Except that they probably have closer asteroid belts to get resources from. Unless you magic up some kind of space drive, I can’t see how transporting large masses of anything is going to pay. Probes mining the asteroids to reproduce makes more sense, but we see no evidence of this ever happening.
I’m not sure what you mean by grow and expand. Grow as in having lots of babies - it would probably be socially taboo in a world where no one dies and in which there are still limits to resources. Expand as in going to the stars - that I think is quite plausible. But it still requires a long, boring trip. And how many would bother?
That might be a first step. Obviously we’re speculating, not predicting, here.
When we run out of porn to load into our memories?
You’d certainly want to record everything that happened to you, but when are you going to have time to watch it? Maybe that can be an updated version of “The Machine Stops” - people sit around doing nothing except replaying their lives.
Backups won’t consume that many resources - unless you want to checkpoint yourself every day and store it. Which seems unreasonable.
And yeah, in the long run we all proton decay. (I just read “The End of Everything” which was quite a lot of fun. My wife got really upset about the prospect of the sun becoming a red giant and frying us. So no accounting for tastes.)
That’s what I am saying, the paradox says that we need to determine why we are unique, or why we will not do these things.
Fair enough. I have limited my speculations to the physics that we know. If we postulate any other physics, if we can bring in perpetual motion machines and gravity control, then anything’s on the table.
Part of the joy of being silicon would be actually being able to multitask. If you can run two instances of yourself, why not? If you can run a hundred, or a thousand, or 27 billion, why would you not?
What do you mean by a “day”? If we are all computer programs on massive a computing platform, then we could have the experiences of all of human civilization hundreds of times over in a 24 hour period.
Maybe. We think that is likely the case, but no one has seen a proton decay yet. That puts a pretty high upper bound on that. We won’t get anywhere near the point where proton decay is an issue if we don’t start conserving power now.
Every second that the galaxy wantonly burns away its hydrogen in an orgy of star formation is probably worth a trillion years that we can keep our computer minds going at the end of all things.
It’s a bit odd that it’s such an existential threat, even though it’s so far off.
But I understand it. We live, and maybe we make a mark on the world, maybe we leave it better than we entered it, maybe we leave it worse for the wear. Even when we die, what we did leaves a mark, of some kind.
Makes it hard to see what the point of everything is if we know that it will one day end, entirely.
To do crap work, sure. But if you are going to have experiences, why let another version of you have it? Voyager 1 goes to work while Voyager 2 goes to the beach? Screw that says Voyager 1.
What do you mean by experience? Even if we all run on the same brain server farm, what processor N experiences has nothing to do with what processor N+1 experiences. There is only so much even a fast computer can experience in a certain amount of time, and it is a lot less than all of human experience. You can’t get clock rates faster than Planck time.
I meant really long run. Assuming of course that is the end state. The book I mentioned gives others.
Jim_B and others interested in this issue, there’s lots of relevant reading material available in the previous topic, “Is the Fermi Paradox becoming more acute?” Mijin and k9bfriender have written a lot there, too.
You seem to be asking if there exists a scientific consensus that resolves the Fermi paradox - the answer is no. There’s no evidence of extraterrestrial life, and thus no basis for consensus; otherwise the paradox would cease to exist
Which is why no one remembers the third ice giant planet that used to be outside Uranus’ orbit. The Rigelians stuffed it into their fuel tanks so long ago that contemporary Earth life was entirely Archaea.
Again, let’s not misunderstand what the Fermi paradox is saying.
The paradox does not really assert anything; it just highlights a set of unknowns based on our (lack of) observations.
So it is not saying “We expect that aliens will do XYZ”. It’s saying that, based on what we know now, XYZ seem reasonable things for a hyper advanced species to do, and are not precluded by known laws of physics. The fact that we don’t see any X, Y or Z means there are important elements of the picture: abiogenesis, the chance of intelligent life arising, how quickly intelligent life typically advances, and yes, whether there are reasons every civilization takes a different path etc etc that are missing.
And of course, it’s not merely that we don’t see XYZ; right now we don’t see anything. If it were the case that we found, let’s say, giant lattice structures in interstellar space emitting X-rays in a particular rhythm, that could be evidence of ETs even while we have no idea what the purpose of such structures is. Heck, even a significant change to a single star’s EM output in any way whatsoever would be a significant finding, if it couldn’t be explained by our models.
But we don’t see anything in the universe right now that doesn’t seem consistent with a linear evolution of lambda-CDM. No evidence of any lifeform jiggery-pokery.
Has anyone considered that we are the first (or among the first) intelligent species to develop which is why we don’t see a lot of advanced civilizations out there?
Seems crazy but someone has to be first(ish).
I get the timeframes. Humans have only been banging about for 100,000 years or so and civilization has only been going for the last ~5000 years and “advanced” civilization that has harnessed things like electricity for barely 100 years(ish).
