A Vision for Space Colonization

[Thunderbrd]

I suppose I was in a 'mood' last night to get into some details about my views. But keep in mind that I usually keep my mouth shut on these matters because while I have gathered what I feel is sufficient evidence to 'currently feel this is the most valid conclusion' I also tweak and adjust the worldview model whenever new information is presented so It's not like I do not hold doubts. It is more that since piecing together the puzzle as I have, all I have seen since then continues to fit that answer more and more. Again, though, it's possible something will change the perspective dramatically at some point and there are still admitted gaps in 'the answer' where many questions still exist that currently go unanswered.

But it's also, I feel, important to note that while there have been a lot of information delivered via History channel shows of late that support this theory more and more, they have rarely given me anything new and I fear that the way it's delivered there is actually helping to mislead and make the whole of the theory sound at times LESS palatable. It's important that these things not be argued but simply proposed so that others may have the idea in mind as they proceed to observe the information that comes their way through their experiences and perhaps they will get the same sense I have that we're 'onto something here'.

If I were to try to deliver all the evidence and put all the pieces of the puzzle together in front of you we would not only devolve the conversation into huge debate over those references individually but it would also take a conversation larger than the sum of all the text so far on this site to get to the point where I've delivered the full picture as I've researched it to date. So at some point I need to step back and let the conversation move on...

I never saw any real proof about aliens on earth, and of course I can't have proof that they are doesn't exist.

I'm not going to go into depth regarding the body of evidence that exists but I will say that studying a fraction of the information that UFOlogists have compiled and the observations of known events and phenomena that are well proven would lead, I feel, anyone to the undeniable conclusion that the proof is already there in spades.

One of the compelling places to start with would be crop circles. There still is absolutely no good answer for the majority of these. People who WANT to not believe can walk away satisfied after looking at all the impartial data but they MUST ignore some of the deeper details of these cases to do so. It's easy to brush them off as 'tricksters having fun' until you take a look at them with the impartial approach of a forensic researcher. The devil's in the details that the naysayers cannot answer to. I'll say no more about it here.

There's also the numerous reports. Sure many if not all are likely fake. But there's undeniable correlations and undertones in these reports that make it very hard to disbelieve them all as it leads to the conclusion that hundreds of people would've had to have gotten together and come up with a common story then scattered and made independent reports that made the full picture they'd planned on emerge. The more you study this the more you'd have to suspect a less plausible conspiracy theory to answer to these correlations if you wanted to disbelieve them all.

In short, the evidence is there but its easy to see why many people have discounted it all... most of us feel satisfied once we can see how any individual piece of evidence 'may' not be true, and are comfortable not looking deeper nor taking into account the overwhelming body of that evidence as a whole.

But I am quite sure that a species who knows intergalactic travel have economic, industrial level technology to create any kind of material too. We humans already know technologies to create artificial gold or other materials. At the end you need only a lot of energy to manipulate matter. If you have lot of cheap energy you can develop a matter manipulating industry. We aren't too far from this level I think.

One logical reason to not meet with E.T. is if the laws of physics aren't allow faster than light travel. In that case intelligent species will meet very rarely and intergalactic war will be almost impossible.

I am not a physicist, but I am interested in the newest results of science and technology. As far as I know we doesn't know any way to travel faster than light. Some mathematical manipulations allow it in theory but these require some kind of exotic material, negative mass or negative energy. It seems that quantum teleportation allows faster than light travel of information, so maybe it is possible to create a teleportation machine but if you want to use it to interplanetary travel, you need to travel to the destination first by traditional ways. So the expansion of the species is still restricted by the speed of light.

This is kinda funny considering that there are numerous scientific models that can explain how these things could possibly be done but we must admit that we currently cannot initiate them happening on a human scale. How far off must we then be before what seems impossible can be made possible? Have we not found, within the short story of Human progression so far, that within generations we have not been able to break through boundaries thought by the majority to be completely impossible and not only prove them possible but have gone ahead and done them?

