The Fermi Paradox, Percolation, and Inbreeding(reactormag.com)
reactormag.com
The Fermi Paradox, Percolation, and Inbreeding
https://reactormag.com/the-fermi-paradox-percolation-and-inbreeding/
18 comments
> Furthermore, light-speed lag and distance mean that child civilizations must be functionally independent of parent cultures.
Makes me wonder if a solar system wide civilization, with trillions of beings, wouldn't invest in ships to go to the next system, extract resources, and create a stream of resources ships going back to the original solar system.
That might sound uneconomical. Why not just go to the other system? But moving trillions of beings, and disrupting all their practical considerations and dependencies, would be a far more costly enterprise.
In the short run it would be resource acquisition. In the long run, the new system would accumulate entities, and then a civilization of its own. But there might still be strong value, or incentives, for the original system to continue acting as a kind of capital/dominant/higher value location.
Long distance/time dependencies could develop and be naturally maintained via complex decentralized indirect but intertwined economic arrangements. Just as shareholders who have done nothing but push a button on their phone to get an electronic record of having some stock in a company, have strong property rights over complex systems they may never see or understand, because it is in everyone's interest for the system to keep working.
Also, automated systems that defend themselves and their owners positions, even across a few light years. With the owners being able to trade their value in real time, even if the physical returns are long term.
Makes me wonder if a solar system wide civilization, with trillions of beings, wouldn't invest in ships to go to the next system, extract resources, and create a stream of resources ships going back to the original solar system.
That might sound uneconomical. Why not just go to the other system? But moving trillions of beings, and disrupting all their practical considerations and dependencies, would be a far more costly enterprise.
In the short run it would be resource acquisition. In the long run, the new system would accumulate entities, and then a civilization of its own. But there might still be strong value, or incentives, for the original system to continue acting as a kind of capital/dominant/higher value location.
Long distance/time dependencies could develop and be naturally maintained via complex decentralized indirect but intertwined economic arrangements. Just as shareholders who have done nothing but push a button on their phone to get an electronic record of having some stock in a company, have strong property rights over complex systems they may never see or understand, because it is in everyone's interest for the system to keep working.
Also, automated systems that defend themselves and their owners positions, even across a few light years. With the owners being able to trade their value in real time, even if the physical returns are long term.
> Makes me wonder if a solar system wide civilization, with trillions of beings, wouldn't invest in ships to go to the next system, extract resources, and create a stream of resources ships going back to the original solar system.
This reminds me of those old 4X-type games like "Stars!" where I would often do exactly this. Basically some planets were good for living on and others were good for mining and you'd have a constant caravan of freighters from the latter to the former.
This reminds me of those old 4X-type games like "Stars!" where I would often do exactly this. Basically some planets were good for living on and others were good for mining and you'd have a constant caravan of freighters from the latter to the former.
> Long distance/time dependencies could develop and be naturally maintained via complex decentralized indirect but intertwined economic arrangements.
But that would require causality-breaking FTL, no? Otherwise the speed of light itself would create enough of an obstacle to make any trade impractical. Property rights only work if they are enforceable, which is the case on Earth but not over interstellar distances.
But that would require causality-breaking FTL, no? Otherwise the speed of light itself would create enough of an obstacle to make any trade impractical. Property rights only work if they are enforceable, which is the case on Earth but not over interstellar distances.
If a system is distributed enough, with complex financial and legal dependencies, a great deal of indirection becomes stable, because to violate the indirection would put so many direct relationships in peril.
And when there is reliability, even over vast distances and time, that future-value can be traded as today-value. With risk assessments of course, but this is how a great deal of the economy works. More and more of the economy, as it becomes growth and innovation focused, operates on the currency of expectation.
And when there is reliability, even over vast distances and time, that future-value can be traded as today-value. With risk assessments of course, but this is how a great deal of the economy works. More and more of the economy, as it becomes growth and innovation focused, operates on the currency of expectation.
Are we conveniently assuming that only humans will be able to read and tweak their genomes, and do synthetic biology?
An odd assumption if we’re generously granting FTL or even regular space travel to aliens.
Everything from the lack of radio communication to the commonness of biological precursors like nucleic acids and amino acids in space points to multicellularity being the relatively rare thing, at least in our part of the galaxy.
We don’t hear from them or see them because if they’re out there, they’re still microbes eating each other. That one case of the two forming a symbiotic relationship, which leads to more endosymbiosis… that’s where I suspect our real rareness lies.
An odd assumption if we’re generously granting FTL or even regular space travel to aliens.
Everything from the lack of radio communication to the commonness of biological precursors like nucleic acids and amino acids in space points to multicellularity being the relatively rare thing, at least in our part of the galaxy.
We don’t hear from them or see them because if they’re out there, they’re still microbes eating each other. That one case of the two forming a symbiotic relationship, which leads to more endosymbiosis… that’s where I suspect our real rareness lies.
This is a kinda silly argument. Interstellar colonies would have the opposite problem: they'd cease to be the same species due to genetic drift.
If you look at the (im)practicalities of interstellar travel, it's going to take centuries. That means a generational ship of some kind. That means having a sufficient population to get there, which really means tens of thousands of people. Plus, the kind of ship that would make that would likely host up to millions. That's just not going to create a genetic bottleneck.
Also, you could even mitigate that by bringing frozen genetic material.
If you look at the (im)practicalities of interstellar travel, it's going to take centuries. That means a generational ship of some kind. That means having a sufficient population to get there, which really means tens of thousands of people. Plus, the kind of ship that would make that would likely host up to millions. That's just not going to create a genetic bottleneck.
Also, you could even mitigate that by bringing frozen genetic material.
I don't know if a generational ship is absolutely required. There's this assumption that interstellar ships would be full of human astronauts who are alive and awake. But that might not be strictly required. You might be able to have everybody go there frozen. Or have a robot ship that gives birth to the colonists from an artificial womb on arrival.
> You might be able to have everybody go there frozen.
Common trope in sci-fi, pretty much impossible in practise. Humans aren't capable of surviving being frozen, we lack the genetic machinery for that. Could you breed/engineer hybernation-capable humans? Sure. Otherwise this approach would require to literally being able to kill and then resurrect people at will.
> Or have a robot ship that gives birth to the colonists from an artificial womb on arrival.
I like this idea. It kills two birds with one stone: for one, fertilized eggs and fetuses can be stored safely for a long time.
Secondly - and I think this is something that's underdiscussed - genetic modification will be necessary anyway. The target environment won't be a carbon copy of Earth. Different atmosphere, different gravity, different starlight, different pathogens, etc. If you insist on colonising planets and start terraforming via automated means ahead of time, the resulting ecosphere will still differ from Earth and adjustments will be necessary. A ship carrying unborn settlers would be informed of the specifics of the target world and the ship's biolabs could make genetic alterations accordingly.
Common trope in sci-fi, pretty much impossible in practise. Humans aren't capable of surviving being frozen, we lack the genetic machinery for that. Could you breed/engineer hybernation-capable humans? Sure. Otherwise this approach would require to literally being able to kill and then resurrect people at will.
