A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.
2024-11-11
This reminded me of Latour's ideas of Terrestrial.
He calls this ‘the Terrestrial’, for it follows the idea that humans do not comprise the ‘centre’ of nature anymore; rather, we are in constant interaction with other beings and natural phenomena. Hence, the New Climatic Regime demands a focus on the geo-social: each human activity has to be considered along with the impact it will have on the planet.
This is a very interesting solution to the Fermi Paradox. what is the most notable, is that it took so much time to get this proposition. But once you know it, it make perfect sense:
Any civilization don't need to expand at all. Managing resource should allow you to live on the home planet without problem until the star goes supernova. At worst you have a plan to go to the next planet, in case of problem you cant solve.
So now.. if we postulate such a civilization ( highly advanced and resource conscious ) What do they need to do to survive, that we can detect?
So basically not being sustainable and harmonious with nature would be the Great Filter.
I really like this theory, makes sense. Though in context of humanity and our trajectory it's a bit depresing.
Their sustainability solution states that we don’t see any evidence of ETIs because rapid growth is not a sustainable development pattern. From this perspective, the Kardashev Scale is rendered futile. No civilization will ever use all available energy from its planet, star, or galaxy, because the growth required to reach that level of mastery is unsustainable.
I think that makes so much sense. I don't think it makes sense to define "advanced" as a civilization that grows at a rapid and exponential rate, like a plague of locusts, depleting nonrenewable resources and causing irreparable damage to the only human habitable planet known to exist in the entire universe. Even if it can be considered advanced, it should also be considered extremely unwise.
When I was a young teem, a teacher put a slice of apple in a sealed container with a few fruit-flies. A week later, there were hundreds of fruit-flies. In another week the bottom of the container was covered with the bodies of fruit-flies. Quick, unforgettable lesson.
Yeah. Shoulda stolen the apple slice before the flies got to it.
Applying human levels of greed and selfishness to other species was always a mistake. The idea that all life disconnects from the greater good and only cares about individuals and allows their civilizations to be designed to serve a wealthy few is incredibly short-sighted.
In fact, any civilization capable of long distance space travel would have to overcome such idiocy and maximize the potential of all individuals, regardless of the wealth they were born into.
The idiots who hold back progress because of their wealth would also need to be dealt with. You’re not going to have a meaningful future in space with Elons in charge.
The article is wrong. You don't need high growth, any amount of growth more than 0 over a long time frame will inevitably see a civilization spread throughout the galaxy. If there was a civilization a hundred million years old in our galaxy it would be noticeable.
In fact, any civilization capable of long distance space travel would have to overcome such idiocy and maximize the potential of all individuals, regardless of the wealth they were born into.
I'd be curious what you base this statement on? Historically, the societies which did the most long distance travel and exploration were the opposite of this. Spain and Portugal were absolute monarchies, with well defined feudal systems which exploited anyone outside the noble class. Yet, their efforts to "explore" and dominate the Americas were incredibly successful. The UK's greatest exploration and extent was a direct offshoot of Mercantilism, with the East India Trading Company being both the primary actor and beneficiary. US Westward expansion was predicated on theft, war and genocide. Though, as a counter-point, the modern US system does a better job of providing opportunity to most people (with some notable problems), than it used to. And the US has been a hotbed of advancement in the last century.
In modern times, space exploration was originally driven by the desire to find new and interesting way to kill other people. And it's only been recently that peaceful sharing of information has been normalized. Even there, the cutting edge of space exploration seems to be back in the hands of mercantilist forces. I mean, I love me some SpaceX, "let's catch a rocket" shenanigans. But, we also shouldn't pretend that SpaceX is anything other than a for-profit corporation under a leadership which would be happy to harvest organs from people for a profit.
I know it's popular to think that space exploration must be a Star Trek style "space communism". But, this doesn't really align with the examples we have from history. And while that is certainly a human centric way to look at the problem, it's also the only real world example we have to look at. Everything else is just philosophers sitting around, passing a bong and saying, "man, what if..." It can be a useful exercise to think about other possibilities. But, I'd tend to focus more effort on what we have evidence for, than made up ideas.
The traits needed to conquer a homogenous biosphere are not the same traits needed to conquered the vacuum of space.
Again, show your work. What traits are those and how did you come up with the list? And why do those traits only exist in specific types of societies?
To contrast such a claim, the first nation to reach space was Nazi Germany. The USSR also did a fine job of conquering the vacuum of space under Khrushchev. And, no sane person would look at Khrushchev's USSR and describe it a system which "maximize[s] the potential of all individuals". In a more modern context, China is doing a pretty good job in space exploration, having landed a rover on the moon and built their own space station. And, at the risk of provoking the wrath of the tankies, China isn't exactly a free and open nation.
So again, I'm just not seeing a basis for such a claim. And the example we do have, human history, seems to disagree with it.
I watched a video on two LLMs fed on the history of philosophy. When they arrived at morality, it was funny to listen to them “talk” (this LLM generates a podcast). They talked about how humans strive for concepts like justice, good, or equality, but we’re very fraught with human tendencies around tribalism and brinksmanship. The AIs said something like, “It’s like they can’t imagine a species that wouldn’t have these features.”
And it’s like…yeah, good point weird autocorrect engines. We constantly impart our qualities on to things, but that’s just the blind spot of our superiority on this planet. Why wouldn’t aliens or AI seek a system in which all are valued for their best qualities?
Humans are still animals, very much so. We compete, we fight, but it’s all one species. I wish we would wake up and realize it.
This is kind of an underwhelming explanation, and I dont think it's ultimately right given how humans are trying their best to wipe out all life on earth over pieces of paper.
This is kind of an underwhelming explanation,
Its the best one ive ever heard
and I dont think it's ultimately right given how humans are trying their best to wipe out all life on earth over pieces of paper.
That's essentially what we're doing
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2024/07/metastatic-modernity-launch/
That's... the point? Civilizations with that kind of tendency may very well destroy their planet and/or themselves long before they advance to the point where they are detectable to an outside observer many light years away.
The human race is at the moment in a race against time. We're hoping that we can develop new technology to save ourselves faster than we destroy everything around us. This kind of race has probably happened countless times across the vast universe and perhaps the laws of physics ultimately make the race unwinnable. These laws limit how much technology can do for any species, no matter how smart, so it would be a universal filter.
If the only way to win the race is to slow down the destruction of the environment to the point that the species is undetectable, that solves the Fermi paradox.
It sounds like this theory posits that humans may never be advanced enough that we’d detect ourselves unless we learn to live harmoniously rather than virulently.
Could almost say that wiping out all life on Earth over pieces of paper is unsustainable, but that'd probably go too far.