Without communication, technological progress would be very slow. It would be a matter of emulation... that is to say each individual creature wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel, but the ability to build on previous knowledge would be scant.
Answers to the Fermi paradox
- Thread starter The Imp
- Start date
Without communication, technological progress would be very slow. It would be a matter of emulation... that is to say each individual creature wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel, but the ability to build on previous knowledge would be scant.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Animals that are not classified as social animals can still communicate with eachother. (But I'm too tired to dig up examples)
It's already started. We are broadcasting far more point sources than ever before. But the power behind each point source is declining. So the distance each could possibly be recognized as a coherent signal is declining. Digital TV signals are not readable at nearly the range of analog signals, for instance, even though they may have the same power behind them. What need for massive broadcasting towers when most signals go by fiber optic? Where most locations are wired, and when cells are low power and short distance repeaters?
Neonanocyborgasm
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,695
The natural conclusion is that whether intelligent life is abundant or scarce, contact with intelligent life is rare and difficult.
Murky
Deity
Aliens, probably even more evolved ones, are mathematically likely but it's still a big question mark for science. The first alien life forms we find will most likely be microbes growing beneath the surface on Mars or on an Icy Moon in the outer Solar system.
GhostWriter16
Deity
There is no such thing as intelligent life except humans. And lately, I've been doubting most of them are intelligent
Umm.... First, I'd like proof that the universe has been around that long.
Secondly, no.
sophie
Break My Heart
In the infinite vastness that is the universe, I find it highly unlikely that we are a singular anomaly. I think the presence of extra-terrestrial living beings is a given, the intelligence/intellectual development of such creatures, is still yet to be known.
There is no such thing as intelligent life except humans. And lately, I've been doubting most of them are intelligent
Umm.... First, I'd like proof that the universe has been around that long.
Secondly, no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
why not? you can't just say "no" and not elaborate at all.
Jamesbranch
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2010
- Messages
- 8
I think there is life out there, I sometimes go on wiki to look it up.
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
Reasons why you can't definitively answer the Fermi Paradox.
1. You don't accurately know how many planets exist in the universe. Our ability to discover extra-Sol system planets is very poor.
2. You don't accurately know what causes life. We can infer it was the formation of some self-propigating molecule, perhaps RNA, but we aren't sure. We aren't sure if life can occur in a completely novel way other than it occured on Earth---e.g. what if Silicon-based rather than Carbon-based, etc... etc... So even if we could guess at the composition of other planets, we couldn't definitely guess
3. Same for development of intelligence, culture, and civilization.
So it's simply two problems: 1. lack of understanding of specific causes, and 2. a very small sample pool (10 out of an undetermined number of planets in the universe) that we aren't even sure if it fairly represents the universe without bias.
1. You don't accurately know how many planets exist in the universe. Our ability to discover extra-Sol system planets is very poor.
2. You don't accurately know what causes life. We can infer it was the formation of some self-propigating molecule, perhaps RNA, but we aren't sure. We aren't sure if life can occur in a completely novel way other than it occured on Earth---e.g. what if Silicon-based rather than Carbon-based, etc... etc... So even if we could guess at the composition of other planets, we couldn't definitely guess
3. Same for development of intelligence, culture, and civilization.
So it's simply two problems: 1. lack of understanding of specific causes, and 2. a very small sample pool (10 out of an undetermined number of planets in the universe) that we aren't even sure if it fairly represents the universe without bias.
GhostWriter16
Deity
First of all, if you check wikipedia quickly, you will now find it says the Earth is 6,000 years old
In seriousness though, this fact proves that wikipedia is not necessarily a viable source.
Besides, were you there? How do you know the Earth is billions of years old.
Proof it isn't:http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html
Yes, but lack of society slows down communication.
First of all, if you check wikipedia quickly, you will now find it says the Earth is 6,000 years old
In seriousness though, this fact proves that wikipedia is not necessarily a viable source.
Besides, were you there? How do you know the Earth is billions of years old.
Proof it isn't:http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html
Radiometric dating demonstrates that the earth is either billions of years old or the creator is a total douchebag as it is intentionally lying to the population (just about everything we know about the earth) and then presumably punishing us for believing the lie.
So choose, is your god an ass or is genesis not literal?
GhostWriter16
Deity
Neither, Radiometric dating is not accurate.
Also, people should research.
See this site
http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/radiometric.htm
Also, did you check that wikipedia site, it says the Earth is 6,000 years old.
Ignoring the ridiculous amount of problems with the site, Carbon 14 decay proves an earth going back 50,000+ years. We can directly observe the rate of decay, and we can demonstrate the fact that dead objects no longer build up Carbon 14 in their tissues.
Seriously, if you want to be a young earth creationist, fine, but don't use science to try and justify your stance. You will be laughed at by just about anyone with an inkling of how the scientific method works. I mean, seriously, if radiometric dating were demonstrated to not work as we understand it, the discoverer of that would have a Nobel.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Fine then, but don't try to use science to prove evolution either, which cannot be proven.
Also, wikipedia agrees.
EDIT: Somebody changed it back. I'll let it stay, despite its blatant inaccuracy.
Well... yes, they would, imho.
And, I honestly don't know why I like the von Neumann probe scenario... possibly because it is sometimes called the von Neumann probe scenario, lol.
Integral
Can't you hear it?
This is about the Fermi paradox, guys, not the age of the universe.
Take it elsewhere.
In any case, here's my tentative opinion (worth what you paid to get it):
If there is intelligent life, it must be outside our galaxy. Any intelligent life that arose within our galaxy would have by now expanded to fill it; we have no evidence of such, so it is unlikely that intelligent life has arisen in our galaxy. Yes, I'm aware that this implies that the earth is 'special' an violates the [wiki]Copernican principle[/wiki], but I'm not too concerned about that.
And given the vast distances involved, I'm not sure if we'll ever be able to ascertain the existence of intelligent life beyond this galaxy.
Take it elsewhere.
In any case, here's my tentative opinion (worth what you paid to get it):
If there is intelligent life, it must be outside our galaxy. Any intelligent life that arose within our galaxy would have by now expanded to fill it; we have no evidence of such, so it is unlikely that intelligent life has arisen in our galaxy. Yes, I'm aware that this implies that the earth is 'special' an violates the [wiki]Copernican principle[/wiki], but I'm not too concerned about that.
And given the vast distances involved, I'm not sure if we'll ever be able to ascertain the existence of intelligent life beyond this galaxy.
Well, the age of the universe has a lot to do with the potential for life to exist. It's relevant. YEC isn't relevant to anything, of course.
Integral
Can't you hear it?
Sure, granted. I just don't want this (potentially) interesting thread to veer off into a (relatively boring) YEC-science skirmish.
Similar threads
- Poll
