Fermi Paradox and Advanced Civilizations.

[BenTheMan]

I apologize to DH in advance, but I think there IS some scientific discussion to be had on this topic. If you disagree, by all means--you're the boss! But I didn't see anything explicitly prohibiting discussions of these types in the guidelines, although I fear that this will just be a big failure when the ``Aliens are among us'' crowd starts posting here.

The Fermi Paradox can be stated as follows: if there are advanced civilizations, why don't we see them?

Now, I'm sure that UFO aficionados can poke all kinds of holes in the underlying assumptions. Who's to say that the aliens are more advanced than we are? (Slim to no chance of this, but ok.) Who's to say that the aliens don't have invisible, or impossibly tiny probes? (Again, ok. Probably a fair critique.)

Anyway, let's assume that we're more or less typical, and there are some more advanced civilizations than us. This is a good assumption, I think, as we live around a 3rd generation star, and the Milky Way has some older stars. The question is, how many more advanced civilizations are there than ours?

Because we are more or less typical, we should guess that these aliens are also inquisitive about the universe, and that they will try to investigate the different corners. We should assume that the aliens are limited by the speed of light, as we are.

A paper today on arXiv attempts to calculate how many advanced civilizations we should expect, based on the fact that we haven't seen them yet, and based on the above assumptions.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0345

They find, in a conservative estimate, that there can be no more than 10 more advanced civilizations. The study is condensed here:

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23832/

The conclusion then, to me, would be that there are a dearth of civilizations in our Galaxy, or that we are highly atypical.

[D H]

I have no problem with people discussing the Fermi paradox so long as they realize that the right answer is "we haven't the foggiest idea (yet)". My own opinion, which is just an opinion, is that they aren't out there -- at least not in our galaxy, maybe not even our local cluster. It is the easiest solution to the Fermi paradox, for one thing (Occam's scalpel). For another, we might not be all that typical.

What about nowhere else in the universe? Not likely, but does it really matter? Suppose one advanced intelligent civilization (Type I on the Kardashev scale; we aren't there yet) arises per galactic cluster. That means "billions and billions" of such civilizations throughout the universe, each of which is utterly alone.

[Gustav]

The Fermi Paradox can be stated as follows: if there are advanced civilizations, why don't we see them?

Now, I'm sure that UFO aficionados can poke all kinds of holes in the underlying assumptions. Who's to say that the aliens are more advanced than we are? (Slim to no chance of this, but ok.) Who's to say that the aliens don't have invisible, or impossibly tiny probes? (Again, ok. Probably a fair critique.)


you must mean sighting representatives of advanced civilizations flitting about our neighborhood in their spaceships, ja?

here is the hole i poke............. we have already seen them
here is the hole you dug yourself into...... an investigation into the veracity of alleged sightings

i am game
are you?

[Gustav]

That means "billions and billions" of such civilizations throughout the universe...

i like it
like it a lot :D

....each of which is utterly alone.

got issues?

/compassionate

lookee here

isolation of each and every civ from one another is an unnecessary assumption and also an invalid extrapolation.
just cos we appear to be, does not mean they are too

dispersion patterns, if any, can be varied. some random, others uniform or clumped

[BenTheMan]

here is the hole i poke............. we have already seen them
here is the hole you dug yourself into...... an investigation into the veracity of alleged sightings

i am game
are you?

I think this is a discussion for another forum :)

[D H]

Moderator comments: Discussions of UFOs in this thread will be deleted. Use the Pseudoscience forum for such rot.

[Gustav]

The Fermi Paradox can be stated as follows: if there are advanced civilizations, why don't we see them?.


wtf?
see goddamn what?
how? when? where?

[Gustav]

I have no problem with people discussing the Fermi paradox so long as they realize that the right answer is "we haven't the foggiest idea (yet)".


rebbutted with this....

...is that they aren't out there -- at least not in our galaxy, maybe not even our local cluster...


and this....

....That means "billions and billions" of such civilizations throughout the universe, each of which is utterly alone....


looks like you have not "realized the right answer"
you seem to have "some ideas"

pardon dh
in light of the rather startling revelations outlined above, i have a problem with you discussing or moderating this conversation
you are clearly unfit
leave

go harass another thread

/snicker

[eddie23]

If they are more advanced than us. Why would they contact us?
All they have to do is watch and they will know we are still primative and warlike.
Would you contact someone who you think will eventualy try to steal from you or kill you, or would you just wait around and see if they grow out of it?

[D H]

rebbutted with this....
What part of "My own opinion, which is just an opinion, is that ..." do you fail to understand?

Different people's answers to the Drake equation range from millions of civilizations in our galaxy to we are alone in the universe. There is no solid evidence (yet) indicating which of these extremes is closer to the truth. That is what I meant by "we haven't the foggiest idea".

[D H]

If they are more advanced than us. Why would they contact us?
It's not just contacting us. We don't see any signs of their existence. A Type II civilization would leave telltale signs that are visible across a significant portion of the galaxy. We see virgin stars, virgin star systems. We do not see Dyson spheres. A Type III civilization would leave telltale signs that are visible across galaxy clusters. We don't see those, either.

[Gustav]

What part of "My own opinion, which is just an opinion, is that ..." do you fail to understand?


fine
i shall dismiss the fact that you are a scientist (which by definition, implies possessing the faculty of critical thought), and assign the same weight to your opinions as i would do to my 5 year old sister

Different people's answers to the Drake equation range from millions of civilizations in our galaxy to we are alone in the universe. There is no solid evidence (yet) indicating which of these extremes is closer to the truth. That is what I meant by "we haven't the foggiest idea".


any time i see wildly divergent conclusions and extremities of opinion, i assume the data being utilized is off base and not appropriate for the measurements being made. that and sheer stupidity. what you should be looking for are conservative estimates gleaned from inserting reasonable parameters into the variables found in the equation


N = 40 × 0.5 × 0.5 × 1 × 0.1 × 0.1 × 500 = 50.

