# Where is everybody? (Fermi paradox)



## Bullgrit (Jan 31, 2014)

What are your thoughts on the Fermi paradox?


			
				http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox said:
			
		

> The Fermi paradox (or Fermi's 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 basic points of the argument, made by physicists Enrico Fermi and Michael H. Hart, are:
> 
> The Sun is a young star. There are billions of stars in the galaxy that are billions of years older;
> 
> ...





> Italian physicist Enrico Fermi suggested in the 1950s that if technologically advanced civilizations are common in the universe, then they should be detectable in one way or another. (According to those who were there,[65] Fermi either asked "Where are they?" or "Where is everybody?")
> 
> The Fermi paradox can be stated more completely as follows:
> 
> ...



Say there was another planet with a civilization at least equal to our own out there rather close -- like only a few hundred light years away, (right next door by galactic distances) -- could we even detect them? Would they have to wait for our electromagnetic signals to reach them in another hundred-plus years before they'd know we were here?

Assuming that the speed of light truly is the limit for travel and communication, couldn't the galaxy/universe be full of hundreds or millions of civilizations, but none of them/us can contact with one another, or even find/acknowledge one another because of the distances?

Is the search for other civilizations moot because of the distances and physics?

Bullgrit


----------



## Alzrius (Jan 31, 2014)

I personally prefer answer number 1 - that we're likely alone in the universe. That said, I think that there's something to be said for our abysmal detection capabilities (see the Wow! signal for an example of one of the most likely signs of contact).


----------



## Morrus (Jan 31, 2014)

Small light bubbles. The speed of light is slow, galactically speaking. The galaxy is 100K light years across. In 100K years we'll be annoyed by the radio clutter. Except that we won't be using radio (we 're using less and less broadcast TV in favour of cable and fibre, so out TV bubble will probably stop shortly after it started).


----------



## trappedslider (Jan 31, 2014)




----------



## Kramodlog (Jan 31, 2014)

From the wiki article: 







> The Sun is a young star. There are billions of stars in the galaxy that are billions of years older;




Maybe we're late to the party. The universe is very old and not all intelligent life needs to evolve at the same time. That is just anthropocentric. Maybe other intelligent species have risen and disppeared before homides started walking on two legs and faced extinction. Maybe an intelligent species can't live more than a few thousand years before going extinct. 

Maybe they also ruined their environment and that is the greatest thread any intelligent species has to face. 

If life appeared in an older universe, when more astroids were flotting around, maybe more intelligent life forms have been dinosaured. 

Given how dangerous the universe is and how self-destructive intelligent lie can be, maybe intelligent life that can travel beyond their star system is a much smaller number than we'd like to think. 

Right now just getting off this world is nearly impossible. We can't even colonize our own satelite. At any point an asteroid could ram us and kil us all. We could lose our magnetic field and the sun would kill all life. We could nuke ourselves. We could experience a pendemic that sends us back to the stone age, etc, etc... So before we have more chances to go extinct before we can make contact with another intelligent life form.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 31, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Given how dangerous the universe is and how self-destructive intelligent lie can be,




People say that, but 100% of our sample of 1 intelligent species has failed to destroyed itself. It's a heck of an assumption.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 31, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> What are your thoughts on the Fermi paradox?




It is a bummer, and one clue that perhaps FTL isn't possible.

Or, if it is possible, that interstellar material commerce and conquest are simply not economically viable.  It may be the only thing of sufficient value to trade across these distances is information, and a civilization isn't worth contacting until they have figured out FTL communication.  There could be a galaxy of folks chattering away on the hyperwave radio...



> Say there was another planet with a civilization at least equal to our own out there rather close -- like only a few hundred light years away, (right next door by galactic distances) -- could we even detect them?




If they use a lot of radio, yes.  Eventually, if we get really good at doing spectroscopy of exoplanet atmospheres, we might be able to infer their presence by their impact on their atmosphere....



> Would they have to wait for our electromagnetic signals to reach them in another hundred-plus years before they'd know we were here?




At the moment, there's no known way of signalling faster than light.  So, yeah, we'd have to wait until our signals got to them (and theirs to us).  



> Assuming that the speed of light truly is the limit for travel and communication, couldn't the galaxy/universe be full of hundreds or millions of civilizations, but none of them/us can contact with one another, or even find/acknowledge one another because of the distances?




Yep.  Though, the Milky Way galaxy alone could have hundreds or millions of civilizations.  The universe is so big it would have gazillions...



> Is the search for other civilizations moot because of the distances and physics?




You can't strictly speaking prove a negative.  You can't prove we'll never find another civilization, or that if we do, we'll get nothing of value from them.  SO, we cannot say if it is pointless.  So long as we don't *know* it is pointless, it seems to me we should try.

This being NASA's Remembrance Day, you aren't going to see me saying we shouldn't try, darn it!


----------



## tomBitonti (Jan 31, 2014)

Maybe, as a variation of one of the given answers, the window of opportunity for detecting an advanced civilization is very small.  A civilization may change such that it's visible impact to the universe is undetectable to any other civilization not at a close level of advancement.

The result is curious, in any case.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Kramodlog (Jan 31, 2014)

Morrus said:


> People say that, but 100% of our sample of 1 intelligent species has failed to destroyed itself. It's a heck of an assumption.



Where pretty young as a species. Homo sapiens sapiens is about 100,000 years old and we have all the tech to accomplish our extermination. Not to mention what we are doing to our environement.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 1, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Where pretty young as a species. Homo sapiens sapiens is about 100,000 years old and we have all the tech to accomplish our extermination. Not to mention what we are doing to our environement.




And yet here we most emphatically still are, and thinking about colonization of Mars.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Feb 1, 2014)

Our galaxy is mostly empty space on a human scale, and we're barely explored our own solar system.  We just poked a tiny finger outside our star's gravity well. Even signals from intelligent life close by in a galactic sense might not have reached us yet. (Or, what Morrus said.)

Why do we assume that other intelligent life will look, think, or communicate like us?  Maybe they use point-to-point laser communication, or use broad spectrum IR that is so red-shifted by the time it reaches us it has faded into the background radiation.  Maybe they communicate by wiggling gravitrons, emitting Higgs bosons, or with massive bursts of radio waves from dying stars. 

We're pretty arrogant as a species to extrapolate a massive paradox from a data set of one.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 1, 2014)

Morrus said:


> And yet here we most emphatically still are, and thinking about colonization of Mars.



Yeah, that is just a scam. The tech ain't there yet to keep them alive, well fed and protected from solar winds and other radiations. Heck, what rocket will they use? A delta rocket? That thing as a pay loa of 500 kilos. et two people in there and I'm pretty sure they do not have enough food to get to Mars. 

Plus there are no reason to send people there, aside from "just because we can" (which we cannot). No resources to extract that could to justify the expenses to send people there and keep resuplying them. Humans like to migrate and colonize, sure, but we always followed some resources (hence Antarctica being uninhabited).


----------



## Jester David (Feb 1, 2014)

Radio signals are not particularly strong, being unable to easily reach across the planet. I can barely get a strong signal from the city out where I live in the 'Burbs. A lot of radio noise would become hard to distinguish from background radiation.
Realistically, the lifespan of radio is short. We've had commercial radio for less than 100 years and it's already being phased out for satellite and cable transmissions. In ten to thirty years Earth will all but be a transmission dead sphere. 
We were only really listening to the skies for half a century, and could easily have missed the window of signals.

That's assuming other races develop radio at all. Radio might not work as well for a race lacking strong ears, or without auditory communication, or without an atmosphere that reflects radio waves limiting their use. Or they might stick with wired communication. 

It's also possible extraterrestrial life might not be interested in communicating, being more introspective. Or life might be common but advanced alien life might be rare. 

