Aliens in shadowrun. Options

[ZeroPoint]

Drake's equation says nothing more than that the probability of alien life depends on several other (unknown) probabilities. Possibly the most overhyped "discovery" ever.

not even a discovery, just a theory. Yes, its based on a lot of unknown probabilites, but each of those probabilites are can be pretty well estimated. The only variables that are really up for debate are which earthlike planets, which happen to be in inhabitable zones are likely to develop life.

That's like saying shamanism is not magic. The rules of the SR universe are extremely clear with regard to psionics (and shamans): They are awakened, end of discussion.

No. They say that Psionics are just deluded magicians. they are not really psionics. So its really more like saying shamans are magicians, (which they are) just like psionics....IE, they are all awakened (magicians).

What i said, is that there may be these "psionic" magicians, but that doesn't say that you can't have actual psionics either.

[almost normal]

I know nobody who has won the lottery, what does that say about the chances of winning?

If no one you know has ever won the lottery, there is no recorded event in history of anyone ever winning the lottery, no evidence has ever been found that someone won the lottery, and entire branches of science dedicated to hypothesizing how someone could ever win the lottery say if anyone did, it's probably because they won the lottery on another planet and then came here?

I'd say the chances are pretty slim, if not impossible.

Well, certainly not that the probability is zero.

Mathematical impossibility doesn't demand that the probability is zero, just infinitesimally small.

[ZeroPoint]

No, it's the theory of scientists who hold a very different idea of how life originated then I do, so you're wrong on both counts.

You really display a lack of understanding in logic. theory /= fact. idea /=fact
Ideas are something you have in your own head, similar to an opinion.

Right on both accounts.

You really display a lack of understanding on just how complex life is.



Given that we can't create entirely new forms of life (Not attempting to replicate existing life nor using parts of living things) in a laboratory with controlled environments and guided actions, your assertion that life can just happen is in error.




If we can't create life under the most ideal of circumstances, we can make a pretty good guess that it's going to have a harder time developing under less-then-ideal circumstances, or broken down, since we're at zero, there's a less then zero chance it happened somewhere else.

The chances for a planet developing life is calculated over a period of a billion years...I'm not aware of any controlled experiments that have had such a period of study. If you know of any, could you direct me to them?

[ZeroPoint]

Two things that may be of interest to this discussion.

One is a debate between various people in the field, including Frank Drake, that I found interesting.

http://www.astrobio.net/debate/236/complex...in-the-universe


The other kind of hits on what Almost normal was saying, to less of an extreme

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/...l-thinking.html

[Halinn]

It can be argued, that any earthlike planet will eventually develop simple life, of which, maybe 2/3 of those planets will develop into complex life. It go the other way that the chances of life developing are incredibly small...the Rare Earth concept.

I think the rare earth concept is just as conceited as the idea that the sun and other planets revolve around the earth and we're the center of the universe.

The main fact is all we have is a single data point. Us. With only one data point we can't know for sure what the chances of life developing on another planet would be. As such, all we can do is make assumptions given the information that we do have.

The problem is that besides not knowing the chances of life developing at all, we don't even know how long it will take assuming it does. Earth is around 4.5 billion years old, and early life arose some 0.5-0.7 billion years after that, and early homo sapiens around ~400-250 million years ago. That is to say, going from planet formation to intelligent life (here defining intelligent life on Earth as "humans") took over 4 billion years, and then from that, it took hundreds of millions of years for us to send messages that could potentially reach space (radio being invented somewhere around ~1880). We can't really make any qualified statement about other planets getting there faster, but we know that it took a long time for us.

[hermit]

It obviously wouldn't be life, but what would you call it?

We'd have to make up a term, I'd guess. Though if it doesn'T replicate, and doesn't uphold complex shapes against entropy, it's probably just rocks.

We don't know, but considering that we are made primarily of the 4 most abundant elements in the universe (5 minus helium since its inert and doesn't react chemically), there's a good chance that other life will at least be carbon based (ie organic) and will be able to metabolise at least some earth food.

Quite a stretch, since there are an awful lot of ways these elements can combine.

we are starting to run low on workable, non-protected land for agricultural production. As population increases, and dwellings take more space, we get LESS land for food production.

No. Not only will climate change result in a net plus of arable land (sucks if you live near the equator though), a lot of arable land is very badly developed, if at all. Africa, this means you. And it's much cheaper to just expand conventional farming upward than trying to colonise the sea floor.

Which means less food for that rising population. They will have to expand. Either that or continually destroy themselves with bloody wars. And sending them off to try to colonize an inhabited planet solves that problem both ways.

Oh, it's that argument again.

