Our future as a species - Fermi Paradox revisted - Where they all are

Sander Vesik wrote:

ORDOVER wrote:
Humanity has always progressed by expanding its range using technology

Not really - it has occassionally, but the vast majority of the human
colonization of the earth was done by people who set up housekeeping just down
the road from where they came from - then generation after generation did just
the same thing.

This is hardly true as both simple math and archelogy will tell you.

Not to mention Polynesian migration, where the nature of the
colonization meant taking rather larger 'quantum leaps' to unoccupied
territories...

Joann Evans wrote:
Sander Vesik wrote:

ORDOVER wrote:
Humanity has always progressed by expanding its range using technology

Not really - it has occassionally, but the vast majority of the human
colonization of the earth was done by people who set up housekeeping just down
the road from where they came from - then generation after generation did just
the same thing.

This is hardly true as both simple math and archelogy will tell you.

Not to mention Polynesian migration, where the nature of the
colonization meant taking rather larger 'quantum leaps' to unoccupied
territories...

Heh. How come peopel always forget the settling of americas? Its a
long way from Barens Sea to Southern Peru and was made mainly
(you almost could say exlusively, but that assertation contains some unknowns)
on foot. And hardly at setting up home just down the road speeds.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Joann Evans wrote in message ...
Sander Vesik wrote:

ORDOVER wrote:
Humanity has always progressed by expanding its range using technology

Not really - it has occassionally, but the vast majority of the human
colonization of the earth was done by people who set up housekeeping just down
the road from where they came from - then generation after generation did just
the same thing.



This is hardly true as both simple math and archelogy will tell you.

Not to mention Polynesian migration, where the nature of the
colonization meant taking rather larger 'quantum leaps' to unoccupied
territories...

The Polynesian migration is a teeny, tiny portion of worldwide
migration, and very recent. Human migration began when homo sapiens
walked out of Africa and found its way as far as the tip of South
America and the artic circle - on foot.

Very recent expeditions - in the last few thousand years, tops - by
ship brought more people, but found that most areas already had human
beings who didn't get there by ship - they walked.

Newton's third law still works. It's not the physics, it's the the
economics. As the technology matures, the level of justification
steadily drops. Somewhere, even interstellar flight may have reached the
private expedition or 'hobby' stage. At which point, an 'economic
return' isn't required at all. (Which doesn't mean there will never be
one.)

If the physics of the univere aren't such that there is a way to make
the ecomonics feasible, then it can't be sustained.

Joann Evans :

Sander Vesik wrote:

ORDOVER wrote:
Humanity has always progressed by expanding its range using technology

Not really - it has occassionally, but the vast majority of the human
colonization of the earth was done by people who set up housekeeping
just down
the road from where they came from - then generation after generation
did just
the same thing.

This is hardly true as both simple math and archelogy will tell you.

Not to mention Polynesian migration, where the nature of the
colonization meant taking rather larger 'quantum leaps' to unoccupied
territories...

Or where mountains or deserts had to be cross before finding good land again.

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

John Ordover wrote:
Newton's third law still works. It's not the physics, it's the the
economics. As the technology matures, the level of justification
steadily drops. Somewhere, even interstellar flight may have reached the
private expedition or 'hobby' stage. At which point, an 'economic
return' isn't required at all. (Which doesn't mean there will never be
one.)

If the physics of the univere aren't such that there is a way to make
the ecomonics feasible, then it can't be sustained.

Assuming that capitalism is the dominant force in the universe.

It seems likely that at a very minimum, a colony mission with a couple
of people (and a sperm collection) will be technically possible at some
time in the future.
Commerce between colonies established this way would probably largely be
information.
All you need is for a colony to have enough success to be able to
launch its own colony mission, and you've got expansion.


--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
"Melchett : Unhappily Blackadder, the Lord High Executioner is dead
Blackadder : Oh woe! Murdered of course.
Melchett : No, oddly enough no. They usually are but this one just got
careless one night and signed his name on the wrong dotted line.
They came for him while he slept." - Blackadder II

John Ordover wrote:

(pete) wrote in message ...
on 04 Oct 2003 01:28:41 GMT, ORDOVER sez:

[Wish you would set your margins for a reasonable line length.
72 characters is usenet standard. Quotes of your text are
thus ragged and crappy to read.]

