.. Either global warming or peak oil will lead to an urgent transformation
of civilization as we know it, or our failure to transform quickly enough
might well lead to the end of civilization as we know it. And if indeed
cheap oil is a prerequisite to the first flowering of technological
civilization, might a Roman-Empire-style collapse due to some future
disaster make it difficult to rebuild to spaceflight-capable levels due to
lack of said resource the next time around? Many of the large scale energy
technologies that we imagine replacing oil are energy intensive to build.
They are, in a sense, themselves dependent on oil......

http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2008/05/fermi-paradox-and-end-of.html

Interesting

Selvaraj

In other words, we haven't encountered alien space-faring civilizations
because all such alien races that developed the technological capacity for
space-flight smacked head on into peak oil and then reverted back to
barbarism, or some other form of pre-Industrial Revolution social
arrangement.

OK, first off, yes, there ARE UFO's. There may not be alien
spaceships, but UFO simply means Unidentified Flying Object, and so
any time somebody sees something in the sky and doesn't know what it
is, that's a UFO. Whether it's swamp gas, an experimental military
aircraft, or the Eridanian mothership is another question.

OK, now that I've got that off my chest...
I've wondered if maybe the aliens are all on their home planets,
wishing they'd built powersats before their oil and coal ran out.
Maybe they didn't have a big, nearby moon to pull them into developing
their capabilities early. Or maybe they did, but didn't have a Cold
War to speed technological development.

Or maybe no civilization manages to save itself, and neither will we.

On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 3:09 AM, sailor.barsoom wrote:
(...)
> Maybe they didn't have a big, nearby moon to pull them into developing
> their capabilities early. Or maybe they did, but didn't have a Cold
> War to speed technological development.
>
> Or maybe no civilization manages to save itself, and neither will we.
(...)

Or maybe we simply don't have enough data to solve the Fermi paradox
and that's why every new candidate hypothesis sounds embarrassingly
unconvincing. Including this new Olduvai-style one about the "end of
industrial civilization".

It is interesting how the fears of each era shape those Fermi
hypothesis. During the cold war, when some major countries had a risk
of being utterly annihilated by nukes, it was fashionable to think
that the answer to Fermi's question was that all civilizations killed
themselves by nuclear war. (Which, by the way, seems a rather unlikely
outcome of a nuclear war, even considering nuclear winter.) Now that
some major nations that remained too dependent on oil are seeing the
Hubert Peak and its accompanying economy collapse coming, it is only
natural to me that I'll hear some people saying "see, that's what
happened to all those poor aliens, they also ran out of oil!".

Bah. Wake me up in the post-oil world running on nuclear and
renewables. I am curious about what Fermi paranoia will become
fashionable then.

The aliens don't care about planets, and that's why they don't come
here. They're buzzing around the Kuiper belt.

They have a Star Trekian sort of Prime Directive about not interfering
with primitive cultures like ours.

Or perhaps there just aren't any. They didn't destroy themselves
because they never existed. Oh, sure, there's plenty of LIFE out
there, but it never got further than bacteria. It's pretty amazing
that it ever did here. I quote Den Valdron:

|||||It gets better though. The fact that Mitochondria have their
own DNA tells us that once upon a time, they must have been separate
free-living organisms. Just another species of unicellular critter or
bacteria cruising around the oceans, having a good time.

So what happened?

Well, apparently this free-living, happy-go-lucky, wild and crazy
Mitochondria got absorbed or eaten by another, bigger cell somehow.
And, miraculously, instead of being digested or dissolved or whatever
it is that they do to each other, the Mitochondria somehow survived.
Instead of being broken up into component nutrients, it retained its
identity, and DNA and adapted to become a power plant, supplying
energy to the rest of the cell.

In fact, it's the energy produced by the Mitochondria that gives cells
the power and metabolic rate that allows them to clump together into
larger and more complex organisms, to create complex multi-cellular life.

All animal life on earth, from microscopic flatworms to hundred ton
blue whales exist only because a billion years ago, somehow, a free
living proto-mitochondria managed to strike a deal with the primordial
amoeba that had just eaten it.

One consequence of this may be that we're living in a very empty
universe. The mitochondrial deal might have been a miracle, a once
in a trillion year fluke. We don't know how feasible it was, how
likely it is. We might find world after world of life, but nothing
more complicated than algae and slime molds, because that
mitochondrial deal only happened just the once, a billion years ago,
with us.

Isn't that bizarre. Like I said, I know bad, implausible science
fiction when I see it. Compared to whoppers like the mitochondria
deal, an egg-symbionte hijacking a mammal reproductive process is
actually pretty tame.|||||

On May 11, 2008, at 4:27 PM, Lucio de Souza Coelho wrote:

> Or maybe we simply don't have enough data to solve the Fermi paradox
> and that's why every new candidate hypothesis sounds embarrassingly
> unconvincing.
>

Obviously we don't have enough data, but that doesn't limit our
ability to generate hypotheses -- only our ability to test them.

If you find none of the hypotheses convincing, what's YOUR suggestion
then?

> It is interesting how the fears of each era shape those Fermi
> hypothesis.
>

Only in the details. All the possibilities you mention fall into the
general hypothesis of "every technological civilization kills
itself." (I agree with you that the details you mention seem far-
fetched, only because they're not reliable enough; the most likely
variant of this hypothesis is that some technology we haven't yet
discovered inevitably leads to destruction of the planet or solar
system.)

> Bah. Wake me up in the post-oil world running on nuclear and
> renewables. I am curious about what Fermi paranoia will become
> fashionable then.
>

I find your attitude unhelpful. The Fermi paradox is very real, and
very important. I'd place it among the top 5 most deep and important
mysteries of our age.

Best,
- Joe

It does seem that the Fermi Paradox has only two possibilities:

1) We don't see aliens because they are hiding.
2) We don't see aliens because there aren't any.

