Ufology/Black Budgets/ Area 51 Research Material for the FIRE'd

[FIRE4Science]

Since I haven't seen a nice thread on UFO's in a while, and since all mustachians will have the freetime in the future or present once F.I.R.E.'d to research and investigate their own belief and opinions and even evidence some day on the subject; I decided to start this thread to explore and be a source of gathered reading materials (or at least links to sources) for the mustachians that are interested in secrects of the US Government & World Countries, Black budget spending, and of course Area 51 and ufology.

My favorite Archives thus far: www.stealthskater.com

2nd favorite: www.abovetopsecret.com

Any others?

[arebelspy]

I'm of the belief (paraphrasing someone else here, not sure of the original source) that:

Anyone who thinks aliens aren't out there underestimates the size of the universe.

Anyone who thinks they've visited earth underestimates the size of the universe.

:)

[GuitarStv]

What makes you think that you would even be able to identify alien life if you saw it?

[BarkyardBQ]

I'm of the belief (paraphrasing someone else here, not sure of the original source) that:

Anyone who thinks aliens aren't out there underestimates the size of the universe.

Anyone who thinks they've visited earth underestimates the size of the universe.

:)

I agree...

However, it's expansion has made things get farther apart.

[arebelspy]

I'm of the belief (paraphrasing someone else here, not sure of the original source) that:

Anyone who thinks aliens aren't out there underestimates the size of the universe.

Anyone who thinks they've visited earth underestimates the size of the universe.

:)

I agree...

However, it's expansion has made things get farther apart.

That's true, and everything is moving apart faster each day. But what does that have to do with what I said?  I'm confused.  :)

[G-dog]

I'm of the belief (paraphrasing someone else here, not sure of the original source) that:

Anyone who thinks aliens aren't out there underestimates the size of the universe.

Anyone who thinks they've visited earth underestimates the size of the universe.

:)

Hahahahaha!

I will add, folks that believe in conspiracies have to also believe that all those people are keeping a secret (not any human's greatest skill).

[PathtoFIRE]

I sense something...a presence I haven't felt since...

[BarkyardBQ]

I'm of the belief (paraphrasing someone else here, not sure of the original source) that:

Anyone who thinks aliens aren't out there underestimates the size of the universe.

Anyone who thinks they've visited earth underestimates the size of the universe.

:)

I agree...

However, it's expansion has made things get farther apart.

That's true, and everything is moving apart faster each day. But what does that have to do with what I said?  I'm confused.  :)

Not much, just billions of years ago it was all closer, billions of years ago they may have visited, and then not come back... or left something :)

[nereo]

I'm of the belief (paraphrasing someone else here, not sure of the original source) that:

Anyone who thinks aliens aren't out there underestimates the size of the universe.

Anyone who thinks they've visited earth underestimates the size of the universe.

:)

Hahahahaha!

I will add, folks that believe in conspiracies have to also believe that all those people are keeping a secret (not any human's greatest skill).

Whenever asked about some supposed conspiracy I always question whether people could keep such a secret in the first place.  Typically it seems unlikely.

I'll add to the list arebelspy and G-dog started

1) Anyone who thinks aliens aren't out there underestimates the size of the universe.

2) Anyone who thinks they've visited earth underestimates the size of the universe.

3) Anyone who thinks aliens will look anything like us underestimates the complexity of life just on our own planet

4) Anyone who thinks the government is covering it up underestimates the ability of a large group ot keep a secret for very long.

5) Anyone who thinks aliens would choose to visit our planet overestimates how unique Earth is, and how isolated we are.

6) Given massive potential differences in body structure, life-span, intelligence, physiological requirements etc. it is far from certain that aliens would find us interesting enough to interact with in the first place. 

[nereo]

I'm of the belief (paraphrasing someone else here, not sure of the original source) that:

Anyone who thinks aliens aren't out there underestimates the size of the universe.

Anyone who thinks they've visited earth underestimates the size of the universe.

:)

I agree...

However, it's expansion has made things get farther apart.

