Slashdot Mirror


Fewer Than 10 ET Civilizations In Our Galaxy?

Al writes "The Fermi Paradox focuses on the existence of advanced civilizations elsewhere in the galaxy. If these civilizations are out there — and many analyses suggest the galaxy should be teeming with life — why haven't we seen them? Carlos Cotta and Álvaro Morales from the University of Malaga in Spain investigate another angle by considering the speed at which a sufficiently advanced civilization could colonize the galaxy. Various analyses suggest that using spacecraft that travel at a tenth of the speed of light, the colonization wavefront could take some 50 million years to sweep the galaxy. Others have calculated that it may be closer to 13 billion years, which may explain ET's absence. Cotta and Morales study how automated probes sent ahead of the colonization could explore the galaxy. If these probes left evidence of a visit that lasts for 100 million years, then there can be no more than about 10 civilizations out there."

107 of 642 comments (clear)

  1. Too Many Free Variables by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Funny

    Fewer Than 10 ET Civilizations In Our Galaxy?

    All this is assuming that we would know immediately if there were a 50-100 million year old alien probe in our solar system's backyard. Stack that on top of all the non-empirical data based percentages that go into the Fermi paradox and ...

    *puts on Twilight Zone music*

    Human beings are the alien probe!

    And man, we had better start compiling that report that's due when Quetzalcoatl/Jesus/Osiris/Thoth/Viracocha get back here. He's gonna be pissed when he sees that we just threw a huge party and trashed the place instead of assessing the resources!

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Too Many Free Variables by Ihlosi · · Score: 3, Insightful
      All this is assuming that we would know immediately if there were a 50-100 million year old alien probe in our solar system's backyard.

      Yes. There could be half a bajillion alien probes in the Kuiper belt, transmitting the latest antics of the Earthlings right to GalaxyTV, and we'd have no idea.

    2. Re:Too Many Free Variables by lorenlal · · Score: 2, Funny

      I at least hope they're getting a good laugh.

    3. Re:Too Many Free Variables by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why doesn't Ross, the bigger of the 'Friends', simply just EAT the other two?! - Omicron Persei 8

    4. Re:Too Many Free Variables by bazorg · · Score: 4, Funny

      So you are saying that our whole freaking planet is a reality show? agh!

    5. Re:Too Many Free Variables by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Interesting

      All this is assuming that we would know immediately if there were a 50-100 million year old alien probe in our solar system's backyard.

      Yes. There could be half a bajillion alien probes in the Kuiper belt, transmitting the latest antics of the Earthlings right to GalaxyTV, and we'd have no idea.

      I disagree. I shall propose what will be known as The eldavojohn Paradox which states that: If extraterrestrial life were watching our TV, surely Fox and the WB would have been attacked by now ... or at least a very harshly worded intergalactic message would have been delivered to the Fox executives about their nonsensical canceling of shows like Firefly and Futurama while promoting unadulterated drivel.

      You see, my assertion that extraterrestrials would enjoy the same television as I is just as utterly inept as assuming that their primary goal is establishing contact with other extraterrestrials. Who knows? Maybe they're too busy jumping between parallel universes to waste time talking to the Corky from Life Goes On of the Milky Way Galaxy? (that being us)

      Maybe they showed up and watched World War I and II and said, "Wow, that is some heavy shit. We'll ... we'll just come back later when you're not busy, ok?"

      Isn't the Maybe Game fun? It's like I'm a sci-fi writer with me as my own audience.

      --
      My work here is dung.
    6. Re:Too Many Free Variables by jgostling · · Score: 5, Funny

      We've trashed nothing. The whole point of sending us here is the development of global warming technology so they can actually inhabit the planet when they get here. We're not probes. We're just an alien-forming device.

      Cheers!

    7. Re:Too Many Free Variables by r_jensen11 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Human beings are the alien probe!

      Oh no! I don't want to be shoved up anything's ass!

    8. Re:Too Many Free Variables by Damastus+the+WizLiz · · Score: 5, Funny

      Couldn't you just see the pitch on that one. TV Exec 1: "We take this planet, wipe off the indigenous reptilian life. Seed it with these agressive mammals and watch the hilarity ensue." Later on it would be: "This season we are gonna crash a ship into the planet with some fake bodies and then we will skim low in some ships just to make them nervous."

      --
      I often have trouble remembering which way is out of bed in the morning.
    9. Re:Too Many Free Variables by sleigher · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's just the money you could be saving on car insurance.

      --
      All points of time and space are connected.
    10. Re:Too Many Free Variables by thedonger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I propose thedonger Paradox:

      If there exists another race like earth-based humans, it proves our evolution is completely random because no intelligent, higher being would make us on purpose twice. On the other hand, if we are here our of sheer randomness then it is most probable we are, in fact, alone.

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    11. Re:Too Many Free Variables by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 2

      Maybe Firefly was too close to the truth...

      "[Shut down Firefly or we wipe out the planet.]"

      "[What? It's a good show, and the ratings are...]"

      "[NOW!]"

      Joss Whedon doomed us all with Serenity.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    12. Re:Too Many Free Variables by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Funny

      Commander Xygzymmr,

      Probe designate r_jensen11 appears to be defective. We should pick him up on our next maintenance run for reprogramming. Recommend Regimen 7: "Probe 'em till he'd rather be the probe".

      - Engineer Morpsyx

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    13. Re:Too Many Free Variables by kjllmn · · Score: 2, Funny

      At last things make sense!

    14. Re:Too Many Free Variables by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, and unfortunately the ratings are abysmal. We will be lucky if we don't get canceled mid-season.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    15. Re:Too Many Free Variables by plague3106 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're suprised? Never heard the phrase "all the worlds a stage?"

    16. Re:Too Many Free Variables by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's one of the major plot threads in Robert Rankin's novel, Armageddon: The Musical. The entire purpose of the Earth is to provide TV entertainment for an alien civilization who has been manipulating humans into doing things to please their viewers and have decided to end the series with a huge apocalypse.

    17. Re:Too Many Free Variables by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have doubts whether SETI will ever find evidence of life on other worlds. If nothing else, the inverse square law pretty much rules out our picking up any transmission which wasn't intentionally broadcast to us and we have a very small frequency band to search since we pollute much of the EM spectrum with various electronics. On top of this, for all we know, none of the other intelligent, technologically-advanced civilizations rely on modulating EM radiation for communications. On the other hand, Carl Sagan once said that even if we have evidence that there are no other intelligent civilizations out there, we should keep looking anyway just in case we're wrong.

    18. Re:Too Many Free Variables by bhartman34 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are other problems, as well. 1) This whole thing is anthropomorphic. What make us think that other intelligent life wants to explore space and find us (or other lifeforms)? They could very well be perfectly happy doing what they're doing. Who's to say? 2) The universe is big. The Earth is small. Our view of things is smaller still. It strikes me as more than a little arrogant to assume that if some planet 1000 light years away sends out a probe the size of a basketball, we're going to know anything about it at all, even if it gets within 100,000 miles of Earth. Scientists sometimes have trouble seeing meteors until they're almost on top of us, and we're supposed to believe that they'd know any time someone was to send a probe our way? 3) The universe is very old. 10,000 years ago, the universe was basically the same as it is now. We, on the other hand, were still using stone and bone tools. We've only been systematically looking at the sky for a very short time, and for most of that time, even something as close as Mars was an indistinct mass. The idea that we'd be able to detect anything like an alien technology (that might not want to be found) is a little bit ridiculous. With all the planets out there, it's inconceivable to me that none of them would have life at least as intelligent as us. (If we're the best the universe can do, how sad is that?) That doesn't mean that we'd automatically know if they were around, though. We're probably going to ahve to get lucky to find them, given the vast distances between planets (let alone inhabitable ones).