Nobody says population growth is inevitable. Many developed nations are models that disprove this claim. China shows you can stop population growth - or at least, slow considerably - as a top-down order too. And who says Aliens don't go the cheap route and euthanasise? And that is assuming their way of procreation si a carbon copy of ours, which already is *quite* a stretch. Finally, interstellar expeditions are incredibly ressource intensive. If you're on a string ressource wise already, wasting more ressources you will never see again instead of enforcing a one-child policy equivalent is idiotic.

Assuming this race first expands to its own solar system, colonizing the other, likely dead planets, and breaking others open for their mineral rich cores, they will have an abundance of material for large vessels.

They will also have no real reason for interstellar colonisation that spends those ressources for the most expensive way to execute excess population possible. Seriously, if they need population reduction that much, there are much more effective ways to ensure that while keeping all these ressources for themselves. They could build giant space stations for their excess population, too, which keeps most of those ressources intact that otherwiese would have to be burned up for fuel on their interstellar colonisation shenanigans.

Because we're talking on the concept of such a race attempting to invade earth. Such a suffeciently advnaced race isn't going to apply their great intellect to trying to take earth by force using less advanced weaponry.

If all your points lead up only to ID4 in SR, why do you even try to justify them? Any god-like, perfect scifi race isn't going to waste their ressources on such a lousy endeavour, PERIOD, because they're sufficiently anthroporphic to think in such terms. The idea defeats itself, realistically.

Their main weapons are going to be their logistics

What logistics? Burning up the other half of their solar system for reinforcements that arive in a few decades? Please.

You really display a lack of understanding in logic. theory /= fact. idea /=fact
Ideas are something you have in your own head, similar to an opinion.

Your location says "midwest". Kansas?

[Tanegar]

Because living in a giant tin can isn't very comfortable. Said giant ship is probably pretty cramped out of necessity. And probably, such ships have most of its inhabitants in cryostasis in order to maximize transported population density.

And when i talk about resources, i'm not talking about them coming to earth and digging up our iron and stuff and shipping it back home. If thats all they wanted, they would just go planet cracking nearby unihabited planets.

When i say resources, i mean the land. livable land. With breathable atmosphere and relatively stable climate. Also, there's plenty of meat to go around. 5 billion humans worth of meat.

Also... what tin can? You still aren't grasping the scale involved in this undertaking. Hollow out an asteroid, spin it for gravity, and terraform the interior: boom, you have a perfectly lovely, custom-landscaped, inside-out world, complete with its own ecology. Cryostasis? Where a power failure could kill everyone? No engineer in his right mind would design a ship like that.

[almost normal]

Right on both accounts.

Still wrong. Gravity = theory = fact.
The Mathematical probabilities of life happening by chance are also not my own inventions. Since you've stated that they are, once again, you're still wrong on both counts.

The chances for a planet developing life is calculated over a period of a billion years...I'm not aware of any controlled experiments that have had such a period of study. If you know of any, could you direct me to them?

Wrong. The chances for a planet developing life *by chance* are calculated by whatever figure of time you wish.

The chances for a study to create life under the most ideal conditions, which in fact, sometime little resemble anything natural the earth ever experienced, have nothing to do with the flow of time.

Again you display a lack of basic understanding in science.

[ZeroPoint]

The problem is that besides not knowing the chances of life developing at all, we don't even know how long it will take assuming it does. Earth is around 4.5 billion years old, and early life arose some 0.5-0.7 billion years after that, and early homo sapiens around ~400-250 million years ago. That is to say, going from planet formation to intelligent life (here defining intelligent life on Earth as "humans") took over 4 billion years, and then from that, it took hundreds of millions of years for us to send messages that could potentially reach space (radio being invented somewhere around ~1880). We can't really make any qualified statement about other planets getting there faster, but we know that it took a long time for us.

Which is why that particular bit is part of the updated drake's equation. there may be a good chance of there being life in just the milky way, but the chances that life has developed to a level where they are sentient, capable of sending/receiving radio signals into space is much lower (since we have at least a 3 billion year window of time where life hasn't even developed central nervous systems).

[hermit]

Also... what tin can? You still aren't grasping the scale involved in this undertaking. Hollow out an asteroid, spin it for gravity, and terraform the interior: boom, you have a perfectly lovely, custom-landscaped, inside-out world, complete with its own ecology. Cryostasis? Where a power failure could kill everyone? No engineer in his right mind would design a ship like that.