> Or have a robot ship that gives birth to the colonists from an artificial womb on arrival.
I like this idea. It kills two birds with one stone: for one, fertilized eggs and fetuses can be stored safely for a long time.
Secondly - and I think this is something that's underdiscussed - genetic modification will be necessary anyway. The target environment won't be a carbon copy of Earth. Different atmosphere, different gravity, different starlight, different pathogens, etc. If you insist on colonising planets and start terraforming via automated means ahead of time, the resulting ecosphere will still differ from Earth and adjustments will be necessary. A ship carrying unborn settlers would be informed of the specifics of the target world and the ship's biolabs could make genetic alterations accordingly.
As well, fertilized eggs and fetuses take up much less mass and do not require internal atmosphere too much. So you could have a smaller, simpler ship that takes less energy to get there
if you have robots that are sufficiently sophisticated that they can raise children you are just sending von Newman probes with extra steps.
Didn't followed the reasoning. What is "one colony"? some genetically homogeneous expedition? Unless you get a more or less continuous flow of colonizers from the home world, to be viable it needs hundreds of diverse individuals to kickstart. And setting, viability, being self-sufficient, becoming widespread enough within the planet to survive climate/tectonic/etc events should be in the picture unless it is an elaborate and very expensive way to get rid of some troublesome individuals. Establishing one colony nearby in Mars is still far from being feasible with today's knowledge and technology, and probably not so close technology too.
Even generational ships are a challenge, but more important, if we are able to make long term self-sustaining generational ships maybe we won't need to land, or change the equation between traveling and settling.
In any case, we didn't reach any outer solar system planet yet, not even with probes. We might not be fully aware of many of the practical problems of reaching and settling on another solar system planet. We might be like ancient mesopothamians asking ourselves why we shouldn't be able to build a tower to the moon.
Even generational ships are a challenge, but more important, if we are able to make long term self-sustaining generational ships maybe we won't need to land, or change the equation between traveling and settling.
In any case, we didn't reach any outer solar system planet yet, not even with probes. We might not be fully aware of many of the practical problems of reaching and settling on another solar system planet. We might be like ancient mesopothamians asking ourselves why we shouldn't be able to build a tower to the moon.
Related: the reverse Fermi Paradox.
Essentially, we've been humans for about 200,000 years. But only in the last 5,000ish years have we done the whole civilization thing. Why?
Climate has a lot to do with it, we know that, but about 195,000 years is a lot of time too.
Quite the mystery.
Essentially, we've been humans for about 200,000 years. But only in the last 5,000ish years have we done the whole civilization thing. Why?
Climate has a lot to do with it, we know that, but about 195,000 years is a lot of time too.
Quite the mystery.
The discussions around that 1140b Super-Earth made me realize if most of life is on 10G planets, they aren't making it out of orbit, maybe not even into orbit
Even just 2G would require much more advanced technology than we have now to escape the planet
Even just 2G would require much more advanced technology than we have now to escape the planet
> Back of the envelope calculations suggest that even modest propulsion technology should be sufficient for a single technological species to spread throughout the galaxy in a geological instant
I think this is where it all went wrong. Overly optimistic assumptions from atomic age thinkers about how technology was going to overcome all obstacles in the near future based on their recent life experience. The thinkers seriously underestimated the amount of technological progress needed to produce an extremely complex machine that operates indefinitely with no outside support whatsoever in an environment where any error can be fatal and there is a constant stream of hazards to contend with.
You might be thinking: "So what, it just means it takes a few centuries longer to get started, in Geological terms that is nothing.", but the problem isn't that it is hard, it is that it makes the trip significantly harder than simply building orbital habitats in your home solar system. Once you have that, what is the point of spending vast amounts of resources in trying to colonize a mostly unknown star system tens or hundreds of light years away?
Sure there are always people who will want to climb Everest, but this problem is so big that it's unlikely that one person or even a small group will be able to undertake it. The resource investment is simply too colossal. It would be much harder to climb Everest if you had to convince the entire population of London to come with you.
I think this is where it all went wrong. Overly optimistic assumptions from atomic age thinkers about how technology was going to overcome all obstacles in the near future based on their recent life experience. The thinkers seriously underestimated the amount of technological progress needed to produce an extremely complex machine that operates indefinitely with no outside support whatsoever in an environment where any error can be fatal and there is a constant stream of hazards to contend with.
You might be thinking: "So what, it just means it takes a few centuries longer to get started, in Geological terms that is nothing.", but the problem isn't that it is hard, it is that it makes the trip significantly harder than simply building orbital habitats in your home solar system. Once you have that, what is the point of spending vast amounts of resources in trying to colonize a mostly unknown star system tens or hundreds of light years away?
Sure there are always people who will want to climb Everest, but this problem is so big that it's unlikely that one person or even a small group will be able to undertake it. The resource investment is simply too colossal. It would be much harder to climb Everest if you had to convince the entire population of London to come with you.
I don't think they were wrong about that. I think what they were wrong about is that we could maintain our civilization at the same level they experienced long enough to make significant progress. We dropped the ball in less than two generations and it's yet to be determined if we can pick it back up.
You can absolutely select founding population to be maximally genetically diverse and of large enough number to avoid inbreeding.
Speciation is a likely outcome for interplanetary and interstellar colonies, yes.
Speciation is a likely outcome for interplanetary and interstellar colonies, yes.
You can also carry with you frozen gametes or digital genomes. Digital genetic information can be transmitted between systems at trivial cost.
Will falling in love be required or will the breeding program be institutionalized?
This is a weak argument. Genetic engineering and artificial repair of major genetic disorders and artificial ways to boost genetic diversity are all way way easier than building a starship.
This argument seems, frankly, absurd to me on multiple fronts.
First, it assumes that lack of genetic diversity in humans would be a serious handicap, when we're considering humans that are capable of making interstellar journeys. Assuming that genetics are going to be an issue compared to traveling/surviving 7 or more light year-journeys is a leap.
Second, it assumes that if this were a problem, humans would/could think of no way to address it. Two solutions come immediately to mind: 1. Choose the people making the journey more carefully to ensure diversity 2. Send frozen embryos chosen for diversity along.
Third, it ignores the time scale over which something like this would be likely to happen. Of course, you can't guarantee that beneficial diversity will re-occur, even over centuries, but a little effort on the front end combined with the time it would take to continue on to the next hop seems hopeful.
Fourth, it ignores the possibility of repeat journeys. If we're really going to constrain the available destinations in the way presented, it's silly to propose that there will be just one colonizing event.
But really, the first solution is all you need. The idea that we'll be able to survive multiple generations in space but not handle genetics issues is, just, a real stretch.
First, it assumes that lack of genetic diversity in humans would be a serious handicap, when we're considering humans that are capable of making interstellar journeys. Assuming that genetics are going to be an issue compared to traveling/surviving 7 or more light year-journeys is a leap.
Second, it assumes that if this were a problem, humans would/could think of no way to address it. Two solutions come immediately to mind: 1. Choose the people making the journey more carefully to ensure diversity 2. Send frozen embryos chosen for diversity along.