Number 2 of course divides into three more:

2a) There aren't any because they never evolved in the first place.

2b) They evolved, but destroyed themselves before they could meet us.

2c) They're are out there all right, and they haven't destroyed
themselves, but they never advanced technologically to the point of
space travel/radio astronomy. There's no reason any society HAS TO
get past the paleolithic, much less the industrial.

There could be others, I suppose, but they are probably combinations
and slight variations on the above.

On May 12, 2008, at 3:29 PM, sailor.barsoom wrote:
> It does seem that the Fermi Paradox has only two possibilities:
>
> 1) We don't see aliens because they are hiding.
> 2) We don't see aliens because there aren't any.
>

Right. SETI proponents claim (3) we just haven't looked hard enough,
but I don't buy that. A spacefaring civilization could settle the
whole galaxy within a couple hundred million years. That's peanuts
compared to the timescale of evolution. So if they're out there, they
settled the galaxy long ago, and would know darn well that we're here.

> Number 2 of course divides into three more:
>
> 2a) There aren't any because they never evolved in the first place.
>
> 2b) They evolved, but destroyed themselves before they could meet us.
>
> 2c) They're are out there all right, and they haven't destroyed
> themselves, but they never advanced technologically to the point of
> space travel/radio astronomy. There's no reason any society HAS TO
> get past the paleolithic, much less the industrial.
>

That about covers it. These are all variations on the same idea
though, which is that a civilization has to pass successfully through
a number of probability filters in order to develop to the point where
space travel (and communication) becomes possible. Some of those may
be in our past, like the initial formation of living cells (your 2a),
and some may be in our future, such as survival of the discovery of
that seductive but planet-smashing technology we don't realize we're
pursuing (formation of mini-black holes or whatever).

There was a really good essay on this in the latest Technology Review,
where the point was made that the more complex life we discover out
there (whether on Mars, Europa, etc.), the more depressed we should
be, because that implies that the Great Filter that destroys all
species before they colonize the galaxy is in our future, rather than
in our past. If it's in our past, no worries, we got lucky or we
wouldn't be having this conversation. But if it's in our future,
there is no reason to suppose we'll be any luckier than anyone else.

So here's fingers crossed that Earth life remains the only life we
ever discover! :)

Best,
- Joe

--- In spacesettlers, Joe Strout wrote:

> sailor.barsoom wrote:

>> It does seem that the Fermi Paradox has only two possibilities:
>>
>> 1) We don't see aliens because they are hiding.
>> 2) We don't see aliens because there aren't any.

> Right. SETI proponents claim (3) we just haven't looked hard
> enough, but I don't buy that. A spacefaring civilization could
> settle the whole galaxy within a couple hundred million years.
> That's peanuts compared to the timescale of evolution. So if
> they're out there, they settled the galaxy long ago, and would know
> darn well that we're here.

Yeah. Maybe I should have listed 3). But I tend to agree with you: a
galactic civilization should be pretty obvious. In fact, I'd go so
far as to say the 3) is actually a subset of 1), as in: if there is a
galactic civilization out there and we have to look that hard to find
it, they're hiding.

>> Number 2 of course divides into three more:
>>
>> 2a) There aren't any because they never evolved in the first place.
>>
>> 2b) They evolved, but destroyed themselves before they could meet
>> us.
>>
>> 2c) They're are out there all right, and they haven't destroyed
>> themselves, but they never advanced technologically to the point of
>> space travel/radio astronomy. There's no reason any society HAS TO
>> get past the paleolithic, much less the industrial.

> That about covers it. These are all variations on the same idea
> though, which is that a civilization has to pass successfully
> through a number of probability filters in order to develop to the
> point where space travel (and communication) becomes possible. Some
> of those may be in our past, like the initial formation of living
> cells (your 2a), and some may be in our future, such as survival of
> the discovery of that seductive but planet-smashing technology we
> don't realize we're pursuing (formation of mini-black holes or
> whatever).

This whole thing suggests that whoever makes it first has most or all
of the galaxy to itself before anybody else comes along. Perhaps what
is "inevitable" is that some civilization gets there first and then
ruthlessly stomps on anybody else who becomes capable enough to make
them nervous (but before that anybody else becomes capable enough to
give them a fight). Of course, a civilization like that might well be
expected to hide...

> There was a really good essay on this in the latest Technology
> Review, where the point was made that the more complex life we
> discover out there (whether on Mars, Europa, etc.), the more
> depressed we should be, because that implies that the Great Filter
> that destroys all species before they colonize the galaxy is in our
> future, rather than in our past. If it's in our past, no worries,
> we got lucky or we wouldn't be having this conversation. But if
> it's in our future, there is no reason to suppose we'll be any
> luckier than anyone else.

An interesting idea. Not sure I buy it, but right now I can't think
of any real argument against it.

> So here's fingers crossed that Earth life remains the only life we
> ever discover! :)

Which is depressing in its own way.

It seems possible that the great filter is mostly a matter of time and
distance. A spacefaring civilization has no particular claim on
lasting a million years, let alone a hundred million. There's time for
species to have evolved, but there's also time for species to have
evolved into dead ends where they were too specialized to meet the next
hurdle.

Maybe the great filter is a dilemma. Species that maintain mixing
across their entire range evolve as one species, and come to a dead end
one way or another; species that don't maintain mixing across their
entire range don't spread enough across the lightyears to keep up with
the extinction of local populations every few thousand years.

Or maybe different species evolve, make contact, and annihilate each
other after periods of peaceful coexistence averaging only 10,000 years.

From: Dan Wylie-Sears

> A spacefaring civilization has no particular claim on
> lasting a million years, let alone a hundred million.

