrupulous individuals do lots of bad things in every field, from warehouse management to the priesthood. Why would psychology be any different?

But let's pass over that, just right now.

As a discipline, psychology grew out of philosophy. A lot of philosophical concerns issues we now classify as psychological. An example of this are discussions about consciousness, and whether one can experience having experiences. What about dreams? Will? emotions? All this stuff is fair game in philosophy. Do you think philosophers handle it so much better?

There are several sub-fields in psychology that philosophy didn't develop:

Abnormal Psychology. ...
Biological Psychology. ...
Child Psychology. ...
Clinical Psychology. ...
Cognitive Psychology. ...
Comparative Psychology. ...
Community Psychology. ...
Counseling Psychology...

I trained in counseling psychology at the masters level, so I have a small vested interest in psychology as a field--that was 45 years ago. Was it a creditable program? Some of it was, some of it wasn't. The program trained high school counselors. One of the first readings in the program was about the various people in a high school from whom a troubled student would seek out help. Counselors were last on the list, janitors were first. I should have taken a cue from that and moved on, but I didn't.

The best classes in the program dealt with personality theory and group psychology (IMHO). True enough, there are widely discordant theories of personalities, but there are themes that are common to all of them, like the importance of childhood experiences and learning. We know more about the genetic influences on personality, intelligence, and behavior now than we did in 1971. We know much more about brains structure, thanks to PET scans, MRIs, fMRIs, CT scans, portable EEGs, and so on.

Despite the individual uniqueness people display, people are really quite similar. Not that everyone is alike, but rather, people are consistently similar in the kinds of things they do, and the kinds of thoughts they have. That is why we can understand each other. We are members of the same species, and like other species, we tend to behave similarly among ourselves.

There are a lot of things we don't know about human behavior, like... how do people develop sexual fetishes? Why do some people experience alienation, anomie, and isolation, while their peers (similar backgrounds, similar experiences, similar influences) do not? What are the short, medium, and long term effects of technology like smartphones, Facebook, or twitter?

Tell us more about your objections to psychology as a field.

It would be weird to say that you go to Heaven or Hell, or some other variation of either. — RepThatMerch22

Of course, it wouldn't be weird to say that IF you grew up believing that one went to heaven or hell after one died.

I think the truth is the truth — RepThatMerch22

The truth is the truth if we can determine what the truth is. 2 + 2 = 4 is true. It's provable. That there is no existence of any kind after we die is simply not provable -- just as the assertion that there IS existence after death is not provable. Either one could be true or false, but we have no way of proving it. We can't even get an inkling of what happens after we die. Zero clues.

I agree with you that "existence after death" is the same as "existence before birth" but I have no evidence that such is the case, therefore I can not say that there is any truth in the claim.

The fact that more people support the former and not the latter, in and of itself, is not sufficient. — RepThatMerch22

If gay marriage is put to a vote, and more people support it than reject it -- for whatever reasons -- then that is sufficient. It is sufficient because that is the way up or down voting works.

Utah became an American state and was required to legislate against the Mormon practice of Polygamy. Since then (well over a century ago) some people have continued to practice polygamy, sometimes with no interference, sometimes with considerable interference by the law.

So far, Mormons have not sought to re-legalize multiple marriage. They could, but they have not. (Marriage is a state matter, not a federal matter. But, if other states don't recognize multiple marriages, then it would only be effective in Utah.)

If there are Australians that wish to marry multiple partners, then they will have to do what other people have done, campaign vigorously for the right to do so. If your fellow Australians are willing, then it could happen. Nattering on about it here, however, isn't going to get you closer to the goal.

I don't usually quote Schopenhauer, but this quote is pertinent:

Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.

The limitation on our freedom to will whatever we would will is pretty straightforward:

Long before we are mature enough to make a serious choice, genetics, prenatal environment, upbringing, influence of peers, and so on have shaped us. These limiting factors impose severe limitations on our freedom to "will whatever we want to will".

Socrates' view that no one intentionally does evil. — Mitchell

I think humans are perfectly capable of intentionally doing evil.

