5 ms·

Then where are they?

by pdog 14y ago

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
omegaham 14y ago
In a galaxy far, far away. My guess is that there are other civilizations out there, but they're suffering from the exact same problems as us - long distances, huge energy requirements, lots of time. If we can't get out to the stars, I can see why plenty of civilizations would be having trouble.
CoffeeDregs 14y ago
First off: why would you assume that we could interact with them? It appears to be phenomenally difficult to get from point to point in the galaxy/universe (see the recent trend in science-fiction to stick to a speed of light limited universe). If we come up with some fantastic energy source (see: ZPE), then I'll say that it's phenomenally slow so that no civilization would invest in doing it. If we come up with some civilization that would do so, I'd point out that it's phenomenally slow/difficult to send signals across universal distances. Rational folks think that non-solar-local interactions are probably not possible... Large brained rational folks think to look for solar-local artifacts of Kardashev-scale>1 civilizations (see: http://www.personal.psu.edu/jtw13/blogs/astrowright/2013/03/artifact-seti.html http://www.personal.psu.edu/jtw13/blogs/astrowright/2013/03/...). Recall that early explorers met Native Americans and called them Indians because they had misinterpreted distances, didn't know all of the continents, etc. We have a history of overcoming increasingly large distances with improved transport. This does not mean that we shall always do so. It may be depressing, but it may be the case that exponential curves in natural do not exist. We may live in a time where we understand that sigmoids rule the evolution of our world/civilizations... (And no the plural of Malthus is not proof of an exponential curves in nature...)
adventured 14y ago
Where are they? They aren't 'there.' The obvious point is, we may very well be the first, or 10th. And that's precisely why 'they' aren't anywhere. And it's plausible that we're vastly underestimating how difficult it actually is to spread machines throughout the galaxy. I don't happen to agree with the notion that we'd have to see evidence by now if there has been other life. It's entirely plausible that a hundred other unique humanoids have existed on this planet, a billion or two years before we did, and that they all failed with minimum trace. We know for a fact that several variations have failed, so why not another 100? And if it's so difficult, then why not apply those odds to other planets? In five billion years our planet, which is very hospitable to life, has managed to produce one currently existing 'intelligent' life form (that can barely fly to the moon). That means it's extraordinarily rare even on our planet. By most measures, humans barely managed to survive, and we got lucky to so far avoid a wipeout event. The odds of life being generated in any given billion year time frame, on a planet that can possibly support it, and assuming the right conditions for intelligent life (eg that the planet doesn't get destroyed or altered by an asteroid etc), and on the reduction goes. I think spacefaring life is exceptionally rare, and it only gets X amount of time to potentially exist before the solar system or galaxy or universe crushes it. In short, I don't think there's enough time for intelligent life to span even a galaxy before being wiped out by nature. And why don't we see probes floating around? For the same reason Voyager will eventually be obliterated by rocks in space or gravity (and in the time scale of the milky way, it won't be a very long before that happens).

Then where are they?

by pdog 14y ago

Then where are they?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

omegaham 14y ago

In a galaxy far, far away. My guess is that there are other civilizations out there, but they're suffering from the exact same problems as us - long distances, huge energy requirements, lots of time. If we can't get out to the stars, I can see why plenty of civilizations would be having trouble.

CoffeeDregs 14y ago

First off: why would you assume that we could interact with them? It appears to be phenomenally difficult to get from point to point in the galaxy/universe (see the recent trend in science-fiction to stick to a speed of light limited universe). If we come up with some fantastic energy source (see: ZPE), then I'll say that it's phenomenally slow so that no civilization would invest in doing it. If we come up with some civilization that would do so, I'd point out that it's phenomenally slow/difficult to send signals across universal distances. Rational folks think that non-solar-local interactions are probably not possible... Large brained rational folks think to look for solar-local artifacts of Kardashev-scale>1 civilizations (see: http://www.personal.psu.edu/jtw13/blogs/astrowright/2013/03/artifact-seti.html http://www.personal.psu.edu/jtw13/blogs/astrowright/2013/03/...). Recall that early explorers met Native Americans and called them Indians because they had misinterpreted distances, didn't know all of the continents, etc. We have a history of overcoming increasingly large distances with improved transport. This does not mean that we shall always do so. It may be depressing, but it may be the case that exponential curves in natural do not exist. We may live in a time where we understand that sigmoids rule the evolution of our world/civilizations... (And no the plural of Malthus is not proof of an exponential curves in nature...)

adventured 14y ago

Where are they? They aren't 'there.' The obvious point is, we may very well be the first, or 10th. And that's precisely why 'they' aren't anywhere. And it's plausible that we're vastly underestimating how difficult it actually is to spread machines throughout the galaxy. I don't happen to agree with the notion that we'd have to see evidence by now if there has been other life. It's entirely plausible that a hundred other unique humanoids have existed on this planet, a billion or two years before we did, and that they all failed with minimum trace. We know for a fact that several variations have failed, so why not another 100? And if it's so difficult, then why not apply those odds to other planets? In five billion years our planet, which is very hospitable to life, has managed to produce one currently existing 'intelligent' life form (that can barely fly to the moon). That means it's extraordinarily rare even on our planet. By most measures, humans barely managed to survive, and we got lucky to so far avoid a wipeout event. The odds of life being generated in any given billion year time frame, on a planet that can possibly support it, and assuming the right conditions for intelligent life (eg that the planet doesn't get destroyed or altered by an asteroid etc), and on the reduction goes. I think spacefaring life is exceptionally rare, and it only gets X amount of time to potentially exist before the solar system or galaxy or universe crushes it. In short, I don't think there's enough time for intelligent life to span even a galaxy before being wiped out by nature. And why don't we see probes floating around? For the same reason Voyager will eventually be obliterated by rocks in space or gravity (and in the time scale of the milky way, it won't be a very long before that happens).