Now... to discuss your first point, if an alien species may have been able to harness enough energy to 'create' the materials they were here to obtain that doesn't mean it was necessarily the most economical solution for them to go that route than it was to create a colony such as Earth. Furthermore, having US here helps to mark this as their territory and gives them eyes and ears everywhere on the planet. We double as a flag denoting ownership.

This is really fascinating. I remember that when I read a book from Von Daniken i was totally pulled in and beliefed him, because it made sense. I think the same when I read your texts here. I think these theories are successfull because they do make sense. people like things that make sense. Sadly history showed us that many theories that made sense were proven wrong. And I learned to be carefull with old sources. One could imagine that in 6000 years people beliefe that there really was an evil sorcerer called Voldemort and a kid that defeated him. Or that starwars was real.

As I said, never be so willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Sure a few points by Von Daniken have been disproven. Sure the same can be said for all the researchers that have put together compelling arguments along these lines. But disproving a point or two doesn't disprove the model as a whole which still stands as entirely relevant and a logical overall conclusion.

For me, your theory sounds really interesting. But I refuse to believe somehow. Something to think about thought....

If all this were an absolute reality, do you think that you would be living in a world that hasn't blasted you with propaganda that's so subtle and powerful that it becomes nearly impossible to see the big picture and not recoil from it when shown? We're all well programmed to discount without having anywhere near equivalent evidence upon which to base that opinion. So it doesn't shock me when others feel as you do when I get into this subject with them. Our entire history we have been dramatically misled by a diverse set of big lies made up of primarily truths which make the lie more palatable than reality. This theory does NOT sit well with the Human mind and ego.

As for an AI revolution I agree with you that the threat of an out-of-control super AI is pretty high. But I don't think they will use military force. It is so... crude. It's not gonna happen within the next decade or two, but maybe in 50 years. If a Computer would order a super dangerous DNA strang, which was then delivered to a lab disguised as a green glowing gene, no one would notice - until it turned out to produce an extremely enhanced Ebola virus instde the host cells. Even if that doesn't kill all or most humans, it would severely weak them. And nobody could tell it was the AI in the first place...

But maybe I'm getting too realistic here and in the game it would make a fun addition

Ok I think we have a consensus. You're right that it probably wouldn't play out so militarily an in all honesty if and when it takes place it would be a challenge for humanity in ways that would be tremendously difficult to truly predict because we'd be talking about intelligence beyond our own being our foe. But for the game it would be a lot more fun if it did manifest this way so going about it like this would make a deep point about the dangers of our own technology while being... well... fun!

It also would be one great way to answer the game dilemma of the dramatic likelihood of inter-player imbalance by that stage of the game. The new third party enemy affects all equally and can threaten the most developed nation which may well be thus inspired to spread their techs around to get their new allies in the fight against this new enemy to 'catch up' as much as they can.

The counter argument to "they dig gold from a planet far away, then use space ships to transport it to their home because manipulating matter is inefficient" is that THAT would also be extreme energy intense. And sure they could've developed a better way for space travel, but that could also be true for matter manipulation.

Exactly.

And WE think it's impossible to travel faster than light. It was once beliefed that you can't travel faster than 30 mph. And then that it would be absolutlely IMPOSSIBLE to be faster than sound. NASA now found a new (theoretical) way to bend space time that "only" requires energy equivalent to Jupiter's mass, instead of that from the entire universe. And that is just 21st century physics.

Again, my point exactly. We think of travel in such a Newtonian sense and say that it's impossible to exceed the speed of light when we must admit that the rules all change at those kinds of speeds and perhaps our entire concept of spacial relationship still has a lot of new ground to explore that may enable the getting from point A to point B without any sort of travel in the conventional sense.

Please keep in mind that FTL travel is still very unlikely. Aside from that, there are quite a few extinction scenarios for modern/TH civilizations. And we could just overestimate the likelihood of intelligent life-forms. Or we could be unable to recognize them.

I am not saying that alien contacts are impossible, but they bear an enormous burden of proof. A scenario that would just be slightly more likely under the "alien contacts" premise is not going to do that. You'd need a scenario that is pretty much impossible if you disregard that possibility.

