An Answer to the Fermi Paradox

[Ordover]

For anyone who doesn't know, what is known as the Fermi Paradox is the question of why, if intelligent alien lifeforms exist, we see no signs of them. Even at an incredibly slow rate of spread, they should be all over the place by now.

Explanations range from "there aren't any" to "they're hiding" to "they aren't interested." I'd like to suggest another option:

Space travel is not economically sustainable. There is nothng worth going out to get and bringing back to the home planet, and once this is realized the society stops space travel, either by choice or due to economic collapse.

The counter to this is the self-replicating robot notion - that a Techbot would be sent out programed to duplicate itself from the raw materials of any planet it finds and send copies of itself throughout the galaxy. But IMHO that fails because, of all things, evolution. No duplicating process is without error, and Natural Selection will favor those techbots that reproduce but don't launch, and instead keep reproducing in situ. Less risk, more "food" more reproduction.

Thoughts?

[quarky]

I suspect that the aliens are very very tiny, and we haven't looked for them.
We look for ones that are similar to us.

[Ziggurat]

I think we (and most intelligent aliens) may never collonize other planets because of the issue of future discount rates. In short, a dollar today is worth more to you than a dollar tomorrow (even ignoring inflation). And a dollar for you today is worth significantly more to you than a dollar for your great-great-grandchildren. The costs of space collonization would be ginormous, and the timescales very long. So the benefits are not likely to be worth the costs, when a future discount rate is applied. And so, nobody will do it.

[Toke]

Nominated

[Dymanic]

I agree that there is no known natural resource, and none conceivable, that would be worth going out to get and bringing back to any home planet unless technological advances overcame some difficult and fundamental problems with the logistics. But there is something else we treasure, and which would also surely be highly prized in any society of beings capable of seeking it beyond the confines of their home planet:

knowledge.

[Chaos]

I think we (and most intelligent aliens) may never collonize other planets because of the issue of future discount rates. In short, a dollar today is worth more to you than a dollar tomorrow (even ignoring inflation). And a dollar for you today is worth significantly more to you than a dollar for your great-great-grandchildren. The costs of space collonization would be ginormous, and the timescales very long. So the benefits are not likely to be worth the costs, when a future discount rate is applied. And so, nobody will do it.

Not for purely economic reasons, but it would have other benefits.

I could imagine a bunch of skeptics/atheists packing their bags and moving to another planets, for the priceless benefits of knowing that the nearest religious fanatic is 20 light-years away. Or religious fanatics packing their bags and establishing their "promised land" 20 light-years from the nearest corrupting godless influence. For example.

[Ziggurat]

Not for purely economic reasons, but it would have other benefits.

I could imagine a bunch of skeptics/atheists packing their bags and moving to another planets, for the priceless benefits of knowing that the nearest religious fanatic is 20 light-years away.

But they aren't the ones who have to pay for it. Like I said, the time scales are going to be LONG. And I don't just mean the travel times. I mean the time to build the ships, explore possible destinations, determine where colonies could surive, etc. is likely to be multi-generational. How many athiests will plunk down a vast fortune so that their great grandchildren can flee religious fanatics? Probably none.

In fact, it will be the reverse: if anyone DOES do it, it will probably be for religious reasons.

[Dancing David]

The galaxy is huge, you have to travel subliminal, how many stars, how many plaents.

Even ten alien species and they may never intersect.

100,000 light years across , r=50,000, r^2=250,000,000 x 3.14 = 785,000,000 square light years x 3,000 ly thick =2,355,000,000,000 cubic light years.

[The Atheist]

For anyone who doesn't know, what is known as the Fermi Paradox is the question of why, if intelligent alien lifeforms exist, we see no signs of them. Even at an incredibly slow rate of spread, they should be all over the place by now.

That's not actually right on several counts, but the important ones are: what Fermi left was not a paradox but a simple mistake. You need to learn to call it "Fermi's Mistake".

The central mistake is thinking it can be anything other than GIGO. There are just too many variables - we have no idea why life started on earth, or whether it even can anywhere else. If assumptions are the mother of all ****-ups, then it's obvious that Fermi's proposition can only be a mistake, because it's all assumption.

It also ignores the size of the universe, the fact that sending/leaving electro-magnetic signatures may not be a feature of other intelligence and worst of all, the time scale involved. Humans have had the ability to intercept radio transmissions from outside the solor system for under 100 years. 1 century in 12,000,000,000 years would require some amazing odds to pay off.

I think you've also mis-represented the actual Mistake a little in that it's not that aliens should have spread around the universe, it's more that the number of planets means that they will be everywhere. Inter-galactic travel isn't essential.

Frank Frake set up SETI based on the Mistake, so it's no surprise lots of people fall for it.

[shadron]

Frank Frake set up SETI based on the Mistake, so it's no surprise lots of people fall for it.


That's Frank Drake; Jonathan Frakes is the Gigolo of the Galaxy:

yXekq3g_SFE

[blutoski]

Thoughts?

I think The Atheist hit the nail on the head. There's no 'paradox' - there's "Contradiction suggests some or all of the premises are incorrect." Basic [Modus Tollens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens)].

[Ordover]

I agree that there is no known natural resource, and none conceivable, that would be worth going out to get and bringing back to any home planet unless technological advances overcame some difficult and fundamental problems with the logistics. But there is something else we treasure, and which would also surely be highly prized in any society of beings capable of seeking it beyond the confines of their home planet:

knowledge.
Knowledge can be exchanged most efficiently by SOL communication via a forum system, much like we are doing here (although it will still be pretty slow). Perhaps we just haven't registered in the right way yet. :)

[gnome]

IF we take the assumption that an intelligent, interstellar civilization leaves a trace detectable by us, such as radio...

Then isn't a reasonable conclusion to suppose that we are either alone in the galaxy, NEARLY alone in the galaxy, or one of the earliest to be broadcasting/traveling in space? I have an intuition that from a geologic/evolutionary scale, if there were a bunch of races that evolved a long time before us, that their traces should likely cover a significant portion of the galaxy by now.

[Ordover]

I'm well aware that the Fermi Paradox is not a Paradox, but I labelled by the name it is most commonly known by.

Rephrased as "Why haven't we found aliens all over the place?" the answers given are typically fairly simple: They aren't there or we can't detect them. I'm adding a reason they might not be there, is all.

[Dymanic]

Knowledge can be exchanged most efficiently by SOL communication via a forum system, much like we are doing here (although it will still be pretty slow). Perhaps we just haven't registered in the right way yet. :)
Space exploration is about expanding the domain. The ultimate tool for that is actual travel to distant locations, but probes are a lot more practical. If an alien probe were discovered within our system, could we identify it as such beyond all question, or would it be widely rejected as a hoax?

[The Atheist]

That's Frank Drake; Jonathan Frakes is the Gigolo of the Galaxy:

Oh frap!

[quarky]

1600 new animal species were dicovered in the Mecong delta in the past 10 years. We aren't really all that observant or thorough in our serch for other life forms.

It seems unlikely to me that we will discover extraterrestial life forms before we know what's here on earth.

(Unless they show up soon.)

[sol invictus]

In my opinion, the best answer is also the simplest: we see no signs of intelligent aliens because there aren't any. They're all dead. Intelligence is an evolutionary dead-end, one that leads inevitably to self annihilation.

