• 561 Days Ago
• 07/26/2010

why collapse?

Why would an advanced civilisation collapse?  And, if it did, why would the remnants not carry on, rebuild, and re-colonise?  For example, when Rome collapsed it was surely damaging to "civilisation" but people still lived, moved about, explored.  While the pace may have slowed, humanity did continue and we do exist now.  For all the collapsed civilisations that lay in the wake of Earthly history, humanity has continued to advance.

So, what these people are contemplating is not a collapse of civilisation, but a genocide of an entire intelligent species.  What would cause that?  What ->could<- cause the extinction of an entire species that has already colonised multiple star systems?  What, they all just up and decide to drink the Kool-aid?

Imagine humanity that has colonised multiple star systems... now imaging how much work it would be to exterminate them, to actually end the advance of humanity for millions of years.  Sure, advanced weapons that can destroy entire suns... also means advanced tools for survival.  We're talking about a war where -> Everyone <- dies?  I don't think so.  Even if 99.999% of humans were killed and those left were bombed back to the stone-age, that's, what, a 6,000 year setback?  So? 

Once an intelligent species starts colonising the galaxy, assuming a 25,000 year travel time between star systems (less if we get to faster than light) and that each colonised star then goes on to colonise at least 2 more, that species will be everywhere in the galaxy in about a million years.  What's losing 6,000 years to a mere civilisation hiccup?

I think the (edit:) Fermi Paradox stands. 

Either

* we're the first,
http://fixerdave.blogspot.com/2008/12/we-are-alone.html

* or the "others" are already here but don't want to talk to us,

* or there is some prohibition on interstellar travel that we don't know about,

* or we all live in a virtual-reality game.
http://fixerdave.blogspot.com/2007/01/arcade-philosophy-philosophy-can-be.html

• 561 Days Ago
• 07/26/2010

My feeling

My feeling is living and expanding in space is really, really hard. It is the most logical choice.

Which is probably why we shouldnt waste the next few hundred thousand years...or while we still have our moon...

Its likely no communication from other races exists because they are using simple technologies that dont spread the signal (hence degradation) across the galaxy. When i shine a laser light it goes to one spot only. When i shine a uv,x-ray,gamma-ray or better laser it would still only go to one spot.

I personally believe its possible other races are listening...like us ...we are all listening yet we dont transmit coherent beams of information to every star system we see! We might radiate information in all directions thats so weak its no better than back ground radiation.

Its unlikely we are in a computer simulation, because of uncertainty principle. So if we cant determine the location, direction and charge all at the same time in our reality there is no way to make a simulation of it. A quantum computer can't help no matter what its size. Unless the simulation is purposely hiding information from us...which is more a philosophical question.

Its unlikely we are the only race that will exist in our time period if you like. So while we will meet other races at some point it may be a while.

Our civilisation is very very young yet we seem to think its a given we should have the answers today.

• 561 Days Ago
• 07/26/2010

Another Fermi Fail

My own conclusion is that we don't know enough to constrain the problem realistically. (As opposed to say, Drake's straightforward model for ETI.)

This is such an example. The model is fully unrealistic, since if we start to migrate biospheres will deviate naturally by evolution as we can't economically and in the end physically keep up a trade in between. There will be no large scale civilizations as in the model (there they are "small scale").

What we need is to look at colonization.

Ironically, Hawkings' adoption of this paradox for time travelers is beautifully constrained, exactly because it is local. Too bad we don't need it to know that time travel won't work.

[Since, as per Aaronson, time travel pathways would collapse the computer science tower of complexity classes - and that isn't what we observe in the physical world. Though by a stretch one could claim that this prediction too uses the analogous environmental method.]

Another connection here is that no time travel at the same time means no remaining FTL "outs". So the paradox itself (or rather, its method) can be used to constrain it (or rather, its application on SETI). I'll have to chew on that for a while.

• 561 Days Ago
• 07/26/2010

Effete defeat

"King Kong" with Fay Wray.  A small group of a-holes with a strong leader crush the indigenes, slaughter fauna, and overcome and steal the big ape leaving a trail of their own dead without a Mylar balloon mounted.  Back home the ape cuts lose.  No lawyers, community activists, or animal rights groups.  At the end, surrounded by a Grand Guignol of meaningless death and destruction, the protagonist waxes philosophic and plans to do it some more.