Is not enough evidence to make for 'high probability' at least not existing now?

Edit: What conspiracy theorists really need to read before making such assumptions is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor. And regarding 30 mph, was that opinion ever held by a physicist?

Yes. Many scientists of the day strongly argued that it would be impossible for man to survive travel faster than the speed of sound. To disprove them we basically had to just go ahead and do it.

Or is this more like the Anti-Vaccination Movement? The first human-made product to break through the sound barrier was probably the whip, and actual humans are more in danger of high accelaration rather than high speed, which could have been known ever since Galilei.

If you are speaking about the alcubierre drive, we would need negative energy the mass of Jupiter. Plus, there is the possibility of Hawking radiation destroying the ship (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive ).

There's also the probability that technology can ultimately enable us to do anything we imagine we could do because the history of mankind shows us that what has seemed impossible to the greatest minds of the time has rarely ever failed to be proven possible. This is a repeating cycle all the time and it may be that it is not so much technology enabling us but our ability to create a paradigm by which we create the solutions. Sorry... I know this is probably an antagonistic thought that we are actually constructing reality as we go with technology to an extent but I do come from a place of theory that modern physics itself has been suggesting to say that.

AKA, the truth appears to be that there ARE no limitations, only difficulties to overcome.

What a good C2C mod about the future needs most to be awesome is a good storyline.

Until the current era you can get inspiration from history books. Unfortunately there are no history books about the future available (yet) so you must rely on fantasy and speculation. Which is both easier (more options) and harder (no natural inspiration from history books). Surely a better storyline can be found than just "there are some more rocks to mine, out there".

Sid Meier (original lead designer of civ) studied history and Brian Reynold (lead designer of Alpha Centauri) studied philosophy. Which is why Civ and and the original SMAC are so awesome.

The difficulty is (obviously - look at THIS conversation!) the ability to create a story with enough basis in known fact to be palatable to the audience.

As I've always said about my worldview... even if its NOT true at all... at least it forms the basis of a credible and wonderful story!

First contact with space aliens doesn't have to be hostile. First Contact may send Tech Diffusion through the roof (unless the aliens insist that we develop on our own pace).
Maybe there are both hostile and friendly aliens, and the hostile aliens can be held away through an alliance. But all that would mess up the normal tech progression and thus the normal game flow.

However, space aliens preaching friendship and bearing gifts may be more dangerous than outright hostile ones. In the Stargate SF series there was an episode where Earth discovered another, more advanced human civilization in space. They immediately gave us all their tech, allied against our enemies, and gave us plenty of high tech weapons to defend ourself against our enemies in space. They gave us very advanced computers, revolutionized our healthcare, gave everybody a longevity vaccine that extended our natural life expectancy by tens of years, and helped us build colonies all over our solar system. They even helped us start up nuclear fusion in Jupiter, turning it into a weak sun so Jupiter's moons became more habitable.

After a while a hidden gift became apparent: the longevity vaccine also caused infertility. So after 120 years or so, Earth humanity became extinct, and our "friends" inherited a solar system with tons of empty colonies and other infrastructure all over the place, made with their own technology.

This is why, underneath all this, I feel that, for the game 'story', Humanity should emerge into a galaxy where they find they have been protected all along from greater threats they could ever have imagined by a species they have finally caught up to (or at least close to) technologically. A few gifts of tech to get us caught up the rest of the way may take place perhaps but ultimately we are immediately welcomed as a new member of that community and must now begin to defend our own territory as they retreat to allow us to step into that role. Maybe by then we've put aside our own differences or one force has globalized earth and the player now represents the Human nation as a whole, maybe not.

@Thunderbrd: not all legends and conspiracy theories are true. For example, look at the assassination of US president Kennedy in 1963. I've come across so many conspiracy theories about who killed him that I stopped counting. There are at least a dozen different ones. Now considering the facts that the guy did exist and did get shot dead, I'm willing to believe that there is at least one conspiracy theory about his death that is actually true. But that leaves at least 11 conspiracy theories about Kennedy's death that are proven false by logic. Which means there are people out there who deliberately make up detailed stories that they know are false, just to throw other people off. (which in turn is good inspiration for another conspiracy theory).

