- #1
Gold Barz
- 467
- 0
I think we can all agree that no alien civilization has made contact with us yet, but does this really mean we are alone in the galaxy?
Gold Barz said:I think we can all agree that no alien civilization has made contact with us yet, but does this really mean we are alone in the galaxy?
I think the tightest constraint is how long a communication capable civilization can survive. We have only been communication capable for a matter of decades, but are imminently imperiled by our own technology. We could bomb ourselves back to the stone ages [or worse] in the blink of an eye. We are also imperiled by potential ecological disasters of our own making that could do an equally fine job of 'stoning' civilization [or worse]. Based on the one example we do have to examine, I don't think life or intelligence is nearly as rare as it's ability to avoid self destructing shortly after acquiring the capability to do so.Gold Barz said:Dont want to spam the forum with another thread but try your hand at the Drake Equation
http://www.msnbc.com/modules/drake/default.asp
I got 50
It's a sobering (actually depressing) thought, but in our society the motivations and efforts of decent ethical people can be undone by those who lust only for power and control. These maniacs realize that through lies, manipulation, etc, they can acquire the means to destroy life, destroy societies, etc. Usually, they fill their rhetoric with words like "freedom", "liberty", and "security", while they work very hard to deny these things to entire classes of people, sometimes entire societies. Eventually, careless use or intentional use of the destructive capabilities controlled by these sociopaths may spell the end for the human race. For this reason, the Drake equation should contain a term for the ethics of the intelligent species. In a truly ethical society, all life would be valued and individuals would act in a manner consistent with the Golden Rule. In a moralistic society, in which behavioral motivations are derived from rules, religious tradition, political doctrines, laws, etc, almost any atrocious act against another individual can be "justified". I fear that the long-term survival rates of moralistic societies will be rather poor compared the the survival rates of ethical societies.Chronos said:Based on the one example we do have to examine, I don't think life or intelligence is nearly as rare as it's ability to avoid self destructing shortly after acquiring the capability to do so.
Let me argue the other side.Chronos said:I think the tightest constraint is how long a communication capable civilization can survive. We have only been communication capable for a matter of decades, but are imminently imperiled by our own technology. We could bomb ourselves back to the stone ages [or worse] in the blink of an eye. We are also imperiled by potential ecological disasters of our own making that could do an equally fine job of 'stoning' civilization [or worse]. Based on the one example we do have to examine, I don't think life or intelligence is nearly as rare as it's ability to avoid self destructing shortly after acquiring the capability to do so.
You don't need to kill everyone with blast effects and radiation...Sagan et al thought that as few as 100 nuclear weapons (especially ones targeted on smoky targets such as oil facilities)would be enough to trigger a nuclear winter that would destroy most species. I would estimate that there are probably 200-500 times that number of nukes in the arsenals of the Earth's industrialized countries.tony873004 said:I don't think we could bomb ourselves to the stone ages if we tried. An all-out nuclear war doesn't have the kill power to eliminate everybody. It might kill most, but there are not enough nukes to bomb the countless populated rural areas, many of which are not downwind from a major target.
Bang on target!Chronos said:The Fermi paradox suggests we might be well advised to get our priorities straight.
The original group that posited nuclear winter (including Sagan) thought that 100 well-placed nuclear devices would be enough to trigger the cataclysm. The US alone has 100 to 200 times that many nuclear devices, and when you add in Russia, China, GB, France, Pakistan, Israel, etc, etc...well, you can do the math (provided the quantitative estimates in the publicly-available literature are even OOM accurate). I think any hope that humanity might survive a massive nuclear exchange is ambitious but mis-placed. The small percentage of surviving species would likely be those sheltered by deep water, earth, etc and least reliant on photosynthesis for food.Chessguy said:Turbo-1,
While, the nuclear winter that article describes is certainly horrible, I'm not convinced that such a disaster would wipe out humanity. It makes a comparison to the Cretaceous extinction which wiped out 75% of species. That means that 25% of species survived. Many mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish and birds survived it - why couldn't we?
Given time our destructive technologies will undoubtedly improve. I guess I'm hoping though that other technologies that may increase our odds will be developed in time like space exploration/interstellar travel.
Gold Barz said:I think we can all agree that no alien civilization has made contact with us yet, but does this really mean we are alone in the galaxy?
Hey, Gold! We are here and we have not populated our neighborhood of the galaxy, nor have we populated our solar system. Reasons:Gold Barz said:Alot of people say their reasoning why they think that there are vey few, if not, no other technological civilizations in the Milky Way was that because if there were a decent amount of them, atleast one would have populated the galaxy, do you think that it would be inevitable like that?
Broadcasting and listening on the 21 cm band may ultimately be fruitless, but it's a pretty smart way to attract attention for two reasons.MonstersFromTheId said:I DO take issue with the idea that "broadcasting on 21 cm would be like dialing 911 on your cell phone". That's a pretty over the top assumption to make imo. Broadcasting on 21 cm could very well be more like beating on a phone wire with a stick. IF the phone company had sensors installed on phone wires to detect attempts at communication by people far too primitive to figure out how to tap into the line somebody might notice. But I'm not sure that that's all that likely.
Here in Britain we dial 999, (which I believe is where the idea for the American 911 came from, but that is another story!) But it does highlight the fact that we have to watch on all other possible "21cm" frequencies as well. And "all" can be a very large number!turbo-1 said:You might not like Chronos' comparison of 21 cm to 911, but it is a valid point. Anywhere in the US, you can dial 911 on your cell phone and it will be universally recognized as a call for assistance. I don't know how many other countries might have adopted that code (ignorant on that count) but it is very handy here. Not being able to communicate with other civilizations yet (and set up a common meeting ground), we have to guess where they might be looking for signs, and 21 cm is a very logical place to look.