Mark wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:


There is an answer to Fermi's paradox.

Where are they?
.......


(see the Matt's post in his original, it's pretty long so
it's not quoted here)

There's a very good page on this very topic at

http://www.transhumanist.com/Smart-Fermi.htm

Nothing like I was trying to talk about. I really was tired.

After the paradox part I simply suggest there are some reasons consisent with our
nature that would not have us expand to fill the available universe. Our rate of
reproduction is dependent upon the level of civilization at present. (Of course if
both telecommute that may reverse but the reason appears to be the increasing cost
of raising children to modern standards. Current projections have the world
population leveling off in 60-70 years so we will not have population pressures
even if we could ship off colonists by the hundreds of millions.

And that there are reasons why would eventually, if not quickly, limit our
exploration of the universe. More crudely, when you have seen one class M planet
you have seen them all. So looking for transmissions from research ships near
unusual things in the universe is likely more profitable that searching for noise
from the planets that sent them which are only listening. That is why I like the
signal near the Crab Nebula.

One of the reasons folks traipse around out of the way jungles is for medicines
and such. I am suggesting computers will be able to model every possible
interaction of every possible biological compound in not too many decades. We
probably aren't too far from searching for The Theory of Everything with a genetic
algorithm and sooner if Wolfram's rule based system can be applied. There will be
a limited interest in additional data to get the answer to anything.

The cost of raw materials and finished goods has been steadily decreasing as far
back as we can tell. The reason recycling is a net cost instead of a savings is
raw materials are cheaper. So we don't have an impetus to explore to find raw
materials to make get rich. And with a level population we won't need much new
input and shipping over lightyears is unlikely to be a profitable way to do it.

Notice how many of the reasons for expanding to fill the universe are based upon
the experience of the population increase of the industrial revolution. With
farming children are a benefit as they are additional labor. The same in the early
industrial revolution but child labor was ended so children became a net cost so
we have fewer of them. But all of the SF premises are based upon the territorial
expansion of the age of exploration and the population growth of the industrial
revolution. We won't need the new land and resources and we know the population
growth has a natural limit. Even with third world immigration some countries in
Europe are at present decreasing in population not counting anomalies like Russia.

The category of things which are becoming cheaper are those which can be mass
produced. Things which are few of a kind continue to increase in cost. Military
equipment like aircraft carriers, tanks and fighters. The design and setup costs
averaged over the number produced, even ignoring exotic hardware causes the cost
to increase with each new generation. Every carrier is a one of kind improvement.
And the same goes for space shuttles.

And as we cannot minaturize people manned exploration has irreducable size and
cargo requirements. Open ocean travel is over 500 years old but size and
accomodations has not significantly changed save as a function of the speed of
travel -- food per person per day with fewer days.

Along that line we have people doing something for the shear challenge of doing
it, to be the first or the fastest or whatever. When people try that on the ocean
they get their fifteen minutes of fame. When it comes to someone wanting to be the
first to visit Sirius of those that could afford it when it becomes affordable and
such a mere handful are going to try and a few just might swoop down into the
atmosphere and become a one time UFO for the natives if any.

But then there would be government research. Given the progress we can expect in
the next few decades, much less centuries they will be like NASA. After the first
few things that grab the public imagination it will become a question of funding
in exchange for results. Mapping the first new solar system will get a boost in
funding. Around the tenth or so it will be back page news and funding will decline
accordingly. A lander on the most earthlike planet in all ten systems will gain
attention and funding for a few mapping a few more solar systems but that will
wear off. And the way such an organization will have to work is with few of a kind
exploration vehicles and equipment. That kind of thing becomes more expensive with
each generation.

In summary, I see no reason why would colonize the universe and if we should
think about it, population growth on a new planet (after terraforming which would
mostly likely require destroying the entire native biosphere) likely very slow
because of the opportunity cost of having children. So then we don't get that
planet colonizing for a very long time if ever.

Given today's assumptions, with a million worlds with intelligent life even a
billion years more advanced there is no reason to expect to see any sign of them.

Of course we cannot expect to see the motivation of people a century from now
much less of alien cultures but it is the assumption they are just like us, with
Age of Exploration and industrial revolution assumptions, which leads to the Fermi
paradox. We should no longer be working on the premises which lead to that paradox.

Are we to uninteresting to study or visit? I have no idea but unless there is
something extremely unique about us, even if we are known, we are down in the
noise in funding priorities. And if their public has lost interest in finding
other civilizations they are not likely to be looking very hard for more.

--
2003 July 09: Israel murders one Palestinian.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2776