I’m going to disagree about “capitalism”. Going back 4,000 years or more, writing evolved in Mesopotamia as an adjunct to accounting, related to caravan trade. Clay tpkens, then envelope balls, then tablets, were marked with inventories and then more complex messages. People were trading things and getting rich long before Europe came along. (A feature of housing in Persia, the Middle East, and Mediterranean, etc. from classical times was the house and interior courtyard surrounded by a high wall - not just to keep out thieves, but also nosey tax collectors) There was plenty of trade in Hellenic and Roman times, and even before that. Indeed, a signature feature of assorted European fiefdoms was the awarding of monopolies for this or that. The fragmented nature of Europe simply meant a monopoly grant was of limited value since it meant nothing in the rest of the continent.
Perhaps one major economic development was the invention of the limited company issuing shares, which facilitated many of those much larger enterprises than one person could finance alone. The limited shares meant that a person did not need to risk their entire fortune for a venture. Followed by the stock market which added liquidity to that money otherwise tied up in ventures.
Also note that a lot of knowledge was being spread by printing presses during and after the Renaissance. This was the opposite of “keeping things hidden”. Perhaps the thing to note is this was knowledge, as opposed to tradecraft (the secret formula, or how to make better steel, or whatever) that was typically hidden. But again, in a continent of independent states, anyone who learned a trade secret - you always need apprentices and assistants - can take that secret across the border and compete.
This is my take on SETI. Barring some major exceptions to Einsteinian physics, we are probably trapped in our solar system with very minor exceptions. Humans have been humans for maybe 70,000 years, a passable civilization with writing, cities, and agriculture for (debatably) around 7,000 years. How many millennia more will we continue to live and be relevant? How long will we care to broadcast and listen before we simply fade away, with a bang or a whimper? Even if its another 70,000 or 140,000 years, that’s a drop in the bucket in cosmic time.
I think it’s plausible that the idea of an individual, ordinary person rapidly becoming wealthy, along with other factors, makes sense. I can see that as a motivator. England is not known for gold mining, so if a smart, motivated person there looked around and asked themselves “how do I get rich, quick?”, it wasn’t going to be on the family farm. However, with a little bit of capital, that person could start making and selling plow blades a few hundred at a time. I think it is not one thing, but a confluence of factors such as the the state of metallurgy, ability to generate power, raw materials, available labor, and yes, capital, as well as competition, that led to the industrial revolution.
Another factor may be living where it’s possible for an individual to become wealthy. The New World has a lot of attributes to spark an industial age, but it did not happpen there. The Maya, Aztec, and Inca were able to do incredible things, but manufacturing wasn’t one of them. Maybe because they were governed and dominated by a central (religious) system where discoveries, inventions, and innovations belonged to the state (priests) and individuals were not necessarily rewarded for individual achievements. And, for example, other than precious metals, the development of steel had yet to happen so the confluence of necessary factors had not yet occurred by the time the conquistadors arrived with their muskets, armor, and metal swords (and diseases).
This is most assuredly the case. A lot of the proposed means of traveling to and settling other stars are just way beyond our foreseeable technology. Plus there are the more mundane things such as funding, etc. Travelling to Proxima Centauri with our current technological speed would take over 73,000 years. And that’s one of the closest stars.
Basically, they didn’t seem to have a sort of money. The main thing with Mesopotamia/Egypt and subsequent religions was that gold and silver were valuable items that were accepted in multiple kingdoms - portable wealth. As a similar example, the Northwest Coast Indians had no real form of oney, they accumulated goods; when they had too many they had a big party and gave stuff away, essentially dreating reciprocal obligations in lieu of money.
Right, a mere eyeblink. And expanding even across the entire Galaxy wouldn’t take all that long, either. Hence, the Fermi paradox: Given that it appears to be so easy to spread to fill the Galaxy, why hasn’t anyone done it yet?
We have no idea how easy it is, even with a slow craft. Sure, we can fling a rock at Proxima and hit it in 73,000 years. But how about a functioning spacecraft? Keeping something like that working through 73,000 years of cosmic radiation, micrometeorites and God knows what other hazards may be in interstellar space is still WAY beyond our capability.
