53 replies to this topic

[CygnuS]

The following is a quote on page 9 of the December 2024 issue of Astronomy magazine. The small clip is titled "The homebody problem." 

 

"Philosopher Wolfhart Totschnig argues in October's Acta Astronautica that intelligent life chooses not to expand across the galaxy to avoid conflict over resources. This could explain the Fermi Paradox, which asks why, if life is widespread, alien civilizations haven't been found." 

 

What do you folks think? If an intelligent alien civilization saw that Earth had intelligent life and natural resources, would it avoid contact with us because of it's moral values? And yet, every planet that has intelligent life would have natural resources, even if the life wasn't Indigenous to that planet. Wouldn't that mean that ET would never make contact?

To make things more complicated, what if ET was running out of a natural resource? It seems as if Totschnig is implying that, as an alien species gains intelligence, it would chose the demise of it's race over harming alien life. I'm not saying that some wouldn't chose death. But it seems as if Totschnig is concluding that they all would, since we haven't been contacted. 

[jupiter122]

I find the view to be stupefyingly naïve. We are supposedly intelligent life forms, and yet we  have throughout our history killed others over resources, sometimes on a mass level, and we kill intelligent life forms, albeit supposedly less intelligent than us, as resources every day. Who’s to say that a far more intelligent life form that traveled across the galaxy wouldn’t kill us for our resources or even see us as resource's? Isn’t it likely that there are as many Hitlerite civilizations out there as there are Gandhiesque civilizations?

 

Tim

[City Kid]

ET wouldn't come here after our resources because we are too far away no matter where they're at. The vast distances in space are going to prevent any intelligent life from making it to earth.

[Asteroyd]

Seems to me that if a civilization has advanced to the point where they can travel "across the galaxy", they probably are not short on critical resources - at least energy resources. 

 

And I would think there are more Hitler-like (authoritarian) galactic travellers than Ghandi-like.  Totalitarian civilizations are much more apt to conquer/plunder new worlds than Ghandis, sitting around being introspective and spiritual, live-and-let-live.  That just doesn't seem like the type of being that has an explorer's heart, but who knows?  Like most arguments today, you have taken the ultra-extreme on both sides of the human moral code, it's much more likely it is somewhere in between those two fringes.

[deSitter]

ET wouldn't come here after our resources because we are too far away no matter where they're at. The vast distances in space are going to prevent any intelligent life from making it to earth.

That is basically what relativity implies. Getting there fast and getting home fast isn't the problem - having nothing to return to because of time skew is. The only way out of this is to assume a society that is stable across millennia inhabited by beings with enormous lifespans.

 

-drl

[GalaxyPiper]

Be forwarned,

 

Any sufficient intelligent extraterrestrial life would be akin to the Spaniards vs. The Amazonian Indians.

Total elimination of our species, except for those that are enslaved or not eaten.

 

We would be looked upon as savages that do not know of their gods, and have not been blessed by them.

 

Any hubris thought that powerful aliens would be benign and friendly, deserves to be enslaved or be eaten.

 

To think that they will come in peace on huge vacation cruise liners and will give us a lift, is just your inefficient Socialist brain trying to figure out capitalism, and make change. 

 

Be sufficiently suspicious, and you may just survive...barely.

Edited by GalaxyPiper, 05 November 2024 - 09:00 AM.

[CygnuS]

Good responses. I can't imagine an intelligent species that would NOT kill to keep their species from becoming extinct. But then again my mind's imagination has limits. It is as they say "You can't imagine what you can't imagine." My guess would be that there would be a few that wouldn't kill...but very few. 

I do like to see philosophy and astronomy mix. I suspect I am in the minority here. 

[deSitter]

Good responses. I can't imagine an intelligent species that would NOT kill to keep their species from becoming extinct. But then again my mind's imagination has limits. It is as they say "You can't imagine what you can't imagine." My guess would be that there would be a few that wouldn't kill...but very few. 

I do like to see philosophy and astronomy mix. I suspect I am in the minority here. 