One can always find a way of packaging an evil act as "intending to do good" even though one would be very, very hard pressed to find anyone who would describe it as "good".

Take the mass murderer in Las Vegas: As far as I can tell, the murderer intended to do something evil and was quite successful. Oh yes, I suppose one could come with something like "he was actually trying to discourage people from gambling" so he was actually intending to do good. Bogus. Specious. Bullshit

Some people thought that killing 6 million Jews and starving the Slavs to death was something that was supposed to be good for Germany. So, Hitler & Co. actually intended to good.

Such reasoning is foul.

These are not all high quality results:

Query: "Science damages the environment"

http://www.debate.org/opinions/does-science-really-help-improve-the-environment-or-is-it-more-destructive-than-helpful-to-it

https://sciencing.com/technological-advancement-effect-ecosystem-23107.html

https://www.ukessays.com/essays/european-studies/technology-has-bad-effects-on-environment.php

https://sciencestruck.com/negative-impacts-of-science

https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/31392/title/Opinion--The-Dark-Side-of-Science/

I am assuming a negative effect of science would be the large quantities of hormones, antibiotics, antidepressants, and other pharmaceuticals being pissed or just flushed into the waterways of the world, having god-knows-what consequences on the creatures who live there, not to mention all the other chemicals being dumped. (Like caffeine: There is a lot of caffeine in the Mississippi River by the time it gets to New Orleans. Consequences? Fish with insomnia? Who the hell knows? Naproxen and some other OTC drugs have been found in rainwater and snow!

Google can be both so helpful and so NOT. Sometimes a frontal assault on the question at hand just doesn't work.

A Google search for "environmental costs of science" yields nothing... "Ecological costs of science" also yields nothing.

One problem is the way search prioritizes the words in a query. "costs", "environmental", and "science" is likely to be interpreted as a query about the science of environmental costs, rather than the environmental costs of science.

Have you tried taking the title of a good result (or authors names) and used it as a search term?

Have you tried using scholar.google?

"Ecological costs of science" is not something that is going to be the topic of a lot of leading scientists or leading science journal articles (science might be shooting itself in the foot). Remember also that Google returns results on the basis of site visit frequency. So, if there is one web site that precisely answers your question and gets a hundred hits a year, it will be buried very deeply in the results page.

The kind of results you want won't be plentiful, and you will have to hunt in the margins, consulting science dissident sites, cantankerous authors suspicious of science, and so on. Radicals troublemakers or renegades in other words.

It isn't clear whether you are talking about pure science (CERN) or technology (Silicon Valley). I did come across an article about the environmental consequences of an Indian Neutrino project in a trial search, but it was inaccessible.

Good luck.

deleted

Yes, Merry Christmas, Glad Yule, Joyeux Noël...

So the schism in the Christian church were really socio-political matters, not religious ones. Even Martin Luther, he mostly disagreed with the way the Church was behaving as a socio-politicial organisation, not otherwise. — Agustino

The difference between Lutheran theology and liturgy isn't all that different from Roman Catholic. Some Lutherans take pride in their Catholicity, others not. It depends which social group in Europe their tradition originated in, and then what happened when it was transplanted to the United States. And those changes were often more clearly social or political, and only somewhat religious.

It isn't just nouveau atheists that fail to understand the "religious, social and political aspects of organized religion." Both ardent and wishy-washy Christians get confused about this too (here speaking of the American religious experience). To compose a figure of speech, the church is located in an inter-tidal swamp between God on the one hand and society on the other. Twice a day the swamp is swept back and forth by tides and drainage off the land. God and society are thoroughly mixed up in the church.

