Different responses to Fermi Paradox

[Arch2008]

As I already posted, each star is a source of energy. Any material orbiting a star can be used to make Bernal spere-type habitats and Dyson rings/spheres. So every star would be colonized. That's what a Type III civ does.

An interstellar ship that is a microcosm could travel anywhere. Stars are occassionally ejected from galaxies, so there would be stars between galaxies. These would form an archepelago of colonies linking the galactic hubs together. Also, traveling near the speed of light, the crew would not experience the passage of millions of years due to time dilation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernal_sphere

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

Not everyone in this culture would have to do the colonizing. Even a small fraction of explorer types would account for trillions of beings. Von Neumann probes could get everything up and running at the destination so that the travelers would essentually arrive and move in. It would be just like home.

 

We are already predicting that it is possible to "correct" our Genome so that our ancesters would never grow old and die. So a trip of a million years would not mean much to a species that has already done this. Materials held together by the Strong nuclear force with computer chips the size of molecules embedded into them, might last forever.

 

When you put the pieces together, it is very hard to explain how no species in half a million galaxies has been able to do this.

[Airbrush]

As I already posted, each star is a source of energy. Any material orbiting a star can be used to make Bernal spere-type habitats and Dyson rings/spheres. So every star would be colonized. That's what a Type III civ does.

 

We are already predicting that it is possible to "correct" our Genome so that our ancesters would never grow old and die. So a trip of a million years would not mean much to a species that has already done this. Materials held together by the Strong nuclear force with computer chips the size of molecules embedded into them, might last forever.

 

When you put the pieces together, it is very hard to explain how no species in half a million galaxies has been able to do this.

 

Great stuff Arch. I like those kind of ideas. But I think it is easy to explain, Rare Earth. Conditions for intelligent life to evolve are few and far between. Maybe our solar system is uniquely gifted with favorable conditions protecting it from the deadly energy and conditions that exist throughout space. Maybe asteroid impacts are far more common in the universe than in our little oasis. And cosmic rays may be bad too.

[J.C.MacSwell]

 

You're in space! You don't need to maintain it. Don't tell me that you guys actually thought friction would be significant factor in space travel...

 

All you need is enough fuel to speed up and slow down. And maybe a little extra to change direction.

 

You still have background radiation, from every direction equally in the frame of the cmbr isotropy where all your stars, planets etc. pretty much reside.

 

While insignificant for short durations at low speed, maintaining significant speeds wrt to that, for long periods of time, requires significant amounts of energy and mass for propulsion.

[SH3RL0CK]

Considerably less but maintained for hundreds of years (for an extremely "local" trip on the scale we are discussing), not just the days or weeks required to get up to (and down to) speed.

 

So are we then in agreement it isn't a technological barrier but rather a question of scalability (i.e. size the ships sufficiently that the fuel needed to maintain the speed is carried in addition to the fuel to speed up/slow down along with everything else you need to bring)?

[Arch2008]

Airbrush-Except that "Rare Earth" would have to be the understatement of the century. "Snow-flake Earth" would be more apt, as no two snow-flakes are supposedly exactly alike. Hundreds of thousands of galaxies with billions of stars and no one is available to open a hailing frequency. It's possible. Or we could be the first intelligent species. So why is intelligent life nearly singular in its apparent occurance?

http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=8479

This is a snippet of an article that argues that life, like everything else, must happen for a scientific reason. If this is the case, then life should be lots of places that meet the criteria. On Earth, we've had several candidate species that could use tools, the precursor to technology, so perhaps intelligence is not special either. So, where are the others?

 

Perhaps, the most intelligent members of any advanced species eventually create technology that the most foolish of their species misuse to destroy themselves.

[Sisyphus]

Several species that could use tools, but we're the first (as far as we know, and we probably would) with any shot at extraterrestrial travel, communication, etc. Perhaps life and even "intelligent" life is numerous, but spacefarers are extremely rare.

[Arch2008]

Extreeeemely rare. Again, we're talking one in 50 quadrillion stars has a spacefaring race (although we barely qualify). Just for arguments sake, of course, isn't a reason. Why would this be so incredibly rare? We would indeed require an omnipotent diety to make us that unique.

[Sisyphus]

Extreeeemely rare. Again, we're talking one in 50 quadrillion stars has a spacefaring race (although we barely qualify). Just for arguments sake, of course, isn't a reason. Why would this be so incredibly rare? We would indeed require an omnipotent diety to make us that unique.

 

No, it would not have to be that rare. There are many plausible reasons why we haven't encountered anything. The fact that we haven't actually looked in any real way, for example. That any of the the many assumptions behind "intelligent species must be obvious" are wrong (saying "that's what a type 3 civ does" is ridiculously premature, imo), etc., etc.

 

And we have no way of determining what is rare and why, as we only have a sample size of one.