I believe alien life is likely common. The universe us likely lousy with life. Intelligent life is likely much rarer. 
Intelligence requires environmental stability that isn't continually wiping out life. A big gas giant like Jupiter sucking up asteroids also helps. But there needs to be enough changes that various races are forced to re-adapt and alternate races are allowed to take over. Dinosaurs ruled for millions of years without developing intelligence. 
Technology also requires some other factors. If you can't forge metals you're at a disadvantage, and worlds lacking appropriate metals would be all but stuck at the Stone Age.   
North American civilizations started at the sane keel of advancement as the old world countries but fell behind for a few reasons. A lack of riding animals (horses) was likely one, as that hindered larger land empires. And, in North America, there were few cities and permanent settlements. Multiple city-states are vital for preventing knowledge from being lost when obey civilization falls. When Rome fell much of its knowledge was preserved by the Arabic empire. The multiple continents really help defend human civilization from being ended by natural disasters. 
So much of human technology comes from warfare. A less tribal species might not have advanced nearly as fast.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 1, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Where pretty young as a species. Homo sapiens sapiens is about 100,000 years old...




I believe the fossil record places anatomically modern humans about 195,000 years ago, and genetic divergence from the last ancestor of all modern populations is estimated at 200,000 years.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 1, 2014)

Umbran said:


> I believe the fossil record places anatomically modern humans about 195,000 years ago, and genetic divergence from the last ancestor of all modern populations is estimated at 200,000 years.



I think that is homo sapiens idaltus.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 1, 2014)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> Why do we assume that other intelligent life will look, think, or communicate like us?




Interstellar modes of communication are governed more by physics than by the form of life.  There are only so many ways to get a signal between the stars.



> Maybe they use point-to-point laser communication, or use broad spectrum IR that is so red-shifted by the time it reaches us it has faded into the background radiation.




That latter one of those is simple - the cosmological red-shift doesn't happen within gravitationally bound systems.  The galaxy is not expanding so that it would red-shift.

Point-to-point laser communication could be done, I suppose.  It would require you know where the target is - so it is only good for talking to your own people.



> Maybe they communicate by wiggling gravitrons, emitting Higgs bosons, or with massive bursts of radio waves from dying stars.




The Higgs bosons would be a lousy vehicle for interstellar communication - they have a a half life of almost nothing.  Neutrinos, fine.  Not Higgs.

And, well, if the only way you have to communicate between the stars is for a star to blow up... there's a problem.  You'd ave to travel to that dying star to send your message, and you could only send it when the star is dying.  So, why didn't you just travel to the place you wanted to talk to, when you actually wanted to talk?

And, by the way, our radiotelescopes would catch the latter, and SETI spends a lot of effort to find non-randomness in radio signals from space.  This is a way we could likely detect.


----------



## Bullgrit (Feb 1, 2014)

So, the galaxy and universe may, indeed, be full to the brim with intelligent civilizations, but universal physics means that we will never actually find or contact or meet them?

Bullgrit


----------



## Kaodi (Feb 1, 2014)

If Seth Shostak of SETI is to be believed we may be between five an fifteen years from discovering another civilization in our galaxy depending on whether there are thousands or tens of thousands out there.


----------



## WayneLigon (Feb 1, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Right now just getting off this world is nearly impossible. We can't even colonize our own satellite.




Sure we can. It's actually fairly easy to colonize the Moon, and we could have done it with 1960's tech, but we don't want to spend the money to do it.

For Fermi: I think it's silly to think we're alone in the universe, but the paradox is troubling.

Maybe the problem is psychological. It might be that we have an unusual outlook. We think of 'curiosity' as one of the defining traits of intelligence, but maybe it's not. Maybe few other species ever have the desire to go into space or explore the unknown, or constantly expand their tech capabilities - maybe the 'norm' of the universe for intelligent life is to create enough tech to satisfy the basic needs of food, shelter and safety - then stop. Most civilizations might dead-end in the early Bronze Age. Maybe most worlds with intelligent life are very 'kind' to them; planets with little or no seasons, with plenty of food and water, with little in the way of hostile bacteria or parasites - maybe most civilizations never see the need to tailor their environment to themselves. Without a super-complex infrastructure, nothing much happens when it gets knocked over by a plague or climate change or other sort of disaster.

Maybe 'radio' is indicative of a general, conceptual-level technological dead end we haven't recognized yet, much like the 100-year detour chemistry took with Phlogiston. People don't answer because it's pretty pointless for them to do so: we can't detect what they are saying, and we wouldn't have anything worth trading even if we did.

More ominous might be the 'war-verse' theories, where rogue civilizations  created something like a Berserker fleet that homes in on people with radio transmissions and obliterates them, so everyone stays very, very quiet.


----------



## tomBitonti (Feb 1, 2014)

Side question: What are the parameters for interstellar communication?

Haven't found simple answers.  This probably has some, but I'm not able to tease them out of the text:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.4684.pdf

The table 2.1 on page 41 looks interesting, and has values of 664KW to 753MW for a 1000 ly transmission using an Arecibo type antenna.  I'm still puzzling over the chart to know what those values really mean.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## trappedslider (Feb 1, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Plus there are no reason to send people there, aside from "just because we can" (which we cannot). No resources to extract that could to justify the expenses to send people there and keep resuplying them. Humans like to migrate and colonize, sure, but we always followed some resources (hence Antarctica being uninhabited).




apparently the common resources that are found in Antarctica are ice, coal, sediments, petroleum, metallic resources, iron, copper, lead, uranium, platinum, and manganese.


----------



## Lwaxy (Feb 1, 2014)

We probably have no means to detect another species yet - at least not if they are more advanced than we are. They would probably not be using radio anymore. And if they had any way of interstellar travel, we would likely not be able to detect it either. What to look for if you don't know the method used? And if there is no way to go beyond the speed of light, it is likely that most advanced species would just give up the idea of interstellar travel unless maybe with some sort of colony ship (but I kind of doubt that, I can't see anyone sending off a ship on the slim chance of finding a habitable world). 

And think about it - if we would be advanced enough to space travel between systems, would we want to contact a species as behind as we are? Especially as aggressive as we are? Yeah probably other species would be as aggressive, but I tend to think it is far more likely that a species that's managed to grow beyond the threat of self destruction would be a rather peaceful group, or at least able to resolve conflicts in a less lethal way.  There may even be a first directive like in Star Trek to not make contact with dangerous or yet developing civilizations. 

I can't believe we are alone - it would go against all logic. I don't think intelligent life is so common that it would happen in every star system either. 

Time will tell, if we don't kill our kind before then.


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 2, 2014)

I'm of the opinion that a) intelligent life is rare, b) intelligent life that discovers radio is incredibly rare, c) the lifespan of radio usage by a civilization is incredibly incredibly rare.

The human race (homo sapiens sapiens) has been around for more than a hundred thousand years.  We've used radio for .1% of that, perhaps.

I also think the pressure to expand will likely diminish with time, so that the costs of interstellar colonization are forever greater than the perceived benefits.  There are hurdles to be overcome solving any one of which is beyond us right now.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 2, 2014)

trappedslider said:


> apparently the common resources that are found in Antarctica are ice, coal, sediments, petroleum, metallic resources, iron, copper, lead, uranium, platinum, and manganese.



You can eat those?


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 2, 2014)

WayneLigon said:


> Sure we can. It's actually fairly easy to colonize the Moon, and we could have done it with 1960's tech, but we don't want to spend the money to do it.



What tech do we have to protect colonist from cosmic raditions? From decalcification and muslce atrophy from low gravity? What tech do we have to help kids grow normally and avoid health problems? What tech do we have to grow food on the Moon. What about growing water? Energy?