In his sermon this morning Pastor mentioned a Pew Research study that was in the news about the change in percentages of people who believed in several aspects of the Christmas story:
A) angels appearing to the shepherds
B) the virgin birth
C) the star leading the 3 kings, or 3 wisemen
D) the manger scene

Belief was surprisingly high (in the 40-55% range), but falling slightly since the last survey. Pastor H. pointed out that these elements of the story were not central to the meaning of the Incarnation, which is what Jesus' birth is about. (The reading for today was from John, "In the beginning was the Word...) Christians have difficulty sorting out the significance of mangers, mysterious wisemen, angels & shepherds, frankincense, immaculate conceptions, and a woman who is still virginal after delivered a baby. The idea that the author of a gospel had good reasons to embroider the Incarnation story sounds like either an attack on the truth (for those who take it literally) or proof that the whole thing is a crock, for those looking for an exit.

The change from the priest facing the cross and a wall during the eucharistic ritual to facing the congregation didn't go down well with some, and those people are still unhappy about it, decades later. Everything is supposed to stay the way it was 50 years ago, or the foundations begin to shake.

Most Christians don't recognize that for their individual church operation, the tail of real estate (upkeep of the church building) is wagging the dog of their religious mission--especially when a congregation shrinks in size, and isn't using the building very much. Give up the holy white elephant building?

N-O-T -A- C-H-A-N-C-E!

The existence of a building with a congregation's name on it is proof that they are a real church.

Though December 25 marks the beginning of Christmas in the church calendar, the secular calendar marks midnight 12/24 as its end. Christmas Day is just a rest up for the year end post-Christmas sales drive. And reports, of course. Lots of people have reports to turn in by 12/31--or worse in years like this, 12/29.

I'm not stimulated in the direction of righteous indignation by your argument. It strikes me as baiting. But...

Gay marriage requires adjustments to other laws besides those regulating who gets a license to marry. In the US, at least, tax law needs to be adjusted.

I may or may not have theoretical objections to more than two people marrying. A dozen people can marry (for purposes of discussion) BUT group marriage requires a lot more legal adjustment (should a legislature care to legalize group marriage). Who in the group marriage is legally responsible for a given child's welfare? Are there legally designated parents in group marriages? Let's say you have 5 men and 5 women in a marriage, all with equal conjugal rights and responsibilities. Is everyone considered the parent, or just the biologically proven parents? Who is legally responsible for children? What are the legal rights of group marriage partners who are not the parents of a child? If one member of the marriage is negligent in some aspect of the law, are they all negligent? Are all of them protected against testifying against their spouse--what a great way to run a criminal conspiracy--?

Group marriage is more problematic. I haven't seen very many ménage à trots work, let alone 4, 5, 8, or a dozen-way relationship. It's just plain difficult for us to manage a ménage. Hell, a one night stand 3 way can get complicated. There might be equality before the law, but equality in relationships is difficult to achieve and maintain -- and that's just with two people. 3? 5? 7? 11? All unimaginably complicated.

The mirror test tests self-recognition, not consciousness, and even that based solely on the visuality. A robot has been built that passed it, even. — BlueBanana

Could the elephant succeed in the self-recognition test, if it had no self-consciousness?

Regarding the test-passing robot... Who and how was it programmed?

Just a small point on English... Don't forget to put the article "the" in front nouns, such as the brain, the product, the instant, the content... Now, I wish I could think of one simple rule that would cover all the possible placements of "the", "a", and "an" in front of nouns, but I can not.

Not supplying the article where it belongs usually doesn't change meaning a great deal, but it is slightly jarring to read text where "the", "a", and "an" are missing.

There is still a problem even if I agree with your interpretation, that there is an "I". — bahman

There is someone (you, bahman) who is speaking as an "I". If there is no "I" speaking as bahman, then who is speaking?

Our brain in reality should simply feed "I" with what it perceives or process. The problem is how the brain could perceive "I" in order to feed "I" so "I" can watch "I" doing things. — bahman

Right. This is complicated. We could, as the expression goes, "quickly get lost in the weeds" with this. But... There is the conscious mind and the unconscious mind. Both of them "are you" 100% but one function of the conscious mind is to project a person--"I"--to the rest of the world. The unconscious mind (not the Freudian unconscious, but the unconscious part of the brain that does the work) does not represent itself directly. It provides the "I" with a steady flow of organized data. The conscious mind doesn't see or hear "raw" sensory information, because it doesn't mean anything until it is processed by the hearing, vision, language, and memory centers, etc.

