Out of that roughly 3000 stars we can see with the naked eye, how many of those observed stars do you think would be hospitable to our form of life. Very few is my guess.
You would be guessing wrong! Every single one of them will have a "zone" that a planet could orbit in that would provide all the things that we see here as far as the chemistry goes. And again, while our type of chemistry (carbon based) may seem the most likely type, discovering life forms on a body like Europa would surely throw a lot of monkey wrenches into any speculation.
Look, I don't disagree that we don't know.
heck, I don't even disagree that advanced ETI is quite unlikely/rare.
What I do dissagree with, and have a lot of disrespect for are your assertions as fact that it has to be on a planet like earth, and life forms that are earthlike, with humanlike psychology. Those assertions are totally unfounded, if not downright delusional.
Europa should prove very interesting as scientists/astrobiologist think there may be a liquid water world there under the mantle of ice, possibly heated by the moons own core. I think more effort should be made to that moon than to Mars which seems to be a dead world like our moon. Imagine the repercussions if some kind of life is found there under all that ice.
Europa should prove very interesting as scientists/astrobiologist think there may be a liquid water world there under the mantle of ice, possibly heated by the moons own core. I think more effort should be made to that moon than to Mars which seems to be a dead world like our moon. Imagine the repercussions if some kind of life is found there under all that ice.
The bottom line is that a couple billion years is too long.
It will take less that 10 million for human beings to colonize the whole galaxy.
The Milky Way existed for billions of years before our sun was even born. So, logically, if life like us is common, they should be everywhere now.
The bottom line is that a couple billion years is too long.
I deal with religious people who refuse to see evidence or turn away for logical constructs in these chat forums. Mormons, Muslims, Scientologist and the SETI faithful all have the same mind set to me.
Snake Oil is Snake Oil. Putting money into SETI when it can help us in other ways hurts us all.
Do you have any support for that statement?
Because that seems more like a statement of faith than anything that the "SETI faithful" have said in this thread.
There are at least two things wrong with this statement. One is that the search for ETIs is not the search for human beings. The other is the point Roboramma made. That point is the same basic idea I've been listing as a refutation for the argument that ETIs do not exists based on Fermi's Paradox. There are a number of other possible explanations for the lack of evidence of ETIs at this point.
The Milky Way existed for billions of years before our sun was even born. So, logically, if life like us is common, they should be everywhere now.
That's not logical. There could be other civilizations more or less equal to our own, and we would not expect them to have filled the galaxy with evidence of their existence since we have not done so.
Putting money into SETI when it can help us in other ways hurts us all.
This point too has been covered. It's a relatively small amount of money. None of it is taxpayer money. There are potential payoffs for this kind of project--even aside from the long-shot payoff of finding a signal from an ETI.
That's not logical. There could be other civilizations more or less equal to our own, and we would not expect them to have filled the galaxy with evidence of their existence since we have not done so.
But we have been here less than 50.000 years as a civilization. If we manage to survive the next 100.000 years, the galaxy will be at our mercy. I'm certain we will have colonies on at least half the solar system, and probably robotic probes searching for signs of life in other nearby galaxies.
That's not logical. There could be other civilizations more or less equal to our own, and we would not expect them to have filled the galaxy with evidence of their existence since we have not done so.
In that numbered list of reasons you have posted before, could you run down the minimum that you think need to be true for this to be the case?
The scenario where the galaxy is populated by civilizations rougly equivalent to our own and no others more advanced who've gone on to colonize seems to require a lot of conditions to have been true for all civilizations that ever existed. Or it seems to require that civilization is destined to appear simultaneously and this is the time.
Logically, for the lack of evidence to point to the conclusion that ETIs don't exist, absolutely none of the other explanations can be possible. I've stated this elsewhere. You'd have to refute all the other possibilities.
Exactly. So the only example we have of an intelligent civilization doesn't support any conclusions you want to make about longevity of civilizations and what must inevitably happen.
