http://www.universetoday.com/2010/02/08/if-the-earth-is-rare-we-may-not-hear-from-et/

If this is true and only fifteen percent of solar systems are like ours, then
we can make an even better estimate for how many ETI are in the galaxy.

But I think it is also safe to say we have a long way to go before we get
more accurate data to know the real numbers here.

http://www.amazon.com/Power-Sex-Suicide-Mitochondria-Meaning/dp/0192804812

Peter Hyams’ 2010 was also an excellent movie. However, for me it simply does not compare to Kubrick’s 2001. 2001 was very philosophical compared to 2010. Also, I really like the scene with the space craft moving around to the Blue Danube waltz.

Interesting. I just found that a 2006 National Geographic Survey said 72% of the American population would be “excited and hopeful” if life was found on other planets. And then there’s this from Space.com:

“A National Geographic-commissioned telephone survey of 1,000 Americans found that 60 percent believe life exists on other worlds. About 90 percent of those who believe in extraterrestrial life thought the Earth should respond to any communications emanating from an alien planet.”

Which is at the end of this story:

http://www.space.com/entertainment/050527_review_extraterrestrial.html

Are we talking just psychologically able to deal with the fact
there really are aliens and get on with their lives, or did they
mean they would set up a parade or barbeque or welcome
signs? Or do they mean building spaceships to meet them or
a landing pad for them to land their ships here, or do they mean
they’re loading their shotguns and boarding up their doors?

And what about the 26 percent who said they are NOT ready
for aliens? What will they do with such news?

http://tinyurl.com/cf4mgl

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/67/2010_spaceships.jpg

And of course Jupiter being turned into a star by millions of Monoliths.

Another dated feature about 2010 are the computers. They used
real computer graphics as opposed to the hand-drawn versions in
2001, yet the 1968 ones look better.

Yes, without Carl Sagan’s quite literally brave efforts, the concept
of alien life in all its forms would still be in a big state of gigglehood
and dismissiveness. David Grinspoon discusses this at length in his
book Lonely Planets, where he reveals that Sagan was once asked
to help a group of scientists create a fake ETI signal detection but
declined as he felt the ramifications of the discovery of the hoax
would far outweigh finding no real signals at all.

It’s interesting to speculate where we would be re the public perception of aliens if there had been no Carl Sagan. He made the prospect real for so many.

Perhaps all these years of fictional aliens, skewered as their
perceptions often have been, have helped to prepare the public
for the idea of other intelligent species when the day comes that
we do confirm their existence.

As Frank White said in his 1990 book The SETI Factor, how we
will respond to finding alien life depends on what kind of organisms
we will encounter (microbes or Kardashev Type III types) and in
what manner (an ancient signal from a very distant planet or a
giant spacecraft hovering over New York City).

http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=646

Alan Tough also addressed these issues in his paper here:

http://ieti.org/tough/articles/acta4210.pdf

I agree that both 2001: A Space Odyssey and Blade Runner are
among the best SF films ever made, with 2001 being unmatched
on so many levels in 40-plus years.

But there are other good SF films, of course, especially during the
era from the late 1960s to the early 1970s. You can find a dozen
or more SF films from that time period which did a good job with
plots and meaning without either the big budgets and CGI special
effects that have dominated SF cinema since the first Star Wars
film in 1977 – most of them at the cost of good plots and meaning.

Blade Runner, made in 1982, is a happy and relatively rare
exception to the post-Star Wars era rule.

Paul, I know you like 2010 better and I agree it is a good film as
science fiction cinema goes (also made in the post-Star Wars era
of 1984). The early scenes of Leonov’s arrival at Jupiter alone are
worth the price of admission. But in some ways it seems more
dated than 2001 and director Peter Hyams missed the whole point
that Kubrick was trying to make by having the humans act like
automatons compared to HAL 9000, a real machine.

Instead the characters in 2010 talk and talk and talk and explain
just about everything that is happening in the film, whereas Kubrick
and Clarke only gave the audience just enough info in 2001 to make
their own conclusions as to what was going on in the film. Kubrick
even said if they answered all your questions in 2001, then he had
failed with the film.

A refreshing change of pace from most of today’s films, where even
the comedies telegraph every joke to make sure the audience knows
it is supposed to be funny.