----------



## Morrus (Feb 2, 2014)

goldomark said:


> What tech do we have to protect colonist from cosmic raditions?




You don't need tech.  Water and dirt both block cosmic radiation just fine.  It's actually pretty easy; the issue in a spacecraft is just weight.   Moon colonization would be in caves, likely, which is completely protected.



> From decalcification and muslce atrophy from low gravity? What tech do we have to help kids grow normally and avoid health problems?




Yeah, that sort of stuff is a real problem.  I have no idea how you'd get around that. 



> What tech do we have to grow food on the Moon. What about growing water? Energy?




I don't feel like those are desperately difficult.  Greenhouses, solar energy, and there's loads of ice on the moon.  Again, more a cost issue to set up and an engineering challenge than a major technological leap. Plus a reason to do it.


----------



## The_Silversword (Feb 2, 2014)

goldomark said:


> You can eat those?




I suppose you could, but I wouldnt recommend it.


----------



## trappedslider (Feb 2, 2014)

goldomark said:


> You can eat those?




you jsut said "some resources"  you never said food specifically


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 2, 2014)

trappedslider said:


> you jsut said "some resources"  you never said food specifically



If your intellectually dishonest sure.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 2, 2014)

goldomark said:


> What tech do we have to protect colonist from cosmic raditions?




On the Moon?  They have this stuff called "rock".  



> From decalcification and muslce atrophy from low gravity?




Note that the Moon is not microgravity, as seen on the ISS.  We know some of the effects of microgravity, but have not tested long-term effects of lower gravity on the human body - for all we know it may not be all that bad on the Moon - we'd have to try it to find out.  Getting the exercise required to prevent atrophy should be considerably easier than dong the same in orbit.



> What tech do we have to help kids grow normally and avoid health problems?




That one remains to be seen, of course.



> What tech do we have to grow food on the Moon.




Hydroponics, for one.  Hauling up some bulk organic matter can jump start more traditional farming, which then becomes self-sustaining.



> What about growing water?




There's increasing evidence that the Moon does have water - bound up in silicate minerals and/or in ice reservoirs below the surface.  Boosting it from Earth might be expensive, but sending a probe out to a small comet with a low-g thruster to alter its orbit to import the stuff to the Moon might be economical.



> Energy?




Solar power is certainly an option.  Nuclear power is also a reasonable candidate.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 2, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Heck, what rocket will they use? A delta rocket? That thing as a pay loa of 500 kilos.




Not at all.

Mars One expects to use the Falcon Heavy, from Space X.  It's got shots to Mars among its basic design goals - payload is designed to be 13,200 kilograms (29,100 lb) to Mars (considerably more to low-earth or geosynch orbits).  The Falcon Heavy is based on the Falcon 9, already in use.  The Falcon Heavy is expected to have its first test flight this year, and its first scheduled customer in 2015.  The Falcon 9 program has had significant success (IIRC, out of 8 missions, one secondary payload had a problem, but all others were fine), and there's no reason to suspect that the Falcon Heavy isn't going to happen.

And, as a friendly suggestion - you probably want to be very, very careful about suggesting folks are dishonest.  In fact, I'd avoid it altogether, if I were you.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 2, 2014)

Morrus said:


> You don't need tech.  Water and dirt both block cosmic radiation just fine.  It's actually pretty easy; the issue in a spacecraft is just weight.   Moon colonization would be in caves, likely, which is completely protected.



It is easy to get large digging equipement on the Moon? Plus the people to do that? On which fuel will that machinery work on?  Digging requires lots of energy. Do we have machinery that works in vacuum in the temperatures of space?. Do we even have rockets that can lift that kind of payload? 

Even if we go for lava tubes that already exist, you still have to make them inhabitable. Building the ISS started in 1998 and in 2014 another module will be attached, giving it a weight of 400 tons. It can't grow its own food, produce its air or water, host more than a few people at a time, etc. The ISS is not a colony. It is a luxury lab/summer camp. 

We do not have the tech to make a lunar colonies. 



> Yeah, that sort of stuff is a real problem.  I have no idea how you'd get around that.



Nanites. Which aren't around the corner, and/or GMO humans, which aren't around thecorner either, not to mention the ethical problems it raises. 



> I don't feel like those are desperately difficult.  Greenhouses, solar energy, and there's loads of ice on the moon.  Again, more a cost issue to set up and an engineering challenge than a major technological leap. Plus a reason to do it.



Melting ice requires a lot of energy, so does lighting and heating the all those greenhouses. Solar tech is not there yet. 

For now all that we could manage is a small outpost that is constantly resupplied with a few people who are relieved every year or so. Colonization is not around the corner. 

If you wanna think it is just an engineering challenge, well it means that a technology has to be develop, which means it isn't there yet.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 2, 2014)

Umbran said:


> And, as a friendly suggestion - you probably want to be very, very careful about suggesting folks are dishonest.  In fact, I'd avoid it altogether, if I were you.



Threats from a moderator? How professional. 

I'm free to say what I think. Censor me if you want, it doesn't mean I am wrong.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 2, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Not at all.
> 
> Mars One expects to use the Falcon Heavy, from Space X.  It's got shots to Mars among its basic design goals - payload is designed to be 13,200 kilograms (29,100 lb) to Mars (considerably more to low-earth or geosynch orbits).  The Falcon Heavy is based on the Falcon 9, already in use.  The Falcon Heavy is expected to have its first test flight this year, and its first scheduled customer in 2015.  The Falcon 9 program has had significant success (IIRC, out of 8 missions, one secondary payload had a problem, but all others were fine), and there's no reason to suspect that the Falcon Heavy isn't going to happen.



13 tons is not a lot if you substract the vehicule, the food, the water, air just for the two year trip to Mars.

That thing is a scam. Don't send money.


----------



## WayneLigon (Feb 2, 2014)

goldomark said:


> What tech do we have to protect colonist from cosmic raditions?



The same thing that protects people on space stations: Metal. Actually, we'd use dirt, by burying a lunar base under a few feet of regolith. 



goldomark said:


> From decalcification and muslce atrophy from low gravity? What tech do we have to help kids grow normally and avoid health problems?



Those are indeed significant and ongoing problems, still, but for the most part we'd rotate personnel - the loss isn't nearly as bad in Lunar gravity as it is in microgravity. And these are problems we'd eventually solve, given the need to do so.



goldomark said:


> What tech do we have to grow food on the Moon.



Hydroponics and aeroponics at first, then later we'd simply turn lunar soil into topsoil the same way we make it by the gigaton here on Earth: poop and other waste organics.



goldomark said:


> What about growing water?



The moon has a significant source of water on it, in the form of ice, but later we'd probably go out, capture an ice asteroid, and bring that sucker back to mine for the gigatons of free ice it'll have. Also, even crappy recycling systems today can recapture a vast amount of water from grey-water and waste-water sources. A significant amount of the water you drink now is recycled urine anyway.



goldomark said:


> Energy?



Solar. Later, nuclear. Later on, microwave power satellites. One of the simplest problems, actually.


----------



## tomBitonti (Feb 2, 2014)

I thought the blockers for a moon colony, or for a colony in space, was more of the sort of getting tech that _seems_ like it will work, to actually work, and, that there were major problems of maintaining health, and of achieving self sustainability.  I'd accept "close" to self sufficient to be good enough for a start.

That is: Large scale spinning habitats in one of Earth's Lagrange points.  Mass drivers on the moon to boost raw material to those points.  Rabbits and hydroponics for food.  The moon is a pretty lousy target for habitation.  We would want a base on the moon as a supply of raw material, as a much cheaper alternative to boosting material out of Earth's much deeper well.  A problem there is whether there are sufficient volatiles on the moon to avoid having to bring that from Earth.  The leading and trailing lagrange (trojan) points are the places for near-Earth habitats.