See "The Zanti Misfits" (OUTER LIMITS)

 

-drl

[Bubbagumps]

This is one of those scenarios where you pretty much have free reign to speculate and argue while in possession of a 'get out of jail free' card. The card you hold is the fact that nobody can prove or disprove any particular argument using empirical data or facts. Someone will either like the argument or they won't. Not really sure what to do with such arguments other than say it's an interesting idea that settles nothing.

Edited by Bubbagumps, 05 November 2024 - 06:07 PM.

[deSitter]

This is one of those scenarios where you pretty much have free reign to speculate and argue while in possession of a 'get out of jail free' card. The card you hold is the fact that nobody can prove or disprove any particular argument using empirical data or facts. Someone will either like the argument or they won't. Not really sure what to do with such arguments other than say it's an interesting idea that settles nothing.

Not only that - there are absolutely no arguments either for or against the existence of other sentient beings. Just saying there are lots of Earth-like planets in Sun-like systems is not an argument. If there WERE only one example of sentience by divine fiat, and we were it, well, that's life

 

To me, a much more interesting question is - why is the universe put together the way it is? Why is everything so far away? What processes set the scale on these things? The LEAST interesting question is "why are we here" and other such intellectual ice cream.

 

-drl

[Bubbagumps]

Not only that - there are absolutely no arguments either for or against the existence of other sentient beings. Just saying there are lots of Earth-like planets in Sun-like systems is not an argument. If there WERE only one example of sentience by divine fiat, and we were it, well, that's life

 

To me, a much more interesting question is - why is the universe put together the way it is? Why is everything so far away? What processes set the scale on these things? The LEAST interesting question is "why are we here" and other such intellectual ice cream.

 

-drl

The deep questions fall under the umbrella of philosophy. The problem with addressing the scientific questions related to life in the universe is a near complete lack of information to really answer the questions with any degree of confidence. The marketplace of speculations is defined by a free-for-all of ideas and possibilities. Until we really get a firm grasp of how many planets truly fall inside a habitability zone, we can't even begin to start forming reasonable expectations for the abundance of life in the universe. At this point, any guestimate is as good as another. Like the Drake Equation, all you can do is say the parameters sound good to me then run with it.

[CygnuS]

 

 

To me, a much more interesting question is - why is the universe put together the way it is? Why is everything so far away? What processes set the scale on these things? The LEAST interesting question is "why are we here" and other such intellectual ice cream.

 

-drl

Nothing beats "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Nothing. 

[CygnuS]

This is one of those scenarios where you pretty much have free reign to speculate and argue while in possession of a 'get out of jail free' card. The card you hold is the fact that nobody can prove or disprove any particular argument using empirical data or facts. 

Everybody is a winner! Sounds like a great idea. But then again, I'm a middle child. One of our traits is wanting everybody to be happy. 

[CygnuS]

Not only that - there are absolutely no arguments either for or against the existence of other sentient beings. Just saying there are lots of Earth-like planets in Sun-like systems is not an argument. 

True, but it is a pretty convincing piece of evidence considering the size of the Universe.....especially when you plug it into the Drake Equation....

.....um, for entertainment purposes, not science. The nice thing about being an amateur scientist is that you don't have to take things so seriously. 

[deSitter]

True, but it is a pretty convincing piece of evidence considering the size of the Universe.....especially when you plug it into the Drake Equation....

.....um, for entertainment purposes, not science. The nice thing about being an amateur scientist is that you don't have to take things so seriously. 

But it isn't evidence for sentient life at all, it is just evidence of Earth-like planets and Sun-like stars.

 

-drl

[deSitter]

True, but it is a pretty convincing piece of evidence considering the size of the Universe.....especially when you plug it into the Drake Equation....

.....um, for entertainment purposes, not science. The nice thing about being an amateur scientist is that you don't have to take things so seriously. 

There are so many special circumstances just to enable life here, something we understand almost nothing about in its early stages, much less sentient life, that even the idea of what would be evidence, other than a direct signal or a dude asking for directions, is hard to define.

