Re: Fermi "Paradox"

From: Kevin Freels (megaquark@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Jul 22 2003 - 18:53:26 MDT

  • Next message: Robert J. Bradbury: "Re: Fermi "Paradox""

    OK. I haven't quite got the hang of this list yet. It's hard to tell
    sometime who said what. One of you said:

    "Doesn't mean that a few civilizations might not get it wrong from
    time to time -- but if there is a "Galactic Club" established it
    seems likely that it will quickly crack down hard on such foolish
    civiliztions."

    We could solve this one quite easily. Let's send a probe and see if the
    "Galactic Club" steps in!

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury@aeiveos.com>
    To: <extropians@extropy.org>
    Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 5:48 PM
    Subject: Re: Fermi "Paradox"

    >
    > On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Mark Walker (responding to my comments)
    > wrote:
    >
    > [Mark, please read all the way to the end of this -- you offer
    > an observation there that I did not have the perspective of
    > in responding to the general discussion through much of the text.]
    >
    > > Robert, I don't get the feeling you take serious the "just one problem"
    or
    > > what we might think of as "the iron laws of galactic history" problem.
    >
    > I understand your point. I'll try to provide some justification.
    >
    > > It looks like we will soon have the technology to send out a genesis
    probe (the
    > > von Neumann machine on the end of a rocket).
    >
    > Yep. But it raises the question:
    > (a) Why in the blazes would one do that? Given that it may be sowing
    > the seeds for the destruction of oneself or ones civilization).
    > [For the sowing of a genesis probe to make sense you also have
    > to argue that the civilization is monumentally stupid or
    > self-destructive (in the long run)].
    > (b) One has to argue that SR probes will not have been eliminated by
    > more advanced civilizations (as a really bad idea).
    >
    > So one is only left with the possibility that a very "early" advanced
    > technological civilization sent out SR-probes (which will ultimately
    > come back to haunt it) and they managed to get a sufficient foothold
    > to allow their survival before more sensible minds came to dominate
    > the environment.
    >
    > This scenario *may* have happened in some galaxies -- which is why
    > I view the exploration of what is "out there" with some interest.
    > (I'll note this week we seem to have both observations that stars
    > with higher metal content are more likely to have jupiter class planets
    > as well as the fact that there seem to be galaxies that only consist
    > of hydrogen gas (given our limited observational capabilities)...
    > There are a *lot* of possibilities that we have not considered.
    >
    > > If we don't send out such a
    > > probe it looks for all the world that this must be a political decision.
    >
    > No -- absolutely not. Not sending out a SR probe is ultimately
    > a "survival decision". One does *not* want ones foolish youthful
    > decisions ("oh -- lets just see what is out there") to come back
    > to haunt you in old age as in ("oh dad, I notice that my sun is running
    > out of hydrogen so why don't I simply 'borrow' some from your sun").
    >
    > Duh... I think even spike would be willing to agree that this
    > isn't "rocket science".
    >
    > Doesn't mean that a few civilizations might not get it wrong from
    > time to time -- but if there is a "Galactic Club" established it
    > seems likely that it will quickly crack down hard on such foolish
    > civiliztions.
    >
    > Here is an interesting question (for an advanced civilization) --
    > If there *were* a "Galactic Club" (something that you cannot in
    > any way be certain of due to speed-of-light delays in ones
    > knowledge of the state of the galaxy) -- how would one view
    > a civilization that would behave so stupidly as to send out
    > SR probes in a Universe that one suspects (given current
    > observations) has finite resources? (So one is going to have
    > to eliminate the self-replicators *sooner or later*.)
    >
    > > Are there galactic iron laws that prohibit us from doing this?
    >
    > No -- but I think there may be logical conclusions that any
    > rational species may reach and therefore they end up becoming
    > the "law of the land".
    >
    > So you have to argue that there are "advanced technological
    > civilizations" that are quite misinformed (i.e. they have
    > not bothered to scan the galaxy for signs of intelligent
    > activity -- [note I said "signs" and not "communication"])
    > or else they are not rational.
    >
    > It might be an interesting discussion -- "what would be the
    > longevity of a non-rational civilization?" (We can use humanity
    > as a marker perhaps -- we may be pushing towards 10,000 years with
    > semi-rationality.)
    >
    > > [snip] then one of them would have done
    > > the imprudent thing long ago and there should be genesis probes here
    right
    > > now.
    >
    > Yep, one can be "imprudent". Going in that direction raises any
    > number of questions. I'll point out only two:
    > (a) how can one guarantee there is not an alien presence within this
    > solar system specifically tasked with keeping us from behaving
    > imprudently? It doesn't even have to be particularly intelligent
    > (how intelligent does it have to be to prevent SR probes from
    > leaving the solar system...);
    > (b) Have you seriously considered the intelligence scales? An
    > MBrain has around 10^42 OPS. A probe has what 10^13? (Somewhat
    > less than a human even if you are using moderately advanced tech).
    > Can you seriously propose that the "imprudent" behavior is going
    > to survive in galaxy where "prudent" behavior has a selective
    > advantage?
    >
    > > I can
    > > easily imagine a group of Nietzscheans saying that they think launching
    a
    > > genesis probe is the highest manifestation of their will to power,
    >
    > Good example *but* I think you need to qualify it as being a bunch
    > of extremely unintelligent Nietzscheans who really do not care about
    > their own survival. And they only get lucky if they "happen" to
    > exert their "power" at the precise point in galactic evolution when
    > it might be successful. And given the speed of light delays there
    > is probably no way of knowing that. So they are playing a very high
    > stakes game. And in most high stakes games one loses.
    >
    > > It seems to me that if
    > > there are a reasonable number of advanced civilizations then there must
    be
    > > iron laws: political laws stopping genesis probes--a galactic UN of
    > > sorts--or some as yet unknown laws of the universe that prevent the
    > > launching of a genesis probe.
    >
    > Ah-ha -- so we come to some meeting of the minds -- perhaps. There
    > may not be "political" rules preventing probes but there may be both
    > some logical rules (that civilizations impose upon themselves) as
    > well as interdiction efforts (imposed by any galactic clubs). Where
    > *we* (humanity) reside in this development process needs quite a bit
    > more information before we can make any well qualified judgements
    > I would feel.
    >
    > Robert
    >
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 22 2003 - 18:50:21 MDT