The problem in talking about "I" and "you" is that we just don't know where in the brain the "conscious representation of self" is located, or how it is created by the brain.

I'm currently beginning to question whether many of my own problems stem from my lack of a concrete belief system. — JustSomeGuy6

—

This is interesting to me, because I believe many of my own problems stem from the fact that I grew up with a concrete belief system. — anonymous66

I do not see how it is possible to NOT receive and build some kind of concrete belief system. A child may or may not have received religious or philosophical instruction, but adults and peers exude concrete belief systems, like pine trees exude sticky pitch. Besides the influence of others, the experience of the concrete world contributes much to a belief system.

Later in life (by which time it is too late) we begin to criticize our belief systems. We can chisel off some parts, but the removal will show. we can patch in new material, but the additions will show against the old surface. We can try to start over with a whole new system, but the old one won't go away. All this doesn't mean we can't change; it just means we always have to build on what we received at the beginning -- for better or worse.

I have lots of complaints about the concrete belief system I grew up with. I sometimes imagine I would have been better off having been born among liberal Jews in New York City, rather than among Methodists in Minnesota. But... that's only because of the editing that I've done on my original concrete belief system. "Oofta" as the locals say -- very messy.

So, when do you suppose this very long discussion which I have only noticed getting longer but haven't followed, will move on to the Immaculate Conception and the virgin birth (not the same thing), the proper method of baptism, the closure of divine testimony, and other matters?

Isn't "experiencing experience" just consciousness of self--the "I" watching itself do things? I observe myself sitting at a table, coffee to the right, screen to the front, reading your question. Earlier I experienced the experience of making the coffee.

Consciousness of self happens to us, whether it has any use or not. We do not make it happen, and we are not responsible for it, and we didn't have use in mind. Be that as it may, being able to experience experience, being conscious of what is happening to us and what we are doing, is the means by which we guide further experiences, and is one of the keys to the difference between ourselves and other animals.

Maybe other animals have some limited self-consciousness, but "it is thought by some people" that they don't have a lot, if they have any. Personally, I think some animals have at least a glimmer of self-consciousness. For instance, some animals (like elephants) pass the "self - mirror test". (An elephant is familiarized with its image in a mirror; later, a mark is applied to its forehead. Will the elephant notice the mark when it next looks into the mirror? Yes. Most animals don't.)

I can't address the whole tree, but Baptists didn't come from Anglicans, Mormons and pentecostals didn't come from Methodists, and Presbyterians didn't come from Lutherans.

For the record, I do support gay marriage, but I also support polygamy and bigamy. — RepThatMerch22

For the record, I'm gay, am not very enthusiastic about gay marriage, and haven't decided whether polygamy is a good idea or not.

Whenever some heavily freighted issue comes before the public (like assisted suicide, forced vaccination, legalizing gay marriage, and so on, most people will most likely decide to vote on the basis of their personal values, prejudices, predilections, habits, and so on. That method of deciding how to vote doesn't mean that people are stupid. It just means that people do not consider each moral issue by starting from scratch, building a philosophy, and then deciding on what they will do. No, we follow familiar paths, I'm in favor of freedom, of course, but I also have a strong prejudice IN FAVOR of public health measures, like universal vaccination. If somebody doesn't want to get their children vaccinated against measles mumps, chickenpox, rubella, whooping cough, diphtheria, and tetanus, well... too bad. We'll force you to do it. Contradictory? Sure, but that's life. I value freedom and I value public health. The parent is losing a little freedom and getting a much healthier child.

1. If people support gay marriage in Australia on the ground that it promotes freedom, why don't they support polygamous marriage? — RepThatMerch22

Well, ONE reason is that those who are campaigning for legalized gay marriage are not campaigning for polygamous marriage. If someone wants to put polygamous marriage before the voting public, then they can do that. Just like PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is mostly interested in issues around killing animals for their fur, experimenting on animals, mistreating animals, and so on. Automobile gas milage isn't their issue. If you are interested in gas milage, don't bother PETA.