I'd have to disagree. I think one of the things which inevitably falls
out of the assumption of a spacefaring civilization is that it has
become an immortal civilization. As soon as we get to the High Frontier
stage, no conceivable disaster short of a supernova could wipe out the
human race. As soon as we establish orbital habitats around another
star, not even a supernova could do it.

> There's time for
> species to have evolved, but there's also time for species to have
> evolved into dead ends where they were too specialized to meet the
next
> hurdle.

I think with spacefaring comes incredible diversification, and with that
the odds become staggeringly small that all evolutionary lines would
come to the same end.

> species that don't maintain mixing across their
> entire range don't spread enough across the lightyears to keep up with

> the extinction of local populations every few thousand years.

I don't quite get why you assume this. I would expect that the species
which don't maintain mixing across their range would be the ones with
far-flung colonies.

> Or maybe different species evolve, make contact, and annihilate each
> other after periods of peaceful coexistence averaging only 10,000
years.

I think the only way to assume that they annihilate each other is to
assume they are at roughly comparable stages of technological
advancement. The odds are vastly against this. It's far more likely
that one of the civilizations would be in excess of a million years more
advanced than the other. That would not be a mutually-annihilating war,
that would be an extermination.

Regards,

Mike Combs

On May 13, 2008, at 12:39 AM, Dan Wylie-Sears wrote:
> It seems possible that the great filter is mostly a matter of time and
> distance. A spacefaring civilization has no particular claim on
> lasting a million years, let alone a hundred million. There's time for
> species to have evolved, but there's also time for species to have
> evolved into dead ends where they were too specialized to meet the
> next
> hurdle.
>

Like what? Once you have a spacefaring civilization at all, it's
going to have tremendous diversity. What would cause all those
diverse people to universally stagnate?

Their universal destruction (for example, by destroying the entire
region of space that contains them) seems much more plausible to me.

> Maybe the great filter is a dilemma. Species that maintain mixing
> across their entire range evolve as one species, and come to a dead
> end
> one way or another; species that don't maintain mixing across their
> entire range don't spread enough across the lightyears to keep up with
> the extinction of local populations every few thousand years.
>

That doesn't make any sense either. "Species" in the biological sense
is probably not a useful concept for a technological society, but
quite regardless of whether you call them one species or thousands,
there will always be some more advanced and adventurous than others.
Those continue to expand; the stay-at-homes stagnate; but on the
whole, the spread across the stars would be continuous.

> Or maybe different species evolve, make contact, and annihilate each
> other after periods of peaceful coexistence averaging only 10,000
> years.
>

Annihilate each other? It's hard to see how this could happen unless
(A) both civilizations happen to evolve at exactly the same time (on a
geologic time scale), or (B) there is some plateau of possible
technology that is reached before contact is made. Otherwise, it's
very hard to explain how the second civilization could destroy one
that's millions of years older.

But, maybe. That would be an example of the Great Filter being in our
future. (Though I still think something that affects each
civilization individually, such as the discovery of some particularly
dangerous technology, is far more plausible.)

Best,
- Joe

From: Joe Strout

> Otherwise, it's
> very hard to explain how the second civilization could destroy one
> that's millions of years older.
>
> But, maybe. That would be an example of the Great Filter being in our
> future.

And you know, I don't really lose a lot of sleep worrying about those
big ID4 ships appearing over our major cities. And here's why:

The common argument for why any hostile race hasn't already wiped us out
is that maybe nobody knows we're here yet. It's pointed out that our
radio signals have only had time to penetrate a bit over 100 light-years
out into space. But I don't think the logic holds up, because I think
if any technological race is capable of interstellar travel, it would be
silly to argue that they were incapable of engineering a machine which
could make a copy of itself. Once we accept the possibility of
replicators (not necessarily the nanotech type), I think it becomes
plausible that any technological species could have a probe in orbit
around every star in the Milky Way, even the ones that aren't
particularly interesting at the moment.

While we're thinking about the dangers from potentially-hostile races,
it could be pointed out that such a replicating network of probes could
set up a kind of interstellar Internet which would leave the solar
system of origination unrevealed. But nonetheless, the home system
could be getting detailed information from every other system in the
galaxy at the speed of light.

>From the time that Cro-Magnons first started banging rocks together, the
handwriting was on the wall that a technological species was getting its
start here in this solar system. Thus we can take comfort from the fact
that we are even here to be having this conversation. Either there's
something wrong with the concept of a hostile race, or there are no
other races at all. And ours will be the first to fill the Milky Way
with replicating space probes.

Regards,

Mike Combs

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Combs, Mike"
> From: Dan Wylie-Sears
> > A spacefaring civilization has no particular claim on
> > lasting a million years, let alone a hundred million.
>
> I'd have to disagree. I think one of the things which inevitably
> falls out of the assumption of a spacefaring civilization is that
> it has become an immortal civilization. As soon as we get to the
> High Frontier stage, no conceivable disaster short of a supernova
> could wipe out the human race. As soon as we establish orbital
> habitats around another star, not even a supernova could do it.
>

How about whatever weapons they invent, as far beyond our schemes as
nuclear-armed ICBMs are beyond the schemes of Julius Caesar?

How about division of the species into breeders and
protectors/engineers, followed by re-merger into a unified species
incapable of replacing the grand infrastructure their great-to-the-
fifth grandparents built to last for seven generations?

How about depletion of whatever resources it depends on? Let's
assume they overcome the need for any resource but space, actual
cubic meters of somewhere to be, and are limited to travel at the
speed of light. With exponential growth at typical rates for
existing human populations, fixed body size, and a density of 1 g/cc,
the total mass of all members of the species will soon exceed the
volume of a sphere expanding at the speed of light. Malthus picked
linear growth of carrying capacity out of his @#$^, for exponential
growth to exceed. But Einstein gave us a possibly real constraint
that grows at cubic rate, which exponential growth overwhelms almost
as quickly.