Such civilizations flourish - Egypt, Persia, Huns, Rome, Ottoman; Imperial China, Spanish conqustadores, British Empire, USSR, American expansionism.  Invade, slaughter, exploit, subsume. They all died horribly because... it became fashionable to shed tears.

Civilizations end when the strong, smart, and productive are ground to hamburger to feed the weak, stupid and parasitic.  Compassion is willful suicide.  Rome fed its mobs rather than enslave or exterminate them.  Spain lost the New World when brutal conquest became caretaking. The British lost India, unwilling to kill a  million wogs to make the point.  The most deadly and expensive military in the history of the world went social yellow-tail coward with Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iran, US-Mexican border.  1/3 of America is on social welfare, 3% are imprisoned.  The nation is paralyzed, debating whether chickens and steers raised for slaughter spend full, rich, meaningful lives - defined by left-wing intellectuals whose only reality is defined by their equally corrupt peers.  Ditto diversity for two-legged meats.

http://www.diversity.umich.edu/programs/
  University of Michigan has 90+ diversity programs but not a single Gifted program.

If Terran skies open it won't be United Planets, it will be Klingons.  OOO-rah! (Oh how the mighty have fallen - BAMs).

• 561 Days Ago
• 07/26/2010

RE: Effete Defeat

Well said, not sure that I see this as completely germane to the Fermi Pardox, but well said nonetheless. Of course as a genuine moderate,(that most despised of all creatures) I cannot agree that compassion & mercy exist only to coddle the weak. But still, 'brevity being the soul of wit', 'Effete Defeat'  hits the nail on the head; survival in the end belongs to the ruthless, not to those cringing with self doubt and political correctness.

• 561 Days Ago
• 07/26/2010

> My feeling is living and expanding in space is really, really hard.

For a distinct, but related view, head over the Charles Stross' blog. The recent discussion there was "How many people do you need to maintain a modern, first 21st century decade, level of civilization"

Apparently, the answer turns around 100 million people.

A modern civilization is incredibly complex. We tend not only to underestimate the number of highly specialized people we need to run this (your average MD will not make a good heart transplant surgeon. Not without a lot of training), but also the number of consumers we need to make those specialties a viable economic activity.

If you want to make a colony, either you need to transplant 100 million people, or you will have a colony that loses very quickly its standard of living. The "rugged but technologically advanced pioneers" of science fiction tropes are just that: science fiction. Put 1000 people somewhere, and they will very quickly revert to a pre-industrial life. Sure, they'll have libraries and whatnot. But they will not have the practical experience that goes with it. Wait for 2 or 3 generations, and their descendants will have a very hard time understanding what all those books/datastores are talking about.

If the world on which they are isn't perfect, those pre-industrial may die very fast at the first major problem. You do not have a functional bio-research establishment to try to cure a runaway plague until you have enough people to justify one.

So, yes: colonization is hard. We did it a lot of times on Earth because:

1) We had regular travel between colonies and home.

2) All those colonies were established as very pre-industrial levels.

3) The colonial "world" was perfect for us already.

• 561 Days Ago
• 07/26/2010

When do they think if they do?

What astounds me about physicists is their far fetched arrogance coming from far fetched foolishness.

It was their hero Oxford Prof. Roger Penrose who said, in defense of Einstein's SR, that when we learn that a civilisation at Andromeda decided to attack our solar system, they might well not have decided it yet.


Best regards,

AKT

• 561 Days Ago
• 07/26/2010

Fermi

All other factors considered, if there are any lifeforms observing us I would think our system is quarantined as per the notes below.  The examples below are not meant to represent or condemn any particular country, since the way of doing business is somewhat worldwide at this point.

Note the burning of crops to maintain price levels while simultaneously observing impoverished hunger leading to death.  Note the "Shock and Awe" campaign from bad intelligence claiming WMDs that killed over 40,000 civilians (the largest death toll from conventional weapons in a three day period since Dresden).  Note the pricing of pharmaceuticals so that sick people die from a lack of cash flow. 

At this stage of our development, who would objectively call us "civilized"?
Organized?  Certainly.  Civilized?  No. Dangerous?  Absolutely.