[Arch2008]

The FP really means that we shouldn't need to look. The plausible reasons why we haven't encountered anything don't explain why they haven't encountered us. If there is no scientific reason why they shouldn't be here in our solar system after billions of years, but they are obviously not here, then they are indeed rare.

According to Kardashev, a Type III uses the energy of all the stars of a galaxy. Advanced civilizations use energy and stars are a great source of that energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

So that is what they do.

 

You have a sample size of 50 quadrillion stars. You have a sample of one star with intelligent life.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Arch2008

[rockman]

"You have a sample of one star with intelligent life."

 

And that one sample is debatable. Intelligent compared to what???

[Airbrush]

The FP really means that we shouldn't need to look. The plausible reasons why we haven't encountered anything don't explain why they haven't encountered us. If there is no scientific reason why they shouldn't be here in our solar system after billions of years, but they are obviously not here, then they are indeed rare.

According to Kardashev, a Type III uses the energy of all the stars of a galaxy. Advanced civilizations use energy and stars are a great source of that energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

So that is what they do.

 

You have a sample size of 50 quadrillion stars. You have a sample of one star with intelligent life.

 

How did you arrive at a sample of 50 quadrillion? My calculation is 10 sextillion stars (100 billion galaxies X 100 billion stars approx per galaxy = (10^11) X (10^11) = 10^22 = 10 sextillion).

 

Maybe they ARE here but are so beyond us that they are good at picking up their beer cans and not be seen. Some photos of UFOs may be genuine, but I propose that most UFOs are either mistaken identity, delusion, or phantom projections by ETs that are later proven bogus, as a ET disinformation campaign, and the real ETs sneak around here using super stealth.

 

Maybe they are smart enough to not be detected, because what would they have to gain by announcing their existence, or position in space? Nothing.

[Arch2008]

500,000 galaxies with 100 billion stars each gives me 50 quadrillion, but such a large sampling really is hard to fine tune.

Let's say less than a craptillion.

These would be a Kardeshev Type IV intergalactic civilization whose million year old Dyson Sphere around the Sun would be a dead give-away.

[Sisyphus]

OK, but do you understand that "type 3 civilization" is an extremely hypothetical idea?

[Arch2008]

When Dyson proposed that a civilization would find more living room in space habitats than on a planet's surface, it wasn't a human solution, it was the most intelligent solution. When Kardeshev proposed that an advanced civilization would use all the energy of their home world, then their star, galaxy and galaxy supercluster, this was also not just a human solution, but the most intelligent one as well. You might be able to argue that some species wouldn't necessarily do this, but not all of them. It only takes one Type IV and we would have neighbors.

Logically, there should be ETI's who are a thousand years less advanced than we, or a million or a billion years. And just as logically, there should be ETI's on the other side of the scale, except that there is no evidence of this, and there really should be.

Perhaps we should aspire to becoming the undebatable "wise life".

[Sisyphus]

But again, that's one possibility. It's a supposition based on endlessly, exponentially increasing energy usage, which is based entirely on extrapolation from a miniscule slice of the history of one species on one planet. There's no solid reason to expect it to continue, even for us. There's certainly no reason it should from a pure survival standpoint. Or, there are many people these days who believe that transhumanism will disrupt all previous trends. (Indeed, the "singularity" refers to breaking down of models.) Perhaps intelligences that survive ten thousand years from now will be virtual rather than physical, and conservationists. Or perhaps we will progress to using more and more energy, but the process takes billions of years and the universe literally isn't old enough yet. Who knows?

 

Or perhaps there are such beings. There are many further assumptions still behind the statement that if there were, we would be aware of them. Dolphins, bonobos, octopi are curious, intelligent creatures, but who among them are aware of the vast, planet-spanning, world-altering civilization living around them? ("Surely if there was such a thing, says the octopus, they would already be occupying all the good rocks to hide under!")

[Arch2008]

But again, it only takes one. Your point is that no one in a half million galaxies decided to do this over a period of billions of years.

In less than 4 million years we could be a type III. Why wouldn't we? Why wouldn't we colonize other galaxies? Why would we stop growing and not use energy?

[Sisyphus]

But again, it only takes one. Your point is that no one in a half million galaxies decided to do this over a period of billions of years.

 

No, that is not what I said. Maybe they can't, at least not over, yes, billions of years. Maybe they did and we don't know.

 

In less than 4 million years we could be a type III.

 

That's a hell of an assumption.

 

Why wouldn't we? Why wouldn't we colonize other galaxies? Why would we stop growing and not use energy?

 

Why would we?

[Arch2008]

If a Type II was anywhere, then they would grow to a Type IV and be right here. That's how it works if interstellar travel is possible. That is the FP.

 

Page 9 of Cirkovic's paper shows the Milky Way being colonized in 3.75 million years, with technology that we could develop in the next 250,000 years. So it is not just my hellatious assumption that the MW is ours in less than 4 million years.