    19. Re:Too Many Free Variables by loafula · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I know you were joking here, but evolution only seems random from the outside looking in. In any given environment, life will evolve to take advantage of the available natural resources in the most efficient manner possible. Granted, the environment differs greatly from planet to planet, but I think we can agree that any planet hosting life as we know it will have some remarkable similarities to earth. Life will evolve in the best way to take advantage of that environment- two eyes to see in 3D, bipedal for mobility, upper limbs to manipulate things physically, brains to control it all, a mouth at the top and an ass at the bottom because gravity only knows down, some sense of smell to detect fuel(food), ears (or something similar) to detect predators, and some form of genitalia to reproduce.
      I often wonder if we are Earth's end-of-the-line inhabitant. Animals evolve to adapt to their environments. Us humans adapt the environment to suit us. Have we stopped evolving? It's a dangerous situation if we have, because then we become a non-changing environment for all the creepy-crawlies we are host to. Bacteria will rule the world in 100 million years! /rant

      --
      FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO
    20. Re:Too Many Free Variables by thedonger · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I meant random in the sense that a higher being wasn't planning our existence.

      Evolution is so slow I doubt we have the patience or longevity to observe it. In addition to "changing out environment to suit us," we also seek to prevent change from happening to our environment. I'm sure there are millions of people out there who would go to great lengths to ensure the survival of all extant species. Ironically, their logic is that man is changing things and endangering those species, yet not allowing them to become extinct is at odds with our changes. Of course, they'll argue that our changes are not natural, which is impossible. We occurred naturally, therefore whatever we do is part of nature, for better or worse.

      Perhaps we have reached a dead end for physical evolution, and given no other changes we'll outgrow this planet long before we figure out how and where to move off of it. But I suspect social evolution will intervene before that happens. Logan's Run, Soylent Green, 1984, Brave New World...Pick your future.

      In closing, I leave you with the words of the great prophets Fishbone: "Give a monkey a brain and he'll swear he's the center of the universe."

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    21. Re:Too Many Free Variables by Sanat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I at least hope they're getting a good laugh."

      Or weeping for what we are doing to ourselves and Earth.

      --
      And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
    22. Re:Too Many Free Variables by mcrbids · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Space, is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mindboggingly big it is. I mean you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space.

      -Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    23. Re:Too Many Free Variables by AzureDiamond · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The whole thing seems utterly bogus to me. Why should you build a probe to last for hundreds of millions of years? How do we know we haven't been visited? Who's to say a civilisation could even last for thousands of years when civilisations here have tended to collapse after mere hundreds.

      The worst problem is the economics of space travel at or less than light speed. On Earth voyages to the New World were funded by monarchs - they paid for the ship which would sale there and back in a couple of years and bring back gold, slaves or goods to pay off the investment. Later on conquistadors took over the countries and paid a members fee to the monarch. Now consider a spaceship travelling at 0.1c. That would take 80years to get to Sirius for example, 8 light years away. Once the ship arrives there is a 16 light year delay in communications, or another 80 year trip if that is possible. And when you get to Sirius there is most likely no biosphere to support you, so you pretty much stay on the ship. Even if there was it would take decades or centuries to build a technological civilisation. Basically the people that paid for the ship have no chance of getting a return on their investment.

      Even on Earth there a civilisations that were able to build ships but decided not to attempt colonisation. China in the 1400's had the technology to do it but decided not to for political reasons

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_He

      Actually if you want a vision for something which can spread across vast distances, consider. You broadcast plans for a machine, Contact style. Unlike in Contact the machine is designed wipe out the receiving civilisation and suck up all available power and resources building copies of itself which then broadcast the plans to other civilisations. It's sort of like a computer virus, only scaled up. Maybe it could have mutated from a message sent for benign reasons. It the machine would have sensors to find nearby civilisations likely to have a SETI program and powerful lasers to beam the plan to them. It's far easier to send bits at light speed than ships.

  2. What if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sumary of the article: we pull numbers out of thin air and imagine stuff in consequence. I did a lot of that kind of "what if" as a kid with friends.

    1. Re:What if... by Xaedalus · · Score: 2, Funny

      Please tell me they clean the numbers first?

      --
      Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
  3. Why by courteaudotbiz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder why should one consider a colonisation of the whole Galaxy? Isn't it a too damn big territory to defend - explore - colonize? Without talking about the astronomical (ha ha) amount of human (E.T.) resources it would take to launch such an enterprise!

    1. Re:Why by Ihlosi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wonder why should one consider a colonisation of the whole Galaxy?

      Because someone else might have the same idea, and you need to beat them to it.

      Isn't it a too damn big territory to defend - explore - colonize?

      Well, if you manage to colonize the whole galaxy, you probably don't have to worry about defending it from external threats for quite a while.

      Without talking about the astronomical (ha ha) amount of human (E.T.) resources it would take to launch such an enterprise!

      Yes, it takes quite a bit of resources to start, but once you have it going, the law of exponential growth is on your side ... at least until you run out of galaxy to colonize.

    2. Re:Why by maxume · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You need to throw in a bunch of hand waving about statistics.

      It is at least possible that we are the first, most advanced civilization, out of some huge number in this vicinity (even if it is extremely unlikely...).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?

      We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.."

      "Many years ago the great British explorer George Mallory, who was to die on Mount Everest, was asked why did he want to climb it. He said, "Because it is there."

      Well, space is there, and we're going to climb it, and the moon and the planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there. And, therefore, as we set sail we ask God's blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked."

      -John F. Kennedy, September 12 1962

    4. Re:Why by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Well, if you manage to colonize the whole galaxy, you probably don't have to worry about defending it from external threats for quite a while."

      Okay, that's the funniest thing I've ever heard.

      Q: What's the biggest threat humanity has ever faced?
      A: Itself.

      Creating thousands of splinter civilizations with no emotional investment in the species homeworld is a recipe for galactic war if I've ever heard one.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    5. Re:Why by fastest+fascist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can't really think of colonizing a galaxy in the way you might think of colonizing a new continent. The distances alone would make sure whatever reaches the far end of the galaxy would be a completely different species than the originator of the "colonization". Barring faster-than-light travel or some kind of extreme (from our point of view) psychology and genetics, I see no way a civilization spanning an entire galaxy could exist. If we colonized Mars now, it wouldn't be very long before they started to go their own way. Hell, the Americas were lost to the parent countries in a few centuries, and that's on the same planet.

      It just doesn't make much sense to take an expansionist view of space travel, unless maybe your species is very, very patient and stable. Any colonists you send far out, you will never have meaningful contact with again. At that point you might wonder what the point of "conquering" new systems is, in terms of nationalist-type expansionism.

    6. Re:Why by fastest+fascist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thinking about this this takes me to some kind of conclusion:

      Most civilizations would not expand very quickly at all, probably not much faster than they absolutely have to. Granted, you might imagine a very adventurous species that would send ark ships thousands of light years away just for the hell of it, but for the most part that seems unlikely, perhaps used as a last chance for survival. If any faraway colony is, in essence, as good as a different civilization, it makes little sense to send ships out very far. Moving out of a solar system would be a rare incident, mostly only taken up when the survival of the species is threatened. Just as you can't currently think of colonizing other planets as a solution for overpopulation on the earth - you just can't lift enough people off the planet for it to make a difference - you can't with any reasonably conceivable technology think of colonizing new solar systems as a solution for lack of resources or living space. You can send colonists out, but that's the last you'll see of them, and any problems you have in your own system, you will need to deal with there.

    7. Re:Why by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is no such thing as a recipe for galactic war, if you have the resources to wage interplanetary warfare, you won't care about waging interplanetary warfare.

      Human history suggests otherwise......