• 560 Days Ago
• 07/27/2010

Death of Civilizations

It seems that most civilizations die by 1) being too successful and 2) when they stop growing.

We strive for the best standard of living as possible, to that end when the weak, the dimwitted, the self absorbed, and the criminally minded among us, i.e. the unproductive class out number the productive class society spirals downward under the weight of it's corruption. Think of the movie Idiocracy.  It sounds cruel to put it that way, however, all societies are built by the labors of the productive.  As soon as life gets too easy allowing the unproductive class to multiply, the productive are excessively burdened to the point they can no longer sustain the demands.  The Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of its own corruption and is a modern example of what happens to any society that becomes unsustainable. The British Empire is another good example of a downward spiral, just more slowly and illustrates point #2 about growth. Prior to the modern era, those civilizations that died did so by the combination of internal corruption and external force by invasion.  I suspect these people who are doing the computer programs have not factored the nature of corruption into their programs.

The only way a civilization stays sustainable is to perpetually devise ways to limit the growth of the unproductive, hopefully through civilized means without resorting to culling.  You have heard the cynical talk of contaminating the gene pool and those who voluntarily via their actions delete themselves.  All actions have consequences and those who refuse to live by the rules of cause and effect are self culled by effect, civilizations are no different.

• 560 Days Ago
• 07/27/2010

Why don’t they make contact?

Fermi Paradox;
If there are intelligent civilisations elsewhere in the Universe with technologies that far surpass our own, why do we see no sign of them?
Better question is in my view:
Why don’t they make contact?

In my opinion there is some sort of a UNIVERSAL LAW, which says: each planet should be able to be free to choose and evolve into a society based on love or hatred.
In other words: we must be free to evolve into a society based on social equality for all and mutual understanding and love or a society based on the prevalence of a small group able to keep the majority in slavery conditions.
Why should this be?
Because the universe is in its basic conditions symmetric, with the ultimate consequence that there should be copy universe based on anti-matter and clocks which run the other way around.
See;
http://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.com/
Do we see signs of them? Of course!
We are blind, because we see them but do not dare to admit that they are here already.
Why because we don’t know how aggressive or friendly they will react.
See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBwG9VoTCFM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdyQu5Zx8xw&feature=related

Leo Vuyk.

• 560 Days Ago
• 07/27/2010

illegal aliens

Aliens are not our friends,
They zoom around in their spaceships,
And cause such a fuss,
Plus their nasty little rayguns,
Could reduce us to dust.

• 560 Days Ago
• 07/27/2010

Colonisation

I firmly believe that the earth is a "seed". Since almost the beginning of it's existence there has been some kind of life growing on it. From the deepest ocean depths to the tops of the mountains, from the coldest to the hottest places, even in the atmosphere and in nuclear reactors, you will find some kind of life.

It would be strange to suppose that this life existed only to colonise this planet. IMHO, life is reiterated until one particular incarnation or organism if you will, finds the ability to spread somewhere that is not of this planet.

We have finite resources, the clock is ticking. Either we as a people waste time and energy on this years Dodge Viper/HD TV/war/hairstyle, or we use those resources wisely in an attempt to break out of this soon-to-be husk.

Unfortunately, after observing the human race for 40 odd years, I have a horrible feeling that as soon as we discover a means to propel large numbers of people into space on a meaningful trajectory, either Sodd or Murphy will ensure that that will be the moment when we find we have used the last of the required raw material on some frivolous crap.

That's why I put my faith in AI. More specifically, such an advanced AI that we can somehow transfer human minds into the system, and basically become almost pure energy based life forms. Then the universe is our oyster.

Dreaming ? Maybe, but we all know the physical restrictions on space travel, so that seems to be a non-starter, unless we are prepared to create "generation ships".

To be honest I think the Indians or the Chinese will be the first to make some kind of move. They have to do something, as they will very soon comprise most of the population of the planet. Good luck to them.