That is, if these estimates are valid, there are roughly 50 civilizations in the entire Galaxy which are likely to be engaged in trying to communicate using the means presently available to us on Earth. Assuming, as we have, a 500-year "radio-window", and given the fact that humans have had the ability to receive and broadcast interstellar messages for about 50 years, this suggests that there are about 5 radio-capable civilizations that are marginally behind us in their technology and about 45 that are somewhat more advanced yet not sufficiently advanced to have progressed beyond our "earshot". Fifty radio-stage civilizations equates to one for roughly every 8 billion stars. Since the nearest such civilization would probably lie well over 1,000 light-years away, it would not be possible to exchange even a single greeting before one or both of the parties had transcended the proposed 500-year radio-window. (link (http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/D/DrakeEq.html))

if anyone wants to argue the values for the variables, lets do so

[nietzschefan]

Simply impossible to say. We could not even really detect if we are simply and elaborate alien experiment started a couple million years ago and just left in our petri dish.

Far too many factors and possibilites to fathom as of yet. To Declare Fermi Paradox or multiply similar stars to find a base number of civilizations....both are sheer folly.

[D H]

nietzschefan, you don't seem to understand what "paradox" means in this context. The twin paradox in special relativity and the birthday paradox in statistics seem to defy common sense. There is no contradiction. Several posited answers to the Fermi paradox explain how intelligence can be widespread. See post #23 by eddie23, for example.

Gustav: Regarding the numbers you referenced -- read the site you cited:
Despite the enormous uncertainties involved in using the Drake Equation, which can result in a value of N from less than one to more than a billion, it is at least interesting and instructive to consider each of the factors involved.

Allowing answers that vary by a dozen orders of magnitude or more is just a bit of a problem. Another problem: Is the equation even right?

This does not mean that asking about the Fermi Paradox is "sheer folly". This question is one of the motivating factors behind the Kepler mission.

[Buffalo Roam]

If they are more advanced than us. Why would they contact us?
All they have to do is watch and they will know we are still primative and warlike.
Would you contact someone who you think will eventualy try to steal from you or kill you, or would you just wait around and see if they grow out of it?

Why is the assumption that a advanced civilization would necessarily be peaceful?

That is something that always amazes me, as it is based on our own preconceptions and dreams of utopian society.

The greatest advancements have come during the times of war, advancements are driven by conflict, and survival is conflicts imperative.

Si vis pacem, para bellum

[madanthonywayne]

Why is the assumption that a advanced civilization would necessarily be peaceful?

That is something that always amazes me, as it is based on our own preconceptions and dreams of utopian society.

The greatest advancements have come during the times of war, advancements are driven by conflict, and survival is conflicts imperative.

Si vis pacem, para bellumI agree. There's no reason to assume that a more advanced culture would be a more peaceful culture. It sure hasn't worked that way on earth, has it?

[nietzschefan]

I agree. There's no reason to assume that a more advanced culture would be a more peaceful culture. It sure hasn't worked that way on earth, has it?

Here's where I disagree.

I suspect it requires a very very peaceful culture to get "extra-planetary" at the very least. Using earth as an example - the most advanced space program currently is NASA (but actually might not be in a few years), and it's budget is pathetic compared to the U.S Defense budget...like really minuscule. That's pretty much why they gotta dump the space station to land a few robots on the Moon. That's fuckin pathetic, even compared to where we (humanity in General) were even in the 60s.

Another point is at this stage of growth self destruction is probably universally obtainable as space exploration is. Civilizations must find a way to tolerate their own sub-factions in order to not annihilate themselves. That's a requirement just to get started.

One you are setup as an interplanetary or even inter-stellar(if possible) species, you might say THEN you can open up the cans of whopass. Nope. It is still far too simple to completely destroy a terrestrial planet, for a species that gets that far along in technology. That is not to say it NEVER would happen...it's just that species sure a fuck won't last long enough to meet another species. They will kill themselves first.

[Buffalo Roam]

Here's where I disagree.

I suspect it requires a very very peaceful culture to get "extra-planetary" at the very least. Using earth as an example - the most advanced space program currently is NASA (but actually might not be in a few years), and it's budget is pathetic compared to the U.S Defense budget...like really minuscule. That's pretty much why they gotta dump the space station to land a few robots on the Moon. That's fuckin pathetic, even compared to where we (humanity in General) were even in the 60s.

Another point is at this stage of growth self destruction is probably universally obtainable as space exploration is. Civilizations must find a way to tolerate their own sub-factions in order to not annihilate themselves. That's a requirement just to get started.

One you are setup as an interplanetary or even inter-stellar(if possible) species, you might say THEN you can open up the cans of whopass. Nope. It is still far too simple to completely destroy a terrestrial planet, for a species that gets that far along in technology. That is not to say it NEVER would happen...it's just that species sure a fuck won't last long enough to meet another species. They will kill themselves first.

Most of the technology for our current space programs comes from Military Black projects, and again in war the greatest break through's come, Survival of the Fittest is the ultimate imperative, no matter where or what, driven by the need for resources to insure that survival, all you are stating is Utopian Logic, and a hope that the first extraterrestrial contact isn't from a species that is looking mineral resources for a new food source.

[Spud Emperor]

Who's to say that the aliens are more advanced than we are? (Slim to no chance of this, but ok.)

