Will we make contact with an extra-terrestrial life-form before life ends on earth?

[jonJ]

Even at current levels of computer technology it is enormously cheaper to send drones and robots into space and have them report back to us on Earth. As technology improves, that price advantage will increase many times over.

Within a century it will become possible to download a human mind into a computer and/or construct a computer which can simulate a human mind to the point of being indistinguishable from one. These computerised minds will be much easier to miniaturise, make radiation-proof, and prepare for a voyage of several centuries than human beings ever will.

All this presumably applies to other biological species as well. So we can assume that any starfaring worth talking about will only be done by civilisations that have found a way to transcend the biological and become virtually immortal computing devices.

But that raises another question: why would a software-based species want to explore or colonise the galaxy? Not only can it already live anywhere machines can go, from hard vacuum to the surface of Jupiter, but it can provide itself with any experience it wants by programming it into its own system. If one of them wants to meet blue-skinned Alpha Centaurans, it would be much easier and quicker to simulate the experience than to actually go to all the trouble of travelling to Alpha Centauri.

So rather than a physical expansion of the human species across those few tiny locations in the universe that support biological life, I expect a contraction into much smaller, more energy-efficient devices that can actually use nearly all the resources of the Solar System, and provide themselves with any experience that they want. And I can't see what such a cyber-species could expect to gain by launching itself into interstellar space, though there might be individuals who are keen on doing so.

 

[Jokodo]

Nonsense. It's entirely possible they will find our natural resources interesting. Isn't that the real reason so many Europeans made contact with peoples they otherwise considered primitive and unimportant?

You can economically transport resources across the Atlantic. You cannot economically transport resources across interstellar space. And that's not because our technology isn't up to the task, it's because of basic facts of physics, like the cosmic speed limit and the fact that you have to escape a gravitational well to get from one solar system to the other.

 

[Jokodo]

Yes. If we are planet-bound and find another planet-bound civilization that means it's virtually certain that we will soon destroy ourselves. If planet-bound civilizations are common enough that we can find them without finding any starfaring civilizations then that means it's virtually certain that planet-bound civilizations don't become starfaring civilizations. About the only way that could happen is if they destroy themselves or effectively so do. (Say, for example, a civilization that turns to a perpetual life playing in VR.)

Or, they could decide that starfaring, even if technically feasible, is just not a worthwhile use of their resources. You've essentially told us why: Just as coming for resources is going to cost more energy than you'd spend to run an atom smasher to make it, bringing colonists is going to cost more energy than supplying for them and their descendants thousands (more likely millions) of years into the future.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Or, they could decide that starfaring, even if technically feasible, is just not a worthwhile use of their resources. You've essentially told us why: Just as coming for resources is going to cost more energy than you'd spend to run an atom smasher to make it, bringing colonists is going to cost more energy than supplying for them and their descendants thousands (more likely millions) of years into the future.

People aren't going to go to the stars for resources, they'll go for freedom.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If you're using the word "people" in a sense that includes all being smart enough to do starfaring, how do you know that the aliens in question - or many, or most, or whatever you have in mind - would have that motivation?
If you're using the word "people" in a way that denotes some a mind similar to a human mind in some regards (which I think is more common, but that's not important), how do you know the aliens in question (or most, or many, etc.) would be people?

Also, one can think of reasons why people would go to the stars for resources, after their planetary system is getting close to the point at which they cannot sustain them, and assuming that they can live indefintely - else, at most they can go for resources for their successors.

 

[fromderinside]

Others have probably already made this observation. We are probably ETs because that would circumvent a lot of evolving molecules time making the probability that we arrived where we are now much higher. It could have been any time in the past 4 billions years. My bet is on the event that ended ice-ball earth about 500-550 million years ago. Given the increase in variability of available energy it seems likely some got through and played a part in life here going from single cell to multi-cell.

 

[steve_bnk]

Assigning a numeral probability when wedo not have knowledge of the distribution of actual planetaryconditions is subjective.

The Drake Equation allows us to do'what ifs' based on assumptions.

Out of all alleternity earth can be only 9istnce, it could be spread all overcreation, or somewhere in between. No way to know or assess.


Just like the Goldilocks Zone in oursolar system roughly the orbits of Earth to Mars, galaxies becomeprogressively hostile due to radiation.

 

[Jokodo]

People aren't going to go to the stars for resources, they'll go for freedom.

People are going to choose for themselves and several generations of their descendants to be encased in a crammed slow ship - all so that their unborn great-great-great-great-grandchildren might eventually live free? As someone else has said before in this thread - they might not even get away with what's essentially unlawful imprisonment of five generations of their descendants.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

People are going to choose for themselves and several generations of their descendants to be encased in a crammed slow ship - all so that their unborn great-great-great-great-grandchildren might eventually live free? As someone else has said before in this thread - they might not even get away with what's essentially unlawful imprisonment of five generations of their descendants.

You are assuming life expectancy won't increase. I find that unlikely. Furthermore, you can't be charged with unlawful imprisonment of someone who doesn't exist--even if the law didn't like it they couldn't do anything if the ship launched child-free.

 

[Jokodo]

You are assuming life expectancy won't increase. I find that unlikely. Furthermore, you can't be charged with unlawful imprisonment of someone who doesn't exist--even if the law didn't like it they couldn't do anything if the ship launched child-free.

You can be charged with "conspiring to X" there's not actual victim (yet) as soon as you take explicit steps with the purpose of bringing X about. (And anyway, are you assuming that laws won't change? I find that considerably more unlikely than that life expectancies won't change.)

But leaving that aside - even if you agree that they won't be going "to the stars for resources", they'll need resources off Earth's to go to the stars, and a few (or a few dozen) families joining their funds isn't going to make the cut. Why would the rest of us let them take those?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You can be charged with "conspiring to X" there's not actual victim (yet) as soon as you take explicit steps with the purpose of bringing X about. (And anyway, are you assuming that laws won't change? I find that considerably more unlikely than that life expectancies won't change.)

But leaving that aside - even if you agree that they won't be going "to the stars for resources", they'll need resources off Earth's to go to the stars, and a few (or a few dozen) families joining their funds isn't going to make the cut. Why would the rest of us let them take those?

But the supposed victim hasn't yet been conceived. I don't think it would stick.

As for the resources--in time it will be within the range of groups. 50 years ago going to space was a major effort for governments. Now it's a major effort for individuals.

 

[Atheos]

Interesting discussion with lots of different considerations. I'm a bit surprised nobody seems to have mentioned the "flower garden universe" theory. I have no idea when or where I first read about it but it seemed pretty sensible to me at the time. The idea is that the early universe consisted of little else besides hydrogen. The first stars created heavier elements in their cores, then after roughly 4-5 billion years began ejecting those heavier elements in supernovas. A second generation of stars ensued, fabricating even heavier elements in their cores, then ejecting them at roughly the 8-9 billion year point in the universe's history. The third generation stellar systems that had access to these even heavier elements (carbon, iron, lead, gold, etc.,) finally had the necessary resources for life to begin emerging.

The upstart of all that is that the universe may be like a flower garden that has just now reached the blooming season, where life is blossoming all over the place. We could be one of the earliest blossoms ourselves, or there could be other life forms with a billion year head-start on us. Bearing in mind that evolution has no particular agenda to produce "intelligent" life, it could still come to pass that the level of intelligence we have attained is unique in all the universe, but the universe is a big-ass place. It's hard for me to believe that the emergence of intelligent life would only happen once.

Anyway, I guess even if this theory has legs the logistical issues of dealing with vast interstellar distances, radiation and other challenges may yet prove insurmountable. But I doubt it. 100 years ago no human had ever broken the sound barrier. That's a speck in the potential ocean of our existence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Interesting discussion with lots of different considerations. I'm a bit surprised nobody seems to have mentioned the "flower garden universe" theory. I have no idea when or where I first read about it but it seemed pretty sensible to me at the time. The idea is that the early universe consisted of little else besides hydrogen. The first stars created heavier elements in their cores, then after roughly 4-5 billion years began ejecting those heavier elements in supernovas. A second generation of stars ensued, fabricating even heavier elements in their cores, then ejecting them at roughly the 8-9 billion year point in the universe's history. The third generation stellar systems that had access to these even heavier elements (carbon, iron, lead, gold, etc.,) finally had the necessary resources for life to begin emerging.

The upstart of all that is that the universe may be like a flower garden that has just now reached the blooming season, where life is blossoming all over the place. We could be one of the earliest blossoms ourselves, or there could be other life forms with a billion year head-start on us. Bearing in mind that evolution has no particular agenda to produce "intelligent" life, it could still come to pass that the level of intelligence we have attained is unique in all the universe, but the universe is a big-ass place. It's hard for me to believe that the emergence of intelligent life would only happen once.

Anyway, I guess even if this theory has legs the logistical issues of dealing with vast interstellar distances, radiation and other challenges may yet prove insurmountable. But I doubt it. 100 years ago no human had ever broken the sound barrier. That's a speck in the potential ocean of our existence.

Still, though, if life is common what are the odds of us being basically first??

 

[Atheos]

I have no idea how you'd even go about attempting to come up with those odds.

 

[fromderinside]

Take a sample of particles. Estimate seen universe. Consider what is seen is like a particle. Multiply. Go find the largest published googleplex. Consider it a particle. Multiply. Consider ones estimate as a particle. Multiply. This should get you to the second level in  Adventure (game). Continue.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have no idea how you'd even go about attempting to come up with those odds.

There's no particular reason we should be first. Thus the odds of our being first should be 1 in the number of expected civilizations.

 

[Atheos]

Still, though, if life is common what are the odds of us being basically first??

I would think that if by "first" you mean "the first planet on which life evolved" the odds would be much greater against than if it meant "the first life form intelligent enough to develop telecommunications and rocketry."

It took 3.5 billion years for a single life form to develop that level of sophistication on a planet teeming with life, which if anything indicates the staggering odds against it happening at all. Had the killer asteroid not ended the Jurassic period 65 million years ago it is quite possible this planet would have concluded its lifespan without the development of intelligent beings of that capacity.

Obviously there are environmental conditions that favor the development of intelligence or we wouldn't be here. Considering the odds against one would be tempted to think we'd be alone, but the massive size of the universe guarantees there are likely billions upon billions of potential planets with similar conditions. Unfortunately the same massive size that gives us the chance of other life being out there makes it logistically inconceivable that we'd ever be able to locate such life forms. But once again there is also the consideration that logistical problems that would have been impossible 100 years ago are commonplace today. There is no reason to believe we have reached the limit of what we can accomplish. Telecommunications helps even those odds as well.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I would think that if by "first" you mean "the first planet on which life evolved" the odds would be much greater against than if it meant "the first life form intelligent enough to develop telecommunications and rocketry."

No, I'm using the latter. We have no idea of how many non-intelligent life forms might be out there.