• 560 Days Ago
• 07/27/2010

Fermi Paradox

Just a few speculations here:
(1) Intelligent life is very rare, and probably only occurs at the rims of galaxies.  As you go deeper towards the cores of galaxies the density of stars increases, as does your chance of being irradiated by an exploding supernova. If life gets flash fried every million years or so the odds of it developing complex multi-celled life goes way, way, down.
(2) Interstellar travel for carbon-based lifeforms may not be practical at all.  If you travel slow cosmic rays will, over time, chew up your DNA.  If you travel fast at a good fraction of light speed the interstellar hydrogen will do the same thing to you.  The shielding needed to protect from this may require a vehicle about the size of Europa.  How many civilizations will be willing to do that?
(3) It probably demonstrates that faster than light travel is impossible or impractical.
(4) If you have the technology to travel to another solar system it may make it unlikely that you would wish to expend your resources in that manner.  The kind of energy it would take to build and propel a starship might be better spent in extracting materials from the local gas giants and turning it into orbital habitats.
(5) There may be the equivalent of Fred Saberhagens <b>Berserkers</b> out there, Von Neumann machines that destroy any life that rises to any technical level, built by a race long extinct, coming soon to the planet Earth.

• 560 Days Ago
• 07/27/2010

What if..

we are inside a game preserve, wondering if there are other baboons looking for us?

• 560 Days Ago
• 07/27/2010

Factoring Time into the equation

The amount of time it took for humans to leap from horse drawn carriage to space travel to the Moon and beyond, was less than 100 years. Compared to the age of this universe, 100 years is infinitesimally tiny in relation to the universes’ complete timeline (from "big bang" to the present).

Assuming a civilization lasts 1 million years and obtains mastery over the laws of physics, what is the probability that Civilization A's 1,000,000 year lifespan will overlap with Civilization B's 1,000,000 year lifespan? I'm no mathematician but isn't it something on the order of 1 / 13.75 ±0.17 billion (if current theory and observations are correct in suggesting that the universe is 13.75 ±0.17 billion years old) or over 1/13,750,000,000? I think it's more exponential because the two civilizations not only have to overlap in their existences, but overlap at a critical point in their technology that allows travel between their worlds.

I suspect that many great and illustrious civilizations have risen and fallen, and enjoyed this overlap. Just because we're an outlier, numerically distant in time proximity from the rest of the civilizations that have and will come into existence before this particular universe ceases to exist, does not mean that other civilizations have not overlapped at critical junctures in their development, and flourished for millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of years! The dinosaur lived for hundreds of millions of years without any technology.

I also suspect that we might have just missed one great civilization existing perhaps over the course of a billion years, or one about to come into existence, by just a few million years, like two ships passing in the night. It's also quite possible that WE, humanity, are the "embryo" of a great civilization that is about to rise into splendor, and could last as long.

The probability of overlapping with another such great civilization is still remote. Of course, overlap is irrelevant if proximity in distance is too far.

• 558 Days Ago
• 07/29/2010

Questionable Assertions

Am I missing something here or are we exerting significant energies on a 'paradox' based on a highly questionable premise: "that we have not been visited by ETs"?
It seems to me that over the years there have been enough observations and incidents concerning alien visits or activities on Earth, reported by enough credible witnesses, that to insist that there is no evidence is somewhat reminiscent of our feathered friend the Ostrich...

• 557 Days Ago
• 07/30/2010

Heres a BIG BANG for you.

What if the background radiation that is quite frankly "a piece of a theory" is actually the remnants of communication between or from civilisations.

Is it hard to imagine that with Time and space expanding (allegdly) that the background radiation would move backwrds down the spectrum?

If so we have been looking at the galaxy/universe all wrong. Where in fact we see no communication, there is in fact a whole universe of communication!

We are not alone, we just never saw it before.

If so the fermi paradox is somewhat moot.

• 555 Days Ago
• 08/01/2010

Another bang for your buck.

Taking relativity to its limits its possible a civilisation could emerge near the start-middle of the universe today and conceivably overtake our technology in a matter of years.

It is also possible for a cilvilsation to emerge at the outer edge of the universe and take forever to grow.

You could then conclude the fermi paradox is in direct violation of relativity, so therefore disproves itself.

• 547 Days Ago
• 08/09/2010

Don't Need 'Contact'

Let's assume we are on our own and we never meet-and-greet little green men. Kurzweil's law says that man's knowlege is growing exponentialy. Soon, we will know everything. No kidding. The patent office can actualy shut down. I'm not trying to start a 'flame war', be paroquial or anti-alien.

