Inferior Civilization?

wlm_efn@... [spacesettlers] wrote:

> Joe wrote:
> > No matter how many static factors you multiply in, it will still be a
> > static equation, and therefore fundamentally wrong (unless interstellar
> > colonization is forever impossible).
>
> Not if it comes out to <= 1 civilization per galaxy.
>
> It could also be right if interstellar travel is not impossible but
> just difficult, and there are only a few industrial civilizations per
> galaxy.

Even then it's only right for the time period before the first
civilization starts spreading to the stars. After that, you need a
dynamic equation rather than a static one.

But I think I see your point: if it turns out that we are exceedingly
rare, and given that we haven't yet started colonizing the stars, then
the Drake equation may be an adequate description of the galaxy today.

> >> This connects to the Rare Earth Hypothesis. For whatever reason
> >> science shies away from this theory or paradigm...
> >
> > That's not entirely true. ...
>
> Yes I know all about this book. I guess I could have prefaced it by saying
> with the exception of Ward and Brownlee, the two "official" inventors of
> the Rare Earth theory.

Ah yes, now I see.

Well, for what it's worth, I'm with those guys. I think when we get out
into the galaxy, we'll find plenty of planets with single-celled life,
but no other civilizations. I don't WANT it to be that way, but that's
what the evidence seems to suggest.

Best,
- Joe