Could we be one of the OLDEST civilizations in the galaxy?

On Jan 25, 2007, at 03:17 UTC, ANTIcarrot wrote:

> Only if they co-operate. Otherwise they MAKE species #2, or rather
> species #1b. If #1a and #1b chose to dislike each other, they can
> restrict progress indefinitely in any number of ways.

Can you give me an example? It's hard for me to imagine how a fully
developed star system on the frontier (i.e., right next to some
undeveloped star systems) could be forever prevented from jumping to
the next star.

> This list exists because people think making 'worlds' is a better
> approach than making do with what we find lying around. Taking that
> idea a step further, it's likely a species will manufacture true
> aliens long before it has to put up with any it finds.

I'll by that (for suitable definitions of "aliens" anyway). We'll
probably be creating AI within the next century or two ourselves.

> Applying the three rules from the Atomic
> Rocket site and you have a recipe for conflict.

Sure, but conflict doesn't stop expansion. Look at the history of life
on Earth -- it's rife with conflict, yet the result has been continuous
expansion and colonization of every available niche. If anything,
conflict helps to DRIVE this expansion, not prevent it.

> I'm also uncertain about maintaining momentum for a 100 million
> years. The inner worlds will eventually have to contend with zero
> growth. If they do not wish to, or fail, this can create problems for
> the surrounding colonies, and potentially make such a colonisation
> effort rot from the inside.

Sure, there may be conflict, but again, how does that stop things?
It's not going to be "a colonization effort," like it's some government
program that can be canceled. It's going be quadrillions of
individuals and small groups of individuals, living on the frontier,
and just up and deciding one day to move a little farther away from
their neighbors, and see what life is like the next star over.

> Or any other number of things can go wrong. Just because it could be
> done mathematically, it doesn't mean it's actually that easy or
> desirable in practice.

Hmm, if we were talking about a single event, I would agree. But we're
not. I think you've got it backwards. In order for a spacefaring
civilization to NOT expand, some control over every member of the
population would have to be held perfectly, and indefinitely. There
are any number of things that can (and most likely will, sooner or
later) go wrong with such attempts at control, and as soon as even ONE
of them happens, the genie is out of the bottle.

Again, life on Earth is a good analogy. You could pick any particular
expansion event -- expansion of life from water to land, for example --
and talk about all the things that could go wrong: a species might not
be able to adapt, or other species might out-compete it, or it might be
too sensitive to UV radiation, etc. etc., and argue that maybe life
will never adapt to land at all. But that's not what happens. Some
species adapt, and some don't, but life as a whole finds a way, because
the selective pressure for colonizing new niches is immense.

The same applies to advanced civilizations and space; selective
pressure doesn't go away just because we can now think about it. If
it's possible for members of a civilization to spread, those with the
means and desire to do so will rapidly outnumber those that lack either
or both.

Best,
- Joe

Joe Strout -- joe@...