Different responses to Fermi Paradox

[iNow]

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?

I think you missed my point. I'm saying the monkey is already intelligent, as are countless other non-human animals.

 

 

Seems to me intelligence came before the technology. No intelligence, no technology.

I agree, and I never once suggested otherwise.

[Airbrush]

Technology requires more than just intelligence. It also requires hand-eye coordination and an opposable thumb. Dolphins may never develop any technology. Maybe technology is rare in the universe. It requires animals that evolved from creatures living in trees that evolved digital dexterity, before they can make tools and other things, and conduct physical experiments necessary for their knowledge to grow exponentially, the way it did for humans.

 

Success as a species does not require technology, only adaptation, such as with cockroaches and sharks.

Edited August 21, 2009 by Airbrush
Consecutive posts merged.

[insane_alien]

many animals are tool users. and however you look at it tools are technology. some birds even MAKE the tools they use by stripping bits off the stick they are using to get at insects inside a tree.

 

this is an obvious display of intelligence and technology while not having hands (and hence no hand-eye coordination, which humans are actually quite bad at anyway) or opposable thumbs.

[Airbrush]

...if you can find a bird that can build a space-ship by stripping bark off a twig using its' beak.

[insane_alien]

i hope you realise that there are different levels of technology. it wasn't so many thousands of years ago that stripping bark off sticks and chucking rocks at each other was our frontier of technology.

 

just because technology is less advanced than our own does not mean that it is not technology.

[Airbrush]

I have an opposable thumb bias. Maybe on other planets there are a myriad of ways intelligent creatures can evolve to find more effective ways of manipulating their environment. There could be unimaginable kinds of environments that foster creatures that get around in different ways.

 

Spiders spins very strong fibers, bees build hives. We cannot produce building materials from our own bodies. But spiders and bees don't have the intelligence to make space ships or transmit signals into space.

[Severian]

I would go for "rare Earth" but in a slightly different form to how he decribes it.

 

We have only ever seen one creation event, where the building blocks of life actually become life. With one data sample it is actually impossible to say how rare it is. Sometimes people say things like "It can't be that rare because it happened quite quickly after the ingredients for life were available on Earth" but this is a bogus argument, since we wouldn't be here to observe if it hadn't happened.

 

It is a sort of anti-anthropic principle. You can't place a lower bound on the probability from the fact of our own existence.

 

So, given that we know pretty well how planets form and evolve, it seems sensible to use the data (the fact that we have no observed life) to restrict the unknown parameter (the probability of abiogenesis). Which leads me to believe that the probability of abiogenesis (when the ingredients are already present) is extremely low.

 

Maybe it has only happened once in the entire universe, or perhaps, the combination of a small abiogenesis probability and a small probability for the evolution to intelligent life is enough to ensure that we are truly alone.

[iNow]

So if it's just us... seems like an awful waste of space.

[J.C.MacSwell]

There is no reason to believe that we are that rare at this point. If the nearest "somewhat like ours" solar system had some species that had advanced to our level, would they know we exist?

 

We have a long way to go just to get in the game, to be considered one of the "they" in someone else's "where are they?".

Edited August 22, 2009 by J.C.MacSwell

[Moontanman]

I see no reason to assume super civilizations. Type II type IV or what ever. A civilization not much more advanced than our own could in theory colonize pretty much the entire Galaxy and never touch an earth like planet or even make any beings living on those planets aware of their existence. Orbiting artificial colonies in the shape of a torus or other form that allows rotation for artificial gravity could be reproduced in the millions from the material around one star. Such structures could spread slowly at a small fraction of the speed of light, possibly making the trip between stars in a few centuries or maybe decades depending on the technology or distance. Within about 250,000,000 years such a civilization could have a presence around pretty much all the suitable stars in the galaxy. Groups of objects like the asteroids at Jupiter's Lagrange points could support millions of aliens without humanity ever knowing it unless we go there and look. Planets and their gravity wells would be avoided by such a civilization and they would have no need to worry about "Earth" like planets and stars with huge clouds of asteroids instead of planets would be preferred to stars with lots of planets. No need for FTL or using the energy of whole galaxies. Just good solid technology and time, the galaxy would be theirs and might very well be, we wouldn't know it.

[Arch2008]

iNow-We are most certainly alone as a technological species in the Solar System, so is this enormous volume a waste of space? Is most of the Earth wasted space? I know Carl Sagan liked saying this, but what does it prove?

 

J.C. MacSwell-Why should there only be civilizations no more advanced than ours? The FP isn't about us. Where are the more advanced civilizations?

