10 ms·
The problem with these types of arguments is they are assumptions built on top of other assumptions. We don’t know how to colonize other star systems, so we do
by yibg 7y ago
The problem with these types of arguments is they are assumptions built on top of other assumptions.
We don’t know how to colonize other star systems, so we don’t really know the factors at play. How easy is it to travel to another planet and start a colony? We don’t know. How likely is it that that colony will colonize other planets? We don’t know. We are taking numbers we guessed and multiplying with other numbers we guessed to get to an answer. If any of them are much off the answer doesn’t make sense?
What if the amount of resources to successfully travel to and colonize a planet in another solar system is so high that the vast majority of attempts fail and only a few attempts can be made? We can have n (pick some random large number) intelligent civilizations in our galaxy and not know a thing about them.
- DubiousPusher 7y agoMy thoughts exactly. I've always found it funny how people imply there's some major issue with cosmology because the Drake equation shows there should be intelligent life all over. Even though some of the terms in that equation are very not known and it would only take a few being an order of magnitude or two smaller than expected to result in a paucity of intelligent life rather than an abundance.
- yibg 7y agoRight. The Drake equation was never supposed to "show" anything. I think the original intent was to lay out the factors at play and stimulate conversation, not to provide a probability. I think over time, the imagination of the public have taken over though and put more confidence behind things than we should.