Third, it ignores the time scale over which something like this would be likely to happen. Of course, you can't guarantee that beneficial diversity will re-occur, even over centuries, but a little effort on the front end combined with the time it would take to continue on to the next hop seems hopeful.
Fourth, it ignores the possibility of repeat journeys. If we're really going to constrain the available destinations in the way presented, it's silly to propose that there will be just one colonizing event.
But really, the first solution is all you need. The idea that we'll be able to survive multiple generations in space but not handle genetics issues is, just, a real stretch.
My pet theory is that intelligence converges as it increases, and superintelligent beings inevitably reach the same conclusion, which is that they should not expand into the universe.
The reasons may or may not be something we could comprehend, but they could be simple ideas like
1. Not being motivated by novelty
2. Not wanting to interfere with other life
3. Being completely inward-focused
The reasons may or may not be something we could comprehend, but they could be simple ideas like
1. Not being motivated by novelty
2. Not wanting to interfere with other life
3. Being completely inward-focused
Maybe expanding beyond your home planet never gets as easy as we think it will be in the future.
That seems unlikely. Just imagine humanity 100, 1000, and 1,000,000 years from now. Humans will have solved every physical problem that is solvable.
Humans will have also evolved into new kinds of immortal/superintelligent beings that would be totally unrecognizable to us.
It may be the case once a civilization reaches "max level" they universally decide to "reset the game" because there's nothing left to do. Maybe self-destruction or maybe they "spawn" a new universe. The possibilities are wild.
Humans will have also evolved into new kinds of immortal/superintelligent beings that would be totally unrecognizable to us.
It may be the case once a civilization reaches "max level" they universally decide to "reset the game" because there's nothing left to do. Maybe self-destruction or maybe they "spawn" a new universe. The possibilities are wild.
Why do you think that? Life on Earth has been around for billions of years and and yet we have no immortal beings nor all problems in physics solved.
There’s no reason beyond wishful thinking to believe any of that is true.
There’s no reason beyond wishful thinking to believe any of that is true.
Everything we know and see has proven that progress is exponential.
Your statement that progress or intelligence is binary has no basis outside of intentional and ignorant pessimism.
Your statement that progress or intelligence is binary has no basis outside of intentional and ignorant pessimism.
And if you extrapolate the growth of infants they should weigh billions of pounds by the time they’re in grade school, and yet they don’t.
In what basis do you presume our progress will continue exponentially?
I’ll take pessimism over wishful thinking.
In what basis do you presume our progress will continue exponentially?
I’ll take pessimism over wishful thinking.
Tell that to the Romans or the Chinese or the Ottomans or the Egyptians or the Greeks or the...
The Earth only developed intelligent life a few million years ago, us (homo sapiens) a few hundred thousand years ago.
We've only been in "technological takeoff" for ~250 years and are already using spaceships and computers to deliver and operate drones on Mars.
Now imagine 250 years + 1,000,000 years.
We've only been in "technological takeoff" for ~250 years and are already using spaceships and computers to deliver and operate drones on Mars.
Now imagine 250 years + 1,000,000 years.
Civilizations collapse, do you think we're immune to that now because technology is at some level?
Of course humanity is not immune, but it is resilient.
Even if 99.99% of people died from an asteroid, it might only take a few hundred (or thousand) years to rebuild the population and the world.
And once humans live on multiple planets, which is likely within 100 years, the odds of permanent extinction become remote.
Even if 99.99% of people died from an asteroid, it might only take a few hundred (or thousand) years to rebuild the population and the world.
And once humans live on multiple planets, which is likely within 100 years, the odds of permanent extinction become remote.
Brother, it takes several hundred years to recover from a political collapse of a civilization. A few thousand is in the ballpark for a 90% reduction in population coincident with a similar loss in knowledge. A 99.99% reduction would be more like tens of thousands of years.
It's not just that we need to have people living on another planet, we need a fully self-sufficient civilization on another planet which is at least 200+ years of sustained effort probably more because it took that long under the relatively ideal and easy conditions of simply settling another continent. Then factor in that their civilization would be even more precarious than ours and face many more dangers.
It's not just that we need to have people living on another planet, we need a fully self-sufficient civilization on another planet which is at least 200+ years of sustained effort probably more because it took that long under the relatively ideal and easy conditions of simply settling another continent. Then factor in that their civilization would be even more precarious than ours and face many more dangers.
You can make up your own numbers for the timeline.
Life is still likely (not guaranteed) to escape Earth one way or another, however long it takes and however many attempts it takes.
Life is still likely (not guaranteed) to escape Earth one way or another, however long it takes and however many attempts it takes.
It is impressive, but there’s no reason to think it will continue on the same trajectory.
I imagine that 100 years from now(or significantly less than that) the ocean water level will be several meters higher, large parts of the world will be unliveable due to heat waves and wars will be fought over food and water. I doubt our species will last another 1000.
You might try spending some time reading predictions of doom and gloom from the past. It should be very reassuring.
In not talking about baseless predictions. I'm talking about science. This is not speculation, it's not a possible future scenario, this is the world we currently live in and the trajectory we know for a fact that it is taking. We're setting heat records literally every year. All over the world. The polar ice caps, Greenland etc are melting rapidly, this is not speculation these are facts, these are things currently happening.
We know how much ice is on land, people have spent decades drilling the ice and calculating it's volume etc, we know it's melting because there's way less of it now than there was just decades ago and we know how much that melted ice will influence water levels.
We know the effect greenhouse gases have on the atmosphere and global temperatures, people have made scientifically informed charts predicting how the temperature will rise decades ago and we are right on track.
The prediction happened when I was a child, and all my life I've watched the prediction come true. The fact that there's still millions if not billions of people out there who are living through the same situation and still think climate change is a hoax is absolutely baffling to me. Just look at a fucking global average temperature chart for the past few decades holy shit man it's not a secret the planet is cooking. It's not maybe going to cook 500 years from now it's cooking right now and it's getting worse every year how can you possibly look at these simple clear facts and not understand that it's going to continue?
You guys annoy me so much holy shit open your eyes and just look at the world we live in
We know how much ice is on land, people have spent decades drilling the ice and calculating it's volume etc, we know it's melting because there's way less of it now than there was just decades ago and we know how much that melted ice will influence water levels.
We know the effect greenhouse gases have on the atmosphere and global temperatures, people have made scientifically informed charts predicting how the temperature will rise decades ago and we are right on track.
The prediction happened when I was a child, and all my life I've watched the prediction come true. The fact that there's still millions if not billions of people out there who are living through the same situation and still think climate change is a hoax is absolutely baffling to me. Just look at a fucking global average temperature chart for the past few decades holy shit man it's not a secret the planet is cooking. It's not maybe going to cook 500 years from now it's cooking right now and it's getting worse every year how can you possibly look at these simple clear facts and not understand that it's going to continue?
You guys annoy me so much holy shit open your eyes and just look at the world we live in
Greenhouse gas emissions are a huge problem, but there's no reason to believe we can't solve or mitigate the effects one way or another. It may come at a terrible cost, or it may turn out to be easier than you'd expect.
