 Fermi's Paradox |
  |
 Apr 26 2002, 09:40 AM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Member  Group: Members Posts: 3,941 Joined: 21-February 02 Member No.: 981  |
yes, this is another one of those times when I find some intriguing theory and immediately post it here for my intellectual superiors to go into great detail about. so, here goes:
the other day I read about Fermi's paradox. this says that, as humanity gains more and more technology, it will become easier and easier for smaller groups of people to control this technology, and use it against much larger groups. basically, when we reach a certain point, we're fucked, because so few people will be able to exert so much power. there's also something in it I don't really understand about how this proves there's no extraterrestrial life because they would have already destroyed themselves. so, basically, could anyone tell me anything more about this? or at least explain why it's a "paradox"? I don't see anything paradoxial... Hey asshole, Chuck Darwin says hi!- Dennis Miller Sunshine is very deserving of being a Cherub, and she well earned her title IMO- CC_Fully_Completely, 9-13-00 Edited by - Silla on Apr 26 2002 8:15:49 PM -------------------- I suspect that you imagine 'Turkey in the Straw' to be a valuable bit of Americana. Well, it is not. It is a discordant abomination.
|
 |
 
|
|
Apr 26 2002, 02:55 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,377 Joined: 26-March 02 Member No.: 1,134 |
Interesting, Silla. I've wondered about this kind of thing myself in relation to extraterrestial life and highly evolved beings as well as here, but I didn't know Fermi had formulated a theory about it. Where did you hear about it? I imagine the connection with extraterrestials has to do with beings highly enough evolved technologically to visit here. The idea is that with the increased ability of small groups or individuals to destroy entire populations or planets or the like, it becomes increasingly likely that this will happen to advanced beings. Any beings advanced enough to be visiting would have already passed this point and destroyed themselves. Possibly the paradox is only paradoxical in the weak sense that advancement is ultimately self-defeating. It's not surprising that Fermi, as one of the fathers of atomic technology, would reflect on this.
I think there's a serious issue involved with this that will come to be increasingly important here on earth. The solution would seem to be either to counter this effect with increased defensive capacities, or with changes in how humans develop, i.e. alterations in human nature made by science. The problem with the first would be that there's always a lag between offense and defense. The problem with the second, besides the scary implications of altering human nature, is that there are game theoretic and other reasons to expect that some aggressive tendency will evolve or appear in some way and screw everything up. Edit: Forgot the other plan, stricter controls on technology. This too seems unworkable because there are such powerful incentives to get around any restrictions. Sanpete Edited by - Sanpete on Apr 26 2002 7:59:05 PM |
|
|
|
|
Apr 26 2002, 03:15 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,941 Joined: 21-February 02 Member No.: 981 |
there was an editorial column about it in this month's Analog; I'll post a link in a minute
Hey asshole, Chuck Darwin says hi!- Dennis Miller Sunshine is very deserving of being a Cherub, and she well earned her title IMO- CC_Fully_Completely, 9-13-00 alright, I'm at the Analog site and it doesn't seem to be available there... I'll keep looking Hey asshole, Chuck Darwin says hi!- Dennis Miller Sunshine is very deserving of being a Cherub, and she well earned her title IMO- CC_Fully_Completely, 9-13-00 -------------------- I suspect that you imagine 'Turkey in the Straw' to be a valuable bit of Americana. Well, it is not. It is a discordant abomination.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 26 2002, 03:22 PM
Post
#4
|
|
 Ultima Weapon Group: Members Posts: 3,733 Joined: 12-January 02 From: Midgar, Gaea Member No.: 831 |
Is this the theory based on the fact that, because we cannot detect the radio emmisions of any other civilisation, that it does not exist? I'm too intoxicated to post seriously on this right at the moment, but if so, it seems like bullshit to me. I could be missing the whole point here, though...
Guest #2: you just missed Moridin leave after 15 hours redbulladdict: 15 hours? holy shit redbulladdict: he must have no life Guest #2: he's a writer Guest #2: he doesn't need to be on time |
|
|
|
|
Apr 26 2002, 03:34 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,377 Joined: 26-March 02 Member No.: 1,134 |
Silla, looks like what you posted and what I went on about in my earlier post is actually a possible solution to Fermi's Paradox. The paradox is that there ought to be lots of evidence of aliens, but we don't have any (putting aside UFOs). Why not? One hypothesis is the one you posted.
Some links. Only the first two talk about the destruction hypothesis, which I think is a stronger one than these links suggest. The other three are a series that considers other aspects as well. http://www.faughnan.com/setifail.html http://xray.sai.msu.ru/~lipunov/text/ashkl/node4.html http://www.space.com/searchforlife/shostak...dox_011024.html http://www.space.com/searchforlife/shostak...mi2_011108.html http://www.space.com/searchforlife/shostak...mi3_011129.html Sanpete Edited by - Sanpete on Apr 26 2002 9:20:33 PM |
|
|
|
|
Apr 26 2002, 03:41 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Ultima Weapon Group: Members Posts: 3,733 Joined: 12-January 02 From: Midgar, Gaea Member No.: 831 |
Ok, I'm very interested in this discussion, but a little too bladdered to continue posting seriously. I will read your links and reply though, Sanpete...later.
