5 ms·
> Milky Way is colonizable in a couple of million years. I have two takes on it: 1) We don't know the possible implication of new discoveries. Well, actually
by rdtsc 8y ago
> Milky Way is colonizable in a couple of million years.
I have two takes on it:
1) We don't know the possible implication of new discoveries. Well, actually we get some glimpse of it, for example with nuclear or biological weapons around, it is fairly easy to wipe out a large part of the population. The more advanced the technology becomes it seems there is a higher chance of it blowing up in our faces and us destroying ourselves. So the galaxy could be colonizable in a few million years, but any civilization headed closer to that ability, gets closer (and faster) to its own destruction as well.
> The only logical conclusion is that there are no other technologically advanced species in the Milky Way or that we're the first(very unlikely).
Given my other pessimistic take on it (1), I would say it likely there were (are) quite a few technologically advanced species, but they've wiped themselves out or will do so before the reach the ability to colonize planets in other galaxies.
2) Another take on it is these civilization have to share the same physics and chemistry that we do. And maybe there is just a limit that gets achieved and long term colonization or fast travel is just no possible. That is there are no shortcuts like wormholes, Alcubierre drives, antigravity and other such things. We've been used to seeing huge leaps in technology and science in the last 1000 years, so it's tempting to extrapolate and but maybe we are close to reaching a wall. So there are quite a few civilizations out there but they've flown probes in their own start system, now developed internet and are sharing pictures of alien cats, hanging out on their version of Facebook and watching their alien Netflix, and of course discussing their equivalent of Fermi's Paradox on online forums. All without a chance of ever leaving their neighborhood.
- raducu 8y ago1) It takes just ONE civilization not wiping itself out to colonize the galaxy; furthermore, colonizing the galaxy is a great insurance policy against extinction 2) 1% of the speed of light is very achievable even with today's technology, it's just the(irrational) fear of nuclear reactors in space and lack of political will that keeps us from exploring interstellar travel.
- AstralStorm 8y agoWe have not implemented space mining that would allow refilling those reactors in space though. Reusable landing is still very iffy.
- arcticfox 8y agoObviously we haven't done it yet, but that we know how is the point.
- jonathanstrange 8y ago> 1) It takes just ONE civilization not wiping itself out to colonize the galaxy; furthermore, colonizing the galaxy is a great insurance policy against extinction Why? See my other post. You provide no evidence for this claim. We currently have no plans to colonize the galaxy so why would other "advanced" civilization get this crazy idea? Birth control was invented in the 60s already.
- posterboy 8y ago1. If the chance for a huge colony to go extinct, raising the coefficient to galactic scale does not change the relative probability significantly unless you add constraints to the population dynamics. Basically you could get the same numbers for people in a colony and colonies in a galaxy. "only ONE" kinda obscures the fact that this one would be a mighty huge one. 2. On straight lines perhaps with ages long acceleration. Planning such a course might well take more than nuclear reactor, no?
- Gravityloss 8y ago1% of the speed of light with nuclear reactors? I'm skeptical. It's 3000 km/s.
- firmgently 8y agoVoyager 1 is already going about 17km/s. With no atmosphere or gravity to fight against you can keep accelerating as long as you have power.
- Gravityloss 8y agoNo, you need a propellant even if you use a nuclear energy source.
- raducu 8y agoProject Orion was supposes to reach ~10% of the speed of light by using fission bombs and could theoretically be built using 1950's technology. There are other proposed schemes to travel at ~light speeds - light sails, nuclear fragment rockets, but I'd bet on nuclear fusion in the not so distant future. Faster than light travel may be off the table, but I see no reason why nuclear energy alone could not get us "close" to the speed of light in the next centuries or so.
- Gravityloss 8y agoThanks, I didn't realize they were planning for so high delta vees. They were fusion bombs in the end.
- tomatotomato37 8y ago>colonizing the galaxy is a great insurance policy against extinction I'm not so sure. The only difference between a colony ship and a kinetic world destroyer is that the colony ship slows down before it reaches its destination
- sliken 8y agoThe earth would easily handle the impact of any colony ship we could currently manage. Sure things are you approach the speed of light, but we can't.
- Cthulhu_ 8y agoI'm going to put on my sci fi glasses here and predict that the universe will suddenly blink out of existence once a scientist works on or develops something like warp speed.
- saalweachter 8y agoMaybe, but I’d out my money on the universe blinking out of existence after someone begins a local escalation of privilege on the hardware simulating it.
- zentiggr 8y ago... to be replaced by something even more unlikely...