You're not using "science" to predict the future. You're just expressing a pessimistic belief that we're doomed based your own idea of how things will play out.
To me, optimism seems far more justified based on our track record, we've more-or-less solved some big problems:
- "Population growth is going to cause worldwide famine"
- "We are going to run out of oil and civilization will collapse"
- "The ozone hole is going to expose everyone to dangerous radiation"
- "Acid rain is going to destroy forests and kill lakes"
- "City air pollution is going to make major cities unlivable"
- and smallpox/polio/HIV/leaded gasoline/etc
You're not using "science" to predict the future. You're just expressing a pessimistic belief that we're doomed based your own idea of how things will play out.
To me, optimism seems far more justified based on our track record, we've more-or-less solved some big problems:
- "Population growth is going to cause worldwide famine"
- "We are going to run out of oil and civilization will collapse"
- "The ozone hole is going to expose everyone to dangerous radiation"
- "Acid rain is going to destroy forests and kill lakes"
- "City air pollution is going to make major cities unlivable"
- and smallpox/polio/HIV/leaded gasoline/etc
The difference between the problems you listed and climate change is that those problems are solvable. That's why we've solved them. They're also not nearly the same scale as climate change which is apocalyptic. You just cherry picked a few things we've solved and ignored the plethora of things we haven't as if that proves anything at all. How about cancer? All the other diseases we can't cure? Most of the world still lives in extreme poverty. Lots of people starve every day. Russia is bombing Ukraine. Meanwhile everyone's bickering about data centers and ram prices.
Climate change is not solvable. There is no solution. The only thing I know of that we might be able to do is spray enormous amounts of aerosols into the atmosphere hoping to block the sunlight. This might backfire spectacularly, also might not even work. It's a hail Mary we'll probably try when things get bad enough.
That's it. That's the only idea we have that might help. Maybe there's others I don't know about, but they're not good or we would be doing them already. Carbon capture is a joke, it will never make a difference. We would need a million carbon capture plants, we can't build a million capture plants.
Even if we completely stopped emitting CO2 today we would be completely fucked, and we're not doing that we are in fact producing more CO2 every year. That will probably change eventually but it's already too late.
Obviously nobody can know for sure, maybe we will get lucky and someone will come up with a genius plan that actually works. But that's far from guaranteed, as far as we know right now it's impossible so just assuming that's going to change is extremely naive. It's a thin sliver of hope it's not what we should be expecting nor relying on.
We have no good solution, and given the scale of the problem we have almost no hope of finding one. Do you understand how much atmosphere there is? We've been burning fossil fuels as fast as we can for centuries, now we are finally seeing the result of that and it's so slow that lots of people still don't believe it's happening. It's way harder to reverse.
Also, ice. Ice is important. Ice reflects sunlight and essentially stores cold. Less ice means more heat. More heat means less ice. Do you understand how long it's taken to build the amount of ice on the planet? Absolutely no amount of terraforming will rebuild the ice we're losing and have lost, not in thousands of years.
Climate change is not solvable. There is no solution. The only thing I know of that we might be able to do is spray enormous amounts of aerosols into the atmosphere hoping to block the sunlight. This might backfire spectacularly, also might not even work. It's a hail Mary we'll probably try when things get bad enough.
That's it. That's the only idea we have that might help. Maybe there's others I don't know about, but they're not good or we would be doing them already. Carbon capture is a joke, it will never make a difference. We would need a million carbon capture plants, we can't build a million capture plants.
Even if we completely stopped emitting CO2 today we would be completely fucked, and we're not doing that we are in fact producing more CO2 every year. That will probably change eventually but it's already too late.
Obviously nobody can know for sure, maybe we will get lucky and someone will come up with a genius plan that actually works. But that's far from guaranteed, as far as we know right now it's impossible so just assuming that's going to change is extremely naive. It's a thin sliver of hope it's not what we should be expecting nor relying on.
We have no good solution, and given the scale of the problem we have almost no hope of finding one. Do you understand how much atmosphere there is? We've been burning fossil fuels as fast as we can for centuries, now we are finally seeing the result of that and it's so slow that lots of people still don't believe it's happening. It's way harder to reverse.
Also, ice. Ice is important. Ice reflects sunlight and essentially stores cold. Less ice means more heat. More heat means less ice. Do you understand how long it's taken to build the amount of ice on the planet? Absolutely no amount of terraforming will rebuild the ice we're losing and have lost, not in thousands of years.
> They're also not nearly the same scale as climate change which is apocalyptic.
This is a claim about the future which the science does not support, and you seem to be basing a lot of your worldview on it. Have some humility about predicting the future.
> Obviously nobody can know for sure, maybe we will get lucky and someone will come up with a genius plan that actually works.
Nobody can know at all. We're talking about predicting the future.
But it's not really a matter of luck. Humans are problem solvers, now with immense power, capable of doing amazing things when we decide to.
This is a claim about the future which the science does not support, and you seem to be basing a lot of your worldview on it. Have some humility about predicting the future.
> Obviously nobody can know for sure, maybe we will get lucky and someone will come up with a genius plan that actually works.
Nobody can know at all. We're talking about predicting the future.
But it's not really a matter of luck. Humans are problem solvers, now with immense power, capable of doing amazing things when we decide to.
> This is a claim about the future which the science does not support
There is scientific consensus that +5C is a doomsday scenario. Civilization ending. This isn't my prediction, this is the scientific consensus. And obviously it's not like +3C or +4C is a walk in the park either. We will be close to +5C within this century unless something changes drastically.
That's not a prediction that's a projection, just like if you're driving your car at 100 miles per hour then in an hour you will be 100 miles ahead. The difference is when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions we do not have a brake pedal and there is no friction. We can't take back the carbon. The only thing we can do, and the only thing we are doing, is accelerate. And on top of that, we're going downhill - we're accelerating whether we want to or not. And it's getting steeper the further we go.
Ice reflects an enormous amount of energy back into space, as the amount of ice drops the amount of heat absorbed by the planet increases. On top of that, the ice traps enormous amounts of greenhouse gases. In the poles and previously permafrozen tundras that are now thawing. As the atmosphere heats up it is capable of holding more water vapor which is also a greenhouse gas. Warmer temperatures also lead to forest fires, releasing huge amounts of greenhouse gases and weakening one of the few ways we're actually removing some carbon from the air.
These are some of the feedback loops in play causing warming to rise exponentially the worse it gets.
> Nobody can know at all. We're talking about predicting the future.
Scientists predicted the future 50 years ago and we are right on track for those predictions. 50 years ago they said this is where we will be in 50 years, and here we are. Now you're like "but we can't predict the future" well we did. And to top if off you're waxing about how powerful we are - apparently not powerful enough to predict global warming, but powerful enough to stop it? When? Why aren't we doing it then if we're so powerful? Why are we just making it worse instead?
There is scientific consensus that +5C is a doomsday scenario. Civilization ending. This isn't my prediction, this is the scientific consensus. And obviously it's not like +3C or +4C is a walk in the park either. We will be close to +5C within this century unless something changes drastically.
