Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Fermi paradox

natoast
Posts: 204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 8:52:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Fermi paradox is the contradiction between the high probability that aliens exist with the technology to contact the earth and the fact that it has never happened. If you want an example of this high likelihood, look up the drake equation. Whatever method you use, it seems highly unlikely that earth is the first/only planet to harbor intelligent life in the galaxy. I've came up with lots of theories, but I was curious what others might think could be causing this imbalance.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 9:08:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 8:52:17 PM, natoast wrote:
The Fermi paradox is the contradiction between the high probability that aliens exist with the technology to contact the earth and the fact that it has never happened. If you want an example of this high likelihood, look up the drake equation. Whatever method you use, it seems highly unlikely that earth is the first/only planet to harbor intelligent life in the galaxy. I've came up with lots of theories, but I was curious what others might think could be causing this imbalance.

Maybe you have mis-stated the Fermi Paradox.

Its the high probability that aliens exist vs the lack of observation/contact of those aliens.

Even if other life forms exist, whether they can contact us or we can observe them is a different question.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 1:31:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 1:26:42 AM, darkkermit wrote:
civilization can not sustain technological progress to the extent that interstellar space travel is possible.

What makes you say that? Hundreds of years ago humans could never fly and you could fall off the edge of the earth.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 1:43:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 1:31:41 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 12/16/2012 1:26:42 AM, darkkermit wrote:
civilization can not sustain technological progress to the extent that interstellar space travel is possible.

What makes you say that? Hundreds of years ago humans could never fly and you could fall off the edge of the earth.

-natural resource depletion, and the power to blow ourselves up, and the evolutionary trend towards lower intelligence being naturally selected, and population being too large to maintain itself are just 4 reasons I can think of how technological progress is unsustainable in the very long run.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 2:02:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 1:19:13 AM, natoast wrote:
I suppose your right, thanks for the fix.
Same idea though.

It's not the same idea though. The speed of light barrier to communication is the limiting factor.

With the milky way being over 100,000 ly across, a 10,000 ly bubble would only cover 0.1% of the stars in the milky way. Our own radio signals beeming out into space have only created a 70 ly bubble, which is only about 0.0000000343% of this galaxy (and of course, none of the other galaxies).

You must also realize that the wider the bubble gets, the less energy and so weaker the signal gets. I heard on the Discovery channel awhile back (I will try to find a source) that at a 100 ly bubble, the energy left in any square meter is less than the electromagnetic energy released by a single drop of rain falling.

Of course, as Kermit said, there is also the entirely real likelihood that intelligent alien species have come and gone from self-destruction. Though I would argue that the "evolution for less intelligence" is inaccurate, the other three are real concerns for any potential alien species.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 2:16:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 2:02:11 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/16/2012 1:19:13 AM, natoast wrote:
I suppose your right, thanks for the fix.
Same idea though.

It's not the same idea though. The speed of light barrier to communication is the limiting factor.

With the milky way being over 100,000 ly across, a 10,000 ly bubble would only cover 0.1% of the stars in the milky way. Our own radio signals beeming out into space have only created a 70 ly bubble, which is only about 0.0000000343% of this galaxy (and of course, none of the other galaxies).

You must also realize that the wider the bubble gets, the less energy and so weaker the signal gets. I heard on the Discovery channel awhile back (I will try to find a source) that at a 100 ly bubble, the energy left in any square meter is less than the electromagnetic energy released by a single drop of rain falling.

Of course, as Kermit said, there is also the entirely real likelihood that intelligent alien species have come and gone from self-destruction. Though I would argue that the "evolution for less intelligence" is inaccurate, the other three are real concerns for any potential alien species.

Why do you believe this is inaccurate? The data show that people with lower then average IQs tend to have the most children. Of course, there's limits to this (i don't believe mentally retarded people have the most children), but the trend exists.

Interstellar travel shouldn't be too difficult for an advanced alien civilization, nor should sending communication signals. If earth continues it trend (which it unlikely will), then it should be able to achieve interstellar travel in a few thousand more years.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 2:45:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 2:16:35 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/16/2012 2:02:11 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/16/2012 1:19:13 AM, natoast wrote:
I suppose your right, thanks for the fix.
Same idea though.

It's not the same idea though. The speed of light barrier to communication is the limiting factor.

With the milky way being over 100,000 ly across, a 10,000 ly bubble would only cover 0.1% of the stars in the milky way. Our own radio signals beeming out into space have only created a 70 ly bubble, which is only about 0.0000000343% of this galaxy (and of course, none of the other galaxies).

