The Fermi Paradox and Economics

Here's a solution to the Fermi Paradox that I haven't seen around
before.


Lots of the talk about the Fermi Paradox contains the hidden
assumption that space travel is economically maintainable - that it
can be done in bulk, because it will bring in as much in resources as
it uses up.

There's really no reason to assume that.

If lightspeed -is- the limiting factor for travel and communication in
the universe, it's hard to see what the economic gain would be from
building a ship, travelling to another world, digging something up and
bringing it back. It would take an extremely long time, and while
such an expedidtion would find much of huge scientific interest it
would most likely be hugely expensive as well,and not regularly
repeatable.

Communication through space would also be non-productive - waiting
decades or centuries or even longer for a response to a query doesn't
seem productive to me (although maybe there's a cosmic usenet outthere
where you can post and download thousands of messages posted by other
species throughout time)

Or assume that FTL travel -is- possible, but it's dreadfully and
irreducibly expensive - like a trillion dollars per ship in Earth
terms. How often would it be done? Would it be done at all?

We're not even returning to the Moon any time soon because there was
no economic motivation to do so - if there had been money to be made
off a presence on the Moon, GE would have been there since the 70s.
It's reasonable to think that perhaps the same factors are keeping
alien civilizations - whatever their "Type number" - from expanding
throughout the galaxy.

Anyway - thoughts?

October 27, 2003

John Ordover wrote in message :

Here's a solution to the Fermi Paradox ...

It's not a paradox, it's a conjecture.

Anyway - thoughts?

I can't seem to find the quantities 'dollar', denoted by the symbol
'$', anywhere in the fundamental SI units, constants and quantities
tables at :

http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net/science.htm#units

Economics is not a science, but you are a demonstrated moron.

Now I have to killfile you on this newsgroup too.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

October 27, 2003

John Ordover wrote in message :

Here's a solution to the Fermi Paradox ...

It's not a paradox, it's a conjecture.

Anyway - thoughts?

I can't seem to find the quantities 'dollar', denoted by the symbol
'$', anywhere in the fundamental SI units, constants and quantities
tables at :

http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net/science.htm#units

Economics is not a science, but you are a demonstrated moron.

Now I have to killfile you on this newsgroup too.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

The allocation of resources is a non-trival problem for any
civilization. You can call that dollars, or you can call it anything
you like - if space travel burns up far more resources than it brings
in, it's not sustainable.





On 27 Oct 2003 17:00:48 -0800, (Thomas Lee
Elifritz) wrote:

October 27, 2003

John Ordover wrote in message :

Here's a solution to the Fermi Paradox ...

It's not a paradox, it's a conjecture.

Anyway - thoughts?

I can't seem to find the quantities 'dollar', denoted by the symbol
'$', anywhere in the fundamental SI units, constants and quantities
tables at :

http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net/science.htm#units

Economics is not a science, but you are a demonstrated moron.

Now I have to killfile you on this newsgroup too.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

The allocation of resources is a non-trival problem for any
civilization. You can call that dollars, or you can call it anything
you like - if space travel burns up far more resources than it brings
in, it's not sustainable.





On 27 Oct 2003 17:00:48 -0800, (Thomas Lee
Elifritz) wrote:

October 27, 2003

John Ordover wrote in message :

Here's a solution to the Fermi Paradox ...

It's not a paradox, it's a conjecture.

Anyway - thoughts?

I can't seem to find the quantities 'dollar', denoted by the symbol
'$', anywhere in the fundamental SI units, constants and quantities
tables at :

http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net/science.htm#units

Economics is not a science, but you are a demonstrated moron.

Now I have to killfile you on this newsgroup too.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

John Ordover wrote:

Here's a solution to the Fermi Paradox that I haven't seen around
before.


Lots of the talk about the Fermi Paradox contains the hidden assumption
that space travel is economically maintainable - that it can be done in
bulk, because it will bring in as much in resources as it uses up.
snip

Or assume that FTL travel -is- possible, but it's dreadfully and
irreducibly expensive - like a trillion dollars per ship in Earth terms.
How often would it be done? Would it be done at all?
snip

Anyway - thoughts?

I think money, or effort (whatever you prefer to call it) is the best
explanation for why they aren't here and why when haven't heard from them.

