3 ms·

I appreciate it's 100% speculative, as we are stuck with a sample set of only one, but I'm increasingly of the belief that we're rare (as opposed to first or fu

by Jedd 10y ago

I appreciate it's 100% speculative, as we are stuck with a sample set of only one, but I'm increasingly of the belief that we're rare (as opposed to first or fucked [1]). Heavily swayed by a recent reading of Nick Lane's excellent book on Mitochondria[2]. The fact that even our nearest neighbour probably has an earth-like planet is, from this angle, a bit depressing. [1] http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power,_Sex,_Suicide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power,_Sex,_Suicide

thangalin 10y ago
The Percolation Theory reasons that Earth might linger in an uninteresting part of the Milky Way: its galactic backwaters. See: * [1998] http://www.geoffreylandis.com/percolation.htp http://www.geoffreylandis.com/percolation.htp * [2014] https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.0204 https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.0204
- sigil 10y ago
  That Landis paper is great, thanks.
sfifs 10y ago
You may find the "dark forest hypothesis" that's put forward in the Three Body Problem/Dark Forest series bu Liu Cixin an interesting possible solution for the Fermi Paradise. Interestingly, a planet on Proxima Centauri is a major plot point in the novels.
- Jedd 10y ago
  Yup, I've read the first two of this series, and it's an interesting proposition, but also pretty depressing. Nation states and / or races are a hopeful and cheery counter example... or in for a hard time.
erdevs 10y ago
I don't know. Fermi paradox has never bothered me too badly. Between possible great filters (behind and/or ahead of us), the time and distance involved in species discovery and travel, and the fact we're still apparently pretty early in the universe's lifespan ... it seems reasonable to me that we may be some combination of rare and early. So, Group I seems reasonable. One potential "great filter" always stood out as likely to me, even if all the other leaps before we came along had been made: That filter is developing the combination of (i) self-aware intelligence to a degree that you are capable of deep layers of abstraction, (ii) the physical ability to adeptly physically build complex creations, (iii) an inclination toward social living that encourages cooperation. Other relatively high intelligences have evolved here on earth: octopuses, dolphins, elephants, etc. But it's hard to imagine any of them being physically capable of dramatically modifying their environment and building complex, useful creations. And we mammalian humans, dolphins and elephants are all social and cooperative to some degree, but octopuses don't seem to be. The combination of these three occurrences is extremely powerful, but may also be extremely rare. And it's difficult to imagine a space-faring civilization that wouldn't need all 3. And Group 2 seems reasonable too. In particular, it's interesting to consider that while we currently hold an expansionist mindset because expansion has driven the course of our civilization, this may be a temporary thing. It makes sense when competing locally with enemies (other tribes, cities, nations, empires, etc) that are very similar to yourself. And we believe that survival and expansion go hand in hand. But it may well be the case that intelligent species generally discover that survival is maximized when not expanding aggressively, beyond some point, and when conserving resources. Hiding themselves so as to minimize the risk of contact with other alien species may go hand in hand with that as well. So, between seemingly plausible filters in both Group 1 and Group 2 explanations, I think it's reasonable to entertain the possibility that it'll be a long time before we meet another alien civilization, if we ever do.
- breuleux 10y ago
  I think it makes sense for an intelligent civilization not to expand, if you consider the problem of synchronizing over vast interstellar distances. If it takes years to exchange messages and resources back and forth between two colonies, it will be slow and costly to keep them on the same page. That means they will likely evolve independently and may become competitors. In other words, colonies lacking resources inside the expansion wave would start attacking their own neighbours, and colonies at the periphery may decide to expand inward, because even though other colonies' resources are harder to acquire, they are already processed/terraformed and therefore more useful. So you don't expand, not necessarily to hide, but to avoid creating enemies in close proximity to yourself, because you can't control your own offspring except at a tremendous cost. Of course, even so, it seems strange that no civilization would ever make this mistake. Perhaps those that do are far away, or the propensity of colonies to eventually expand inward slows down the expansion.

by Jedd 10y ago

thangalin 10y ago

The Percolation Theory reasons that Earth might linger in an uninteresting part of the Milky Way: its galactic backwaters. See: * [1998] http://www.geoffreylandis.com/percolation.htp http://www.geoffreylandis.com/percolation.htp * [2014] https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.0204 https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.0204

sigil 10y ago
That Landis paper is great, thanks.

sfifs 10y ago

You may find the "dark forest hypothesis" that's put forward in the Three Body Problem/Dark Forest series bu Liu Cixin an interesting possible solution for the Fermi Paradise. Interestingly, a planet on Proxima Centauri is a major plot point in the novels.

Jedd 10y ago
Yup, I've read the first two of this series, and it's an interesting proposition, but also pretty depressing. Nation states and / or races are a hopeful and cheery counter example... or in for a hard time.

erdevs 10y ago

I don't know. Fermi paradox has never bothered me too badly. Between possible great filters (behind and/or ahead of us), the time and distance involved in species discovery and travel, and the fact we're still apparently pretty early in the universe's lifespan ... it seems reasonable to me that we may be some combination of rare and early. So, Group I seems reasonable. One potential "great filter" always stood out as likely to me, even if all the other leaps before we came along had been made: That filter is developing the combination of (i) self-aware intelligence to a degree that you are capable of deep layers of abstraction, (ii) the physical ability to adeptly physically build complex creations, (iii) an inclination toward social living that encourages cooperation. Other relatively high intelligences have evolved here on earth: octopuses, dolphins, elephants, etc. But it's hard to imagine any of them being physically capable of dramatically modifying their environment and building complex, useful creations. And we mammalian humans, dolphins and elephants are all social and cooperative to some degree, but octopuses don't seem to be. The combination of these three occurrences is extremely powerful, but may also be extremely rare. And it's difficult to imagine a space-faring civilization that wouldn't need all 3. And Group 2 seems reasonable too. In particular, it's interesting to consider that while we currently hold an expansionist mindset because expansion has driven the course of our civilization, this may be a temporary thing. It makes sense when competing locally with enemies (other tribes, cities, nations, empires, etc) that are very similar to yourself. And we believe that survival and expansion go hand in hand. But it may well be the case that intelligent species generally discover that survival is maximized when not expanding aggressively, beyond some point, and when conserving resources. Hiding themselves so as to minimize the risk of contact with other alien species may go hand in hand with that as well. So, between seemingly plausible filters in both Group 1 and Group 2 explanations, I think it's reasonable to entertain the possibility that it'll be a long time before we meet another alien civilization, if we ever do.

breuleux 10y ago
I think it makes sense for an intelligent civilization not to expand, if you consider the problem of synchronizing over vast interstellar distances. If it takes years to exchange messages and resources back and forth between two colonies, it will be slow and costly to keep them on the same page. That means they will likely evolve independently and may become competitors. In other words, colonies lacking resources inside the expansion wave would start attacking their own neighbours, and colonies at the periphery may decide to expand inward, because even though other colonies' resources are harder to acquire, they are already processed/terraformed and therefore more useful. So you don't expand, not necessarily to hide, but to avoid creating enemies in close proximity to yourself, because you can't control your own offspring except at a tremendous cost. Of course, even so, it seems strange that no civilization would ever make this mistake. Perhaps those that do are far away, or the propensity of colonies to eventually expand inward slows down the expansion.