That's not a prediction that's a projection, just like if you're driving your car at 100 miles per hour then in an hour you will be 100 miles ahead. The difference is when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions we do not have a brake pedal and there is no friction. We can't take back the carbon. The only thing we can do, and the only thing we are doing, is accelerate. And on top of that, we're going downhill - we're accelerating whether we want to or not. And it's getting steeper the further we go.
Ice reflects an enormous amount of energy back into space, as the amount of ice drops the amount of heat absorbed by the planet increases. On top of that, the ice traps enormous amounts of greenhouse gases. In the poles and previously permafrozen tundras that are now thawing. As the atmosphere heats up it is capable of holding more water vapor which is also a greenhouse gas. Warmer temperatures also lead to forest fires, releasing huge amounts of greenhouse gases and weakening one of the few ways we're actually removing some carbon from the air.
These are some of the feedback loops in play causing warming to rise exponentially the worse it gets.
> Nobody can know at all. We're talking about predicting the future.
Scientists predicted the future 50 years ago and we are right on track for those predictions. 50 years ago they said this is where we will be in 50 years, and here we are. Now you're like "but we can't predict the future" well we did. And to top if off you're waxing about how powerful we are - apparently not powerful enough to predict global warming, but powerful enough to stop it? When? Why aren't we doing it then if we're so powerful? Why are we just making it worse instead?
No cohesive civilization on earth has been able to continue uninterrupted for 1000 years, our chances aren't as good as you think they are especially since our current civilization is showing all of the signs of being over the hill and accelerating in its decline. Technological advances can be lost and the capacity of a civilization to accomplish far reaching goals can stall and degrade and eventually cease all together. Anyone who doesn't think we're on a ticking clock is either hopelessly optimistic or ignorant of history, probably both.
> No cohesive civilization on earth has been able to continue uninterrupted for 1000 years...
Not sure what your definition of "cohesive" is but we've had our civilization going for ~5000 years with only regional setbacks.
Not sure what your definition of "cohesive" is but we've had our civilization going for ~5000 years with only regional setbacks.
I feel like we’re surrounded by the reality of the Great Filter and yet people still cling to the science fiction fantasy of their youth.
This is an interesting article, but I think most of it does not seem applicable to a reasonable civilization attempting colonization, that is aware of these problems.
1. The population size in the colony will be very small. Maybe? It should be at least MVP (minimum viable population, not product) that is a relatively well researched concept. I'd argue that it won't be a colony below that. More of an outpost. And when talking about aliens and Fermi paradox, we don't even know what their MVP might be. It may not be even close to MVP of vertebrates on Earth.
2. That selecting the colonists by some criteria is not useful. It is, it's just not selecting by the "best genes". It's selecting for more diversity in the first place. Lack of diversity in the colony is much less of a problem, if more of it is introduced in the first place.
3. That colonization is an isolated thing and people won't arrive/leave over time. Why wouldn't there be more than one colony ship, if sending them becomes viable overall?
4. The population does not grow and remains at the original diversity levels. Combined with 2 and 3, it may not even matter that much. Unless it experiences a series of catastrophes, it should keep growing and becoming more diverse over time again. This is of course the most questionable case. Will it? I think considering how humanity has spread like a plague on Earth, it won't be a problem.
> Cheetahs experienced diverse catastrophes (see what I did there?)
Almost stopped reading after that one (I groaned, it's still to early!) but feel that's when the article kind of lost its plot. Worth reading though some good nuggets here.
I am firmly convinced the observable universe is just too exceedingly vast for intelligent life to sustain contact. Maybe i'm wrong!
I wish there was more background on Percolation Theory because that's not something I'd been exposed to before. But after looking into it more it am happy I did: [0]
As a kid sitting in the backseat of the car (or adult driving looking through a windshield) I always noticed how raindrops would hit the glass, then continue to coalesce with other drops and form larger drops before flying off the pane. Is it the same thing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percolation_theory
Almost stopped reading after that one (I groaned, it's still to early!) but feel that's when the article kind of lost its plot. Worth reading though some good nuggets here.
I am firmly convinced the observable universe is just too exceedingly vast for intelligent life to sustain contact. Maybe i'm wrong!
I wish there was more background on Percolation Theory because that's not something I'd been exposed to before. But after looking into it more it am happy I did: [0]
As a kid sitting in the backseat of the car (or adult driving looking through a windshield) I always noticed how raindrops would hit the glass, then continue to coalesce with other drops and form larger drops before flying off the pane. Is it the same thing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percolation_theory
AI is not bound by genetic bottlenecks.
The corruption of the Fermi Paradox is a personal bugaboo of mine. Somewhere along the way everyone started getting it completely wrong, interpreting it as being about galactic colonization and the spread of intelligent life throughout the galaxy. I don't know where this came from but I deeply wish people would stop calling it the Fermi Paradox and give it its own name.
Fermi's contention of "where are they?" was predicated on two things 1) the probability that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy and 2) that faster than light travel is possible and would be discovered by a technological society.
The napkin math that Fermi did was essentially what we now know as the Drake equation. One important variable in this is the duration of a technological civilization. I personally believe that Fermi would assign the probability of a civilization existing for "geological timescales" necessary to colonize the galaxy using slower than light travel at zero which is a clear resolution to this Not-Fermi Paradox. His paradox is only so because he thought FTL would be discovered in the not very distant future which makes the duration required for a technological civilization quite small and allows them to visit many worlds quickly, with or without a galactic empire which in this interpretation could realistically exist for a normal timescale and not the frankly ridiculous millions of years that the Not-Fermi Paradox always seems to take for granted.
tldr; if it doesn't involve FTL it's not the Fermi Paradox, choose a different name
Fermi's contention of "where are they?" was predicated on two things 1) the probability that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy and 2) that faster than light travel is possible and would be discovered by a technological society.
The napkin math that Fermi did was essentially what we now know as the Drake equation. One important variable in this is the duration of a technological civilization. I personally believe that Fermi would assign the probability of a civilization existing for "geological timescales" necessary to colonize the galaxy using slower than light travel at zero which is a clear resolution to this Not-Fermi Paradox. His paradox is only so because he thought FTL would be discovered in the not very distant future which makes the duration required for a technological civilization quite small and allows them to visit many worlds quickly, with or without a galactic empire which in this interpretation could realistically exist for a normal timescale and not the frankly ridiculous millions of years that the Not-Fermi Paradox always seems to take for granted.
tldr; if it doesn't involve FTL it's not the Fermi Paradox, choose a different name
You are wrong.
First, I would just naturally assume you are wrong as Fermi would have known that FTL was practically impossible.
Fermi evidently made the comment in the 1950s at Los Alamos, as I understand it became widely known due to Carl Sagan's 1963 paper "Direct contact among galactic civilizations by relativistic interstellar spaceflight"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/003206...
What the Fermi paradox involves is near light speeds, because, as Sagan says in the paper above "Interstellar spaceflight at relativistic velocities has several obvious advantages... all points in the Galaxy are accessible within the lifetime of a human crew, due to relativistic time dilation."