Guest #2: you just missed Moridin leave after 15 hours redbulladdict: 15 hours? holy shit redbulladdict: he must have no life Guest #2: he's a writer Guest #2: he doesn't need to be on time |
|
|
|
|
Apr 26 2002, 03:49 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,977 Joined: 7-March 01 Member No.: 23 |
a) If aliens only exist far away, which is likely, then they would not have been able to send any signal of their existance, or travel here, nor know about an advanced civilization such as ours.
 Actually, it would seem that technology enables more people to have more power, rather than less people more power, esp. with the Internet.
The Clu-less are starting to annoy me. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 26 2002, 03:57 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,941 Joined: 21-February 02 Member No.: 981 |
I think that the technology point is applied chiefly towards weaponry- i.e., you don't need an army to take out a city, you just need a man with a suitcase nuke. of course, suitcase nukes didn't exist in Fermi's day, but I suppose he could have foreseen them...
Hey asshole, Chuck Darwin says hi!- Dennis Miller Sunshine is very deserving of being a Cherub, and she well earned her title IMO- CC_Fully_Completely, 9-13-00 -------------------- I suspect that you imagine 'Turkey in the Straw' to be a valuable bit of Americana. Well, it is not. It is a discordant abomination.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 26 2002, 04:03 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Ultima Weapon Group: Members Posts: 3,733 Joined: 12-January 02 From: Midgar, Gaea Member No.: 831 |
Where ET life is concerned, the technology is mainly concerned with 'how the fuck did they get here...?'
Guest #2: you just missed Moridin leave after 15 hours redbulladdict: 15 hours? holy shit redbulladdict: he must have no life Guest #2: he's a writer Guest #2: he doesn't need to be on time |
|
|
|
|
Apr 26 2002, 08:10 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 7,680 Joined: 9-March 01 Member No.: 38 |
To resolve the confusion about the Paradox, it runs like this.
If there are many highly advanced extraterrestrial civilizations, why haven't they contacted us? Possible solutions: - there aren't many suitable civilizations, either because we're the only planet in the universe that has developed life, or because of the reasons described in the opening post - they are watching us, but wish to remain unseen and have the technology to do so |
|
|
|
|
Apr 26 2002, 08:15 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Ultima Weapon Group: Members Posts: 3,733 Joined: 12-January 02 From: Midgar, Gaea Member No.: 831 |
A fourth possible solution: the sheer size of the universe is such that sentient species may be spaced so far apart that they are never within detectable range of each other. This option obviously dismisses the possibility of hyperspace travel being physically achievable...
Guest #2: you just missed Moridin leave after 15 hours redbulladdict: 15 hours? holy shit redbulladdict: he must have no life Guest #2: he's a writer Guest #2: he doesn't need to be on time |
|
|
|
|
Apr 26 2002, 08:58 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,377 Joined: 26-March 02 Member No.: 1,134 |
quote from Moridin: The paradox takes this into account. With increased size of the universe you also get more chances at the development of life. I personally think the more interesting part of what Silla brought up isn't the paradox but how the destruction thesis applies here on Earth. Cherry must have a dozen threads going about how some nasty Arab is going to build a suitcase nuclear weapon and blow up Atlanta. It is getting easier to do that kind of thing, though it's far from possible for most groups for now. Self-replicating machines are also a big risk for the future. Technology is definitely getting more and more powerful and dangerous, and it tends to get easier and easier for some kook or group of kooks to build extremely dangerous devices. Sanpete |
|
|
|
|
Apr 26 2002, 09:04 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Ultima Weapon Group: Members Posts: 3,733 Joined: 12-January 02 From: Midgar, Gaea Member No.: 831 |
The destruction thesis is a whole other thing that I still don't want to comment on in this mental state...
quote: I don't see how this necessarily refutes the fact that these civilisations may be spaced impossibly far apart. It all depends on the likelihood of life evolving on a planet that has life-supporting properties. If it is low, then it may be the case that the practical difficulties of contact between species are insurmountable. Guest #2: you just missed Moridin leave after 15 hours redbulladdict: 15 hours? holy shit redbulladdict: he must have no life Guest #2: he's a writer Guest #2: he doesn't need to be on time |
|
|
|
|
Apr 26 2002, 09:18 PM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,377 Joined: 26-March 02 Member No.: 1,134 |
quote from Moridin: Apparently there are some calculations that go with the paradox to show that it's pretty likely despite spacing. A couple of the links go into that some, and there are some others I didn't post that go into the details. Sanpete |
|
|
|
|
Apr 26 2002, 09:21 PM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Ultima Weapon Group: Members Posts: 3,733 Joined: 12-January 02 From: Midgar, Gaea Member No.: 831 |
Hmmm, okay then. I will get back to you once I have had a proper look, which will be after I finally get some sleep. I have no head for details right now...