To some extent, it depends on the setting. If it's a class, you have to read what is assigned,. If it's this forum, you really should read the opening post, get a feel where the discussion is going, and then comment. On your own, read what you want. If you don't like it, read something else.

For personal reading, it is my belief that somewhere in between 15 years and 25 years of age, most people have established their personal point of view about the world--whether they have articulated it or not. That doesn't mean their POV will never change, but it will take real effort to change it.

So, most people are going to read philosophy (and other literature) to help them articulate their inchoate beliefs, and to compare their more formulated beliefs to someone else's. To the degree that a philosophy book helps you uncover your unspoken ideas, beliefs, POV, good. If it doesn't seem to speak to you at all, read something else.

Thus, the State should implement means by which to end one's life. — RepThatMerch22

Let's all think long and hard before we ask the state to "implement means by which to end one's life".

Is psychology a real science? — RepThatMerch22

Is this a big political issue in Australia?

Sure, psychology is a real science, but it has mixed terrain. Some areas are soft and spongy, even squishy, and other areas are hard.

The soft, spongy, squishy parts of psychology owe something to studies involving small numbers of subjects used as a spring board for leaping to conclusions. Some studies are poorly designed, methods are not rigorous, and so on. But then, we would not be at all happy if researchers did to people what they routinely do to rats. A large problem of psychology is the inherent cussedness of the subject of study -- homo sapiens -- one of the more cussed species around.

When psychologists study learning, for example, or memory, reaction time--all that sort of thing--they can turn out good results that are perfectly respectable. Personality research is much more difficult. For one thing, humans develop slowly. It takes a long time (25 years) for a brain to mature, to have a fully developed personality, and even then it's not the end of development. Longitudinal studies are very, very expensive and difficult.

There was a series of films done in England, 7-up, 14-up, 21-up... I can't remember what the last one was, 49-up or 56-up? It started with a group of 7 year olds who were interviewed. Then the filmmakers returned every 7 years and did another set of interviews with the same individuals. The point was t show how people's lives unfolded, but it wasn't a psychological research program--as I remember, it was more of a humanities project. This sort of thing is rarely done, but is essential to developing the science of psychology. Very expensive, again. And then the research has to be passed on to a second or third generation of researchers without losing the focus or continuity of the project.

Another problem of psychology is "researching behavior without the research affecting the behavior". Let's say you are interested in sexual behavior. Laud Humphries did a landmark study of public sex behavior in the late 1960s by becoming a "participant observer". He used the cover of marketing research to get objective information about the subjects he had observed in the field. Then he put it all together, and produced a very useful piece of research on sexual behavior.

He was dumped on rather thoroughly for all sorts of ethical violations, though in his defense, no subject identity was ever revealed, no subjects were interfered with in any way, and he did not personally engage in sex with the subjects. The subjects would not have known they were even involved in research had not the kerfuffle arisen over his methods.

I've been involved in surveys of sexual behavior, and the results were pretty worthless, because the people taking the surveys were volunteers. Obviously, or at least probably, their claimed behavior and opinions were different than those who would have refused to answer questions about their sex behavior. I tried doing the participant observer approach -- once -- and found that approach can get compromised pretty quickly. Like, one's subjects can sort of... turn the tables on you.

Well, sexual behavior is just one of many areas of behavior that are hard to observe or measure without the act of observation affecting the behavior of the subject. If you knew you were being observed in a study of reading habits, wouldn't this affect what you read?

What is the meaning of this? Obviously some sort of coded message...

I agree right and wrong aren't the same think as like and dislike. My point is that we claim to say something is right or wrong based off of our preferences. — SonJnana

You keep saying the same thing over and over again. But we (the collectivity of society and its various institutions) don't care what your preferences are. Further more, we teach people from childhood on up that we expect them to prefer what we (collectively) have defined as legal, right and good. Finally, whatever your preferences, you will be held to society's standards, whether that matches your preferences or not.

