4 ms·

This essay is analogous to a mathematical proof that begins "Assume A and not A" and concludes: "and therefore P≠NP." It's not that I disagree with Miller's con

by ekidd 15y ago

This essay is analogous to a mathematical proof that begins "Assume A and not A" and concludes: "and therefore P≠NP." It's not that I disagree with Miller's conclusion, it's just his premise is a contradiction, and thus capable of proving anything. First, the contradiction: Fermi's paradox says that intelligent species are common, and that some fraction of intelligent species will engage in interstellar colonization. By some simple reasoning, this implies that the galaxy filled up with intelligent life a billion years ago. But the skies look empty. Using Fermi's paradox, we could "prove" that the universe is filled with hostile, silent aliens that exterminate any species that discovers radio (as in Saberhagen's "Berserker" novels), or that interstellar colonization is impossible, or that intelligence is a self-defeating adaptation and we're doomed to wipe ourselves out. This makes for fun science fiction, but you can't use it to prove anything. The conclusion is a fun bit of Puritan moralizing (entertainment bad, real life good). And because we want to agree with the conclusion, we're tempted to overlook the sloppy reasoning. (And I'd love to say something about Miller's use of evolutionary psychology to present plausible hypotheses without supporting evidence, but that's a whole other can of worms.)

exratione 15y ago
The big problem with most people's responses to the Fermi paradox is that they invoke some form of universality of behavior for intelligent life. This can't work - if even one species of the expected very large number of species sends out self-replicating probes that do large-scale work, then we should see the evidence of that. It really doesn't matter what expected distribution of behaviors and psychologies is: the expected numbers we're dealing with (time, planets, species) are so very large - and it only takes one subgroup within an advanced species, never mind one species, to kick off a self-replicating wave of expansion.
- efnx 15y ago
  What would be the point in a self-replicating wave of expansion? I don't see why that would make life more enjoyable. Unless that wave is used as a discovery machine - in that case it's a scientific tool, and as scientists we have rules about interacting with other species, conservation, etc. I'm sure if these aliens exist they have reasons for deliberately not devouring our galaxy, and we'll know those reasons as soon as we are able to launch a self-replicating wave of expansion.
DanielBMarkham 15y ago
I think this can be made into a very empirical line of reasoning. Measure what people spend their time thinking about. Track this over time. The author of this feels that people feel less and less about external realities and more and more about virtual ones. I don't think you need to be an old fogey or a puritan to draw some conclusions in this area. Yes, the argument is anecdotal. Stereotyping those who might agree with it doesn't make it any more or less valid or interesting. Another line of attack is to say this has been going on forever: people observing the way society is changing and saying that it's becoming terribly self-absorbed. That's true, but like the boy who cried wolf, eventually the wolf actually shows up, and it's not a good thing for anybody involved.
maratd 15y ago
> we're tempted to overlook the sloppy reasoning. Not in the slightest. This is a political opinion piece. There is a negative political statement about nuclear weapons. Then about video games. Then about consumerism, etc etc You can use anything you perceive as self destructive to show how the aliens wiped themselves out and we will too! That much is obvious without any attempt at serious reasoning. Fast food is destroying our country. Obesity! Aliens got too fat, wiped themselves out, that's why there aren't any around. Replace fast food with any other activity which offends commonly accepted political decency.
- dextorious 15y ago
  """Replace fast food with any other activity which offends commonly accepted political decency.""" Obesity doesn't only offend "commonly accepted political decency" it also has measurable, negative impact on a person's life span. And I would venture to say that nuclear weapons and such have too.
  - maratd 15y ago
    > it also has measurable, negative impact on a person's life span. Every activity has a "measurable, negative impact on a person's life span" so long as the person doing the measuring is opposed to the activity. What was it that Benjamin Disraeli said? There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. I find it curious that in the age of nuclear weapons, video games, consumerism, hamburgers, drugs, alcohol, etc. our average life spans are actually increasing.
    - dextorious 15y ago
      """Every activity has a "measurable, negative impact on a person's life span" so long as the person doing the measuring is opposed to the activity. What was it that Benjamin Disraeli said? There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.""" Obesity has a negative impact on life span because of BIAS??? I thought it was because of scientifically proven processes, well understood by modern medicine. Maybe it's just me. """I find it curious that in the age of nuclear weapons, video games, consumerism, hamburgers, drugs, alcohol, etc. our average life spans are actually increasing.""" That's because there's another kind of lie, Disraeli missed, the "correlation/causation" kind of lie. If the average life spans actually increase it's not because of the above, but because of better sanitation, vaccines, and a few other important factors. The lifespan of people doing drugs/alcohol/hamburgers etc is actually decreased, compared to an imaginary control group. And I'll go on a limb and say that the lifespan of people in 1945 Hiroshima was also greatly reduced compared to any control group of the time that didn't had a nuclear bomb dropped on them.
herdcall 15y ago
The problem I see with this article is that it doesn't acknowledge you only need a handful of people to make the advances necessary to reach out to other civilizations. It does admit there will be variation, but talks about fundamentalists and anti-consumerism folks rather than committed scientists/researchers who will make the contact possible. In our own history, you could argue that only a small set of outliers (the Einsteins, Darwins, etc.) really contributed to our major strides. If we're beaming signals to outer space today, you can track it back to only a few committed geniuses who made that feat possible. So, if alien civilizations do exist, I'd say they likewise need only a handful of committed folks; and they will come about through natural variation regardless of what the societal attitudes are.