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    8. Re:Why by stwrtpj · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Creating thousands of splinter civilizations with no emotional investment in the species homeworld is a recipe for galactic war if I've ever heard one.

      What would be the point?

      Consider two "rival" worlds separated by a modest distance of 50 light years. Now assume that the top speed that ships can go remains 1/10 light speed as mentioned in the article. That's 500 years for your fleet to get to the other world. The time dilation at that speed would be small enough to be insignificant. Multi-generational warships anyone?

      So let's instead consider that we push the speed envelope. We're still limited in how fast we could go. Say we push it to 80% or maybe 90% lightspeed. You're still talking about taking over 50 years universe time to get there. The expenditure is not worth it. By the time they got there, people will have forgotten what they were fighting about, or would have moved on to more important matters.

      --
      Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
    9. Re:Why by Nimey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Depends on how long it takes a Martian colony to become self-sufficient. Stuff can grow pretty well in the Americas, and it's not overly hard to extract natural resources. The same cannot be said of Mars, with its lack of atmosphere and magnetic field.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    10. Re:Why by khellendros1984 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Entropy can be counteracted by work, right? So as long as the machine can gather energy to do work, it should be theoretically able to repair itself. It's not like there's something mechanically special about organic organisms that couldn't be replicated in an artificial mechanism, and we've managed to bootstrap ourselves up to the current level of technology pretty well. So why couldn't a sufficiently advanced self-replicating, self-repairing, self-improving machine do the same thing? I'm going to guess that we can develop something like that before the century's out.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  4. ever since moo by hort_wort · · Score: 4, Funny

    We've known there to be at most 10 civilizations ever since Master of Orion. A typical scenario is more like 6 though.

    1. Re:ever since moo by u38cg · · Score: 5, Funny

      Personally, I'm still waiting for evidence there is *one* civilisation in this galaxy.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    2. Re:ever since moo by Anonymous+Struct · · Score: 2, Funny

      Funny, that's the first thing I thought, too. I hope the friggin' Meklars aren't playing.

    3. Re:ever since moo by b4upoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The logic of the story is faulty. To assume that capable civilizations would desire space travel is foolish in itself. Next if we do use the assumption that advanced critters would want to explore there is a second problem in assuming that they would not be unusually covert in those explorations. The next huge assumption is that craft or devices sent out to explore would be recognizable as such by humans.
                    My own perfectly irrational assumptions include the notion that we are probably surrounded be endless civilizations and many are probably so far advanced that we would look as if we were retarded cavemen to them. How else could we explain the George W. Bush presidency?

    4. Re:ever since moo by euxneks · · Score: 2, Funny

      Personally, I'm still waiting for evidence there is *one* civilisation in this galaxy.

      OH SNAP! You certainly told humanity! On a post on Slashdot no less!

      --
      in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
  5. Nonsense... by Vectronic · · Score: 2, Funny

    We should start bumping into Vulcans in about 54 years... Zefram Cochrane should be born pretty soon... then we'll know.

  6. How many probes could be lying under the ocean? by zav42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Nice point in general, but worthless without estimating the chances of finding these probes. A 100 million year old probe would not necessarily be easy to find even if it wants to be found and landed on earth.

    1. Re:How many probes could be lying under the ocean? by NonUniqueNickname · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hard to imagine it would still be ticking and beeping 100 million years later. At least by our standards, 1000 years of operation would be a great engineering feat for a device that's subject to space travel. A silent probe in a solar system is like a drop in the ocean, maybe like single molecule in the ocean. Not surprising we haven't found one.

    2. Re:How many probes could be lying under the ocean? by craagz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is possible that the probes lying at the bottom of the ocean were not designed to get wet because the host planet does not have water at all. Now these probes might be short circuited or something of that kind.

    3. Re:How many probes could be lying under the ocean? by Bakkster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It is possible that the probes lying at the bottom of the ocean were not designed to get wet because the host planet does not have water at all. Now these probes might be short circuited or something of that kind.

      Expanding on this, what if they were looking for a planet like Mars or (harder to detect) Venus? Maybe the probe arived billions of years ago and saw three planets in adjacent orbits with water. Who's to say it would have picked the correct planet?

      As for detection, a single object sitting under the dense atmosphere of Venus for 100 million years doesn't exactly pop out at us.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
  7. I think that there is a lack of imagination here by Dotren · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I remember reading an interesting book called "The Science of Star Wars" that discussed the real life issues with the technology and situations in the original trilogy. This covered everything from the theoretical sciences behind the technologies like lightsabers, blasters, and lightspeed to the possibilities of existence of other life out there. I haven't read this book in a very long time and I don't have access to it at the moment, but I seem to remember it indicating that the odds of finding another planet with water, breathable air, and the exact distance from a sun necessary to help life flourish were so extremely low as to be laughable.

    I remember thinking even then how short-sighted that was and how arrogant it seemed.

    I realize these things are supposed to be scientific so they use only what they know to be fact, however, I think when dealing with complete unknowns such as the type of life out there or what their technology level may be at, you have to start thinking outside the box and be a bit more imaganitive.

    Who is to say, for example, what form other life will take? Would we even recognize it as life if we were standing right next to it? What about their technology? Who is to say that they haven't gotten past the lightspeed issues with relativity and energy required? Perhaps they have stealth technologies... would we even be able to detect them? Just because we don't know how to do it now, and just because our current science says it probably isn't possible, doesn't mean it can't be done.

  8. Re:I think that there is a lack of imagination her by Ihlosi · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Would we even recognize it as life if we were standing right next to it?

    We pretty much know what rocks and ice look like. If the aliens aren't spectacularly good at masquerading as rock and ice, we'll recognize them.

  9. Howdy Doody's passed the house of Aquarius. by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's a great line from the lyrics of a Clutch song, and it's forced me to ask the question: "What would life be like today, if the moment we invented radio/television we started receiving 60yo broadcast transmissions from another planet?"

    --
    "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
  10. How 3 Dimensional of you... by midifarm · · Score: 3, Informative

    This assumes that said ET's operate only in the 3D realm. What about wormholes, space folding and other theoretical methods that our limited understanding of physics doesn't allow us to see? Quit being such a downer. If Tesla was still alive I'm sure we'd have commerce with these ET's. Cheers...

  11. Greed Effect by Weeksauce · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why would thsee ET like civilizations would be any different in their evolutionary development than humans? If this is the case, than many intelligent species will most likely follow the path that we seem to be on. With varying religious factions/greed/war/and depletion of natural resources reaching a point where they kill themselves.

    Maybe there was a civiliation considerably more advanced than us, but whose to say they didn't destroy themselves by electing leaders who entered into wars over natural resources?

    --
    An inventor is a man who asks 'Why?' of the universe and lets nothing stand between the answer and his mind.
    1. Re:Greed Effect by Utini420 · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're thinking of the Drake equation:

      N = R* x Fp x Ne x Fl x Fe x Fi x Fc x L

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

      Without giving a lengthy description, at the beginning of the project that would grow into SETI, they asked more or less the same questions and decided that it really came down to, "What are the odds that after a given species invents radio, they invent nukes and destroy themselves?" The equation is intended to predict the number of advanced civilizations in the galaxy at any given time, based on a bunch of "educated guess," variables, like the number of planets that can support life, the number that actually do, the number of those that become intelligent, etc.

      --
      A little inaccuracy sometimes saves tons of explanation.
    2. Re:Greed Effect by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In our case, I think we should be more concerned with the slow pace in space exploration, not because that North Korea might launch a nuke, but a asteroid might be heading our way.

      Slow pace? A mere 100 years ago, we were just beginning to experiment with heavier than air vehicles. Today, we are driving RC cars around on other planets. It may seem 'slow' to the gottahaveitrightnow mindset of today's younguns, but 100 years is a drop in the bucket.