You think that might makes right? You're damn right. And we have the might, and you do not. Therefore, you will prefer what is right, or you will be severely punished.

As for your possibly felonious preferences, where do you think your preferences come from? Do you think you just make them up? Do you think your preferences are under your control? For the most part, no. You mostly prefer what you are allowed to prefer, and there isn't much you can do about it.

Consider chocolate cake and blueberry pie. Which do you prefer? Where did that preference come from? If you lived in France in 1500, you could not have a preference for either one of these, because they didn't exist in Europe at the time. Social realities have something to do with your preferences.

What you prefer depends on your genetics, the time and place in which you live, your pre-natal experiences, your early childhood, and later experiences. None of these things are under your control, and your preferences aren't freely chosen. Parents and society strongly discourage preferences that are not compatible with the prevailing morality. Society goes to considerable inconvenience to make sure that children prefer what we wish for them to prefer.

Like their very small size and 8 legs, aside from Octopi and spiders. And they are much more primitive than spiders. They don't fossilize well (too small), but the two eras where a fossil was recovered was the Cambrian period (541–485.4 million years ago) and an amber fossil from the Cretaceous period.

You'll remember that there were a lot of fairly weird looking species in the Cambrian: either cooked up here, or brought here by the panspermatic delivery service.

The possibility of earth-contamination (or seeding) from Mars is plausible, because rocks from Mars are sitting on Antarctic ice, for instance, and elsewhere on earth. So we know, for sure, that rocks can get from Mars to earth (in time no less than 6 months). Of course, life would have to be very well established on Mars before rocks were ejected and became earth-bound.

The problem with Tardigrades is not that they are too flimsy. Rather, thinking they could make it in the vacuum and cosmic radiation bath of space for a long time (6 months, say) is quite a leap. Not all of the Tardigrades in the orbital experiment survived, and that was only after 10 days. It could be that some might have survived for 180 days, but it's quite a leap -- 10 days survival to 180 day (minimum) survival.

You might be interested in where Tardigrades fit into the classifications:

Excellent cartoon joke. Now, over in the Relief Theory of Humor thread the question is, "Is this relief humor, superiority humor, play humor, or incongruity humor. This strikes me as "incongruity humor"--which a lot of the Far Side cartoons incorporated. The incongruity is of course the "normal" domesticity of aliens + holiday meal + the horrifying scene in Alien.

A Catholic priest and a rabbi were traveling together with President Trump, when their car broke down. The three men went up to a near-by farm house and asked about shelter for the night.
The humble farmer said, "I am happy to give you shelter, but I have room in the house for only two of you. One of you will have to sleep in the barn.

The Catholic priest immediately volunteered to sleep in the barn. "I grew up on a farm, and sleeping on a bed of hay in the barn will not be a problem." So everyone went to bed. An hour later there was a knock on the door. The priest came in and said, "I am sorry, but there are rats crawling around in the hay, and I just can't sleep with rats. Can someone else sleep in the barn?" The Rabbi said, "I come from poor people in New York and have spent many a night with rats crawling around." Everybody went back to bed. An hour later, there was a knock on the door. The Rabbi said, "I am sorry, but there are pigs in the barn -- an animal I find totally unclean. I just can't sleep with pigs." President Trump now stepped forward and said, "there is nothing I can't do. I'll sleep wonderfully with the rats and the pigs. It will be truly great." Everybody went back to bed.

An hour later there was a knock on the door. It was the rats and the pigs.

It can be related to the Superiority Theory of humor, but I think there is "Schadenfreude humor", amusement gained at the significant expense of other people -- ideally, people we don't like all that much. Mel Brooks once said, "if I have a hangnail, that's tragedy, If you fall into a sewer, that's hilarious" -- assuming one is not fond of the falling-into-the-sewer person.