by ekidd 15y ago

exratione 15y ago

The big problem with most people's responses to the Fermi paradox is that they invoke some form of universality of behavior for intelligent life. This can't work - if even one species of the expected very large number of species sends out self-replicating probes that do large-scale work, then we should see the evidence of that. It really doesn't matter what expected distribution of behaviors and psychologies is: the expected numbers we're dealing with (time, planets, species) are so very large - and it only takes one subgroup within an advanced species, never mind one species, to kick off a self-replicating wave of expansion.

efnx 15y ago
What would be the point in a self-replicating wave of expansion? I don't see why that would make life more enjoyable. Unless that wave is used as a discovery machine - in that case it's a scientific tool, and as scientists we have rules about interacting with other species, conservation, etc. I'm sure if these aliens exist they have reasons for deliberately not devouring our galaxy, and we'll know those reasons as soon as we are able to launch a self-replicating wave of expansion.

DanielBMarkham 15y ago

I think this can be made into a very empirical line of reasoning. Measure what people spend their time thinking about. Track this over time. The author of this feels that people feel less and less about external realities and more and more about virtual ones. I don't think you need to be an old fogey or a puritan to draw some conclusions in this area. Yes, the argument is anecdotal. Stereotyping those who might agree with it doesn't make it any more or less valid or interesting. Another line of attack is to say this has been going on forever: people observing the way society is changing and saying that it's becoming terribly self-absorbed. That's true, but like the boy who cried wolf, eventually the wolf actually shows up, and it's not a good thing for anybody involved.

maratd 15y ago

> we're tempted to overlook the sloppy reasoning. Not in the slightest. This is a political opinion piece. There is a negative political statement about nuclear weapons. Then about video games. Then about consumerism, etc etc You can use anything you perceive as self destructive to show how the aliens wiped themselves out and we will too! That much is obvious without any attempt at serious reasoning. Fast food is destroying our country. Obesity! Aliens got too fat, wiped themselves out, that's why there aren't any around. Replace fast food with any other activity which offends commonly accepted political decency.

dextorious 15y ago
"""Replace fast food with any other activity which offends commonly accepted political decency.""" Obesity doesn't only offend "commonly accepted political decency" it also has measurable, negative impact on a person's life span. And I would venture to say that nuclear weapons and such have too.
- maratd 15y ago
  > it also has measurable, negative impact on a person's life span. Every activity has a "measurable, negative impact on a person's life span" so long as the person doing the measuring is opposed to the activity. What was it that Benjamin Disraeli said? There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. I find it curious that in the age of nuclear weapons, video games, consumerism, hamburgers, drugs, alcohol, etc. our average life spans are actually increasing.
  - dextorious 15y ago
    """Every activity has a "measurable, negative impact on a person's life span" so long as the person doing the measuring is opposed to the activity. What was it that Benjamin Disraeli said? There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.""" Obesity has a negative impact on life span because of BIAS??? I thought it was because of scientifically proven processes, well understood by modern medicine. Maybe it's just me. """I find it curious that in the age of nuclear weapons, video games, consumerism, hamburgers, drugs, alcohol, etc. our average life spans are actually increasing.""" That's because there's another kind of lie, Disraeli missed, the "correlation/causation" kind of lie. If the average life spans actually increase it's not because of the above, but because of better sanitation, vaccines, and a few other important factors. The lifespan of people doing drugs/alcohol/hamburgers etc is actually decreased, compared to an imaginary control group. And I'll go on a limb and say that the lifespan of people in 1945 Hiroshima was also greatly reduced compared to any control group of the time that didn't had a nuclear bomb dropped on them.

herdcall 15y ago

The problem I see with this article is that it doesn't acknowledge you only need a handful of people to make the advances necessary to reach out to other civilizations. It does admit there will be variation, but talks about fundamentalists and anti-consumerism folks rather than committed scientists/researchers who will make the contact possible. In our own history, you could argue that only a small set of outliers (the Einsteins, Darwins, etc.) really contributed to our major strides. If we're beaming signals to outer space today, you can track it back to only a few committed geniuses who made that feat possible. So, if alien civilizations do exist, I'd say they likewise need only a handful of committed folks; and they will come about through natural variation regardless of what the societal attitudes are.