> I think with spacefaring comes incredible diversification, and with
> that the odds become staggeringly small that all evolutionary lines
> would come to the same end.

Why would there be such diversification as to make it a matter of
never in forever? Why would there be any at all?

> I don't quite get why you assume this. I would expect that the
> species which don't maintain mixing across their range would be the
> ones with far-flung colonies.
>

Far-flung relative to their travel capabilities, yes. Suppose each
colony can run itself to collapse with a half-life of 10,000 years
(not that a lot of human civilizations have lasted that long), and
they have room for a thousand in the area they reach. In just
100,000 years the half-life gets them down to less than one. A more
realistic model would be a wavefront expanding through a galaxy or
cluster of galaxies, with the number of occupied star systems doing a
random walk as the region of colonization expands and the colonies
die out.

> > Or maybe different species evolve, make contact, and annihilate
each
> > other after periods of peaceful coexistence averaging only 10,000
> years.
>
> I think the only way to assume that they annihilate each other is to
> assume they are at roughly comparable stages of technological
> advancement. The odds are vastly against this. It's far more
> likely that one of the civilizations would be in excess of a
> million years more advanced than the other. That would not be a
> mutually-annihilating war, that would be an extermination.

When no new species has been a serious threat for a million years,
are they going to keep on slaughtering every new one before it gets a
peek at their technology? That kind of absolute cultural rigidity
doesn't bode well for their ability to handle changing circumstances.

It's easy to keep spinning scenarios, and impossible to test most of
them. Most will seem fairly unlikely on further consideration, but
only most and fairly, and in the end you haven't gotten much of
anywhere.

From: Dan Wylie-Sears

> How about whatever weapons they invent, as far beyond our schemes as
> nuclear-armed ICBMs are beyond the schemes of Julius Caesar?

Weapons that might devastate every single object in an entire solar
system? Maybe. But I think any technological advances that would
enable the creation of such weapons would also make it easier to
establish far-flung colonies.

> How about division of the species into breeders and
> protectors/engineers, followed by re-merger into a unified species
> incapable of replacing the grand infrastructure their great-to-the-
> fifth grandparents built to last for seven generations?

Yes, but see what kind of elaborate scenario you had to devise? You
have to explain why ALL species would INEVITABLY head off down this same
road (or a similar road with the same end result) WITHOUT EXCEPTION.

> How about depletion of whatever resources it depends on? Let's
> assume they overcome the need for any resource but space, actual
> cubic meters of somewhere to be, and are limited to travel at the
> speed of light.

So you're saying that an exponentially-reproducing mass of human flesh
expanding outward at the speed of light might then turn around and
become utterly extinct? I have a hard time seeing it. Resources can be
recycled such that I don't think mass extinction could possibly be the
end result.

> Why would there be such diversification as to make it a matter of
> never in forever? Why would there be any at all?

Can't quite parse this. Could you expand on this point a bit?

> Suppose each
> colony can run itself to collapse with a half-life of 10,000 years
> (not that a lot of human civilizations have lasted that long),

Yes, that supposition is exactly where we differ. It seems you assume
that societal collapse is inevitable and the only variable we might
discuss is the timing. You probably feel justified in assuming that all
societies are mortal given history here on Earth. But I think a
breakout into space might result in something new: an immortal society.

(I don't mean immortal in the sense of unchanging, only in the sense of
never reaching a point where they fail to leave any descendants.)

> When no new species has been a serious threat for a million years,
> are they going to keep on slaughtering every new one before it gets a
> peek at their technology?

I certainly don't assume that. I merely assume that a race which pops
up later will, by definition, be younger. And I have a hard time seeing
a younger race wiping out an older one which is armed with a technology
a million years in advance of theirs.

> It's easy to keep spinning scenarios, and impossible to test most of
> them. Most will seem fairly unlikely on further consideration, but
> only most and fairly, and in the end you haven't gotten much of
> anywhere.

Perhaps true. I still feel justified in holding to 2 conclusions. One:
I still believe that a society capable of interstellar colonization
becomes unkillable. Two: It's difficult to come up with a no-growth
scenario so all-encompassing that nobody would ever avail themselves of
the opportunity to colonize the entire galaxy.

Regards,

Mike Combs

> Weapons that might devastate every single object in an entire solar
> system?

They don't have to devastate every object. They just have to make
the civilization collapse. There are endless possibilities. Maybe
some species have a vulnerability such that there's a weapon that
just makes everyone of that species really stupid, system-wide at the
push of a button. Maybe for some species at some points in their
technological development the basic weapon is just a plain old rock
going the opposite direction in the same orbit, but an elaborate
series of countermeasures and counter-countermeasures and so on make
it optimal to put all your eggs in one basket that's 99.99% safe in
any given year -- and species that follow that trajectory tend to be
stable for 10,000 years. Maybe some civilizations develop really
efficient missiles that can track down any habitat big enough for a
viable population, and set them off in varying numbers in different
conflicts until one time in 100,000 there's a conflict big enough to
have no one left. Maybe some species at some times like living in
really big structures, expansions of the generation ship that arrived
there, with everyone living together and robots gathering resources
everywhere else in the system, and there's a nuclear option that
destroys the whole structure. You can keep on spinning these
scenarios for a long time, and truth is almost certain to include
many possibilities that are stranger than fiction.

With millions of possible doomsday scenarios, and millions of years
for them to happen in, the odds of one of them happening approach one
even if each scenario is very unlikely in any one year.

that eventually rupture due to unobtainium fatigue with a half-life
of 500,000 years.

> You have to explain why ALL species would INEVITABLY head off down
> this same

Not the same one. That's the whole point. With millions of possible
doomsday scenarios, and millions of years for them to happen in, the
odds of one of them happening approach one even if each scenario is
very unlikely in any one year.

> Yes, that supposition is exactly where we differ. It seems you
> assume that societal collapse is inevitable and the only variable
> we might discuss is the timing.

