Page 220

Page 220




Vote for Off World: The Crease to see the latest incentive page.






  • post comment


  • Anyone may comment, no registration required.

Author--

view DizzasterJuice's profile

DizzasterJuice
7th May 2015, 8:39 AM

The Fermi Paradox is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilization and humanity's lack of contact with, or evidence for, such civilizations.
The Great Filter is an attempt to explain this paradox.

(Edit) (Delete)

Users--

view El Cid's profile

El Cid
7th May 2015, 11:05 AM

Alastair Reynolds had an interesting explanation for the Fermi Paradox in his SF novels: Lurking swarms of Inhibitors waiting between the stars, exterminating any intelligent life that becomes too technologically developed. So maybe the Voyager 1 probe will someday usher in our own demise!

(Edit) (Delete) (Reply)

view MaiLyng's profile

MaiLyng
7th May 2015, 11:47 AM

Maybe these "ancients" are the ones that have been eliminating the competition. whoa!
It's probably like Carl Sagan said and technological civilizations tend to self-destruct, but maybe attempting to contact superior beings isn't such a good idea just to be on the safe side.

(Edit) (Delete) (Reply)

Kitty
8th May 2015, 12:07 AM

I tend to believe it's the other way around; that any civilization that is smart enough and advanced enough to get into space (Sagan also pointed out you have to learn to cooperate, to survive in space) is smart enough to stay away from us.
The old "Herman" comic strip once showed two aliens, one saying to the other, "This is Earth. We don't hang around here too long - they're all bananas."

(Edit) (Delete) (Reply)

view Nef's profile

Nef
7th May 2015, 11:36 AM


WHAT DID YOU FIND, CRYSTYN?

We all want to know ;)

(Edit) (Delete) (Reply)

view moizmad's profile

moizmad
7th May 2015, 5:14 PM

The nearest civilization "with technology" is 10,000 light years from here. They invented radio signals 5,000 years ago. We won't pick those signals up for 5,000 years. They won't pick up ours for 10,000 years. I'm not holding my breath, know what I'm sayin'?

(Edit) (Delete) (Reply)

view DizzasterJuice's profile

DizzasterJuice
8th May 2015, 9:17 AM

That would explain the ones who are equal or slightly more advanced than us but then how do you explain for the majority who are much much older than out star?
We are infants in an adult universe. We just haven't learned to talk yet.

(Edit) (Delete) (Reply)

view moizmad's profile

moizmad
8th May 2015, 3:28 PM

but Deeeeeeeeeeeez, what if the much older ones are hundreds of thousands or millions of light years away..we'll never detect them, or them us.

(Edit) (Delete) (Reply)

view 40.oz's profile

40.oz
7th May 2015, 6:53 PM

The majority are theists. The minority atheist. Atheists do not destroy themselves. The fact that we have not encountered other civilizations simply signals the fact that the ability for intelligent life to generate itself is only a recent event. Otherwise all beings of other civilizations would have had to have been theist.

(Edit) (Delete) (Reply)

view stormbringer77's profile

Religeon

stormbringer77
8th May 2015, 2:36 AM

As a Deist,I can't help but mention what a friend of mine said, "I'm God and I created everything.You're on your own from here,Bud".

(Edit) (Delete) (Reply)

Sleel
8th May 2015, 3:14 AM

Tell the victims of Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro that atheists don't destroy themselves. They do. And more then religion has. Just more recently and for different reasons.Mao alone has over 65 million to his butcher bill. Made Hitler and Stalin look like chumps.

(Edit) (Delete) (Reply)

view 40.oz's profile

40.oz
8th May 2015, 11:32 AM

You're confusing atheists with people. People murder. Theists create nuclear bombs. My point is not that people do not murder, it is that I have heard countless theists tell me that they would have no reason to go on if there is no god. that they would "destroy themselves". I take them at their word. And if it is your claim that in the entire existence of mankind that atheists have murdered more people than theists, you'll lose that bet.