Guest #2: you just missed Moridin leave after 15 hours redbulladdict: 15 hours? holy shit redbulladdict: he must have no life Guest #2: he's a writer Guest #2: he doesn't need to be on time |
|
|
|
|
Apr 27 2002, 05:42 AM
Post
#16
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,941 Joined: 21-February 02 Member No.: 981 |
If anybody wonders, the editorial in Analog was talking specifically about how the paradox relates to the terrorist attack- thus my assumption that societies destroying themselves was the paradox in and out of itself.
Hey asshole, Chuck Darwin says hi!- Dennis Miller Sunshine is very deserving of being a Cherub, and she well earned her title IMO- CC_Fully_Completely, 9-13-00 -------------------- I suspect that you imagine 'Turkey in the Straw' to be a valuable bit of Americana. Well, it is not. It is a discordant abomination.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 27 2002, 06:52 AM
Post
#17
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 21,663 Joined: 23-June 01 Member No.: 317 |
Possible colonisation?
Liverpool Football Club - 18 League Championships, 6 FA Cups, 6 League Cups, 4 European Championships, 3 EUFA Cups, 1 European Super Cup - simply the greatest team in the world! |
|
|
|
|
Apr 27 2002, 07:32 AM
Post
#18
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 7,117 Joined: 9-March 01 Member No.: 36 |
I agree with Andy. How much power did common people have in the Middle Ages, and how much now? Though one could possibly say people had more power in prehistory...maybe the power scale swings back and forth.
"I am not Emp, nor do I ever intend to be like him. I would much rather blow my fucking brains out than be a complete control freak like him." --Sandamnit |
|
|
|
|
Apr 27 2002, 07:57 AM
Post
#19
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 21,663 Joined: 23-June 01 Member No.: 317 |
IH, wouldn't even machines constitute some form of contact?
Liverpool Football Club - 18 League Championships, 6 FA Cups, 6 League Cups, 4 European Championships, 3 EUFA Cups, 1 European Super Cup - simply the greatest team in the world! |
|
|
|
|
Apr 27 2002, 08:04 AM
Post
#20
|
|
 Maids Terror Group: Members Posts: 3,812 Joined: 26-March 01 Member No.: 86 |
Simple: Fermi's Paradox assumes extraterrestrial life would be as fucking greedy as humanity. Humans, and animals in general, are greedy because they had to be. With limited (in comparison) resources for every population there must be fighting for them. Without greed and the wanting of those resources a species would die out. But what if any extraterrestrial life was born on a planet with a small population to use a massive amount of resources. Then as their technology evolved along with them they would have no need to control it for defensive or offensive purposes, because they would not fear the utilisation of it for evil.
Veritus Vos Liberabit It's my job to be opinionated, but not necessarily correctly so. -------------------- In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends - MLK Jr.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 27 2002, 03:48 PM
Post
#21
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 7,680 Joined: 9-March 01 Member No.: 38 |
I have something mathematical to say about the distance problem. If the frequency of appearance of advanced civilizations is decreased by a factor F, the average distance between them increases by the cube root of F, which isn't a whole lot.
quote from Storm:Or as curious. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 27 2002, 04:14 PM
Post
#22
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 21,663 Joined: 23-June 01 Member No.: 317 |
IH, much like how we need to be physically (humans or machines) on a planet to fully make observations and measurements of it, so I'd think an ET species would at least to do so too. As long as an ET machine comes to Earth, I'd consider that contact.
Liverpool Football Club - 18 League Championships, 6 FA Cups, 6 League Cups, 4 European Championships, 3 EUFA Cups, 1 European Super Cup - simply the greatest team in the world! |
|
|
|
|
Apr 27 2002, 04:40 PM
Post
#23
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,377 Joined: 26-March 02 Member No.: 1,134 |
quote from Stormraider: Good point, but without limited resources there wouldn't be evolution. There will be some aggression in any successful product of evolution, it seems. Sanpete |
|
|
|
|
Apr 28 2002, 09:47 AM
Post
#24
|
|
|
Maids Terror Group: Members Posts: 3,812 Joined: 26-March 01 Member No.: 86 |
quote: That's probably the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me here 
Veritus Vos Liberabit It's my job to be opinionated, but not necessarily correctly so. -------------------- In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends - MLK Jr.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 30 2002, 12:32 AM
Post
#25
|
|
|
Ultima Weapon Group: Members Posts: 3,733 Joined: 12-January 02 From: Midgar, Gaea Member No.: 831 |
Here, as promised, are my thoughts:
Assuming that Fermi was right, and the absence of evidence for other life in the universe is due to the fact that civilisations never spread beyond their own star systems, I see three reasons why this might be so, and I have considered them in terms of how they would affect us on Earth: 1) Annihilation Nuclear war, chemical war, poisoning of the atmosphere, sophisticated bio-engineered plagues, revenge attacks by lions, tigers, bears, poisonous snakes and giant venus-fly-traps.......I daresay there are plenty ways by which we can bring about our own destruction. Alternatively we could always get hit by a comet or asteroid, or our solar system could stray a little too close to a dying star or black hole, or...actually no, no evil galactic emperor, or the Paradox is toast, but those are enough, I think. I find the destruction theory very plausible. 2) Artificial Selection This is the name I have given to the assumption that humans will ultimately be replaced by sentient constructions of their own creation. (Really it would just be a logical extension of natural selection and evolution, but I'm trying really hard to be clever. ) After all, it does seem logical that, sentience and cognition being the pinnacle of that process so far, the creation of cognitive beings of unlimited potential lifespan -- intelligent machines that could simply upgrade/remake themselves when necessary -- would be a positive and progressive step, looked at objectively. I find this possibility less likely, but I cannot dismiss it entirely.
