have they found anything?

[RecoveringYuppy]

Joe, video doesn't work.

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.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

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...

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

And yet, we haven't even come near attempting any sort of interstellar travel--even unmanned.

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.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

They would be all cost and no return for the people staying on the home planet.

They wouldn't necessarily cost the home planet anything at all.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

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.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

They wouldn't necessarily cost the home planet anything at all.

There's no such thing as a free lunch spacecraft.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

There's no such thing as a free lunch spacecraft.

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.

Irrelevant. No one is going to walk to another planet.

You could try reading for understanidng, I think the point I was making is clear.

I suggest you read the entire thread then.

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.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

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.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

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.

Europan life wouldn't necessarily have to have a different chemistry. All the same elements are available there.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Humanity has never made a collective decision.

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?

Yes. Humans have not colonized the galaxy.

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.

You're simply ignoring the points I've raised.

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.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Who said anything about "incremental cost"?

??? I did. You're quoting me.

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.

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.

Why the hostility?

It's annoyance that this could be an interesting conversation but you seem to be flooding it. And intentionally not understanding.

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.

There is no if about it. He cited a way that is more expensive than other scenarios.

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.)

Whatever. It's not like my life hinges on this interesting conversation in a way that really makes a difference between those words.

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.

Yes. Humans have not colonized the galaxy.

That doesn't refute my point. We have gone there and stayed there haven't we? We haven't refused to occupy that niche.

You're simply ignoring the points I've raised.

No, I've read them. I don't find them convincing and I don't see you wanting to make them convincing to me.

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).

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.

 

[amb]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler View Post
Yes. Humans have not colonized the galaxy

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.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

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.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

??? I did. You're quoting me.

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.

Exactly, and it might be that that cost is prohibitive.

It's annoyance that this could be an interesting conversation but you seem to be flooding it. And intentionally not understanding.

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.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

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.