Do sci-fi movies create unrealistic stereotype for aliens?

[zorkuus]

There is no reason to believe that, given the number of stars with planets in the habitable zone, the conditions leading to life have existed only once in the entire existance of the Universe.

But he didn't say that. The answer is: we don't know (either way).

[Osmeric]

There is no reason to believe that, given the number of stars with planets in the habitable zone, the conditions leading to life have existed only once in the entire existance of the Universe.

Well, except for the argument from the Fermi Paradox. The fact the galaxy isn't full to the brim with alien colonies (including our entire solar system) IS a data point that cannot be ignored.

And there is no reason to believe life has to exist elsewhere either.

[Akka]

So in alot of science fiction movies aliens are portrayed as gross drooling monsters who want to kill us. I fear that this will create a dangerous stereotype for when we meet real aliens. As a culture we're heavily influenced by movies and we learn stereotypes easily from them. This could put real aliens in alot of danger when we meet them.

Save for the movie of the same name, "aliens" are actually mostly shown as humans with a different appearance and, at best, some cultural quirk. I find that what we severely lack is rather having truly alien species, with wholly different base bodies and mindset. Of course it's much harder to pull off (because it needs some heavy imagination and thinking to get consistency, AND it risks losing the audience which will find it hard to follow).

[Mormolyce]

I know a lot of aliens from Rigel who developed an eating disorder trying to look like Jabba the Hutt.

[Kellhound]

Well, except for the argument from the Fermi Paradox. The fact the galaxy isn't full to the brim with alien colonies (including our entire solar system) IS a data point that cannot be ignored.

And there is no reason to believe life has to exist elsewhere either.

Actually, it only means that during a very small time period of human existence (and an even smaller time period of our ability to manipulate the electromagnetic spectrum) we have not made contact. Think of it this way, to detect an alien signal, it would have to be one we can detect that was transmitted in a VERY narrow time band, while a signal from earth would (at best) be detectable only ~120 light years away (which is ~0.1% of the length of the galaxy).

[xenogear3]

If you see some ants, do you "HELP" them or kill them?

When British and Spanish meet Native American, "HELP" them or kill them?

[Adam Jensen]

You're assuming that aliens exist. The fact that nobody has heard anything - other than the so-called "Wow" signal - is called the Great Silence. And the fact that it even has a name speaks volumes.

Not really. I don't get why people get so hung up about the "Silence" or the fact that we've seen nothing.

Our galaxy alone is incomprehensibly large. If our sun was the size of a grain of sand, the nearest star would be thirty kilometers away. And the Milky Way is full of those grains of sands, to the degree of hundreds of billions. Our radio signals have traveled at most 200 light years and alien life could easily be sitting undetected on a planet not far from here, unnoticed because we're not looking for the right signals, or because we can't image or visit their planet directly. The galaxy could conceivably be full of life and we're completely unaware because of the vast distances involved.

We simply don't know if aliens exist.

I believe it's highly probable they do for two reasons: there are trillions of planets and moons in the galaxy, which means that even as low as the odds of life evolving may be, there are trillions of chances for the conditions to be right for life to form. We don't know those odds, but for Earth to be the only planet with life, those odds would have to be ridiculously low. And life is a product of natural chemistry. Complex chemistry, sure, but natural chemistry. So there's no reason to believe that some outside force is needed to make it happen. Since this is beginning to butt into atheist thinking, and this forum frowns upon religious threads, I'll stop with that.

[Osmeric]

Actually, it only means that during a very small time period of human existence (and an even smaller time period of our ability to manipulate the electromagnetic spectrum) we have not made contact. Think of it this way, to detect an alien signal, it would have to be one we can detect that was transmitted in a VERY narrow time band, while a signal from earth would (at best) be detectable only ~120 light years away (which is ~0.1% of the length of the galaxy).

Part of the Fermi Paradox is that the solar system wasn't taken over by aliens in the billions of years before humans even existed. Earth and the other bodies we've examined show no signs of ever having been occupied by alien civilizations, even though evidence of such occupation can easily persist over geologic time periods.