3) Transcendence This is my favourite of the three options. It assumes that, due to some unforseen twist in the future history of our species, we will survive the current international shambles and develop some kind of truly global culture. Through technology we will improve conditions in our solar system to the extent where human suffering is eradicated, and people will live for the pursuit of knowledge, perception and pleasure (of course). We will evolve to the point where we have gained an understanding of the fundamental nature of everything without having to leave our star system, and will have the capability to provide everything we need right here. Perhaps we will even come to forsake our physical bodies in the fullness of time, and exist as creatures of pure energy. I would love to believe that something along these lines is in store for us in the future. Unfortunately, I find the destruction hypothesis a little more convincing. Still, I can dream... Of course, neither can I dismiss the very real possibility that there is another explanation for the apparent Paradox, that we are missing a big piece of the picture, and are simply unable to comprehend the evidence that there are other civilisations out there. This paragraph stood out for me from your links, Sanpete: quote: Really, we know so little that it is hardly worth speculating, except that it is in our nature to do so, and one far-off day we may discover an answer. I have no definitive opinion on this, but these are my thoughts... Guest #2: you just missed Moridin leave after 15 hours redbulladdict: 15 hours? holy shit redbulladdict: he must have no life Guest #2: he's a writer Guest #2: he doesn't need to be on time Edited by - Moridin on Apr 30 2002 05:35:06 AM |
|
|
|
|
Apr 30 2002, 08:47 AM
Post
#26
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,377 Joined: 26-March 02 Member No.: 1,134 |
Moridin
This part of that quote you picked out has a particularly interesting application in this context: quote: Some people have taken this as a good reason to believe that some kind of God exists, the result of transcendence. It's an interesting thought, and depends on what really is possible, something we don't really know too much about yet, as you say. Sanpete |
|
|
|
|
Apr 30 2002, 09:11 AM
Post
#27
|
|
|
Ultima Weapon Group: Members Posts: 3,733 Joined: 12-January 02 From: Midgar, Gaea Member No.: 831 |
quote from Sanpete: It is an interesting thought, and rather mind-boggling when you consider the full implications of it; particularly given our lack of knowledge. It's true to say that I see no reason why our development would stop with transcendence, and from there the path to omnipotence/omnipresence/omniscience would seem open. Then again, if there is an infinite amount of knowledge, omniscience cannot be possible. If there is an infinite amount of space, can omnipresence be possible? And the other? OTOH, I don't suppose one would have to possess these qualities to be considered a God by human standards, at least. How does this argument relate to creation theory? Does it at all? I don't suppose we can really say... Guest #2: you just missed Moridin leave after 15 hours redbulladdict: 15 hours? holy shit redbulladdict: he must have no life Guest #2: he's a writer Guest #2: he doesn't need to be on time |
|
|
|
|
Apr 30 2002, 06:03 PM
Post
#28
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Just Registered Posts: 103 Joined: 19-July 01 Member No.: 381 |
It seems to me that given the vast timescales that the universe operates on, living civilizations should be pretty rare.
I doubt a civilization could survive for more than 50,000 years. It just doesn't seem possible, what with the oldest civilization on Earth (China, right?) being 2,200-odd years old (In this I am equating countries to entire species, which may not be entirely applicable.). The universe has been creating stars for about 12 billion years, I think (I'm giving it 2 billion or so to get its act together after the big bang). So if we give every civilization 50,000 years before extinction or collapse (collapse being a dark age in which technology is lost), and put it on the timescale of the universe (~12 billion years), the possibility that there are civilizations operating that are capable of contacting us is very low. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 30 2002, 06:18 PM
Post
#29
|
|
|
Ultima Weapon Group: Members Posts: 3,733 Joined: 12-January 02 From: Midgar, Gaea Member No.: 831 |
Human civilisation is at least 6,000 years old, possibly older. Given the progress we have made in that little time, if we did survive to be 50,000 years old, I don't think we'd have to worry about extinction any longer...
quote from icewyvern: I don't see why that necessarily has to be the case. Why does the age of the universe lead you to this conclusion? Anyway I'm finally going to bed. 32 hours or some shit is long enough to be awake... 
Guest #2: you just missed Moridin leave after 15 hours redbulladdict: 15 hours? holy shit redbulladdict: he must have no life Guest #2: he's a writer Guest #2: he doesn't need to be on time |
|
|
|
|
Apr 30 2002, 07:06 PM
Post
#30
|
|
 Member Group: Members Posts: 3,661 Joined: 9-May 01 Member No.: 174 |
Hmm, I think this is irrelevent, because it assumes two things.