Schadenfreude humor relies on the edge of certain kinds of jokes--the cruel, unkind, cut. Wicked jokes about the president (whoever the president is, not just Trump) are made by people who heartily dislike the 1600 Pennsylvania resident. Racist, sexist, homophobic, or crip jokes are made against classes of people one doesn't especially like, or (as per the Superiority Theory) one feels superior to. In these times, of course, one is not supposed to feel superior to anyone, and certainly one is not supposed to repeat jokes which highlight any race's/gender's/orientation's/state of ability's deficiencies.

All of which eliminates a lot of great jokes, and encourages us to overlook everyone's manifold deficiencies.

I tasted some raw octopus once. More than sufficient.

I am doing a subject on astrobiology — TimeLine

There is some astrogeology going on that we know about. What are you going to learn/say/write about astrobiology, of which there is zero evidence, so far. (Or does growing asparagus on a space ship count as astrobiology?)

I remember a panel discussion of this topic on public radio--way back in the 70s when SETI was still being thought about; something along the lines of "what is the likelihood of us encountering extra-terrestrial species"... anthropologist Ashley Montague said that "we will do what we always do when we [wicked westerners] come across a new civilization -- we'll wipe them out."

I would really like to know how earthlings would respond psychologically to an alien visitation. Let's assume that the aliens landed in the middle of New York or Shanghai, so that the event could not be denied by the military and/or civilian authorities. There it is, the somehow indisputably alien thing sitting there.

Even if aliens didn't land, let's say that SETI hits the jackpot and receives clear, unambiguous messages from a civilization somewhere. People suddenly have process several questions: A. we are, in fact, not alone. We are not as unique as we thought. What territory do earth-bound religious cover? Does the God of Israel (or whatever gods one follows) have jurisdiction over a planet 10 light years away? What do we think their real intentions are -- never mind what they say.

Would it be better if the aliens looked very much like us, or would it be better if they looked weird (unconditionally alien, no similarities)?

What sort of gift might they give us (using your imagination) that would lead us to think that maybe this would work out OK, or contrariwise, who sort of event or threat might they offer that would suggest our days were numbered in fairly low digits.

I saw that video clip; remarkable, especially given it's provenance.

Tardigrades arguably arrived via interstellar spores. There's some thought that the octopus family might have as well. — Wayfarer

The octopus is an alien? What about the squids, cuttlefish and nautiloids (mollusks) they are related to? Also alien? Cuttle fish, for instance, have complex brains -- it takes a lot of brain power to operate their expert pattern and texture matching facilities. They are as intelligent as some other smarter creatures, and are far, far smarter than even your brilliant clam, to which they are related. irrelevant to present discussion...

As for tardigrades... Why would we think they are from elsewhere in the galaxy? Yes, they are remarkable creatures, for sure--very tough--but they are not extremophiles--that is, they don't thrive in extreme settings even if they can survive +300 degrees F to -200, terrific pressure, vacuum, and radiation -- but not indefinitely. They aren't indestructible.

While they have been retrieved alive from a module exposed to radiation and the vacuum of space, they weren't floating in space for months, years, decades, or centuries. They can go into something very close to stasis, at about .01 percent of their normal metabolism, In stasis they have low moisture content, antifreeze, antioxidants, and other chemical defenses.

Panspermia may be true, but picking out a couple of oddball species (Octopi and tardigrades) and identifying them as cosmic travelers doesn't wash.

Gabriel Marcel — Mitchell

Sounds like a French philosophy quote to me. Marcel probably needs bouts of metaphysical disquiet to de-paralyze his superior spirit.

My "Why do you want to know" was just a silly quip.

I like Kant's formulation:

According to Kant:
1. What can we know?
2. What ought we to do?
3. For what can we hope? — Mitchell

Also good.

What you're not seeing is the broader cultural issue. — Wayfarer

Damn! When I try to see the whole broader cultural issue, nothing happens.

Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death (New York, Free Press, 1973), xvii

Richard Dawkins, River out of Eden.

So, given the average reading age and intelligence, and the inability to devote time to pondering such questions, which do you think might be the more likely to give rise to 'nihilism and anti-natalism'? — Wayfarer

You cite many interesting books and articles. I add them to my reading list, which I will (I hope) eventually get through.

