4 ms·

We don't have the technology to detect signals similar to our own from the distance of even the nearest stars [1], and there is no reason to assume that more te

We don't have the technology to detect signals similar to our own from the distance of even the nearest stars [1], and there is no reason to assume that more technologically advanced civilisations will generate vastly larger signals. Therefore the absence of detection to date tells us nothing, except to place an extremely generous upper bound on the power of signals they generate. [1] https://www.seti.org/press-release/can-et-detect-us https://www.seti.org/press-release/can-et-detect-us - where a SETI researcher concludes an alien civilisation around a nearby star would require technology much more advanced than ours to detect us. (And what technology we do have has been pointed at a vanishingly small fraction of the planets in the galaxy.)

whimsicalism 3y ago
We wouldn’t need to detect signals - life arising only a few hundred million years earlier than us would easily have been able to send physical artifacts/vehicles/harvesting to every system in the entire galaxy if they had interstellar travel. If life were common enough that it has evolved multiple times in the same solar system (excluding panspermia) then this becomes almost a certainty that it should have occurred
- kjkjadksj 3y ago
  What a big assumption to make though. Billions of years of life on earth and an object was first put in space what 80 years ago? This technological age of ours could very well just be a blip. Its far more likely based on our own planet that intelligent life does none of these things. We might not have civilization at all if we didn’t happen to farm, we could both be preparing for our morning hunt and foraging just as easily as we are preparing for work today, if events happened only slightly differently. N=1 here. Our trajectory is no generalized model.
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    Yes, it is possible that there is a large filter between developing life and getting to where we are. I can't deny that that is a possible explanation for the observed Fermi paradox. But finding independent life on other planets would eliminate a whole class of great filters, making it more likely the filter is either as you said or that it is ahead of us. It is bad news imo if it is more likely than before that the filter is ahead of us. And that is unambiguously the case if we were to find life on another planet. Not proof positive it is ahead of us, but it shifts the probabilities. And yes, it took billions of years for life to evolve, but if we find life in our solar system, that is potentially billions of opportunities for life independently evolving.
cdelsolar 3y ago
All you need is one single civilization to develop von Neumann probes and then they’re everywhere in the universe (or at least Galaxy). If life really is so ubiquitous as to be found in 3 different planets or moons in our solar system then we’re totally screwed.
- kjkjadksj 3y ago
  How many different life forms have there been on earth? Billions? How many of these have made von neumann probes? Zero. All these assumptions about how intelligent life should look are always so anthropocentric and rooted in assumptions we make based on supposition or even sci fi stories. Meanwhile, your dog is an example of intelligent life, and it engages in none of these pursuits.

whimsicalism 3y ago

We wouldn’t need to detect signals - life arising only a few hundred million years earlier than us would easily have been able to send physical artifacts/vehicles/harvesting to every system in the entire galaxy if they had interstellar travel. If life were common enough that it has evolved multiple times in the same solar system (excluding panspermia) then this becomes almost a certainty that it should have occurred

kjkjadksj 3y ago
What a big assumption to make though. Billions of years of life on earth and an object was first put in space what 80 years ago? This technological age of ours could very well just be a blip. Its far more likely based on our own planet that intelligent life does none of these things. We might not have civilization at all if we didn’t happen to farm, we could both be preparing for our morning hunt and foraging just as easily as we are preparing for work today, if events happened only slightly differently. N=1 here. Our trajectory is no generalized model.
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  Yes, it is possible that there is a large filter between developing life and getting to where we are. I can't deny that that is a possible explanation for the observed Fermi paradox. But finding independent life on other planets would eliminate a whole class of great filters, making it more likely the filter is either as you said or that it is ahead of us. It is bad news imo if it is more likely than before that the filter is ahead of us. And that is unambiguously the case if we were to find life on another planet. Not proof positive it is ahead of us, but it shifts the probabilities. And yes, it took billions of years for life to evolve, but if we find life in our solar system, that is potentially billions of opportunities for life independently evolving.

cdelsolar 3y ago

All you need is one single civilization to develop von Neumann probes and then they’re everywhere in the universe (or at least Galaxy). If life really is so ubiquitous as to be found in 3 different planets or moons in our solar system then we’re totally screwed.

kjkjadksj 3y ago
How many different life forms have there been on earth? Billions? How many of these have made von neumann probes? Zero. All these assumptions about how intelligent life should look are always so anthropocentric and rooted in assumptions we make based on supposition or even sci fi stories. Meanwhile, your dog is an example of intelligent life, and it engages in none of these pursuits.