[akaydia123]

http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2008/ ... nd-of.html

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

[FourOfSwords]

Since I became aware of Fermi's Paradox, I've become somewhat fascinated with the thought of Extraterrestrial Lifeforms.
I feel with regards to FP, that just because we cannot presently perceive ET lifeforms and civilizations, does not mean they are not out there.
I mean our galaxy is a big place after all. As I see it an advanced civilization(does ours qualify?) has two major hurdles to cross.
Firstly the ability to get off its homeworld and colonize its own solar system. Then(and this is the big one), get out of its own solar system and start colonizing the nearest habitable stellar systems.
Putting a PO spin on things, I feel that seeing that we have 'shot our wad' so to speak on easy, cheap petroleum(as a civilization) we have missed our window of opportunity to even get off our planet and into our solar system in a meaningful way.
With PO and enviromental catastrophe hurtling at us soon, any space faring civilization that makes it into our neck of the woods will only find fur clad savages hunting and gathering among the ruins of a once dominant civilization...
Alex

[peaker_2005]

Great link! That would have to be the most mentally engaging read I've had in quite some time -- not so much the post (though it was interesting in itself) but some of the comments.

Thanks for the link.

[Specop_007]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FourOfSwords', 'S')ince I became aware of Fermi's Paradox, I've become somewhat fascinated with the thought of Extraterrestrial Lifeforms.
I feel with regards to FP, that just because we cannot presently perceive ET lifeforms and civilizations, does not mean they are not out there.
I mean our galaxy is a big place after all. As I see it an advanced civilization(does ours qualify?) has two major hurdles to cross.
Firstly the ability to get off its homeworld and colonize its own solar system. Then(and this is the big one), get out of its own solar system and start colonizing the nearest habitable stellar systems.
Putting a PO spin on things, I feel that seeing that we have 'shot our wad' so to speak on easy, cheap petroleum(as a civilization) we have missed our window of opportunity to even get off our planet and into our solar system in a meaningful way.
With PO and enviromental catastrophe hurtling at us soon, any space faring civilization that makes it into our neck of the woods will only find fur clad savages hunting and gathering among the ruins of a once dominant civilization...
Alex

[MD]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('peaker_2005', 'G')reat link! That would have to be the most mentally engaging read I've had in quite some time -- not so much the post (though it was interesting in itself) but some of the comments.

Thanks for the link.

[oswald622]

the fermi paradox as the link explains it contains all sorts of unsupported premises - such as that 'intelligent life' necessarily includes curiosity about the universe beyond the supposed home planet. 'intelligence' is also assumed to mean the same as 'technological advancement' (which daniel quinn or any number of new agers would quickly dispute).

the problem is that, since we are (again, supposedly) the only 'intelligent' species we know of, we are defining 'intelligence' as 'human intelligence' (or, more specifically, western industrial intelligence). the paradox also assumes evolution as the origin of species (also unproven), and even granting evolution, it assumes that evolution has an end - that is, intelligent life. but natural selection is not teleological - the giraffe does not stretch its neck over time to reach the leaves - as richard dawkins or any orthodox evolutionist will soon remind you.

again, even being generous in granting certain premises, such as that intelligent alien life would be technological, exploratory, and expansionist, it is by no means clear that the technology would be based on crude rocket physics or even gravitic and electro-magnetic principles as we understand them. their guiding principles might well be physical laws the human mind is unable to comprehend - for all we know, the aliens would rather visit other universes or other time periods, even, than leave an artifact or two on our little speck of dust.

but the most egregious unsupported premise is the one sitting out front - i.e. that we have no evidence of ET life.

but apart from that highly contentious issue, the main thrust is this: to think there's a paradox simply because an alien civilization virtually identical to the united states of the late 20th century is not broadcasting signals within a narrow band of EM frequency...

well come on, that's pretty ridiculous.

[Keith_McClary]

xkcd

[Tanada]

An excellent example of the Precautionary Principal as a cartoon! Love it!

