Peterkin

Citing statements made either by posters on this thread or the authors of papers that have been extensively quoted. Of course, nothing done that way has ever gone wrong. Exactly. If the universe can't or won't mount an adequate defense, it's fair game for human specialness.

BTW - Not all 'spoiled' food is necessarily harmful. One way fruits, grains and legumes go 'bad' in a warm environment is through fermentation. Soured milk can become cheese or yogurt; bad barley might eventually turn into good scotch.

In two hours, pop will lose its fizz, and ice cream will melt, cookies may harden and whipped cream will collapse; they may become unpalatable, but not unsafe. Even a glass of wine won't go sour in any room where the temperature is bearable for humans. Any hotter, and food might denature, but not spoil in that time. Of course. And method of preparation, and container. If you leave a teabag in a dry cup without water, the leaves inside will dry and you can reuse it hours later. Nothing can 'restart the cycle', because every time you pour water on it, more of the chemicals dissolve out and the tea is depleted of its tea-ness, so you're drinking warm paper-water. That's to prevent steaming/icing up the freezer, and trapping condensation in the food container. It's also a waste of cooling energy, like opening the door to stare inside. ...and thus ideal for someone suffering from that hard-to-spell word. They used to give rice-water to sick babies who lost too much fluid through vomiting and diarrhea and couldn't get enough nutrients into their system.

I lack sufficient information to agree or disagree. My yea or nay is irrelevant, given that one tiny word at the start of my footnote, denoting a full coverage of bases, rather than a stand on the issue. They're sure they can. They're sure the chosen target is not only sterile and suitable to sustain life at the moment it's detected, which was between 4 and 50 years ago, but that it will remain in the same orbit and the same condition for all the thousands of years it ill take the mission to arrive there. They're sure they can aim a space-vessel that far accurately, avoid colliding with anything on the way, and land exactly where they intended. They're sure their cargo will have survived the journey unharmed and unchanged. They're sure .... And if it doesn't work out that way, and some nascent indigenous life gets wiped out, they don't care. The galaxy is their sandbox and they are entitled to build whatever they want, or do in it whatever they please. To claim it in the name of Life and Science and The Human Purpose.

No, they're supposed to highlight the attitude of the author.

True scientific objectivity!

Correct! And I wasn't answering you in that quote, either. Nice One! Try killing all of them and see what happens. Just as a scientific experiment.

Certainly, when anyone contemplates undergoing a cosmetic procedure, some counselling is advisable; in the case of major remodelling, extensive consultation with several specialists is the norm. That's why I mentioned the psychological aspect of the matter, but didn't want to get sidetracked into its intricacies in a thread about the technical feasibility of bone reconstruction in the Anatomy forum. It's not always easy to find the right mix of factual objectivity and concern for another's sensibilities.

... on which all other life depends... Right. You are entitled to destroy whatever kind of life is unworthy in your sight. You own all the universe and make all the value judgments. In mine, that's bordering on megalomania. It's also, I suspect, an invitation to some Vogon rezoning project.

I'm not trying to discredit it. Its Biological Imperialism under a missionary banner.

Full circle. Fourth time? Fifth? Enough.

To us: none. To them: infinite. What can we learn from blindly shooting off sperm we can never see land, let alone fertilize anything? It costs nothing. Sending contaminants into space cost plenty. So, it's an ego thing. OK - that, I comprehend. Why disguise it as science?

Are you saying those are the only two choices? Invade or stagnate? Me, if I saw more scientific endeavour, political commitment and financial investment going into climate mitigation, alternative energy sources, family planning, health and nutrition, food security, and maybe killing off fewer native species, I wouldn't call it hand-sitting stagnation. But that's an ideological position and doesn't answer the original question: What's the purpose of seeding other planets with life?

I like that one best! Plain old universal curiosity.

Amount to much what on which scale of values, according to whose metrics? Unless it was evolving under there, ready to emerge when the conditions become favourable - only, by then the surface is already covered by aggressive earth life. And, once more, with scientific detachment: Why? We can't learn anything because of the time-scale. We can't benefit because of the distance. We make an investment of resources.... for what return? If somebody say, just for fun, or to beat the Chinese to an achievement milestone, or to take a few $billion out of the military budget - okay, I can see that. Because we can, or because it's our destiny, or because Life is precious - those, to me, are invalid reasons.

Probably trying to figure out your intentions. Makes me wonder.... She must have seen human divers before, so she's got you classified by configuration and motion. She can't have met any predatory humans before, or she'd be dead, so you're classified as benign (or provisionally benign) as to type. One would expect, in that case, to be ignored. So this one was checking you out particularly, as an individual. Gathering detailed information on the type? Making contact? Making a request? .... or investigating your chakras/aura/vibes with a sensory capability we don't know about?

If you're over 60, you'll never be in the correct timeline again.

You can write anything on a flag or a teeshirt and take it out in public. The future of civilization is not looking too rosy atm.

when I, and everyone else, had our fift5h of sixth vaccination.... (booked our third in march.)

Good to know! I may visit, after all.... what we used to say when the gods stepped on our plans: when this mess is over.

Intelligence is no immunity against stupid assumptions. Pet dogs, who have never lived in a pack, hunted for survival or had territorial rivals, don't have the same understanding of predator etiquette that coyotes or wolves have. Their residual instincts (like those of humans) are displaced and confused by civilization; can drive them to behaviour that would have been appropriate in a pack hierarchy (most of our pets are ranked higher in our pack than their capabilities would earn in the wild, so they tend to be overconfident), or defence of a perimeter they've marked (even though their territory overlaps those of a hundred dogs they've never even met, let alone matched up against.) but a helluva a lot mo snakes! I used to watch Bondi Vet at lunch sometimes, when we had regular tv.

Also rats, snakes, cats, possums and raccoons. It's a perilous life out there!

I mean real-world animals, not domestic ones. Yes, small dogs can be very stupid.

Long-distance truckers listen to their radio for company on the road. If they travel through the US, there are vast regions where they are subjected to the crazy network: gospel, country, vitriolic commentary and conservative propaganda.

Would have been fun to film! If we go softly about the world, we are often treated to touching, tragic, amusing, enlightening scenes. I watch the birds on my feeders now, the way I used to watch children in the schoolyard - as an interested observer, not as a predator.