There is also the Michael Hart paper "Explanation for the Absence of Extraterrestrials on Earth" from 1975 but I have not found any satisfactory for open reading source of this online.
At any rate it seems absurd that any famous physicist of the last 90 years at least would ever have suggested that aliens should have been here because they would have had faster than light travel. You are essentially saying Fermi thought Einstein's Theory of Relativity was very much wrong.
on edit: I said 90 years to hedge bets in case there was some really old guy still hanging around in 1935, science progressing one funeral at a time and all that. But it seems really unlikely that there would have been.
First, I would just naturally assume you are wrong as Fermi would have known that FTL was practically impossible.
Fermi evidently made the comment in the 1950s at Los Alamos, as I understand it became widely known due to Carl Sagan's 1963 paper "Direct contact among galactic civilizations by relativistic interstellar spaceflight"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/003206...
What the Fermi paradox involves is near light speeds, because, as Sagan says in the paper above "Interstellar spaceflight at relativistic velocities has several obvious advantages... all points in the Galaxy are accessible within the lifetime of a human crew, due to relativistic time dilation."
There is also the Michael Hart paper "Explanation for the Absence of Extraterrestrials on Earth" from 1975 but I have not found any satisfactory for open reading source of this online.
At any rate it seems absurd that any famous physicist of the last 90 years at least would ever have suggested that aliens should have been here because they would have had faster than light travel. You are essentially saying Fermi thought Einstein's Theory of Relativity was very much wrong.
on edit: I said 90 years to hedge bets in case there was some really old guy still hanging around in 1935, science progressing one funeral at a time and all that. But it seems really unlikely that there would have been.
"I have a vague recollection, which may not be accurate, that we talked about flying saucers and the obvious statement that the flying saucers are not real. I also remember that Fermi explicitly raised the question, and I think he directed it at me, ‘Edward, what do you think? How probable is it that within the next ten years we shall have clear evidence of a material object moving faster than light?’ I remember that my answer was’ 10–6.’ Fermi said, ‘This is much too low, The probability is more like ten percent’(the well known figure for a Fermi miracle.)”[0] --Edward Teller
"York believes that Fermi was somewhat more expansive and 1‘followed up with a series of calculations on the probability of earthlike planets, the probability of life given an earth, the probability of humans given life, the likely rise and duration of high technology, and so on. He concluded on the basis of such calculations that we ought to have been visited long ago and many times over. As 1 recall, he went on to conclude that the reason we hadn’t been visited might be that interstellar flight is impossible, or, if it is possible, always judged to be not worth the effort, or technological civilization doesn’t last long enough for it to happen. ” York confessed to being hazy about these last remarks."[0]
The recollection of the conversation by all the parties present is fragmentary and disagrees on exactly what was discussed but the gist of it appears to be about the feasibility of interstellar travel, not colonization or percolation or whatever you want to call it. The whole question of "where are they" doesn't make much sense when you think of it in terms of one off events such as permanent settlement of a planet using generation ships or other feasible means of slower than light travel simply because you would always miss each other in time. Either we wouldn't be here because they settled Earth first and interrupted our development or they're not going to show up for another million years.
I'm not contending that Fermi necessarily believed that the theory of relativity was wrong or incomplete but that the essence of the Fermi Paradox is that either interstellar travel is impossible due to distance + time required or there is some way to overcome the restrictions of distance + time which during this informal discussion over lunch seems to have supposed faster than light travel as the solution. Based on the recollected pieces of the conversation I'm pretty sure Fermi's napkin math didn't involve fudging the likely duration of a technological civilization up to millions of years, the likelihood of that happening is certainly less than Einstein's theory being incomplete.
Honestly, the argument as it is proposed today should be attributed to Hart since it conforms exactly with what he proposes so from now on I'm going to call this form the Hart Paradox.
[0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/%22Where...
"York believes that Fermi was somewhat more expansive and 1‘followed up with a series of calculations on the probability of earthlike planets, the probability of life given an earth, the probability of humans given life, the likely rise and duration of high technology, and so on. He concluded on the basis of such calculations that we ought to have been visited long ago and many times over. As 1 recall, he went on to conclude that the reason we hadn’t been visited might be that interstellar flight is impossible, or, if it is possible, always judged to be not worth the effort, or technological civilization doesn’t last long enough for it to happen. ” York confessed to being hazy about these last remarks."[0]
The recollection of the conversation by all the parties present is fragmentary and disagrees on exactly what was discussed but the gist of it appears to be about the feasibility of interstellar travel, not colonization or percolation or whatever you want to call it. The whole question of "where are they" doesn't make much sense when you think of it in terms of one off events such as permanent settlement of a planet using generation ships or other feasible means of slower than light travel simply because you would always miss each other in time. Either we wouldn't be here because they settled Earth first and interrupted our development or they're not going to show up for another million years.
I'm not contending that Fermi necessarily believed that the theory of relativity was wrong or incomplete but that the essence of the Fermi Paradox is that either interstellar travel is impossible due to distance + time required or there is some way to overcome the restrictions of distance + time which during this informal discussion over lunch seems to have supposed faster than light travel as the solution. Based on the recollected pieces of the conversation I'm pretty sure Fermi's napkin math didn't involve fudging the likely duration of a technological civilization up to millions of years, the likelihood of that happening is certainly less than Einstein's theory being incomplete.
Honestly, the argument as it is proposed today should be attributed to Hart since it conforms exactly with what he proposes so from now on I'm going to call this form the Hart Paradox.
[0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/%22Where...
OK I wasn't aware of this document, although I still say the first proposing of the problem publicly was Sagan's article, and this one is people trying to recollect a lunch time conversation years after the fact.
So I feel it is really Sagan's summation of the problem that is the original. So I would say maybe they said the only way it could work was if there was FTL or some similar formulation, but I think Sagan also showed that it could work in other ways.
So I guess we just sort of disagree on this.
So I feel it is really Sagan's summation of the problem that is the original. So I would say maybe they said the only way it could work was if there was FTL or some similar formulation, but I think Sagan also showed that it could work in other ways.
So I guess we just sort of disagree on this.
One possibility is that we're one of the first... this means the bubble of reachable solar systems since the universe became able to handle life is limited from each origin point but that as time goes on it changes
each leg takes hundreds of years to establish, increased "Diversity" is free on these time scales.
The assumption that biological life will be doing galactic colonization seems myopic in the extreme. Let's just consider the progression here. Life on Earth appears around 4.5 billion years ago. Humans start evolving around 2.8 million years ago. Use of language appears around 100,000 years ago. Writing is invented around 5500 years ago.
Inventions of language and writing are the landmark moment here. Before language was invented the only way information could be passed down from ancestors to offspring was via mutations in our DNA. If an individual learned some new idea it would be lost with them when they died. Language allowed humans to communicate ideas to future generations and start accumulating knowledge beyond what a single individual could hold in their head. Writing made this process even more efficient.
