6 ms·

> Maybe we have the great filter in front of us in plain view and we can't recognize it. One candidate, if we take ourselves as the primary example, is biogeoc

> Maybe we have the great filter in front of us in plain view and we can't recognize it. One candidate, if we take ourselves as the primary example, is biogeochemical crisis following rapid discovery and exploitation of environmental resources or energy reserves without sufficient consideration of the consequences

ethbr0 6y ago
It seems a bit convenient that every species capable of interplanetary colonization manages to (a) possess world-climate-altering- industrial scale, (b) rest their industrial needs on a resource that threatens their ecosystem, & (c) remain ignorant of the threat until it's too late to do anything about it. Comparatively speaking, asteroids and/or ice ages being more frequent than expected seems more plausible.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  It doesn't have to be climate and it doesn't have to be industrial. Any process which requires scaling intelligence from competitively local and tribal (or any equivalents) to integrated and planetary will do. You either pass that test or you fail it. If you fail it, stagnation and eventually devolution beckon.
  - ethbr0 6y ago
    > stagnation and eventually devolution beckon What was critical in parent's comment was the irrecoverability of the civilization, after such an action. Scaling intelligence is more of a repeatable "trial and error" step (as the article puts it, in a biology context).
- est31 6y ago
  (d) their previous activities have rendered it way harder to rebuild a technological society There used to be iron deposits etc. on the surface. They were recovered by pre-industrial societies. Now we are digging deeper and deeper for resources, but once we lose that ability, it's possible we won't be able to regain it. What do you do once the nuclear power plant's core has melted, the mine is full of water, and there is nobody around who knows what these things are even there for because all the people who did died years ago of old age. You can't read it up either once we've moved our stored knowledge from paper to machines in what the ancient texts refer to as the mythical "US-EAST-2 region".
  - kryptiskt 6y ago
    Humans have deposited a lot of iron and other useful elements on the surface for the next civilization to start with though.
    - ethbr0 6y ago
      It's less of an issue with recraftable materials (like iron) and moreso with one-way ones (like petroleum, fissionable uranium isotopes, helium, or some plastics). Of those, it feels like the only irreconcilable one is scale: e.g. something you need so much of, repeatedly, that no less-efficient substitute is viable. And of those, geologically-created, carbon-based energy sources (coal, oil) are the primaries that come to mind. (Also, nitrogen, but I imagine the Haber–Bosch process would survive)
  - deathgrips 6y ago
    Where did all that iron that we mined run off to? Is it not on the surface anymore?
    - est31 6y ago
      1. it might be covered in sediments requiring expensive movement for little gain (and how do you know where the iron was/is?) and 2. the structures that don't get covered rust away and turn into dust that erosion distributes over large areas. Post apocalyptic societies will be able to salvage iron here and there for a long time, but will it be enough to cover our planet with railways and kick off a new industrial revolution? Also, the iron was only an example. Coal and other fossil fuels we can only burn once, then they are gone.
- sdenton4 6y ago
  Curiously, the ability to alter biomes at a planetary scale is also one of the prerequisites for colonization. The trick then is having sufficient control of industrial processes to 'get it right,' which requires better global decision making than humans have thus far demonstrated. (The alternative is extreme plasticity, allowing lifeforms to adapt to otherwise hostile atmospheres...)
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    > (The alternative is extreme plasticity, allowing lifeforms to adapt to otherwise hostile atmospheres...) We meet that threshold, though. We are extremely adaptive to otherwise hostile environments by virtue of technology, particularly wearable one - from winter jackets to SCUBA gear.
- walleeee 6y ago
  Sure, I don't think there's necessarily a single filter, or that this is it. Just that it's a candidate. Your examples would presumably be much more common.
- patentatt 6y ago
  We don’t have any evidence that there are any species capable of interplanetary travel. Maybe there are none.
  - bserge 6y ago
    Humans can do interplanetary travel already. A species at a similar development level in some other solar system with slightly better societal goals or a need for a specific resource could already be colonizing other planets or asteroids.
- cortic 6y ago
  Could be intelligence in any form is brought about by some kind of grand antagonistic pleiotropy. By this i mean the genes that develop intelligence in any species infancy, inevitably lead to the conditions for your (a)(b) and (c) later on.

