JoeTheJuggler
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2006
- Messages
- 27,766
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.
Yes, I can imagine such things. However, you can't make a logical argument based on the assumption that you know what will inevitably happen, because you don't know they will happen.
Again, the argument that Fermi's Paradox proves we are alone is logically flawed because it makes assumptions like this.
We may never achieve interstellar travel at all. We may go extinct or our civilization collapse before that is possible. Or we may continue on but find that interstellar travel never becomes economically feasible. Or it could be feasible, for whatever reason we may not be motivated to do it. (These are all points I've made before, which is why your post about how recently we started experimenting with rockets--it's Werner Von Braun--does nothing to bolster your argument. It still relies on assumptions we don't know to be true.)
ETA: Please note: I recognize and accept that it is also possible that it could be economically feasible to colonize the galaxy or otherwise make evidence of a civilization's existence ubiquitous in the galaxy. I'm not contesting that point. I'm pointing out, simply, that there are other plausible explanations for Fermi's Paradox other than that ETIs do not exist.
This is all backwards. It's as if you assume if we don't make some sort of decision not to, we will naturally or automatically inevitably colonize the galaxy without making a decision to do so.There is no hint of us collectively deciding not to expand in to space now.
We don't know that we, or any possible ETI civilization, must inevitably achieve interstellar travel and make evidence of our existence ubiquitous in the galaxy. The argument that says the only explanation for Fermi's Paradox is that ETIs do not exist rests on that assumption, which is why it is logically flawed.
_______
Recovering Yuppy, I suggest you take a deep breath and calm down.
You have accused me of sidestepping a question I clearly answered. You have accused me of not understanding your posts, when in fact I have understood clearly, despite your sloppy use of language.
You've accused me of "flooding" the thread and refusing to understand your arguments. In fact, I understand the argument that the lack of evidence proves the non-existence of ETIs. I've just been pointing out that it's logically flawed. It depends on several assumptions that we don't know to be true.
I'm not arguing that I know ETIs exist or that I know we are not unique in the galaxy. My position is and has been that we don't know the answer to these questions. I'm in favor of continuing to explore the universe and in particular to gather information that might help us answer these questions. (For example, the Kepler mission is very exciting.)
Last edited: