I think we're looking for completely different things in the same old places. J
>>Note -- the evidence doesn't stack up for them messing around in
>>our local vicinity. [They may be observing, but they aren't
>>interfering [regligious miracles & alien abductions excepted].
>"Excepted" in the sense that "they're of no consequence and not worth looking
>at" or excepted in the sense that "these are some examples that may well be
>evidence of interference but I'm not going to launch into detail about them"?
>>The evidence as I read it, best says, once evolved, a "stand-off-ish"
>>position is adopted that allows them to inexpensively observe
>Why "hands-off"? I can certainly see many reasons for this approach, but at
>the same time I'm forced to wonder if an arbitrarily advanced civilization
>wouldn't have a plethora of artificially evolved civilizations at its
>disposal. Perhaps the "supreme" civilization uses some as controls and some
>as test subjects. My money is on us being the victims of some cosmic test,
>but that's neither here nor there.
>Also, why "inexpensively"? I understand the concept of available resources,
>etc., but the notion of "expense" has an anthopomorphic ring to it I'm not
>sure I like--especially if the hypothetical civilization we're dealing with
>is arbitrarily advanced, as postulated above (i.e. has molecular
>nanotechnology). "Expense" was Carl Sagan and Frank Drake's big argument for
>the feasibility of SETI, but their reasoning was (arguably) based more on
>depicting alien motives in popularly understandable terms than dealing with
>really _alien_ aliens.
>I'm not bashing SETI; far from it. But the "SEMANTICS" light on my monitor
>starts blinking when I read words that seem to insinuate an earthly monetary
>system on a nonterrestrial civilization.