I have ceded the fact that the lack of evidence proves that no super-advanced civilization exists that has made evidence of their existence ubiquitous in the galaxy. (And even in that scenario, it doesn't prove that a long-lived advanced civilization doesn't exist. If you're going to assume super-advanced technology, why not also assume the ability to hide evidence of their existence from us? I don't think such a thing is very likely, but I'm just pointing out the logical flaw in your argument.)
The scenario where the galaxy is populated by civilizations rougly equivalent to our own and no others more advanced who've gone on to colonize seems to require a lot of conditions to have been true for all civilizations that ever existed. Or it seems to require that civilization is destined to appear simultaneously and this is the time.
I don't follow. The scenario where the galaxy is populated by civilizations roughly equivalent to our own is consistent with the lack of evidence. (And it doesn't require there to be no others more advanced, but merely no others more advanced that have made evidence of their existence ubiquitous in the galaxy. What if that advanced civilization has colonized say 1/4 of the galaxy but not our immediate area?)
Nice sidestepping, please explain what it would it take to make your list of numbered "reasons" consistent with either the scenario you mentioned before or the scenario you're positing now.
Nice sidestepping, please explain what it would it take to make your list of numbered "reasons" consistent with either the scenario you mentioned before or the scenario you're positing now.
I sidestepped nothing. My list of is not a list of "reasons"--it's a list of alternative possible explanations for the Fermi Paradox (that is, for the lack of evidence of the existence of ETIs). In order for the explanation, "no ETIs exist" to be proven, you would have to eliminate all these other possibilities. If even one of them remains a possibility, then the lack of evidence fails to prove that ETIs do not exist.
I suggest you read through the thread. All of this has been covered. (And I did answer your question about my numbered list. And in at least several versions of my numbered list--I've repeated it several times over the one year plus life of this thread--I made this very clear by saying that if any one of these explanations remains, it refutes the argument amb has been making: that the lack of evidence of ETIs proves their non-existence.)
Basically this argument depends on a great number of assumptions to be true, and we have no reason to claim that all these assumptions are true.
For the record (and about the twentieth time), my position on the question of the existence of ETIs is simply that we don't know. I am in no way claiming proof of the existence of ETIs.
Agnosticism is a fair view to take in this regard. But it's not all that different to been agnostic in religious matters. The center position is for people who will not commit to one way or the other, fence sitters if you prefer.
If on the other hand, one looks at the age of this universe, the unlikely odds of life starting from the raw elements that were made in the original B/B, and having to be processed in giant stars that had to explode to spew material that was produced in the stars core in order for planets to form into the vast reaches of space, a cycle that is ongoing, death of one leads to life of another, the energy never dying, but recycled over and over. Perhaps in some little corner of the universe, the first elements came together to produce more elements that finally over who knows how much time produced the first microbes and or cell.
I have argued before, that if this planet was completely destroyed, and every hint of life came to an end. What are the chances life will once again start here like it did 4 billion years ago? Let alone a homo sapien like creature.
I don't follow. The scenario where the galaxy is populated by civilizations roughly equivalent to our own is consistent with the lack of evidence. (And it doesn't require there to be no others more advanced, but merely no others more advanced that have made evidence of their existence ubiquitous in the galaxy. What if that advanced civilization has colonized say 1/4 of the galaxy but not our immediate area?)
I don't really think you can make that argument: if there are other civilizations we don't expect them to have preferentially arisen at a point in time close to us. But the time in which they could have arisen is large enough that not arising at exactly the same time means they'd likely be very much older.
Of course, if there are only a few civilizations, its possible (though unlikely) that just by chance they may have arisen at a time close to ours. But if there are very many, that they all did is pretty damn unlikely.
Which suggests that if there are other civilizations they either have a very different sort of development from us (for instance, they may have mastered chemisty, but not other forms of technology), or they are very much more advanced than us.
Note, however, that more advanced than us does not imply capable of interstellar travel, as we simply don't know what is required for that.