That's true, and everything is moving apart faster each day. But what does that have to do with what I said?  I'm confused.  :)

Not much, just billions of years ago it was all closer, billions of years ago they may have visited, and then not come back... or left something :)

...which brings us to... time!  (keeping with our motif, I could phrase this as... "anyone who thinks Aliens visited when galaxies were closer underestimates time").  our solar system and all of the space within was basically fully formed about 4.5B years ago.  As humans we've been here for less than a million years (depending on what you want to consider to be a proper proto-human).  Excluding the possibility that one of our system's other planets may have harbored intelligent life during this time period we've been very isolated for a very, very  long time. 

[brooklynguy]

Anyone who thinks they've visited earth underestimates the size of the universe.

Many of the people most likely not to be underestimating the size of the universe (like physicist Enrico Fermi) wonder(ed) why aliens apparently haven't visited Earth.

[nereo]

Anyone who thinks they've visited earth underestimates the size of the universe.

Many of the people most likely not to be underestimating the size of the universe (like physicist Enrico Fermi) wonder(ed) why aliens apparently haven't visited Earth.

Regarding Enrico Fermi I have two thoughts:
1) Fermi died in 1954.  Pluto was discovered during his lifetime and the idea of exo-planets were theoretical.  The dominant school of thought was that our system was unique and by extension something worthy of alien exploration.  Fastforward to 2009 and the short-lived Kepler mission confirmed 751 planets out of tens-of-thousands of 'planet-candidates', all from one tiny sliver of the Kepler belt. The latest 'confimed' planet count tops 2,000. Simply put: planets seem to be everywhere - possibly even exceeding the number of stars.

2) would aliens even have noticed us?  There's only 2 stars within 10 light years of our sun, and 18 within 30 light years.  Until the ~1930s, nothing we've done would likely have been detectable from another solar system, and the distances to visit from these 'close' stars are still massive and would still take centuries-to-milennia to traverse even with technology far advanced from our own.  Assuming there is intelligent life around any of these closer stars there still hasn't been sufficient time form them to notice us and reach earth.  Conversely, with planets seemingly everywhere, why would they have set out to visit earth before realizing that we were here in the first place? 

[arebelspy]

The wait but why post on the fermi paradox is so good: http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html

[marty998]

Until the ~1930s, nothing we've done would likely have been detectable from another solar system

One can only wonder what the little green men think of us given what gets broadcast over radio and TV...

War, Depression, War, War, War, Elvis, War, Homer Simpson, War, Kim Kardashian, War.

Pretty much sums it up lol.

[Leisured]

Excellent summary, ARS and nereo.

[brett2k07]

If you're just playing the odds there is, in all likelihood, alien life on other planets. Though they probably do not look like what we've envisioned, and I doubt any of them have reached the level of intelligence needed for interplanetary exploration. Then again, with the age of the universe, who knows.

[arebelspy]

If you're just playing the odds there is, in all likelihood, alien life on other planets. Though they probably do not look like what we've envisioned, and I doubt any of them have reached the level of intelligence needed for interplanetary exploration. Then again, with the age of the universe, who knows.

No, odds are they have reached interplanetary exploration.  We're relatively new, as a species.

Odds they've come to earth though, is vanishingly small.  We're out in the middle of nowhere.

[GuitarStv]

We don't know the odds for anything to do with alien life since there hasn't really been recognizable evidence of it anywhere.  Talking about the odds of this and that is like talking about the odds of the existence of a creator of the universe.  It comes down purely to faith in your initial assumptions.

[FIRE 20/20]

I'm of the belief (paraphrasing someone else here, not sure of the original source) that:

Anyone who thinks aliens aren't out there underestimates the size of the universe.

Anyone who thinks they've visited earth underestimates the size of the universe.

:)

Great quote.  If anyone finds the original source, I'd love to know. 

[nereo]

I've always questioned the assumption that other species would even want to venture outside their own solar system.  I'm a big believer in NASA and sending probes to other planets, but I couldn't fathom why we'd try to go into intersteller space.  It's dark, cold and empty, and the distances between stars are (mild pun intended) astronomical. 

Aside from the 'dying/exploding sun' scenario, you'd be leaving something (matter, energy, warmth) to literally go into a vast field of nothing.  This all assumes that our present understanding of physics is correct and warp speed is impossible.

