PDA

View Full Version : Survival of the "Most" Intelligent


qayak
9th January 2007, 06:37 PM
I couldn't decide whether to put this in the Science section or here. I decided on the latter because the discussion is philosophical although based on math and science.

In his book The Varieties of Scientific Experience, Carl Sagan puts forth an interesting point when discussing the possibility of there being other life in the universe and how we would go about making contact.

He uses a simple probability formula to decide the chances of other life existing. The idea is that a collective probability is the product of the individual probabilities.

He lists and defines each factor such as; the rate of star formation, the number of stars with planetary systems, the number of planets in an average system that are suitable for life, . . ., the average lifetime of a technological civilization.

He points out that the largest uncertainty in the whole formula is the average lifetime of a techical civilization simply because if technology destroys civilization relatively early in their lifetime, there is zero chance of communication with other life.

When you think about this it is quite staggering. We are a technological civilization. Technology is one of the things that seperates humans from other animals. Life has been on the planet for several billion years, humans have been here for 130,000 years and yet it is only in the last half century that we have had the capability to communicate with other planets.

The second part of the problem is that even if there is life in a very close system that is capable of communication, it will take a few hundred years for one to contact us or vice versa. So, two way communication will take several hundred years. Up until that time, the conversation will be completely one sided and the sender of the message will have no way of knowing it was received until the return message is received. Any technological civilization that destroys itself in less than a few hundred years will not be able to communicate.

So, even though the chances of other life being out there could be very high, our chances of contact with them are almost zero because after only 50 years of communicating ability, we are on the verge of destroying ourselves through nuclear weapons and global warming. Think of how many more problems we will encounter before that several hundred years is up.

He then points out that it maybe a system that develops intelligence but not technology, for instance, a planet where the highest intelligence is in a whale, would have to be considered the "most" intelligent in the universe based simply on longevity. How intelligent can you be if you destroy yourself early in your lifetime?

We just don't know what the average lifespan of a technical civilization is.

This is a great book. :)

Beerina
10th January 2007, 08:20 AM
The wildest predictions of global warming will not destroy civilization. Hell, by opening up vast regions of Canada and Siberia to farming, there could be an explosion of humanity, although coastal areas would take it on the chin.

Regarding nukes, though, in general, I can conceive of many civilizations that never had a serious problem with it -- many planets may have only one continental area, and thus no way for two or more independent massive powers to arise that such a war might be threatened.

Also, even though many people might be killed, if enough survive that they can start breeding again, welll, current tech may be lost as a practiced art, but the knowledge will still be there in books, computers, and whatnot that still remains, and thus society could pick itself back up again rather quickly, barring the typical post-apocalyptic scenarios with new religions of tech hatred, or the same ol' same ol' of the power hungry stomping a "boot on a human face -- forever" via dictatorship of one type or another. But even that can crawl along with slow advancement, and, even if it goes retrograde, as history shows us is very possible, the knowledge is still not lost and future generations may come back up to speed as the dictators die off and finally one marginally decent one comes around.

qayak
10th January 2007, 11:22 AM
The wildest predictions of global warming will not destroy civilization. Hell, by opening up vast regions of Canada and Siberia to farming, there could be an explosion of humanity, although coastal areas would take it on the chin.

I think you have been misinformed.

Regarding nukes, though, in general, I can conceive of many civilizations that never had a serious problem with it -- many planets may have only one continental area, and thus no way for two or more independent massive powers to arise that such a war might be threatened.

Based on what? If we have learned nothing else from group dynamics we have definitely learned that one continental area does little to prevent people from warring and can be shown to greatly contribute to it.

The civilizations you see as not having a problem with nukes were incapable of interstellar communication. We got our capability for communication about a decade before we got nukes.

We can imagine all sorts of things, but the evidence suggests we need to be very careful about what course we choose to follow. Afterall, we insist that a large safety margin be built into things like buildings and bridges, why wouldn't we insist on as great or an even greater margin for error when it affects life on the entire planet?

The worst that can happen if the scientists/environmentalists are wrong is that we get a cleaner planet.

[/QUOTE]Also, even though many people might be killed, if enough survive that they can start breeding again,. . . [/QUOTE]

But we have mass extinctions from the past to compare too and your scenario has NEVER been the case. A catastrophic event leads to a mass extiction which leads to a new world order. We still have dinosaurs around (birds, crocodiles, etc.) but they no longer dominate the earth as they did before their mass extinction.

Remember too, dinosaurs roamed for around 100,000,000 years and would have continued right on except for a natural event they had no control over and which, if it happened today, we would have no control over. Add to this the fact that we have gained the capability of destroying ourselves and destroying the world through our actions, within 130,000 years and, our chances for surviving as long as the dinosaurs are very low if not zero.