1) That alien life reacts the same way as humans do, and that they exhibit the same sociological behaviors. 2) It assumes that by the time a society can do space travel to meet other civilizations, it killed itself. It's saying that as technology progresses, less is needed to topple everything. Who is to say that they don't put safeguards on it. A society much like that in 1984 wouldn't be toppled, yet could potentially be technologicaly advanced. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 30 2002, 07:53 PM
Post
#31
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Just Registered Posts: 103 Joined: 19-July 01 Member No.: 381 |
quote: I guess what I was saying is that it is much more likely that we'll find the remains of a civilization, rather than an operating civilization. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 30 2002, 09:11 PM
Post
#32
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,377 Joined: 26-March 02 Member No.: 1,134 |
quote from uNF_Meyer: Few people believe a society like that in 1984 would be stable. Generally, safeguards have flaws that can be exploited by rogue elements. But it's hard to say much certain about things like this. Sanpete |
|
|
|
|
Apr 30 2002, 09:16 PM
Post
#33
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 457 Joined: 3-August 01 Member No.: 417 |
quote: Actually, Indus Valley, and ~6000-8000. The Phoenix |
|
|
|
|
May 1 2002, 10:48 AM
Post
#34
|
|
|
Ultima Weapon Group: Members Posts: 3,733 Joined: 12-January 02 From: Midgar, Gaea Member No.: 831 |
quote from uNF_Meyer: The assumption is not that aliens would act as humans do, but that if a tendency towards destruction exists, it will manifest itself in any civilisation, whether or not we would even recognise the civilisation as such. The symmetry of the universe and physical laws lends credence to the possibility of this idea. As for future technology, well, you have to consider societal development alongside technological, as Wes Janson pointed out in another thread. There are many who think that if we survive the nuclear age we will have passed the most dangerous phase in development, but this ignores the likelihood that we will develop more powerful potential weapons in the future, and also assumes that we will have evolved a more benevolent and co-operative global society by then. I do not think we can rule anything out. quote from icewyvern: ...and you may well be right. You use predicative tense rather than conditional, though. Do you think it is a foregone conclusion that we will develop starfaring technology in future? Guest #2: you just missed Moridin leave after 15 hours redbulladdict: 15 hours? holy shit redbulladdict: he must have no life Guest #2: he's a writer Guest #2: he doesn't need to be on time Edited by - Moridin on May 01 2002 3:48:18 PM Edited by - Moridin on May 01 2002 3:49:04 PM |
|
|
|
|
May 1 2002, 03:12 PM
Post
#35
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Just Registered Posts: 103 Joined: 19-July 01 Member No.: 381 |
quote: I was thinking more in terms of self-rule. I think being conquered would constitute a collapse. quote: I think it's fairly likely. True, powerful weapons are becoming more available to smaller groups of people, but it's going to take a lot of suitcase nukes to make the world uninhabitable. |
|
|
|
|
May 1 2002, 03:23 PM
Post
#36
|
|
|
Ultima Weapon Group: Members Posts: 3,733 Joined: 12-January 02 From: Midgar, Gaea Member No.: 831 |
Ignoring the destruction hypothesis for a moment, then, what of the other possibilities I listed?
Guest #2: you just missed Moridin leave after 15 hours redbulladdict: 15 hours? holy shit redbulladdict: he must have no life Guest #2: he's a writer Guest #2: he doesn't need to be on time |
|
|
|
|
May 1 2002, 03:55 PM
Post
#37
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 5,177 Joined: 6-April 01 Member No.: 124 |
Fermi's Paradox
Fermi's Paradox has definite obvious truths in it. As technology progresses, fewer and fewer people are required to control/destroy/conquer other people. An example of this would be that in the 1700s, if you wanted to destroy Europe, you would have required a large army, all of which would have to believe fully in the idea of destroying Europe (killing everyone, burning buildings, etc). At this point in time, a single nuclear power, controlled by a single person, could concieveably wipe out the entire European continent (in effect). To a degree, democracy safeguards this, as does vigilant anti-proliferation policies of the rest of the world. But the possibility still remains. However, what cannot happen is for a trend to develope in such a manner that smaller and smaller groups of people are required to influence/destroy/conquer larger and larger opposition. Tactically, this is actually true. But in society, a small group of people (hacker) cannot "take over" society. Because if one small group with a dedicated purpose tries to do something, far more people will oppose them with the same technology. IMO, the true effect of increasing technology is that group consensus will have more sway over things. The only weak point is in education. That is the one place a small group of people can influence a much larger group. In such a way, a few people can influence the very thinking of a larger group, effectively neutralizing future opposition and creating support. That is the weak point: learning. On the other hand, nothing short of a totaliatarianistic state will prevent people from developing who recognize the situation and act to counter the damage and influence. And the only way a totaliatarianistic state forms is when group consensus is swayed towards believing it is the best course of action. Thus, the media. However, as it is now, it would be quite difficult for a single person or a handful of people to significantly control the masses into supporting a shift towards censorship and indoctrination. And in the unlikely event that they do, there remains the rest of the world to counter them, especially through the Internet. Ultimately, the situation is that technology allows people to control other people, but allows other people to control other people as well. The only weak point is in what people are taught/told, and the Internet, or any other free sharing of information, allows information to get past that blockade. Other Civilizations 1. It is possible civilization is inherently self-destructive. However, possible types of self-aware life, and their individual thinking processes, tend to make such a scenario of inherent self-destructive tendencies on a universal scale, unlikely. Our race might be self-destructive, but would the Zerg? 2. Another possibility is that FTL travel IS impossible, and nothing can be done about it short of centuries-long near-c travel. In such a scenario, it is possible many races would not be very interested in leaving their home planet, because of possible social adversions to such travel, and/or a lack of need. Or... 3. ..It might be simply that many civilizations develope virtual-reality. VR is the best that any Class 1 civilization might be able to hope for. And if Class 2 and Class 3 civilizations are impossible... Then you have a race content to sit at home and fufill it's fantasies. Unless... 