      How long was it between Columbus and the landing at Jamestown or Plymouth Rock?
      500 or 1000 years from now, historians will look back and say "Dayum! They did a lot of stuff in that century!"

      What did we as a species do between 900 and 1000 AD? Besides fight a few wars, not a whole lot.

  12. Probes by UncleWilly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am curious as to what evidence these alien probes would leave if they don't land and stay on a planet. If they just fly around, collect data and phone it home we would never see them.

    Even landing, unless they landed on Earth, our Moon or Mars, how would we see it? I'm not even certain our own probes can spot our own rovers on Mars. Lets say they did put a probe down on earth (like our mars rover) say recently, like 100,000,000 years ago; it could easily be hidden under a kilometer of dirt and rocks and never be found. Time, like space, is vast.

    1. Re:Probes by morgauxo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We haven't even found all the NEOs yet! How can we expect to know there aren't any probes somewhere in this very large haystack of a solar system.

  13. !Science by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Most, no all, of this Fermi Paradox/Drake Equation nonsense is just that. Nonsense. It certainly isn't science, as anyone with a smidgen of education can see by the ten orders of magnitude that the various estimates for the probability of alien life span.

    This study says fewer than 10. Well, I say more than 10,000. And who is to say I'm wrong? I can dress up my estimate with Polar charts, statistical studies and differential equations too if you like. However, none of my investigations will bring me, or anyone else any closer to the truth.

    As time goes by and our promised moon bases fail to materialise, the concept of the Von-Neumann wave is looking increasingly ridiculous. The idea that 1950's technology can propagate a species across a galaxy is supposedly sound in theory(I doubt even that), but shaky in practice. The idea of automated probes is also pretty unlikely considering the snails pace at which AI research has progressed.

    Science fiction is all very well, but it has no place in Science. You don't see scientists talking about fairies, or wizards, or goblins over the course of their work. So why should they talk about aliens and colonization waves, which are no less fantastic?

    This type of fuzzy science seems to have become popular after the 1960/70's, Carl Sagan, and probably one too many LSD trips. I thought things like the Heaven's Gate and Scientology would discredit this unwise intrusion of fantasy into serious scientific work, but studies like this, and the unwillingness of many scientists to leave their sci-fi novels at home have taught me otherwise.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
    1. Re:!Science by Nitage · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Drake equation is maths. Just because we don't know the numbers to substitute for the terms, it doesn't make the equation itself any less valid.

  14. Give it time... by Dare+nMc · · Score: 4, Informative

    A good summary. Especially since they assume because we sent out a "identifier" once, that it is logical that all other civ's would continuously do that, just in case things change, and some youngsters show up. Instead of 1) send probes, get the info you want (or trash your orbit with satellites and crap so you can't lunch anything else) and give up, staying in your own solar system.

    Not to mention we only see stuff at the speed of light, if they only send stuff at 1/10 the speed of light. Anyone over a thousand light years away hasn't even seen any signs of life in our galaxy yet, let alone had a chance to respond in a manner that we will then be able to see for a few thousand more light years.

  15. Assumptions by I.M.O.G. · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This assumes a sufficiently advanced civilization could survive itself for a sufficient span. Taking the only advanced civilizations we know into account - the human race - I don't see how its realistic to expect survival into the "millions of years" range.

    I'd put forth that any civilization advanced enough to develop such technological advances, would kill itself long before such technology develops. Our current modus operandi is not sustainable millions of years out, and using the human race as a basis, I think it laughable to consider the possibility of survival for millions of years. The oldest human remains are what, about 160,000 years old? Might we be getting ahead of ourselves speaking about intelligent life colonizing the galaxy?

    Crocodiles on the other hand - those bastards are believed to be around 200 million years old. They've exhibited a much better understanding for what it takes to survive long term (of course we're doing a pretty good job of killing them too - you can say people are bad at somethings, but everyone has to admit we're really good at killing other stuff). If crocs could somehow work space travel into their lifestyle, this could lead to something...

    1. Re:Assumptions by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Funny

      you can say people are bad at somethings, but everyone has to admit we're really good at killing other stuff

      Or we'll kill them.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  16. Advanced Alien Behavior by logicnazi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's always seemed to me that the major hole in the Fermi paradox is the assumption that technologically advanced alien civilizations would be emitting signals we would recognize.

    I mean it's kinda hubristic to assume they want to talk to us. After all we may study chimps but we don't go out of our way to show up in the middle of nowhere to say hello. That leaves the question of why we don't detect communication leakage, e.g., radio signals they use for communication. However, not only is it not obvious that they would use radio to communicate, or that we could recognize such signals, but it's not even obvious they would bother to colonize the galaxy or communicate between planets.

    For example suppose that sufficiently advanced civilizations transform themselves into some form of 'computational' life. Such a civilization couldn't care less about planents or minerals. What would matter to them is processing power per unit volume. It would therefore make sense for such civilizations to seek out the regions with the highest energy density that would allow them to access the most processing power. Rather than racing around the galaxy in starships and living at the same crawlingly slow pace we do such civilizations might exist entirely in the high energy regions in neutron stars or around black holes. So why would we expect to meet them. Hell, even if they care about meeting aliens too the aliens they care about are probably the ones who already inhabit similar regions.

    Even if we think it's reasonable to assume aliens are sending messages all over the galaxy the more efficiently such messages are encoded the harder it will be for us to identify them. The closer such transmissions approach the Shannon limit for the communications channel the harder they would be to distinguish from random noise (and we don't know enough to rule out a natural source). Also the more effective use they made of their communications equipment the less stray signal that would wash the earth, even if it was encoded in radio instead of neutrinos or something weird (some papers have suggested neutrinos would be a better long range communication method).

    The point is that even if we take for granted that there a fucktons of advanced alien civilizations around it just doesn't follow that we should be able to detect them.

    --

    If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:

    1. Re:Advanced Alien Behavior by tzhuge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would say the assumption isn't so much based on hubris as on practical considerations. We only really know our civilization, so we can only make these kinds of conjectures based on what an advanced version of our own civilization would be like (we would so trash the place with probes). If we don't make those assumptions, then there really is no starting point to get very far on this kind of 'what-ifs'. Maybe the planets are sentient...

    2. Re:Advanced Alien Behavior by Swizec · · Score: 2, Insightful

      However, not only is it not obvious that they would use radio to communicate, or that we could recognize such signals, but it's not even obvious they would bother to colonize the galaxy or communicate between planets.

      Exactly, why would you want to communicate between planets when in a few thousand years after having populated one everybody you left there will forget they're still the aliens? Even their technology would probably start diverging from what you left them with and eventually they'd become a group of organisms looking into the sky to find aliens and wondering why there aren't any ...

      ... maybe that's why we're so adamant about finding them. Deep down somewhere we know we're aliens and would like to go home now to visit mum.

    3. Re:Advanced Alien Behavior by Lostlander · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I see a bunch of basic issues with the entire paradox and it's assumptions.

      1. It assumes that radio signal based communication is the first major communication style developed/discovered by a civilization. It's entirely possible that based on different environmental factors they were never able to get it to work in a reliable manner or through the magic of scientific breakthrough ended up with a different or superior communication style.

      2. Any number of religious or cultural decisions could get in the way.

      3. We assume that civilizations existed before we did and therefore their signals should be reaching us by now. They could be just now getting to the point we are. It could be assumed that a period of say 1-2 million years were optimal for development of life in our galaxy we simply don't have enough information.

      4. Due to additive and subtractive properties of radio waves there could be a significant amount of variables in play interfering with signals. We shouldn't assume that just because it has a straight line to us a signal won't have issues. We have significant issues of our own keeping our own signals clear from solar flares and everyday cosmic radiation.