Grand points you make about how the real truth behind a conspiracy can be so easily masked by the introduction of conspiracy proliferation. I personally believe (and its speculation in full recognition that its only a 'leaning' towards one answer over others) that he was killed by the interests defending the Federal Reserve. I also do firmly believe that there WAS a conspiracy and that it's almost impossible to sort through all the arguments as to which conspiracy to put faith in and only lean towards the Fed based answer as that was where I think he was really hitting the right buttons to prompt such a response. Lincoln and every other president ever assassinated had declared the same foe. But I admit to a lack of absolute proof and suspect that in these cases absolute proof will never exist and even if we're 'given' an answer, it must be suspect of being a diversion which is why an official answer has never been given so that such a diversion would never be unravelled proving the source of the answer as delivered as fraud and sparking even further research and discussion on the subject they'd prefer just faded into history.

And with photoshop it is easy to create fake evidence, like giant skeletons.

Sure... if visual evidence is all you're looking for it's just as easy as any form of evidence to twist. Good arguments have been made to suggest that all the visual evidence of the Holocaust were nothing more than a grand conspiracy theory before its time. I doubt that myself but the point stands that to get a real picture of 'truth' one must look at a massive body of evidence rather than any one point in particular.

Nevertheless conspiracy theories make for great stories, and my favorite SF series (Stargate) is based on the assumption that many of the "the old gods were space aliens in disguise" theories were actually true. So keep em coming!

Thus the points I'm making that it's at least good for consideration in the design of the game. When a theory has internal consistency it becomes valid for approval as the basis of story at LEAST.

And it answers to a lot of the logical questions. I would ultimately propose that Earth, in Civ, has been watched over all along. I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that we suggest through the game that we are a hybrid species. But that perhaps, in the shadows, we've been under the protection of a species that has been simply observing us like ants in an ant farm, waiting for the day when we would grow to potentially become a powerful and much needed ally. They didn't come down and give us everything because our becoming that ally has required that we evolve not only our technology but deep experiential wisdom from all our conflicts. We had to sort out ourselves before we could be shown the truth or we would've become much the same as the enemies they face.

If revolution was a good game option, there would be an obvious solution: Repeat the history of the New World, create a very high revolutionary sentiment in the colonies until a new independence war is under way. Of course, this would mostly hit the most advanced nation. This could be built up even stronger with the help of new civics, with the starting civic pretty much limiting the vote to earth (the motherland pays the bills, after all), and introducing new civics that would give more political rights to the colonies (cf. Galactic Civilizations).

This is not overlooked in my outlook for the late game. I'm building the Ideas project to help give cause for late game splits to take place beyond the mechanism of the revolution system (though that can also play a role in this for those players that would use it and it should be improved when time permits.)

Another idea: As long as there are still a few competitive civs on earth, colonizing space could perhaps become some kind of "world project": insanely expensive, but several civs could pool their ressources together, all of them gaining access to space as soon as the project gets completed. You would still have the option of completing the project on your own, but this would cost you. You might have to slow your research or disband units to get this completed, leaving you vulnerable. And all the other civs will know what you are up to. Another way to (perhaps) get the tech leader to cooperate would be if there were aliens, but all nations contributing to colonizing space would have to be part of an alliance of some kind against any kind of alien aggression, whereas nations left out would be free to turn on the other humans.

For games where balance is so strong throughout the course of the game, this is pretty much exactly how it could go... uneasy diplomacy allows us to collaborate and compete (in a more friendly way) our way into space exploration and in essence, we share for as long as that peace can last.

It is by introducing those third party 'villains' such as the AI revolution and Alien threats that we take a bit of game focus off of the game's tenancy to be driven by a 'there can be only one' mentality that would ultimately otherwise fail to entertain in such a long tale of development.

 

[tmv]

It is true that physicists have called quite a few things "impossible" that could be done later on (I think most of these claims were done by Lord Kelvin).