I don't really think you can make that argument: if there are other civilizations we don't expect them to have preferentially arisen at a point in time close to us. But the time in which they could have arisen is large enough that not arising at exactly the same time means they'd likely be very much older.
Of course, if there are only a few civilizations, its possible (though unlikely) that just by chance they may have arisen at a time close to ours. But if there are very many, that they all did is pretty damn unlikely.
Which suggests that if there are other civilizations they either have a very different sort of development from us (for instance, they may have mastered chemisty, but not other forms of technology), or they are very much more advanced than us.
Note, however, that more advanced than us does not imply capable of interstellar travel, as we simply don't know what is required for that.
ETA: I never said anything that claims that the civilizations would have had to arise preferentially close to us in time. (See below.) However, that is in fact one of the Rare Earth arguments--that there hasn't been enough time since the formation of our galaxy, since heavier metals require at least a couple of generations of stars to have preceded the present. (I linked to something recently though that counters this--the first galaxies formed earlier than was previously thought.) And it fits with the point I've been making again and again: no more time has passed here than elsewhere in the galaxy, and yet here we are.
Yes. I agree. [ETA: with you final sentence, that is.]
My point is that it is possible for there to be plenty of civilizations at more or less our level. But I've also said, as you do, that it's also possible that there are any number of other explanations for why we haven't seen evidence of ETIs yet.
I've listed them several times. One is, as you say, there could be older and more advanced civilizations that aren't capable of interstellar travel (either because it's not practical, it's not feasible, or for some reason they all lack the motivation to use it).
It could be that no technological civilization lasts that long (and that position is quite credible given how close we've come to ending our own civilization, and the fact that we've yet to deal with several very daunting problems, like population). That would result in the scenario described above--where the only civilizations extant in the galaxy are more or less on par with our own, and we lack the ability to detect them (or them us, or any one to detect any other) unless we get extremely lucky.
Agnosticism is a fair view to take in this regard. But it's not all that different to been [sic] agnostic in religious matters. The center position is for people who will not commit to one way or the other, fence sitters if you prefer.
That's absurd. When we are ignorant, scientifically the only reasonable position is to say we don't know.
Agnosticism as the term originated referred to the belief that God is unknowable (sort of like deism). As it's used today, it is the belief or doctrine that we don't (or can't) know whether or not God exists. (And seen that way, it's the only reasonable position, and is not a substitute for being an atheist--in fact all atheists are also agnostics.)
Atheism is either the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods (weak atheism, or what I think of as a[theism]; or the belief in the non-existence of a god or gods (strong atheism, or what I think of as [athe]ism). From a scientific or skeptical point of view, I see atheism as the provisional acceptance (or rejection) of a proposition based on what the evidence points to. (Either the acceptance of the proposition, "No god exists" or the rejection of the proposition, "A god or god exists.")
So, while we are all "agnostics" wrt the existence of ETIs (that is we don't know), we lack the evidence to provisionally come to the conclusion that ETIs do not exist. That is, there's no reason at this point to believe that ETIs don't exist.
Again, see the Carl Sagan quote--it's OK to postpone reaching a conclusion in the absence of evidence.
My bolding:
amb said:
If on the other hand, one looks at the age of this universe, the unlikely odds of life starting from the raw elements that were made in the original B/B, and having to be processed in giant stars that had to explode to spew material that was produced in the stars core in order for planets to form into the vast reaches of space, a cycle that is ongoing, death of one leads to life of another, the energy never dying, but recycled over and over.
Again, your reasoning here is more similar to that of Creationists/ID proponents.
How did you calculate "the unlikely odds"?
amb said:
Perhaps in some little corner of the universe, the first elements came together to produce more elements that finally over who knows how much time produced the first microbes and or cell.
I suggest you watch this video on abiogenesis again (or for the first time if you haven't yet). Please watch the entire thing--the meat of it doesn't start right away. The process is no great mystery and doesn't strain probability as you suggest.
amb said:
I have argued before, that if this planet was completely destroyed, and every hint of life came to an end. What are the chances life will once again start here like it did 4 billion years ago?