 

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.3432v1.pdf

 

I already posted that a civilization that chose not to expand would doom itself to a SN or GRB or at best be stuck in the minute HZ of a dying White Dwarf Star for trillions of years. That is why they would expand. I get your rhetorical question, but what is your reasoning behind your question? Why would any intelligent species choose death or a bleak, confined future over exploration and survival?

[Sisyphus]

If a Type II was anywhere, then they would grow to a Type IV and be right here. That's how it works if interstellar travel is possible. That is the FP.

 

Statements like "that's how it works" are the problem. We're flying blind, here. But you're talking as if these entirely hypothetical, extreme extrapolations from static analysis of a single sample are inevitable laws of nature.

 

Page 9 of Cirkovic's paper shows the Milky Way being colonized in 3.75 million years, with technology that we could develop in the next 250,000 years. So it is not just my hellatious assumption that the MW is ours in less than 4 million years.

 

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.3432v1.pdf

 

I didn't say it was just your assumption, just that it was a huge one. I wouldn't dare predict technology, goals, or cultural values even 100 years from now.

 

I already posted that a civilization that chose not to expand would doom itself to a SN or GRB or at best be stuck in the minute HZ of a dying White Dwarf Star for trillions of years. That is why they would expand. I get your rhetorical question, but what is your reasoning behind your question? Why would any intelligent species choose death or a bleak, confined future over exploration and survival?

 

Exploration and survival /= limitless, exponential growth. You don't have to be even a "type 1" to escape being tied to one star. And even that only becomes an actual problem on the scale of many, many orders of magnitude longer than we've been thinking about what to do about it.

[Arch2008]

Let's review. Dyson, Kardeshev and I are simply saying that an advanced civilization would use the enormous energy of their star and the abundant resources of their star system to create a living space for trillions of their inhabitants. I suppose that not every advanced civilization has to do this. It's even possible that most of the members of any advanced civilization would not want to do this. However, if only one of the advanced civilizations had just a few members do this, then what would happen? The same end result. These members of that civilization would eventually grow to use the entire energy of their star (type II). If even a small percentage of these beings continued to expand to prevent extinction or because they prefer unlimited growth, then they could conceivably grow to colonize their whole galaxy (Type III). Of course, they would stop right there, or continue to expand for the same reasons to Type IV eventually and most likely within billions of years. Even the blind can see that.

You are daring to predict exactly any future technology, goals or cultural values that exclude this.

[Sisyphus]

(Just a note. I don't know what you're talking about when you say "type 4 civilization." I'm restricting myself to the familiar Kardashev scale.)

 

Anyway, there are a couple things going on here. First, your argument is that "it only takes one." I don't know that that is true. Your statement is that if there was anybody on this track within the ten million nearest galaxies, we would be aware of it without even looking. This, to me, is an extraordinary claim. Why would be aware of it?

 

Second, there is the question of the natural progression of these things, and in the timeframes you suggest. Each step would have to follow from the last, but suppose each successive step is extremely unlikely? The orders of magnitude of improbability add up quickly. Suppose there is life possessing human-like intelligence, curiosity, and something like "culture" and technology in an average of one out of every ten galaxies. That's a pessimistic but plausible rarity, considering the multiplying unknowns of the Drake Equation. And suppose 99.9% of them go extinct without even developing space travel. And 99.99% of those never approach type 2, though some eventually do create interstellar civilizations. And then "type 3," which in my mind is the truly credibility-stretching one, since the timescales involved dwarf anything we know about civilizations to insignificance, and even if it's technically possible there's no real evidence that there would be any point to it, for anyone. So you get the idea - yes, I think it really could be that rare.

[whap2005]

I'd like to point out that at an age of the universe of 3 billion years old, the galaxies were considerably closer together than they are now. So a civilization at this time would have less trouble crossing between galaxies.

 

So, I tend to ask as Arch does, where are they?

 

We are right here..?

 

It is possible humans have been engineered. Especially when you look at the Intellegence gap between humans and other animals on Earth.

[iNow]

It is possible humans have been engineered. Especially when you look at the Intellegence gap between humans and other animals on Earth.

That's a bit of a misnomer. When viewed objectively, there really isn't much of an intelligence gap at all. The only gap is really one of technology, not intelligence.

[Arch2008]

Whap2005, I suppose you mean humans were engineered by aliens? The minor variations between humans and other primates can really be explained without aliens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics

I think that Cirkovic is attempting to separate science from this kind of fiction. Let's find some aliens before we ascribe our existence to their handiwork. At some point SETI must be more than an X File.

[rockman]

iNOW wrote:

 

"That's a bit of a misnomer. When viewed objectively, there really isn't much of an intelligence gap at all. The only gap is really one of technology, not intelligence."

 

So I can give a monkey technology and he'll become intelligent? Can I introduce to the monkey fire? Will he know what to do with it? Seems to me intelligence came before the technology. No intelligence, no technology. This is why monkeys don't build pyramids.

 

I'm open to being corrected.