Regarding different "types" of impossibility, I can recommend "Physics of the Impossible", a rather optimistic book in that regard, although there are things the author still calls impossible in the strongest sense, like perpetual motion machines. Indeed, right now nothing suggests that there is a way around conservation of energy.

 

[pepper2000]

This has been a very interesting conversation to follow. I am trying to think about what it all means in the context of C2C design.

The astronomer Frank Drake developed what is known as Drake's Equation. Based on the number of planets and estimates that a planet is habitable, that a habitable planet would develop life, that life would attain multicellularity, that multicellular life would develop civilizations and advanced technology, and the lifespan of an advanced civilization, there should be about 1000 advanced civilizations in the Milky Way Galaxy. But then why is there no definitive, widely-accepted evidence of them? This is Fermi's paradox. The Wikipedia article gives 20 possible explanations, but I think all that can be definitively said is that we do not know yet.

But for game design, I take this to be an artistic license to do whatever we can, as long as it is backed up by at least some plausible source, that results in the best design. I put an "ET Discovery" Great Wonder at Amplified Wavelengths, partly because it would be a watershed event in human history about which many people have wondered, and also, I'm hard-pressed to think of what else would go at Amplified Wavelengths. This is not because I think that ET will actually be discovered; I really have no idea.

Regarding the idea that ET might be among us and be playing a central but mostly hidden role in human development, the biggest problem I see is that this idea doesn't fit into the existing C2C structure. The game is driven mostly by endogenous forces: hammers, beakers, slices of bread, and so forth. Exogenous forces such as disease, natural disasters, and ancient climate change play only a minor role. It would ruin the game to have most of your empire wiped out by a plague, even though this actually happened. I suppose there is the Secret Army Base event.

Finally, there is the question of how far from mainstream scientific thought we are willing to take this mod. Transhumanism itself is somewhere near the border between mainstream and fringe, yet it is central to the future eras, and so I take that to be a lower bound on how far we can go. However, aside from some clearly partitioned alt-timeline material, the first seven eras do demonstrate a clear (and I must add, very well-done) commitment to historical accuracy with minimal deviance from mainstream historical views. That means no Atlantis, no Noah's Flood, no Jewish conspiracies, etc. I myself want to tell an optimistic story of expanding human (or transhuman) knowledge, wisdom, and capabilities into the cosmos, eventually driven by a sense of cosmic destiny.

 

[Thunderbrd]

This has been a very interesting conversation to follow. I am trying to think about what it all means in the context of C2C design.

The astronomer Frank Drake developed what is known as Drake's Equation. Based on the number of planets and estimates that a planet is habitable, that a habitable planet would develop life, that life would attain multicellularity, that multicellular life would develop civilizations and advanced technology, and the lifespan of an advanced civilization, there should be about 1000 advanced civilizations in the Milky Way Galaxy. But then why is there no definitive, widely-accepted evidence of them? This is Fermi's paradox. The Wikipedia article gives 20 possible explanations, but I think all that can be definitively said is that we do not know yet.

But for game design, I take this to be an artistic license to do whatever we can, as long as it is backed up by at least some plausible source, that results in the best design. I put an "ET Discovery" Great Wonder at Amplified Wavelengths, partly because it would be a watershed event in human history about which many people have wondered, and also, I'm hard-pressed to think of what else would go at Amplified Wavelengths. This is not because I think that ET will actually be discovered; I really have no idea.

Regarding the idea that ET might be among us and be playing a central but mostly hidden role in human development, the biggest problem I see is that this idea doesn't fit into the existing C2C structure. The game is driven mostly by endogenous forces: hammers, beakers, slices of bread, and so forth. Exogenous forces such as disease, natural disasters, and ancient climate change play only a minor role. It would ruin the game to have most of your empire wiped out by a plague, even though this actually happened. I suppose there is the Secret Army Base event.