Bleak, but compelling.

[CapelDodger]

In my opinion, the best answer is also the simplest: we see no signs of intelligent aliens because there aren't any. They're all dead. Intelligence is an evolutionary dead-end, one that leads inevitably to self annihilation.

Bleak, but compelling.

It works for me as well. On a slightly more optimistic note intelligence might lead to an inward-looking stagnation following a close call - Brave New World stuff. An intelligently-designed hive-society could survive almost indefinitely without drawing attention to itself.

[Ashles]

The is of course one other option.

We are the first.

Someone has to be.

[CapelDodger]

The galaxy is huge, you have to travel subliminal, how many stars, how many plaents.

Even ten alien species and they may never intersect.

You have to take account of the exponential spread. The colonies of a species with a colonising spirit will themselves spawn colonies. Thus you get an expanding wavefront. Even if it takes a colony a few hundred years to start reproducing, the galaxy would be covered in ten million years or so.

[The Atheist]

In my opinion, the best answer is also the simplest: we see no signs of intelligent aliens because there aren't any. They're all dead. Intelligence is an evolutionary dead-end, one that leads inevitably to self annihilation.

Bleak, but compelling.

I've been saying that for years.

Some atheists got very uptight when I started a thread in that vein at Dawkins' forum.

[Ordover]

In my opinion, the best answer is also the simplest: we see no signs of intelligent aliens because there aren't any. They're all dead. Intelligence is an evolutionary dead-end, one that leads inevitably to self annihilation.

Bleak, but compelling.
Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense.

[Ordover]

You have to take account of the exponential spread. The colonies of a species with a colonising spirit will themselves spawn colonies. Thus you get an expanding wavefront. Even if it takes a colony a few hundred years to start reproducing, the galaxy would be covered in ten million years or so.
It's not about Spirit, it's about economic sustainability and evolution.

[arthwollipot]

For anyone who doesn't know, what is known as the Fermi Paradox is the question of why, if intelligent alien lifeforms exist, we see no signs of them. Even at an incredibly slow rate of spread, they should be all over the place by now.

Explanations range from "there aren't any" to "they're hiding" to "they aren't interested." I'd like to suggest another option:

Space travel is not economically sustainable. There is nothng worth going out to get and bringing back to the home planet, and once this is realized the society stops space travel, either by choice or due to economic collapse.

The counter to this is the self-replicating robot notion - that a Techbot would be sent out programed to duplicate itself from the raw materials of any planet it finds and send copies of itself throughout the galaxy. But IMHO that fails because, of all things, evolution. No duplicating process is without error, and Natural Selection will favor those techbots that reproduce but don't launch, and instead keep reproducing in situ. Less risk, more "food" more reproduction.

Thoughts?If this is true, we never would have climbed Everest.

[quarky]

I hope we never do colonize space. I'm not all that impressed with us yet.

Maybe that's why other 'intelligent' lifeforms haven't visited us...they are aware of their unsavory agenda, and choose to minimize it...as a spiritual thang.

[Just thinking]

Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense.


True ... but it certainly doesn't prevent you in any way from pointing in that direction. It can't be ruled out.

Funny ... just today I saw an episode on the History Channel's The Universe where the topic was Earth's Moon. One of the aspects it drew attention to was the way the moon may have influenced the evolution of life on this planet. Given the combination of necessary conditions that life needs in order to get a foothold, it just seemed to throw yet another monkey wrench into the mix as it made the chances for advanced intelligent life elsewhere all the more remote.

[Delvo]

What role did they say the moon had? Creating wide tidal zones which get submerged and then exposed again every day?

[CapelDodger]

It's not about Spirit, it's about economic sustainability and evolution.

A planned colony planted on a well-probed pristine planet with advanced technological knowledge at its disposal is not going to have a problem with resources, and evolution won't have time to matter. Colonies will (by definition) be established by species that have a colonising mindset (or "spirit", more poetically). Ergo, colonies will tend to send out their own colonies. And so ad infinitum (or to the edges of the galaxy at least).

[Just thinking]

What role did they say the moon had? Creating wide tidal zones which get submerged and then exposed again every day?

Several roles.

Early on, the moon was much closer to Earth in its orbit and had greater tidal influence. Much greater tides (up to 1000 times) caused a good deal of minerals to wash into the ocean(s), resulting in a primal soup that was more favorable to complex organisms. Also, over time, the moon caused the Earth to slow in its rotation; without it, we would still have a day of about only 10 hours. Beings like us might likely not evolve under such conditions. Also, having a moon out at night influenced the evolution of nocturnal animals ... just how responsible these were in the overall evolutionary picture is hard to say ... but it could be another factor in why we're here as we are.

[sol invictus]

Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense.

Absence of evidence for what? What are you talking about?

I think we have ample evidence, both practical and theoretical, that intelligence of our sort is very likely to wipe itself out once it develops technology. The few hundred thousand years since we developed tools is a tiny blip on the time scales relevant here, and yet we've already wiped out at least one other closely related subspecies, and come very close to nuclear annihilation on a number of occasions even in the last 50 years.

The odds of our long-term survival are very slim, in my view. Roaches will inherit the earth.

[Ziggurat]

yet we've already wiped out at least one other closely related subspecies, and come very close to nuclear annihilation on a number of occasions even in the last 50 years.

In fairness, you're assuming a particular outcome for an experiment nobody has done yet.

[LarianLeQuella]

The easiest answer is that humans are too stupid to detect the intelligent life that IS there. ;)

[sol invictus]

In fairness, you're assuming a particular outcome for an experiment nobody has done yet.

We wiped out the Neanderthals, so at least one closely related experiment was already done.

And I think most would agree that we came pretty near wiping ourselves out with nuclear weapons several times (see here (http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/5158) for example). Now that biotech is coming into its own, new and previously unimaginable ways of destroying ourselves have arisen (one crazy bio grad student could engineer and release a supervirus). There are many environmental and resource problems, any one of which could prove deadly.

As technology continues to advance, I'm pretty sure it will get easier and easier to destroy the world. And all it takes is one nutjob...

[The Atheist]

We wiped out the Neanderthals, so at least one closely related experiment was already done.

I think you'll find that idea has little support. Doesn't mean it's wrong, of course, but genocide seems an unlikely prospect that long ago.

As technology continues to advance, I'm pretty sure it will get easier and easier to destroy the world. And all it takes is one nutjob...

Or seven billion of them.

[Ziggurat]

We wiped out the Neanderthals, so at least one closely related experiment was already done.

But it doesn't make a difference if one intelligent species wipes out another, because you've still got an intelligent speicies left on the planet.

And I think most would agree that we came pretty near wiping ourselves out with nuclear weapons several times

That's the untested part. We really don't know, and your opinion is really just a popular hunch. I'd like to keep it that way, since it's the sort of experiment we may not be able to run twice, but we shouldn't presume to know the answer.

Now that biotech is coming into its own, new and previously unimaginable ways of destroying ourselves have arisen (one crazy bio grad student could engineer and release a supervirus).