I *assume* that societal collase is possible, not that it's
inevitable. Or more precisely, that its probability per year is non-
zero, and that the probabilities for years far apart are nearly
indpendent. Then I *conclude* that given infinite time its
probability approaches one -- still not inevitable in any finite
period. Finally I *propose* that the Great Filter may simply be that
millions of years is enough time for the actual probabilities to be
pretty big for whoever has been out there.

> Resources can be recycled such that I don't think mass extinction
> could possibly be the end result.

Recycling one resource consumes others, inevitably including energy.
If their energy source is total conversion, exponential growth will
soon demand enough energy to convert the entire mass within the light
cone to blackbody radiation. Zero local population growth would be a
solution, except that as soon as someone cheats they win in the
medium term.

> I certainly don't assume that. I merely assume that a race which
> pops up later will, by definition, be younger. And I have a hard
> time seeing a younger race wiping out an older one which is armed
> with a technology a million years in advance of theirs.

Not only is such leapfrogging possible, it's the norm on the shorter
timescales that we can actually observe. If a technology is fifty
years old in the country that developed it, the country that learns
it will be making improvements in five or ten years. If a culture is
in a million-year stasis wrt a particular technology, by definition
it's not particularly innovative wrt it. A thousand years is plenty
of time for a species to adopt and adapt the technology they learned
from another.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Combs, Mike"
>
> From: Dan Wylie-Sears
>
> > How about whatever weapons they invent, as far beyond our schemes
as
> > nuclear-armed ICBMs are beyond the schemes of Julius Caesar?
>
> Weapons that might devastate every single object in an entire solar
> system? Maybe. But I think any technological advances that would
> enable the creation of such weapons would also make it easier to
> establish far-flung colonies.
>
> > How about division of the species into breeders and
> > protectors/engineers, followed by re-merger into a unified
species
> > incapable of replacing the grand infrastructure their great-to-
the-
> > fifth grandparents built to last for seven generations?
>
> Yes, but see what kind of elaborate scenario you had to devise? You
> have to explain why ALL species would INEVITABLY head off down this
same
> road (or a similar road with the same end result) WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
>
> > How about depletion of whatever resources it depends on? Let's
> > assume they overcome the need for any resource but space, actual
> > cubic meters of somewhere to be, and are limited to travel at the
> > speed of light.
>
> So you're saying that an exponentially-reproducing mass of human
flesh
> expanding outward at the speed of light might then turn around and
> become utterly extinct? I have a hard time seeing it. Resources
can be
> recycled such that I don't think mass extinction could possibly be
the
> end result.
>
> > Why would there be such diversification as to make it a matter of
> > never in forever? Why would there be any at all?
>
> Can't quite parse this. Could you expand on this point a bit?
>
> > Suppose each
> > colony can run itself to collapse with a half-life of 10,000
years
> > (not that a lot of human civilizations have lasted that long),
>
> Yes, that supposition is exactly where we differ. It seems you
assume
> that societal collapse is inevitable and the only variable we might
> discuss is the timing. You probably feel justified in assuming
that all
> societies are mortal given history here on Earth. But I think a
> breakout into space might result in something new: an immortal
society.
>
> (I don't mean immortal in the sense of unchanging, only in the
sense of
> never reaching a point where they fail to leave any descendants.)
>
> > When no new species has been a serious threat for a million
years,
> > are they going to keep on slaughtering every new one before it
gets a
> > peek at their technology?
>
> I certainly don't assume that. I merely assume that a race which
pops
> up later will, by definition, be younger. And I have a hard time
seeing
> a younger race wiping out an older one which is armed with a
technology
> a million years in advance of theirs.
>
> > It's easy to keep spinning scenarios, and impossible to test most
of
> > them. Most will seem fairly unlikely on further consideration,
but
> > only most and fairly, and in the end you haven't gotten much of
> > anywhere.
>
> Perhaps true. I still feel justified in holding to 2 conclusions.
One:
> I still believe that a society capable of interstellar colonization
> becomes unkillable. Two: It's difficult to come up with a no-growth
> scenario so all-encompassing that nobody would ever avail
themselves of

No UFOs?

Of course there are UFO's-there are like a gazzillion reports of them etc etc all over the world and then there are reports of supernatural beings that can fly all through ancient mythology. Hauling mass around the universe is most probobly not needed-matter is all over the place so starfaring ships made of matter would probobly be a non starter. Energy, organized in some fashion, and very small amounts of matter configured as probes and operated by polarized gasses (certain elements when charged are able to maintain polarity switches over vast distances instaneously no one iknows why but with a quantum computer made of such material one could operate a vehicle at any distance in the universe without time lag). nano technology could be banged through a wormhole faster than light without needing infinite energy, and once across the nanotechnology could create and configure systems that could be operated from home. No time lag with the quantum computers either. Instead of looking for big old flying saucers, one make take a closer look at the fly or spider on your wall.

The might be from Antares!

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.comFrom: dsw_s@...: Sat, 17 May 2008 02:18:13 +0000Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: : Why there are no UFOs

To all,
It amazes me that there are a lot of people who think that mankind
(or any other "advanced civilization") is doomed to extinction after
about 10,000 years. The Dinosaurs managed to survive for well over 100
million years until a rather large rock fell on their heads.
I think most scientists agree that we're smarter that the Dinosaurs
and most of the people responding to this thread seem to think that
ET's are smarter than us. I believe we (and the ET's) deserve a little
more credit than the doom-sayers are willing to give us.

P.S. Inter-stellar distances are just too great for a whole
lot of cruising around the galaxy to be taking place. This, more than
anything, is the GREAT FILTER.