While there are so many planets in our galaxy, and so many galaxies in the
universe that intelligent life besides ourselves is a near certainty, the
distance separating us is such that we will likely never interact by
signals (radio, laser, whatever) much less in person.

Technology is sure to have limits. What those limits are, is not possible
for us to know now. But it may well be that no one ever has technology
that enables interstellar travel beyond the closer stars to a
species home star.

--
Tony Sivori

John Ordover wrote:

Here's a solution to the Fermi Paradox that I haven't seen around
before.


Lots of the talk about the Fermi Paradox contains the hidden assumption
that space travel is economically maintainable - that it can be done in
bulk, because it will bring in as much in resources as it uses up.
snip

Or assume that FTL travel -is- possible, but it's dreadfully and
irreducibly expensive - like a trillion dollars per ship in Earth terms.
How often would it be done? Would it be done at all?
snip

Anyway - thoughts?

I think money, or effort (whatever you prefer to call it) is the best
explanation for why they aren't here and why when haven't heard from them.

While there are so many planets in our galaxy, and so many galaxies in the
universe that intelligent life besides ourselves is a near certainty, the
distance separating us is such that we will likely never interact by
signals (radio, laser, whatever) much less in person.

Technology is sure to have limits. What those limits are, is not possible
for us to know now. But it may well be that no one ever has technology
that enables interstellar travel beyond the closer stars to a
species home star.

--
Tony Sivori

Wasn't it John Ordover who wrote:
Here's a solution to the Fermi Paradox that I haven't seen around
before.


Lots of the talk about the Fermi Paradox contains the hidden
assumption that space travel is economically maintainable - that it
can be done in bulk, because it will bring in as much in resources as
it uses up.

The Fermi Paradox runs quite happily if interstellar space travel is one
way and each colony only ever sends out two interstellar colony-starting
ships.

I've never heard anyone state the Fermi Paradox in a form that requires
economically sustainable interstellar flight.

--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure

Wasn't it John Ordover who wrote:
Here's a solution to the Fermi Paradox that I haven't seen around
before.


Lots of the talk about the Fermi Paradox contains the hidden
assumption that space travel is economically maintainable - that it
can be done in bulk, because it will bring in as much in resources as
it uses up.

The Fermi Paradox runs quite happily if interstellar space travel is one
way and each colony only ever sends out two interstellar colony-starting
ships.

I've never heard anyone state the Fermi Paradox in a form that requires
economically sustainable interstellar flight.

--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 05:23:38 +0000, Mike Williams
wrote:

Wasn't it John Ordover who wrote:
Here's a solution to the Fermi Paradox that I haven't seen around
before.


Lots of the talk about the Fermi Paradox contains the hidden
assumption that space travel is economically maintainable - that it
can be done in bulk, because it will bring in as much in resources as
it uses up.

The Fermi Paradox runs quite happily if interstellar space travel is one
way and each colony only ever sends out two interstellar colony-starting
ships.

I've never heard anyone state the Fermi Paradox in a form that requires
economically sustainable interstellar flight.


But why, exactly, would any planet do that? It would accomplish
nothing but throwing away resources. Colonization is done for the
benefit of the home country, not for the benefit of the colonists.



It also assumes that colonies can be established economically, because
already-habitable planets in other systems are there to be found.

We of Earth live within a very narrow range of conditions. The
theory that there's another planet out there somewhere that just
happens to have the same temperture zone we do, plus the same
atmospheric constitution that we need, plus an ecology that is
compatable with ours where we can eat their animals, or at least our
animals can eat their plants, or at least we can grow our plants in
their soil, is to say the least, unconvincing. The same probabilty
holds true for any other intelligent species out there.

Are their other intelligences out there? Probably, because chances
are we're not unique. But there's a hidden assumption that if we meet
another intelligent species, they will live in an environment
compatiable with ours. The chances that we will ever find a planet we
can land on, pop off our space helmets and pluck an alien fruit and
eat it are vanishingly small. We can't even live on most of our own
planet, because it's covered in ocean.

So the idea that you send out two interstellar ships per colony, and
-they- find a habitable planet, where they can build a civilization
capable of sending out another two colony ships (and that chooses to
throw away resources in that manner), and they tell two friends, and
so on, isn't very probable.