We know what's required. We at this point in time, and for the foreseeable future don't look like developing it. We need to be able to travel at least at 20% of light speed in order for us to get anywhere, and then it will probably be robots not perishable delicate humans who will do the traveling. Unless we make a superman with experimentation with the genetic code by then, maybe in 10.000 years.
If we manage to survive the next 100.000 years, the galaxy will be at our mercy. I'm certain we will have colonies on at least half the solar system, and probably robotic probes searching for signs of life in other nearby galaxies.
Really? On what grounds are you making that statement? For all we know humanity may decide that we're too big a harm to the rest of the galaxy, and be content with staying here and dying with our sun (hihgly unlikely given our evolutionary track record, but just saying that it's not an innevitability).
While this assertion isn't nearly as outlandish as your many other assertions, please try to take out the way we currently think and behave.
We know what's required. We at this point in time, and for the foreseeable future don't look like developing it. We need to be able to travel at least at 20% of light speed in order for us to get anywhere, and then it will probably be robots not perishable delicate humans who will do the traveling. Unless we make a superman with experimentation with the genetic code by then, maybe in 10.000 years.
Not sure why you think 20% is necessary. Over the immense time frames available even speeds we've already achieved or that exist in nature could support an interstellar migration. Over immense periods of times you've got the opton of simply waiting for some other star to come to you. The stars are in motion. Over the course of the next 10 to 20 thousands our nearest stellar neighbor will have changed. Not too much closer, but then we're just one example. We don't know if planets exist at Rigil Kentaurus, but if we were there instead of orbiting Sol our existing probes would already be reaching interstellar distances, simply because it's a binary (or more) star system and the nearest star is just that close.
Not sure why you think 20% is necessary. Over the immense time frames available even speeds we've already achieved or that exist in nature could support an interstellar migration.
And yet, we haven't even come near attempting any sort of interstellar travel--even unmanned.
One of my numbered points was that even if it's technologically possible it might be economically not feasible or such a civilization might lack sufficient motivation to undertake such a project.
Or, these kinds of civilizations might not endure and thus these "immense time frames" may not be "available".
ETA: So at best it's premature to conclude the non-existence of ETIs based on the lack of evidence. Again, there are several plausible explanations for Fermi's Paradox, so no single one of them is proven.
Yeah, the numbers may not take into account the failure rate of each mission. Maybe some civilizations did try, but they lost so many ships and people that they finally said, "Sod it, this sucks!" Colonization of space can only be incredibly more dangerous than the efforts the Europeans had on their first steps to the America's. The Vikings pretty much said "Sod it." and I don't think they lost a vast number of ships, just that it didn't pay off. Now imagine spending trillions of dollars per ship, loading it up, only to have them fail time and time again due to whatever... Yeah, might as well start in on a dyson sphere instead and see what you can manage from there...
Yeah, the numbers may not take into account the failure rate of each mission. Maybe some civilizations did try, but they lost so many ships and people that they finally said, "Sod it, this sucks!" Colonization of space can only be incredibly more dangerous than the efforts the Europeans had on their first steps to the America's. The Vikings pretty much said "Sod it." and I don't think they lost a vast number of ships, just that it didn't pay off. Now imagine spending trillions of dollars per ship, loading it up, only to have them fail time and time again due to whatever... Yeah, might as well start in on a dyson sphere instead and see what you can manage from there...
And even if they're successful, these long-term intergenerational migration ships would be one-way affairs.
They would be all cost and no return for the people staying on the home planet. So again, it could be economically unfeasible or such civilizations could simply lack the motivation to undertake the colonization of the galaxy.
That seems like you didn't read what you were responding to. Of couse the human race hasn't waited for tens of thousands of years during the half century we've had minimal space flight. ???