But, even questions like how big does the habitat need to be are unanswered: Too small and folks get motion sickness.  Large enough may be miles wide.  There are big unanswered questions about building close to 100% recycling environments.  The dome experiment that was tried failed miserably, and I'm not aware of any new attempts.  I'm imagining that there are _huge_ technical problems still be solved, some which can predict, and others which have yet to discover.

So _probably_ we can put habitats in space.  But, as it seems to me, not _definitely_.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## WayneLigon (Feb 2, 2014)

tomBitonti said:


> The dome experiment that was tried failed miserably, and I'm not aware of any new attempts.  I'm imagining that there are _huge_ technical problems still be solved, some which can predict, and others which have yet to discover.




If you're referring to the Biosphere 2 situations, the term 'experiment' wouldn't be applicable. These people were for the most part not scientists, ecologists, or recycling engineers. What they did was more stunt that any sort of serious research, and a space colony is not going to be trying to recreate entire diverse and different biosystems the way Biospehere tried to do for many, many years.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 2, 2014)

goldomark said:


> It is easy to get large digging equipement on the Moon?




No, it's not easy. But it's possible.




goldomark said:


> Threats from a moderator? How professional.
> 
> I'm free to say what I think. Censor me if you want, it doesn't mean I am wrong.




Are you posting drunk, goldomark?  Please do not try butting heads with moderators.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 2, 2014)

Morrus said:


> No, it's not easy. But it's possible.



That is a strawman. It is not the question of possibility that I'm debating, but the current lack of that technology that would let us do it. 



> Are you posting drunk, goldomark?  Please do not try butting heads with moderators.



I'm not. I'm responding to intimidation. Being a mod doesn't mean you get to make threats. I would report but that won't lead anywhere, but a blind eye is turned on mod behavior.

Think what you want of me, but Umbran was not being professional. All EWolders should be treated professionally, whether OTTers or not.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 2, 2014)

goldomark said:


> That is a strawman. It is not the question of possibility that I'm debating, but the current lack of that technology that would let us do it.




Out technology would et us do it.  It would be challenging, but completely doable.  We just need to be willing to spend the money. There's no technological barrier.



> I'm not. I'm responding to intimidation. Being a mod doesn't mean you get to make threats. I would report but that won't lead anywhere, but a blind eye is turned on mod behavior.
> 
> Think what you want of me, but Umbran was not being professional.




And this bit goes in red. He admonished you for calling someone dishonest.  Now I'm admonishing you for being a complete tool about it after the fact. Got a problem, take it up by email. 



> All EWolders should be treated professionally, whether OTTers or not.




I don't know what that means.


----------



## tomBitonti (Feb 2, 2014)

WayneLigon said:


> If you're referring to the Biosphere 2 situations, the term 'experiment' wouldn't be applicable. These people were for the most part not scientists, ecologists, or recycling engineers. What they did was more stunt that any sort of serious research, and a space colony is not going to be trying to recreate entire diverse and different biosystems the way Biospehere tried to do for many, many years.




But, doesn't that reinforce my point?  To build large colonies, we would need very close to closed systems for the colonists, and we haven't created such here on the Earth, let alone in space.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## WayneLigon (Feb 2, 2014)

tomBitonti said:


> But, doesn't that reinforce my point?  To build large colonies, we would need very close to closed systems for the colonists, and we haven't created such here on the Earth, let alone in space.




I'm thinking of water and waste systems. There are quite a number of very successful closed loop recycling systems available, and they have been available for many years now with very close to 100% reclamation. Heck, the ISS's system is about 93% efficient. The Biosphere's failure or success is completely irrelevant  - we won't be trying to do recycling on that scale, in that way, for quite a long period of time.


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 3, 2014)

Morrus said:


> Yeah, that sort of stuff is a real problem.  I have no idea how you'd get around that.



Genetics, eventually. In the near term, it'd be more like an Antarctica station with rotating crew and mandatory birth control.


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 3, 2014)

goldomark said:


> It is easy to get large digging equipement on the Moon?



As someone (you?) said, the ISS is up to 400 tons, and most of that was boosted with the space shuttle, so clearly we can get the mass up there. 



> Plus the people to do that?



Why do you think the shadow government is indoctrinating all the young people with video games?  The round trip lag to the Moon and back is slightly less than 3 seconds. Remote control.



> On which fuel will that machinery work on?



A radical new substance called "electricity".  If it can drive a locomotive, it can probably drive a drill.  Plus, reduced weight on the Moon means less stress on the earthmovers.



> Digging requires lots of energy.



Yes. If only there was a nearby star we could tap for energy.



> Do we even have rockets that can lift that kind of payload?



These probably won't be generic Caterpillar bulldozers. 



> Even if we go for lava tubes that already exist, you still have to make them inhabitable.



Foam.



> Building the ISS started in 1998 and in 2014 another module will be attached, giving it a weight of 400 tons. It can't grow its own food, produce its air or water, host more than a few people at a time, etc. The ISS is not a colony. It is a luxury lab/summer camp.



Space is major limitation of the ISS, as in square footage.  If we can find lava tubes, or even if we have to excavate, there's a lot more space available much more cheaply on the Moon. If you want a gym on the ISS, you have to build it and carry it up. Two gyms, 2x cost. If you want a gym on the Moon, you need a digger and fuel. Two gyms, the digger and fuel infrastructure are already in place. Just run them for another week.



> We do not have the tech to make a lunar colonies.



That is an opinion.



> Melting ice requires a lot of energy



Sunshine melts comets all the time. Even on the moon, the sun melts ice. That's why the Moon isn't covered in ice even though it's way way way below freezing.



> If you wanna think it is just an engineering challenge, well it means that a technology has to be develop, which means it isn't there yet.



Enough of the technology is there that we could go ahead.


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 3, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> Say there was another planet with a civilization at least equal to our own out there rather close -- like only a few hundred light years away, (right next door by galactic distances) -- could we even detect them? Would they have to wait for our electromagnetic signals to reach them in another hundred-plus years before they'd know we were here?




Given our current capabilities, probably. If they're 200 light years away, it's still the early 1800's and we're not yet lighting up the globe.  Could be atmostpheric changes due to industrialization, though.  They could detect oxygen in our atmosphere, I think.



> Assuming that the speed of light truly is the limit for travel and communication, couldn't the galaxy/universe be full of hundreds or millions of civilizations, but none of them/us can contact with one another, or even find/acknowledge one another because of the distances?




It could be, but there are a lot of stars that aren't "a few hundred light years away".  This page, for instance estimates 15,000 stars within 100 light years of us, of which roughly 11,160 are Class M-type stars, like our sun. Given what the telescopes have been telling us about extra-solar planets, it seems a lot of stars, even red dwarfs (which are often Type M and very long lived and stable) are capable of planets and a habitable (by our standards) zone. Communicating over thousands of years would be hard, but fifty years? Not so much.  It would be weird if civilizations _never_ occurred within some kind of reasonable range of each other. Sometimes, yes, but at other times and places you might have clusters.  I think it's more likely the period of radio activity is fairly brief in a species lifespan (we're at about .1% right now).



> Is the search for other civilizations moot because of the distances and physics?



Moot would be quitting now. When we've checked everything out to a few hundred light years and found no life (not civilization, just life), then I'd consider taking a rest. If we can find ONE other instance of life, of any kind, then the whole equation changes.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 3, 2014)

Nellisir said:


> Given our current capabilities, probably. If they're 200 light years away, it's still the early 1800's and we're not yet lighting up the globe.  Could be atmostpheric changes due to industrialization, though.  They could detect oxygen in our atmosphere, I think.