I'll say it. There are doubtless countless civilisations more advanced than our own. We just happen to regard ourselves as the pinnacle because it's all we know and all we can see and therefore all we can conceive.
Holy shit Ben, you're supposed to be smart and analytical.
We are a very young planet in a young solar system in a tumultuously changing habitat.

Yes there would be even more countless species and/or civilistaions less advanced than ours but suggesting we are the apex of the universe is so..so..so bloody human.
Waky, waky!

[madanthonywayne]

Here's where I disagree.

I suspect it requires a very very peaceful culture to get "extra-planetary" at the very least. .
I've heard that argument before but consider this. Why did we land on the moon in the sixties and not do jack shit since? No competition. In the sixties we wanted to rub it in the noses of the Soviets. Since that motivation was removed, we haven't done crap in space.

A truly peaceful species will follow the logic: we shouldn't go to space until we've dealt with all the problems on our home planet; and thus never get around to it.

[BenTheMan]

If they are more advanced than us. Why would they contact us?
All they have to do is watch and they will know we are still primative and warlike.

I also object to the association of ``primitive'' with ``warlike''.

any time i see wildly divergent conclusions and extremities of opinion, i assume the data being utilized is off base and not appropriate for the measurements being made. that and sheer stupidity. what you should be looking for are conservative estimates gleaned from inserting reasonable parameters into the variables found in the equation

The conclusions of the article linked to are more sophisticated than a simple multiplying together of probabilities. I'm sure even Drake would admit that.

[TBodillia]

I have to say, I think the Fermi Paradox is an idiotic statement made by a brilliant man. Can you imagine the brightest person in North or South America making that statement 4,000 years ago? These people had no idea that not only were there other people on the other side of the large bodies of water, but they were advanced.

It was a bit over 50 years after the death of Fermi that the first planet outside our solar system was found. Many have been found since, mainly the "Hot Jupiter" I believe and that conflicted with what we thought we knew about planetary formations. We couldn't even find planets back then and he makes a statement like that.

The lack of Dyson spheres and such is just nonsense. I wish youtube had the film from the 30s about what OUR future society would be like. After the great success of the airplane as a weapons platform in World War I, eminent scientists & futurists envisioned the end of all violence on the planet. Why? The second a hot spot arose, the second violence somewhere on Earth broke out, a crack team of super genius men would hop on a propeller driven aircraft, fly over the troubled area, parachute in and use their superior intellect to defuse the situation. The film was hilarious! The men (and yes all men..women couldn't be smart enough) all looked like your stereotypical grandfather: tall, lanky, & gray haired and dressed in an all black superman type costume (minus the cape) with a globe & lightning bolt logo.

And if you want to apply scifi technology to the equation, who says the more advanced civilizations haven't found the Star Trek's "sub space" and utilize that for communications vs our primitive radio wave technology.

And the idea that "more advanced" equals "more peaceful" is laughable. Where are the Clovis,Aztecs, Mayans and other indigenous Americans today?

I wish I could recall the name of the comic to give him proper credit but he said, paraphrased:
The best evidence of intelligent life in the universe is the fact that we have never been contacted. This planet, this solar system, and even this section of the galaxy has to be the (whatever geographic region you feel you'd be raped & murdered if you visited) part of the universe.

[Dywyddyr]

The conclusions of the article linked to are more sophisticated than a simple multiplying together of probabilities. I'm sure even Drake would admit that.
Oddly enough, in one of those spooky coincidences that woo woos would be drooling over, only yesterday I found my copy of Krauss' Beyond Star Trek, (explaining science using Trek as examples of good and bad/ possible and not possible: the sequel) and he has a lengthy discussion on the Drake Equation and a chat he personally had with Drake about it.
He suggests that rather than compare absolute probabilities it might be better to look at it from the perspective of comparing chances of... versus chances of not...
E.g. although something may have only a 1/1000 chance of happening the possible combinations could result in there being 1/10000 of it not happening: in other words it's 10 times more likely to eventuate than not.
I'll see if I can scan the relevant section if you're interested.

[eburacum45]

Two remarkable papers on this subject here;
G. David Brin's 1983 paper, a long list of possible explanations
http://www.brin-l.com/downloads/silence.pdf

and Milan Cirkovic's recent paper
http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.3432
which includes all of Brin's explanations, plus some more recent ones.

We can't hope to get an answer to this, unless we do eventually make contact of some sort; but we can make exhaustive lists of possible reasons. This may or may not be a worthwhile pursuit; I think it is, but that's just me.

Moderator inputs: Changed the pdf reference to the abstract. Cites such as arXiv prefer links to the abstract HTML rather than the pdf paper, and so do users. Less time is wasted by the user and by arXiv if the abstract doesn't grab the user.
Edit: Thanks for that.

[sentrynox]

I might have good news for you!! We won't need Drake's or Fermi equations to figure out how much life are out there...
To be more accurate, it will be much more easier for us to find advance form of life than simple one (that should in theory be more numerous if we follow the probabilities).
Its hard to resume here on a forum, but our kind of "intelligent" life is more special than it appears, and because of this, answers will come much faster than you think!
I will resume very fast here:
Humans are a trade based lifeform as since the beginning, we have learn to trade or share knowledge, resources and skills in order to adapt to our environmental and ecosystem constraints. Without this trade among early humans, we wouldn't have make it so far, and we would surely not have reach our actual level of technology.
So if we figure out how we have survive, by trading, then finding other trade based lifeforms will be much easier, because of their need to trade in order to survive their hostile environment (which is beyond geographic location when societies becomes global and therefore reach planetary ecosystem). So if they need to trade, they need to be visible to others that have access to the same ecosystem as them (the universe in place of only their planet). So we need to find the signs they have left for us to see, but to do that, we do need to find one or two more technologies...
All in all, its a matter of years if not months before we find more than one of them at the same time.
I have more details about that theory, but I prefer not to talk about it here, but its definitely something I am excited about!!