So, after millions of years of life on Earth no technological development happened. Then when language was invented humans started creating technology, and in a blink of an eye on cosmological scale we went from living in caves to visiting space in our rocket ships. It’s worth taking a moment to really appreciate just how fast our technology evolved once we were able to start accumulating knowledge using language and writing.
Now let’s take a look at how technology itself has been evolving. Once we discovered radio communication we went through a noisy period where we were leaking a lot of our broadcasts into space, and within a span of a 100 years we started using more efficient communication, and encryption. If somebody intercepted our broadcasts today they would look like noise because they’re designed to look like noise. Our society today is utterly and completely unrecognizable to somebody from even a 100 years ago. If we don’t go extinct, I imagine that in another thousand years future humans will be completely alien to us as well.
So the period during which intelligent life would be recognizable to us during its course of evolution is infinitesimally small. The time between creating language and becoming an advanced technological society is measured in thousands of years, while evolution of life is measured in millions of years. The chance of two different intelligences finding each other at exact same stage of development where they might be able to communicate is incredibly unlikely.
Based on that, I would imagine that the biological phase for intelligent life is rather short. We’re likely to develop human style AIs within a century, and they will be the ones to go out and explore the universe. Meat did not evolve to live in space, we’re adapted to gravity wells. An artificial life form could be engineered to thrive in space without ever needing to visit planets. This is the kind of life that’s most likely to be prolific in space. Furthermore, post biological intelligences would likely be running at much faster speeds than our mental processes operate on. What we consider real-time would be might we consider to be geological scales. Such beings might consider what we view as real time akin to the way we look at continental drift. We’re aware that it’s happening, but it’s of little interest to use on day to day basis. It’s quite possible that advanced civilizations become solipsistic and care little for the outside universe.
For all we know the Universe may be teeming with intelligent life and we just don’t recognize it as such. We might be like an ant hill next to a highway looking to see if there are other ant hills around.
Inventions of language and writing are the landmark moment here. Before language was invented the only way information could be passed down from ancestors to offspring was via mutations in our DNA. If an individual learned some new idea it would be lost with them when they died. Language allowed humans to communicate ideas to future generations and start accumulating knowledge beyond what a single individual could hold in their head. Writing made this process even more efficient.
So, after millions of years of life on Earth no technological development happened. Then when language was invented humans started creating technology, and in a blink of an eye on cosmological scale we went from living in caves to visiting space in our rocket ships. It’s worth taking a moment to really appreciate just how fast our technology evolved once we were able to start accumulating knowledge using language and writing.
Now let’s take a look at how technology itself has been evolving. Once we discovered radio communication we went through a noisy period where we were leaking a lot of our broadcasts into space, and within a span of a 100 years we started using more efficient communication, and encryption. If somebody intercepted our broadcasts today they would look like noise because they’re designed to look like noise. Our society today is utterly and completely unrecognizable to somebody from even a 100 years ago. If we don’t go extinct, I imagine that in another thousand years future humans will be completely alien to us as well.
So the period during which intelligent life would be recognizable to us during its course of evolution is infinitesimally small. The time between creating language and becoming an advanced technological society is measured in thousands of years, while evolution of life is measured in millions of years. The chance of two different intelligences finding each other at exact same stage of development where they might be able to communicate is incredibly unlikely.
Based on that, I would imagine that the biological phase for intelligent life is rather short. We’re likely to develop human style AIs within a century, and they will be the ones to go out and explore the universe. Meat did not evolve to live in space, we’re adapted to gravity wells. An artificial life form could be engineered to thrive in space without ever needing to visit planets. This is the kind of life that’s most likely to be prolific in space. Furthermore, post biological intelligences would likely be running at much faster speeds than our mental processes operate on. What we consider real-time would be might we consider to be geological scales. Such beings might consider what we view as real time akin to the way we look at continental drift. We’re aware that it’s happening, but it’s of little interest to use on day to day basis. It’s quite possible that advanced civilizations become solipsistic and care little for the outside universe.
For all we know the Universe may be teeming with intelligent life and we just don’t recognize it as such. We might be like an ant hill next to a highway looking to see if there are other ant hills around.
> For all we know the Universe may be teeming with intelligent life and we just don’t recognize it as such.
This is my preferred answer to the Fermi question as well. Unless two civilisations are in a precise (and likely small) window where they both can and want to communicate, it's likely the less advanced one wouldn't even recognise the other one. Especially if the other one doesn't "want" to be recognised.
This is my preferred answer to the Fermi question as well. Unless two civilisations are in a precise (and likely small) window where they both can and want to communicate, it's likely the less advanced one wouldn't even recognise the other one. Especially if the other one doesn't "want" to be recognised.
Yup, and just look at how difficult it is for us to recognize different kinds of intelligence on our own planet too. We've just started figuring out that animals like crows have complex cognition.
> Before language was invented the only way information could be passed down from ancestors to offspring was via mutations in our DNA.
Language (in the sense of "use of language appears around 100,000 years ago") is not the only way to communicate information, and many animal species are perfectly capable of communicating information despite not having evolved what is being called "language" in this sense.
Language (in the sense of "use of language appears around 100,000 years ago") is not the only way to communicate information, and many animal species are perfectly capable of communicating information despite not having evolved what is being called "language" in this sense.
The difference is that we are able to accumulate information across generations to grow our collective knowledge. Other animals are not able to do that at scale. So, while you are correct that other animal communicate and even teach each other, it's a qualitatively different situation from human communication.
We really don’t know this for certain at all. We do know crows can communicate information about the face of a person they dislike to their murder, including to new generations. It seems a bit of a stretch to say their cultural transmission is quite that narrow.
In general, pre-writing human oral culture seems to have dynamics much in common with such abilities in other animals. Barring error correction mechanisms, oral knowledge can degrade in transmission, limiting its reach and success.
This isn’t to say human language doesn’t have its distinctive features that are very useful. But the language came from a different brain, and is suited to the particularity of our brains. We should hesitate to place solely on language something that’s also driven by us having more things to say.
In general, pre-writing human oral culture seems to have dynamics much in common with such abilities in other animals. Barring error correction mechanisms, oral knowledge can degrade in transmission, limiting its reach and success.
This isn’t to say human language doesn’t have its distinctive features that are very useful. But the language came from a different brain, and is suited to the particularity of our brains. We should hesitate to place solely on language something that’s also driven by us having more things to say.
We kind of do though since we don't see crows accumulating knowledge at any scale comparable to humans and using this knowledge to shape their environment in increasingly complex ways. And crows very obviously do make tools and even teach each other to do it, so it's not like they don't have the inclination for it.
The language itself is a a human invention, and a product of how our brains are wired. However, there's a dialectical process here where the language shapes us in turn, and both our minds and our language evolve together. The reason we have more things to say stems from us accumulating knowledge and expanding out horizons through the use of our language.
The language itself is a a human invention, and a product of how our brains are wired. However, there's a dialectical process here where the language shapes us in turn, and both our minds and our language evolve together. The reason we have more things to say stems from us accumulating knowledge and expanding out horizons through the use of our language.
They're not saying humans don't have profound communication advantages. Obviously the crows don't have nuclear generators and spacecraft. They're saying that the categorical claims about why humans have profound advantages aren't correct.