That information doesn't travel any faster than the radio waves do, though. Still the speed of light, so still 200 years. And then, even if the timing did work out and they replied, there's 200 years back again.



> Moot would be quitting now. When we've checked everything out to a few hundred light years and found no life (not civilization, just life), then I'd consider taking a rest. If we can find ONE other instance of life, of any kind, then the whole equation changes.




I think we'll find it just within our solar system. Maybe not Mars, but some of the outer moons sound so promising. If only space programs got a little more funding.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Feb 3, 2014)

My 2 cents here: As has been mentioned, there is ice on the moon, and gravity is only 1/6 of terra, sol 3, though not considered 'micro gravity'.

My questions are,
1. why not use *ahem* natural 'bio material' for farming in the [several times i think] mentioned greenhouses. I refer to human waste. you can possibly expose it to the extremely powerful UV light to kill stuff like E. Coli, then mix it with other compost that has starter composting enzymes. I am thinking much the same as eating yougert after taking heavy antibiotics to restart your digestive system, but in this case the 'yogurt ' is what is found in a compost bin. This will also produce some heat for the community. IIRC, the sun's energy is greatly lessened diffusing due to a greatly reduced atmosphere, there by giving a greater energy potential on the moon[?]. CO2 is being worked on in 2 directions. one is breaking the carbon/oxygen bond to recover the O2 and give carbon for soil base purposes. The other is the long time favorite of plants doing the converting, my favorite is Corn stalks.

2. This pertains to long term human 'cartage' to mars. I have heard of the idea of putting people in induced comas to reduce O2 and food use. Very old theory, I know. I just want to mention that 6 weeks of induced coma has left me so weak [still] 2 years later that I just can't see the viability of induced coma transfer. I remember watching a show about the ISS that an American astronaut that was so weak he could barely lift his arm to wave. It took a couple of months of PT to get him to a decent level of strength afterward. I have been in the ' learning to walk again' category of need and 2 years later I am still recovering. 

Now granted my case is a bit worse as I was deathly ill for the time of my coma. What I would like to know is, 
A) is there a viable alternative to a 'sleeping worker' transport system? 

B) Also, even though the moon is not micro grav, wouldn't it be a viable possibility to expect the same problems as micro grav, just taking longer to occur?


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 3, 2014)

Nellisir said:


> As someone (you?) said, the ISS is up to 400 tons, and most of that was boosted with the space shuttle, so clearly we can get the mass up there.
> 
> 
> Why do you think the shadow government is indoctrinating all the young people with video games?  The round trip lag to the Moon and back is slightly less than 3 seconds. Remote control.
> ...



We'll see in 5 years if the technology is invented first.


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 3, 2014)

goldomark said:


> We'll see in 5 years if the technology is invented first.




That's pretty cool, though it seems like a pretty small-scale thing, not a habitat-scale drill.

3D printing could have a lot to offer space missions. I've heard the Navy is very interested in 3D printing because of the sheer quantity of spare parts they're required to care currently for aircraft carriers and the like. It would be a lot more economical to ship large crates of "magic anything powder" into space than any collection of parts.

Honestly, what I'd really like to see is more work on near-Earth asteroids.  Land some people on one of them. Gives you a base to launch further missions from, and room to play around with stuff like zero-g mining and habitat creation.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Feb 3, 2014)

Didn't the Canooks engineer the shuttle arm as well? What else are they hiding up their coat sleeves?


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 3, 2014)

Nellisir said:


> That's pretty cool, though it seems like a pretty small-scale thing, not a habitat-scale drill.
> 
> 3D printing could have a lot to offer space missions. I've heard the Navy is very interested in 3D printing because of the sheer quantity of spare parts they're required to care currently for aircraft carriers and the like. It would be a lot more economical to ship large crates of "magic anything powder" into space than any collection of parts.
> 
> Honestly, what I'd really like to see is more work on near-Earth asteroids.  Land some people on one of them. Gives you a base to launch further missions from, and room to play around with stuff like zero-g mining and habitat creation.



Like Cruithne?


----------



## tomBitonti (Feb 3, 2014)

WayneLigon said:


> I'm thinking of water and waste systems. There are quite a number of very successful closed loop recycling systems available, and they have been available for many years now with very close to 100% reclamation. Heck, the ISS's system is about 93% efficient. The Biosphere's failure or success is completely irrelevant  - we won't be trying to do recycling on that scale, in that way, for quite a long period of time.




That's the thing: We have a start, but, is it good enough for a colony?  Probably not.  Can we improve it enough?  Don't know.  The ISS doesn't make it's own food, or spare parts.  I'm thinking that water is recycled, but solid waste is not.  A 3D printer, as described upthread, sounds very useful -- until the printer breaks down and needs a part itself.

To me, that makes putting people into space (or on the moon, or mars), maybe feasible, but not definitely.  I think we have a long way to go until we make the technology work well enough for a mostly self sustaining colony.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 3, 2014)

tomBitonti said:


> A 3D printer, as described upthread, sounds very useful -- until the printer breaks down and needs a part itself.



That's why you have two printers, and backups of any parts that can't be printed.

http://reprap.org/wiki/RepRap


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 3, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Like Cruithne?




That'd be nifty.


----------



## trappedslider (Feb 3, 2014)

Honestly, if you have read Stephen Baxter's NASA books, ( the first one being hard sci-fi)  it looks like we had the tech needed to get to the moon and stay on it...

in fact http://www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/75SummerStudy/Design.html and http://www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/spaceres/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_colonization


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Feb 3, 2014)

Back to the original question.

In case a space society operates and thinks simliar to the human ones: return of investment. Even if you can travel interstellar distances, why would you do so? Once for curiosity's sake, for sure, but repeated attempts?

Another argument is Darwinism: why would one assume that alien beings operate and think simliar to us? They would be result of a darwinistic process on their planet with its own competitors. Humans claim to fame on Earth comes from our intelligence and approach to modify our surroundings to gain an advantage. Pretty full of ourselves to assume that each intelligent race would have to show the same attributes, isn't it?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 3, 2014)

Jan van Leyden said:


> Another argument is Darwinism: why would one assume that alien beings operate and think simliar to us? They would be result of a darwinistic process on their planet with its own competitors. Humans claim to fame on Earth comes from our intelligence and approach to modify our surroundings to gain an advantage. Pretty full of ourselves to assume that each intelligent race would have to show the same attributes, isn't it?




Well, while the challenges may be different in the details, the nature of those challenges will be the same: they'll have to defeat their predators, develop systematic thought, have communication that allows for the accretion of knowledge, establish stable civilizations, etc.

I read somewhere last year that it is probable that whatever intelligent life may be out there has probably evolved from a predatory species.  The reason?  The process of hunting for prey, it was asserted, requires more intelligence than grazing.

All that said, sure, aliens will probably think differently than we do.  We need only look at the creatures around us and extrapolate how we would be if we evolved from feline, canine, pachyderm or cetacian stock instead of great apes.  Cephalopods?

They don't experience the world like we do as it is.  How different would they be with a few billion more brain cells and synapses?

And because I can...



> From Dexy's Cosmic Runners
> 
> Come on Aliens
> Fermi's Paradox means (what it means)
> ...


----------



## delericho (Feb 3, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> What are your thoughts on the Fermi paradox?




Planets capable of sustaining intelligent life as we would recognise it are rarer than Fermi imagined. Of those, planets that actually sustain life are rarer still. And those that sustain intelligent life are _much_ rarer still.

Still, that still leaves a huge number of candidates out there.

