tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4672881018321440403.post4761123533488975456..comments2024-01-08T09:12:42.920-05:00Comments on SF and Nonsense: The silence is deafening (Part I)Edward M. Lernerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15620756142619513714noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4672881018321440403.post-6960935815523332342008-09-13T17:51:00.000-04:002008-09-13T17:51:00.000-04:00Agreed: We must allow for the one data point we ha...Agreed: We must allow for the one data point we have. It's still only one data point. <BR/><BR/>So: One political system of one species has -- for a few decades -- lost the will to invest in space. Hence we can conclude that expansion into space by a technological society isn't assured. <BR/><BR/>I'm unwilling to conclude from a single data point that all political systems of all races for all time will come to the same result.Edward M. Lernerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15620756142619513714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4672881018321440403.post-68967595068501521842008-09-13T17:33:00.000-04:002008-09-13T17:33:00.000-04:00Hobson's choice: we're the only yardstick we have....Hobson's choice: we're the only yardstick we have.<BR/><BR/>We investigate everything else around us starting with observations of the 'known', and then move on to compare the outliers to what we thing we already have a handle on.<BR/><BR/>Starting from scratch, there's as much reason to assume that anyone else out there is is essentially like us as there is to assume they're radically different. Throw in the only known example (us) and you have to shade things at least a smidge in the direction of 'more like us'.<BR/><BR/>Yes, it's a circular argument, but it has to remain so until we get at least one other data point, I think.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4672881018321440403.post-35111459311980795232008-09-12T21:28:00.000-04:002008-09-12T21:28:00.000-04:00"if we're any yardstick to go by, most technologic..."if we're any yardstick to go by, most technological species will be ..."<BR/><BR/>But are we any yardstick? How can we know? Many lines can be extrapolated through one point :-)Edward M. Lernerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15620756142619513714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4672881018321440403.post-22988022398866554382008-09-12T18:41:00.000-04:002008-09-12T18:41:00.000-04:00You are more than welcome.From the research and ch...You are more than welcome.<BR/><BR/>From the research and checking I've done (which was a little bit more than cursory), suns capable of supporting our kind of life have been around for about 8 billion years - which is about twice as long as it took our solar system to evolve to its present circumstances.<BR/><BR/>I don't think that my supposition is outside the realm of probability; it may be at one end of the bell curve, but still within the bell.<BR/><BR/>Again, if we're any yardstick to go by, most technological species will be sociologically incapable of supporting a robust enough contact/exploration program: they're there, they have the tech, but politics always gets in the way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4672881018321440403.post-39159760247152350722008-09-11T14:29:00.000-04:002008-09-11T14:29:00.000-04:00Hi COF,You're not alone in reasoning that the oppo...Hi COF,<BR/><BR/>You're not alone in reasoning that the opportunities for intelligent life, at least in this galaxy, may be fairly recent. First-generation stars are comparatively metal poor. If Earth is representative of where intelligence does arise, now is about the time we can expect neighbors to be talking. <BR/><BR/>But perhaps *about* is the operative term. We've used radio for scarcely a century -- a couple million years after something like humans first appeared. Another species needn't be noticeably faster -- if there are other intelligences, and humans are average, some neighbors would be a little faster.<BR/><BR/>For a thoughtful (but, I'll argue, too Earth-centric) look at the question, I like RARE EARTH, by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee.<BR/><BR/>P.S. Thanks for the warm welcome to the blogosphere and the kind words at crotchetyoldfan.wordpress.com/Edward M. Lernerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15620756142619513714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4672881018321440403.post-28357592234554386902008-09-10T21:54:00.000-04:002008-09-10T21:54:00.000-04:00it's looking good so far EML.(We've chatted on the...it's looking good so far EML.<BR/><BR/>(We've chatted on the Niven Saturday IRC a few times).<BR/><BR/>Wish I had been there this past weekend, probably would have heard you announce the blog.<BR/><BR/>I'm adding you to my blogroll, will spread the word and look forward to much more from you.<BR/><BR/>And on the Fermi Paradox thing?<BR/><BR/>One pet theory of mine is (late at night and words escape me - is the one I'm looking for 'anthropocentric'?) if we take our own case as THE model, it's taken this long for sentient, technological beings to arise. Some a teeny bit ahead of us, some a little behind, but the rule of thumb will turn out to be - species capable of interstellar communication take approx 12 billion years to arise in a galaxy. <BR/><BR/>There are others out there, and some of them are doing what we're doing - looking, kind, of.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4672881018321440403.post-78732449718614961292008-09-04T16:12:00.000-04:002008-09-04T16:12:00.000-04:00Oops! I see I got carried away. Still getting the ...Oops! I see I got carried away. Still getting the hang of this ...Edward M. Lernerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15620756142619513714noreply@blogger.com