So personal opinion:  there are probably billions of earth-like ("M class") planets in our solar system, and perhaps tens-of-thousands that have complex life on them.  But all of them look at the distances involved to leave their star and conclude there's just no point.  I'm sure humanity would reach the same conclusion if we ever decided to draft a budget for sending just a single probe to our closest neighboring star, Alpha Centauri.  I'd imagine it would be cheaper, easier and faster to set up a manned observatory on Mars, or float a JWST-style telescope around Pluto (which is literally 10,000 times closer to earth than Alpha Centauri).

Sans warp-speed, I just don't see intersteller space travel being attractive to any species.

Fun to think about, though :-)

[brooklynguy]

I couldn't fathom why we'd try to go into intersteller space.

The same reason George Mallory gave for why he climbed Everest:  "Because it's there."

(Of course, that may reflect a human drive not shared by other life forms.)

[nereo]

I couldn't fathom why we'd try to go into intersteller space.

The same reason George Mallory gave for why he climbed Everest:  "Because it's there."

(Of course, that may reflect a human drive not shared by other life forms.)

Instantly brought to mind this gem from Gary Larson:


I conceed the human drive for exploration and doing things just because they are hard, but I intersteller travel as orders-of-magnitude more difficult for orders-of-magnitude less payoff.  The kind of thing only large governments could pull off, with little or on reward to its citizens. 
Um... now that I put it that way, it sounds exactly like something we'd attempt to do. 

[arebelspy]

The benefit of perpetuating the species seems pretty big to me.

We're not there yet, but once we can, we should.

[nereo]

The benefit of perpetuating the species seems pretty big to me.

We're not there yet, but once we can, we should.

I guess this is an argument I have a hard time accepting; if the growth of a species is expanding beyond the carrying capacity of its native planet it would be far easier to try to simply limit population growth since resources would already be strained.  If it's population is 'endangered/threatened' sending individuals through intersteller space seems like a poor strategy; better to shore up numbers at home.

Regardless, it seems smarter to colonize moons, build orbiting space stations etc. than to try to bridge the gap between stars.  As you said in your opening post, "anyone who thinks aliens have visited earth underestimates the size of the universe".

But to argue against myself, as a species we have proven to have almost unstoppable at having sex, procreating, and gobbling up resources. Maybe other forms of life see constant expansion as necessary and therefore colonization of other solar systems a foregone conclusion. i.e. no one has ever shown them what limitless compounding will do ;-)

[matchewed]

The benefit of perpetuating the species seems pretty big to me.

We're not there yet, but once we can, we should.

I guess this is an argument I have a hard time accepting; if the growth of a species is expanding beyond the carrying capacity of its native planet it would be far easier to try to simply limit population growth since resources would already be strained.  If it's population is 'endangered/threatened' sending individuals through intersteller space seems like a poor strategy; better to shore up numbers at home.

Regardless, it seems smarter to colonize moons, build orbiting space stations etc. than to try to bridge the gap between stars.  As you said in your opening post, "anyone who thinks aliens have visited earth underestimates the size of the universe".

But to argue against myself, as a species we have proven to have almost unstoppable at having sex, procreating, and gobbling up resources. Maybe other forms of life see constant expansion as necessary and therefore colonization of other solar systems a foregone conclusion. i.e. no one has ever shown them what limitless compounding will do ;-)

At the point that we have the capability to colonize the solar system we'll pretty much have the capability for interstellar travel. So it is an almost why not situation as we'll run out of resources in the solar system too at some point.

[brooklynguy]

So it is an almost why not situation as we'll run out of resources in the solar system too at some point.

Yep.  Nereo, at the very least, you're still ignoring

the 'dying/exploding sun' scenario

and thereby committing your self-described offense of underestimating time.  If we want to ensure the long-term perpetuation of our species (or whatever our species will have evolved into by then) on a cosmic timescale, interstellar travel is a necessity.

Btw, thanks for the spot-on Far Side reference.  Is there no topic in all of nerdom for which Larson has not incarnated comedic genius in newsprint?

[nereo]

The benefit of perpetuating the species seems pretty big to me.

We're not there yet, but once we can, we should.

I guess this is an argument I have a hard time accepting; if the growth of a species is expanding beyond the carrying capacity of its native planet it would be far easier to try to simply limit population growth since resources would already be strained.  If it's population is 'endangered/threatened' sending individuals through intersteller space seems like a poor strategy; better to shore up numbers at home.