However, for any given intelligent life form, there is a race against time - can they get to a point where they have a meaningful off-world presence before either (1) and extinction-level event wipes them out, (2) they wipe themselves out, (3) they pollute the planet to the extent that it can no longer support them, or (4) they run out of the required resources. Thus far, we've managed to avoid #2, just, but #3 isn't looking too good.

Worse, until recently, the main driver of our technological advancement has been our desire to kill one another. (It now appears to be entertainment.) That suggests to me:

- if a lifeform is similar to us, in that they expend a lot of time killing one another, their technology will advance very quickly... but they'll almost certainly wipe themselves out before getting off-planet.

- if a lifeform is less aggressive than us, they'll be less likely to kill themselves off, but their technology likewise won't advance at the same rate - they may never get to the point where they have the ability to go off-planet.

Add to that the fact that going off planet is going to be hideously expensive, hugely dangerous, and has no prospect of a better life at the other end (unless and until we develop FTL and can travel to another Earth-like planet), there's very little incentive to actually do so. Living on the moon, or Mars, or probably anywhere else in our solar system is going to _suck_. And yet, that's a necessary first step before we can really consider a mission outwith the solar system.

Basically, I think there's probably plenty of life out there, but I doubt we'll ever establish meaningful communications, never mind physically visiting (or being visited by) them.


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Feb 3, 2014)

Warning! Lots of speculation and speculation only ahead! Feel free to differ. 



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well, while the challenges may be different in the details, the nature of those challenges will be the same: they'll have to defeat their predators, develop systematic thought, have communication that allows for the accretion of knowledge, establish stable civilizations, etc.




These are requirements and requisites to devlop something similar to humans/humanity, not a necessary result of evolution.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> I read somewhere last year that it is probable that whatever intelligent life may be out there has probably evolved from a predatory species.  The reason?  The process of hunting for prey, it was asserted, requires more intelligence than grazing.




So this source tells us that we are not the most probable development of intelligent life? 



Dannyalcatraz said:


> All that said, sure, aliens will probably think differently than we do.  We need only look at the creatures around us and extrapolate how we would be if we evolved from feline, canine, pachyderm or cetacian stock instead of great apes.  Cephalopods?
> 
> They don't experience the world like we do as it is.  How different would they be with a few billion more brain cells and synapses?




Goals and motivations are next to impossible to extrapolate, IMHO. This starts with other human beings, whom we should be able to comprehend, gets more difficult with, say, animals, and might be impossible with real aliens.

The Fermi paradoxon assumes that we can do, though, which makes it am unfounded theory.


----------



## tomBitonti (Feb 3, 2014)

Nellisir said:


> That's why you have two printers, and backups of any parts that can't be printed.
> 
> http://reprap.org/wiki/RepRap




Yeah.  This is where I consider "close" to be "good enough".  If only a few key components cannot be self replicated, shipping those few components in might be feasible.  Not so good for an interstellar voyage, but maybe good enough for a base on the Moon or in Earth Orbit, or on Mars.  Also, the substrate / "magic powder" might be something well suited to production given a surplus of energy (from sunlight), but a relative scarcity of materials.

I imagine that eventually, even the key components could be produced locally, so a problem which would solve itself eventually, and not something which would stop us from getting started.

Still have to figure out a closed cycle environment, and find a source of volatiles, and solve a fair number of technical problems.  The question is, how close to self sustaining can it be made?

Thx!

TomB


----------



## SkidAce (Feb 3, 2014)

tomBitonti said:


> That's the thing: We have a start, but, is it good enough for a colony?  Probably not.  Can we improve it enough?  Don't know.  The ISS doesn't make it's own food, or spare parts.  I'm thinking that water is recycled, but solid waste is not.  A 3D printer, as described upthread, sounds very useful -- until the printer breaks down and needs a part itself.
> 
> To me, that makes putting people into space (or on the moon, or mars), maybe feasible, but not definitely.  I think we have a long way to go until we make the technology work well enough for a mostly self sustaining colony.
> 
> ...




On a "micro" scale, a lot of our cities and towns are not self sustaining any more.

So a space colony wouldn't have to be any more self sustaining than the transportation requirements to bring stuff (huge at the moment).


----------



## Umbran (Feb 3, 2014)

Jan van Leyden said:


> In case a space society operates and thinks simliar to the human ones: return of investment. Even if you can travel interstellar distances, why would you do so? Once for curiosity's sake, for sure, but repeated attempts?




We so often miss this fact - your RoI doesn't have to come directly from the action you're attempting.  The act of making an attempt tends to spin off lots of economic benefits.  

Many people hate to admit it, but NASA has a pretty solid record of effectively paying for itself.  Even if we cut out commercial launches NASA gets paid to do - NASA's attempts to do various and sundry things in space constantly supplies new technologies that can be used on the ground, and those have increased economic growth such that the taxes paid into the system are more than recouped by the economy.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 3, 2014)

SkidAce said:


> On a "micro" scale, a lot of our cities and towns are not self sustaining any more.
> 
> So a space colony wouldn't have to be any more self sustaining than the transportation requirements to bring stuff (huge at the moment).



If colonist will die out because Earth doesn't constently resupply them, it doesn't sound like colonization. I think a degree of sustainability is understood when talking about colonization.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 3, 2014)

goldomark said:


> If colonist will die out because Earth doesn't constently resupply them, it doesn't sound like colonization. I think a degree of sustainability is understood when talking about colonization.




I think history shows that there's a period of time before a new colony becomes self-sustaining.  For a while, European colonists in North America needed resupply of certain items from home that they didn't yet have the infrastructure to produce.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 3, 2014)

Jan van Leyden said:


> These are requirements and requisites to devlop something similar to humans/humanity, not a necessary result of evolution.




Nah, I'm pretty sure any creature that does not survive its predators will be unable to create civilization.  Unless they're extremely long-lived, and uniformly intellectually capable, communication is key to being able to learn from the experiencs of others without having to repeat those experiences.



> So this source tells us that we are not the most probable development of intelligent life?




What do you mean?  Even the most vegetarian of the great apes still has the teeth and enzymes to be able to consume and derive nutrition from animal flesh.  They may not be true predators now, but go back far enough...



> Goals and motivations are next to impossible to extrapolate, IMHO. This starts with other human beings, whom we should be able to comprehend, gets more difficult with, say, animals, and might be impossible with real aliens.
> 
> The Fermi paradoxon assumes that we can do, though, which makes it am unfounded theory.




While i agree that we may not b wble to understand alien intellects- beyond the basics of math & science- the Fermi Paradox makes no assumptions of comprehensibility of alien intellects.  It's just a question based on the dissonance between predictions of the number of inhabitable planets in the universe and what we have thus far observed.


----------



## tomBitonti (Feb 3, 2014)

SkidAce said:


> On a "micro" scale, a lot of our cities and towns are not self sustaining any more.
> 
> So a space colony wouldn't have to be any more self sustaining than the transportation requirements to bring stuff (huge at the moment).




I'm presuming that if there are colonies -- wherever -- they will eventually form interdependencies.  Say, a moon base sending raw materials by linear accellerator to habitats in space, obtaining in return food and parts.

But, unless transport costs are somehow shrunk (say, with a space elevator or tether), exchanges with the Earth would by necessity be limited to very high value / low density goods.  Say, exotic pharmaceuticals which can only be made in a micro gravity environment, or exotic materials which could also only be made in a micro gravity environment.  That is, a space habitat could only import a very limited quantity of goods from the Earth.  We could, of course, continue to pay a huge cost to transport goods from the Earth, but then we haven't reached the goal of sustainability.

Now, if the point is that here on the Earth we aren't exactly operating in a sustainable fashion, my response is that that is a huge problem, which we will either solve (by technology, or by changes in behavior), or will be solved for us (by a collapse of civilization and probably a huge die-off of people).