Just like most, I grew up reading sci-fi and would love to have visitors demand, "Take me to your leader!" Fermi's Paradox makes this unlikely.

• 546 Days Ago
• 08/10/2010

Beyond Fermi

Fermi pointed out that a society will eventually use up all of its resources, likely before achieving interstellar travel. This, however, leaves out technological development which may eventually remove the need for consumable resources.
    But this does not mean that extraterrestrial societies exist among the stars- think of this; what are the odds that life formed on another planet in the same way it did here? If so, what are the odds that life seperated into a sustained ecosystem? Each organism having something to feed on? What are the odds that this ecosystem would flurish? That the ecosystem would not be destroyed by some cataclysm? That some species would evolve to intelligence out of it? That it would discover flight? Space flight? Interstellar travel? All this happening twice?
    The odds of it happening once for us is unfathomable. Twice is rediculous. If you believe in a finite universe, then this is proof that 'aliens' do not exist, at least not in the visitation sense. If you believe in an infinate universe, then go ahead and believe! Because not only do Aliens exist, but so does the Flying Dutchman, and somewhere in the exhausted probability of infinate space, it is also captained by Paul Giomatti!

• 530 Days Ago
• 08/26/2010

Colonization without travel

Technically, if a civilization is able to perfect nanoreplicators without getting into a grey goo problem, one could colonize a galaxy without ever actually leaving home (in a way).  You send replicators off in a scatter around the galaxy.  These replicators, upon finding a suitable location, build a habitat.  After this is completed, the replicators then replicate you (and other "colonists" or explorers).  You appear in the new location while the original you, the "real" you, remains back home or, in all probability, while you are long dead given how long it would take to get anywhere.

This doesn't answer the Fermi Paradox but actually makes it worse.  IF nanoreplicators are possible, then this sort of seeding the galaxy should already be well along.  We should be seeing visitors, nanoreplicator-created copies of the original, appearing here.  We don't.  We also don't see nonbiological explorers (nanoreplicators build robot/AI explorers instead of building their creator's biological copy). 

But then, what would be the point of exploring in this manner?  Nothing goes back to homeworld because they are all long dead and the bioreplicant right here is a dead end, soon to die.  Nothing is gained on their end at all.

Oh well, carry on.  No one is here or anywhere else because there's no upside to doing so.  By the time your explorer gets anywhere, be it biological or robotic, those who sent it are long gone and the civilization that sent it off is likely also drastically changed if not simply gone entirely. 

• 529 Days Ago
• 08/27/2010

Sling A Fermi Ling

Our perception of the Universe, physical, biophysical etc is based on our senses, there may be more to the universe than that, boundaries of knowledge, which Columbus shattered, have been raised, now we wonder what is dark matter the end of the known world, is there a step beyond?

imagine if luminaries of the Phoenician civilization, ancient Greece, Old Egypt, the Ming dynasty raised the same question mirrored here, what would the discourse sound like....
Fermi was perhaps an early pioneer that showed a way to take advantage of natural phenomenon, and use it beyond terrestial ways and means, instead of a praire schooner, someday we'll need galactic schooners, same hardships and challengers faced on worldly frontiers.  time posesses stillness to gaze at night skies and be naive,
sophism is a mood swing, we have a way to go....

• 393 Days Ago
• 01/10/2011

the article makes no sense

even if we assume an intergalactic species has a "life span", it assumes a single age to the entire civilization: but assuming they can't break the speed of light, then the laws of relativity mean that the age of the colonies at the edge of a specie's 'territory" will always be years behind that of the inner colonies (and ofcourse - the point of origin). those are also the colonies who would have the shortest journeys for further expansion in the galaxy, and with the least amount of existence time for any catastrophe to occur and wipe out the knowledge that brought them their in the first place, and each having more places to target its colonizing capacities then the previous planet (with some exceptions such as the outer rim of the galaxy or the space between the galactic arms, and possible areas of likely astronomical catastrophe that don't make for good passage ways).

that mysterious phenomena that kills or prevents species of a certain age to colonize further, would have to catch up with the youngest colonies, and thus spreading faster then the civilization itself, while still using the same means that they use in order to spread.