> Why would we evolve a transceiver for something that obviously [does not increase probability of] survival? (made an edit to your quote there, because as wri

> Why would we evolve a transceiver for something that obviously [does not increase probability of] survival? (made an edit to your quote there, because as written it didn't make sense, but LMK if I messed that up) As to your point.... I don't understand what you see that makes that obvious. Can you explain? To me, there is plenty of room for an unobservable but survival-influencing signals: 1) There are many stable extra-terrestrial signals. The position of the sun and moon relative to the Earth's surface at a given position are the most obvious ones, but there are obviously lots more. 2) A set of these signals is observable by Earth's graduate student population, as of 2019 3) A set of these signals is observable by Earth's biomass, as a whole, as a result of a billion years of each species evolving in very specific pockets of those signals. 4) Set 3 is probably not a subset of Set 2 Ergo, it's probable that we gain some survival benefit from unobservable extra-terrestrial signals. But maybe I've got a mistake in my logic. Let me know.