 

-drl

[CygnuS]

But it isn't evidence for sentient life at all, it is just evidence of Earth-like planets and Sun-like stars.

 

-drl

Why wouldn't conditions be part of the evidence? You can't have life without these conditions so they seem like a big piece of the puzzle. 

[Tony Flanders]

I don't see how resources could possibly be part of the equation. So far there's no reason to think that it's economically efficient to retrieve any resource from asteroids or the Moon, which are by far the most practical astronomical bodies to visit. Let's imagine for argument's sake that there's an inhabited planet in the Alpha Centauri system. What resource could Earth possibly possess that would be so scarce in the Alpha Cen system that it would justify the cost of shipping said resource across 25 trillion miles of empty space?

[GalaxyPiper]

I don't see how resources could possibly be part of the equation. So far there's no reason to think that it's economically efficient to retrieve any resource from asteroids or the Moon, which are by far the most practical astronomical bodies to visit. Let's imagine for argument's sake that there's an inhabited planet in the Alpha Centauri system. What resource could Earth possibly possess that would be so scarce in the Alpha Cen system that it would justify the cost of shipping said resource across 25 trillion miles of empty space?

Logical. But then why don't ants stay close to their home instead of traversing hundreds of feet to forage? Or, transport their whole colony to better feeding grounds?

 

Aliens are not looking to set up a Bed and Breakfast for the Galaxy to stop at Earth for rest and relaxation.

 

Occam's Razer, (also spelled Ockham's razor or Ocham's razor; Latin: novacula Occami) is the problem-solving principle that recommends searching for explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements. It is also known as the principle of parsimony or the law of parsimony (Latin: lex parsimoniae). Attributed to William of Ockham, a 14th-century English philosopher and theologian, it is frequently cited as Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, which translates as "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity",[1][2] although Occam never used these exact words. Popularly, the principle is sometimes paraphrased as "The simplest explanation is usually the best one."[3] https://en.wikipedia.../Occam's_razor 

 

Quit looking for a benevolent Society of powerful interstellar Aliens that just want to come here to talk to us, trade, and be our benefactors to come save us. Give me an example where this has been true in Human history?

You could say, "But Alien history could be different that they based their society to giving aid and enlightenment on every life they find in the Universe!"

 

At what cost, and who ends up paying the bill in the end?

 

Nothing is free...there is always a cost. Even in Physics, even in Chemistry, even in Politics...

 

Don't be a fool. Fools end up dead. Ask any Inca, or Aztec in South America, or better yet, any American Indian.

 

The powerful subjugate the weak, and usually at the moniker that they are bestowing blessed Religion to the unwashed, and bringing Civilization to the lawless savages...

 

And to them we would be Savages, barely able to use "Fire", in our case, "A.I."

Edited by GalaxyPiper, 06 November 2024 - 11:49 AM.

[Bubbagumps]

I think we tend to anthropomorphize the concept of intelligent alien life and assume they would look a little different but would think and behave just like us. We also assume they would have evolved to possess the same ideals and ethics. 

 

It is also possible that a species evolves to become so overwhelmingly superior in function and form that such a species wouldn't even waste their time being concerned with the needs of a species like ours. Is anyone here really concerned with the well-being of an amoeba ? What such a species would resemble is not easily comprehended. But is a dog capable of comprehending how superior our species is in terms of mastery over our environment and intellectual ability ? 

 

My hunch is that the next stage of Human Evolution is probably going to involve the use of biological and neurological enhancements brought about through artificial means. As our understanding of neurological process advances, it's only a matter of time before we attempt to boost capacity using the introduction of artificial neurological enhancements that boosts brain function. The man-machine interface has been the subject of science fiction, but in the future it likely will happen in some form if we survive long enough. Again, what that would entail is an open question. But it isn't really far-fetched to think that perhaps one day, it becomes possible to interface tiny little processors with neurological networks in the brain and this greatly enhances cognitive and intellectual functioning. Perhaps average intelligence level for a child in grade school would be functioning intellectually at the level of an Einstein or Hawking. As a society, if this were to happen, advancement in understanding of the Universe would likely increase exponentially and technological advancement would likewise increase at a furious pace. 