You must also realize that the wider the bubble gets, the less energy and so weaker the signal gets. I heard on the Discovery channel awhile back (I will try to find a source) that at a 100 ly bubble, the energy left in any square meter is less than the electromagnetic energy released by a single drop of rain falling.

Of course, as Kermit said, there is also the entirely real likelihood that intelligent alien species have come and gone from self-destruction. Though I would argue that the "evolution for less intelligence" is inaccurate, the other three are real concerns for any potential alien species.

Why do you believe this is inaccurate? The data show that people with lower then average IQs tend to have the most children. Of course, there's limits to this (i don't believe mentally retarded people have the most children), but the trend exists.

The IQ trend also shows that we as a people are getting smarter, despite that trend. Also, in regards to the heritability of intelligence, genetics only plays a partial role.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


Interstellar travel shouldn't be too difficult for an advanced alien civilization, nor should sending communication signals. If earth continues it trend (which it unlikely will), then it should be able to achieve interstellar travel in a few thousand more years.

That is first assuming that faster than light travel is possible and it only needs to be "figured out" with time. That may not be the case.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 3:51:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If there is intelligence out there, there's no good reason to assume that either we'd be able to detect them, or that they'd have good reason to make contact with us. There's a good chance we're not even socially developed enough to be of any interest to more intelligent species...
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 7:08:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 8:52:17 PM, natoast wrote:
The Fermi paradox is the contradiction between the high probability that aliens exist with the technology to contact the earth and the fact that it has never happened. If you want an example of this high likelihood, look up the drake equation. Whatever method you use, it seems highly unlikely that earth is the first/only planet to harbor intelligent life in the galaxy. I've came up with lots of theories, but I was curious what others might think could be causing this imbalance.

I certainly don't think it's a "fact" that it has never happened.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 11:00:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 2:45:02 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/16/2012 2:16:35 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/16/2012 2:02:11 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/16/2012 1:19:13 AM, natoast wrote:
I suppose your right, thanks for the fix.
Same idea though.

It's not the same idea though. The speed of light barrier to communication is the limiting factor.

With the milky way being over 100,000 ly across, a 10,000 ly bubble would only cover 0.1% of the stars in the milky way. Our own radio signals beeming out into space have only created a 70 ly bubble, which is only about 0.0000000343% of this galaxy (and of course, none of the other galaxies).

You must also realize that the wider the bubble gets, the less energy and so weaker the signal gets. I heard on the Discovery channel awhile back (I will try to find a source) that at a 100 ly bubble, the energy left in any square meter is less than the electromagnetic energy released by a single drop of rain falling.

Of course, as Kermit said, there is also the entirely real likelihood that intelligent alien species have come and gone from self-destruction. Though I would argue that the "evolution for less intelligence" is inaccurate, the other three are real concerns for any potential alien species.

Why do you believe this is inaccurate? The data show that people with lower then average IQs tend to have the most children. Of course, there's limits to this (i don't believe mentally retarded people have the most children), but the trend exists.

The IQ trend also shows that we as a people are getting smarter, despite that trend. Also, in regards to the heritability of intelligence, genetics only plays a partial role.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

That's interesting, although I'd have to look more into it. Adopted twin studies have demontrated that twins reared far apart tend to have the same IQ, but this article is stating that the womb-environment matters. I'd have to look at the full article (which i can't) and see if there are any critiques of it. Mainstream psychology accepts that heritablity of IQ, in the US, is 0.7 (heritability levels change based on the population you're studying due to a greater variation in environment).


Interstellar travel shouldn't be too difficult for an advanced alien civilization, nor should sending communication signals. If earth continues it trend (which it unlikely will), then it should be able to achieve interstellar travel in a few thousand more years.

That is first assuming that faster than light travel is possible and it only needs to be "figured out" with time. That may not be the case.

No it isn't. You don't need to go at the speed of light w/ interstellar space travel.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 11:02:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 3:51:33 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
If there is intelligence out there, there's no good reason to assume that either we'd be able to detect them, or that they'd have good reason to make contact with us. There's a good chance we're not even socially developed enough to be of any interest to more intelligent species...