[gamingmuscle]

Actually, it only means that during a very small time period of human existence (and an even smaller time period of our ability to manipulate the electromagnetic spectrum) we have not made contact. Think of it this way, to detect an alien signal, it would have to be one we can detect that was transmitted in a VERY narrow time band, while a signal from earth would (at best) be detectable only ~120 light years away (which is ~0.1% of the length of the galaxy).

It would need to be powerful and aimed at us to detect it. General noise like we've been sending out is only detectable within a couple light years (at our current tech level). SKA should improve that.

While fermi's paradox is interesting, it makes assumptions that simply may not be true.

[Adam Jensen]

Part of the Fermi Paradox is that the solar system wasn't taken over by aliens in the billions of years before humans even existed. Earth and the other bodies we've examined show no signs of ever having been occupied by alien civilizations, even though evidence of such occupation can easily persist over geologic time periods.

It took human life 3.5 (give or take) billion years to evolve into what it is now. Assuming that it takes about the same time for similar cultures to evolve, on top of waiting for their planet to form and have the right geological conditions, why assume there were beings billions of years ago? Wouldn't they take approximately the same amount of time to come into existence?

[Deficineiron]

Aliens even existing is an unrealistic stereotype (see Fermi Paradox).

one proposed solution to fermi paradox is that there are some very nasty von neumann machines or a single very old alien species that keeps the weeds cut. has been some entertaining SF written on the premise.

more generally I would not be surprised if it is found single-cell life is quite common even in the solar system. IIRC there was some indication or evidence found of ancient bacterial-sized life on mars, and that is out of an extremely small sample set of data (meteorite).

[Osmeric]

It took human life 3.5 (give or take) billion years to evolve into what it is now. Assuming that it takes about the same time for similar cultures to evolve, on top of waiting for their planet to form and have the right geological conditions, why assume there were beings billions of years ago? Wouldn't they take approximately the same amount of time to come into existence?

Because the universe is 13.8 billion years old, and our solar system is only 4.55 billion years old. There are plenty of stars that are much older than our solar system.

The time to colonize the galaxy is, even very conservatively, a small fraction of the age of the galaxy, or of our solar system.

Those who think aliens are common need to either assume interstellar colonization is extremely rare, or assume the aliens arose only very recently, somehow synchronized with us. What's the mechanism that causes that to happen?

- - - Updated - - -

one proposed solution to fermi paradox is that there are some very nasty von neumann machines or a single very old alien species that keeps the weeds cut. has been some entertaining SF written on the premise.

In that case, why are we even still here? Wouldn't the VN machines have already spread around the galaxy, and snuffed us out (or all earth life) long ago?

[Akka]

Part of the Fermi Paradox is that the solar system wasn't taken over by aliens in the billions of years before humans even existed. Earth and the other bodies we've examined show no signs of ever having been occupied by alien civilizations, even though evidence of such occupation can easily persist over geologic time periods.

The Fermi paradox has dozens over dozens of possible explanations. It's a data point to consider, but it's more food for thought than actual proof.

[Deficineiron]

Well, except for the argument from the Fermi Paradox. The fact the galaxy isn't full to the brim with alien colonies (including our entire solar system) IS a data point that cannot be ignored.

And there is no reason to believe life has to exist elsewhere either.

other random thoughts -

some life types (postulated) may be of environments that don't lend themselves to tool use or certain technologies useful for propulsion.

also until the solor system is exhaustively explored, it doesn't seem clear to me there is much data to even begin to work with. gas giants - if a life was based on those type environments and was there on a gas giant in our solar system (say a colony), would we necessarily know?

- - - Updated - - -

In that case, why are we even still here? Wouldn't the VN machines have already spread around the galaxy, and snuffed us out (or all earth life) long ago?

not enough information based on a half-serious comment about vn's, but your response assumes a very rigid threshold for weed-cutting a species, and very frequent 'check-up's'. what if they dont care about iron-age tool users, and only check every ~~~ 2000 earth years once such a group is identified?

[nextormento]

Well, except for the argument from the Fermi Paradox.
And there is no reason to believe life has to exist elsewhere either.