 

Pure speculation of course. But my guess is that if we survive long enough as a species, we will possibly become capable of things that are currently beyond our current wildest dreams. If there is intelligent alien life in the universe, there are possibly species that have reached this stage and they would probably have little interest in us. 

[Olimad]

I think we tend to anthropomorphize the concept of intelligent alien life and assume they would look a little different but would think and behave just like us. We also assume they would have evolved to possess the same ideals and ethics. 

 

It is also possible that a species evolves to become so overwhelmingly superior in function and form that such a species wouldn't even waste their time being concerned with the needs of a species like ours. Is anyone here really concerned with the well-being of an amoeba ? What such a species would resemble is not easily comprehended. But is a dog capable of comprehending how superior our species is in terms of mastery over our environment and intellectual ability ? 

 

My hunch is that the next stage of Human Evolution is probably going to involve the use of biological and neurological enhancements brought about through artificial means. As our understanding of neurological process advances, it's only a matter of time before we attempt to boost capacity using the introduction of artificial neurological enhancements that boosts brain function. The man-machine interface has been the subject of science fiction, but in the future it likely will happen in some form if we survive long enough. Again, what that would entail is an open question. But it isn't really far-fetched to think that perhaps one day, it becomes possible to interface tiny little processors with neurological networks in the brain and this greatly enhances cognitive and intellectual functioning. Perhaps average intelligence level for a child in grade school would be functioning intellectually at the level of an Einstein or Hawking. As a society, if this were to happen, advancement in understanding of the Universe would likely increase exponentially and technological advancement would likewise increase at a furious pace. 

 

Pure speculation of course. But my guess is that if we survive long enough as a species, we will possibly become capable of things that are currently beyond our current wildest dreams. If there is intelligent alien life in the universe, there are possibly species that have reached this stage and they would probably have little interest in us. 

 

In your last paragraph, you do what you criticized in your first paragraph.

[Bubbagumps]

In your last paragraph, you do what you criticized in your first paragraph.

How am I anthropomorphizing alien life in my last paragraph?

[Sketcher]

The following is a quote on page 9 of the December 2024 issue of Astronomy magazine. The small clip is titled "The homebody problem." 

 

"Philosopher Wolfhart Totschnig argues in October's Acta Astronautica that intelligent life chooses not to expand across the galaxy to avoid conflict over resources. This could explain the Fermi Paradox, which asks why, if life is widespread, alien civilizations haven't been found." 

 

What do you folks think?

I think we don't know enough about any of this to be able to make any guesses that could even remotely have any significance -- have any likelihood of being anywhere near whatever the truth might be.

 

Consider that communication via radio is a very modern innovation.  So, ever since learning about radio we've been looking for radio signals from ET.  Seriously?  How long before we advance from radio to some other means of communication that'll make today's radio coms as obsolete as smoke signals?

 

We're always thinking in terms of our current technologies -- technologies that, in the long-term, are just flashes in the pan -- very short-lived on the cosmic scale.

 

Our ET searches, and our ET speculations (as in this thread) always assume a civilization similar to our own -- in level as well as in many other ways.

 

But will civilizations even be a sign of intelligence for us in the near future?  Will lifeforms even  be relevant to us in the near future?

 

In the grand scheme of the universe, we're hardly intelligent at all.  Go back just 500 years and look our level of technology.  Look at the history of humans on this planet.  It's chock full of love, hate, fighting, wars, and more wars.  War being a biggie for us and our "intelligent" civilizations.

 

So what are we doing wrong in our ET searches and speculations?  First off, we're probably wrong to be speculating in terms of ET existing as biological life-forms.  Second there's that part of always assuming that they would do as we would do (or have done).

 

We and our civilizations multiply and consume resources almost identically to a colony (or civilization) of bacteria.  Do you really think that a sufficiently advanced ET is going to be operating in that same destructive (to their own environment) manner?