I'd argue that for any species to get so developed, one prerequisite would be an inherent curiosity, like humans have. If so, they would interested in us simply because we existed (notice how we are intested in the fossiles of alien bacteria). The only reason I could think of that we may not be interesting would be if they already found a number of species just like us already and we presented nothing new. If that was the case, I'd be more fearful of all the species out there that are just like us.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 11:02:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also the trend in hgiher IQ is only because of environmental improvements. However, their are decreasing returns of scale to environmental improvements that will increase IQ.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 11:08:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 11:02:52 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Also the trend in hgiher IQ is only because of environmental improvements. However, their are decreasing returns of scale to environmental improvements that will increase IQ.

If that is the case, then that shows that the environmental factors are more powerful then the genetic (though most research suggests that they are either equal or that genes are more powerful, especially for adults). Also, I believe that the Flynn effect is showing a mostly linear growth, rather than convex, suggesting that it is not about to turn around.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 11:13:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 11:08:57 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/16/2012 11:02:52 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Also the trend in hgiher IQ is only because of environmental improvements. However, their are decreasing returns of scale to environmental improvements that will increase IQ.

If that is the case, then that shows that the environmental factors are more powerful then the genetic (though most research suggests that they are either equal or that genes are more powerful, especially for adults). Also, I believe that the Flynn effect is showing a mostly linear growth, rather than convex, suggesting that it is not about to turn around.

Same can be said of gdp growth, which averages about 3% since the industrial revolution I believe, but I doubt the trend will continue on forever.

I don't see how one can believe that environmental effects can continue on indefinitely. There's only so much of out potential IQ that can be maximized.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 11:46:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 1:43:01 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/16/2012 1:31:41 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 12/16/2012 1:26:42 AM, darkkermit wrote:
civilization can not sustain technological progress to the extent that interstellar space travel is possible.

What makes you say that? Hundreds of years ago humans could never fly and you could fall off the edge of the earth.

-natural resource depletion, and the power to blow ourselves up, and the evolutionary trend towards lower intelligence being naturally selected, and population being too large to maintain itself are just 4 reasons I can think of how technological progress is unsustainable in the very long run.

There are a lot of potential barriers but I don't think you can say anything is certain, as there is such vast, still incomprehensible knowledge left to be discovered.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 11:50:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 11:46:45 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 12/16/2012 1:43:01 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/16/2012 1:31:41 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 12/16/2012 1:26:42 AM, darkkermit wrote:
civilization can not sustain technological progress to the extent that interstellar space travel is possible.

What makes you say that? Hundreds of years ago humans could never fly and you could fall off the edge of the earth.

-natural resource depletion, and the power to blow ourselves up, and the evolutionary trend towards lower intelligence being naturally selected, and population being too large to maintain itself are just 4 reasons I can think of how technological progress is unsustainable in the very long run.

There are a lot of potential barriers but I don't think you can say anything is certain, as there is such vast, still incomprehensible knowledge left to be discovered.

No, nothing is certain and predicting the future is difficult, but this i a good explanation for the fermi's paradox.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
natoast
Posts: 204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 1:01:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 1:43:01 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/16/2012 1:31:41 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 12/16/2012 1:26:42 AM, darkkermit wrote:
civilization can not sustain technological progress to the extent that interstellar space travel is possible.

What makes you say that? Hundreds of years ago humans could never fly and you could fall off the edge of the earth.

-natural resource depletion, and the power to blow ourselves up, and the evolutionary trend towards lower intelligence being naturally selected, and population being too large to maintain itself are just 4 reasons I can think of how technological progress is unsustainable in the very long run.

I don't really see resource depletion and population growth preventing a species from continuing technological progress. Already we're close to the point where we could set up colonies on other planets, witch obviously would solve the population problem, and possibly the resource problem. Also, I think humans are resourceful enough (get it? resourceful?) to eventually overcome the depletion of non-renewable resources. Unless we blow ourselves up.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 1:16:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 11:00:02 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/16/2012 2:45:02 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/16/2012 2:16:35 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/16/2012 2:02:11 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/16/2012 1:19:13 AM, natoast wrote:
I suppose your right, thanks for the fix.
Same idea though.

It's not the same idea though. The speed of light barrier to communication is the limiting factor.

With the milky way being over 100,000 ly across, a 10,000 ly bubble would only cover 0.1% of the stars in the milky way. Our own radio signals beeming out into space have only created a 70 ly bubble, which is only about 0.0000000343% of this galaxy (and of course, none of the other galaxies).

You must also realize that the wider the bubble gets, the less energy and so weaker the signal gets. I heard on the Discovery channel awhile back (I will try to find a source) that at a 100 ly bubble, the energy left in any square meter is less than the electromagnetic energy released by a single drop of rain falling.