[eburacum45]

Interesting idea, but what commodities could possibly be worth trading over interstellar distances? Not gold, because the price of transport between stars would be too high. Not food, unless you like food which has been frozen for decades or centuries. Not water, iron, oxygen, or even uranium would be valuable enough to cover the cost of interstellar shipment. What then?

[sentrynox]

Interesting idea, but what commodities could possibly be worth trading over interstellar distances? Not gold, because the price of transport between stars would be too high. Not food, unless you like food which has been frozen for decades or centuries. Not water, iron, oxygen, or even uranium would be valuable enough to cover the cost of interstellar shipment. What then?

In space, you need technologies or knowledge's in order to survive. And the thing that is the most difficult to do in space is traveling from one place to an unknown place because references are lacking, so in a 4d environment without horizon (or the equivalent), it is almost impossible to find a destination without getting lost because of gravitational bending of light and dark matter...
So knowledge of our surroundings and points of references could already be worth of trades. But again there is so many things that we do not know, it is why we need some more tech to reach our goals!!
But the main thing that will be worth trading is information's (solutions) because shipping information's doesn't cost much more than the message or the telescopes to spy on them ;)... Then after we will trade transformed resources when we will have figured out how to contact them (its not as complicated as it sound). As for the cost to travel in space, an advance space ready civilization would have reach an energy optimization so much greater than what we can achieve so far, that for them, it won't necessarily cost too much traveling here, considering the fact that trade based intelligence is the rarest resource (by the solutions and creativity we produces) in our Universe (therefore the most valuable) I am pretty darn sure that it won't be a difficulty trading with them!

[D H]

To be more accurate, it will be much more easier for us to find advance form of life than simple one (that should in theory be more numerous if we follow the probabilities). ...
You are assuming that advanced life is widespread. What if it isn't?

[eburacum45]

And the thing that is the most difficult to do in space is traveling from one place to an unknown place because references are lacking, so in a 4d environment without horizon (or the equivalent), it is almost impossible to find a destination without getting lost because of gravitational bending of light and dark matter... That may be true on intergalactic scales, but on interstellar scales gravitational bending is negligible. No-one is going to get lost going from Sol to Alpha Centauri.


But the main thing that will be worth trading is information's (solutions) because shipping information's doesn't cost much more than the messageI do agree with this. Quite what information we may have that is valuable I'm not sure, but there may be something of worth amongst all the information on our planet.

[Buffalo Roam]

But still no one has explained why a advanced life form capable of interstellar travel would necessarily be a peaceful civilization, survival is the imperative of all life forms, and that is not a peaceful pursuit.

One of the reason that we may have developed for so long with out interstellar interference is be cause we are located in a out of the way arm of the galaxy, and haven't been noticed.

Now we are acting like the little Bird who fledge and flew out of the nest, and chirping our head off because we are so proud of our achievement, and didn't realize all He was doing was giving the Cat a exact location for His next lunch date.

[Stryder]

I have a thought on the subject that will seem fantasiful to most but none the less I'm going to share it with you anyway.

I'm pretty sure that we hold the answer to if alien civilizations exist and even where they would be in the universe, but my reasoning is down to the decision tha we will have to make about our own universe. I guess you could say that I have a hypothesis that mankind could reach a point where it branches one of two directions, One direction is to add to the creation of the universe (Which would incidentally be becoming apart of creating a Singularity with some parallel universes) or we fob off the idea as being too star trek, ignore the possibilities that we could govern our own existance and be reduced to living out a "flat system" tangent.

Now you are probably wondering where this above hypothesis fits in with knowing if Alien Civilizations exist or where they are. Well thats down to the decisions we'd have to make if we are to truly play a role in the creation of our universe. I mean we could bring an alien race up to speed and bring them into the creation of the universe, this would secure their existance and make them equals with us, Or we could go with the absense of any aliens, making an entire universe devoid of life apart from this little blue-green planet we call home, or further still we could place "chaos" into the framework, a random potential for life to exist elsewhere in the universe. (This of course would be like playing a Sid Meiers game on "Deity", afterall would we assume an Alien to be equal, would we fall to the foul stench of earths history in regards to slavery, would we assume to be their superiors or indeed would they assume to be ours?)

There is also the prospect that if we build our universe, it's governed by our own observations. Physics itself is applied to the universe because of these observations. This means if there was an Alien Civilisation that build a universe too, they wouldn't necessarily build the same universe in which we exist, in fact their physics could follow completely different rules. (Mathematics could be somewhat different in another universe)

Of course I'm pretty sure most of you will see this as a flight of fantasy, and that is fair enough. Afterall we are dealing with a subject that currently has no definative answer, just alot of speculations. In short I just tried to explain why I think it's up to us to decide if there is life elsewhere in the universe, if of course we play a part in defining how this universe works.

[BenTheMan]

But still no one has explained why a advanced life form capable of interstellar travel would necessarily be a peaceful civilization, survival is the imperative of all life forms, and that is not a peaceful pursuit.

Because it's not necessarily true.

Hawking has said of the SETI program: we'd do best to keep our mouths shut, because the history of more advanced life civilizations finding primitive civilizations doesn't tend to work out in favor of the primitive civilizations.

[Buffalo Roam]

Because it's not necessarily true.

Hawking has said of the SETI program: we'd do best to keep our mouths shut, because the history of more advanced life civilizations finding primitive civilizations doesn't tend to work out in favor of the primitive civilizations.

