Someone I follow (SF Ali) apparently propelled this in my feed. I, Joe of the Internets am appalled. This is a nine minute read, a little longer if you count in watching the embedded media and also the hard time spent attempting to get the gist of it.
The core problem is that it basically contains a sum of whining points about the fact that without a revelatory event no one will ever notice nor reckon your existence in the Universe.
Why invest the time and effort in these idiotic attempts at hitting the science movement at its foundation when most of the eight billion members of our species are currently swamped with religious myth and without the least of discernment available to them? Why? Why? Is it a profession?
I am currently amazed at myself that I am wasting the cycles the keys on my laptop are engineered for (you know, planned obsolescence) to articulate a response to someone who decided to spend the precious time blocked by its homeostasis in attacking a very small and highly productive section of our “planetary” society, what we call the scientific doctrine. Why do you do it?
Honestly, Lisa, you seem smart. Isn’t it quite obvious that disclosure is in a binary impossibility? Either they’re here but we’re not “there” yet. Either they’re not here. What to disclose? Military secrets? Why? Who cares?
When I see idioms such as Planetary Liberation next to ET disclosure efforts I am so filled with sorry.
Planetary Liberation is precisely NOT connected to extraterrestrials. It is our job, to wake the fuck up and get our shit together. Why don’t we do that before conjuring dreams of space colonisation. I fear for space. I do. The em drive apparently works. Space is fucked, we’re coming, with our little never ending quarrels based on stories in our confused minds.
There is a hint of honesty in the article though and, in my opinion, it is the idea of dogmatic science and the profound rejection of revelation and emotional discovery, which is completely unjust as religion is the first science of man, and we’re in debt to inference a lot more than to deduction as of 2016 AD. But that is a tiny thing compared to questions such as:
what evidence would be compelling? Whose opinions matter? What authority needs to say, ‘yes, let’s consider this’?
Spaceship. Spaceship. Not pics with blurred UFOs. Them, the aliens, not stories, not crop circles, not Ron L. Hubbard. What do you mean what evidence? And why do you need “them” to consider this?
Why do all these UFO enthusiasts cling on the coat of scientists to get validation?
Get the aliens here and you won! Jesus!