Maybe one day, but we really don't know how to do that yet. Nasty viruses? Sure. Viruses that will wipe out our species? We've really got no clue how to do that. And it also runs into the problem that biology is so complex we can't definitively say any supervirus would kill us all (not just a lot of us) without a test. We certainly don't have good enough simulators, and aren't likely to for a VERY long time. And our defense measures improve with time too.

[Soapy Sam]

I suspect we "wiiped out" the Neanderthals only in the sense that grey squirrels are wiping out reds in the UK. The stresses climate change put on both human variants simply differentially favoured our lot, which replaced the others as their birth rate fell. We likely hunted out their food sources. But , let's face it- humans have a history of throwing pointy things at anyone who looks a bit different. A lot of other large mammals go extinct about the same time as the neanderthal decline, just when H.sap sap moves in. Odd coincidence that.

On the OP. The universe is big and old. Even if life (whatever that means) is common, the concentration of intelligent life at any time may be homoeopathic. Our present technology can't be sure there's no life on Mars. How do we know Neutron Stars are not artifacts? Would we recognise an advanced civilisation if we saw it? Does intelligence always form civilisations? We are like Newton's child on the beach, asking questions we have not the slightest notion how to answer. Or maybe a baby turtle would be a more apt analogy? We think we're intelligent. Maybe really intelligent creatures just wouldn't notice us.

[Dancing David]

I'm well aware that the Fermi Paradox is not a Paradox, but I labelled by the name it is most commonly known by.

Rephrased as "Why haven't we found aliens all over the place?" the answers given are typically fairly simple: They aren't there or we can't detect them. I'm adding a reason they might not be there, is all.

That is likely as well, however the question is not very meaning ful. Given the size of the galaxy it is a mistake to assume that enough time has passed for paths to intersect.

Besides the cost of travel.

[Dancing David]

You have to take account of the exponential spread. The colonies of a species with a colonising spirit will themselves spawn colonies. Thus you get an expanding wavefront. Even if it takes a colony a few hundred years to start reproducing, the galaxy would be covered in ten million years or so.


Really what rate of travel are you suggesting? I was think a rate in 100 light years/century. But then you can only move a limited amount of material, so it could take a new colony millenia to be up to even thinking about expanding, if at all. The support for technology is crucial. A single ice storm can reduce people to the 1800s. A significant war and everybody is in the paleo culture.

Somehow I don't think it will be exponential. And ten million, a low estimate. Hpw many stars and planets, not saturation, space travel would equal a significant portion of Gross Planetary Income, if it is even 5% of GPP. That might just be enough to build a few droid probes, at subliminal speed that means thousands of years in travel time.

[sol invictus]

I think you'll find that idea has little support. Doesn't mean it's wrong, of course, but genocide seems an unlikely prospect that long ago.

I'm not an expert, but my understanding was that evidence from the last few years (for example from that cave in Gibraltar) had actually flipped the consensus over to this hypothesis (ok, "genocide" might be a little too strong, but at least they coexisted in both time and region, and the Neanderthals went extinct).

But it doesn't make a difference if one intelligent species wipes out another, because you've still got an intelligent speicies left on the planet.

Yes, for the moment. But it bears on a larger question - is intelligence as a trait an evolutionary success, or not?

Take animals that live in hives, like ants and bees. For the sake of argument, consider that kind of communal behavior an evolutionary trait in the same category as intelligence. Which is more successful? How many species of ants and bees are there (thousands at least), compared to the number of intelligent species (one)? The number of intelligent species was halved in the last blip of an evolutionary clock. The number of individuals is less by a factor of probably a million (wild guess). That really doesn't sound like a success.

That's the untested part. We really don't know, and your opinion is really just a popular hunch. I'd like to keep it that way, since it's the sort of experiment we may not be able to run twice, but we shouldn't presume to know the answer.

It's pretty hard to put this kind of existential debate on a solid empirical footing... and I too would like to keep it that way. :)

I'm partly just playing devil's advocate here, to see where it gets us.

Maybe one day, but we really don't know how to do that yet. Nasty viruses? Sure. Viruses that will wipe out our species? We've really got no clue how to do that.

Again, not my field - but I have a friend (a Ph.D. biologist) that works in biosecurity and doesn't share that opinion.

As technology improves, one clear trend is that defense gets harder and harder. Nuclear weapons are a prime example.

[Dancing David]

The potential to mess up the ecosystem and realy mess over our society. the extinguishment of all humanity, somewhat less likely but still plausible.

It would only take a virus that wipes out 90% in the first round of infection, and is spread easily. Then there would still be pockets of isolated paranoid people, like ranchers in Montana, who would survive the first round. But with the collapse of society, most people are not mountain men or able to work the 1800s technology (which is still very complex).

Now people who understand late paleolithic technology, maybe they could survive. Or a well prepared survivalist. Female death in child birth and ifant mortality are huge obstacles.

[Ziggurat]

Yes, for the moment. But it bears on a larger question - is intelligence as a trait an evolutionary success, or not?

We vastly outnumber our dumber primate relatives, as well as our own ancestors. So yes... for now. Since ecosystems are not static, that's really the most we can say about any evolutionary trait.

[Belz...]

We wiped out the Neanderthals, so at least one closely related experiment was already done.

And I think most would agree that we came pretty near wiping ourselves out with nuclear weapons several times (see here (http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/5158) for example). Now that biotech is coming into its own, new and previously unimaginable ways of destroying ourselves have arisen (one crazy bio grad student could engineer and release a supervirus). There are many environmental and resource problems, any one of which could prove deadly.

As technology continues to advance, I'm pretty sure it will get easier and easier to destroy the world. And all it takes is one nutjob...

People have been saying this for a number of decades, now, and I still don't buy it. You're making an argument based on a possible outcome that hasn't happened. That's weak indeed.

I'm sure they made those commented when they invented firearms a few centuries ago, or when someone came along with the idea of a sword a few thousand years ago.

Caveman#1: "What is that ?"
Caveman#2: "I call it 'club'."
Caveman#1: "Do you have any idea the calamity you've just brought to our tribe ? Why, this could be the end of prehistory as we know it!"

[Belz...]

(ok, "genocide" might be a little too strong, but at least they coexisted in both time and region, and the Neanderthals went extinct).

Which makes "genocide" not only "a little" too strong but entirely wrong.

Take animals that live in hives, like ants and bees. For the sake of argument, consider that kind of communal behavior an evolutionary trait in the same category as intelligence. Which is more successful? How many species of ants and bees are there (thousands at least), compared to the number of intelligent species (one)? The number of intelligent species was halved in the last blip of an evolutionary clock. The number of individuals is less by a factor of probably a million (wild guess). That really doesn't sound like a success.

Almost seven BILLION humans attest to some level of success, methinks.

As technology improves, one clear trend is that defense gets harder and harder. Nuclear weapons are a prime example.

Nuclear weapons have been used twice in history. So far, we haven't been too keen on using them, for some reason.

[Thabiguy]

Yes, for the moment. But it bears on a larger question - is intelligence as a trait an evolutionary success, or not?

I would say it's an enormous success, for reasons Ziggurat pointed out. In terms of increasing our ability to adapt to our environment, compared to our closest relatives without this trait, it might be the most successful trait ever.

As technology improves, one clear trend is that defense gets harder and harder. Nuclear weapons are a prime example.