The thing is still, the assumption that the SETI program is operation under is a pigheaded dogmatic, and canonical Utopian Idea that advanced life form capable of interstellar travel would necessarily be a peaceful civilization,

I don't disagree one little bit with Hawking but just like Him,

I want those Utopians to Explain why they are so pigheaded dogmatic, and canonical on the point that advanced life form's will necessarily be a peaceful civilizations and life forms.

[sentrynox]

You are assuming that advanced life is widespread. What if it isn't?

I do not claim that it is widespread, I say, if they are there they will leave a signature for others to see... Then when you get one you can easily get the others trading with the first and then on and on...

But so far, I believe that there might be over a thousand trade based intelligent lifeforms in our Universe (at least from the data we could collect in so far). Now the most difficult thing is to find the closest to us inside a "cloud" of neighboring Habstars (out of the 20000 that are habitable closest to our solar system).

And to answer your question, I will find that it is the greatest lost of space EVER, and found that god was a poor and cheap beggar...
But it is very unlikely because from what we already know, physics and chemical laws applies to the rest of the Universe (matter at least). Then knowing that life follows a curve of molecular complexity (the simplest the more abundant and the more complex the least abundant (at least until mankind)), then if basic life do exist, it is about certain that she will have tried to "complexify" itself and followed this complexity curve tendency (because it is a basic entropy principle present everywhere in the universe since the Big-bang)...

So do not worry, if they are there we will find them soon!!:cool:
So I am pretty much certain that we can't be alone!!

[sentrynox]

The thing is still, the assumption that the SETI program is operation under is a pigheaded dogmatic, and canonical Utopian Idea that advanced life form capable of interstellar travel would necessarily be a peaceful civilization,

I don't disagree one little bit with Hawking but just like Him,

I want those Utopians to Explain why they are so pigheaded dogmatic, and canonical on the point that advanced life form's will necessarily be a peaceful civilizations and life forms.

Simply because their civilization will have learned something we are trying to learn the hard way... To survive ourselves without blowing us up!!
Actually, humanity creative potential has always been equivalent to its destructive potential. Now we are creative enough to blow our planet up (therefore creativity is a form of energy that can transform matter and it is up to us to decide at which rate we wish to transform matter (instantly will cause a destruction and smoothly, into a Ferrari).

So knowing that any space ready civilization, needs to build ships out of matter to travel in space, we can assume that their creative power is much more efficient than us! So it will also means that if we can already blow up our planet and can go far into space, and that those can travel almost anywhere, it might means that they have the creative potential to blow up several suns and even solar systems!!
So if they were such space ready life forms out there, they would have harness their creative powers in order to build spaceships and travel across the Universe in a fashion that is still escaping us!!
Because such creative potential is useless when used in a destructive way and since energy conservation laws apply everywhere, such energetic creative potential will be most likely being used in an efficient way (that still escape us today), because otherwise, it will be energy at the level of whole sun or solar system that will be lost for nothing in return when they know that they might need all the energy they need to survive inside a perpetually changing Universe! This is without talking about the problem of the weapon range... Getting out of the way in time after blowing up a solar system pose a certain challenge that might never be overcome...

Finally, when you spend time looking at the stars everyday, you understand after a while that the rarest resource in the Universe, is not gold, oil, diamonds, water, but us, a trade based intelligence having a creative potential beyond any other life forms, capable of finding solutions to every problems! So our mere presence in this Universe might be rare enough for the others to pay us a visit just in case we do not make it by ourselves making them lose a new trading partner.
Because even we are not the brightness, we still have over 6 billions brains that can thinkered about solving problems, and this universe is filled of problems, so surviving it requires ALL the brain resources you can find!

That's basic survival economics and nothing fancy here...

[sentrynox]

That may be true on intergalactic scales, but on interstellar scales gravitational bending is negligible. No-one is going to get lost going from Sol to Alpha Centauri.

It is what you think... Do you REALLY think that we know our space enough to venture out of our solar system? We have just begun watching our surroundings with new eyes in the range of x-rays and Gamma rays, and I can tell you that our scientific community has NEVER expected to see this around us! CoRoT will have a very difficult job to undertake. Also space/time curvature of our solar system has been found to be quite in an unexpected shape (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,430943,00.html?sPage=fnc/scitech/space)...
The fact is, the more we learn about our own solar system, the more we understand that we know nothing...

I do agree with this. Quite what information we may have that is valuable I'm not sure, but there may be something of worth amongst all the information on our planet.

Do not under estimate Humanity (but without being arrogant). We do have over 6 billion brains, and brains to understand this Universe are surely lacking, because it happens that we live in an infinite Universe... And if we succeed finding them, it will already prove them that we are smart enough to be worthy of helping them!

[sentrynox]

reduced to living out a "flat system" tangent.

This can't really happen, or else we will go extinct... The Universe has one fundamental law that no one can escape, it changes all the time, driven by its expansion. So who says changes, says cycle, and therefore creation and destruction, life and death... So humanity cannot remain on the same ball thinking it will live there forever without troubles! The Universe is just not made like this and won't allow us to sit on our butt doing nothing!

Now you are probably wondering where this above hypothesis fits in with knowing if Alien Civilizations exist or where they are. Well thats down to the decisions we'd have to make if we are to truly play a role in the creation of our universe. I mean we could bring an alien race up to speed and bring them into the creation of the universe, this would secure their existance and make them equals with us, Or we could go with the absense of any aliens, making an entire universe devoid of life apart from this little blue-green planet we call home, or further still we could place "chaos" into the framework, a random potential for life to exist elsewhere in the universe. (This of course would be like playing a Sid Meiers game on "Deity", afterall would we assume an Alien to be equal, would we fall to the foul stench of earths history in regards to slavery, would we assume to be their superiors or indeed would they assume to be ours?)

The Universe is very well made, has no one can dominate the entire Universe, because it behaves as an open system where he cannot be dissected and understood from the bottom to up.