 

Moontanman-You see no reason to assume super civilizations and then you reiterate how the one I described might be everywhere in the galaxy except here. Which is it?

[Moontanman]

iNow-We are most certainly alone as a technological species in the Solar System, so is this enormous volume a waste of space? Is most of the Earth wasted space? I know Carl Sagan liked saying this, but what does it prove?

 

J.C. MacSwell-Why should there only be civilizations no more advanced than ours? The FP isn't about us. Where are the more advanced civilizations?

 

Moontanman-You see no reason to assume super civilizations and then you reiterate how the one I described might be everywhere in the galaxy except here. Which is it?

 

Just because a civilization has managed to colonize the space around most suitable stars doesn't make them a super civilization. super civilization implies technology far beyond our own , using the energy of entire stars or galaxies. A civilization not much more technologically advanced than our own could, given enough time, IE 250,000,000 years colonize the entire galaxy. No FTL, no impossible physics no fantastic energy use. Just technology similar to us and determination.

[iNow]

iNow-We are most certainly alone as a technological species in the Solar System, so is this enormous volume a waste of space? Is most of the Earth wasted space? I know Carl Sagan liked saying this, but what does it prove?

Irrelevant. Severian was discussing the entire Universe, not just our solar system, and further, I was not looking to prove anything, merely commenting on the tone of the post previous to my own with a quote from Sagan.

[SH3RL0CK]

I tend to view the Fermi paradox as more of a rhetorical question used to point out the rarity and uniqueness of the earth (and by extension, us). Either there are no advanced civilizations, or such civiliations are deliberately hiding themselves (except perhaps in specific, controlled ways). Both of which implies some kind of uniqueness and rarity as it would probably take considerable work on the part of an advanced civilization to hide itself (including its own past as it developed).

 

Instead of asking "where are the advanced civilizations" I think Fermi paradox means we should be asking what is it that makes us so unique?

[Arch2008]

Moontanman-A civilization that colonized 100 billion stars and still kept themselves secret from us is not a super civilization by your reasoning.

Got it.

 

iNow-How is it not relevant? I simply asked when a volume stops being a "waste of space"? Sagan's quaint quote implies that there must be more advanced species because otherwise this would be a great waste of space. For the sake of discussion, I merely pointed out that this proves nothing.

[iNow]

Okay. Fair enough. I was merely commenting that... if it's really just us... then it sure seems like an awful waste of space. I was not using the comment in an attempt to argue that we are not alone, or to suggest that there must be life out there.... Just that it would seem like an awful waste of space if we are are alone... if it's just us on Earth who exhibit life across this vast cosmic arena of billions and billions of stars amongst billions and billions of galaxies.

[Arch2008]

This was another of Sagan's comments. Why does it seem that we are alone in such an immense volume of stars? Do technologically advanced civilizations perhaps destroy themselves before reaching out to other star systems? What happens if our intelligence grows faster than our wisdom?

[Airbrush]

It only seems like we are alone. Even if there is an ETI (at least as advanced as we are) about every 1,000 light years around our galactic habitable zone, that is enough distance to effectively isolate all the ETIs in the Milky Way.

 

Long-distance space travel may be more difficult than we imagine. The more advanced ETIs have nothing to gain by letting us know they are around. Why should they come to our solar system when they could create unlimited numbers of habitats closer to their home star? Or they have been here for thousands of years, but they are very good at hiding from us.

[SH3RL0CK]

Airbrush,

 

I think I see a few flaws in your logic, maybe you could correct me if I am misunderstanding anything...

 

Around the aliens home star there is NOT an unlimited number of habitats available. The number is very large, yes, but with the assumption of growth, it is inevitable that the aliens must eventually arrive here if they are capable of interstellar travel.

 

Now it is possible that you are correct and interstellar travel is not possible (though we already know how, in theory, several ways to do so). Maybe there is some technological barrier for every possible means of transport that it can't be done. Even still, they could probably send robotic probes and/or their radio waves could eventually be heard.

 

Or it is possible that an alien species would decide to not colonize and limit its population (but I doubt it because they would then inevitably become extinct when their home star dies). Maybe they decide to expand a bit, then quit - though I don't see why they should stop expanding. And would all species that arise decide to limit its growth like this?

[Airbrush]

Around the aliens home star there is NOT an unlimited number of habitats available. The number is very large, yes, but with the assumption of growth, it is inevitable that the aliens must eventually arrive here if they are capable of interstellar travel.