Regardless, it seems smarter to colonize moons, build orbiting space stations etc. than to try to bridge the gap between stars.  As you said in your opening post, "anyone who thinks aliens have visited earth underestimates the size of the universe".

But to argue against myself, as a species we have proven to have almost unstoppable at having sex, procreating, and gobbling up resources. Maybe other forms of life see constant expansion as necessary and therefore colonization of other solar systems a foregone conclusion. i.e. no one has ever shown them what limitless compounding will do ;-)

At the point that we have the capability to colonize the solar system we'll pretty much have the capability for interstellar travel. So it is an almost why not situation as we'll run out of resources in the solar system too at some point.

Actually, it's precisely this "running out of resources" assumption that I don't accept. For simplicity, let's consider our own species and solar system.  Sure, if population kept growing eventually we could suck up all the resources in our galaxy even after colonizing the moon and Mars and building a bunch of habitable mega-space stations.  But exponential growth isn't a foregone conclusion.  If it is, the universe is truly screwed.  In ecology there's the concept of a system's carrying capacity (K), where populations will reach that limit and then often crash as resources become more scarce.  ironically, immigration to new locations becomes more difficult when populations are strained because there is a general lack of resources available for colonizing new areas.  In the case of our galaxy, these are really, really big areas and would take a really, really large amount of resources to traverse. 

Coupled with that, I can't see resource extraction as being a feasible reason for traveling to new stars - the distances are so great and the energy required to transport mass would be so much that any trip outside our solar system would be essentially one-way.  To that end it would only benefit (possibly) the individuals leaving, not the individuals from the home world sending them off. Strictly from an energetics standpoint, it wouldn't make sense to fly to another solar-system to mine for Uranium or Unobtainium or whatever and then exert the energy necessary to ship it back to the home solar system.

All of which makes me think (somewhawt sadly) that no species anywhere will make the jump out of their solar system.  When faced with how far the distances are, and how much energy it would take to get there (and slow down once you reached another star), I can't colonization ever happening.  It would be fun to be proven wrong though.

edit: 

If we want to ensure the long-term perpetuation of our species (or whatever our species will have evolved into by then) on a cosmic timescale, interstellar travel is a necessity.

I'm not ignoring timescale as much as questioning whether any species anywhere can survive long enough for their sun to explode before they die.  EVen under that scenario, I think most likely solution would be to load everyone/thing up into a cosmic arc and head for the nearest habitable planet.  In other words - it would be a 1:1 world exchange, not a continuous colonization of the entire galaxy.  Once/if the civilization reached its new solar system I believe it would just exist there for the next billion+ years instead of attempting another ridiculously far-reaching voyage for little/no benefit.

[matchewed]

Coupled with that, I can't see resource extraction as being a feasible reason for traveling to new stars - the distances are so great and the energy required to transport mass would be so much that any trip outside our solar system would be essentially one-way.  To that end it would only benefit (possibly) the individuals leaving, not the individuals from the home world sending them off. Strictly from an energetics standpoint, it wouldn't make sense to fly to another solar-system to mine for Uranium or Unobtainium or whatever and then exert the energy necessary to ship it back to the home solar system.

All of which makes me think (somewhawt sadly) that no species anywhere will make the jump out of their solar system.  When faced with how far the distances are, and how much energy it would take to get there (and slow down once you reached another star), I can't colonization ever happening.  It would be fun to be proven wrong though.

I view it more as where the line of resources needed and continuation of the species meet. We need more resources and know our solar system enough to understand it is unsustainable. It also may happen sooner than that as we could just decide to travel beyond Sol (not you :) ) for the shit of it as it was mentioned earlier in the thread.

[nereo]

Coupled with that, I can't see resource extraction as being a feasible reason for traveling to new stars - the distances are so great and the energy required to transport mass would be so much that any trip outside our solar system would be essentially one-way.  To that end it would only benefit (possibly) the individuals leaving, not the individuals from the home world sending them off. Strictly from an energetics standpoint, it wouldn't make sense to fly to another solar-system to mine for Uranium or Unobtainium or whatever and then exert the energy necessary to ship it back to the home solar system.

All of which makes me think (somewhawt sadly) that no species anywhere will make the jump out of their solar system.  When faced with how far the distances are, and how much energy it would take to get there (and slow down once you reached another star), I can't colonization ever happening.  It would be fun to be proven wrong though.