One answer to the Fermi paradox might be that there are still a lot of unknown unknowns around interstellar travel that make it far more dangerous and unlikely than we think it is.
Well, for starters, if it “takes many, many times the length of a human lifespan”, that will require a generational spacecraft. That’s many, many more orders of magnitude in difficulty to construct than a shuttle-type ship. In addition, even if you built one and got it there, that wouldn’t do you any good unless you find an earth-like planet waiting for you. Terraforming nearby planets is beyond our current capability, and we have supplies on hand. Carrying what we would need to terraform a planet 4 1/2 light years away seems beyond our future capabilities.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think there is a paradox. Space is big and the technology to colonize it probably will cost more than the powers-that-be will be willing to spend to accomplish it.
You off then? Or perhaps you are gently playing the other side anyway.
To what end would any member of a species be prepared to embark on such a journey? You are assured of dying on the way, as will the members of dozens of generations to come. Generations spending an entire lifetime inside a large metal box. Then only to arrive somewhere that is almost certainly uninhabitable, and for the remaining travelers to die, stranded somewhere they had no choice in journeying to.
Very hard to make an ethical argument for that.
The chances of any journey actually making useful progress for a species is close to zero. There is no upside. If a round trip takes many generations to complete there is no useful trade. It isn’t a solution for overpopulation. Not unless you use The Marching Morons as your template. Which is pretty much what such a journey would end up being.
The only reason to embark would be a somewhat insane religious bent.
Even contemplating the question of how we make a craft capable of operating for tens of thousands of years is difficult to comprehend.
Some day in the future, even without advanced technologies, it will likely become practical for us to live and work in rotating space habitats. This requires the discovery of no new scientific principles - only the refinement of existing engineering techniques.
If we can live on a rotating space habitat inside our own solar system, then eventually we can live in a rotating space habitat that we shove out of our system and towards another one.
True enough, but a space station offers several benefits over an interstellar ship. A better view (of earth!), the ability to communicate with folks back home in a timely manner and the ability to visit earth on extended vacations. Those benefits may make all the difference.
I’d happily work on a space station, even for extended periods, but no f’ing way am I signing up for a one way trip to certain death.
I may be wrong, but I think I recall that astronauts are limited to the amount of radiation exposure they may be subjected to. Another downside.
Dozens of unanswered questions still - more than refined engineering.
For example, we still have the issue of what solar flares, and on interstellar trips - cosmic rays - will do to human genome with long term exposure. Creating a “ship” that’s big enough to be a large habitat suitable for a dozen generations, and then surrounding it with enough mass to blunt cosmic rays, and then enough power to move that excess shielding mass - probably more than an engineering problem.
Plus some form of propulsion to get up to a noticeable fraction of light speed. If we settled for 1/100 c that’s still 1,860 miles per second, and put the Alpha Centauri system only about 430 years away, so maybe 13 generations. .
It seems pretty clear that if we ever do send ships to other star systems, the first to go will be AIs. They can just shut down in transit. Their neural nets can be archived in some highly survivable material. No life support needed, and since they’d have nothing to do in interstellar space you can power them with solar panels that deploy from protective shrouds once you get close enough to another star to power the AI.
The AI then wakes up and does all the science, runs the ship, reports back to us, etc. We only send humans out when the AIs have found survivable places.
I’m wondering who will volunteer to send their progeny to the stars a dozen generations hence, knowing it’s very likely that they will be passed on the way by a newer better ship build a century or two later?
Another big drawback is braking - how do you stop when you get there?
I’ve been reading a lot lately about the current take on craft that can get up to “a noticeable fraction of light speed” and the consensus seems to be that traditional propellants are out. At those speeds you can’t carry enough of it. The latest darling seems to be robots with sails propelled by giant lasers. This tech is a ways away but probably doable. But not much mention of how to stop when we get there. Blowing past another star system at 20% light speed allow precious little time for research.
I’m not sure “microchip-size spacecraft” qualify as AI either. I think I’d want a bit more info before heading out myself.