 

The most advanced ones, the ones that can harvest every bit of energy from their home star, have no limits on creating safe, comfortable habitats in their own neighborhood. They could use material from planets, moons, and asteroids, in their solar system to create space-cities on barren planets, or inside hollowed out moons or asteroids that rotate creating the kind of gravity they are accustomed to. They would have unlimited resources for building such mega-cities within maybe a few dozen light years from their home planets. If they need more space, they simply create more space-cities. They have no need for traveling a thousand light years, maybe not even 100 light years.

 

Why should they send robotic probes on longer missions? They have seen enough. They are happy with what they have closer to home. If their star is going nova, or supernova, they simply move to other nearby stars, just far enough away to be safe. They don't even need to live near a star. They could build anywhere, or move stars to suit themselves. When it gets too crowded locally, they just restrict population growth. No need for long distance travel.

[SH3RL0CK]

The most advanced ones, the ones that can harvest every bit of energy from their home star, have no limits on creating safe, comfortable habitats in their own neighborhood. They could use material from planets, moons, and asteroids, in their solar system to create space-cities on barren planets, or inside hollowed out moons or asteroids that rotate creating the kind of gravity they are accustomed to. They would have unlimited resources for building such mega-cities within maybe a few dozen light years from their home planets. If they need more space, they simply create more space-cities. They have no need for traveling a thousand light years, maybe not even 100 light years.

 

But the total amount of matter (including all planets, moons, asteroids, even dust...) around a single star is finite. Also the total amount of energy available is finite. Therefore the total number of aliens that can live in a single solar system is limited and finite. The large but finite amount of matter and energy in a single solar system is a limitation, is it not?

 

Once they have applied themselves to all the matter around a single star, and are using all the energy from the star, and if they are to continue to grow the logical choice is to go to the next star...and so forth until they colonize the entire galaxy; then the neighboring galaxies...

[Arch2008]

Airbrush-The Sun generates about a hundred trillion times the Earth's present energy requirement. So logically, six hundred sextillion humans could comfortably live in Bernal Spheres or Dyson rings around our Sun. This is a huge number, but far less than an unlimited number. Sooner or later, growth is limited if we choose not to colonize. Besides, a Super Nova within several dozen light years or a GRB pointed at us and it would be extremely hard for even an advanced civilization to survive, not to mention that our Sun will eventually become very inhospitable before settling down as a frigid White Dwarf. Alien civilizations would face this same reality. They must expand or die out.

 

Why should there only be civilizations less advanced than we are? If only one civilization in our ten billion year old galaxy were a mere million years more advanced, then they would be everywhere in the galaxy. They would have been here in our solar system on their Dyson ring since before there were homo sapiens. They could comfortably live on a Dyson ring out to the orbit of Jupiter, where they would arguably observe some "club of advanced species' non-interference policy", but at least they would be here.

Only they are not.

[Airbrush]

If only one civilization in our ten billion year old galaxy were a mere million years more advanced, then they would be everywhere in the galaxy.

 

Your assumption is that an ETI one million years more advanced than us must necessarily "colonize" their entire galaxy. The only reason they would need to spread to nearby stars would be to avoid a disasterous death of their own star. That does not require colonizing an entire galaxy. At some point in their expansion they simply notice that the energy required to spread out further than some limit, such as 1,000 light years, is a wasted effort. Better to just practice safe sex and control population growth. They may choose to channel their energy towards improving living condition in the areas they already are living in. At some point in their growth they may turn inward and practice meditation and cultivate their arts and science. Or they can play around with parallel universes!

Edited August 26, 2009 by Airbrush

[Arch2008]

You are assuming that a half a septillion beings would somehow submit to a super government decision to die on the vine. If any miniscule fraction of this population decided not to play along, then they would continue to colonize. If just a trillion rebels fled from your content society, then the galaxy would still be settled. A civilization that lives in Bernal Spheres/Dyson habitats would have everything they need to colonize. After Spain settled in the America's, many other nation followed. Your assumption must also be perfect to succeed. Not even one single civilization may do what I propose.

 

If the Earth's population doubled only every thousand years, then our power needs would max out the Sun's energy production in less than fifty thousand years. It is not everyone's philosophy that less is more. I am sure that most likely some of the intelligent beings would agree with Mother Theresa that, "Saying that there are too many children is like saying that there are too many flowers."

[SH3RL0CK]

At some point in their expansion they simply notice that the energy required to spread out further than some limit, such as 1,000 light years, is a wasted effort.

 

But what makes the home star so unique that the aliens must stay within a certain distance of it? While further expansion might be 1,000 light years from the original star, it might only be a couple light years from an already inhabited star. Additionally, the nearby star might have many more resources with which to construct whatever is needed for further expansion than the home star anyway.

 

Did the USA and Canada decide not to expand into the West because it was just too far from England and Europe?