That is to say, failing to be sustainable here on the Earth isn't an argument that space colonies don't need to be sustainable; it an argument that we are in a huge heap of trouble here on the Earth.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 3, 2014)

Umbran said:


> I think history shows that there's a period of time before a new colony becomes self-sustaining.  For a while, European colonists in North America needed resupply of certain items from home that they didn't yet have the infrastructure to produce.



Yes, that is to be expected. But I think Tom and I are talking long term.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 3, 2014)

Jan van Leyden said:


> Goals and motivations are next to impossible to extrapolate, IMHO. This starts with other human beings, whom we should be able to comprehend, gets more difficult with, say, animals, and might be impossible with real aliens.
> 
> The Fermi paradoxon assumes that we can do, though, which makes it am unfounded theory.




No.  The Fermi Paradox relies on some things more basic - because for anything we call "living", certain goals and motivations are pretty predictable.

Living things use resources, and reproduce.  A given planet can only support a finite population.  The Fermi Paradox relies on the idea that intelligent living things will seek out new resources and places to expand population into.

And that's about it.  From there, it is all about the numbers.  If intelligent life is common, and if travel is not amazingly difficult to achieve, then being visited becomes nigh inevitable, over the long haul.


----------



## tomBitonti (Feb 3, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Yes, that is to be expected. But I think Tom and I are talking long term.




Yeah.  Short term, a base or colony will absolutely need support from the Earth.  And could be supported for some time as a strict dependent of supplies from Earth.

The question is, can a base or colony _ever_ remove that dependence.  Turned around, will a base or colony (or group of bases and colonies) ever be self sufficient?  Or rather, able to survive with only the resources available in space.

There is a lot out there: The moon, asteroids, comets, sunlight, micro-gravity; raw materials and energy seem to be available in abundance.  But, there is also a lot of huge challenges: Radiation; micro-gravity; vacuum; vast distances; gravity wells.

My argument is mostly simply a conservative / hedging one: Until we _try_ pretty hard to build bases and habitats, we really can't say that these will ever be sustainable.  That's coming from a background in software, where there are often very optimistic outlooks, which turn out to be quite naive.  Also, that is considering that (arguably) we can't even achieve sustainability here on the Earth.  Maybe, we don't really try here on the Earth because we haven't yet been forced.  On the other hand, maybe, a lot of selection must be done before behaviors are narrowed to sustainable ones; or, our current civilization model just isn't sustainable.  Then, if we aren't close to sustainability here on the Earth, we seem to be rather far from achieving it in space.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 3, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I read somewhere last year that it is probable that whatever intelligent life may be out there has probably evolved from a predatory species.  The reason?  The process of hunting for prey, it was asserted, requires more intelligence than grazing.




That's a binary choice, but there are others.  I think intelligent life is more likely in something that both preys and is preyed upon.  The more specialized the diet, the more specialized and hardwired the instincts.  The smartest birds aren't eagles or hawks, they're ravens and crows.  Octopi are predators, but they're also prey. Ditto chimpanzees. I'm not sure about dolphins, but I suspect they experience occasional predation from sharks and killer whales.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 3, 2014)

Nellisir said:


> The smartest birds aren't eagles or hawks, they're ravens and crows.




Actually, I think, depending on the form of intelligence you're talking about, the winner may well be some of the parrots.

Be that as it may, whatever logic we may construct to say what is or is not more likely - I don't think any reasonable scheme we can construct will actually *prohibit* intelligence from arising in any of these branches.  And, in terms of keeping our minds open, that's pretty important.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 3, 2014)

tomBitonti said:


> Also, that is considering that (arguably) we can't even achieve sustainability here on the Earth.




Yes, well, if that's the case, then no colony has ever become sustainable.  But at some point we have to say it's "good enough" - Europeans started colonizing North America over 400 years ago.  How long does it have to be there before it is "sustainable"?  I mean, ultimately, remaining in this solar system is "not sustainable", because the Sun will eventually die.  You have to draw a line somewhere...

But to a degree, I agree with you - our economic systems don't know how to deal with a situation in which markets and resources are not growing.  If we hit a flat period, we freak out as if lack of growth is the end of the world.  Maybe we will never learn how to manage a steady-state economy.

Then perhaps colonizing becomes crucial, rather than questionable  - we will need access to resources and locations for continued growth, and there's a whole lot of material and space out there....


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 3, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Yes, well, if that's the case, then no colony has ever become sustainable.  But at some point we have to say it's "good enough" - Europeans started colonizing North America over 400 years ago.  How long does it have to be there before it is "sustainable"?  I mean, ultimately, remaining in this solar system is "not sustainable", because the Sun will eventually die.  You have to draw a line somewhere...
> 
> But to a degree, I agree with you - our economic systems don't know how to deal with a situation in which markets and resources are not growing.  If we hit a flat period, we freak out as if lack of growth is the end of the world.  Maybe we will never learn how to manage a steady-state economy.
> 
> Then perhaps colonizing becomes crucial, rather than questionable  - we will need access to resources and locations for continued growth, and there's a whole lot of material and space out there....




I think, as you say, you have to draw the line somewhere, and you have to define your terms. Sustainable at current rates of growth is very much different than sustainable human life. Europeans couldn't manage sustainable colonies for quite a period with their culture, but the Native Americans had no such issues. The North American continent is clearly capable of sustainable living.

I don't think colonizing is crucial in that regard: we might not be sustainable now, but if that's the case, there will be a correction. I doubt it'll be an extinction (of us, at least).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 3, 2014)

Nellisir said:


> That's a binary choice, but there are others.  I think intelligent life is more likely in something that both preys and is preyed upon.  The more specialized the diet, the more specialized and hardwired the instincts.  The smartest birds aren't eagles or hawks, they're ravens and crows.  Octopi are predators, but they're also prey. Ditto chimpanzees. I'm not sure about dolphins, but I suspect they experience occasional predation from sharks and killer whales.



I wasnt suggesting it was a binary choice- odds are good that, unless you're the biggest, baddest thing in your ecosystem, it doesn't matter if you are a predator, you will also be prey.  As the children's song goes, the big big fish eat the little bitty fish...

Further, in some cases, who is prey may depend on the individual circumstances.  In one example, an aquarium was setting up a natural reef display.  They included sharks at first, then added octopi.  They were worried that the sharks would decimate the new additions, though.  And they did lose some.  Then sharks started disappearing.  As film revealed, at least one of the octopi did enjoy the occasional shark for supper...

And as I recall, parrots outscore the corvids on the IQ scales.  Both, though, predate on insects and the like.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 3, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I
> And as I recall, parrots outscore the corvids on the IQ scales.  Both, though, predate on insects and the like.




My understanding of the arguments behaviorists and biologists give for why parrots are intelligent isn't their food source, but the complexity of their environment.  The rainforest canopy is a pretty darned complicated and active place, and it turns out that social groups and a quick mind are good for surviving there.  So, parrots have some high levels of cognition in relevant areas.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 3, 2014)

Umbran said:


> My understanding of the arguments behaviorists and biologists give for why parrots are intelligent isn't their food source, but the complexity of their environment.  The rainforest canopy is a pretty darned complicated and active place, and it turns out that social groups and a quick mind are good for surviving there.  So, parrots have some high levels of cognition in relevant areas.




Right, that's the standard view.  But it's not incompatible with the predator/prey theory.

The person making the assertion about intelligence in predator species versus prey species isn't claiming that it is the determinative factor, but one of several.*  In a way, it dovetails- the claim is that predators interact with their environment in a more complex way than do prey species.  Part of that is virtually requiring binocular vision in order to actually be able to judge distances and catch moving prey.  

