RE: Doomsday vs Diaspora

From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Fri Apr 25 2003 - 13:23:27 MDT

  • Next message: gts: "RE: evolution and diet"

    Greg Jordan wrote:
    > It seems improbable that a civilization spread out over various star
    > systems would be using radio or any other light-speed communication
    > system, which would be far too slow. So most likely, we are simply not
    > able to monitor their communications medium, and perhaps it is also
    > not "broadcast" but rather pointed with a little more privacy.

    ### This possibility is covered by the "common loss of interest in the above
    activities" part of the Fermi paradox explanation.

    Rafal

    >
    > On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
    >
    >> Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:02:48 -0700
    >> From: Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal@smigrodzki.org>
    >> Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
    >> To: extropians@extropy.org
    >> Subject: RE: Doomsday vs Diaspora
    >>
    >> Civilizations which travel in space and loudly proclaiming their
    >> existence by radio and other means we can detect, are apparently
    >> uncommon. This fact can be the result of either uncommon genesis,
    >> common loss of interest in the above activities, or common doom. No
    >> a priori anthropic argument can decide between the alternatives. The
    >> optimist, then, will hope to be the result of an uncommon event,
    >> which allows a reasonable expectation of extreme longevity, perhaps
    >> disinterested in talking to primitives and not contravened by
    >> observation. The pessimist worries that we are the products of a
    >> common event, and therefore consigned to the outcome most compatible
    >> with what we see.
    >>
    >> Since our data on either the likelihood of spontaneous life
    >> emergence, or the future of average sentient interest development,
    >> or the actual cumulative extinction risk for a civilization of our
    >> type, are woefully inadequate, the optimist and the pessimist will
    >> reach their conclusions according to their predilections, while the
    >> Bayesian will not conclude anything at all, aside from the need to
    >> search for new knowledge and to carefully incorporate it in his
    >> reasoning.
    >>
    >> Rafal



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 25 2003 - 10:30:47 MDT