Ultimately, something is going to wipe us off this planet. If it's not ourselves, it will be a space collision, if it's not a space collision, it will be the death of the star. This fate would be inevitably shared by all local life... unless it developed intelligence. But now it's not inevitable.

While intelligence may wipe itself out, this is not very remarkable. It could evolve again, and even if it didn't, then it would just do earlier what was coming anyway. On the other hand, intelligence, for the first time, allows earthly life to extend its existence in the universe - by means of colonizing other planets, and eventually other stars. Which is a defense not just against disasters, but also against self-destruction.

And that brings us full circle back to the original post. Intelligence must prove its success by securing its existence in the universe. Intelligences that self-destruct first prove not to be successful, and as such, are removed by natural selection. You would expect to meet those that don't self-destruct first.

As for whether that's the Earth's case, I'd say it's anyone's guess. We have not destroyed ourselves, and we have not colonized space, but we've made some progress in both directions. We'll see what comes first.

[dogjones]

And plus, it sure is nice to be top of the food chain. Mmmmm... mammmoth... (drool)

[Zeuzzz]

As technology continues to advance, I'm pretty sure it will get easier and easier to destroy the world. And all it takes is one nutjob...


Hiya.

I think that the main reason the fermi paradox is bunk is that we do infact get contact with alien civilizations all the time, its just that they are only visible to people who believe in them and can see the fifth dimension where they hide using metamaterials which bend EM spectra using superconducting entagled quanta in retrocausal superfluidic isolated states.

Or we do actually have contact with aliens all the time. They are called animals. I cant see how anyone can consider the elephant octopus (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1139/874445860_ccd6c3b2f5.jpg?v=0) to be terestrial in origin.

[Ashles]

I think that the main reason the fermi paradox is bunk is that we do infact get contact with alien civilizations all the time, its just that they are only visible to people who believe in them and can see the fifth dimension where they hide using metamaterials which bend EM spectra using superconducting entagled quanta in retrocausal superfluidic isolated states.
I thought the invisibility was due to sub-meson filtration of hyper-sub-luminal tachyon acceleration with a light dusting of quasi-reciprocal superpositioning?

I just don't get why they still have to anal probe so agressively.

[shadron]

I think we have ample evidence, both practical and theoretical, that intelligence of our sort is very likely to wipe itself out once it develops technology. The few hundred thousand years since we developed tools is a tiny blip on the time scales relevant here, and yet we've already wiped out at least one other closely related subspecies, and come very close to nuclear annihilation on a number of occasions even in the last 50 years.

The odds of our long-term survival are very slim, in my view. Roaches will inherit the earth.

It might also be that intelligence ultimately tends toward extreme conservatism and becomes too paranoid to explore. That seems mre likely to me than that civilizations out-and-out destroy themselves 99% of the time.

[sol invictus]

We vastly outnumber our dumber primate relatives, as well as our own ancestors. So yes... for now. Since ecosystems are not static, that's really the most we can say about any evolutionary trait.

That's evidence that primates are a failure, not that intelligence is a success.

[sol invictus]

Which makes "genocide" not only "a little" too strong but entirely wrong.

How do you know?



Almost seven BILLION humans attest to some level of success, methinks.


And how many ants? E. coli?


Nuclear weapons have been used twice in history. So far, we haven't been too keen on using them, for some reason.

All it takes is once more. How unlikely do you think that is? We're talking about billions of years, not 50.

[Toke]

I thought the invisibility was due to sub-meson filtration of hyper-sub-luminal tachyon acceleration with a light dusting of quasi-reciprocal superpositioning?

I just don't get why they still have to anal probe so agressively.

Simple, humans have a body temperature far above what is normaly trought possible in an intelligent specie.
That will naturaly lead to throughout testing, until acceptet by the intergalatic scientific community.

[Ziggurat]

That's evidence that primates are a failure, not that intelligence is a success.

The only evolutionary failures are extinct species. While you may argue that they are less successful than, say, cockroaches, that doesn't make them a failure by any stretch of the imagination. If it did, then pretty much all vertebrate animals would be considered failures, which is simply absurd.

And intelligence clearly has been successful for humans, because we've become far [i]more[i] successful because of it. That does not mean it would be successful for every animal, or even for humans forever, but so far it has unambiguously been an evolutionary advantage for us.

[Ziggurat]

I just don't get why they still have to anal probe so agressively.

I'm not sure it's safe to assume they do that in order to study us.

[Belz...]

How do you know?

Er... you told us, yourself, man.

And how many ants? E. coli?

Are you sure you're the same Sol Invictus that I know from before ? You've got the same avatar but for some reason you seem to lack some of his... acumen.

I said "SOME success", Sol. SOME. I didn't say we were the most successful species in the universe.

All it takes is once more.

Useless rhetoric. Facts, please.

How unlikely do you think that is? We're talking about billions of years, not 50.

One bomb won't kill all humans, so I'd say slim.

[Ordover]

If this is true, we never would have climbed Everest.
We climbed Everst because it was cheap and yes, because it was there. But we haven't -colonized- Everest, in the sense that no communities have been established high on the mountain. That's because there are no resources up there worth the trouble of exploiting.

[Ordover]

A planned colony planted on a well-probed pristine planet with advanced technological knowledge at its disposal is not going to have a problem with resources, and evolution won't have time to matter. Colonies will (by definition) be established by species that have a colonising mindset (or "spirit", more poetically). Ergo, colonies will tend to send out their own colonies. And so ad infinitum (or to the edges of the galaxy at least).
Colonization is entirely driven by economic forces. Those forces simply do not exist for space.

[BenBurch]

The is of course one other option.

We are the first.

Someone has to be.

People don't like that argument because its is too "center of the universe" and argument of uniqueness has been embarrassingly wrong too often.

But even if not literally true, its reasonably clear that the sort stuff Earth is made of did not exist in quantity for all that long before Earth was formed, and having only one example, we can say nothing about how long a typical planet that somehow develops life would take to come up with a critter that could be having this sort of conversation, but it is possible we are at least NEARLY the first.

And as others have observed, and I studied it in depth at one time, interstellar travel is very difficult. I don't believe in warp drives, and the risk of encountering dangerous debris means that a few percent of the speed of light is likely as fast as you can go. And when you find a planet, and it has life, how can you know if you will not wind up like the Martians in War Of The Worlds; done in by a common microbe?

Fermi assumed that civilizations would inevitably send out colonies, and that those colonies in turn one day would also send out colonies, and that over the course of not so many millions of years it fills the galaxy; If you assume there is one technological civilization, and it sends out colonies which themselves send out colonies after 10,000 years, and that the average distance of the new colony is 20 light years, then that civilization should span the galaxy in 50 million years.

But I think its not that the interstellar travel is literally impossible - I bet there are a few starships in our galaxy right now - but that I think the colonization is the nearly impossible part.

[Perpetual Student]

On the OP. The universe is big and old. Even if life (whatever that means) is common, the concentration of intelligent life at any time may be homoeopathic. Our present technology can't be sure there's no life on Mars. How do we know Neutron Stars are not artifacts? Would we recognise an advanced civilisation if we saw it? Does intelligence always form civilisations? We are like Newton's child on the beach, asking questions we have not the slightest notion how to answer. Or maybe a baby turtle would be a more apt analogy? We think we're intelligent. Maybe really intelligent creatures just wouldn't notice us.

