4 ms·

> The big argument against intelligent life being common (and us not being unique) Those are two different things. "Common" is something up for interpretation,

by Udo 10y ago

> The big argument against intelligent life being common (and us not being unique) Those are two different things. "Common" is something up for interpretation, especially with the huge numbers concerned. Intelligence being uncommon could still mean hundreds of civilizations active in the galaxy right now. The term "uncommon" allows us to have somewhat meaningful discussions about probabilities. "Unique" on the other hand is an unsubstantiated, almost supernatural, claim of us being the only intelligence in existence anywhere. > No civilization more advanced than us is going to let stupendous amounts of energy go to waste in the form of star light. That is also a big claim. Yes, a civilization pursuing a maximum energy strategy would probably harness stars, at least from our current technological perspective that seems reasonable. However, very few people looking for signs of this would actually claim that all civilizations more advanced than us must do this. So originally at least, this hypothesis was proposed under the more reasonable premise that for purposes of detection it would be enough if one such civilization pursued this strategy. Again, the claim that all of them would necessarily do this seems needlessly extremist. > You require a planet with an extraordinarily stable climate to allow a technological society to evolve and I predict this is the filter. There is a good chance you're at least somewhat correct, but then again I can easily imagine planets with a way more stable history than Earth had. A sample size of one is always going to be a problem, especially if you lack the means of even knowing what to look for. Making absolutist claims a priori seems to me like an argument to stop looking. Historically, claims of uniqueness and specialness have had a tendency to be wrong. It seems to me like a good default stance is to assume that whatever we see in front of us has a chance of occurring that is significantly higher than zero.

danieltillett 10y ago
You don’t need most advanced civilisations to want to spread, just one. The first one that choose to spread will occupy the universe and capture all the energy that the stars are currently emitting into space. The more we learn about other planets the more unusual Earth looks from a climatic stability perspective. There really is a good chance that Earth is unique in its level of stability - at least within the visible universe.
- lordnacho 10y ago
  It's plausible that such civilizations are up against an unsurmountable hurdle. Perhaps they can't spread in an economically viable way? If you look at the rocket equation, a slightly different planet would make launching rockets extremely difficult.
  - danieltillett 10y ago
    You have to postulate that all civilisations fail to spreed, not just some. On the economics once you can make the first von Neumann probe the cost of taking over the universe is zero.

by Udo 10y ago

danieltillett 10y ago

You don’t need most advanced civilisations to want to spread, just one. The first one that choose to spread will occupy the universe and capture all the energy that the stars are currently emitting into space. The more we learn about other planets the more unusual Earth looks from a climatic stability perspective. There really is a good chance that Earth is unique in its level of stability - at least within the visible universe.

lordnacho 10y ago
It's plausible that such civilizations are up against an unsurmountable hurdle. Perhaps they can't spread in an economically viable way? If you look at the rocket equation, a slightly different planet would make launching rockets extremely difficult.
- danieltillett 10y ago
  You have to postulate that all civilisations fail to spreed, not just some. On the economics once you can make the first von Neumann probe the cost of taking over the universe is zero.