To be completely paranoid ...

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

The problem I see with the idea of civilizations
evolving from Type I, II and then III (planet, sun, galaxy
power utilization) is that it doesn't really make sense.
Since there's likely no way to aggregate all that power,
each star is pretty much on it's own. So there's no
real advantage to massive star travel other than avoiding
the risk of your one planet from being wiped out.
Inhabiting more and more stars just gets you more
beings and more planets. Plus due to light speed
limitations, the vast numbers of more beings in that
civilization can't even communicate efficiently.
An advanced civilization could colonize a few star systems and
accomplish that to a good degree (besides gamma ray bursts which are
so hard to avoid that it's kind of pointless). Since the
rate of advancement seems to be hyperexponential, solutions
will almost certainly come before threats are likely to
occur so they might even stay with their own star.

Moving out into space doesn't buy more computational
power because of the hampering effect of light speed
delay, working down into microspace does. Since computation
seems to be a major goal of most civilizations we
could imagine (it is here, vis Moore's law and so on)
I'd think aliens would not expend lots
of energy on moving out into space, but would put more
investigation into nanotechnology, quantum physics,
string theory, etc. Advances into these areas would
likely reduce the visibility of super civilizations
to us and not increase it (the opposite of the Type I -
Type II - type III concept). If you push computational
efficiently to the max (reversible logic, etc), even
waste energy into space for us to see goes down.


Mark

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

The problem I see with the idea of civilizations
evolving from Type I, II and then III (planet, sun, galaxy
power utilization) is that it doesn't really make sense.
Since there's likely no way to aggregate all that power,
each star is pretty much on it's own. So there's no
real advantage to massive star travel other than avoiding
the risk of your one planet from being wiped out.
Inhabiting more and more stars just gets you more
beings and more planets. Plus due to light speed
limitations, the vast numbers of more beings in that
civilization can't even communicate efficiently.
An advanced civilization could colonize a few star systems and
accomplish that to a good degree (besides gamma ray bursts which are
so hard to avoid that it's kind of pointless). Since the
rate of advancement seems to be hyperexponential, solutions
will almost certainly come before threats are likely to
occur so they might even stay with their own star.

Moving out into space doesn't buy more computational
power because of the hampering effect of light speed
delay, working down into microspace does. Since computation
seems to be a major goal of most civilizations we
could imagine (it is here, vis Moore's law and so on)
I'd think aliens would not expend lots
of energy on moving out into space, but would put more
investigation into nanotechnology, quantum physics,
string theory, etc. Advances into these areas would
likely reduce the visibility of super civilizations
to us and not increase it (the opposite of the Type I -
Type II - type III concept). If you push computational
efficiently to the max (reversible logic, etc), even
waste energy into space for us to see goes down.


Mark

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

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

Hey, Borland's Paradox makes my brain hurt - I don't even want to *start*
contemplating Fermi's one.................

"Matt Giwer" wrote in message
...
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

Hey, Borland's Paradox makes my brain hurt - I don't even want to *start*
contemplating Fermi's one.................

"Matt Giwer" wrote in message
...
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

"Matt Giwer" wrote in message
m...
Joann Evans wrote:
[snippage]

Where are they? is as good a question as Why would they
care to show up?

When one considers the possibility of even a single
long-lived (many billions of years) civilization in the
galaxy, counting daughter colonies, generation ships,
outposts, and orbital and other way-stations, i.e.,
so-called Ancients or First Ones, the two questions devolve
into the same one--Fermi demands that they already be here
(in local interstellar space,) or at least close enough for
their activities to be easily detectable. So, perhaps it is
useful to at least list some of the more detailed reasons,
besides the simple distance one, the Ancients would/or could
not be here. Since YMMV, I will just start off with a few of
my most favored ones and ignore the multitude of others
possible; in particular, for now I'll not consider there are
_no_ Ancients, or the concept that, "we cannot even imagine
the motives and actions of such hyperadvanced
intelligences." [Hypotheses may not be independent and P
values below have not been normed to 100%.]

1. All civilizations find the costs and resources needed for
maintaining IS outposts etc etc and a cohesive identity for
any prolonged period are prohibitive for numerous possible
reasons.
My estimate of probability-low say, 20% Superadvanced civs
will solve such problems, particularly if enough time is
allowed.

2. Ancients, for several possible reasons, maintain silence,
practice the Prime Directive and stealth, and actively avoid
contact with "Primitives." This covers lots so P is high,
estd. 80%

3. Ancients completely withdraw from the field eventually.
Many reasons possible: they become pseudoimmortal and thus
fear risk of death by accidents, aliens, etc; They become
"Lotus Eaters" due to drugs or Virtual Reality pursuits
(cyberjacking practices of some sort.) Or, they simply
withdraw after so many years of acquiring and cataloging
info on all types of Primitives and their actions, and
enormous scientific data on the universe-IOW, "been there,
done that!" Very broad category - High P ~ 90%

4. Singularities or Transcendence other than (3.) Medium P
~ 20%

5. Unavoidable presently unknown or underestimated natural
physical "nemesis" factors inherent in IS travel. Low P ~
15%

OK that's enough for a start--each of these could be further
broken down to myriad factors if desired. As shown though,
(3) and (2) are my best bets.
....tonyC

"Matt Giwer" wrote in message
m...
Joann Evans wrote:
[snippage]

Where are they? is as good a question as Why would they
care to show up?

When one considers the possibility of even a single
long-lived (many billions of years) civilization in the
galaxy, counting daughter colonies, generation ships,
outposts, and orbital and other way-stations, i.e.,
so-called Ancients or First Ones, the two questions devolve
into the same one--Fermi demands that they already be here
(in local interstellar space,) or at least close enough for
their activities to be easily detectable. So, perhaps it is
useful to at least list some of the more detailed reasons,
besides the simple distance one, the Ancients would/or could
not be here. Since YMMV, I will just start off with a few of
my most favored ones and ignore the multitude of others
possible; in particular, for now I'll not consider there are
_no_ Ancients, or the concept that, "we cannot even imagine
the motives and actions of such hyperadvanced
intelligences." [Hypotheses may not be independent and P
values below have not been normed to 100%.]

1. All civilizations find the costs and resources needed for
maintaining IS outposts etc etc and a cohesive identity for
any prolonged period are prohibitive for numerous possible
reasons.
My estimate of probability-low say, 20% Superadvanced civs
will solve such problems, particularly if enough time is
allowed.

2. Ancients, for several possible reasons, maintain silence,
practice the Prime Directive and stealth, and actively avoid
contact with "Primitives." This covers lots so P is high,
estd. 80%

3. Ancients completely withdraw from the field eventually.
Many reasons possible: they become pseudoimmortal and thus
fear risk of death by accidents, aliens, etc; They become
"Lotus Eaters" due to drugs or Virtual Reality pursuits
(cyberjacking practices of some sort.) Or, they simply
withdraw after so many years of acquiring and cataloging
info on all types of Primitives and their actions, and
enormous scientific data on the universe-IOW, "been there,
done that!" Very broad category - High P ~ 90%

4. Singularities or Transcendence other than (3.) Medium P
~ 20%

5. Unavoidable presently unknown or underestimated natural
physical "nemesis" factors inherent in IS travel. Low P ~
15%

OK that's enough for a start--each of these could be further
broken down to myriad factors if desired. As shown though,
(3) and (2) are my best bets.
....tonyC