I view it more as where the line of resources needed and continuation of the species meet. We need more resources and know our solar system enough to understand it is unsustainable. It also may happen sooner than that as we could just decide to travel beyond Sol (not you :) ) for the shit of it as it was mentioned earlier in the thread.

Just to be clear, when you talk about the need for resources, are you suggesting that a species would travel to another solar system and then ship resources back to their home system, or that a speceis would fragment, with a % leaving entirely to colonize new worlds?

[matchewed]

Coupled with that, I can't see resource extraction as being a feasible reason for traveling to new stars - the distances are so great and the energy required to transport mass would be so much that any trip outside our solar system would be essentially one-way.  To that end it would only benefit (possibly) the individuals leaving, not the individuals from the home world sending them off. Strictly from an energetics standpoint, it wouldn't make sense to fly to another solar-system to mine for Uranium or Unobtainium or whatever and then exert the energy necessary to ship it back to the home solar system.

All of which makes me think (somewhawt sadly) that no species anywhere will make the jump out of their solar system.  When faced with how far the distances are, and how much energy it would take to get there (and slow down once you reached another star), I can't colonization ever happening.  It would be fun to be proven wrong though.

I view it more as where the line of resources needed and continuation of the species meet. We need more resources and know our solar system enough to understand it is unsustainable. It also may happen sooner than that as we could just decide to travel beyond Sol (not you :) ) for the shit of it as it was mentioned earlier in the thread.

Just to be clear, when you talk about the need for resources, are you suggesting that a species would travel to another solar system and then ship resources back to their home system, or that a speceis would fragment, with a % leaving entirely to colonize new worlds?

The latter.

[arebelspy]

There was no need for Europeans to travel to the new world, cause they had enough over there.

[GuitarStv]

So it is an almost why not situation as we'll run out of resources in the solar system too at some point.

Yep.  Nereo, at the very least, you're still ignoring

the 'dying/exploding sun' scenario

and thereby committing your self-described offense of underestimating time.  If we want to ensure the long-term perpetuation of our species (or whatever our species will have evolved into by then) on a cosmic timescale, interstellar travel is a necessity.

You're committing the same offense.  Given a truly long enough period, our species will probably no longer really be our species.  Just because you sent some colonists out a few million of years ago doesn't mean that they're still anything classifiable as human anymore. . . homo sapiens have only been around for 200,000 years or so.

[brooklynguy]

You're committing the same offense.  Given a truly long enough period, our species will probably no longer really be our species.  Just because you sent some colonists out a few million of years ago doesn't mean that they're still anything classifiable as human anymore. . . homo sapiens have only been around for 200,000 years or so.

That's what my "or whatever our species will have evolved into by then" qualification was intended to address.  We can just replace "species" with "progeny" in this conversation to avoid the need for that qualification.  I think the goal of ensuring the perpetuation of our progeny is worth pursuing and, on long enough timeframes, interstellar travel is a necessary (but, of course, not sufficient) condition for achieving it.

[GuitarStv]

But . . . why is it worth perpetuating our progeny if they're a different species?  What makes them more worthy of preservation than any other non-human animal on Earth?

[nereo]

There was no need for Europeans to travel to the new world, cause they had enough over there.

I don't think the European colonization of the new world is a very good analogy here, for several reasons
1) There was a clear financial motive towards exploration; find a new trade route and reap incredible monetary gains.  Bring back gold and spicies and be handsomely rewarded.  I don't see the same rewards for going to a new solar system - the energy required to go, stop and then return are incredible.  If you plan on bringing anything back (e.g. rare minerals) those will incur another huge energy penalty. 
Colonization was similar - we knew where we were going was already immediately suitable for living, and not appreciably different from homesteading elsewhere in Europe. 

2) The scale isn't even remotely comparable.  The first explorers on their clumsy ships could traverse the Atlantic in a few months.  Te likely requirements for intersteller travel are decades to centuries.  But that's not even the whole story - Sailing ships can be powered as they go.  When they get within sight of land they just furl their sails and they stop.  Space travel is a completely different set of physics.  First you have to expend an enormous amount of energy to leave your own solar system.  Then around mid-way,the gravitational pull of the destination star starts to accelerate towards your destination.  By the time you reach the new system you are traveling faster than when you left, requiring even more fuel to stop than you needed to leave your home system.  Returning only compounds the problem, as you'll need yet more energy to leave and then slow down again.  Put another way, only about 10% of your energy budget is spent leaving your solar system for a round-trip voyage.