Yes, well said! We do not know how often life develops and when it does, we have no clue as to how often intelligence may evolve. How can we then even guess what the likely proximity of intelligent life to us may be so that any form of communication would be possible? Unless we actually have the good fortune to discover some evidence of intelligent life, we may never know.

In my opinion, the best answer is also the simplest: we see no signs of intelligent aliens because there aren't any. They're all dead. Intelligence is an evolutionary dead-end, one that leads inevitably to self annihilation.

Bleak, but compelling.

It appears unlikely that we can totally annihilate ourselves; it seems to me that the most damage we can do to ourselves may be to wipe out a significant percentage of ourselves and our civilization, which, of course, could then be re-established by survivors. Nevertheless, intelligent life is likely to be a dead-end since the earth and all other planets will be destroyed in one natural way or another or lose their source of energy.

[arthwollipot]

Colonization is entirely driven by economic forces. Those forces simply do not exist for space.I heard one estimate that there were many trillions of dollars worth of valuable materials just in the asteroid belt alone. I think that there's plenty of economic incentive to go to space. The problem is that right now, with our level of technology, it's expensive and dangerous. The payoff does not yet outweigh the risk. I hope that one day it will.

[Dancing David]

I heard one estimate that there were many trillions of dollars worth of valuable materials just in the asteroid belt alone. I think that there's plenty of economic incentive to go to space. The problem is that right now, with our level of technology, it's expensive and dangerous. The payoff does not yet outweigh the risk. I hope that one day it will.

That is true, I used to scare people by saying we need to move an asteroid into earth orbit. That is doable, the issue is that at 1/10 the speed of light it take 40 years to get to alpha proxima centauri, and what are the odds that your probe malfunctions of hits something on the way?


The investment is high the pay off in knowledge is high.

I think it is cool, like so totaly cool, but economically very expensive with low economic payout.

Sigh. :(

[Toke]

I don´t want to belive that we are all alone in the galaxy.

One of the reasons we are not overrun with aliens could be that it is not possible to travel faster than light. Rather depressing, hope physists come up with some teori that allows it.

That would really cut down on exploration and colonisation for anybody.
What culture have the patience to wait hundreds of years for a probe to report back by radio?
And then spend the money for a generation ship, to get penpals in another few hundred years.

[sol invictus]

And intelligence clearly has been successful for humans, because we've become far [i]more[i] successful because of it.

It has allowed us to increase our population, but so far only for an evolutionary instant - and only to the great detriment of most of our relatives. In the process of increasing the human population we have eliminated (or at least participated in the elimination) of several closely related species, species that carried nearly all the same genes. Those that we haven't eliminated we've reduced to small fractions of their former populations. Have we actually increased the total number of copies of our genes (either measured by number of individuals carrying them, or by total number of cells)? It's an interesting question, one that could go either way, but my guess is the decline in related animal populations outweighs the increase in humans.

Evolution proceeds over huge numbers of generations. The tiniest disadvantage gets bred out almost immediately because its effects grow exponentially. Perhaps what makes intelligence unusual is that it bestows both enormous benefits and enormous risks, making it very unpredictable.

[sol invictus]

Er... you told us, yourself, man.

Er... no I didn't.


Useless rhetoric. Facts, please.

Facts? Have you noticed the topic of the thread?

One bomb won't kill all humans, so I'd say slim.

Who said anything about one bomb? And what does "slim" mean?

Look - if there's any chance greater than around one in a 100 million that we (or in general, a technologically-able species) will destroy ourselves in any given year, that resolves Fermi's paradox. At least based on what we know, it takes billions of years for life to evolve. If intelligence kills itself off within 100 million years of evolving, that's it. And judging from our example, the odds are much higher than that.

Spreading to the stars doesn't help - if you can spread there, you can kill there.

[Belz...]

Er... no I didn't.

So you didn't say this:

(ok, "genocide" might be a little too strong, but at least they coexisted in both time and region, and the Neanderthals went extinct).

If they coexisted and then the Neanderthals went extinct, the use of the word "genocide" is wrong. Those are YOUR words.

Who said anything about one bomb?

So you didn't say this:

All it takes is once more.

?

And what does "slim" mean?

I assumed you already knew that. It isn't the opposite of "fat", I can tell you that.

Look - if there's any chance greater than around one in a 100 million that we (or in general, a technologically-able species) will destroy ourselves in any given year, that resolves Fermi's paradox.

And exactly how would you determine those odds based on something that'd never happened before ? 0/50 gives me 0/100 billion.

At least based on what we know, it takes billions of years for life to evolve.

How is that relevant ? If we're to blow ourselves up, some other lifeform can take over, and it might take just a few million years.

If intelligence kills itself off within 100 million years of evolving, that's it. And judging from our example, the odds are much higher than that.

How in the blue hell did you reach that conclusion ? What odds ? What example ?

Spreading to the stars doesn't help - if you can spread there, you can kill there.

Well, spreading protects against meteors and other such problems, but not wars, I'll give you that. Of course, if we can only spread slowly the wars'll reach also very slowly.

[nathan]

Sol, you're behaving in a very un-Sol-like manner :eye-poppi

Who said anything about one bomb?
You did.

Belz... said:
Nuclear weapons have been used twice in history.

the two occasions Belz... is referring two are, I guess, Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- two bombs.

You responded:
All it takes is once more.

Sounds like you meant one more bomb to me.

[RecoveringYuppy]

I heard one estimate that there were many trillions of dollars worth of valuable materials just in the asteroid belt alone.
Emphasis on "many". The total mass of the asteroid belt is over a US sextiliion kilograms, 21 digits of kilograms. Billions of trillions.

A single cubic mile can contain 10 trillion pounds of stuff. Composition of asteroids varies but even cheap stuff could easily make a single cubic mile worth a trillion dollars. At a roungh guess I think some 5 mile wide asteroids could contain more of all the industrial metals than we've ever mined from Earth.

[sol invictus]

If they coexisted and then the Neanderthals went extinct, the use of the word "genocide" is wrong. Those are YOUR words.

What?? How do you know why they went extinct? Are we speaking the same language?

As far as I know, the evidence is that Neanderthals and homo sapiens coexisted, e.g. in southwestern Europe around 25,000BC. Neanderthals went extinct, and there is some at least indirect evidence of competition and conflict.

Does that prove it was a genocide? No, and I never said it did. Does it prove it wasn't? No, and I never said it did - but YOU did:

"Which makes "genocide" not only "a little" too strong but entirely wrong."

I repeat: how do you know?

As for this "once more" nonsense - you said "Nuclear weapons have been used twice". I said, "all it takes is once more". I didn't say "one bomb". I also didn't say fission bomb (there aren't any any more, AFAIK), even though that was what was dropped on Japan. If you can't understand that, there's no point in conversing further.

And exactly how would you determine those odds based on something that'd never happened before ? 0/50 gives me 0/100 billion.

Here's a US quarter. Go ahead, examine it - it's a plain old quarter. If I flip it, what are the odds I'm going to get heads? Don't forget - I've never flipped that quarter before.