ETA: So at best it's premature to conclude the non-existence of ETIs based on the lack of evidence. Again, there are several plausible explanations for Fermi's Paradox, so no single one of them is proven.
Thanks, I saw that the first hundred times you posted it. But I've yet to see you (maybe I missed it) put some actually numbers on your explanations and come up with a plausible scenario that has us not alone in the galaxy.
Yeah, the numbers may not take into account the failure rate of each mission. Maybe some civilizations did try, but they lost so many ships and people that they finally said, "Sod it, this sucks!" Colonization of space can only be incredibly more dangerous than the efforts the Europeans had on their first steps to the America's. The Vikings pretty much said "Sod it." and I don't think they lost a vast number of ships, just that it didn't pay off. Now imagine spending trillions of dollars per ship, loading it up, only to have them fail time and time again due to whatever... Yeah, might as well start in on a dyson sphere instead and see what you can manage from there...
Very very ironic post you've constructed there. The Vikings failed with their ships but at the very time they were failing humans had already walked to the "new world". The highly ambitious direct from Earth to the next star system isn't the only model available.
And so what if colonizing the galaxy has to wait until we've built a Dyson sphere first? Even low rates of population growth could have the solar system populated with a hundred trillion people in only five centuries.
Very very ironic post you've constructed there. The Vikings failed with their ships but at the very time they were failing humans had already walked to the "new world". The highly ambitious direct from Earth to the next star system isn't the only model available.
Irrelevant. No one is going to walk to another planet.
And so what if colonizing the galaxy has to wait until we've built a Dyson sphere first? Even low rates of population growth could have the solar system populated with a hundred trillion people in only five centuries.
No one is denying that colonizing the galaxy isn't in the realm of the possible. The point is that it's not inevitable that is must have happened long before now if there are any ETIs. The fact that no one has colonized every cubic inch of the galaxy doesn't prove that no ETIs exist.
There are several other possible explanations for the lack of evidence of ETIS (that is, other explanations for Fermi's Paradox). Since there are more than one possible explanations for the lack of evidence, the lack of evidence doesn't prove any one possible explanation.
So, to the question of the existence of ETIs, the only answer we have is that we don't know.
That seems like you didn't read what you were responding to. Of couse the human race hasn't waited for tens of thousands of years during the half century we've had minimal space flight. ???
ETA: To review--I was pointing out that the fact the the technology exists for humans to have sent out interstellar crafts before now doesn't mean that we necessarily have done so. And in fact, we haven't. That supports the argument I've been making. The fact that a technology is possible or even available doesn't create the logical necessity that it must be used.
I suggest you read the entire thread then. The lack of evidence of ETIs has been offered as proof that we are alone. I've been pointing out that there may be civilizations just like our own in the galaxy and we wouldn't have any evidence of their existence.
Thanks, I saw that the first hundred times you posted it. But I've yet to see you (maybe I missed it) put some actually numbers on your explanations and come up with a plausible scenario that has us not alone in the galaxy.
I don't have to. My position is that we don't know. I'm not arguing that I have evidence of the existence of ETIs. I'm pointing out that the lack of evidence at this point doesn't prove their non-existence.
Every one of the alternative explanations I have given for Fermi's Paradox is plausible.
That may not be true. If at some time in the future someone colonizes an object that is on an interstellar trajectory anyway, and it is a a space based society that is colonizing off world objects anyway, there may be no incremental cost.
But even if that isn't true there is no reason why colonizing other solar systems has to cost the home world anything. The cost could be entirely born by the people who do it.
I'd already read the thread in it's entirety the first time you suggested that. I'm not really interested in addressing the rest of your post point by point because it's already been addressed and you don't seem interested in framing your argument in a way that would be persuasive to me.
For all we know humanity may decide that we're too big a harm to the rest of the galaxy, and be content with staying here and dying with our sun (hihgly unlikely given our evolutionary track record, but just saying that it's not an innevitability).