(Edit) (Delete) (Reply)

view DizzasterJuice's profile

DizzasterJuice
8th May 2015, 1:21 PM

Many people believe that all successful civilizations believe in something greater than itself and that no civilization can exist without such belief.
But it's a little more complex than that. There are many reasons for societal collapse but it all comes down to this; a civilization will fall when it reaches a major problem it can not solve.
Currently, we are facing the first response model example in the link above; "The Dinosaur". If we don't find a solution to our renewable resource problem, we too will fall.

(Edit) (Delete) (Reply)

view xpacetrue's profile

xpacetrue
8th May 2015, 8:44 AM

There are numerous possible explanations for the Fermi Paradox, though they're not all equally plausible. I'm disappointed in Essential for suggesting that they may not have encountered other civs because they're quote, "Too primitive for them to care." This makes little sense:

1) The Humans, Khreleans, and even Kyaar are clearly quite technologically advanced. Any civilization able to colonize worlds and explore at FTL speeds (not to mention the creation of sapient A.I.) should be considered above primitive barbarians by at least some degree, no matter what scale you use. Even the Q-Continuum considered Humans to be above one-celled organisms (as Q stated). And Q clearly considered humans rather interesting.

2) IRL, modern society finds archeology, the study of ancient civilizations and cultures, to be a useful and worthy endeavor. And the spacefaring societies in this comic share this sentiment, as evidenced by Crystyn's revelation about what their exploration vessels have found out about other civilizations. Given that pattern, the conclusion that they're "too primitive" for them to take interest seems unreasonable. Even the narrator's exposition that The Ancients were obsessed with finding out why they were alone suggests otherwise.

3) The fact that intelligent life is rare and has a seemingly unavoidable fate to self-destruct makes all intelligent life interesting.

Rare is unusual and the opposite of commonplace. Which means that any intelligent life that survives long enough to develop space travel is either extremely lucky or a cut above the rest (or both).

4) Given point 3, to not be interested in other civilizations is to not be interested in how they tend to self destruct. And that suggests they are uninterested in the evidence that their own civilization will inevitably self-destruct and how it might be avoided. This suggests the lack of an instinct for self-preservation.

5) They may have only explored 1% of the Galaxy by that point. But this is still a huge area and a respectable accomplishment. Even if Essential was correct that other civilizations aren't interested in them for being too primitive, they should be interested - if for no other reason that they're exploring the galaxy and colonizing worlds. It's a matter of territory, resources, the potential for spreading violence and spoiling life-bearing worlds, etc. Unless such advanced aliens exist on another plane or dimension, they'd establish contact just to establish terriories or lay some ground rules so the 'youngsters' don't cause too much trouble.

(Edit) (Delete) (Reply)

view DizzasterJuice's profile

DizzasterJuice
8th May 2015, 9:11 AM

Her explanation is the most logical one IF intelligent life is as common as she believed when she said it.
Essential's point of view is usually exampled by the analogy that "We are a colony of ants in the middle of jungle. Why haven't those humans come to visit us?". This would also assume that intelligent life is commonplace and not worthy of traveling thousands of light years to visit because there are some much closer examples to study.
She may have a different opinion now with this new information.

Your point 4 is exactly why these ancients have been seeding the galaxy at the start of Chapter 9.

Edit: Her opinion was also influenced by Tyranos' megalomania. She despises this about him so she developed the opposite opinion that "we are insignificant". Page 158

(Edit) (Delete) (Reply)

Who is first?

Computant
30th Sep 2016, 10:52 AM

Another possibility is that certain factors can allow one sentient species to develop much faster than others. Asimov postulated that our huge moon and the resulting large tides allowed life to move from the oceans to land a lot faster than this would occur on other planets.
If we are in fact one of the first species to develop intelligence, we would not discover other intelligent life despite the Fermi Paradox.

(Edit) (Delete) (Reply)

view DizzasterJuice's profile

DizzasterJuice
1st Oct 2016, 2:35 AM

Other factors like planet size can affect that too. For instance a smaller planet such as Mars would cool off much faster and thus starting the process of life much sooner than on Earth.
Another thing to think about is that a planet that didn't have dinosaurs like we did would be over a hundred million years ahead of us. Dinosaurs kept mammals in check to the size of rats for their entire span on this planet.

(Edit) (Delete) (Reply)

Web Statistics