Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Your take on CarlB's idea.

  1. we are the first potential colonizers to mature, let's go for it

    18.8%
  2. we don't have the potential, or maybe don't really want to

    3.1%
  3. we aren't the first, colonization by others has begun but is not detected

    34.4%
  4. a different possibility is more likely

    43.8%
  1. Nov 2, 2005 #1

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    In Goldbarz thread, CarlB voiced this idea:

    this is a possible response to Fermi's question "where are they" or to the apparent Silence. what's your reaction?

    BTW it is not as optimistic as it sounds right off because he just says "be able" and we might have the potential but fail to do it if we destroy or cripple ourselves before colonization gets rolling.

    1. sounds like a plan, go for it

    2. we're the first species to mature with an itch to colonize, but we lack the ability to gratify the itch (please give reason)

    3. we're not the first: others have begun colonizing but they are "silent" (they communicate in channels we haven't sampled)

    4. other
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 2, 2005 #2

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    My 'take' is 4.

    - We are quarantined in a zoo until proven safe for others to play with!:bugeye:

    (Based on objective science and pure speculation obviously!)

    Garth
     
  4. Nov 2, 2005 #3

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    good suggestion Garth, a valid alternative, please click your vote on 4. "other" !

    thanks, I see you did

    in case anyone missed it in the other thread, here is CarlB post where he says that:
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=810026&postcount=50
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2005
  5. Nov 2, 2005 #4
    I hope it doesn't take more than a couple billion years, because of the whole Andromeda crashing into the milky way deal.
     
  6. Nov 2, 2005 #5
    I’m giving some thought to the question “are we the first” and it seems a little pretentious when we have absolutely no idea of what’s happening around us, but then I noticed that you limited it to just this galaxy, so in that respect we could in fact be the first in our galaxy. Still I think the galaxy is old enough that we may have been beaten by a few million years, which is more than enough time in which to colonize one galaxy.
     
  7. Nov 2, 2005 #6
    The space in between stars is such that when the galaxies do collide they’ll pass right through each other, of course they’ll be torn away from their normal orbits, but there shouldn’t be any major destruction.
     
  8. Nov 2, 2005 #7

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I went with #4. I doubt that we're the first to reach our current level of space travel ability. That's still an awfully long way from being able to colonize anything outside of our own solar system. The same physical barriers would apply to any species that tries, so at best colonization is probably limited to the colonists' immediate stellar neighbourhood.
     
  9. Nov 2, 2005 #8
    Yet another variation of Drake? My pure speculation two cents say that there has never been and there never will be any colonialization in any Galaxy.

    I know if humans were meant to fly then the creator would have given them wings. But if you extent the drake equation with the factors that intelligent live would outgrow their adverse working primitive instincts in a complex society, that they would overcome physical laws, etc all within the period from basic live to the next cosmic or other cataclysmic disaster, then the odds are getting extremely small.

    But the discussion is basically pointless.
     
  10. Nov 2, 2005 #9

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    By that reasoning, if we were meant to drive, we'd have 4 wheels and a carbuerator. It has nothing to do with scientific speculation. The Drake equation is pretty lame, actually, although it gives something to go by.
     
  11. Nov 2, 2005 #10
    I voted for #3 simply because the number of exoplanets discovered so far ( i think) aren't near the potential amount that is out there, i think there are WAY more planets in our galaxy that can be harboring life, not only that. But i don't think we even know what is on the other side of the Milkyway, right?
     
  12. Nov 2, 2005 #11
    Agreed....
     
  13. Nov 2, 2005 #12
    It's ours for the taking

    The Copernican principle of mediocrity suggests that we're not special and that therefore we are not alone; however, the anthropic principle suggests that we are. Someone has to be first--it's like the lottery: someone has to win.

    If we have been beaten to the punch, it's much more likely that we would have been beaten by a few hundred million years, than by a few million years. As I've written before, if human-equivalent intelligence is the inevitable result of evolution on planets as life-friendly as Earth is, then one or more species of intelligent dinosaurs should have evolved right here on Earth 100 mybp.

    I think Stephen Jay Gould once estimated that there is perhaps a 1 in 100,000 chance for human-equivalent intelligence to evolve on planets supporting metazoan life (which after all took three billion years of evolution to achieve here on Earth)--and this may have been an overestimate. Yes, it's true that there are a lot of stars, but there are a lot of coincidences that had to happen for human-equivalent intelligence to evolve on Earth.

    In addition, our geographical location within the Milky Way is in the zone where we would expect intelligent life to evolve first.

    Say our immediate stellar neighborhood is 50 ly. Well, for a colony at the edge of this bubble, their immediate stellar neighborhood will extend for another 50 ly, and so on ad infinitum.
    Actually, there are political repercussions: if the colonization of space is an exercize in futility, then we shouldn't waste scarce resources on manned spaceflight.

    Bottom Line: Either we are the first, or UFO's are real.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2005
  14. Nov 2, 2005 #13
    And how did you come to that conclusion, adding up all of your SWAG's together? I admire your confidence on that though.
     
  15. Nov 3, 2005 #14
    yeah i suppose, i mean, we'd be able to know what planets will turn to junk and what ones won't and also what ones will be able so support life that weren't able to before, and also what systems will completely be destroyed. Overall, things will be about the same, assuming we pick the correct places to hang out while the battle of the galaxies occurs. Instead of wathcing football, we'll be watching two galaxies duke it out! I'm rooting for the milkey way, but I'm betting on Andromeda.
     
  16. Nov 3, 2005 #15

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    If life is prevalent in the galaxy, and few manage to spring from manure to intelligience, the only choices left is: we are alone [I find that unlikely], or they too have not figured out how to break the light barrier.
     
  17. Nov 3, 2005 #16
    Sorry for the typo, I failed to add: [/sarcasm off].

    Point is that can't use the argument that something is deemed impossible. The point is if its probable. Take us, after having filled in the variables to the Drake equation. What's going to happen first:

    - Into the wild black yonder to the next solar system?
    - Serious setback of human civilisation due to build-in deficiencies (wars, depletion of resources, etc)?
    - Serious setback due to natural factors, meteorites, volcanic, tectonic disasters?
     
  18. Nov 3, 2005 #17

    Exactly what I thought.
     
  19. Nov 3, 2005 #18

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Won't happen. Once they're both weakened and distracted, the Megallanic Clouds are gonna team up and blindside them both.

    Now it makes sense. I was wondering why in the world a pilot would say that.
    I believe that once space technology is firmly in the private and corporate hands rather than governmental pseudopods, the race will be on to get things going locally. Ion Compressed Antimatter Nuclear propulsion and similar projects will even make travel to the nearest stars practical. The question is in whether or not colonization would be practical from an economic standpoint. We won't need to send anyone until the sun starts to destabilize, since our own system has more than enough room and resources to sustain our species.
     
  20. Nov 3, 2005 #19
    First species or not?

    We are not the first species in universe. Before bigbang the universe is present. whole universe is driven by super power of god, which was not scientificly prove.
     
  21. Nov 3, 2005 #20
    Let's not go there shall we? Further debate on this statement of yours will get this thread closed.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Your take on CarlB's idea.
  1. Just an idea (Replies: 11)

  2. Just an Idea (Replies: 4)

  3. Old idea? (Replies: 6)

  4. Oral Ideas (Replies: 4)

Loading...