Humanity has never made a collective decision. Even if 99.9% of humanity decides this, if .1% of humanity goes off and colonizes the galaxy anyway it still gets done. So, yes it's highly unlikely. And to explain away the absence of ETIs we have to presume they all reach this decision and maintain it.
It would be a bass-ackward conclusion to reach too. How exactly could we harm inanimate asteroids?
Can anyone cite a lifeform that has refrained from moving in to an environment it can occupy? Some may have instinctive population control instincts that limit them when they fully occupy a niche, but I'm not familiar with any that refuse to move in to a new niche. We seem to be moving in to every niche we can. Some, such as Antartica or the Sea floor, are not exactly natural for us.
And again, while our type of chemistry (carbon based) may seem the most likely type, discovering life forms on a body like Europa would surely throw a lot of monkey wrenches into any speculation.
That may not be true. If at some time in the future someone colonizes an object that is on an interstellar trajectory anyway, and it is a a space based society that is colonizing off world objects anyway, there may be no incremental cost.
Who said anything about "incremental cost"? I'm saying since a one-way trip would be all cost to the home world (the first one), it could be that no civilization is ever motivated to do it.
But even if that isn't true there is no reason why colonizing other solar systems has to cost the home world anything. The cost could be entirely born by the people who do it.
Who are these people? They have no home world? If they leave forever, it is a net cost to the home world with no hope of a return in any reasonable time period (without assuming FTL travel or some such).
You could try reading for understanidng, I think the point I was making is clear.
Why the hostility?
I do understand. You were criticizing the analogy of the lack of motivation for the Vikings to continue sending trips to the New World. But walking to a new planet is obviously not analogous. If interstellar spacecraft prove to be too expensive for any civilization ever to pursue, there will be nothing analogous to walking there.
I'd already read the thread in it's [sic] entirety the first time you suggested that. I'm not really interested in addressing the rest of your post point by point because it's already been addressed and you don't seem interested in framing your argument in a way that would be persuasive to me.
No--I'm interested in framing my argument in a logical manner. Apparently logical arguments aren't "persuasive" to you. (I think you mean "convincing" rather than persuasive.)
Look the only thing I've been doing with the numbered points is showing that there are several possible explanations for the lack of evidence of ETIs (or Fermi's Paradox). Therefore, the lack of evidence doesn't prove any one of them is correct.
This was to refute amb's argument that the lack of evidence proves that we are unique and alone in the galaxy--that ETIs do not exist.
My position on the question of the existence of ETIs is that we don't know. The only way to refute that position is to bring evidence or logical argument that we do in fact know.
I think you are mistaken. I think maybe you mean humanity has never made a world-wide unanimous decision, but every large project has been a collective project.
Even if 99.9% of humanity decides this, if .1% of humanity goes off and colonizes the galaxy anyway it still gets done. So, yes it's highly unlikely. And to explain away the absence of ETIs we have to presume they all reach this decision and maintain it.
This is logically wrong. No one is "explaining away" the absence of evidence of ETIs. We're merely pointing out that since there are several possible explanations for the absence of evidence, the absence of evidence is not proof of the non-existence of ETIs. To argue that the absence of evidence is conclusive requires you to assume that a number of things must have inevitably happened long ago such that evidence of ETIs must necessarily be ubiquitous in the galaxy.
Those assumptions are unfounded. We simply don't know.
Can anyone cite a lifeform that has refrained from moving in to an environment it can occupy?
Some may have instinctive population control instincts that limit them when they fully occupy a niche, but I'm not familiar with any that refuse to move in to a new niche. We seem to be moving in to every niche we can. Some, such as Antartica or the Sea floor, are not exactly natural for us.
No one said there has to be any "refusal" to move to a new environment (a niche is an ecological role, that's not what you mean surely).
Have humans refused to colonize the galaxy?
I know, you'll reply that we haven't had time to, but what if no other civilization has had time to? No more and no less time has elapsed here than any other place in the galaxy.
And I'm saying that there are colonization models that require no incremental cost. Some colonization models happen as a side effect of simply moving around.