Of course, as Kermit said, there is also the entirely real likelihood that intelligent alien species have come and gone from self-destruction. Though I would argue that the "evolution for less intelligence" is inaccurate, the other three are real concerns for any potential alien species.

Why do you believe this is inaccurate? The data show that people with lower then average IQs tend to have the most children. Of course, there's limits to this (i don't believe mentally retarded people have the most children), but the trend exists.

The IQ trend also shows that we as a people are getting smarter, despite that trend. Also, in regards to the heritability of intelligence, genetics only plays a partial role.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

That's interesting, although I'd have to look more into it. Adopted twin studies have demontrated that twins reared far apart tend to have the same IQ, but this article is stating that the womb-environment matters. I'd have to look at the full article (which i can't) and see if there are any critiques of it. Mainstream psychology accepts that heritablity of IQ, in the US, is 0.7 (heritability levels change based on the population you're studying due to a greater variation in environment).



Interstellar travel shouldn't be too difficult for an advanced alien civilization, nor should sending communication signals. If earth continues it trend (which it unlikely will), then it should be able to achieve interstellar travel in a few thousand more years.

That is first assuming that faster than light travel is possible and it only needs to be "figured out" with time. That may not be the case.

No it isn't. You don't need to go at the speed of light w/ interstellar space travel.

Interstellar space travel without exceeding the speed of light is pretty meaningless in the context of "does lift exist out there" since any electromagnetic signals that are emitted would get here long before any slower than light vehicle.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 1:19:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 11:13:08 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/16/2012 11:08:57 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/16/2012 11:02:52 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Also the trend in hgiher IQ is only because of environmental improvements. However, their are decreasing returns of scale to environmental improvements that will increase IQ.

If that is the case, then that shows that the environmental factors are more powerful then the genetic (though most research suggests that they are either equal or that genes are more powerful, especially for adults). Also, I believe that the Flynn effect is showing a mostly linear growth, rather than convex, suggesting that it is not about to turn around.

Same can be said of gdp growth, which averages about 3% since the industrial revolution I believe, but I doubt the trend will continue on forever.

I don't see how one can believe that environmental effects can continue on indefinitely. There's only so much of out potential IQ that can be maximized.

Probably, but the environment, when maxed out, will likely still hold the IQ at that higher level and not allow it to drop. It is also uncertain that the trend of uneducated having more children will continue, as that is likely more tied with economic standings, rather than directly to intelligence.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 1:20:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 8:52:17 PM, natoast wrote:
The Fermi paradox is the contradiction between the high probability that aliens exist with the technology to contact the earth and the fact that it has never happened. If you want an example of this high likelihood, look up the drake equation. Whatever method you use, it seems highly unlikely that earth is the first/only planet to harbor intelligent life in the galaxy. I've came up with lots of theories, but I was curious what others might think could be causing this imbalance.

I don't see the issue.

There are trillions of planets. A minute fraction can support life. A fraction of those develop multicellular life. A fraction of those develop space travel.

Assume such a species evolves in the Andromeda galaxy, but they have a head start of a million years on us. They have a spaceship which goes just below the speed of light.

There's 2.5 million lightyears between hear and Andromeda. That means that even will a million years headstart, those aliens are STILL on their way here for another million and half years ASSUMING they knew where to go, and we have no reason to think they would.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 7:21:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 11:02:39 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/16/2012 3:51:33 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
If there is intelligence out there, there's no good reason to assume that either we'd be able to detect them, or that they'd have good reason to make contact with us. There's a good chance we're not even socially developed enough to be of any interest to more intelligent species...

I'd argue that for any species to get so developed, one prerequisite would be an inherent curiosity, like humans have. If so, they would interested in us simply because we existed (notice how we are intested in the fossiles of alien bacteria). The only reason I could think of that we may not be interesting would be if they already found a number of species just like us already and we presented nothing new. If that was the case, I'd be more fearful of all the species out there that are just like us.

If they have developed significantly past the point we are at, that wouldn't quite be the case. We would be as interesting as the nearest anthill.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 8:01:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And if they didn't know to go to earth, aliens setting the right trajectory for finding us would be like pointing a rifle in a random direction, firing, and hitting a bottlecap five miles away.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 10:55:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 8:01:21 PM, Wnope wrote:
And if they didn't know to go to earth, aliens setting the right trajectory for finding us would be like pointing a rifle in a random direction, firing, and hitting a bottlecap five miles away.

So you believe that advanced intelligent extraterrestrial beings are hampered with logistical concerns and perhaps they simply cannot find us?