4. Other races may simply be socially and genetically inclined towards ignoring technology/space/exploration, and instead remaining on their home planet, perhaps with robotic miners on nearby planets. Imagine a race of Christian Scientists....with an imperative to never leave their "God-given home". It could be more likely than we realize. 5. Planetary composition might play a much greater factor in determining a race's destiny than we think. What if a vast majority of planets with self-aware life, are primarily covered in water? They might very well develope advanced thought, but without even the most basic of technology (fire, metals, tools, etc), they would be unable to progress in the same way we have. We really don't know how likely a dry/wet planet is. What if life does require h20 for life, and the vast majority of planets are either too warm for liquid water, or have all-water-no-landmass? We don't know the exact conditions that deposited the water, and it may be simply that our planet is a fluke, and dolphins make up 99.9% of life in the universe. 6. Bad luck. Who knows? Perhaps any number of the above scenarios are in effect, and we've simply landed ourselves in an empty patch of space, by pure chance. 7. Differing life forms could explain it. Think along the lines of the Horta from ST. For all we know about extraterrestrial life, humanoids are incredibly rare and life tends to favor intelligent crystal formations. Who knows? Someday we'll be dead and none of this will matter. -------------------- You are
what you do when it counts. -The Masao |
|
|
|
|
May 1 2002, 04:02 PM
Post
#38
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 903 Joined: 2-November 01 Member No.: 635 |
I dont buy how this would hurt our chances of finding ET. Everyone knows civilizations only last soo long. How many have been on earth?
All it would mean, is if there are 1 billion other planets with life right now, they might not be around by the time another planet forms with life, thereby increasing the number of life. Big deal. I would be just as likely, that a ET would start populating other solarsystems before killing off there old planet and everyone on it. As far as the few having having the tools to hurt the big, its allready that way. Viruses. 1 kid can take down millions of corporations around the globe. But you will always be able to use technology to fight technology. |
|
|
|
|
May 1 2002, 04:27 PM
Post
#39
|
|
|
Ultima Weapon Group: Members Posts: 3,733 Joined: 12-January 02 From: Midgar, Gaea Member No.: 831 |
Wes, I basically agree with what you are saying about information, power and society. Regarding other civilisations though:
quote: For the destruction theory to be a reality, they would have to. I really don't know, but I would refer you back to my answer to uNF_Meyer in post 38. I think it is a possibility that this is a natural tendency, due to the apparent symmetry of nature... quote: I agree with this. However, given the sheer size of the universe (or even just our galaxy) it is likely that at least some of these civilisations would have undertaken a programme of near-c exploration. I can envisage the creation of huge asteroid-sized craft powered by ion-technology/cold fusion (or even asteroids with living quarters hollowed-out using mass-driver technology to accelerate) that would take thousands of creatures on a journey of decades. The thing is, even if only 0.001% (for example) of these civilisations decided to explore space, there should be millions of spacefaring civs out there. Do you believe that we are simply failing to detect the evidence of this? quote: Or perhaps that biological life is replaced by technological (intelligent machines)? How much credence do you give to this idea? quote: Absolutely, there could be many reasons why a civ would never want (or need) to leave their home system. This is the most optimistic view, for me. The road to transcendence. Any species confined to a single system is going to have a limited time to develop (albeit millions of years), but perhaps during that time they can escape the bounds of the corporeal altogether. quote: Again, that 0.1% is still such a great number of civs that it is likely some would still travel the stars (assuming it is possible). Still, it's an interesting idea, and quite plausible. There is still speculation as to whether basic life might not exist on Europa, one of Jupiter's moons, deep under the ice in a globe-covering ocean of liquid water (similar to deep-sea vents on Earth). I think, in principle, that water-based civilisations could develop advanced technology, though you may be right in saying they could never leave their planets. I'm not so sure. Whatever the case, their technology would be very different from ours. quote: A quiet suburb in a busy galaxy, yes, it's possible. And I think it's more likely that there are many answers than one, assuming that there is no destructive tendency. quote: This would perhaps explain why we have detected nothing with all of our observations, but cannot explain away the destruction hypothesis. In conclusion, I have no idea whatsoever. There are too many possibilities and there is too little information available. Still, it's an interesting topic for discussion... Guest #2: you just missed Moridin leave after 15 hours redbulladdict: 15 hours? holy shit redbulladdict: he must have no life Guest #2: he's a writer Guest #2: he doesn't need to be on time |
|
|
|
|
May 1 2002, 05:50 PM
Post
#40
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 5,177 Joined: 6-April 01 Member No.: 124 |
Personally, I think the Drake equation is hopelessly flawed and too many of it's variables are nearly impossible to accurately guess at. Thus, any end number of supposed civilizations out there is, IMO, most likely off by a significant degree, because we have no way of really telling how probable it is for an intelligent race to develope.