The paradox doesn't give any reason to believe differently, provided the belief is not in contradiction with the paradox. It provides a start point to brainstorm what to think and do.
There is no reason to believe any of the absolute conclusions -that they're out there, or they're not- without throwing a few "ifs" in there. "If the universe is big" doesn't cut it, because statistics don't require the event of life to happen more than once. So some more ifs need be thrown in.
Regardless, this is about heuristics and philosophical razors, not conclusions.

So let me question your motivation: why do you insist on pointing out incorrect conclusions?.
"They're probably out there" is a somewhat reasonable -but vague- stance for any person not excessively concerned with the exact wordings, or the burden of providing evidence. Some more strict conclusions ("it's statistically certain") are incorrect, yes. But it seems to me that helping other people shape up their heuristics would be more useful.

[Deficineiron]

The paradox doesn't give any reason to believe differently, provided the belief is not in contradiction with the paradox. It provides a start point to brainstorm what to think and do.
There is no reason to believe any of the absolute conclusions -that they're out there, or they're not- without throwing a few "ifs" in there. "If the universe is big" doesn't cut it, because statistics don't require the event of life to happen more than once. So some more ifs need be thrown in.
Regardless, this is about heuristics and philosophical razors, not conclusions.

So let me question your motivation: why do you insist on pointing out incorrect conclusions?.
"They're probably out there" is a somewhat reasonable -but vague- stance for any person not excessively concerned with the exact wordings, or the burden of providing evidence. Some more strict conclusions ("it's statistically certain") are incorrect, yes. But it seems to me that helping other people shape up their heuristics would be more useful.

what is the standard for alien life? doesn't the mars asteroid find in the 90's tend to skew assumptions at least about singlecell life? (what if single-cell life is found on mars now, and it is the only planet we have even explored to this degree? what does that do to assumptions?)

[baskev]

So in alot of science fiction movies aliens are portrayed as gross drooling monsters who want to kill us. I fear that this will create a dangerous stereotype for when we meet real aliens. As a culture we're heavily influenced by movies and we learn stereotypes easily from them. This could put real aliens in alot of danger when we meet them.

HAHAHAHAHA

1) Lets get 1 thing clear. if you take movie's or tv only recently its become a Trent. If you look overall most are still humanoid to cut cost.
2) People now adays believe everything on tv....Its not tv faults. Its because people are dumb. If we meet aliens and you think that alien looks weird and nothing like tv you are most likely a brain dead trump voter.

[nextormento]

what is the standard for alien life? doesn't the mars asteroid find in the 90's tend to skew assumptions at least about singlecell life? (what if single-cell life is found on mars now, and it is the only planet we have even explored to this degree? what does that do to assumptions?)

We don't have any such standard. That's why we need throw a string of "ifs" into any assertion.
I'm not sure what asteroid you're referring to. But any finding is used as evidence to discard different hypothesis.

[Osmeric]

what is the standard for alien life? doesn't the mars asteroid find in the 90's tend to skew assumptions at least about singlecell life? (what if single-cell life is found on mars now, and it is the only planet we have even explored to this degree? what does that do to assumptions?)

Detection of life on Mars doesn't mean much, as it is not evidence that life is common in the galaxy unless it is fundamentally different from terrestrial life. Microorganisms almost certainly were transferred between Mars and Earth by impact debris, so finding terrestrial-chemistry life there would not be evidence of a separate origin-of-life event.

[falagar112]

Earth was formed by space rocks, it is even suspected that there would have been no water here (nescessary to develop life as we know it) without comets delivering it during the impact phase of earths creation.

In other words, we are kinda aliens ourselves.

Now if there is an alien civilization somewhere - there are 2 options.

1. they are warlike - any civilization that has the means to travel those distances is technologically superior, and we'd have no chance. Forget Independance Day movies, we have no chance whatsoever.

2. they are peaceful - odds are they have something like the prime directive in star trek - let human evolution run its course without interference, which isn't all that silly if you think about it - we also study animals in their natural environment.

Regardless if its 1 or 2 - we can't even get to Mars, our closest neighbor, yet. Considering space exploration we are like a baby taking its first steps, we have a long way to go before we can reach those alien civilizations. Us fearing aliens (regardless if its justified or not) while not having the capabilities of reaching them - might be a good thing for humanity. Gives us a common cause and maybe stop petty wars amongst ourselves.