Science buff- Like Barack Obama? Better not like manned spaceflight then

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Whoha

Great, if you know where the target will be.

What circumstances are you envisioning an inability to determine where the target is? search and rescue? Even if they occasionally use ordinary divergent broadcasting for such occasional purposes there is no reason they would switch to uncompressed digital or analog signals so we still wouldn't notice anything.

[Arrian]

Kuci,

You don't get the timescales involved. Any civilization could colonize the galaxy in ~3 million years - almost no time. So, if there was other life in our galaxy, it should have done so long, long ago (our galaxy is billions of years old).

I get that, but I'm assuming each civilization rises and falls in time. Thus, I'm not assuming that a civ will last millions of years. Perhaps that's pessimistic, but I think it's a reasonable assumption - no less reasonable than any of yours.

I also find some other the other explanations plausible, when combined with the gaps in space/time one. For one thing, we've only been listening for a very short period of time. We aren't particularly sophisticated in our listening, nor are we devoting all that much effort to it. This opens up some possibilities like: 1) we'll hear the signals at some point, but just haven't yet; 2) we've actually heard some but haven't understood them as signals; 3) we're listening for the wrong things...

-Arrian

[Heraclitus]

Arrian is right we thus far have no evidence to the longevity of civilsation on timescales longer than a few millenia.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
Eureka! I got it!

The Fermi paradox is simply resolved, by accepting that we ourselves are players in an extremely advanced simulated reality of how a isolated civilization might develop. If this is being done for scientific purposes, as a possible study on the elements of civilisational mechanics we may be merely constructs. But if this is being done for entertainment, we might just be players with temporarily suppressed memories, so we can immerse better (like some realy far out OCC, spiced with role-playing to the 9th degree).

See? Perfect sense.

That's listed as one of the answers to Fermi's Paradox in the Wiki article. Sorry, you didn't think up something new

-Arrian

[Heraclitus]

To be fair it doesn't propose that the purpose of this simulation could be entertainment.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Geronimo
What circumstances are you envisioning an inability to determine where the target is?

any target with the ability to move on its own. You'll at best be able to get a ball park figure on where they might be.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Geronimo


But they might still be interested in dismantling our solar system for raw materials.

with all the other stars/universe full of material, very likely ability to use fusion and perhaps something even better, hard to believe they'd need raw material/anything found in this particular system to sustain themselves/get rich or some other earthly concept.

As I said, the most logical answer to "where are they" is that we are not at the stage of development to find "them" and they either cannot be bothered to interact, or have some other kind of reasoning to keep us out of the loop in the way we'd expect them to act... we humans are power hungry existentialists at our core, with better grasp of the universe fundamentals (ie much higher applicable knowledge) it is essential for survival that those instincts are reined in, otherwise it is just a matter of time when a lunatic individual will come and destroy the others.

While that is one of the plausible scenarios (inevitable extinction), I'd think that chance being what it is, given enough attempts - there will be intelligence which will develop past such instincts to go beyond and exist differently (assuming that universe in infinite in either space or time, or as a loop... so to get infinite number of tries, such outcome is inevitable)

IMO this is not only most likely but a certainty, however the very nature of such life/intelligence would be totally different to our own, and no matter how much we want them to show up, they probably know better, and we can do squat all to prove their existence as they are way beyond our current capabilities...

as I said earlier, the only thing we can prove, is that there is noone near us at a similar stage of development.

[DanS]

Not enough controversy in this thread anymore.

Nobody even challenged the reference to the Drake equation.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave


with all the other stars/universe full of material, very likely ability to use fusion and perhaps something even better, hard to believe they'd need raw material/anything found in this particular system to sustain themselves/get rich or some other earthly concept.

As I said, the most logical answer to "where are they" is that we are not at the stage of development to find "them" and they either cannot be bothered to interact, or have some other kind of reasoning to keep us out of the loop in the way we'd expect them to act... we humans are power hungry existentialists at our core, with better grasp of the universe fundamentals (ie much higher applicable knowledge) it is essential for survival that those instincts are reined in, otherwise it is just a matter of time when a lunatic individual will come and destroy the others.

While that is one of the plausible scenarios (inevitable extinction), I'd think that chance being what it is, given enough attempts - there will be intelligence which will develop past such instincts to go beyond and exist differently (assuming that universe in infinite in either space or time, or as a loop... so to get infinite number of tries, such outcome is inevitable)

IMO this is not only most likely but a certainty, however the very nature of such life/intelligence would be totally different to our own, and no matter how much we want them to show up, they probably know better, and we can do squat all to prove their existence as they are way beyond our current capabilities...

as I said earlier, the only thing we can prove, is that there is noone near us at a similar stage of development.

I'm talking about a sapient species with a universal instinct or drive to expand or to increase it's population, not necessarily about humans for which these instincts are far from universal and more subtle. For instance humans appear to have a far less than universal drive to procreate rather we mainly got along as a species relying on drive to have sex which is why birth control developed. Now that we have birth control we see how modest our procreation drive really is. We don't even reach replacement levels in wealthy areas and those populations should disappear in a few thousand years.