How is that relevant ? If we're to blow ourselves up, some other lifeform can take over, and it might take just a few million years.

Start from the beginning. There's no point in my repeating myself.

How in the blue hell did you reach that conclusion ? What odds ? What example ?

The example we're discussing. The odds we're discussing. Try thinking - it's useful occasionally.

[Ziggurat]

It has allowed us to increase our population, but so far only for an evolutionary instant

Everything in evolution is always temporary.

- and only to the great detriment of most of our relatives.

Irrelevant to the survival of intelligence as a trait.

Have we actually increased the total number of copies of our genes (either measured by number of individuals carrying them, or by total number of cells)?

I don't think there has ever been a point in history prior to modern day when the number of primates exceeded 5 billion. And it doesn't matter anyways, because while they may be related, they are still not us. Whether or not our intelligence hurts their survival is a different question than whether or not our intelligence help our survival, and I'm surprised to see you still conflating the two.

[sol invictus]

the two occasions Belz... is referring two are, I guess, Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- two bombs.

You responded:


Sounds like you meant one more bomb to me.

Yes, and they were also fission bombs dropped on Japan. Did you also think I meant one more fission bomb dropped on Japan? Conversation is impossible unless both sides are capable of understanding and interpreting what is said.

I obviously meant a nuclear war (which could indeed start with a single bomb, or otherwise). Nothing in what I said implied otherwise. Nothing in Belz' phrase rendered that interpretation impossible, or even unlikely. And I was typing that on a cell phone (yes, I'm that sick), which makes it hard to say lots of words.

[nathan]

Here's a US quarter. Go ahead, examine it - it's a plain old quarter. If I flip it, what are the odds I'm going to get heads? Don't forget - I've never flipped that quarter before.
huh? I presume you have had experience with flipping coins before, and experienced that coins of the same value are essentially identical objects? How much experience have you had with extinction of intelligent species?

[sol invictus]

Irrelevant to the survival of intelligence as a trait.

Not at all. Primates are quite intelligent, and (were humans to go extinct and other primates to survive) it wouldn't be surprising if they evolved our style of intelligence again. One needs to take a long view in this discussion.

I don't think there has ever been a point in history prior to modern day when the number of primates exceeded 5 billion.

I have no idea if that's true, but I wasn't talking just about primates.

And it doesn't matter anyways, because while they may be related, they are still not us. Whether or not our intelligence hurts their survival is a different question than whether or not our intelligence help our survival, and I'm surprised to see you still conflating the two.

I'm not conflating anything. Evolution is (in my opinion at least) best thought of in terms of genes, not in terms of either individuals or species. Humans carry a combination of genes that lead to intelligence. Many, many other animals carry some subset of the necessary genes, or perhaps even all of them but with some others that modify their expression. What matters is the survival of that gene pool or that part of the gene pool, not the survival of any group of carriers.

If the gene pool creates individuals which destroy the entire pool, it fails. If it tends to create individuals that reduce its viability (e.g. by wiping out most of their fellow carriers, or by threatening the environment it exists in), it is in danger of failure.

It's not clear to me where to draw the lines here - specific genes, all extant primates, all species in genus homo, extant or not, all mammals, all animals, all eukaryotes, all life on earth.

Anyway, if you're not convinced you're not convinced. There's no solid evidence either way, and I'm not very interested in arguing endlessly. I find it far and away the best and simplest explanation for Fermi's paradox. You're entitled to your own opinion.

[nathan]

Yes, and they were also fission bombs dropped on Japan. Did you also think I meant one more fission bomb dropped on Japan? Conversation is impossible unless both sides are capable of understanding and interpreting what is said.

I obviously meant a nuclear war (which could indeed start with a single bomb, or otherwise). Nothing in what I said implied otherwise. Nothing in Belz' phrase rendered that interpretation impossible, or even unlikely. And I was typing that on a cell phone (yes, I'm that sick), which makes it hard to say lots of words.

You may have meant that, but that's not a clear meaning from what you typed. And it's contradictory. 'Nuclear war' might reasonably be taken to mean multiple parties deploy nuclear weapons upon each other. That has not happened before, so your 'once more' comment would not refer to 'nuclear war' but individual use of nuclear weapons. (Note, it couldn't refer to unilateral use of arbitrary number of weapons, because that has only happened once before.)

If you don't have time to write clearly, come back later when you do have time -- we'll wait. That's a very poor excuse.

If you do mean nuclear war, that's something that has never happened before. We don't know whether it would mean extinction (I suspect it would be bad).

[sol invictus]

huh? I presume you have had experience with flipping coins before, and experienced that coins of the same value are essentially identical objects?

Sure. In other words, I have a theory about coins which predicts the probability, and I have a lot of confidence in that theory.

How much experience have you had with extinction of intelligent species?

Personally not much (thankfully), but if by "you" you mean humans, please go back and read the thread. Some, but not much - and as a result, I have considerably less confidence in this particular theory. Nevertheless it's still the best answer to the OP in my opinion.

This was all in response to "And exactly how would you determine those odds based on something that'd never happened before ?" which is a ridiculous thing to say - we do that all the time. Hell, that's what intelligence is. We build theories about the world and use them.

[sol invictus]

You may have meant that, but that's not a clear meaning from what you typed. And it's contradictory.

"Nuclear weapons have been used twice in history" - "all it takes is once more" - does not imply a single bomb, grammatically or logically. There is no contradiction. Could it be misinterpreted? Sure, like almost anything else - but an intelligent person would immediately identify the obvious meaning, particularly in the context of a discussion about nuclear annihilation.... and only a troll would keep on about it.

So enough of that - I'm not going to waste my time on this kind of stupid exchange.

[Thabiguy]

Spreading to the stars doesn't help - if you can spread there, you can kill there.

Spreading to other stars is not meant to help by preventing any wars or any killing. You were complaining that it gets easier and easier to destroy the world. That's where spreading to other stars helps - it makes it progressively harder to destroy all colonized worlds. And I would argue that the increasingly enormous resource cost of such accomplishment, combined with the increasingly infinitesimal benefit of attempting that, significantly reduces the risk.

Let's remind ourselves that we still live in the universe where getting to another colonized star takes at least dozens, but more likely hundreds or thousands of years. It's difficult to even imagine the origin of a conflict with such a remote settlement (over what?), let alone a conflict that would involve operations on such timescales. While nothing prevents wars on any single colonized world, I can say with full confidence that a war between even just two remote worlds is something that has absolutely no precedence in the history of mankind.

[The Atheist]

You may have meant that, but that's not a clear meaning from what you typed.

Excuse me from butting into this extraordinary argument over what Sol said, but I'll put me Grammer Hat on for a second to help you out.

Reading requires just a small amount of commonsense being applied to the message and its interpretation. In the context of Sol's remark, there only possible interpretation was that Sol meant another instance of nuclear weapons being used.

Not, "one more bomb."

I can understand Belz getting it wrong, this will make the second time in two days he/she has shown an extraordinary ability to mis-read the simplest posts.

No need to fall into the same trap.

Yours,

Obviousman

[Ordover]

There is nothing in the Asteroids that we do not have plenty of here on Earth. How do I know? Cross-check the periodic table vs. the commodities index then subtract the costs of going to the Asteroid Belt to get any of said commodities.

