Although, I just noticed that your example for the sun is silly. Because "don't look at the sun," is not a statement about the current state of the sun. It's just talking about looking in the direction of an object. So it's not relevant in that case.

I actually agree about the sun. I think differences only become insignificant when it gets down to seconds, and I wouldn't disagree with someone who even still counted that significant. But I think it's pretty safe to say hundred of years to millions of years is significant enough to warrant a different tense.

You just say "They were," and "It was," and if you need to clarify, you say how long ago (hint: it's just the light-year number). It's not rocket science, coincidentally. You know, like we do with history and archaeology? Because that's what astronomy is. It doesn't matter when you "first observed" it if you're…

Also, "hipster scientific literacy"? What the fuck are you doing on io9? Aren't you late for football practice?

Which is why we should never say "They are," or "It is." We can say "They appear to be," or "We observe them to be," or we could just say the simple thing that makes sense, which is, "_____ years ago, they were," which is just better science. The only reason not to is tradition inertia and laziness.

That's the best argument I've heard so far. Fair enough. But scientific speech is supposed to be unambiguous and scientific literacy is largely based on removing things we have no reason to believe our true from our speech habits and world view, so I still think it would make more sense (and really isn't that…

We are trying to communicate with (potential) civilizations and at least observe (potential) life-forms and (potential) habitable planets light-years away, and have been for decades, so ... Surprise! Your reason is already here.

Actually, you didn't put it up. I put it up. I typed the words and I clicked "publish" and I came back in a couple of hours to read your outrage. Your role in it was simply to set yourself up for the bashing, walk right into it, and then get your head in a knot over it.

I'm not sure I understand how that makes sense, because if it takes us even longer to get there that means our present observations will be even less relevant by the time we do, so our understanding gap would be even larger.

Oh, you're right, so it's not in the past.

Why would I be mad? Society literally agrees that I'm a better and more important person than you just by virtue of who I am. It pays me more and it respects the things I say more. I was trying to make a joke with other readers of the site, but I'll just go back to enjoying my incredible delicious privilege. Just by…

I'm not seeing something 10 feet in front of my face as it was 500 years (and that's a close object) in the past. The fact that you'd even make that analogy is exactly my point about people not understanding how observations at astronomical distances work. You have no idea what the thing you're looking like is like…

I think Orwell was right about a lot of what would happen to society, but I think he was wrong about a lot of the why and how. The perpetually-online webcam-enabled personal computer/smartphone is absolutely the Telescreen, but notice that the government didn't have to force it upon us. We all lined up for it and…

The book is not about religion as belief, it's about power as instrument of control rationalized through religion.

You might have been underthinking that part. Cows give us milk and cheese before we eat them, and leather and (for primitive people) weapons and armor made from their bones after. They can also be used as beasts of burden. Think about what you can do with a human slave besides just eventually eat them, and consider…

Yes. This one. I'm a huge, huge fan of realistic future dystopia and apocalypse stories (more Atwood, Orwell, Itoh than zombies and anthropomorphized apes) and even for me this shit was way too much. By far the most depressed I've felt after reading a book, and I've got fucking antibodies for that shit.

Not necessarily, but it would be a much more interesting and probably more productive dialogue if that were an option that was actually taken seriously. Arguably the colonial powers could have had one before the colonial period started (because at this point it's way too late for that to be responsible option).…

I'm not sure how this relates to donation in asymmetrical economies as a market pressure.

Of course consumers can't really be judged for this, because everyone has needs and wants and everyone wants a good deal or a cool product. I mean everyone should purchase ethically but there are massive limits to this (not least of which is the feasibility of alternatives and actual knowledge of what broader concerns…

What?