Chris

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, sraj wrote:
>
> .. Either global warming or peak oil will lead to an urgent
transformation
> of civilization as we know it, or our failure to transform quickly
enough
> might well lead to the end of civilization as we know it. And if indeed
> cheap oil is a prerequisite to the first flowering of technological
> civilization, might a Roman-Empire-style collapse due to some future
> disaster make it difficult to rebuild to spaceflight-capable levels
due to
> lack of said resource the next time around? Many of the large scale
energy
> technologies that we imagine replacing oil are energy intensive to
build.

On May 17, 2008, at 6:23 PM, Chris Smyth wrote:
> P.S. Inter-stellar distances are just too great for a whole
> lot of cruising around the galaxy to be taking place. This, more than
> anything, is the GREAT FILTER.
>

I can't agree. I don't know about "cruising," but the spread of
civilization from star to star will certainly happen. Once you've
filled up your first Oort cloud, the next Oort cloud over just isn't
that big a leap.

Best,
- Joe

I covered my take on a lot of this is my book:

http://pandoranage.mystarship.com/index.html

The limmits of light speed IMO will be nixed once we are able to impose a bubble of 3 dimensional space outside normal space.

One proposal is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/Alcubdrive.html

At the rate we are learning to manipulate subatomic particles, magnetic fields, etc, I don't see anything insurmountable in creating ships to "cruise" the universe in the not too distant future.

However, would one want to? Lets say one could create a nano-bot the size of wasp with such capabilities and the software to instaneously create the apparent sensory perception that one is in the bot.

Entangled electrons are connected in such a way that specific properties of the electrons remain synchronized regardless of the physical distance between them.
Here's a brief explanation of one formulation of the EPR paradox: Take a particle, say an electron, which has two fundamental quantum states (spin up and spin down). We can arrange to produce two electrons in such a way that their states are correlated or entangled, so that if one has spin up, the other necessarily has spin down.The EPR effect arises from a particular property of quantum mechanics, which says that a system can exist in a superposition of states. In this example, we treat the two electrons as a single system. Therefore, we expect two possibilities: electron 1 has spin up and electron 2 has spin down OR electron 1 has spin down and electron 2 has spin up. But quantum mechanics also says that before we measure the spin of either electron, the system can, in a sense, exist in both of the possible states at the same time (i.e. in a superposition of the two possibilities). Thus, each electron will be found to have a definite spin value only when we actually measure it.Now, suppose we separate the two electrons by a long distance, then measure the spin of electron 1. We will find it to be either up or down, with say a 50% chance of each outcome. Suppose it has spin up. Then, it turns out that no matter how far away electron 2 is, it will instantaneously be found to have spin down. But the result for electron 1 was not determined until we measured it, so how did electron 2 know to be the opposite? It seems that somehow electron 1 must have communicated its spin result to electron 2 at faster than the speed of light (contrary to relativity).The key to resolving the "paradox" is that even though the electrons are widely separated, they must be still treated as a single quantum system due to their entanglement. In a sense, all the information needed by both electrons is already contained in the system (though the measurement result is NOT predetermined - there are no "hidden variables"). It seems that this type of faster-than-light "communication" is permitted by relativity since it cannot lead to causality violations.

Sooooo.......one could be "In the bot" cruising the Orion nebula or exploring the sands and waterfalls of some world orbiting in the Pliedades while sitting safely in you den. Or a corporate laboratory.

Just a thought.

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.comFrom: joe@...: Sat, 17 May 2008 22:09:10 -0600Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: : Why there are no UFOs

On May 17, 2008, at 6:23 PM, Chris Smyth wrote:> P.S. Inter-stellar distances are just too great for a whole> lot of cruising around the galaxy to be taking place. This, more than> anything, is the GREAT FILTER.>I can't agree. I don't know about "cruising," but the spread of civilization from star to star will certainly happen. Once you've filled up your first Oort cloud, the next Oort cloud over just isn't that big a leap.Best,- Joe

On May 18, 2008, at 8:14 AM, Don DAnthony wrote:

> I covered my take on a lot of this is my book:
>
> http://pandoranage.mystarship.com/index.html
>
> The limmits of light speed IMO will be nixed once we are able to
> impose a bubble of 3 dimensional space outside normal space.

In addition, if we can find an efficient method of harvesting fairy
dust, we can use that to both power our ships and make them
invisible. :)

However, it's important to note that the galaxy can also be settled
quite nicely without any magic or new physics at all.

> Now, suppose we separate the two electrons by a long distance, then
> measure the spin of electron 1... It seems that this type of faster-
> than-light "communication" is permitted by relativity since it
> cannot lead to causality violations.

That's because it is not any form of communication at all. It doesn't
communicate anything, and can't be used to do so.

> Sooooo.......one could be "In the bot" cruising the Orion nebula or
> exploring the sands and waterfalls of some world orbiting in the
> Pliedades while sitting safely in you den. Or a corporate laboratory.

No.

Best,
- Joe

Fairy dust my ass; we already know magnetic feilds and gravity feilds exist and can be manipulated.

New physics? Not at all-everything I discussed is currently in the realm of existing research with supercolliders.

NOT any form of communitcation? LOL-what part of binary systems did you miss when our current computing technology was explained to you. 101110111011100.... positive negative-easily transferable to a one and a zero-without any fairydust leap of imagination. Surely you are not able to miss the communication potential here?

YES. get a grip-if we use sublight technology sure, we'll settle the galaxy-in a 500,000 years. There is absolutely no insurmountable technological obstacle to damn near anything should enough thought and effort be applied. Fairy dust-show me ONE new physicis concept I introduced in my premise-not a one, everything I discussed is soundly in the realm of professional physicists discussions and research.