` Humanity has always progressed by expanding its range using technology

` Not really - it has occassionally, but the vast majority of the human
` colonization of the earth was done by people who set up housekeeping
` just down
` the road from where they came from - then generation after generation
` did just
` the same thing.
` The vast majority of the human inhabited surface of the earth was
` settled in
` paleo- and neo-lithic times by people who just walked there. It's
` comparatively recently that ships of any kind were employed.

` My answer to the Fermi paradox is quite simple - space travel is
` economically
` unsustainable - it always costs more in resources than it brings in.
` So no
` species anywhere in the galaxy can afford it over the long haul.

A stupendously anthropocentric viewpoint on the priorities of
ET species economies. It is no strain to imagine, perhaps on
a planet where multiple intelligent species evolved, or where
competition for reproductive success, and/or new territory for
one's offspring became a very powerful instinctive drive, a
technological species whose need to spread their descendants
onto every available solid surface in the universe became as
strong as the sex drive is in humans. What is possible in an
economy is all about priorities.

If you prioritize space travel over food and medical care, you don't
survive. If their reproductive drive is that strong, it will lead
them to destruction, not successful colonization. Just wanting to go
to space really really badly won't make space travel economically
sustainable, call it sex drive or call it anything else. If the
physics isn't there, it isn't there.

So you're a physicist?

(John Ordover) wrote in message . com...
Newton's third law still works. It's not the physics, it's the the
economics. As the technology matures, the level of justification
steadily drops. Somewhere, even interstellar flight may have reached the
private expedition or 'hobby' stage. At which point, an 'economic
return' isn't required at all. (Which doesn't mean there will never be
one.)

If the physics of the univere aren't such that there is a way to make
the ecomonics feasible, then it can't be sustained.

True. But this statement avoids the obvious point. Do the physics of
the universe permit economically feasible space travel? The answer is
obviously yes, provided the universe permits a continuing decreasing
cost of momentum. As the cost of momentum declines the viability of
space travel improves. Since the relation of the surface of Earth -
or similar planet - to the rest of the cosmos is well defined, we know
what these costs have to be to achieve interesting technologies that
are profitable across the universe.

Already for instance, we have profitable activities revolving around
the suborbital delivery of nuclear weapons and the delivery of
orbiting communication and sensing sets. Its clear that as the cost
of momentum declines we will add orbiting power plants and capture
asteroids to use as feedstocks to orbiting factories. Continuing the
decline in cost of momentum we will repeat this cycle of development
before engaging in low-cost star travel. Thus we will have suborbital
delivery of packages to be followed by the subortibal delivery of
people and then delivery of people to orbit. This will allow people
to live in space in a big way. We will then begin to move space homes
from orbit to traverse the solar system.

At this point we will begin to cost-effectively send probes, then
people, then space homes - from star to star.

Momentum figures typical of mission

10,000 km range delivery 0.1 ton 400,000 kg-m/sec
Orbit 1.0 ton 8 million kg-m/sec
Cislunar 10.0 ton 160 million kg-m/sec
Interplanetary 100.0 ton 3,200 million kg-m/sec

Cost figures typical of mission

CYCLE 1
ICBM $10 million $25.00/kg-m/sec
Satellite $50 million $6.25/kg-m/sec
Lunar $250 million $1.57/kg-m/sec
Planetary $1,250 million $0.39/kg-m/sec

CYCLE 2
Ballistic $32 100 grams $0.080/kg-m/sec
Space Home $16,000 100 kg $0.016/kg-m/sec
Lunar $4,800 100 kg $0.003/kg-m/sec
Planetary $2,000 100 kg $0.0006/kg-m/sec

The physics of this is pretty straight-forward.

(1) ICBM Chemical Rockets
(2) Satellite Multi-stage chemical rockets
(3) Lunar Fully reusable multi-stage chemical rockets
(4) Planetary Fully reusable nuclear pulse rockets
(5) Ballistic - Laser Sustained Detonation
(6) Space Home - Laser Sustained Detonation
(7) Lunar - Laser Light Sail
(8) Planetary - Laser Light Sail

Then, with advanced laser light sails, interstellar journeys becomes
possible.

Beyond that, synthetic black holes become possible.

With that, very advanced systems become possible and economically
feasible.

Sander Vesik wrote in message ...
ORDOVER wrote:
Humanity has always progressed by expanding its range using technology

Not really - it has occassionally, but the vast majority of the human
colonization of the earth was done by people who set up housekeeping just down
the road from where they came from - then generation after generation did just
the same thing.