 

We're still in the life-form stage of our evolution -- the most primitive form of existence and intelligence imaginable to us.  Any real intelligence will eventually move on from that primitive form of existence.  We are already seeing signs of that possible future for our own species.

 

So, why the lack of evidence of some intelligent ET?  It could be as simple as us having no idea what to look for and no ability of recognizing it -- even if it were right in front of us.

 

Someone comes up with the concept of Dyson Spheres -- so we start looking for them.  That's just like with the radio signals.  We come up with or envision a technology -- and that's what ET is presumed to make use of.  Really?  I thought we were supposed to be intelligent in our searches.

 

Then, we assume other similarities to ourselves -- the ability to make use of natural resources to make glass, steel, etc.  But how many ETs live in their planet's oceans beneath a perpetual cloud cover where stars are never seen?  They would likely be a bit slower than us in producing glass, steel, and/or similar products.  They would likely be a bit slower in becoming aware of suns, stars, planets, galaxies, etc.  It's enough to make one wonder what we're missing due to our living on the surface of a planet as we do rather than having evolved in some very different environment.

 

We assume in threads such as this that ET will be a part of a civilization.  We assume that ET will be a biological lifeform.  I question making such assumptions.  We don't know where a species such as ours goes, what lies in its future.  But if I were to make a prediction, I would predict that we will either move on to an existence that isn't recognizable as a lifeform or that we become extinct -- either through natural means or through self-destruction in one way or another.

 

In other words, we shouldn't assume that ET is going to be easily recognizable to us.  We shouldn't even assume that ET isn't right here on planet Earth in the present -- with us.

 

We're a bit like a bacterium (a human being) in the gut of a rabbit (our universe) that we've just become aware of.  But what lies beyond the rabbit?  Our discoveries and knowledge haven't gone there yet.  We're not even aware of the possible existence of an entire world that may exist outside of that rabbit.

[EJN]

Aliens are not looking to set up a Bed and Breakfast for the Galaxy to stop at Earth for rest and relaxation.

 

No. Restaurants. The "Big Bang Burger Bar" and the "Restaurant at the End of the Universe."

[Tony Flanders]

Logical. But then why don't ants stay close to their home instead of traversing hundreds of feet to forage? Or, transport their whole colony to better feeding grounds?

Thanks for supporting my argument. This was in response to my claim that traveling interstellar distances to obtain resources cannot possibly be economically efficient.
 
Ants travel to find food not because they're eager to explore, not because they have aggressive instincts that make them seek out other ants to conquer, but rather because it's easy and efficient. Let's say we're talking an ant just 1 mm long traveling 1 km to find food. I very much doubt that any ant so small travels so far, but we're talking just 100,000 body lengths.
 
Now imagine a human 2 m tall traveling to Alpha Centauri 4x10¹³ km distant. That's 2x10¹⁶ body lengths -- just a smidge bigger than 100,000. But hey, what's 11 zeros between friends?
 
Of course humans can harness technology, so we can travel a lot faster than ants. Let's say for argument's sake that we could accelerate a spacecraft to 0.1 times the speed of light. That's extremely unlikely in practice, but it could in theory be done using an engine with 100% effficient hydrogen-hydrogen fusion. I'll let you do the math, but that means that a long-lived human might just be able to make one round trip in a lifetime.
 
What resource on Alpha Centauri might we find that could economically justify such a trip?
 

Aliens are not looking to set up a Bed and Breakfast for the Galaxy to stop at Earth for rest and relaxation.
 
Occam's Razer, (also spelled Ockham's razor or Ocham's razor; Latin: novacula Occami) is the problem-solving principle that recommends searching for explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements.

I'm going to re-order your words and do a little editing.

Occam's Razor is the principle that the best answer is the simplest. In this case, the most simplest answer is that aliens aren't looking. Not looking to set up a B&B, not looking for resources, not looking for conquest. Just not looking.

Edited by Tony Flanders, 07 November 2024 - 06:35 AM.