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.comFrom: joe@...: Sun, 18 May 2008 10:04:55 -0600Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: : Why there are no UFOs

On May 18, 2008, at 8:14 AM, Don DAnthony wrote:> I covered my take on a lot of this is my book:>> http://pandoranage.mystarship.com/index.html>> The limmits of light speed IMO will be nixed once we are able to > impose a bubble of 3 dimensional space outside normal space.In addition, if we can find an efficient method of harvesting fairy dust, we can use that to both power our ships and make them invisible. :)However, it's important to note that the galaxy can also be settled quite nicely without any magic or new physics at all.> Now, suppose we separate the two electrons by a long distance, then > measure the spin of electron 1... It seems that this type of faster- > than-light "communication" is permitted by relativity since it > cannot lead to causality violations.That's because it is not any form of communication at all. It doesn't communicate anything, and can't be used to do so.> Sooooo.......one could be "In the bot" cruising the Orion nebula or > exploring the sands and waterfalls of some world orbiting in the > Pliedades while sitting safely in you den. Or a corporate laboratory.No.Best,- Joe

On May 18, 2008, at 11:10 AM, Don DAnthony wrote:

> Fairy dust my ass; we already know magnetic feilds and gravity
> feilds exist and can be manipulated.

OK, please show how you would use them to create "a bubble of 3
dimensional space outside normal space".

> New physics? Not at all-everything I discussed is currently in the
> realm of existing research with supercolliders.

Nonsense.

> NOT any form of communitcation? LOL-what part of binary systems did
> you miss when our current computing technology was explained to you.
> 101110111011100.... positive negative-easily transferable to a one
> and a zero-without any fairydust leap of imagination.

Sure. But entangled particles can't be used to transfer ones or
zeros. (This must be the part you missed when quantum entanglement
was explained to you.) As far as we can tell, FTL communication (i.e.
transfer of even a single bit of information) is impossible, with or
without quantum mechanics.

> Fairy dust-show me ONE new physicis concept I introduced in my
> premise-not a one, everything I discussed is soundly in the realm of
> professional physicists discussions and research.

No, it's not. Almost everything you wrote is either nonsense, rampant
speculation, or simply misunderstood.

Best,
- Joe

You can concieve of that? Since gravity bends space, and all the forces are related, one would only need to manipulate gravity fields (wether its a collider or a convesc disk or stick with a y at the end, who give a flying fart, you have to manipulate the space, bend it push it back and create a seperate reality. If i knew how to do that I would be a billionaire. But its not fairy dust its the manipulation of known real forces.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005APS..MARP34001C

"If this picture of the first split second is remotely right, much depends on the energy content of the foam. The energy to blow up these bubbles would be countered by an opposite, negative energy, which comes from the gravitational attraction of all the matter in the bubble. If the outward pressure just balances the inward attraction (a pressure, really) of the mass, then you could get a universe much like ours: rather mild, with space-time not suffering any severe curvature--what astronomers call "flat?' This seems to be so on such relatively tiny scales as our solar system, and flatness prevails even on the size range of our galaxy. Indeed, flatness holds on immense scales, as far as we can yet see."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_11_33/ai_84246681/pg_3

Like I'm the first to think of this.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1281736.html

That's fairy dust they are operating with.

http://hyperspace.alien.de/Principles%20of%20gravity%20manipulation.htm

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt@13342

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

Missunderstand the theories? You're showing an inability to deal with abstract thinking. How hard would it be to create a code with the entangled particles?

http://colossalstorage.net/home_entangled.htm

I can't find the link but it was this year i saw an article where a research laboritory has polarized a gas, and then seperated a part of the gas, and found that when they switched polarity on the first sample of the gas the second instaneously switched also.

Am I able to draw I diagram for you on the mechanism that will manipulate the various forces? No. Is it obvious from the current research it will happen? IMO YES. The "Space bubble" was an analogy, and colliders were provided as an example of current technology involved with research into such science. But you manipulate magnetic feilds every day-your cell phone, your microwave oven. I don't see it as "fairy dust" to develop a system of transportation based on the manipulation of gravity, space, etc-of fields, rather than chemical propulsion using rockets. It would COMPLETELY and utterly liberate mankind from this rock into an economic bonanza the likes of which we can't even concieve of.

Isn't that why you joined "space settlers" because you felt settling space was a GOOD thing? The sooner we develop a better system than rocketry the better I say.

Bubbles in spacetime is not my invention. Please tell Steven Hawking he's smoking fairy dust.

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.comFrom: joe@...: Sun, 18 May 2008 16:44:33 -0600Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: : Why there are no UFOs

On May 18, 2008, at 11:10 AM, Don DAnthony wrote:> Fairy dust my ass; we already know magnetic feilds and gravity > feilds exist and can be manipulated.OK, please show how you would use them to create "a bubble of 3 dimensional space outside normal space".> New physics? Not at all-everything I discussed is currently in the > realm of existing research with supercolliders.Nonsense.> NOT any form of communitcation? LOL-what part of binary systems did > you miss when our current computing technology was explained to you. > 101110111011100.... positive negative-easily transferable to a one > and a zero-without any fairydust leap of imagination.Sure. But entangled particles can't be used to transfer ones or zeros. (This must be the part you missed when quantum entanglement was explained to you.) As far as we can tell, FTL communication (i.e. transfer of even a single bit of information) is impossible, with or without quantum mechanics.> Fairy dust-show me ONE new physicis concept I introduced in my > premise-not a one, everything I discussed is soundly in the realm of > professional physicists discussions and research.No, it's not. Almost everything you wrote is either nonsense, rampant speculation, or simply misunderstood.Best,- Joe

E-mail for the greater good. Join the im Initiative from Microsoft.

From: Dan Wylie-Sears

> They don't have to devastate every object. They just have to make
> the civilization collapse. There are endless possibilities.

To my mind, any weapon that left even one habitat unscathed will fail to
render the species extinct. One of the interesting things which came
out of O'Neill's work was that each habitat can be completely
independent in terms of resources, energy, and food.