Who are these people? They have no home world? If they leave forever, it is a net cost to the home world with no hope of a return in any reasonable time period (without assuming FTL travel or some such).
They could be living in their homeworld as they make the migration. In many scenarios the cost, assuming there is one, could be born by the people making the journey.
I do understand. You were criticizing the analogy of the lack of motivation for the Vikings to continue sending trips to the New World. But walking to a new planet is obviously not analogous. If interstellar spacecraft prove to be too expensive for any civilization ever to pursue, there will be nothing analogous to walking there.
No--I'm interested in framing my argument in a logical manner. Apparently logical arguments aren't "persuasive" to you. (I think you mean "convincing" rather than persuasive.)
I think you are mistaken. I think maybe you mean humanity has never made a world-wide unanimous decision, but every large project has been a collective project.
This is why I'm annoyed. It's perfectly obvious that I meant a unanimous decision from the context immediately surrounding that sentence. Read the very next sentence to see that my point is that if even a small portion of the human race ignores the decision not to explore the galaxy then it doesn't matter what the rest of the race decided.
Niche can be used casually to mean either, but since we'll make it an ecological niche for ourselves and any other lifeforms we take as we go there it hardly makes a difference.
Yet. We shouldn't be expected to colonise the galaxy seeing that the first rocket wasn't invented until very recently by Werner Von Braurn. [spel] Since then we have landed a man on the moon. Imagine what the next couple of centuries will bring travel wise.
Yet. We shouldn't be expected to colonise the galaxy seeing that the first rocket wasn't invented until very recently by Werner Von Braurn. [spel] Since then we have landed a man on the moon. Imagine what the next couple of centuries will bring travel wise.
Good point about our near future. There is no hint of us collectively deciding not to expand in to space now. There are now more countries sponsoring space programs. Private corporations are making plans. Private citizens have bought their way in to space. There are even private individuals sponsoring their own pet space projects.
And you were replying to my statement that there is no such thing as a free spacecraft.
And I'm saying that there are colonization models that require no incremental cost. Some colonization models happen as a side effect of simply moving around.
Again, there is no model where an interstellar spacecraft is free. My point is that this cost could make the launch of such craft not feasible. This is a plausible possible explanation for Fermi's Paradox. Therefore Fermi's Paradox does not point to the conclusion that there are no ETIs.
They could be living in their homeworld as they make the migration. In many scenarios the cost, assuming there is one, could be born by the people making the journey.
This sort of thing doesn't advance the conversation at all. I've made a clear argument that refutes the argument that the lack of evidence of ETIs proves that ETIs don't exist.
This is why I'm annoyed. It's perfectly obvious that I meant a unanimous decision from the context immediately surrounding that sentence. Read the very next sentence to see that my point is that if even a small portion of the human race ignores the decision not to explore the galaxy then it doesn't matter what the rest of the race decided.
Yes, and I indicated that I understood your intent, even though what you said wasn't that. (You said humans have never made a collective decision, which isn't true. And, in the context, that's really what we're talking about. A large investment would require a collective decision, but not necessarily a unanimous one.)
With amb, I have learned that he sometimes wants me to take very strange statements at face value, and other times not. So I was doing the only reasonable thing and checking that I was understand you correctly.
Niche can be used casually to mean either, but since we'll make it an ecological niche for ourselves and any other lifeforms we take as we go there it hardly makes a difference.
By "casually" you mean "incorrectly"? You're talking about a change in location not niche. The niche we occupy on any other planet would likely be very similar to the one we occupy here.
By "casually" you mean "incorrectly"? You're talking about a change in location not niche. The niche we occupy on any other planet would likely be very similar to the one we occupy here.
Sheez. Every dictionary I've consulted says that a niche can be a position or place. So location would be covered. Also, the definitions involving "market niche" and "ecological niche" would be appropriate since we are talking about a future where space has been developed.
I don't think any of your other points need to be addressed for a fiftieth time.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
