3 ms·

Basing hypotheses on a single data point, let alone one whose outcome is not yet determined, almost invariably leads to wildly inaccurate conclusions in practic

Basing hypotheses on a single data point, let alone one whose outcome is not yet determined, almost invariably leads to wildly inaccurate conclusions in practice. As such, until we have more data, any questions about the Great Filter and the causes thereof will remain unanswerable. Personally my bet is on either us being early as intelligent life goes, or extremely massive stellar expansionism on the levels that would allow for us to have encountered intelligent life with basically zero search effort not being something most civilizations would feel compelled to do. Also assuming that any advanced civilization that exists would have to follow our development path is laughably anthropocentric and reflects a failure of imagination on the part of the people making said claims.

adriand 4y ago
> Also assuming that any advanced civilization that exists would have to follow our development path is laughably anthropocentric and reflects a failure of imagination on the part of the people making said claims. That's a great point, and it's not just anthropomorphic. It also ignores the paths that other cultures were on, that were subsumed or annihilated by Western-style industrial capitalism. What would human civilization look like (and what state would the planet be in) if, for instance, Western nations had first, respected indigenous sovereignty in the Americas, and second, sought to learn from First Nations instead of seeking to destroy them? In other words, we don't have to imagine alien civilizations to explore other developmental paths. There are plenty of examples right here at home.
- midoridensha 4y ago
  I'm guessing that if Europeans had decided to adopt the Native American lifestyles and cultures, we would still be pre-industrial and living as a bunch of separate tribes that sometimes have wars between them. The way the European settlers treated the natives was indeed rather shabby, but the existing culture was not one that could ever develop into modern nation-states and a global industrial civilization without conflict. And without industrial capitalism, we wouldn't have computers and be exchanging messages across continents here on HN. So it's entirely possible there's alien civilizations out there that are happy to remain in a primitive, tribal, pre-industrial state, but we're not going to ever detect or meet those civilizations until we have starships capable of transporting us there.
  - adriand 4y ago
    I’m not offended by your viewpoint, I think many people share it (although “rather shabby” is a gross understatement of what took place). But take a moment to reflect on a couple of things: 1) You used the word “primitive” to describe these cultures. However, these cultures had developed advanced techniques and ways of being that ensured their survival for millennia, and there’s no reason to think this could not have continued for many more millennia. Is a society that is capable of surviving in perpetuity “primitive”? How does that contrast with our current society, which can fairly be called self-destructive? There is a serious risk that we don’t survive the next few centuries - perhaps even decades! Would you call that “advanced”? 2) I’m not discounting the value of science, nor am I romanticizing the hardships that many indigenous communities endured in the absence of science, advanced technology, modern medicine and so on. But First Nations peoples were not stupid when they encountered western technology. They adopted what was useful or superior to what they had. There could have been a synthesis of ancient indigenous practices and modern science. And indeed many indigenous practices were adopted by Westerners. But fundamental truths like, destroying your own home is not a recipe for long-term success, were ignored.

adriand 4y ago

> Also assuming that any advanced civilization that exists would have to follow our development path is laughably anthropocentric and reflects a failure of imagination on the part of the people making said claims. That's a great point, and it's not just anthropomorphic. It also ignores the paths that other cultures were on, that were subsumed or annihilated by Western-style industrial capitalism. What would human civilization look like (and what state would the planet be in) if, for instance, Western nations had first, respected indigenous sovereignty in the Americas, and second, sought to learn from First Nations instead of seeking to destroy them? In other words, we don't have to imagine alien civilizations to explore other developmental paths. There are plenty of examples right here at home.

midoridensha 4y ago
I'm guessing that if Europeans had decided to adopt the Native American lifestyles and cultures, we would still be pre-industrial and living as a bunch of separate tribes that sometimes have wars between them. The way the European settlers treated the natives was indeed rather shabby, but the existing culture was not one that could ever develop into modern nation-states and a global industrial civilization without conflict. And without industrial capitalism, we wouldn't have computers and be exchanging messages across continents here on HN. So it's entirely possible there's alien civilizations out there that are happy to remain in a primitive, tribal, pre-industrial state, but we're not going to ever detect or meet those civilizations until we have starships capable of transporting us there.
- adriand 4y ago
  I’m not offended by your viewpoint, I think many people share it (although “rather shabby” is a gross understatement of what took place). But take a moment to reflect on a couple of things: 1) You used the word “primitive” to describe these cultures. However, these cultures had developed advanced techniques and ways of being that ensured their survival for millennia, and there’s no reason to think this could not have continued for many more millennia. Is a society that is capable of surviving in perpetuity “primitive”? How does that contrast with our current society, which can fairly be called self-destructive? There is a serious risk that we don’t survive the next few centuries - perhaps even decades! Would you call that “advanced”? 2) I’m not discounting the value of science, nor am I romanticizing the hardships that many indigenous communities endured in the absence of science, advanced technology, modern medicine and so on. But First Nations peoples were not stupid when they encountered western technology. They adopted what was useful or superior to what they had. There could have been a synthesis of ancient indigenous practices and modern science. And indeed many indigenous practices were adopted by Westerners. But fundamental truths like, destroying your own home is not a recipe for long-term success, were ignored.