      5. No matter how good we are at math if we base our calculations on what is essentially flawed data we will always draw the wrong conclusions. Hell we're constantly rewriting laws rules and constants in everyday physics. Until we can easily measure things on a galactic scale all this conjecture is little more than armchair quarterbacking. And since it is negative and discourages discovery it is especially harmful to put any value to it.

  17. We went to the moon forty years ago.... by Ktistec+Machine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...and we haven't been back since. Beyond the question of how long it would take a motivated civilization to expand throughout the galaxy, there's the question of "would they bother?". We don't seem to be bothering.

    1. Re:We went to the moon forty years ago.... by interval1066 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      @Ktistec Machine: "We don't seem to be bothering."

      Chastising ourselves for our lack of will regarding space exploration is all well and good but the fact of the matter is that space exploration is no light matter. It currently requires a great amount of effort, will, economic consumption, and resolve.

      That the US was able to go to the moon during the cold war should not be taken lightly. Of course, the only reason we were able to do both things is that we were still coasting on our fortunes gained from WWII and the economic power of the 50's, and the prestige of going to the moon before the Soviets was invaluable, at the time. Now we're like playboys living off our daddy's legacy, which has run out but our credit is still good. Yes, exploring the moon and space and all that is good but we need to keep the Ferrari gassed up for Friday Night right now, put that on the Master Card please.

      That aside, with all the money we and the other countries around the world have printed up devaluing all our economic measures of output, we simply don't have the time. We're all working very hard to pay back all that debt, and of course the US government is working overtime to suck back in all that output and turn it right back into debt. We do not have the economic means to do serious space exploration. China, for all its economic power, is in the same boat, to a lesser & different extent, so don't look to them.

      The upshot of all that is to do REAL space exploration, the world will at some point need to be united so that the entire global output can be turned to doing this exploration. If any exocultures have in fact been able to mount a serious exploration of outer space, I suspect they would have had to do the same thing. Even if they've had to hold their noses at dealing with each other, they've probably united their entire "diverse culture" nonsense and made a real, concerted effort to doing this.

      From what I can see, if we are representative of carbon-based life forms, this united effort is probably very rare, if its happened at all.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    2. Re:We went to the moon forty years ago.... by scorp1us · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think a better question is "could they bother" or the "Battlestar Galactica" problem. (Honorable mention to Trigun) Any craft, unless capable of near-luminal speeds will take a large amount of time and energy to get there. This craft will require maintenance over the duration, and after arriving at a a destination will be limited by the lack of industry at the destination. Meaning, once you get somewhere, all your technology goes away eventually, unless you transport a population large enough to build the most complex part on a ship (for us a microprocessor) You can cheat for a little while and take a small chip fab plant with you, but eventually that will need parts too. What you'll end up with ia a devolution of society. Given the problems the pilgrims had at Plymouth rock, (on the same planet) the survival of the group is far from assured. i.e. Jamestown and the the other colonies. Meanwhile your source civilization is capable of being wiped out by an asteroid or comet. Sure it may take 30 or 100 years to get the part delivered, but it to too long of delay. I think any civilization out there would focus on the much more down-to-earth effort of population and resource management. We should also be looking at populating the oceans, because given an asteroid impact, that is the safest place to be overall.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    3. Re:We went to the moon forty years ago.... by schmiddy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      once you get somewhere, all your technology goes away eventually, unless you transport a population large enough to build the most complex part on a ship (for us a microprocessor)

      The only absolutely vital thing to transport is information (since it can't easily be reconstructed from scratch). And hard drives are small these days. There's absolutely no fundamental reason why the technology to build, say, a chip fab needs to take up a lot of room. It's certainly conceivable that you could send a few nanobots which are capable of constructing other nanobots from scrap material on the destination planet, and that these nanobots would be collectively capable of building your chip fab, or anything else you might need.

      --
      http://cltracker.net -- powerful craigslist multi-city search
    4. Re:We went to the moon forty years ago.... by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "all your technology goes away eventually, "

      Only if they are incredible stupid and short sighted.

      Since they have space flight, I will presume they are neither.

      You know when you get there you will need to build an infrastructer.
      So you takes some fundamental resource with you.
      For example, take what is needed to build a nuclear reactor*.
      Build it, now you have power. Then you mine to replenish resources and build.
      You don't go through all the technology phases again.

      *what ever technology you are using to power the spaceship.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  18. Re:I think that there is a lack of imagination her by Artifakt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't remember the novel it came from, but one SF writer had a bunch of human explorers run across pretty, slowly shifting, crystaline patterns floating as thin films on the surfaces of otherwise sterile oceans in a chemically exotic environment. Human initial response was pretty much limited to 'Ooooh shiny!" After weeks of scanning the whole planet and crunching numbers, one of the ship's scientists announces there is a sophisticated civilization with billions of participants encoded in each crystal mat, and has to prepare a computer emulation translated into experiential modes the humans can better understand before anyone else will believe it.

    --
    Who is John Cabal?
  19. 10 reasons why aliens might not use radio by gurps_npc · · Score: 3, Interesting
    1. Prime Directive like rule.

    2. War on. Radio silence.

    3. Wrong physics. Outside the bow-shock of a sun, radio works a lot different than we thought.

    4. Cheap FTL communication happens to be just around the corner.

    5. They are life, but not-as-we-know it and don't know about radio. Examples: Dark Matter, Live on a sun, live on a black whole. Note all three of these things are more common (on a mass basis) than planets.

    6. Powerful, rich, major religion/government objects to radio and shuns those that use it, trades freely with those that avoid it.

    7. Radio is deadly poison to one of the major alien species.

    8. Most races are born telepathic.

    9. Radio turns out to to cause global warming. (OK, this one is a bit silly.)

    10. Industrial processes moved off world act as a radio scrambler/jammer. Races still use radio within their world, but their signals are jammed by the intereference from say the cheap production of anti-matter scramble the signals.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:10 reasons why aliens might not use radio by bashibazouk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To add to that:

      If you took a completely alien language, encrypted it. Compressed the hell out of it, then applied 10,000 to a million years of technological advancement to the sending of it, would we even be able to notice it from background noise? Even if radio was still used to send it?

    2. Re:10 reasons why aliens might not use radio by kalidasa · · Score: 5, Interesting

      1 and 2 are both well known hypotheses. 3 is very unlikely, since we pick up radio emissions from natural sources all the time. 4 is very unlikely, but possible. 5 well known hypothesis 6 interesting! 7 very, very unlikely, given the natural sources we know about 8 what transmission medium does the telepathy use? Is it EM based? Is the range infinite so you don't have to use EM for long distance comm? 9 Yes, it's a bit silly. Radio isn't all that powerful. 10 Yeah, heard that one before once or twice, but not a well-known one. Good job! 11 well known hypothesis : all we can find at this point is beacons, and nobody is using them 12 well known hypothesis : optical works better, but of course is highly directional, and we're not on line of sight

    3. Re:10 reasons why aliens might not use radio by qwerty+shrdlu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      11. Detecting radio signals at interstellar ranges is _hard_, unless the source is as powerfull as a star.

  20. Re:There is no god by Brad1138 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Haven't you read the Bible? The stars and moon were created so that we can see at night, nothing more. Why would there be life on a bunch of night lights?

    --
    If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
  21. Calvin by residieu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us."
    -Calvin

  22. Re:I think that there is a lack of imagination her by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Informative
    The story is "Wang's Carpets," by Greg Egan.

    Later incorporated into his novel Diaspora

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  23. Lack of resources? by javacowboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A civilization needs to devote a lot of resources to space travel:

    1) Energy
    2) Metal and other materials
    3) Human resources such as scientists and engineers

    Usually, the whole point of exploring and colonizing other planets is to make up for a lack of resources, such as minerals. It's effectively a chicken-and-egg problem.