> Maybe
> some species have a vulnerability such that there's a weapon that
> just makes everyone of that species really stupid, system-wide at the
> push of a button.

But I think this brings the conversation into a science-fiction area.

> Maybe for some species at some points in their
> technological development the basic weapon is just a plain old rock
> going the opposite direction in the same orbit,

But I think High Frontier is going to result in habitats in every
conceivable orbit.

> but an elaborate
> series of countermeasures and counter-countermeasures and so on make
> it optimal to put all your eggs in one basket that's 99.99% safe in
> any given year --

But every single group in this species would have to all decide without
dissention that this was the proper strategy. All it takes is a small
number who disagree, and they're off in a different structure in a
different orbit.

> Maybe some species at some times like living in
> really big structures, expansions of the generation ship that arrived
> there, with everyone living together and robots gathering resources
> everywhere else in the system, and there's a nuclear option that
> destroys the whole structure.

Ditto above argument.

> You can keep on spinning these
> scenarios for a long time, and truth is almost certain to include
> many possibilities that are stranger than fiction.

I agree that the possible scenarios are endless and unimaginable, which
is why I think that the odds are vanishingly small that they will all
inevitably arrive at the same outcome: extinction.

> Zero local population growth would be a
> solution, except that as soon as someone cheats they win in the
> medium term.

Exactly a reason for supposing that it's not likely for a space-faring
species to become utterly extinct. But I guess you're arguing the
cheaters spoil it for everybody and the entire systems collapses,
resulting in extinction for all. I just have a hard time seeing it.

Regards,

Mike Combs

Where did you go Joe? Here is a diagram similar to what I'm describing in the space bubble (but it would be more localized).

If we can do this with magnetism why not gravity?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetron

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.comFrom: joe@...: Sat, 17 May 2008 22:09:10 -0600Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: : Why there are no UFOs

On May 17, 2008, at 6:23 PM, Chris Smyth wrote:> P.S. Inter-stellar distances are just too great for a whole> lot of cruising around the galaxy to be taking place. This, more than> anything, is the GREAT FILTER.>I can't agree. I don't know about 'cruising,' but the spread of civilization from star to star will certainly happen. Once you've filled up your first Oort cloud, the next Oort cloud over just isn't that big a leap.Best,- Joe

E-mail for the greater good. Join the im Initiative from Microsoft.

On May 19, 2008, at 3:15 PM, Don DAnthony wrote:

> If we can do this with magnetism why not gravity?

Because (electro)magnetism and gravity are very different forces.
Show me two objects that gravitationally repel each other, and then we
can talk about making bubbles.

Best,
- Joe

So the repellent quality of magnetism negates any form of manipulating a gravity field? I'm not talking about specific hardware-mere the notion that the hardware can be developed. Orbits are a form of repelling are they not (not that I see the relevance there either)? The gravity well at the center of each mass created a "hill" between the two objects effectively preventing them from colliding unless otherwise disturbed. My point was never to say "such and such" a piece of hardware or process is "how it can be done" but rather, that if one were able to step outside our space-time one could avoid the light speed limit-and of course, that to exist one would need a "bubble" of normal space"-just as one needs an airliners hull to protect you from cold, lack of air pressure, and 600 mile and hour forces while you sit sipping a gin and tonic at 30,000 feet. 600 miles an hour on the ground without a hull could get pretty nasty right-so one flies above everything, above the dense atmosphere, above the landscape etc etc etc. Same concept.

The other example I provided didn't even need bubbles at all-they merely bent the space with gravity.

We know that gravity and spacetieme are malable-they are not set quanities that are static. So your premise is what? That the human race will never manipulate these forces to our advantage and for our purposes? I see us manipulating other forms of field energy-so I don't believe gravity will ellude us forever. I think we'll have it licked within two centuries on the long guestimate and 40 years on the short.

PLEASE NOTE : OPINION. No diagram available.

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.comFrom: joe@...: Mon, 19 May 2008 15:51:05 -0600Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: : Why there are no UFOs

On May 19, 2008, at 3:15 PM, Don DAnthony wrote:> If we can do this with magnetism why not gravity?Because (electro)magnetism and gravity are very different forces. Show me two objects that gravitationally repel each other, and then we can talk about making bubbles.Best,- Joe

E-mail for the greater good. Join the im Initiative from Microsoft.

2008/5/19 Joe Strout :
> Show me two objects that gravitationally repel each other, and then we
> can talk about making bubbles.

There are some gravity effects that do essentially do that; for
example a torus shape which is twisting inside out causes a suction at
one end and a repulsion at the other due to GR frame dragging. But the
effect is very weak.

> Best,
> - Joe

--
-Ian Woollard

We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly
imperfect world things would be a lot better.

I'm not sure if I should address this the Ian or Joe. I'm curious
about the effects of frame dragging.
Two questions: Is there a theoretical limit on the rate of spin of a
black hole? Also,just out of curiosity, if an object is in a stable
orbit around a spinning black hole, in the direction of spin, will
it's orbital velocity be "faster" to an outside observer than if the
black hole was stationary?
Two other questions I just thought about: If an object is orbiting
opposite the direction of spin of a black hole, can it appear to be
stationary to an outside observer if the frame dragging equals the
orbital velocity? Also, if an object is orbiting a black hole in the
direction of spin at sub-light velocity, can it appear to be orbiting
at faster-than-light speed to an outside observer if the frame
dragging is sufficiently great?
Chris

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Woollard"
wrote:

--- In spacesettlers, "Chris Smyth" wrote:

> orbital velocity? Also, if an object is orbiting a black hole in the
> direction of spin at sub-light velocity, can it appear to be
> orbiting at faster-than-light speed to an outside observer if the
> frame dragging is sufficiently great?
> Chris

While this whole subject is over my head, I did hear on Discovery
channel (don't remember the name of the show but it was about time
travel) that the answer to this is "yes."