[Newfie]

Link doesn't work? Article missing.

[Subjectivist]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', 'L')ink doesn't work? Article missing.

[AgentR11]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oswald622', 'b')ut apart from that highly contentious issue, the main thrust is this: to think there's a paradox simply because an alien civilization virtually identical to the united states of the late 20th century is not broadcasting signals within a narrow band of EM frequency...

[Newfie]

For F#$%Ks Sake, I can't find intelligent life in my industry!

[AgentR11]

Surely it took intelligence to create an 800 page proposal and specification for the latest in neighborhood sidewalk technology.

[Newfie]

800 pages? Yes

Intelligent? No!

You have no idea how close that quip brings you to reality.

Unless, perhaps, you know me in person?

[AgentR11]

Nah, I just recalled you having some exposure to civil construction....

[Timo]

The most important aspect of defining "intelligence" is demonstrating the ability to simply survive your own technologies. Can we, as an intelligent species, avoid destroying ourselves? When Francis Drake first came up with his equation, the danger at that time was Mutually Assured Destruction via nuclear war. Now, it's global warming, brought about by the development and use of our own technologies. The threat of nuclear war is still out there, though. To find intelligent life anywhere else in the galaxy, and pretending that light years of distance is not an obstacle in making that discovery, we have to assume that whatever civilization that comprises that intelligent life has avoided their own destruction in the evolution of their intelligence. The development of useful technologies requires intelligence. Using those technologies requires resources. Expanding on those tehcnologies requires new and different resources, and the intelligence to avoid their depletion. Currently, we're depleting our earthly resources, and our technologies are counterproductive to our own survival in ways that are contrary to the intended use of those technologies. Can we continue to evolve our intelligence in a finite world without depleting the resources we need to survive, or causing our own destruction by using our developed technologies? Unintended consequences run amok. The jury is still out on us humans, which perhaps means that we're not really all that intelligent.

[Newfie]

It seems only logical to me that we are not all that intelligent.

Using just a superficial argument....life tends to develop in incremental changes, one small step to the next. And we see this in nature all around us, a relatively smooth development from the most basic proto-life to chimps.

But then why the BIG jump from chimps to us? My thought is that there is not really such a big jump, but a change that allowed us to do some unique things. From our perspective we just think we are really, really smart.

The other argument is that individually we are pretty smart, but collectively not so much. I like to compare termites to cows to humans. Which has been able to establish huge colonies and live within their environment for millions of years?

[Timo]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', 'I')t seems only logical to me that we are not all that intelligent.

Using just a superficial argument....life tends to develop in incremental changes, one small step to the next. And we see this in nature all around us, a relatively smooth development from the most basic proto-life to chimps.

But then why the BIG jump from chimps to us? My thought is that there is not really such a big jump, but a change that allowed us to do some unique things. From our perspective we just think we are really, really smart.

The other argument is that individually we are pretty smart, but collectively not so much. I like to compare termites to cows to humans. Which has been able to establish huge colonies and live within their environment for millions of years?

[Ibon]

The point about an alien intelligence even wanting to find extra terrestial life is a good one since assuming this is very anthropocentric.

Consider if dolphins continue their pathway toward full self awareness if they are not there already. Living in an aqueous environment with no apposing thumbs and ability to make tools these creatures have no incentive to use technology. Their superior physical attributes already enable them to effortlessly secure food. A creature like this has no reason to even start the treadmill of striving toward "progress" .

So maybe the great filter of Fermi's paradox is that the only intelligent life in the universe that survive are those creatures whose intelligence keeps them at peace in the environments they live in. The only ones searching for other life are those not content with where they are at which are most likely the very organisms that will trash their own backyards.

Human intelligence and our use of technology is a combination of our brains, our apposing thumbs and having evolved in environments that required us to use tools to compete. As the dolphin demonstrates this is by no means a standard design of intelligent life.

That is my theory as to what this great filter might be.

[Newfie]

Makes sense to me Ibon.