    I'm sure once we run out of resources, we won't have enough left over to start exploring space.

    --
    This space left intentionally blank.
  24. Orion's Arm by Rashdot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Visit Orion's Arm for an idea what populating the galaxy might be like.

    http://www.orionsarm.com/

    --
    This is not the sig you're looking for.
  25. Re:0.1 the speed of light? by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ok, so we eventualy invent our own 0.5c space drives and go ahead and try to leave our solar system at 0.5c ...

    We run through the Kuiper Belt where we collide with a tiny pebble that is lazily orbiting our solar system

    The relative velocity of a bullet, fired from a low velocity pistol, when it hits something is generally between 300meters/second and 600meters/second. Now imagine a bullet with a relative velocity of 150,000,000meters/second. The problem isnt the space drives.... its that the "vacuum of space" has shit in it.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  26. Re:There is no god by houghi · · Score: 2, Funny

    One word: Moths!

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  27. agreed by FreeUser · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's always seemed to me that the major hole in the Fermi paradox is the assumption that technologically advanced alien civilizations would be emitting signals we would recognize.

    Absolutely right!

    I've argued this for years...given exponential progress, the period of time an alien civilization would even be recognizable yet detectable at a distance can probably be measured in decades, centuries at the outside. It's possible to imagine all kinds of Ascendance Scenarios where a species transcends its biological (and perhaps physical) form altogether, whether it's becoming digital life living in the Virtual, transcendent life encoding itself into the basic fabric of space-time (and thereby perhaps doing an end run around the "death by entropy/expansions/big crunch" apacolypse...or not, if that space-time is smacked by the incoming brane of another universe on a collision course, but I digress...), or--arguably most likely--some form we'd have as much difficulty imagining as the victorians would our notion of digital life.

    This galaxy alone could be teaming with life. If a civilization progresses from the industrial revolution to transcendence in, say, 400 Earth years on average (and from their first radio broadcast to transcendence in, say, 200 years), there could be many thousands of cultures out there right now, and over the course of the past 13 or so billion years, many millions in this galaxy alone, and none of them would ever be detectable by us during this phase of our existence. Indeed, few if any would ever meet one another during this phase of their existence ... perhaps as you surmise they might meet in a common post-transcendent medium, or perhaps not (there may be many more options for transcending this universe than there are species to transcend, making it very unlikely that any two civilizations would ever meet or recognize each other at any point during their evolution). Who knows? What we do know is there are plenty of ways for civilizations to thrive, and be commonplace, without them ever being able to detect, much less encounter, one another.

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    1. Re:agreed by Graymalkin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Your argument is silly. Buses pick you up from bus stops, not from your house. If you want to get on a bus you have to go to a bus stop. An intelligent civilization on a planet a thousand light years from Earth that has astronomers is going to look up and see a similar sky. Even if their eyes only work well in the infrared they can still build detectors (just like we do) that cover the entire EM spectrum. When they build their telescopes they will find the same things we have. Their radio telescopes will pick up synchrotron radiation, pulsars, AGNs, and the CMB. Their optical telescopes will see the same stars and they'll deduce similar if not the same cosmological and physical theories. An important thing they'll find are the hydrogen and hydroxyl lines in the microwave band. These lines are in the middle of a relatively quiet portion of the radio spectrum. These are both radio emission bus stops.

      Any alien radio astronomers will be looking at the same frequencies that our radio astronomers do since they're both looking at all the same phenomena. If they decide to announce their presence to the rest of the galaxy their best bet will be to do so on a frequency other radio astronomers are likely to be looking at. You might catch a bus randomly passing by but your best bet is to wait at a bus stop since you can be reasonably sure a bus will eventually stop there. Interstellar messages don't have to be fully understood or translated to be important either. Simply receiving a coherent signal from another intelligent civilization would provide a wealth of information. For one it says "there's someone out there" and that signal is going to come from a specific place. Other types of telescopes can be trained on that location to try to learn all you could about that civilization or at least the environment they live in. The light coming from the planet traveled at the same speed as their radio signal so atmospheric spectra would be contemporaneous with the sending of the signal. Aliens detecting the Arecibo message would be able to look at Earth and see what it was like in 1974 when the message was sent. Knowing there's a civilization there they could keep telescopes trained on Earth to learn more about us even if they didn't fully understand the content of the Arecibo message.

      It also does not matter in the slightest if there exist civilizations with esoteric means of communication. If they exist and want to talk to less advanced civilizations they'll communicate via the lowest common denominator of radio or optical transmissions. If they only want to communication via their esoteric means then they obviously only want to talk to equally advanced civilizations and we don't have a lot to offer them (at least they don't think we do). We don't really need to worry about such civilizations, we only need to concern ourselves with the ones stopping at the same bus stop as us. This is also why we tend to look for Earth-like planets when talking about extraterrestrial life. Yes some odd creatures with completely alien chemistries might exist but if we wouldn't recognize them then there is no reason to look for them right now. We can instead look for the creatures with chemistries we do understand fairly well and would recognize instantly. Also in the hunt for Earth-like planets we're not throwing away knowledge of all the non-Earth-like planets. If we find some life form in an asteroid or on the Moon with a chemistry completely unlike ours we can dig through our exoplanet archive and look for markers of such lifeforms on planets we found that were like the home of the life form we found. Just because life forms might exist that are unlike us or civilizations might exist that don't communicate like we do is no reason to assume that all life is unlike ours and all civilizations don't communicate like we do.

      --
      I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
  28. FYI... by denzacar · · Score: 2, Informative

    We still haven't killed ourselves.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:FYI... by denzacar · · Score: 2, Informative

      Still alive... still alive...

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  29. You need religion in the mix for this to work. by tjstork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Otherwise, societies are too self-absorbed to dedicate those sort of resources to a goal that will have ZERO benefit to them or their descendants.

    It sucks for scientific types, for sure, but the best way to get the masses emotionally committed to space flight and space exploration is through religion. There's no more historically proven way that motivates people to build and explore for future purposes than the prospect of being able to worship your lord and impose his law as your religious customs see fit to do so. In 1620, it wasn't a bunch of scientists on board the Mayflower, it was a bunch of religious fanatics. In my site I'm going to go all out religion for space exploration as a national priority and argue in this order:

    a) The Lord gave us the vast resources of the Heavens to use.
    b) The Earth is a crowd and dank cesspool of sin.
    c) You can establish a more Godly society on another planet.
    d) You can re-create the American Experiment the way the founding fathers intended.

    --
    This is my sig.
  30. Remember the parable of the G'Gugvuntts and Vl'hur by seyyah · · Score: 2, Funny

    When thinking of whether we humans would be able to detect the arrival of an alien probe, we should all mediate on the parable of the G'Gugvuntts and Vl'hurgs:

    ... [t]he two opposing battle fleets decided to settle their few remaining differences in order to launch a joint attack on our galaxy, now positively identified as the source of the offending remark. For thousands of years the mighty starships tore across the empty wastes of space and finally dived screaming on to the planet Earth - where, due to a terrible miscalculation of scale, the entire battle fleet was accidentally swallowed by a small dog. Those who study the complex interplay of cause and effect in the history of the Universe say that this sort of thing is going on all the time.

  31. Mind the gap! by rlseaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    bjourne points out: "They assume that alien civilizations would grow exponentially like humanity. To maintain exponential growth the civilization would inevitably have to colonize other planets, other solar systems and even other galaxies."

    What they really assume is that the laws of physics apply broadly across the cosmos. Darwin and Malthus do the rest.

    The real question is how hard it is to jump the gap from one world to the next. Science fiction authors assume this is not only possible but relatively easy, because otherwise they would have no story to write. Travel (of the few) within the solar system seems plausible. Travel (of the many) to neighboring stars is far beyond daunting.