On the other hand, there is nothing to prevent at least one of the galaxy's early civilizations from having a true expansionist or procreationist instinct and that instinct would put them at a huge advantage in any potential conflict that would develop against the more philosophically enlightened civs they would compete against or who would try to contain them.

Unless we assume that not one of the early civs had a strong desire to expand or procreate we are left to wonder why the galaxy wasn't completely filled and essentially consumed by their insatiable appetite for greater numbers and lebensraum. Furthermore due to the realities of interstellar distance such a civ would cease to function as a unitary civilization that could collapse from any single event. Instead it would be countless millions of defacto independent civs all intent on expanding anywhere their species has not colonized. If half of them collapsed the other half would simply rush in to recolonize the collapsed areas.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by DanS
Not enough controversy in this thread anymore.

Nobody even challenged the reference to the Drake equation.

challenge it for us to get the discussion rolling.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
When I applied my own estimates to the Drake equation I came up with a total of exactly 3 civilization in our galaxy which is in high agreement with observations of only 1.

The Drake equation contains unknowns and the variables are cherry-picked. You might make some assumptions for the sake of a parlor game, but even then it seems an unsatisfying exercise.

There could be millions of sentient intelligent types of beings. There could be one. The Drake equation puts no light on the subject.

From a scientific point of view, the most compelling way to think about this is Fermi's Paradox. It's simple, elegant, and doesn't require you to make anything up in lieu of evidence. As a general matter, I'm open to the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence. But I have seen no evidence of it, besides the confessions that we can torture from our everyday existence.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

heh... I see is differently (off course )

expansion/lebensraum etc... IMO ceases to be main motivation of intelligence after some stage of development, reason being that after certain technological treshold is passed self-destruction is all too easy for anyone who has not outgrown the "power hungry existentialist expansionism" which rules our world. That is in my opinion a certain outcome, even if such a civilization was to manage to expand further than the star system it originated from the same danger of very likely self destruction would still ultimately destroy it on the other place as well.

My argument is on the lines of "if a civilization is to grow and expand it has to substantially change in character from the kind we have currently developed here on earth, otherwise it faces certain extinction via some advanced tech means"...

my counterargument to "well that is the reason why there is noone out there, they all self-destructed" is that even though this might be the most likely outcome, there is a possibility for some further development where the intelligence would go beyond this type of motivation to drive its existence... and that is all... however such an intelligence would be an evolutionary step beyond ours, both on the moral and tech level, so that they might neither be interested in us, or have a different motivation which is beyond our understanding, not to contact us.

Perhaps it is just as simple as "if we contact them, and give them advanced knowledge easily, they will surely self destruct as at this stage of evolution/development they are still not stable enough to handle the knowledge responsibly"... which while an imaginary argument, would certainly hold water seeing how we still function on this planet, and perhaps the best learning curve is the one the civilization learns itself...

in any case given the relative abundance of life on this planet, to think we are the "only ones" seems pretty absurd... some people win lottery, but still the majority does not... to think we are some special case of life in the universe is stretching it quite a bit IMO.

and to think sex and reproduction as a means to intelligent life existence is too short sighted too... perhaps up to a certain point in the future it will be the case, but after some tech threshold is passed not dying will surely become an option... especially if the body really is nothing more than a biological machine... once when we get to grips with engineering on molecular level we will construct bodies that will not die, and will hold the same consciousness forever for example... even today many work on getting better with organ replacements etc... it seems that this is nothing more than a delicate bio-mechanical problem, but certainly solvable, esp when we get to some sort of "unlimited" energy resource like being able to control fusion etc...

in any case if it took 4 bn years from rocks or better to say gas such as hydrogen to us... next 4 bn years are bound to give only much more spectacular changes to the nature of intelligence/life especially as life/knowledge gathering are not on a linear curve but exponential...

So the reason to think that we are not alone is to me most logical conclusion despite of "where is everyone?" question, as "advanced life is very different to our own" explanation is a lot more likely (esp given the variety of life in most inhospitable locations on our own planet) than "we are sooo special and the only ones, as advanced life like ours would certainly be detectable already with our 21st century tech, but we do not see anyone" argument...

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
heh... I see is differently (off course )

expansion/lebensraum etc... IMO ceases to be main motivation of intelligence after some stage of development, reason being that after certain technological treshold is passed self-destruction is all too easy for anyone who has not outgrown the "power hungry existentialist expansionism" which rules our world. That is in my opinion a certain outcome, even if such a civilization was to manage to expand further than the star system it originated from the same danger of very likely self destruction would still ultimately destroy it on the other place as well.

My argument is on the lines of "if a civilization is to grow and expand it has to substantially change in character from the kind we have currently developed here on earth, otherwise it faces certain extinction via some advanced tech means"...

my counterargument to "well that is the reason why there is noone out there, they all self-destructed" is that even though this might be the most likely outcome, there is a possibility for some further development where the intelligence would go beyond this type of motivation to drive its existence... and that is all... however such an intelligence would be an evolutionary step beyond ours, both on the moral and tech level, so that they might neither be interested in us, or have a different motivation which is beyond our understanding, not to contact us.