[Ordover]

...and adding that much in supply crashes the price per kg of any such material to next to nothing....


Emphasis on "many". The total mass of the asteroid belt is over a US sextiliion kilograms, 21 digits of kilograms. Billions of trillions.

A single cubic mile can contain 10 trillion pounds of stuff. Composition of asteroids varies but even cheap stuff could easily make a single cubic mile worth a trillion dollars. At a roungh guess I think some 5 mile wide asteroids could contain more of all the industrial metals than we've ever mined from Earth.

[nathan]

only a troll would keep on about it.
What a curious response you advance ...

[RecoveringYuppy]

...and adding that much in supply crashes the price per kg of any such material to next to nothing....

If we ever are consuming the entire mass of the asteroid belt the demand side of that equation will have to factor in a human race numbering in the trillions or quadrillions.

On the more proximate side of things, it's worth applying the same calculations to some of the near Earth asteroids and realizing that some of them likely have resources that can be valued in the tens or hundreds of billions of dollars. Even something as small as 300 feet across could be millions. That's even before considering that things as mundane as water currently have an on orbit value of hundreds or thousands of dollars per pound.

[Belz...]

What?? How do you know why they went extinct?

I don't, and neither do you, which is why the use of the word "genocide" is wrong, because all we know is that they went extinct. You were trying to use that fact to bolster your argument but it fails.

If, in 500 years, we discover that some Sapiens overlord engineered the systematic killing of all Neanderthals, it still won't help you because the use of it now, with our current knowledge, is wrong.

As for this "once more" nonsense - you said "Nuclear weapons have been used twice". I said, "all it takes is once more". I didn't say "one bomb".

Well, I'll be damned. This is akin to what the CTers do when you point out their mistakes. "I didn't really say that". Come on, now. Let's be honest. I said "twice" and I meant "two bombs". It's obvious because anyone could group those two bombings into a single event and say "once", instead. But I didn't. In response you said "once more", which is clearly meant to imply a single bomb. If that's not what you MEANT, fine. But don't try to claim that it isn't what you implied.

Here's a US quarter. Go ahead, examine it - it's a plain old quarter. If I flip it, what are the odds I'm going to get heads? Don't forget - I've never flipped that quarter before.

Answer the question: how do you determine the odds of that thing happening, since such an event never happened. This isn't some clear-cut scenario, here. How do you determine the odds of self-anihilation ?

The example we're discussing. The odds we're discussing. Try thinking - it's useful occasionally.

No need to result to insults, Sol. Again, you seem like a different person, now. What the hell happened ?

[Belz...]

Excuse me from butting into this extraordinary argument over what Sol said, but I'll put me Grammer Hat on for a second to help you out.

I think you meant "grammar".

[sol invictus]

Well, I'll be damned. This is akin to what the CTers do when you point out their mistakes. "I didn't really say that". Come on, now. Let's be honest. I said "twice" and I meant "two bombs". It's obvious because anyone could group those two bombings into a single event and say "once", instead. But I didn't. In response you said "once more", which is clearly meant to imply a single bomb. If that's not what you MEANT, fine. But don't try to claim that it isn't what you implied.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4280636#post4280636

Answer the question: how do you determine the odds of that thing happening, since such an event never happened. This isn't some clear-cut scenario, here. How do you determine the odds of self-anihilation ?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4280627#post4280627

No need to result to insults, Sol. Again, you seem like a different person, now. What the hell happened ?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4018675#post4018675

[Belz...]

"Nuclear weapons have been used twice in history" - "all it takes is once more" - does not imply a single bomb

Er... yes it does, unless you mean to say that "twice" does not imply two bombs.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4280627#post4280627

Thank you for not answering my question.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4018675#post4018675

What does this have to do with anything ?

[The Atheist]

I think you meant "grammar".

QED

Definitely not, it was a yoke. See the "me" in front of it.

[Ordover]

We have had the capactiy to destroy ourselves since the 70s; in that time we have increased our numbers by a couple of billion, give or take, despite gloomy predictions.

[Ashles]

People don't like that argument because its is too "center of the universe" and argument of uniqueness has been embarrassingly wrong too often.
I'm not arguing from the point of view of 'specialness' or 'uniqueness' in some way, simply that if life independently originates in multiple places, one has to come first.
I don't see why anyone would not like that argument, it would have to be be completely correct for some civilisations somewhere.

But even if not literally true, its reasonably clear that the sort stuff Earth is made of did not exist in quantity for all that long before Earth was formed, and having only one example, we can say nothing about how long a typical planet that somehow develops life would take to come up with a critter that could be having this sort of conversation, but it is possible we are at least NEARLY the first.
It is possible also that we ARE the first.
Just because something is very unlikely doesn't mean we have to rule it out.

Also we don't know all the ideal circumstances leading to intelligent life -maybe a volcanically active planet exactly this distance from the sun with exactly this ratio of elements... etc. etc. makes our planet far more likely to reach inteligent life much quicker than other planets.
So it's not like an equally random chance for every planet in the universe.

Even with the colossal numbers involved maybe our unique situation has made us, if not unique in existing, simply faster than reaching this point than others. Maybe intelligent life is inevitable in many places, but on worlds that don't meet exactly our criteria it takes many billions of years more to reach that point.

[quarky]

I'm not happy with being the crown of creation.
My revenge fantasy is that we eventually set off to other planets, but we all die in transit.
However, we manage to inadvertently transport some hidden species into viable niches on other worlds.


Our viruses, bacterium, and fungal spores might have a shot.

(too bad they won't put up a flag for us)

[Just thinking]

We have had the capactiy to destroy ourselves since the 70s; in that time we have increased our numbers by a couple of billion, give or take, despite gloomy predictions.

True, but I think one must also factor in the ease for this scenario to play itself out. I believe that is increasing ... from virtually impossible to very unlikely. As time goes on it may become more and more likely some nut case will let things fly.

[Ordover]

True, but I think one must also factor in the ease for this scenario to play itself out. I believe that is increasing ... from virtually impossible to very unlikely. As time goes on it may become more and more likely some nut case will let things fly.


What, exactly, do you feel has ramped up the danger level?

[JoeyDonuts]

What, exactly, do you feel has ramped up the danger level?

The former Soviet fire sale may have something to do with it.

[Ordover]

The former Soviet fire sale may have something to do with it.
I think Russia has gotten thing back under control, and the infrastructure to launch an ICBM is not portable.

[arthwollipot]

I think Russia has gotten thing back under control, and the infrastructure to launch an ICBM is not portable.Yes, but last I heard there was an indeterminate number of briefcase bombs still unaccounted for. I heard 14, but I take this story with more than a single grain of salt.

[Toke]

So, which one of you is an alien antropologist.

[Mark6]

Yes, but last I heard there was an indeterminate number of briefcase bombs still unaccounted for. I heard 14, but I take this story with more than a single grain of salt.

If any nukes went missing back in 1990's (which is when General Lebed claimed they did, starting the whole story), there is absolutely no chance they are still usable. Nuclear weapons take a lot of sophisticated maintenance (http://www.lanl.gov/quarterly/q_w03/shelf_life.shtml). You do not leave them sitting for years -- or even months, -- and expect them to work. And only countries with institutional knowledge to build nukes also have institutional knowledge to maintain them.