3) there's nothing in the middle, and the middle is really, really big.  Sailors crossing the oceans carried stores with them, but they weren't completely self sufficient.  Wind still powered their crossing, rain replenished their drinking water and they didn't need to worry about oxygen or heat. Virtually all voyages relied on periodically replenishing their food stores with fish and with soirées onto various islands.  All of these can't happen in deep space. I'll admit this is just a technological hurdle, and an advanced society certainly could build a completely self contained space-ship with its own centuries-long power source, but what I still don't see is how this would be economical.  I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it is so costly that it might never be attempted.

Edit:  While I'm still doubtful, I'll admit that the possibility exists, particularly for life-forms quite different from ours.  Specifically, I think the 'ideal' colonization candidate would be a species with a vastly longer lifespan (perhaps thousands of years), are consideribly smaller than humans (requiring less fuel between stars) and are tolerant of a wide variety of physiological conditions, including cosmic rays.  Intelligent cockroaches perhaps, or better yet sentient microbial life.

[brooklynguy]

What makes them more worthy of preservation than any other non-human animal on Earth?

Well, so far, I haven't said that humans are necessarily more worthy of preservation than nonhumans, but humans are the only life form on this planet with the potential capability of taking steps to ensure the long-term (on a cosmic timescale) preservation of any earth-originated life (all of which ultimately--and literally--constitutes one big extended family), period, so if we don't do it, nobody will, and then all earth-originated life--the entire extended family--will eventually cease to exist.

But I do believe life on our planet can be broken down into a hierarchy of intrinsic preservation-worthiness.  Humans are more intrinsically worthy of preservation than orangutans, which are more intrinsically worthy of preservation than Chilean sea bass, which are more intrinsically worthy of preservation than bathroom mildew, for the same reasons that the moral unacceptability of killing any individual member of each of those groups decreases respectively. 

But . . . why is it worth perpetuating our progeny if they're a different species?

Why is it not worth preserving our progeny just because they are no longer our species?  I'd prefer for our progeny to not be erased from the universe than to be erased from the universe, irrespective of how different from us they end up being.

[nereo]

Why is it not worth preserving our progeny just because they are no longer our species?  I'd prefer for our progeny to not be erased from the universe than to be erased from the universe, irrespective of how different from us they end up being.

Is flinging your progeny across several light years really a good method for ensuring their survival?  I'm arguing no.  Using the dispersal of organisms in the ocean as an example, the further you try send your progeny the less likely they will survive the journey.  Some dispersal is a good thing because it protects from localized events wiping them all out, but the closest solar system is not 'adjacent', but seperated by billions of billions of km of complete emptiness.

edit: fixed quote tags... sorta.

In terms of progeny survival, a far better path is to build additional colonies within your own solar system.  If your species already has them, then you're not really trying to protect your species from extinction, are you?

[brooklynguy]

Is flinging your progeny across several light years really a good method for ensuring their survival?  I'm arguing no.  Using the dispersal of organisms in the ocean as an example, the further you try send your progeny the less likely they will survive the journey.  Some dispersal is a good thing because it protects from localized events wiping them all out, but the closest solar system is not 'adjacent', but seperated by billions of billions of km of complete emptiness.

In terms of progeny survival, a far better path is to build additional colonies within your own solar system.  If your species already has them, then you're not really trying to protect your species from extinction, are you?

At some point, our solar system will no longer be here, and our progeny will therefore no longer be here if all of them are then still living in it.

[GuitarStv]

What makes them more worthy of preservation than any other non-human animal on Earth?

Well, so far, I haven't said that humans are necessarily more worthy of preservation than nonhumans, but humans are the only life form on this planet with the potential capability of taking steps to ensure the long-term (on a cosmic timescale) preservation of any earth-originated life (all of which ultimately--and literally--constitutes one big extended family), period, so if we don't do it, nobody will, and then all earth-originated life--the entire extended family--will eventually cease to exist.