ethbr0 6y ago

It seems a bit convenient that every species capable of interplanetary colonization manages to (a) possess world-climate-altering- industrial scale, (b) rest their industrial needs on a resource that threatens their ecosystem, & (c) remain ignorant of the threat until it's too late to do anything about it. Comparatively speaking, asteroids and/or ice ages being more frequent than expected seems more plausible.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
It doesn't have to be climate and it doesn't have to be industrial. Any process which requires scaling intelligence from competitively local and tribal (or any equivalents) to integrated and planetary will do. You either pass that test or you fail it. If you fail it, stagnation and eventually devolution beckon.
- ethbr0 6y ago
  > stagnation and eventually devolution beckon What was critical in parent's comment was the irrecoverability of the civilization, after such an action. Scaling intelligence is more of a repeatable "trial and error" step (as the article puts it, in a biology context).
est31 6y ago
(d) their previous activities have rendered it way harder to rebuild a technological society There used to be iron deposits etc. on the surface. They were recovered by pre-industrial societies. Now we are digging deeper and deeper for resources, but once we lose that ability, it's possible we won't be able to regain it. What do you do once the nuclear power plant's core has melted, the mine is full of water, and there is nobody around who knows what these things are even there for because all the people who did died years ago of old age. You can't read it up either once we've moved our stored knowledge from paper to machines in what the ancient texts refer to as the mythical "US-EAST-2 region".
- kryptiskt 6y ago
  Humans have deposited a lot of iron and other useful elements on the surface for the next civilization to start with though.
  - ethbr0 6y ago
    It's less of an issue with recraftable materials (like iron) and moreso with one-way ones (like petroleum, fissionable uranium isotopes, helium, or some plastics). Of those, it feels like the only irreconcilable one is scale: e.g. something you need so much of, repeatedly, that no less-efficient substitute is viable. And of those, geologically-created, carbon-based energy sources (coal, oil) are the primaries that come to mind. (Also, nitrogen, but I imagine the Haber–Bosch process would survive)
- deathgrips 6y ago
  Where did all that iron that we mined run off to? Is it not on the surface anymore?
  - est31 6y ago
    1. it might be covered in sediments requiring expensive movement for little gain (and how do you know where the iron was/is?) and 2. the structures that don't get covered rust away and turn into dust that erosion distributes over large areas. Post apocalyptic societies will be able to salvage iron here and there for a long time, but will it be enough to cover our planet with railways and kick off a new industrial revolution? Also, the iron was only an example. Coal and other fossil fuels we can only burn once, then they are gone.
sdenton4 6y ago
Curiously, the ability to alter biomes at a planetary scale is also one of the prerequisites for colonization. The trick then is having sufficient control of industrial processes to 'get it right,' which requires better global decision making than humans have thus far demonstrated. (The alternative is extreme plasticity, allowing lifeforms to adapt to otherwise hostile atmospheres...)
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  > (The alternative is extreme plasticity, allowing lifeforms to adapt to otherwise hostile atmospheres...) We meet that threshold, though. We are extremely adaptive to otherwise hostile environments by virtue of technology, particularly wearable one - from winter jackets to SCUBA gear.
walleeee 6y ago
Sure, I don't think there's necessarily a single filter, or that this is it. Just that it's a candidate. Your examples would presumably be much more common.
patentatt 6y ago
We don’t have any evidence that there are any species capable of interplanetary travel. Maybe there are none.
- bserge 6y ago
  Humans can do interplanetary travel already. A species at a similar development level in some other solar system with slightly better societal goals or a need for a specific resource could already be colonizing other planets or asteroids.
cortic 6y ago
Could be intelligence in any form is brought about by some kind of grand antagonistic pleiotropy. By this i mean the genes that develop intelligence in any species infancy, inevitably lead to the conditions for your (a)(b) and (c) later on.