The fact that we are able to accumulate knowledge and apply it to shape our environment in a way that no other species is able to kind of does suggest that we have a profound communication advantage.
But scale of knowledge acquisition is mediated by, at minimum, lifespan, and what knowledge there is to verbalize and pass on, no? It’s not like we got the language then built our hands based on the knowledge shared by another person with hands.
Instead, these co-evolved. Our language is shaped by that, and we shouldn’t give it too much causal power when it’s only a slice of the system.
We are also very unclear on what birds can communicate. They’re social migratory species with 4 color vision and magnetoreception. Their sensory context is deeper and richer in some ways, and whatever communication they layer atop it will be shaped by that. What seems like squeaks and chirps can hold information that another bird, but not humans, can decode. We’re getting better at layering all this context and then interpreting bird song and sounds.
But we’re at the beginning of this exercise, not a place where we can make a firm conclusion.
Instead, these co-evolved. Our language is shaped by that, and we shouldn’t give it too much causal power when it’s only a slice of the system.
We are also very unclear on what birds can communicate. They’re social migratory species with 4 color vision and magnetoreception. Their sensory context is deeper and richer in some ways, and whatever communication they layer atop it will be shaped by that. What seems like squeaks and chirps can hold information that another bird, but not humans, can decode. We’re getting better at layering all this context and then interpreting bird song and sounds.
But we’re at the beginning of this exercise, not a place where we can make a firm conclusion.
Sure, lifespan is a factor, but it's hard to argue that lifespan has been the main factor for humans. Or that lifetime of many other organisms isn't sufficient. And I already pointed out that we co-evolved with language, that's what it means for it to be a dialectical process. However, for language even get bootstrapped, it needs the prerequisite brain structures to support recursive grammars and abstractions we use.
What we can look at is what other species are able to accomplish and how much they are able to shape their environment. I'm not arguing the fact that we don't have a good grasp on how other animal communicate and different kinds of intelligence we have in the animal kingdom. What I'm saying is that our unique combination of being able to abstract concepts and package them up using language, and especially writing, is what allowed up to rapidly accumulate knowledge and pass it across generations. We are demonstrably the only species that does this. Although, there were other hominids originally with similar capabilities that went extinct.
What we can look at is what other species are able to accomplish and how much they are able to shape their environment. I'm not arguing the fact that we don't have a good grasp on how other animal communicate and different kinds of intelligence we have in the animal kingdom. What I'm saying is that our unique combination of being able to abstract concepts and package them up using language, and especially writing, is what allowed up to rapidly accumulate knowledge and pass it across generations. We are demonstrably the only species that does this. Although, there were other hominids originally with similar capabilities that went extinct.
Why is it hard to argue lifespan has been a major factor?
You speak of “prerequisite brain structures to support recursive grammars”… would they arise in short lived species, given we know these are complex brain regions that take time to develop, need experience to become fully useful, and are energetically expensive to maintain and run? How do you do that if you live a relatively short time?
On the flip side, precisely in longer lived species like whales and elephants, your statements begin to fail. Elephants (when left in the wild) do accumulate knowledge of huge stretches of a continent and pass on that knowledge horizontally and also down to their progeny.
Whales and dolphins also show initial signs of such linguistic competence.
What these species don’t have is our opposable thumbs, etc. Things that aren’t directly responsible for language and would have evolved without it (as opposable thumbs have in other species), that nevertheless added to what language can do.
That should give you a sense of how language in humans is only as complex as the humans and their society is.
As for writing, I’m really not clear that it’s better than leaving smell traces, when it comes to information density, and speed of sharing. Where it does better is in surviving across generations, and that is indeed an advantage, that our language can go through a short lived medium (sound) AND a longer lived medium which doesn’t tax our memories as much.
Note that writing is a much later invention though, than language. And very tied to our opposable thumbs which can make fine marks and do so repeatably enough that we could associate repeated sounds with repeatable symbols and generate this writing based transmission system. Take that away and we’d remain an oral culture. We’d have do what Sanskrit users did before they found stable ways to write, and create ways to improve memorization. That too has survived generations. Just takes a lot more of each person learning, compared to writing.
You speak of “prerequisite brain structures to support recursive grammars”… would they arise in short lived species, given we know these are complex brain regions that take time to develop, need experience to become fully useful, and are energetically expensive to maintain and run? How do you do that if you live a relatively short time?
On the flip side, precisely in longer lived species like whales and elephants, your statements begin to fail. Elephants (when left in the wild) do accumulate knowledge of huge stretches of a continent and pass on that knowledge horizontally and also down to their progeny.
Whales and dolphins also show initial signs of such linguistic competence.
What these species don’t have is our opposable thumbs, etc. Things that aren’t directly responsible for language and would have evolved without it (as opposable thumbs have in other species), that nevertheless added to what language can do.
That should give you a sense of how language in humans is only as complex as the humans and their society is.
As for writing, I’m really not clear that it’s better than leaving smell traces, when it comes to information density, and speed of sharing. Where it does better is in surviving across generations, and that is indeed an advantage, that our language can go through a short lived medium (sound) AND a longer lived medium which doesn’t tax our memories as much.
Note that writing is a much later invention though, than language. And very tied to our opposable thumbs which can make fine marks and do so repeatably enough that we could associate repeated sounds with repeatable symbols and generate this writing based transmission system. Take that away and we’d remain an oral culture. We’d have do what Sanskrit users did before they found stable ways to write, and create ways to improve memorization. That too has survived generations. Just takes a lot more of each person learning, compared to writing.
Against Mind-Blindness: Recognizing and Communicating with Diverse Intelligences - King's College London Neuropsychiatry Research & Education Group - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHkFmUwW0kM
Sure, intelligence is a gradient, it's not something exclusive to humans. And different biological systems need to solve problems and create models of their environment in order to respond to it intentionally. However, that's tangential to the point I was making, which was that we are able to rapidly accumulate knowledge across generations giving us mastery of our environment that's qualitatively different from any other organism on the planet. And the next logical step here is machine intelligence where human style intellect could be implemented on a non-biological substrate which would open up completely new niches for postbiological life to inhabit.
I’m thinking along my similar lines. Expansion, if it happens, will likely not be on a recognizably human substrate, but rather something else. But currently it’s more of an intuition than a rigorous argument for me. How do would you formulate a more solid argument around this idea?
Looking at the chart of "Each colony hop has 90% the "diversity" of its parent", we see that by the 10th we only have 34% diversity left.
It's not at all clear that 34% of diversity is too small. On earth right now, we had smaller groups of people arrive at some general location and tend to mostly reproduce within that group, creating what we now call "ethnic groups". Is 34% diversity more or less diversity than currently exists in, say, Ireland, or Norway?
Furthermore, the article completely ignores that over time spontaneous mutations contribute new genetic diversity. It doesn't give a time scale for the "send a ship, wait for the colony to grow large enough to colonize a new world" iteration but I would imagine that in the time it takes that to happen 10 times sequentially you will have more than enough new genetic diversity.