Why is that bad?  No matter what you do, eventually all life in the universe will cease to exist.

But I do believe life on our planet can be broken down into a hierarchy of intrinsic preservation-worthiness.  Humans are more intrinsically worthy of preservation than orangutans, which are more intrinsically worthy of preservation than Chilean sea bass, which are more intrinsically worthy of preservation than bathroom mildew, for the same reasons that the moral unacceptability of killing any individual member of each of those groups decreases respectively.

Why do you believe it's any less morally unacceptable to kill a Chilean sea bass than it is to kill a person?  What measure are you using to judge intrinsic worth?

Death is a part of life.  For me, morality is situational rather species dependent.  It's more morally acceptable to kill a dementia ridden grandmother who has previously made her wishes for end of life care known that it would be to kill the last Chilean sea bass in the world.

But . . . why is it worth perpetuating our progeny if they're a different species?

Why is it not worth preserving our progeny just because they are no longer our species?

It might be.  It might not.  I certainly don't pretend to know.

I'd prefer for our progeny to not be erased from the universe than to be erased from the universe, irrespective of how different from us they end up being.

Why?

[arebelspy]

The answer to that depends on your view of the point of it all.

For me, fighting entropy for a bit longer is good enough.

[GuitarStv]

The answer to that depends on your view of the point of it all.

For me, fighting entropy for a bit longer is good enough.

By spending tremendous amounts of energy on interstellar travel you are aiding entropy, not fighting it.

[arebelspy]

The answer to that depends on your view of the point of it all.

For me, fighting entropy for a bit longer is good enough.

By spending tremendous amounts of energy on interstellar travel you are aiding entropy, not fighting it.

It depends on what you do when you get there, and what scale you're looking at.  Perhaps on a localized level, yes, but I would argue no.

[brooklynguy]

Why is that bad?  No matter what you do, eventually all life in the universe will cease to exist.

It's bad for the same reason that all life ceasing to exist tomorrow would be bad and would not be rendered unbad by virtue of the fact that all life will necessarily eventually cease to exist (if that is indeed a true fact).

Why do you believe it's any less morally unacceptable to kill a Chilean sea bass than it is to kill a person?  What measure are you using to judge intrinsic worth?

There is no truly objective, external yardstick with which we can measure questions of morality, because morality is a purely human faculty -- it does not exist independent of us (like, perhaps, the sound of a falling tree with no-one around to hear it).  But, based on virtually all human moral codes, the life of a sentient being is worth more than the life of a nonsentient being, and I don't think there is a bright line dividing all life forms into two categories of uniform sentience and uniform nonsentience.

I'd prefer for our progeny to not be erased from the universe than to be erased from the universe, irrespective of how different from us they end up being.

Why?

If you really think about it, that's an enormously difficult question to answer.  Again, objectively, there probably is no valid reason to prefer continuation of life to cessation of life, but, because I am alive and sentient, it is impossible for me to view things truly objectively, so I prefer for there to be life than for there not to be life.

Edit:  Fixed quote tags.

[arebelspy]

Reasons

[nereo]

Reasons

You've convinced me 'rebs.  We have to save and proliferate those animals at any cost because they are just so damn cute :-)

[Guses]

While I enjoy the banter, can we please get back to the serious matter of UFOs, and the conspiracy to keep them hidden?

:/

[GuitarStv]

Was the conversation becoming too . . . probing?  Or not enough?  :D

[arebelspy]

While I enjoy the banter, can we please get back to the serious matter of UFOs, and the conspiracy to keep them hidden?

:/

Was that the conversation?  The OP mentioned it, and everyone else I saw dismissed it, and the OP never posted again. 

I didn't think there was anyone defending the idea that any aliens had ever visted Earth, let alone that there was a conspiracy to hide them.

[brooklynguy]

The OP mentioned it, and everyone else I saw dismissed it, and the OP never posted again.

I take that as clear and convincing evidence of an active government program to monitor the interwebs for potential discussion of UFO-related conspiracy theories and nip them in the bud by dispatching covert operatives to deflect the conversation down philosophical rabbit holes instead.

Don't give up, OP -- the truth is out there.

[arebelspy]

Operatives who set up their accounts years in advance, in anticipation of such an occurance. Clever of them.