Finally, there is the question of how far from mainstream scientific thought we are willing to take this mod. Transhumanism itself is somewhere near the border between mainstream and fringe, yet it is central to the future eras, and so I take that to be a lower bound on how far we can go. However, aside from some clearly partitioned alt-timeline material, the first seven eras do demonstrate a clear (and I must add, very well-done) commitment to historical accuracy with minimal deviance from mainstream historical views. That means no Atlantis, no Noah's Flood, no Jewish conspiracies, etc. I myself want to tell an optimistic story of expanding human (or transhuman) knowledge, wisdom, and capabilities into the cosmos, eventually driven by a sense of cosmic destiny.

All of this is why I believe we should come to this conclusion for the game:

I would ultimately propose that Earth, in Civ, has been watched over all along. I wouldn't go so far as to suggest through the game that we are a hybrid species. But that perhaps, in the shadows, we've been under the protection of a species that has been simply observing us like ants in an ant farm, waiting for the day when we would grow to potentially become a powerful and much needed ally. They didn't come down and give us everything because our becoming that ally has required that we evolve not only our technology but deep experiential wisdom from all our conflicts. We had to sort out ourselves before we could be shown the truth or we would've become much the same as the enemies they face.

This answers a lot of the potential logical conflicts and flaws in other approaches and allows the Civ worldview to continue to be a reflection of the current 'majority' worldview without really challenging that worldview too openly. I've thought a lot about how I could implement the 'Ancient Aliens' viewpoint into civ and it would be very very difficult to do and retain the 'game' in the model. So I wouldn't suggest that's the way to go even though that's what I think is really taking place on Earth. The 'neutral' answer that is much more acceptable is outlined by the 'alien antfarm' approach... that we've been insulated and isolated from the galactic 'goings on' so that we could develop and grow up as a species. Once we break out of our eggshell though... it's pretty much 'on' as we quickly grow to realize the galaxy is and has long been locked in inter-species warfare.

 

[Usul13]

This is kinda funny considering that there are numerous scientific models that can explain how these things could possibly be done but we must admit that we currently cannot initiate them happening on a human scale. How far off must we then be before what seems impossible can be made possible? Have we not found, within the short story of Human progression so far, that within generations we have not been able to break through boundaries thought by the majority to be completely impossible and not only prove them possible but have gone ahead and done them?

If 5 person sits on a bus and 8 of them gets off then there is -3 person on the bus. If 3 person gets on the bus the bus will be empty. This is mathematically correct but doesn't make any sense because there is no such thing as -3 person on the bus.

The mathematical solutions of the FTL travel are similar to this. They are correct calculations but they would require impossible physical phenomenons to work in practice.

We know a lot about our universe and we don't have any proof that there is a way to travel faster than light. We can't base our theories on some distant possibility that maybe there is an unknown phenomenon that makes it possible. Maybe there is something like that but currently it is just fantasy.

Now... to discuss your first point, if an alien species may have been able to harness enough energy to 'create' the materials they were here to obtain that doesn't mean it was necessarily the most economical solution for them to go that route than it was to create a colony such as Earth. Furthermore, having US here helps to mark this as their territory and gives them eyes and ears everywhere on the planet. We double as a flag denoting ownership.

It is much more probable to develop an economic technology to create gold by transmutation than develop economic interstellar travel.

The energy problem of the transmutation can be solved by fusion power plants. We are not far from it. And we would need to refine the already known transmutation processes or develop some new technologies from them.

We are nowhere near to travel to the nearest stars. We never even stepped onto the nearest planet.

Besides if gold is such an important material then the economic considerations are secondary. It is much more important to create a reliable source which is very well defended. An industrial complex in the heart of the empire is much more secure than some unremarkable planet at the ass end of the universe.

How can they defend it? Especially if they can't deploy huge armies to the surface of the planet, or big fleets to the space around it because they operate in secret? If our gold is so rare and precious then Earth and the space around it should be a permanent battlefield.

To me it doesn't make any sense.

 

[Harrier]

Hernan Cortes and his conquistadores did not defeat the Aztecs alone, they had thousands of local allies that hated the Aztecs with passion because the Aztecs harvested them for human sacrifices. Without those allies, Cortes may have been defeated.

They also had millions of European allies - the common cold.

Most South/Central American civs were devistated by this. Not by the troops.