    Consider Malthusian growth: Our population today is 6.602 billion souls. The current growth rate is 1.167% per annum. (Numbers are a couple of years old - it doesn't change the result.) Do the math.

    Today there were 210,000 more souls and 6000 tons more human flesh pressing inward on Mother Earth than yesterday. Tomorrow there will be 210,000 more. The day after - another 210,000. In six months that will be 211,000 per day - in a year, 212,000 per day, and so forth and so on. Less than a year from now there will be another 1.8 million tons of human flesh literally shouldering other species into extinction. That's not 1.8 million tons total - that's just the additional growth of skin and hair and sinew and good red meat locked up in your mama's Soylent Green recipe.

    For space travel to matter in the solution of this problem, we have to build a fleet of ships capable of offloading 210,000 people - a new space fleet every day, year after year - forever. A space shuttle carries a crew of seven - so we need 30,000 space shuttles a day. (Of course, that only gets you to low Earth orbit.) Each year we would have to move at least that 1.8 million tons of human cold cuts - that's the equivalent of 18 Nimitz class aircraft carriers - to some other distant, unwelcoming world.

    And then, of course, you've just shifted the horizon of the always looming catastrophe to a collection of planets rather than a single planet. Since this is a doubling issue, colonizing another planet - say, a terraformed Venus - just buys you an additional 60 years.

    1. Re:Mind the gap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      For space travel to matter in the solution of this problem, we have to build a fleet of ships capable of offloading 210,000 people - a new space fleet every day, year after year - forever.

      No we don't.

      We need robots, breeding tanks, freeze-dried embryos. Put a few thousand of 'em (along with DNA samples of a few thousand other humans) on a spaceship, and let the ship take care of the rest.

      The goal isn't to offload Earth's population at some linear rate.

      The goal is to spawn self-replicating colonies. If the ship travels at 10% of the speed of light (500 years to find a habitable planet within 50 light-years), but the ship can be made cheaply enough (suppose by the year 2200 we can do it for the GDP equivalent of an aircraft carrier and its support fleet), you just fire off a ship in a random direction every 10 years.

      The ship finds a suitable world, sets up shop, and the colonists spend the next 1500 years bootstrapping themselves from a Serenity-like Wild West settlements into million-person planetary civilizations capable of building their own seedships. Lather, rinse, repeat.

      Some colonies fail. Big deal. Sometimes you'll spread at 0.01c (500 years travel time, 4500 years of playing Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri). Sometimes you'll get lucky - (A ship that lasts for 4500 years and travels 450 light-years - and the lucky colonists reboot after only 1000 turns of gameplay :). Net effect is a wave of colonization spreading out at around 2-3% of c.

      The colonies are largely independent of each other; it's unlikely that they're all going to annihilate each other, or simultaneously annihilate themselves. The galaxy's 100,000 light-years wide, or about 300,000 light-years in circumference. The whole thing should be colonized within 10 million years. At less than half a percent of c, we're still talking about a hundred million years.

      That's an eyeblink, astronomically speaking. If it was going to have happened, it should already have happened. The universe has been around for 13.6 billion years. Life's been feasible for around 10 billion of those years, after the first wave of hydrogen/helium stars went supernova and gave the universe enough heavy elements to form planets and to do interesting chemistry. Our little rock has been around for around 4.5 billion years, and inhabited for 3.6 billion years of that time. It's hardly a stretch to think that something else started 0.1 billion years ahead of us. (or got started later, but skipped the billion-odd years of time that our biosphere spent dicking around with unicellular life in the precambrian era.)

      We're talking about 0.1 billion years to colonize the galaxy. Trivial for an advanced technological civilization. Assuming we're not the first, it should have happened by now. The fact that it hasn't happened is an indication that we're the first. (And as a corollary, that however common life may be in the universe, intelligent life must be mind-bogglingly, astonishingly rare. We've only been sentient for a million years, and smelting metal for a few thousand. An eyeblink of an eyeblink of an eyeblink.)

  32. Does Not Address the Fermi Paradox by careysub · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's always seemed to me that the major hole in the Fermi paradox is the assumption that technologically advanced alien civilizations would be emitting signals we would recognize.

    In common with authors the wrote the cited paper, and most commentators on the subject (and virtually everyone who claims to have a "resolution" for the Fermi Paradox), the above comment fails to understand the essence of the Fermi Paradox -- what actually makes it profoundly paradoxical.

    The Fermi Paradox does not assume that "technologically advanced alien civilizations" (in general) "would be emitting signals we would recognize". The paradox lies in the fact that the Universe is a very big, and very old place and as far as we can tell none of them do (if they ever existed at all).

    Are you proposing that there is some sort of the universal law of nature that decrees no civilization anywhere in the Universe will make detectable and recognizable signals of any kind, intentionally or unintentionally? After all it only takes one single ancient civilization anywhere to take a course of development that creates a detectable signal for any reason to overturn the Fermi Paradox.

    Attempting to dismiss it by claiming that civilizations exist, but that no civilization ever makes human-detectable signals, begs the question (in one of the original and correct senses of the term): it attempts refutation by assuming an unsupported premise (in this case two of them) : 1) that they do exist, but and an arbitrary special universal law holds that prevents any from being detected.

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  33. Re:I think that there is a lack of imagination her by geekoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not laughable.

    there are over 70 sextillion stars. If the chance are 1 in a trillion we would ahve a galaxy teaming with intelligent life; however, That's over the period of 13 billion years.
    All evidence point to species becmoing ectinct sooner or later. so what are the odds of an intellegent species surviving to a point where they can send out probes?
    Even if a civilization created a probe that is trying to be fouind, it would still be very, very, very hard to detect, assuming it gets close enough to be detected.

    We've only been able to look for radio technology for less then 100 years, and only beena ctivly looking for non-terrestrial radio signals for about 30.

    Imagine looking for your keys. This would be like the first nanosecond of your search. What are the odds you would find them that fast, even knowing they exist in your house?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  34. Why would probes leave any evidence at all? by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let alone evidence that would last a million years. A probe could have come through a thousand years ago, hung around taking pictures and measurements for a few years and moved on. We'd never know.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:Why would probes leave any evidence at all? by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You have no idea what resources a probe built by a civilization 100,000 years ahead of us requires.

      Heck, even the assumption that "Probes" as we understand them are needed for data collection is enormously conceited on the part of humanity.

      Humans today are as thick as bricks.

      Do we try to communicate with the cows and pigs? Heck, we walk among them, breed them, cage them, kill them and EAT them. But they just graze and stand around in a daze as though it were all the most normal thing in the world. We simply use the means of containment which are necessary to counteract their ability to overcome that containment and escape our food system.

      As above, so below.

      We're smarter than cows and we have opposable thumbs, so the systems necessary to contain and manage us as a food supply are naturally going to be more complex. But those systems work well enough, and they're barely hidden if we bother to stop and notice them. But we don't. Instead we dream our lives away and discuss Fermi as though he were full of insight and wisdom. As though aliens would naturally want to shake our hands and talk with us. That burning bush spoke, did it? And did the things it told us make the world less like a meat rendering plant or more like a meat rendering plant?

      There are thousands of documented crop circles with just some of the strangest features which cannot be replicated by even the most clever human engineers we ask. And there are countless millions of children who go missing every year all over the world. For some reason, those figures are largely NOT documented. How curious.

      But we don't like to think about things like that. They are creepy and weird and our knees are designed to jerk instantly upon the mention of such things. We've been well programmed. Anybody who thinks we have not need only read the five hundred posts on this very subject. The amount of raw sewage which passes for reasoned thinking is depressing.

      It's the rare cow which escapes the food chain.