Hawking seems to agree with you, he thinks extraterrestrials will be like us (hostile) and will plunder us with no mercy, so we should make ourselves less conspicuous (i.e., stop sending out so many signals to home in on).

I typically agree with Hawking on most things... risk analysis at the very least seems to favor his argument and if cosmic nature is anything like it is on Earth, it's pretty brutal!
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 11:48:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 10:55:48 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 12/16/2012 8:01:21 PM, Wnope wrote:
And if they didn't know to go to earth, aliens setting the right trajectory for finding us would be like pointing a rifle in a random direction, firing, and hitting a bottlecap five miles away.

So you believe that advanced intelligent extraterrestrial beings are hampered with logistical concerns and perhaps they simply cannot find us?

Hawking seems to agree with you, he thinks extraterrestrials will be like us (hostile) and will plunder us with no mercy, so we should make ourselves less conspicuous (i.e., stop sending out so many signals to home in on).

I typically agree with Hawking on most things... risk analysis at the very least seems to favor his argument and if cosmic nature is anything like it is on Earth, it's pretty brutal!

Hampered? It'd be an atrociously complicated feat to complete given an infinite supply of resources and infinite time. It makes "finding a needle in a haystack" sound like distinguishing between the colors red and blue.

The universe is realllllllllllly big.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 7:49:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think most of the limiting factors being mentioned in this thread comes from a rather "static" point of view, we are talking about intelligent life that would likely be millions of years advanced.

If you look at what we've accomplished in a very short period of time, and recognize it's accelerating nature, I think you are putting unreasonable limitations onto such an advanced intelligence. We already have pretty good ideas of where to look for life, who knows how focused that would be a million years from now, but I really don't think it would be a shot in the dark and I'm certain we will be very interested. The speed of light is only our presumed upper limit to the speed of travel, but who knows if it's an absolute limit or even whether physically "traveling" would even be necessary in order to study another distant species in a million years.

We can certainly think nature here is brutal, but the long term and accelerating trend with intelligent life has been in the direction of becoming more civilized and less brutal, we seem to be extrapolating static states to intelligent beings millions of years further down that civilizing process.

Our scientific progress has been an endless and accelerating series of recognizing limitations and then overcoming them, and the more intellectually advanced we have become, the more interest we have shown in studying bacteria for instance, there are a vast number of researchers studying bacteria today. In that regard, the relevant thing to think about in Fermi's Paradox isn't whether the we have made contact with, and are interested in studying bacteria, because we have and we are, it is do the bacteria know that we have made contact and have been studied by an advanced intelligent species, I think not. We seem to be thinking that a species as different and more advanced than us as we are to a bacteria could just show up, leave evidence, relate, and we'd understand, as if we could just show up, relate to a bacteria and tell it all about human beings and science and they'd understand.

Statistically speaking, I don't think there is a reasonable doubt that highly advanced intelligent species are out there, and I even think they probably made some kind of contact and know a lot about us. I think Fermi's Paradox paradoxically applies a static understanding to this idea of evidence to that effect, perhaps the whole point is more along the lines of what we can comprehend with our limited progress in understanding about a what an intelligent species that is millions of years advanced can and has accomplished and I suspect we will have to wait a few million years to progress enough to be able to figure that out.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 8:12:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 7:21:25 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 12/16/2012 11:02:39 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/16/2012 3:51:33 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
If there is intelligence out there, there's no good reason to assume that either we'd be able to detect them, or that they'd have good reason to make contact with us. There's a good chance we're not even socially developed enough to be of any interest to more intelligent species...

I'd argue that for any species to get so developed, one prerequisite would be an inherent curiosity, like humans have. If so, they would interested in us simply because we existed (notice how we are intested in the fossiles of alien bacteria). The only reason I could think of that we may not be interesting would be if they already found a number of species just like us already and we presented nothing new. If that was the case, I'd be more fearful of all the species out there that are just like us.

If they have developed significantly past the point we are at, that wouldn't quite be the case. We would be as interesting as the nearest anthill.

There are a lot of people that find anthills interesting, and the only reason that they are not interesting to most is because they are so common and well known.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 6:42:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I see two big possibilities:

1. Civilizations end up destroying themselves when they become too advance.

2. There is an intergalactic political organization that prevents contact with primitive civilizations until they reach a certain level of maturity.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Nidhogg
Posts: 503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 7:32:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Where's Geo when you need him?
Ridiculously Photogenic Debater

DDO's most mediocre member since at least a year ago