Some will say, that power is about control over others, some will say that it is about the size of your wealth compare to others, and others will say that it is related to every kind of dominant position in relation with others... Well I think that real power in this Universe, as nothing to do with those principles. Those principles of course have a meaning when it comes to dealing inside a close environment like our planet, but the Universe is anything but a close environment.

Humans cannot control the evolutions of virus, bacterias and even other animals, but they can alter them, and only so!

We need to experience traveling inside the Universe, to understand that things might just happen once and never occur once more, which makes it VERY difficult for a young space ready civilization to learn about the Universe without trading with others older and more knowledgeable about it.

At the start we will lack the knowledge necessary to spread far away from our little blue ball, so others will need to assist us in order for us to manage doing our first steps in this infinity. We can't just afford to be arrogant and say, that we can do it alone!! That's dreaming!!

Our Universe is not like our current science, he doesn't have much absolute truth that goes on forever! So it absolutely impossible to be confident about what we know of the Universe while traveling inside it. Star Trek call those things sub space distortion (when they can't explain the phenomenon)... I can tell you that if we were to go there for real, you will get tired of hearing this!

There is also the prospect that if we build our universe, it's governed by our own observations. Physics itself is applied to the universe because of these observations. This means if there was an Alien Civilisation that build a universe too, they wouldn't necessarily build the same universe in which we exist, in fact their physics could follow completely different rules. (Mathematics could be somewhat different in another universe)

Yeah, surely, but our actual Universe is already big enough to entertain us a long while, but we will certainly need access to other Universe, and if their laws are different then we could surely find a way to make advantage of a difference between two different space/time dimensions... This could allows a lot of things that couldn't be done inside our own Universe.

[Walter L. Wagner]

This has been discussed in earlier threads on the topic. Some people believe the explanation for the "Fermi Paradox" is that civilizations reach a certain stage, then self-annihilate [along the lines of creating a destructive particle accelerator, or other lines]. I'll assume that that is not true.

If life arises relatively easily, due to the physics/chemistry being the same everywhere in the Universe, then there would/should be lots of life on other star sytems in our own Milky Way galaxy. If it evolves along similar lines to ours, then if our Sun is typical, such life would have evolved over the course of billions of years. So, one would expect that there are systems that are hundreds of millions of years less-evolved than our solar system at some 4.5 billion years, and that there are systems that are hundreds of millions of years more evolved than our solar system.

So, if life evolves on other solar systems, the likelihood that there are life-forms more advanced than ours [assuming they do not all self-destruct] would be significant. Thus, we could expect sentient life forms to be millions, or hundreds of millions of years more advanced than we are on our planet. Assuming that life evolves.

So, what would a civilization hundreds of millions more advanced than ours be capable of doing, knowing that our civilization which is a mere few tens of thousands of years old [since the first humans], has become space-faring?

Would it be possible for them to send physical probes at near light-speed to all corners of the galaxy? Seems possible. Would those physical probes likely have intelligent control? Seems possible. Would they be capable of sending physical devices that have nano-technology for re-creating life forms from computer data-bases housing their genetic code? Seems plausible.

In other words, if intelligent life exists in our Milky Way on other planets, it seems very plausible that it could reach us and investigate our planet [in much the same manner that we seek to investigate strange environments such as Mars, the Moon, the Deep Ocean, etc.]

So, the question is, how would we know? Would there be reports by human observers of strange probes? Would there be reports by human observers of strange beings? Would there be no sightings even if such sentience were visiting us?

Or would they not have even bothered to check out the Milky Way?

I'll leave it for others to speculate on these questions.

[nietzschefan]

I've heard that argument before but consider this. Why did we land on the moon in the sixties and not do jack shit since? No competition. In the sixties we wanted to rub it in the noses of the Soviets. Since that motivation was removed, we haven't done crap in space.

Ahh ha, that's the nub, because I suppose space travel/exploration is not about "competition" but simply the adventurous spirit, that occasionally is satisfied by "competition". They were competing I will admit - for nothing, and they realized that, so they got back to fighting on earth for scarcer and scarcer resources.


A truly peaceful species will follow the logic: we shouldn't go to space until we've dealt with all the problems on our home planet; and thus never get around to it.

This is a damn good argument and I'm very, very, afraid you are right. There are several case studies, of this kind of thinking, right here on this board.

[nietzschefan]

Most of the technology for our current space programs comes from Military Black projects, and again in war the greatest break through's come, Survival of the Fittest is the ultimate imperative, no matter where or what, driven by the need for resources to insure that survival, all you are stating is Utopian Logic, and a hope that the first extraterrestrial contact isn't from a species that is looking mineral resources for a new food source.

Nonsense, you didn't read my post, or didn't understand what I am trying to say.

We haven't had a real "war" since 1945 (ending with Atomic war). Everything has been limited and more limited since. Please don't even try to tell me these fucking expensive shitty little wars even mean anything. They mean nothing, they archive nothing, including your war - Nam, it archived fuck all nothing. We have not been tested completely yet. When the REAL problems come, and there are no more resources on this planet to exploit and "argue" over, are we going to fight (as you suppose?) or finally have that epiphany, to grow up and act civilized. We are currently barbarians.

I suppose you think, whatever "black budget" colonies out there are going to be able to survive when earth goes thermonuclear? I personally doubt it.

[nietzschefan]

Finally, when you spend time looking at the stars everyday, you understand after a while that the rarest resource in the Universe, is not gold, oil, diamonds, water, but us, a trade based intelligence having a creative potential beyond any other life forms, capable of finding solutions to every problems! So our mere presence in this Universe might be rare enough for the others to pay us a visit just in case we do not make it by ourselves making them lose a new trading partner.