quote: It depends on whether AI can exist or not. If so, then it's possible. If not, then obviously no. But one must wonder...what would a robotic race's goal be? I think the answer is far to dependent on the original creator race, and that is a variable we can't even guess at, so the entire question is hopeless-if AI can form, then yes, it is possible. If no, a self-aware computer or program or matrix cannot be artificially created, then obviously the Core isn't out there. quote: No, they can't. At best you might come up with some octupus-like creatures capable of creating semi-permanent structures using organic materials they build with. However, a tool-using race isn't very probable, because tools are not of much use underwater. I must admit, I can think of a few scenarios where self-aware lifeforms are created, but I cannot think of any where they work with metals. At best, I can speculate that a highly advanced race using only organic materials, might be able to create some sort of smelter, but it seems highly improbable. The Yuuzhan Vong designed their creatures, but a water-based life would have to develope them in other ways since they would be without the technology to alter genes. quote: It seems possible, but I suspect there are reasons why alien races would not build such vessels. Curiosity might very well be a rare trait. Someday we'll be dead and none of this will matter. -------------------- You are
what you do when it counts. -The Masao |
|
|
|
|
May 1 2002, 06:07 PM
Post
#41
|
|
|
Ultima Weapon Group: Members Posts: 3,733 Joined: 12-January 02 From: Midgar, Gaea Member No.: 831 |
quote from Wes Janson: Yes, to a certain extent I am arguing devil's advocate here; arguing for the paradox when in truth I am not convinced either. quote: Yet if it is possible, and at the moment many people see no theoretical reason why it should not be, it will happen within the next few hundred years, at the exponential rate of progress we now have. One of Sanpete's links offers a few different scenarios assuming that were the case. It's true to say there's no point in trying to guess what will happen, though... quote: No, I think you are most probably right, but perhaps they could contrive ways and means that are beyond our reasoning and imagination as land-based mammals. It is very difficult to imagine what water-based creatures as intelligent as us (or more) would be like. quote: I'm not so sure. It seems to me that any sentient life, anything that has cognitive thought, reasoning and memory, is automatically going to ask itself questions about its environment, and seek to discover more answers. Answers tend only to spawn further questions, and pretty quickly (in universal terms) curiosity becomes a trait embedded in the creatures' genetic makeup. I would contend that it is unavoidable. Guest #2: you just missed Moridin leave after 15 hours redbulladdict: 15 hours? holy shit redbulladdict: he must have no life Guest #2: he's a writer Guest #2: he doesn't need to be on time |
|
|
|
|
May 1 2002, 06:17 PM
Post
#42
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,141 Joined: 23-June 01 Member No.: 320 |
It would be arrogant to assume that we could make any predictions at all as to the characteristcs of alien life.
-Local_Yokel Reliance on others is weakness for the strong, and strength for the weak. |
|
|
|
|
May 1 2002, 07:54 PM
Post
#43
|
|
|
Ultima Weapon Group: Members Posts: 3,733 Joined: 12-January 02 From: Midgar, Gaea Member No.: 831 |
Well, genetic was a bad term to use, and it is pure speculation and nothing more, but I think that if current theories of the universe are on the way to being correct, then we can make certain basic predictions about its development based on those, and life is governed by them like everything else. As long as you don't believe you actually know anything, there's nothing wrong with that.
Guest #2: you just missed Moridin leave after 15 hours redbulladdict: 15 hours? holy shit redbulladdict: he must have no life Guest #2: he's a writer Guest #2: he doesn't need to be on time |
|
|
|
|
May 1 2002, 08:09 PM
Post
#44
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,377 Joined: 26-March 02 Member No.: 1,134 |
The reason we would expect other intelligent life to have aggressive tendencies is that evolution, as well as cultural competition, produce aggressive tendencies. These would tend to lead to the destructive use of technology. Any group capable of space travel, which would require amazing amounts of power, would easily be able to destroy itself.
Sanpete |
|
|
|
|
May 2 2002, 04:57 PM
Post
#45
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 5,177 Joined: 6-April 01 Member No.: 124 |
In regards to marine life gaining cognition, let me say this much: complex life has had a lot more time in the oceans than on land. It only took a couple dozen thousand years for homo sapien to go from ape to thinker. Life has had abundant time to develope self-awareness in the oceans, yet it has not happened. We have dolphins, whales, and octupi. The dolphins have farely complex social order, and zero technology. The whales have intricate means of navigation and communication, and probably about zero in the way of true thinking. And the octupus has significant skill in utilizing rudimentary tools, but absolutely nil in the way of a social life. Obviously, social order is necessary for an advanced civilization, hence the term "civilization". Life has had plenty of time to develope in the oceans, but it simply hasn't gotten to the level of intelligence land mammals have. Why? My simple opinion is that they don't need intelligence. The octupi does just fine without social groups, and the dolphins survive perfectly well feeding on schools of fish. We can only reach one of three conclusions: self-aware life does not form in the ocean, self-aware life forms very, very rarely in the ocean, or that self-aware life is extremely improbable to begin with, and we simply have to apply the weak anthropologic principle here. Personally I feel that while self-aware life is probably quite rare, the inherent conditions of the oceans are by nature crippling to any efforts to develope "smarter" groups of social animals.