Perhaps it is just as simple as "if we contact them, and give them advanced knowledge easily, they will surely self destruct as at this stage of evolution/development they are still not stable enough to handle the knowledge responsibly"... which while an imaginary argument, would certainly hold water seeing how we still function on this planet, and perhaps the best learning curve is the one the civilization learns itself...

in any case given the relative abundance of life on this planet, to think we are the "only ones" seems pretty absurd... some people win lottery, but still the majority does not... to think we are some special case of life in the universe is stretching it quite a bit IMO.

and to think sex and reproduction as a means to intelligent life existence is too short sighted too... perhaps up to a certain point in the future it will be the case, but after some tech threshold is passed not dying will surely become an option... especially if the body really is nothing more than a biological machine... once when we get to grips with engineering on molecular level we will construct bodies that will not die, and will hold the same consciousness forever for example... even today many work on getting better with organ replacements etc... it seems that this is nothing more than a delicate bio-mechanical problem, but certainly solvable, esp when we get to some sort of "unlimited" energy resource like being able to control fusion etc...

in any case if it took 4 bn years from rocks or better to say gas such as hydrogen to us... next 4 bn years are bound to give only much more spectacular changes to the nature of intelligence/life especially as life/knowledge gathering are not on a linear curve but exponential...

So the reason to think that we are not alone is to me most logical conclusion despite of "where is everyone?" question, as "advanced life is very different to our own" explanation is a lot more likely (esp given the variety of life in most inhospitable locations on our own planet) than "we are sooo special and the only ones, as advanced life like ours would certainly be detectable already with our 21st century tech, but we do not see anyone" argument...

You are assuming too many human qualities to be universal. Expansion is destructive for humans because we do so in competition against other humans and because we are currently dependent on a convenient biosphere which we would currently prefer to continue to rely on and not destroy. Imagine for instance a hive like species devoid of intra species conflict with a drive to constantly establish new hives and as many as possible. That's how they derive satisfaction from life. We have to show either that all such species are impossible or that all such species spontaneously "evolve" to lose those characteristics if we are to avoid explaining why no species has used all available resources in our galaxy (raw matter and energy) to create as many hive/colonies as possible. If they came into conflict with a non expansionist self containing species they would have to be at a severe technological disadvantage to not win such a conflict. Why would you expect such a species to destroy itself?

Furthermore, It doesn't matter if our solar system wouldn't be suitable for their tastes because they have the technology to construct artificially suitable environments in any area with access to matter and energy or likely even any area with enough of just one of these to produce the other. It won't matter how unsuitable our solar system is to their needs so long as they can develop it to their tastes solely using locally obtained resources and a single investment of external capital (a colony establishing ship of some kind).

Your main objection appears to involve explaining how humanity could plausibly change over time to not behave the way it has in the past but I'm not suggesting that an ancient human like species would have colonized the whole galaxy rather I'm postulating a far more "efficient" (from a biological "success" viewpoint) species would be the colonizers who would have spread over the galaxy without ever seeing those of their own species as the enemy. The problem is if we accept that human like species are possible or enlightened sapient species are possible we have to explain why expansionist intelligent species are not possible. intelligence does not seem to correlate with enlightened behavior for our species so why would it be expected to do so universally? All it takes is one intelligent expansionist self pacifist species to evolve and the whole milky way should have become their crowded megalopolis within a paltry few million years of their 1st civilization.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave

in any case given the relative abundance of life on this planet, to think we are the "only ones" seems pretty absurd... some people win lottery, but still the majority does not... to think we are some special case of life in the universe is stretching it quite a bit IMO.

Life is abundant on this planet but sapient species are not. there is only one out of the millions upon millions of species that have lived on this planet. The planet had hundreds of millions of years with large vertebrates with brains walking it's surface and in all of that time there were no sapient species. Since obviously sapient species very rarely evolves on our own planet why should we expect it to be common elsewhere?

Evolution has no foresight and until a species is almost able to build a civilization most of the mental capabilities required for such a civilization are of either no selective value or very limited selective value. Rather what would tend to be favored is strong intuition and reflexes... horse sense if you will. Daydreaming about mathematics and alphabets wouldn't have any selective advantage for any of the non human species on our planet so why do we always assume that our odd form of intellect we call "sentience" (or sapience for pedants) is so inevitable?

I have two rough assumptions about why no expansionist civilization arose in our galaxy. The first is that it's very rare for intelligence that lends itself to civilization arise and we are a fluke. The second possibility is that it is relatively trivial for almost any species to accomplish whatever goals it might have by somehow escaping the universe and that this is always easier by any measure to an advanced civilization than any expansion whatsoever into our visible universe.

[Heraclitus]

Anyhow you are forgetting something else, there is vertical growth & scientific progress as well, all it takes is for an isolationist species older & more advanced than the expansionist one to experience an attack and after defeating them, starting a program of extermination across the whole galaxy and confine them to their home system or even kill them off. If they are successful they may even go as far as to begin monitoring the development of all developing species and steering them away from such evolutionary paths.

Once again it takes only one such species.