3 ms·

But both of those models start from the assumption that it is possible for an alien civilization to expand beyond its home star in the first place. But if you t

by lhorie 6y ago

But both of those models start from the assumption that it is possible for an alien civilization to expand beyond its home star in the first place. But if you try to draw parallels to known knowns, one could convincingly argue that such an assumption is not a given. For example, humans are undoubtedly a technologically dominant species on Earth, yet our growth model is not to expand to every corner of the planet in an indiscriminate fashion: throughout history, humans tended to settle (and re-settle) the same areas that were most conducive to civilization, while remote areas remain for the most part remote. It really isn't a stretch to posit that an alien form with liquid-methane-based chemistry (instead of water-based) would want to stay far far away from places like Earth, just like we wouldn't like to sunbathe in Mercury. And the boring but most likely occam's razor of alien civilizations is that it isn't actually physically possible for a civilization to leave their home star.

Chris2048 6y ago
Given the long-term span of evolutionary biology, and the short-span of human civilisation, example based on humanity are short-sighted. Many would assume "post-human" existence that escape the trappings of biology, e.g. even now we have a non-biological presence on Mars, in the form of a robotic lander; perhaps in a couple 1000 more years humans can settle wherever we can build functioning machinery capable of supporting AI. In these "post-singularity" times it's hard to speculate.
- lhorie 6y ago
  Robotics last far less than humans do though. Last year there were literal forest fires in CA because we can't figure out how to hang power cables without succumbing to corrosion from a measly 100 years span. If we want to make arguments about longevity, we could maybe look at microorganisms, but my understanding is they are similar to us in the sense that they thrive where it's conducive for any given strain to thrive, but die where it's not.
  - TheCapeGreek 6y ago
    Everything needs maintenance in some form, whether organic or not. The only limitation for inorganics right now is an incapability of self-maintenance. We do it through many ways in our biology: nutrients from diet, exercise (on purpose or just day-to-day activities) for muscles & cardiovascular health. On top of that humanity added its own methods, namely everything done in healthcare & pharmaceuticals.
  - Chris2048 6y ago
    > because we can't figure out how to hang power cables without.. I think it's unfair to cherry-pick one task attempted by a cost-aware electricity company, that didn't involve the majority of humanity, and judge humanity on that basis. The nations best and brightest where not called upon to hang power cables.
    - lhorie 6y ago
      I don't think I'm being particularly uncharitable. Look at the Opportunity Mars rover. It died after a record breaking... 15 years. And that is arguably one of the most sophisticated robotics projects humanity has ever deployed. The IIS has been around for only like a quarter of a century and despite being constantly maintained by highly trained astronauts, it already had air leak issues. And FWIW, power line maintenance is much closer to average humanity than NASA is, and also quite a fundamental piece of technology that you'd think we as a species would have figured out by now. I just don't see a post-human future that is based on silicon: the manufacturing process is far too complex and poisonous to be viable as a self-replicating system and it doesn't last long either. I don't see a biological post-human civilization being feasible either: we've all but depleted all easily accessible natural resources, so any new civilization would have an uphill climb to surpass our technology. People talk about Dyson spheres but for some reason no one mentions that space debris will puncture every material known to humankind because it's just flying so damn fast. Seems like a fairly obvious and fundamental physics issue IMHO; not exactly something that one can just wave away with theoretical future technology. Maybe you know something I don't, but as far as I'm concerned, space colonization feels more like wishful thinking than something that could actually realistically happen.

by lhorie 6y ago

Chris2048 6y ago

Given the long-term span of evolutionary biology, and the short-span of human civilisation, example based on humanity are short-sighted. Many would assume "post-human" existence that escape the trappings of biology, e.g. even now we have a non-biological presence on Mars, in the form of a robotic lander; perhaps in a couple 1000 more years humans can settle wherever we can build functioning machinery capable of supporting AI. In these "post-singularity" times it's hard to speculate.

lhorie 6y ago
Robotics last far less than humans do though. Last year there were literal forest fires in CA because we can't figure out how to hang power cables without succumbing to corrosion from a measly 100 years span. If we want to make arguments about longevity, we could maybe look at microorganisms, but my understanding is they are similar to us in the sense that they thrive where it's conducive for any given strain to thrive, but die where it's not.
- TheCapeGreek 6y ago
  Everything needs maintenance in some form, whether organic or not. The only limitation for inorganics right now is an incapability of self-maintenance. We do it through many ways in our biology: nutrients from diet, exercise (on purpose or just day-to-day activities) for muscles & cardiovascular health. On top of that humanity added its own methods, namely everything done in healthcare & pharmaceuticals.
- Chris2048 6y ago
  > because we can't figure out how to hang power cables without.. I think it's unfair to cherry-pick one task attempted by a cost-aware electricity company, that didn't involve the majority of humanity, and judge humanity on that basis. The nations best and brightest where not called upon to hang power cables.
  - lhorie 6y ago
    I don't think I'm being particularly uncharitable. Look at the Opportunity Mars rover. It died after a record breaking... 15 years. And that is arguably one of the most sophisticated robotics projects humanity has ever deployed. The IIS has been around for only like a quarter of a century and despite being constantly maintained by highly trained astronauts, it already had air leak issues. And FWIW, power line maintenance is much closer to average humanity than NASA is, and also quite a fundamental piece of technology that you'd think we as a species would have figured out by now. I just don't see a post-human future that is based on silicon: the manufacturing process is far too complex and poisonous to be viable as a self-replicating system and it doesn't last long either. I don't see a biological post-human civilization being feasible either: we've all but depleted all easily accessible natural resources, so any new civilization would have an uphill climb to surpass our technology. People talk about Dyson spheres but for some reason no one mentions that space debris will puncture every material known to humankind because it's just flying so damn fast. Seems like a fairly obvious and fundamental physics issue IMHO; not exactly something that one can just wave away with theoretical future technology. Maybe you know something I don't, but as far as I'm concerned, space colonization feels more like wishful thinking than something that could actually realistically happen.