Why, after colonising this asteroid, waste ressources that all agree have to be scarce in order to start colonising schemes to begin with on propelling this asteroid over several light years? Just populate it and keep it where it was. Everything else is a waste of your scarce ressources because your hypothetical race is too pro-life to get it's excessive reproduction under conrtol. think of all teh little aliens the energy wasted on colonisation would feed! Why won't anyone think of the little aliens.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Why, after colonising this asteroid, waste ressources that all agree have to be scarce in order to start colonising schemes to begin with on propelling this asteroid over several light years? Just populate it and keep it where it was. Everything else is a waste of your scarce ressources because your hypothetical race is too pro-life to get it's excessive reproduction under conrtol. think of all the little aliens the energy wasted on colonisation would feed! Why won't anyone think of the little aliens.

Well, Are they tasty with Cocktail Sauce?

[ZeroPoint]

Still wrong. Gravity = theory = fact.
The Mathematical probabilities of life happening by chance are also not my own inventions. Since you've stated that they are, once again, you're still wrong on both counts.

Still right. Gravity = Law (not theory) = Fact
Look up what a theory is. look in the dictionary.
Idea formulates a Theory. Once you prove a theory, it becomes a law. until then, it is just a that...a theory.

Wrong. The chances for a planet developing life *by chance* are calculated by whatever figure of time you wish.

The chances for a study to create life under the most ideal conditions, which in fact, sometime little resemble anything natural the earth ever experienced, have nothing to do with the flow of time.

Again you display a lack of basic understanding in science.

your in rare form today.

Chance has EVERYTHING to do with time. lets say, you are generating a random number between 1 and 1 trillion twice. Lets say it takes you 1 second to generate both numbers and compare for a match. I'll give you a year and see if you ever generate the same number simultaneously.


Now i'll give you a billion years....

[hermit]

Well, Are they tasty with Cocktail Sauce?

Can't get enough ... ^_^

[Sengir]

If no one you know has ever won the lottery, there is no recorded event in history of anyone ever winning the lottery, no evidence has ever been found that someone won the lottery

...it stops being an analogue for life, because we know quite sure that life has come into existence at least once (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[KCKitsune]

Drake's Equation depends on three constants that are actually arbitrarily predicted variables which may be significantly off, skewing the whole "equation" radically. It's essentially a hope and a dream that was published by a scientist.


It seems that KCKitsune is simply insulted that psionics in SR does not match their view of what psionics should be. What about werewolves? Or the Infected? Ghouls being zombies? Trolls having regeneration and only being harmed by fire and/or acid?

My point being that SR has taken popular ideas and then stated that they've always existed, but the ancient lore from the last mana tide is exaggerated or wrong. This is how SR says that loup-garou are actually werewolves of legend, or any number of other things. The same is true for psionics. There could be something out there that is actually psionics, but there is a psionic tradition and that doesn't have to be psionics as you see it - it's what the game has declared is psionics.

Also, having a system of magic that does not function in relation to mana fields is a broken system - Backround Count, Astral Hazing (by extention) and Arcane Arrestor would have no effect against it, neither would any of a number of other defenses against standard magic. No defense against a superior system = broken.

Actually, I would have MUCH preferred that the creators of SR put their foot down and say that Psionics didn't exist, period, end of sentence. I also don't have ANY problem with SR interpretation of Werewolves (Shifters), vampires, and other beasts. I know that this is not D&D, so please don't insult me Neraph.

@Hermit: Actually I dislike Star Trek's take on Psionic abilities, but I don't want to go on a rant about that here.


////
Second, the rule set I made up for Psionics has the Psion with a limited set of abilities. Also, without the ability to boost your power with foci, the power level is much lower. I mean think about it: a Mage with Magic 6, a Rating 6 Spellcasting Foci, in a beneficial mana field (in this case +2) will have the ability to cast a effectively Rating 14 Magic.

My rule set would not allow ANY of those shenanigans. There is no Psionic power foci, and no beneficial mana field. Yes there is no drawbacks, but I accounted for them by limiting the number of abilities that a Psion could get to their Psi rating. Psi rating of 2... congrats you have TWO powers and can not learn any more until you raise your Psi rating. Unlike a mage who can spend 5 Karma to learn a new spell.

If anyone wants to take a look at the rule set I made and tell me how I can make it better and more balanced with the current SR rule set, then PM me and I'll send you a copy.

[almost normal]

Of course. It's just the hubris of "Since we're here, our theories on why we're here must be right!' that annoys the hell out of me.

[almost normal]

Actually, I would have MUCH preferred that the creators of SR put their foot down and say that Psionics didn't exist, period, end of sentence. I also don't have ANY problem with SR interpretation of Werewolves (Shifters),

Loup Garou.

[Lionhearted]

Still wrong. Gravity = theory = fact.

Technically not correct, theories are based on and supported by facts, but they're not facts in themselves.
A theory is a unifying explanation of a natural phenomenon.

A fact tells us what happens
A theory attempts to explain why it happens

This by no means make a theory less valid.