There would be exceptions, of course, and exhibit one would be pachyderms.  No one questions their status as ranking among the more intelligent creatures on the planet, and they're clearly herbivores.  And like parrots, they have very complex interactions with their vast territories.







* in marketing, the number one factor correlating with success in any given market is being first into that market.  It isn't the ONLY factor, but it is the strongest one.


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 3, 2014)

I guess I just find predator/prey a binary choice that doesn't well suit a number of intelligent species and seems to require a lot of exemptions and special cases. Parrots might eat insects, which is technically a predator/prey relationship, but do insects really require the same amount of cognition as, say, gazelle?  And sharks. Sharks are the number one example of a predatory animal, but they're not winning any IQ exams. They are almost completely hardwired.  Ditto crocodiles. Great cats are predatory, but they don't sign half so well as herbivorous gorillas.  And us. We're omnivorous, and we prey on large species now because of tool use, but what about before tools?  I think we were more likely food than fed upon, at least for anything much larger than insects and an occasional small animal.

So I'm sticking with flexible, omnivorous diets (which allow for protein rich meat in good times and fruits & veggies in tougher times) and complex environments as a better marker than predator/prey.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 3, 2014)

Nellisir said:


> ...do insects really require the same amount of cognition as, say, gazelle?




No, but they do require more cognition than finding the right plants to eat.



> And sharks. Sharks are the number one example of a predatory animal, but they're not winning any IQ exams. They are almost completely hardwired.  Ditto crocodiles.




And they're demonstrably smarter than most of their prey.  Take a shark tourism trip or visit a croc farm and you'll see some behaviors you would not expect from stupid predators.




> Great cats are predatory, but they don't sign half so well as herbivorous gorillas.




Hard to use ASL without digits.  Also, gorillas are not herbivores, they're quite fond of insects, with a strong preference for termites.  Because of the structural strength of their mounds, harvesting african termites in meaningful quantities requires either adaptive physiology (long sticky tongue and powerful claws as per anteaters) or tool use.  (They also eat soil.)



> And us. We're omnivorous, and we prey on large species now because of tool use, but what about before tools?  I think we were more likely food than fed upon, at least for anything much larger than insects and an occasional small animal.




So?  That a predator may also be prey has virtually no impact on the theory.



> So I'm sticking with flexible, omnivorous diets (which allow for protein rich meat in good times and fruits & veggies in tougher times) and complex environments as a better marker than predator/prey.




Again, he's not trying to supplant the complex environment theory or even say it's superior.  He's asserting it is one major factor among other major factors.


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 4, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No, but they do require more cognition than finding the right plants to eat.



Elephant vs woodpecker.



> And they're demonstrably smarter than most of their prey.  Take a shark tourism trip or visit a croc farm and you'll see some behaviors you would not expect from stupid predators.



I don't do boats well, but I've been to several croc farms.  I don't know what you're seeing, but the behaviors I see are hardwired. People take advantage of the hardwired behaviors to make them into tricks. I'm not saying they're running into walls stupid; but they are pretty much mono-focused on getting food, and almost all of their behavior is instinctual. There's not a lot of extra cognition going on.



> Hard to use ASL without digits.



I didn't think someone would actually think that was supposed to be literal. Communication. Dolphins don't have digits either.  Parrots. Capacity for self-recognition. 



> Also, gorillas are not herbivores, they're quite fond of insects



Herbivorous insectovores, then. Or omnivores. Either way, you're casting the net for "predators" so wide it's essentially lost all meaning. (Eastern lowland gorillas are noted as "also eating insects", while mountain gorillas do not. Neither species seems to derive a significant daily portion of its diet from predation.)



> Again, he's not trying to supplant the complex environment theory or even say it's superior.  He's asserting it is one major factor among other major factors.



And I'm asserting it's not a major factor, or it's misleadingly labelled if the definition for "predator" is "derives some percentage of diet greater than 1% from non-plant life" AND the most intelligent species known aren't particularly aggressive predators (dolphins excepted). It becomes so broad as to be meaningless, since eventually a very very large number of species are classified as "predators".

Ambush predators.
Venus fly-trap.
baleen whales.

A specialized predator, IMO, is likely to be of less intelligence than an unspecialized predator. A creature of unspecialized diet, such as an omnivore, is likely to be of greater intelligence than a creature of specialized diet, either carnivorous or herbivorous.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 4, 2014)

> I don't do boats well, but I've been to several croc farms. I don't know what you're seeing, but the behaviors I see are hardwired. People take advantage of the hardwired behaviors to make them into tricks. I'm not saying they're running into walls stupid; but they are pretty much mono-focused on getting food, and almost all of their behavior is instinctual. There's not a lot of extra cognition going on.




Well, I know of one gator that, after getting a mouthful of chicken (its usual food) still in its feeder's hand, let go.  Instead of dragging the caretaker in, it let go.  It passed on a big, easy meal in favor of a dependable food supply.

Furthermore, as of 2013, we now have confirmation of tool use/baiting in hunting by alligators and crocodiles.  Scientists have recorded the use of twigs and sticks by crocodiles & alligators to lure birds..._only_ during birds' nesting seasons:


> "What's really remarkable — they are not only using lures, but they are timing it to just when the birds they want to capture are nesting and looking for sticks to use," said Gordon Burghardt, an ethologist (animal behaviorist) and comparative psychologist specializing in reptiles at UT-Knoxville. "They are making some assessment of the birds themselves."
> 
> "This is indeed the first convincing evidence of tool use in any reptile," said Burghardt, who wasn't involved in the study.
> 
> http://www.livescience.com/41898-alligators-crocodiles-use-tools.html



And


> In recent years it has – I really, really hope – become better known that non-bird reptiles (turtles, lizards, snakes, crocodiles, alligators and so on) are not boring dullards, but behaviourally complex creatures that get up to all sorts of interesting things. Play behaviour, complex social interactions, gaze recognition, pair-bonding and monogamy, social hunting, speedy learning abilities and good memories have all been demonstrated across these groups.
> 
> (edit)
> 
> ...



As for sharks, Allison Kock, marine biologist, had this to say of sharks to Smithsonian: 



> ...Kock and other researchers claim that the shark has been defamed: its reputation as a ruthless, mindless man-eater is undeserved. In the past decade, Kock and other shark experts have come to realize that sharks rarely hunt humans—and that the beasts are sociable and curious. "Unlike most fish," Kock says, "white sharks are intelligent, highly inquisitive creatures."
> 
> http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/forget-jaws-now-its-brains-48249580/




In addition, some species have been observed using cooperative tactics to herd prey, which they then take turns feeding upon.

IOW, neither is just muscle and teeth.

Now, the fact that we're only just now recognizing higher intellectual functions in these alpha predators says something about recognizing alien intelligence in general.  I mean, these creatures are from the same global ecosystem.  We share a lot in common with them.  But we don't recognize their minds fully.

Doing that with aiiens face to face will be at least as difficult...

But we'll go into such an encounter _expecting_ intelligence assuming we've seen the by products of their existence- radio or other EMF emissions, space travel, the presence of rare molecules in their planetary spectroscopic signatures, etc.


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 4, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> _(stuff. Bunches of stuff.)_




New information, definitely interesting. I can't give the first anecdote much authority because it's a one-off and the croc might have just been surprised (new flavor = surprise) or something; unless it repeats it's just a story.  The twig thing is pretty cool and new.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 4, 2014)

The first one IS just an anecdote, true, but I left out a bit of the context- the critter was one of the great old ones- no, not like in HPL- and the lucky dude was the main handler.  IOW, those 2 knew each other pretty well.

...which probably led to the complacency that got him distracted enough to get bit.

Compare that to other handlers, especially those who are in the "wrestling shows" who get bit.  Most of the time, the reptile does not voluntarily release its bite.


----------