[LarianLeQuella]

Mark6 - They can still make some nasty dirty bombs, and that would be quite a panic to say the least. Hard to predict how it may spiral...

Sol and Belz - Silly semantics argument... I have often used language that I thought was perfectly clear, only to have someone totally misunderstand what it was that I thought I was saying...

Toke - I am of course. You humans are a curious species to say the least! :P

BACK ON TOPIC: Another couple of things to consider. We are STILL approaching this whole search in a very human-centric way. Given our single datapoint of a technologically advanced species (intelligence is still arguable), we are making a great number of assumptions on how the other species would behave. We assume that they are using a lot of narrow band communications (because regular radio really isn't that detectable http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part6/section-12.html ), when we ourselves have only sent one message intentionally (as far as I recall).

As others have pointed out, the whole idea of the "Fermi Paradox" is quite flawed to start with (as well as the Drake Equation). At this point, I prefer to say:

- Currently the information we have would indicate there's not a whole lot out there talking or colonizing.
- The wide diversity of life on this planet makes the idea of other life out there compelling, but we still only have one datapoint. Let's see what we can find even within our own solar system though before we start making too many guesses.
- The formation of planets also seems quite common, so that's an area that needs further analysis and exploration.
- Defining what makes "intelligent life" is still up for grabs. Do we only have one datapoint here on earth even, or are dolphins much better at philosophy than we are, and we just don't know it?
- Who says that we're even conducting the search the right way?

In the end, it comes down to a big "I don't know!" but at least we aren't throwing our hands up in the air in defeat, and still checking things out. However unsatisfying "I don't know." may be, it's still a legitimate answer. We're still a young species when you get right down to it, so I'm betting we don't know a whole lot in the grand scheme of things.

[Perpetual Student]

posted in error

[ServiceSoon]

Why would aliens, or humans for that matter want to find aliens or explore space?

That question causes me to ask "What is the point of life?" Doesn't the answer to that question decide whether aliens or humans spend the time & resources looking for other life or exploring space?

[BenBurch]

Why would aliens, or humans for that matter want to find aliens or explore space?

That question causes me to ask "What is the point of life?" Doesn't the answer to that question decide whether aliens or humans spend the time & resources looking for other life or exploring space?

Why do you assume it has or ought to have a purpose?

[ServiceSoon]

Why do you assume it has or ought to have a purpose?Space exploration is a monumental task. It isn't going to happen by accident. Everything that people or animals do is for a purpose. Sleep, eat, pro-create, go to work, talk, watch TV, etc. Can you name something that humans or animals do that doesn't have a purpose? Can you name anything that doesn't have a purpose?

[Mark6]

Space exploration is a monumental task. It isn't going to happen by accident. Everything that people or animals do is for a purpose. Sleep, eat, pro-create, go to work, talk, watch TV, etc.

Watching TV has a purpose? :)
Can you name something that humans or animals do that doesn't have a purpose? Can you name anything that doesn't have a purpose?
Well, what's the purpose of hiking and camping? Or of keeping aquarium fishes? Or of collecting stamps? Actually, huge amount of human activity has no objective purpose. It has a purpose only in the sense that it brings pleasure to those who are doing it. When someone plunks down $20 million so he (or she) could hang out at ISS for a week, the only "purpose" is having an adventure.

[LarianLeQuella]

Why would aliens, or humans for that matter want to find aliens or explore space?

Well, I can't really speak for a lot of scientists involved in the field, but I can think of quite a compelling reason for wanting to find alien life:

- Gather more than one data point on biological functions. This is to include evolution, what defines a life form ("Life as we know it"), basic building blocks of biology, etc.

As for exploring space, just look at these pictures and tell me nothing in them even moves you or makes you wonder: http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/12/hubble_space_telescope_advent.html

[Darkhole]

In my opinion, the best answer is also the simplest: we see no signs of intelligent aliens because there aren't any. They're all dead. Intelligence is an evolutionary dead-end, one that leads inevitably to self annihilation.

Bleak, but compelling.

In a few thousand years there could be a new offshoot on the primate branch.
Maybe as intelligent we are opposed to chimps?

[Perpetual Student]

Can you name anything that doesn't have a purpose?

Celebrating a "new year."

[shadron]

Why would aliens, or humans for that matter want to find aliens or explore space?

Because they are there (maybe).

[Demigorgon]

This thread is really interesting except for the few people arguing over semantics.

Anyway,

- The universe might possibly be too vast for us to be discovered yet. We haven't really been around in a large enough time-line window for another species to notice.

- You could assume that more advanced species have ways of observing us that wouldn't require them to leave home. They may be able to turn it to "The Human Channel" to see what we're up to today. (Would probably be a highly amusing channel)

- For our own species to expand, we have some major technological hurdles to overcome. Our current understanding of physics just wont cut it.

- We also need a revolutionary way of observing distant planets. Not only being able to get up-close clear views of what's going on, but an entirely different fundamental process. After all, it won't do us any good to look at what's happening on a planet if it actually happened thousands of years ago.

[Demigorgon]

Double post

[Toke]

I have read of telescopes being placed in parks and somehow matematicaly linked to provide a picture of one with the diameter of the park.
Can you do that in space, link two probes and get a telescope with a diameter of close to a AU?

That would be one way to find planets in the neigbourhood.

[Travis]

I have read of telescopes being placed in parks and somehow matematicaly linked to provide a picture of one with the diameter of the park.
Can you do that in space, link two probes and get a telescope with a diameter of close to a AU?

That would be one way to find planets in the neigbourhood.

NASA indeed did, at least once, have plans to do just that. It was to be called the Terrestrial Planet Finder or something like that.

[ServiceSoon]

Watching TV has a purpose? :)Of course. How else am I supposed to kill a few hours at a time. I use the TV as a tool for learning. The person who invented the DirectTV network spent the time and effort so they could trade their time for my money. It didn't happen by accident.

Well, what's the purpose of hiking and camping? Or of keeping aquarium fishes? Or of collecting stamps? Actually, huge amount of human activity has no objective purpose. It has a purpose only in the sense that it brings pleasure to those who are doing it. When someone plunks down $20 million so he (or she) could hang out at ISS for a week, the only "purpose" is having an adventure.Who said it had to have an objective purpose? I enjoy camping because it allows me to escape reality and take time to ponder and reflect on life. I wouldn't spend the time or money organizing such a trip if it didn't have a benefit or purpose to me. Progress is rarely made without effort which requires planning.

- For our own species to expand, we have some major technological hurdles to overcome. Our current understanding of physics just wont cut it.
I think the main goal of humams exploring space or inhabiting other planets would be to expand our species. Surviving should be high on our list. A reason to meet other species is to hope they are more intelligent than us and can answer our questions, like does God exist.

[gnome]

What if they say, "Yes, God exists... in fact, our ancient prophet XirD'thk died for your sins."

[Darkhole]

What if they say, "Yes, God exists... in fact, our ancient prophet XirD'thk died for your sins."

Or they laugh so loud they're wet their pants.;)

[Toke]

Reminds me of the culture, Exterior event.

Personaly I might say so just to watch the look on some poor alien priests face, and then laugh.