Wrong. The chances for a planet developing life *by chance* are calculated by whatever figure of time you wish.

Is random chance really that relevant in this although?
My layman understanding of abiogenesis suggest that on the most basic level: Before there is a cell or even a RNA sequence, it has way more to do with the chemical interaction of basic organic matter.
organic/=life but you knew that already

Which is why that particular bit is part of the updated drake's equation. there may be a good chance of there being life in just the milky way, but the chances that life has developed to a level where they are sentient, capable of sending/receiving radio signals into space is much lower (since we have at least a 3 billion year window of time where life hasn't even developed central nervous systems).

Worth noting is that there is a scale of time aswell, other planets might have had life at some point that is extinct by this point in time.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Second, the rule set I made up for Psionics has the Psion with a limited set of abilities. Also, without the ability to boost your power with foci, the power level is much lower. I mean think about it: a Mage with Magic 6, a Rating 6 Spellcasting Foci, in a beneficial mana field (in this case +2) will have the ability to cast a effectively Rating 14 Magic.

Ummmmm. Functionally Wrong on the MAge issue. With a 6 Magic Rating, he could cast at a Force 12 (as an Overcast Effect), but his Magic is still only a 6. The Power Focus and the Mana Field have absolutely no positive effect on the Magic Rating Directly. The Rating 6 Focus and the +2 Mana Field add DICE, not RATING to the test.

[Adarael]

This thread is ugly and should be ashamed of itself.

[Lionhearted]

Still right. Gravity = Law (not theory) = Fact
Look up what a theory is. look in the dictionary.
Idea formulates a Theory. Once you prove a theory, it becomes a law. until then, it is just a that...a theory.

That's misguiding, absolute proof is only relevant (and possible) in physics and mathematics.

It's also a horrible misrepresentation of the scientific method.
A theory in common speech is NOT a scientific theory.

Again! A theory is a unifying explanation of a natural phenomenon.
Its based on facts derived from empirical observation and experiments.
Theories are the highest form of proof that can be achieved outside of mathematics or physics.

Also the gravitational laws and the theory of gravity is not the same thing

[Tanegar]

Actually, I would have MUCH preferred that the creators of SR put their foot down and say that Psionics didn't exist, period, end of sentence.

Um... that's exactly what they did do. Anyone who believes that he is psychic is actually a magician. There are no psychic powers, end of sentence.

[Irion]

... and if the ancient warriors fight intelligently and learn from observation, they'd give a modern army a hell of a fight. The Brits in Afghanistan, America in the Phillipines, Vietnam, Afghanistan (again).

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying a bunch of roman legionairs wouldn't be able to get the drop on a group of modern infantery. (despite firearms)
(Considering that the romans would probably be stronger and faster, suggested by archologists)
The point is, they wouldn't know how to fight us. Take our ability to comunicate over long distances. They wouldn't have a single clue how to stop us from doing it.

Where does that come from? Not that I disagree on principle, but so far, the most distant point we "sent someone up" is the moon. Mars is probable, yes. Venus too, and we could sure send someone to the outer planets if we were so incluned and wouldn't expect them to return.

Well, there is a robot on the mars and nasa could have send humans if they were in to spend a lot of money for less results... And not returning at all should be kind of a deal breaker...

And mostly, that means interstellar civilisations are very unlikely to exist at all.

Well, lets say unlikely to visit us. What the probablitie for a civilastion is to exist in two solar systems I do not know. And it depends what you may count...
One "generation" lab in the next solar system or colonized several planets...

I guess we have to set some things straight.
1. Yes, the scenario is at all unrealistic.
2. But if we assume they are comming here with spaceships, well our chances are very low.

Yes, there are other fantasy scenarios. A very aggressive species which just happened to find some way to teleport between Solar systems, directly on the planets. Now, everything is possible...


@Psionic
The only thing that bugs me a bit about the Psionic tradition is, that RAW is actually what they believe... But they are wrong by RAW...

[ZeroPoint]

That's misguiding, absolute proof is only relevant (and possible) in physics and mathematics.

It's also a horrible misrepresentation of the scientific method.
A theory in common speech is NOT a scientific theory.

Again! A theory is a unifying explanation of a natural phenomenon.
Its based on facts derived from empirical observation and experiments.
Theories are the highest form of proof that can be achieved outside of mathematics or physics.

Also the gravitational laws and the theory of gravity is not the same thing

Pardon my misuse of terms, but my point stands for the reasons you yourself said.

Sometimes I mix up things i learned way back in high school with what i learned through my own studies, and get these little details mixed up.

[almost normal]

Um... that's exactly what they did do. Anyone who believes that he is psychic is actually a magician. There are no psychic powers, end of sentence.

Unless they're considered a critter?