Someday we'll be dead and none of this will matter. -------------------- You are
what you do when it counts. -The Masao |
|
|
|
|
May 2 2002, 05:06 PM
Post
#46
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 523 Joined: 27-April 02 Member No.: 1,386 |
I think it is a relevant argument as far as humanity is considered. But like it was stated above, we cannot assume that alien life we know nothing about would follow the same course.
|
|
|
|
|
May 3 2002, 03:58 AM
Post
#47
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,643 Joined: 12-March 01 Member No.: 47 |
quote from Wes Janson: ????? Can you elaborate, please? when did this "couple dozen thousand years" took place? 2 million years ago? 1 million year? 400 000 years? 100 000 years? 20 000 years? Mais les braves gens n'aiment pas que L'on suive une autre route qu'eux. Georges Brassens On ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux. Tu deviens responsable pour toujours de ce que tu as apprivoisé. Antoine de Saint Exupéry |
|
|
|
|
May 4 2002, 08:26 AM
Post
#48
|
|
 Engineer Group: Members Posts: 3,047 Joined: 20-April 02 From: Italy Member No.: 1,329 |
They say paradoxes are truths that seem lies; on the contrary, I always thought they are lies that seem truths.
Fermi paradox recalls me another one that of the white sky. This latter is as follows: when you look at whatever direction in the sky, there is a --even if very small-- probability that one star is in front of you, i.e. along the straight line passing through your eye and going along that direction. Hence, If the universe is infinite, there must be one star (more or less afar) in front of you wherever you look in the sky: therefore, the sky should be white, without any black space. How come it is not so? Well, in cases like that the answer usually is that we did not consider (or we did not know) some important factor. In the white sky paradox, it's easy: universe is not infinite, but rather finite but unlimited. That, or the fact the universe had a beginning (big bang) and the speed of light is finite, so that the light of very distant stars had not time enough to reach us. Or both reasons combined. In the Fermi p. case, it's a little more difficult, but I think the solution(s) should be searched analogously. First of all, I do not think at all that solution is that all intelligent civilizations (including our one) are doomed and faithfully extinguish. Nope, self-preservation is a basic instinct, and intelligence reinforces it. Please have some faith in your own specie, you all 
WWIII did not happen just because it would have been dangerous for humankind continued existence. But let's examine those possible causes of extinction
So, if that is not the solution of the paradox (IMO), what is it. Well, the more sensible thing I read is the following: quote: Nevertheless, I would add something: 1)I read probabilities for every phenomenon involved in this paradox is well known. I disagree. Maybe Scientists can make rather good estimation for the probability (hence the frequency and the number) of a planet that could sustain life, but we have no idea about the probability (or better the probability distribution) for life to appear in a adapt environment (abiogenesis) since we have one sole example (planet Earth), and you cannot make a statistics with just one occurrence . I would bet that a very improbable phenomenon, hence life in the universe is relatively rare. Same could be said for intelligent life where non-intelligent life is. 2) probably there is a decent probability for different civs to meet during a sufficient long time ... but human history has no more than 8-10,000 years, and just in some parts of our world. Maybe aliens came 100.000 years ago, but just found some troglodytes that considered them gods or demons, and had no writing to pass any info about them. Or maybe they came 2 million years ago, and found no human being. Perhaps they will come again in 100,000 AD or 1,000,000 AD. Or we will go and find them somewhere in the space. Yours Sincerely S.L. |
|
|
|
will remain and could evolve (yes, even sex |
May 4 2002, 08:30 AM
Post
#49
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 5,177 Joined: 6-April 01 Member No.: 124 |
The reason you can only see stars so far away is because light is only visible so far through space, and it reaches a point where a star is not visible by the naked eye, only a large light-collecting device, such as the Hubble space telescope.
Someday we'll be dead and none of this will matter. -------------------- You are
what you do when it counts. -The Masao |
|
|
|
|
May 4 2002, 09:41 AM
Post
#50
|
|
|
Engineer Group: Members Posts: 3,047 Joined: 20-April 02 From: Italy Member No.: 1,329 |
quote from Wes Janson: Yes, I know, the stars' magnitudo decreases according to square of distance. Nevertheless, according to those white-sky paradox guys, in an infinite universe with an unisorm probability distribution of star existence, every (apparent) area of the sky would show infinte stars, so even if they are very distant, and therefore each of them appears too small to be seen by naked eye, they should be perceived together as a diffuse light. Nevermind, anyway, I don't think we need to go in detail with this paradox here. Yours Sincerely S.L. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 31st July 2010 - 03:06 PM |