This is hardly true as both simple math and archelogy will tell you.

The vast majority of the human inhabited surface of the earth was settled in
paleo- and neo-lithic times by people who just walked there. It's
comparatively recently that ships of any kind were employed.

My answer to the Fermi paradox is quite simple - space travel is economically
unsustainable - it always costs more in resources than it brings in. So no
species anywhere in the galaxy can afford it over the long haul.


yes, we already know your answer...



John Ordover


While its clear that a society must generate sufficient wealth from
space faring activity to sustain that activity (regardless of how
capital is organised or accounted for) - arguing that the Fermi
paradox is answered by the argument above misunderstands the question
Fermi asked. Fermi knew that interstellar travel was economically
feasible with nuclear power given the energies of nuclear reactions
and the energies required of interstellar travel. If you are saying
he's wrong with his question (as you do so above) then you must
provide a detailed analysis of how he was wrong.

Since humanity now spends about 10% of its disposable income on
transport, we can assume that it can do so in the future. The globe
spends about $40 trillion per year total - so this infers $4 trillion
per year on transport. Half of this is spent on recurring costs half
spent on maintaining capital. So, this supports about $10 trillion in
capital and a population of 27 million people out of a global
population of about 7,000 million.

If humanity's economic capacity grows at 3.5% per annum, it doubles
every 20 years. So, in 200 years we'll have 1000x the economic output
we have today. That means that we'll have $10 quadrillion of capital
and if productivity increases faster tan economic capacity we'll have
fewer people, maybe as few as 3 million - depending - working the
system. We'll still have $2 quadrillion per year in recurring costs -
but labor is likely to be a far far less cost than raw materials and
such.

Investments in space faring technologies are likely to reduce the cost
of momentum by a factor of a 1,000 over this same period. So, we'll
be able to buy 1 million times the momentum we can buy today.

An orbiting satellite massing 1 metric ton uses a rocket costing $50
million. Orbital speed is 8,000 m/sec. That's a momentum of 8
million kg-m/sec. At a cost of $50 million that's $6.25 per kg-m/sec.

In 200 years with the economic assumptions described here we will be
capable of projecting that ton across the solar system at 1 gee for
$500.

The speed of light is 300,000,000 m/sec. So, in 200 years for the
same price as sending a rocket to space we'd be capable of 12,500 tons
at 1/3 light speed through the interstellar space. A 1 ton pay load
would cost $4,000 to accelerate to this speed.

Of course economic growth curves don't guarantee physical systems to
back them up. But elsewhere I have done a preliminary analysis of the
physics - absent economic analysis.

Plainly, we can use a wide range of technical means to solve this
problem. Clearly in an environment of innovation and free capital
formation we have the capacity to solve this problem.

This is Fermi's point. The availability of low cost nuclear energy -
and today we can add the availability of low cost solar laser systems
- indicate star travel will one day be common place.

Of course with 200 years of economic growth the average income will be
something like 100 times what it is today - so even in the poorest
regions of the human space we'll be far below the replacement level
(any incomes above $15,000 per person per year lead to reproductive
declines below replacement, that's why cultures as diverse as Europe,
US, Japan, etc., import workers) In 200 years time ALL humanity will
suffer this decline, and create robotic workers to deal with it.

Sander Vesik wrote:

Joann Evans wrote:
Sander Vesik wrote:

ORDOVER wrote:
Humanity has always progressed by expanding its range using technology

Not really - it has occassionally, but the vast majority of the human
colonization of the earth was done by people who set up housekeeping just down
the road from where they came from - then generation after generation did just
the same thing.

This is hardly true as both simple math and archelogy will tell you.

Not to mention Polynesian migration, where the nature of the
colonization meant taking rather larger 'quantum leaps' to unoccupied
territories...

Heh. How come peopel always forget the settling of americas? Its a
long way from Barens Sea to Southern Peru and was made mainly
(you almost could say exlusively, but that assertation contains some unknowns)
on foot. And hardly at setting up home just down the road speeds.


True, but once you reach a continent, you can expand/migrate as
slowly, over any essentially arbitrary distance as you like, or your
circumstances (non-depleted hunting/agricultrual territories, safe
distance from some undesirable cultural/social system, etc.) require.
But Pacific island-hopping (or interstellar travel) doesn't leave any
in-between. You get all the way to the other island (or star, for more
energy and matter to work with) or you don't. Nothing but salt water (or
vacuum and feeble starlight) in between.