Inferior Civilization?

'Combs, Mike' mikecombs@... [spacesettlers] wrote:

> Youre quite right about the Fermi Paradox. I think one reason why its
> not widely appreciated why the Fermi Paradox is so inescapably blatant
> is because we persist in the idea that intelligent life will limit
> itself to inhabiting planets. A galactic civilization which is planetary
> will be a far cry from the kind of galactic civilization one anticipates
> when viewing this from the High Frontier perspective:
>
> http://www.nss.org/settlement/MikeCombs/alone.htm

Yes, and this is a very well-written essay which anyone interested in
the topic should read.

I also think that years of Star Trek and Star Wars have inculcated our
culture in the notion that there could be many other civilizations out
there at basically the same technology level (give or take a couple
hundred years) as us. I love those stories, but scientifically, that's
ridiculous. Given that it's taken us 4.5 GY to reach this level on
Earth, and there's a whole lot of random factors at play there, we
should expect any other civilization we meet to be many millions (or
small number of billions) of years ahead or behind us.

> I think number 2 [every civilization disappears]
> can apply to civilizations up to the point that they
> establish their first self-sufficient settlement beyond their homeworld.
> Once theyve done that, I think they become unkillable.

Probably, but there's always the chance there is some danger or
opportunity we're not even aware of. Perhaps physicists inevitably do
some experiment that goes awry and swallows up their whole solar system
in a ravenous black hole. Or perhaps they discover how to create new,
custom universes, and leave our universe for greener pastures.

These all seem unlikely to me, but since we know our understanding of
physics is incomplete, it's hard to rule this sort of thing out.

> The question 3 [nature preserve] should provoke is, So what about
> outlaws/dissidents/poachers?. For us to still see no signs of galactic
> civilizations is dependent on an infallible law-enforcement mechanism.
> Nothings ever perfect.

Yep, good point.

> And so we should be more open-minded to 1 [we're alone].

Agreed. It's a terrifying and somewhat depressing possibility, but that
doesn't make it any less likely.

> But I think you might be a bit unfair to Drake. I think, properly
> understood (which its probably not in many cases), the Drake Equation
> has only one utility: It allows us to see the numerical outcomes of our
> assumptions. But I take your point; it tells us nothing about whats out
> there. But I dont think a proper understanding of it should expect it to.

No, you didn't get my point because I failed to make it. The problem is
the assumption built into the very form of the equation: that the
universe is static, and nothing is growing within it. It's a
steady-state equation.

In reality, in a universe where interstellar colonization is possible,
you would need to use the entirely different equations of population
dynamics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_dynamics). Just try
describing the number of bacteria in a petri dish with something like
Drake's equation; you can't, no matter WHAT values you plug in for the
numbers. To attempt it is pure nonsense (until the petri dish is full
and has reached a steady state, of course).

This is what I mean when I say Drake's equation is bunk. Show it to any
ecologist, and he will laugh at you and give you an "F" on your
undergraduate homework for completely failing to understand even the
simplest basics of population growth.

And since, as far as we can tell, we DO live in a universe where
interstellar colonization is possible -- just keep building space
colonies until you're so far out in the Oort cloud, that the next Oort
cloud over is no longer a stretch -- then a static equation does not apply.

However, this does point out another group of people who don't see the
importance of Fermi's paradox: those who simply believe that
interstellar travel/colonization is impossible. I think this is fairly
prevalent among the SETI crowd, though they rarely say so explicitly.
If it's really true that no civilization, no matter how old or advanced,
ever manages to spread from its home star system to the next one over,
then it's easy to imagine the galaxy filled with millions of trapped
civilizations, each one desperately crying out for contact with their
neighboring prisoners. (And in only such a case, Drake's equation would
apply.)

However, I find that far less plausible than any of the three classes of
explanations we've just discussed. Here we are, barely out of our
industrial revolution, and we can already see how to spread to the stars
in fairly clear detail. I don't see how civilizations thousands or
millions of years ahead of us could fail to find a way.

Best,
- Joe