Indeed, to add to the great conspiracy of Life. To be adding to it and not subtracting from it. Certainly we generally seem close to discovering this...but somehow not quite.

[inzomnia]

Originally Posted by BenTheMan
Anyway, let's assume that we're more or less typical, and there are some more advanced civilizations than us. This is a good assumption, I think, as we live around a 3rd generation star, and the Milky Way has some older stars. The question is, how many more advanced civilizations are there than ours?

Because we are more or less typical, we should guess that these aliens are also inquisitive about the universe, and that they will try to investigate the different corners. We should assume that the aliens are limited by the speed of light, as we are.

I think there is too much assumption there, in the first place. The assumption that there are more or less TYPICAL or more or less ADVANCE civilization than us just because there are older stars system is quite questionable.

For that assumption to have basis, I think we should have at least data, that we have surveyed several stars systems, and that in that stars systems, we can find a planet or place that is habitable by us, even if we cannot find any life there. If we cannot even find any example of such habitable planet, how would we even expect that there is life typical to us, and that we can probably detect each other? Or even count the probability of how many are there?

For that to happen, I think we should wait for a technology which enable us to skim this universe with, say, something that can bend the space-time so that we'll be able to travel and check considerable amount of star systems.

Also, we don't know yet, where does our LIFE comes from. We are not just a matter of molecules, sure? I mean, we know what we are composed of, and the structure, what happens to our physical bodies when we die (decompose), etc, but we haven't yet got an idea where do we get our life from? I think this is quite fundamental to know before we can assume that there is LIFE out there. We can, here, put all materials needed to create a human, but we can not make it alive as a human or other living things. Sure, there was this experiment about how amino acid come from "primordial life ocean" thing, but we haven't been able to proof that a life could pop in out of it.

[nietzschefan]

For that to happen, I think we should wait for a technology which enable us to skim this universe with, say, something that can bend the space-time so that we'll be able to travel and check considerable amount of star systems.



It doesn't wash...

The technology does not just *PoP* up. It must be pursued. It sure isn't going to pop up while trying to get the next flashy wiz-bang on everyone's cell phone to make a few more depleted, Bank-inflated-promisetoreallypayyousomeday-notes. Or while fiendishly worrying how to feed Africa with promisetopayyousomeday papers...

Goddard didn't just go "Gee I sure hope we can just magically get to the moon someday". He built real technology when before there was none. He was able to do this, with small help, but to finally get to the moon required national help. It doesn't just come along...It's a group effort, not just a get rich scheme.

[inzomnia]

It doesn't wash...

The technology does not just *PoP* up. It must be pursued. It sure isn't going to pop up while trying to get the next flashy wiz-bang on everyone's cell phone to make a few more depleted, Bank-inflated-promisetoreallypayyousomeday-notes. Or while fiendishly worrying how to feed Africa with promisetopayyousomeday papers...

Goddard didn't just go "Gee I sure hope we can just magically get to the moon someday". He built real technology when before there was none. He was able to do this, with small help, but to finally get to the moon required national help. It doesn't just come along...It's a group effort, not just a get rich scheme.

Lol, funny but true :D

Perhaps the analogy is like this... let say that there is a big desert, as big as New York City.. in that desert, say at X street, there is a bucket of water, a kg of sugar, and us, a group of ants... we can survive and reproduce, but our numbers are limited by the amount of that bucket of water and kg of sugar which is recycleable.. Now, we have a little bit idea, that the size of our desert universe is as big as New York City.. but we have no idea, whether there is any other groups of ants like us (or similar to us) out of X street, nor we are able to discover the whole New York City because of the limited time span and resource... what we'd probably do is, we'd stay in that X street, until we can generate technology to travel the whole desert in a short time.. but while we are doing that, we can't focus, because we are in constant war, fighting to get the water and the sugar with each other.. :shrug:

[nietzschefan]

Yeah that's pretty much the crux of this thread.

[Buffalo Roam]

nietzschefan

The space technology that was developed, in the space race, was because of the Cold War, and the quest to utilize the Offensive Advantage and Defensive Advantage, of the high ground of space.

Again the fastest advances for Civilizations have come through and from War, or the threat of War and the quest to have the greatest advantage for your side.

Survival is the universal imperative, here or a 100,000,000 light years from here, if it isn't the species/civilization dies, here or a 100,000,000 light years from here.

[nietzschefan]

nietzschefan

The space technology that was developed, in the space race, was because of the Cold War, and the quest to utilize the Offensive Advantage and Defensive Advantage, of the high ground of space.

Again the fastest advances for Civilizations have come through and from War, or the threat of War and the quest to have the greatest advantage for your side.

Survival is the universal imperative, here or a 100,000,000 light years from here, if it isn't the species/civilization dies, here or a 100,000,000 light years from here.

We'll see, I guess.

[sentrynox]

Indeed, to add to the great conspiracy of Life. To be adding to it and not subtracting from it. Certainly we generally seem close to discovering this...but somehow not quite.

Yeah, indeed, as Plato would have said: Too many dogs down here...:p

[D H]

I do not claim that it is widespread, I say, if they are there they will leave a signature for others to see...
What kind of signature? If our nearest neighbor is millions of light years away, the signature would have to be immensely powerful. Tapping the entire output of many stars might do the trick. Why would they waste energy at such a level?

Then when you get one you can easily get the others trading with the first and then on and on...
By saying this you are implicitly assuming that intelligence is widespread. What if our nearest intelligent neighbor is in the Messier 81 galaxy, 12 million light years away? How are we going to trade with someone if the time for a simple exchange of "Hellos" takes about 25 million years? Note well: That kind of separation still allows for billions of intelligent species in the universe; we are hardly unique.