On the one hand, there are depression and allied psychological conditions which darken the individual's reality, whatever their preferred intellectual positions. On the other hand, there are philosophical positions which individuals construct over time, drawing on preferences, experience, maybe predisposing genes, and those broader cultural issues. Depression happens to us, nihilism and antinatalism are our creations.

I'm not all that worried about antinatalists. There are more children being born than the world can reasonably support, so antinatalism makes sense from that angle. I know people who have opted to not have children for philosophical reasons, who aren't quite antinatalists. It's an entirely supportable position, at least from some angles. Being a gay guy, I never intended to have children. Not fathering a brood hasn't felt like a loss to me.

I have a larger concern about nihilism. I have no objection to assertions that we live in an essentially meaningless universe. I don't think the universe has built in meaning, either. We, on the other hand, are meaning givers, and if the universe has a meaning, it comes from us, for better or worse. Of greater concern is that nihilism can become a "universal negator", rejecting meaning willy nilly. It can be a pernicious influence. Entertaining the absence of meaning, morals, values, and so forth leads one into "If God is dead, everything is permissible" territory, which is in general not a good place to be.

Your OP is basically 'ain't life grand? — Wayfarer

No, life isn't "just grand" it's "just good". I hear a distinct difference between "grand" and "good". The antinatalists are right about suffering: Obviously there is suffering. Life is still "good", not grand. Death is grievous, and comes to us all--quite often in very unpleasant form. Despite that, life is still good, not grand. There are pleasure and joys in life, as well as suffering and death, and if our pleasures and joys are more limited than our miseries, life is still good.

"Life is good" is a starting point. Every philosophical position begins somewhere. "Ain't life grand" is more the starting point of Auntie Mame (a 1950s movie/broadway musical), where "Life is a banquet and these poor suckers are starving".

This never stopped Kirk. — Cavacava

Because Kirk & Company had series continuity, a powerful feature of televised life forms. He HAD TO SURVIVE all aliens, or it would have been the premature end of the show, and that in turn would have violated a contract. Our first visitors to an alien planet will not, nor will our first alien visitors here have the powerful protection of series continuity.

They'll take a deep breath, croak, and that will be that.

Or not.

Or those rovers running around on Mars.

so the initial leap from nothing to something may have been inevitable

Yeah, well... I'm waiting for several nothings to become something and so far, nothing has happened.

everything I've said has very clearly been about how guns do not cause people to be violent or commit crime, they only make the crimes more lethal. — JustSomeGuy

I really hate to acknowledge this bit: The number of guns--all types--in the possession of Americans is somewhere between 100 million and 200 million. Clearly, the vast majority of those guns are not being used to perform violent acts. For which we can be very grateful. On the other hand, as they say in the advertising business "the product is a message". Shall we say, "Guns help people kill people"? In violent areas, it's safe to say that "Guns give people good reasons to kill people".

On the other hand, the number of guns is very large, and the number of deaths by guns (manslaughter and suicide) is also large. Let's not forget the damage caused by non-fatal gun shot wounds.

It's always important to look at how national averages are composed. Some places in the United States [mostly the northern-most tier of states) have rates of violence similar to northern Europe--quite low-- while other areas [the former states of the Confederacy] have very high rates of gun violence. Some cities, like New Orleans, are remarkably violent. Parts of Chicago too.

Stephen Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature, laid the high rate of violence in the south to 3 cultural features:

1. A strong sense of personal honor (which must be defended)
2. A suspicion of central government -- not just the federal government, but the state and local government as well.
3. A tradition of "do it yourself justice".

People who wear their honor on their sleeves, are suspicious of any encroachments by peace-enforcing government agents like police, sheriffs... are going to have more conflict than most other people, and because they prefer to carry out justice themselves, there are going to be more violent deaths.

Much the same thing prevails in Mexico where the drug industry personnel tend to kill each other, and anyone who gets in their way, quite regularly. Mexico will have something like 25,000 murders this year, with a population of roughly 40% of the US--126,000,000.