Ed Weick
577 Melbourne Ave.
Ottawa, ON, K2A 1W7
Canada
Phone (613) 728 4630
Fax (613) 728 9382
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christoph Reuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: Galactic lifeforms
> Keith Hudson wrote:
> > On the radio this morning an astrophysicist was saying that we are now
> > discovering so many planetary systems elsewhere in our galaxy that the
> > number of planets with lifeforms must be at least a billion.
>
> Note that this estimation is based on a computer simulation by 2
individuals.
> *Any* fancy assumptions can be entered into that simulation.
>
>
> Pete Vincent wrote:
> > if there were the occasional intelligent life, the expansion of
> > organisms suggests that by now at least a couple ought to have
> > come by our neck of the woods, so why haven't we seen any? The four
> > possible answers: 1) [......2).......3).......]; 4) there's lots
> > of folks out there, but they choose to stay hidden - probability
> > impossible to assess, but unless there are other possibilities
> > not yet though of, the probability must be 1 minus the total of
> > the others, which at the moment makes it look potentially pretty
> > large.)
> > Why stay hidden? Because there is no good reason to reveal yourselves
> > to a planet full of hyperactive ambitious barbarian savages who
>
> Btw, this variant 4) is basically what the esoterical book "Exopolitics"
> suggests -- and that the good guys' UFOs are just waiting around the
> corner to come and solve all our energy&enviro problems, so we shall
> NOT undertake the effort of developing enviro-friendly technologies,
> implementing Kyoto etc. This book even goes on to fake the
> Drake Equation, in order to make option 4) look much more likely (by
> increasing the number of planets with life by many orders of magnitude).
>
> Would you have guessed it, the author of that book (a lawyer!) is
> in the pocket of the oil industry. And I wouldn't be too much surprised
> if the 2 guys so respectfully mentioned by Keith are too.
>
> I think it's smarter to try and solve our earthly problems ourselves,
> instead of hoping for some (literally) remote source of salvation
> (a salvation which is pretty unlikely EVEN IF "they" would/could
> visit our planet -- a "1492 style" contact seems more likely!).
>
> Chris
>
Chris, I don't think we can. Our only hope lies in extra terrestrials, but
they've probably taken a look and given up on us!
Ed Weick