 

[Noriad2]

Grand points you make about how the real truth behind a conspiracy can be so easily masked by the introduction of conspiracy proliferation.

Not all fake conspiracy theories are spread by the real conspirators to throw investigators off their track. There are frauds and charlatans who deliberately make up conspiracy theories to dupe people or just for the fun of it (trolls already existed before the internet). People who reveal important secrets, those who are "in the know", immediately gain a lot of social status by people who believe them, which in turn can be transformed into profits by selling books or snake oil medicine. And a smart fraud will only make up stories that cannot be proven nor disproven. Dishonorable? Yes. But such people do exist. And I don't think they are very rare.

Thorough education into the Scientific Method helps in weeding out the more unbelievable conspiracy theories.
But I do admit that it is also possible to be too sceptical.

Anyway, I think it is best to keep "ancient aliens" conspiracy theories off C2C for the historical part of the game (prehistory until current era) as it may upset people who don't believe them, but the future eras need a good storyline so there is more liberty there.

 

[Harrier]

These are some interesting points TB.
But I'm one of the people denying alien interaction with humans for several reasons:

1) Why WOULD they? A civ that could scan the entire galaxy for inhabited planets and then send their ships here must be incredible advanced. So advanced that I doubt they have any need to invade a planet.

The HHGTTG gives the reason, a hyperspace bypass is needed. Our insignificant little rock in space is in the way - so destroy it. Used to happen all the time in the UK (villages being destroyed) for roads/railways/airports. Still does, but not as much as previously.

Edit:

HHGTTG = HitchHikers Guide.....

 

[Thunderbrd]

If 5 person sits on a bus and 8 of them gets off then there is -3 person on the bus. If 3 person gets on the bus the bus will be empty. This is mathematically correct but doesn't make any sense because there is no such thing as -3 person on the bus.

The mathematical solutions of the FTL travel are similar to this. They are correct calculations but they would require impossible physical phenomenons to work in practice.

We know a lot about our universe and we don't have any proof that there is a way to travel faster than light. We can't base our theories on some distant possibility that maybe there is an unknown phenomenon that makes it possible. Maybe there is something like that but currently it is just fantasy.
It is much more probable to develop an economic technology to create gold by transmutation than develop economic interstellar travel.

The energy problem of the transmutation can be solved by fusion power plants. We are not far from it. And we would need to refine the already known transmutation processes or develop some new technologies from them.

We are nowhere near to travel to the nearest stars. We never even stepped onto the nearest planet.

Besides if gold is such an important material then the economic considerations are secondary. It is much more important to create a reliable source which is very well defended. An industrial complex in the heart of the empire is much more secure than some unremarkable planet at the ass end of the universe.

How can they defend it? Especially if they can't deploy huge armies to the surface of the planet, or big fleets to the space around it because they operate in secret? If our gold is so rare and precious then Earth and the space around it should be a permanent battlefield.

To me it doesn't make any sense.

Ultimately, it sounds as if you are arguing that deep space travel is actually impossible. I'm truly glad I'm not living with that kind of paradigm myself.

To lightly address your question about 'how can they defend it', I would suspect that we are fairly deep in their 'territory' and not on 'the front' of conflict. And that while Earth may have great value, it is unlikely that its value is greater than that of other targets.

Not all fake conspiracy theories are spread by the real conspirators to throw investigators off their track. There are frauds and charlatans who deliberately make up conspiracy theories to dupe people or just for the fun of it (trolls already existed before the internet). People who reveal important secrets, those who are "in the know", immediately gain a lot of social status by people who believe them, which in turn can be transformed into profits by selling books or snake oil medicine. And a smart fraud will only make up stories that cannot be proven nor disproven. Dishonorable? Yes. But such people do exist. And I don't think they are very rare.

Thorough education into the Scientific Method helps in weeding out the more unbelievable conspiracy theories.
But I do admit that it is also possible to be too sceptical.