      -FL

  35. New Reason Why by mindbrane · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For awhile I've believed any world people capable of distant space travel and other colonization would need as a prerequisite world peace, world order and one rule of law. First the marshaling of resources necessary would require near world wide cooperation and second, as is presently our case, prior to a world government, states knowledgeable enough to even consider such far ranging travel would most likely put their resources toward weaponizing near space as a response deterrent to their presumed enemies. Second the best and the brightest necessary to such an undertaking aren't going to be on hand in any one nation or coalition and will be the best and the brightest we as a species can muster. Large inter tribal structures are capable of bonding factious tribes and when such inter tribal structures offer benefits they can act as a deterrent to conflict. Inter planetary, let alone inter stellar travel are such magnanimous undertakings and can drive world peace and world law. It may be that any world that has achieved space travel technology able to colonize distant planets have in place laws that would make it highly problematic for them to contact waring tribes such as ourselves. Who would they contact? Would their choice of a tribe to contact cause conflict?

    --
    ideopath @ play
  36. The Great Old Ones Are Out There by wilder_card · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The only civilizations still surviving in our galaxy are extraordinarily powerful and consider humanity beneath notice. Which is a Good Thing, because when they notice you, it does not go well. Really, Miskatonic University is the only institution doing useful work in this area. Unfortunately they have trouble keeping research staff on.

  37. Brains are not a gaurnteed right by TiggertheMad · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One of the reasons why we might not see the galaxy as teeming with life is beacuse all the life out there might not be capable of generating advanced technology. One of the assumptions in the equations is that all live will evolve to the point of sentience and begin building transistors. Why would this be the case?

    The dinosuars were doing pretty well as the dominant species for 100 million years without advanced technology, and if it were not for the KT event, they might have been the dominant species for another 100 million years. Evolution doesn't 'try' to evolve life to be smarter, just to be better. Big brains were a good move for us, but that may not be the case for every other life form.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  38. Spotting the probes by freedomseven · · Score: 2, Interesting

    WE have forty year old tech that can take sensor reading to the edge of the solar system. It is just silly to think that a civilization with interstellar travel technology would not have equally impressive sensor tech. Our puny sensors can see interstellar distances. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that a sensor platform in deep space, created by an interstellar civilization would be orders of magnitude more sophisticated. So, If your sensors can read a newspaper on earth from a light year away, you really don't have to go all the way to earth to determine if it is interesting enough to send a "manned" mission. Therefore, if you only have to come within a light year of a planet to determine whether or not it is interesting and your version 1.0 probe is .10 LS capable then by sending out 1,000 probes, you can survey the entire galaxy in less than 1 million years assuming that you have no further advances in technology and your exploration goals do not change.

  39. We Are In Quarantine by johnos · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Fermi's Paradox came up in a dream once. The explanation, according to the dream, is that Earth is in quarantine. The powers that be in the Galaxy put a communications blocking bubble around the solar system of all new technological civilizations for 10,000 or 15,000 years. The point of the exercise is that new civilizations are like teenagers, dangerous and unaware of their power to wreak havoc. This is especially true of newcomers that discover inter stellar travel while not yet having complete control over their atomics. So they just wall us off until we either 1) destroy ourselves, or 2) grow out of our galactic adolescence.

    The dream went on to explain why we see UFOs that don't communicate with us. They are outlaws breaking the quarantine. Humans, said the dream, have unique language abilities unknown elsewhere in the galaxy. A single human could write more and better code than teams of hundreds in the next-best software civilization. So the UFOs are from some of the shadier civilizations out there and they come to kidnap code slaves. They have to stay stealthy or they will get caught.

    This was a real dream I had about 10 years ago. And yes, I was asleep at the time. The story is obviously full of holes, it was only a dream after all, but intriguing.

  40. techy by Merovign · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I know I'm just being techy, but you can't actually STUDY something until you have at least one example of it.

    A lot of cosmological science and just about all exobiological science is completely made-up, maybe I'm just tired of "science news" that is 100% fictional.

    Frankly, we have nearly zero knowledge of life in the rest of the universe - it's okay to speculate, just call it speculation.

  41. we are the first ones to emerge by blurker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Call it the blurker hypothesis. Think about it. The universe is maybe 14b years old. Our own planet is about 4b years old. For Earth to form, there had to be a giant dust cloud full of iron and other heavy elements, which can only have come from novae/supernovae. So at least one generation of stars had to form, burn out, explode, cool to ash, and then reform into new gravity wells to form this solar system. Since this one is about 4b years old, and can be expected to make it another 4b or so, then that leaves a tidy 10b years for a previous star cloud to seed our local region of space. Seems like just enough time. So we haven't seen other intelligent life yet because we are among the first ones to emerge from the ash...

  42. Clever is not wise by ourcraft · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We dont see life everywhere because we (life forms) get clever enough to release radioactivity into our life envelope, long before we get clever enough to have multiple robust life envelopes. Smart enough make weapons, not wise enough to stop using them. Or in the common parlance: Glen Beck.

  43. Three Simple Options by InsertCleverUsername · · Score: 2, Interesting

    1: God-like* alien intelligence is all around us and they're enjoying the show --or completely disinterested.
    2: FTL or even near light speed travel is impossible and we're limited to contact with close neighbors.
    3: We're the first technological species in the neighborhood (maybe life and/or intelligence is just incredibly unlikely).

    -----
    *They would have tech perhaps millions of years ahead of us

    --
    Ask me about my sig!
  44. The problem with colonizing the galaxy by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    is that the number of planets that can host life forms is so low in number, that some sort of Terraforming technology would have to be made to make the Mars and Venus type planets more like Earth.

    Right now we cannot even control the pollution on Earth that is making Earth less hospitable to current lifeforms.

    If there is more advanced life in the universe, they'd have to find a solution to their own pollution as well as invent Terraforming technology. If they don't, eventually they will go extinct.

    There is also a good chance that Earth is the most advanced life forms in our galaxy and if other life exists, it hasn't even invented radio devices yet so we can detect them, or they are too far away that radio waves from their planet has not reached Earth yet.

    There is also another possibility that maybe life on other planets skipped radio if they are advanced enough and use some other way to communicate that we cannot detect, or they use radio and use an encryption that makes it look like natural random signals to less advanced life forms.

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  45. Paradoxically. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't think that Fermi's Paradox is all that paradoxical either. I just think he was closed-minded, unimaginative and perhaps a tad (or a whole lot) conceited. (Sorry, Fermi.) --But I still think you're making a rather large assumption.

    We crossed oceans without first getting comfortable in our dangerous, leaky, rat-infested sail boats. Planets have wonderful, big, open spaces, wind and rain and snow, natural sunlight, natural fauna and geographic features which appear according to chaotic systems we don't have to think about or organize; they just happen! How awesome is that? I think living on a space platform, even a really nice one, would be a rather horrible way to exist by comparison.

    I also happen to think that contact was made a long time ago, we are the cattle raised by those who plan to colonize and that all our major religions are direct works of population manipulation.

    But then, I'm about as far from Fermi as Fermi is from me. Exactly that far, actually.

    I just don't see any paradox.

    -FL

  46. Wrong assumption that there is life out there. by jobst · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Simple.
    There is 100% no proof that there is life out there. Period.
    Therefore the assumption is (for now!!!) that we are alone and that we need to take more care of this place.

    --
    to code or not to code, that is the question.
  47. Re:0.1 the speed of light? by Rockoon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Lets suppose that we design a small craft with a forward cross section of 10m square. Lets further suppose that craft is traveling at 0.5c.

    This craft sweeps a volume of space equivilent to 15 billion cubic meters / second.

    Thats 9 quadrillion cubic meters / week.

    The *nearest* star will be 8 years away, at 0.5c.

    The chance of hitting such a small piece of rock approaches 100%

    --
    "His name was James Damore."