That is an eyeblink in the universe. SURELY some other species got there first on another planet. And almost certainly so. But maybe not.
Look…I am not embracing this argument. I find it hard to go with myself. But it deserves consideration. And again…I get the odds are not with us and it is likely others beat us but someone has to be first and maybe, just maybe, we are out in front (or near enough).
That is the argument that I usually make in these threads.
Post #18
As you say, someone has to be first. And being first may even mean that we prevent other species from coming into existence, so we may not only be first, we may end up being the only. (Unless we decide to create or uplift some ourselves, or if humanity itself diverges enough to be considered multiple different species.)
An anthropic principle argument as to why we are first is that, if we weren’t first, then we wouldn’t exist at all.
Yes of course.
In fact, there are multiple hypotheses within that on where to put the bottleneck(s). Are planets with liquid water and high metallicity rare (this one is already disfavored, as we already know Pop 1 stars are common, and planets in the habitable zone are common)? Maybe it’s abiogenesis? Multi-cellular life? Intelligent life? An intelligence capable of producing advancing technology?
Yeah it’s been considered that we may be the first species, or among the first, to be spacefaring.
The anthropic principle basically boils down to the idea that the universe that we observe is biased towards the existence of the observers who observe it. If it were not, then those observers would not be there to observe it.
If the first species to develop the technology to become spacefaring ends up populating the entire galaxy and preventing any other life from arising and becoming technological, which is something that we may very well do, then that would mean that the first technological species to emerge is also the last.
We, as observers, can see that another technological species has not prevented out development, so given the assumption that they would if they could, and the observation that they have not, we can determine that we must be the first and only technological species.
That is, of course, only true if the assumption is true that a technological species would interfere with (whether intentionally or not) the development of other potential life in the galaxy. I will admit that that assumption is based only on speculation as to our future, given our current drives and our current understanding of the universe. There are many reasons that assumption may not be correct, but it does fit with everything that we currently know.
With the caveat that we need not be first if we have not yet grown out enough to detect or encounter the tripwire a putative superior galaxy-level society has long ago placed around us.
The dismal success rate of early Mars probes led to the humorous story of the “Great Galactic Ghoul”:
There may in fact be just such a thing out beyond the Oort cloud that will eat all our starships. And maybe even eat our home planet once awakened. Much like 19th Century humans had not yet met the Mars Ghoul, we just haven’t sent out the first starship to be inevitably eaten. Yet.
Thank you k9bfriender for that excellent explanation and post.
Usually when these kind of discussions take place it is always assumed that we Earthlings are the new kids on the block that everyone is ignoring. That there are much, much older races who have had so much more time to evolve that we are mere children. The Ancient Ones.
This bias is so rampant that it runs through almost all of our speculative fiction stories and movies. 2001 A Space Odyssey is just one example. The other possibility is rarely considered, that within the time/space bubble that we live within and any part of the universe that we are ever likely to be able to sense in any way, we are The Only Ones. This idea does not offer the same hope for meeting other intelligences.
Until there are other indications, we remain an example of one instance a of barely able space faring animal, and the only example. And science should not be based upon an example of one, unrepeatable, occurrence
I echo that this was a great explanation. However, we don’t know our moral and ethical views when we are able to populate the galaxy. It might be that an immoral expansionist race would never make it to that point. Thus, lack of evidence of anyone occupying the galaxy is not evidence of lack of civilizations.
Agree with the first sentence. Not sure I agree with (or fully understand) the second.
Armed with an example of one it’s a mistake to conclude that example must be the only. It’s also a mistake to conclude that all possible other examples are highly similar to the one example.
At the same time we can say, pace@k9bfriender, that we are an existence proof for carbon+water - based life. It’s not impossible in this universe. And things incompatible with this universe cannot exist within it. I don’t see how that arises to “unrepeatable”, except in a statistical sense.
So we’re starting to create very loose upper and lower bounds, metaphorically speaking. We’re not ruling out much, but we are ruling out a veritable infinity of possibilities. And thereby ruling in a vast array of possibilities as well.
I’d be curious to hear you expand on what you meant by that second cryptic sentence.
Within the context of the Fermi paradox that’s just not true. The idea that the great filter is behind us gets about equal play to the idea that it’s ahead.
You’re right that in fiction it doesn’t get shown much, but that’s probably because it’s the least interesting option. Although thinking about it, a Galaxy where offshoots of homo sapiens have isolated and diversified would be a somewhat plausible way to arrive at a star trek style mega-ecology of near equals…
It’s definitely one of the unknowns in this question. Objectively speaking, I think it is probably more likely that the great filter is ahead of us. Optimistically speaking, OTOH, I prefer to think that it is behind.
Interestingly, most of Asimov’s fiction involved no aliens.