I completely agree and wasn't trying to insinuate that all of the proliferated theories are intentionaly floated to mislead. Furthermore, to add to your point, there are probably a number of valid reasons to suspect a conspiracy theory and it may make sense and simply be incorrect. Thus why when looking at a body of theories, no theory at all is also a possible answer. However, in the case of Kennedy himself, as you've brought it up, there's, I feel, a greater lack of evidence that the story as we were given it is the whole story... it's an extremely unlikely premise for many reasons and strongly suggestive that it is a partial truth. From this point, it is impossible to say for sure which of the many explanations that fit the evidence is true.

Anyway, I think it is best to keep "ancient aliens" conspiracy theories off C2C for the historical part of the game (prehistory until current era) as it may upset people who don't believe them, but the future eras need a good storyline so there is more liberty there.

I was never really meaning to point in that direction BUT I was meaning to give it inclusion into the consideration for how to answer to the questions that were brought up. In summary, the suggestion is to skew that narrative somewhat so that some of the answers it provides those questions are delivered still but under a more acceptable paradigm for the mainstream.

 

[Usul13]

Ultimately, it sounds as if you are arguing that deep space travel is actually impossible. I'm truly glad I'm not living with that kind of paradigm myself.

No, I am not. Actually it is possible using a little bit more advanced technology than ours.

There is no theoretical obstacle of building a generation spaceship. There are only practical problems, as lacking some technologies, or economical considerations etc.

I am arguing that we don't know any real theoretical way to FTL travel, so it is a possibility that it doesn't exists. The only chance to achieve economical and practical interstellar travel is some kind of FTL travel. You asked why have we not invaded yet? The lack of FTL travel can be a possible answer.

I am not saying it is impossible. I don't like to use the word. Our knowledge has limits, and I believe such a limit will always exist no matter how much we learn. So there is a chance to find a solution to the FTL problem. But it isn't a scientific proof, just a possibility, a fantasy.

 

[tmv]

Besides, there is the possibility of space travel without FTL. You just cannot create an empire. If you get close to the speed of light, length contraction helps you to get to your target in a very short time. For the rest of the universe however, a lot of time may have passed.

For an evacuation of earth, that might just be enough.

 

[Usul13]

Besides, there is the possibility of space travel without FTL. You just cannot create an empire. If you get close to the speed of light, length contraction helps you to get to your target in a very short time. For the rest of the universe however, a lot of time may have passed.

For an evacuation of earth, that might just be enough.

Maybe you can create an empire without FTL. If someone can live 5000 years he/she probably perceive time differently. Nothing in the laws of physics says that extremely long life or biological immortality is impossible as far as I know.

 

[Keyalha]

First of I hope it can be forgiven that I only skimmed the thread and not fully read it yet. My 2 cents on the whole thing is GO FOR IT. While it is laudable to base it on real life (heck the whole thing is based on human history) at one point or another when one goes into the future any reference frame is lost.

The only important thing is that the progression is believable and makes sense from a gameplay standpoint. While it beeing accurate according to current predictions and theories might be nice it makes no sense if the player does not know the discussion that went on in here.

Most players mainly will judge from a gameplay POV so if the progression curve makes sense in gameplay terms they will "buy it".

The only pitfalls I see is that between the ages there are too large gaps in terms of tech.

A sensible progression path imho would be to use long range ships <10 years for solar system colonization, generation ships for close stars and then get the tech ready for FTL style/ Time/space warping FTL travel.

So the currently proposed tech progression looks fine for me from a gameplay POV.

I like to empahzise to bring the talk about it back to the point where the main concern is the gameplay since I bet my last pair of pants that this is what the players will judge it upon, and what is in the mod already shows that the team is very capable of making compelling believable and fun gameplay, so imho just stick to your guts dev team.

In any event I look forward whatever will come up in that regard and thank you for lots of hours of fun that I already had and more that will come from it for sure.

Edit: @Usul13 one thing to take into account with longlivetiy is the melding of man and machine. Humans that adapt technology in their biological framework is already happening give it a few hundred years and we might get machine parts as core of our existence.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Nothing in the laws of physics says that extremely long life or biological immortality is impossible as far as I know.

According to the insurance actuary tables if people could live forever they would most likely be dead by 400 due to accidents. People just do stupid stuff now and then, and it gets them killed.