But so far, I believe that there might be over a thousand trade based intelligent lifeforms in our Universe (at least from the data we could collect in so far). Now the most difficult thing is to find the closest to us inside a "cloud" of neighboring Habstars (out of the 20000 that are habitable closest to our solar system).
You appear to be mistaking the universe with our galaxy. Our galaxy is a mere 100,000 light years in diameter. The universe is a lot, lot bigger than that.

[D H]

NASA will hold a press conference on Thursday, August 6 to discuss preliminary results from the Kepler mission. The press conference announcement: http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/aug/HQ_M09-144_Kepler_briefing.html.

It's too early in the mission for it to have discovered and confirmed an Earth-like planet in an Earth-like orbit. The scuttlebutt is that Kepler has detected a previously discovered planet, probably a hot Jupiter, thereby proving that the basic concept of the mission is sound.

[CptBork]

I remember a few years ago on vacation in Hawaii (not my most recent one), the hotel I stayed at had some big telescopes on the roof. I was discussing a possible explanation I was considering for a friend of mine's claim that he saw a UFO. Then this tourist family from Utah (Mormon central) was all offended that I was trying to give simpler, more logical explanations for UFOs (without coming out and saying outright that most claimants happen to be messed up in the head). So the father of this pious family comes forth and asks the astronomer, with me standing right next to him, "surely you don't think we're the only people in this universe? There must be someone out there visiting us, right?" As I understand it, Mormons believe quite strongly in alien races, but I'll have to check into it further. The best part was the look on their faces when I said "what if Einstein happened to be right, and you can't go faster than light? That would pretty much mean WE AIN'T GONNA BE VISITED BY NOBODY!" They looked like kids who'd just learned for the first time that Santa Claus was fake, and it was actually their now-estranged father in a red jumpsuit all along.

[TBodillia]

...As I understand it, Mormons believe quite strongly in alien races, but I'll have to check into it further.

You are looking for Kolob...a planetary or stellar body that lies very near the throne of God. Also, it is the birthplace of Earth.

[Gustav]

Then this tourist family from Utah (Mormon central)


excellent
spamming ridicule on mormons

[PieAreSquared]

I have to say, I think the Fermi Paradox is an idiotic statement made by a brilliant man

yep.. given the limited knowledge of the size of just the Milky Way .. when it was made.

[eburacum45]

It is what you think... Do you REALLY think that we know our space enough to venture out of our solar system? We have just begun watching our surroundings with new eyes in the range of x-rays and Gamma rays, and I can tell you that our scientific community has NEVER expected to see this around us! They haven't found anything particularly dangerous in our interstellar vicinity that would threaten an interstellar probe; on the contrary, we are in a relatively safe region of the galaxy. A little bit of interstellar dust,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Interstellar_Cloud
and the odd cosmic ray- nothing a bit of shielding wouldn't cope with.
Also space/time curvature of our solar system has been found to be quite in an unexpected shape (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,430943,00.html?sPage=fnc/scitech/space)... With respect, that refers to intergalactic space, not interstellar space, and also it refers to a hypothetical possibility which they are testing, not a discovery.

[orcot]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3231/2414002070_b1d9036cd6.jpg
This seems to be the greatest threat in our local neighbourhood.

That we can not detect intiligent life outside of our own planet is od but not half is od compared to the fact that there is no other intiligent life forms on earth, it's yust od, how many species are their on our planet who do not have a relativly direct cousin?

This might actualy be a reason to avoid other species except for observation, the universe is big enough for everyone and history tells us that when 2 intiligent species meet only one continous living

[TBodillia]

Sorry, can't post links yet...

h t t p://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/10/05/miracles-youll-see-in-the-next-fifty-years/

This is a perfect example of what I said at first: How do we predict what an advanced civilization would look like if we can't predict what ours would look like in as little as 50 years. The article from, February 1950, details what life in 2000 would look like.

"It is a crime to burn raw coal and pollute air with smoke and soot."

"Tottenville (their fictional average city USA) is illuminated by electric “suns” suspended from arms on steel towers 200 feet high."

"When Jane Dobson cleans house she simply turns the hose (as in garden hose) on everything."

"Cooking as an art is only a memory in the minds of old people."

There even is a nice section on how we are able to control the weather since the 80s and that there are no more "weather delays" at airports. And even though we are flying from Chicago to Paris on a regular basis in 2000 on supersonic passenger jets, we haven't even orbited the moon (let alone land on it!).

There are some good predictions...allusions to online shopping, the internet and such, but the article is more wrong than right.

[Startraveler]

Here's where I disagree.
I suspect it requires a very very peaceful culture to get "extra-planetary" at the very least. Using earth as an example - the most advanced space program currently is NASA (but actually might not be in a few years), and it's budget is pathetic compared to the U.S Defense budget...like really minuscule.

I'm sympathetic to your argument (I'm a Star Trek fan at heart) but it's an interesting historical fact that NASA is a product of the Cold War--one of the many examples of intense non-military competition during that era but not particularly a product of peace (remember, one of NASA's influential pioneers in its early years was Werner von Braun, a man who cut his teeth designing rockets like the V-2 in wartime). When you get right down to it, I suspect our thirst for exploration and taming frontiers is intimately connected to our desire for conquest and besting our foes.

My favorite Star Trek series was Deep Space Nine, which came to revolve around what amounted to a futuristic space-based version of World War II. Even in the utopia, war and conquest were prevalent. Anyway, food for thought.

[Nasor]

Here's where I disagree.

I suspect it requires a very very peaceful culture to get "extra-planetary" at the very least...

Just because a species isn't willing to exterminate itself doesn't mean that it isn't willing to exterminate other species.