|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The Fermi Paradox and Economics
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 '$', anywhere in the fundamental SI units, constants and quantities tables at : http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net/science.htm#units Economics is not a science, but you are a demonstrated moron. Now I have to killfile you on this newsgroup too. Thomas Lee Elifritz http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The Fermi Paradox and Economics
October 27, 2003
John Ordover wrote in message : Here's a solution to the Fermi Paradox ... It's not a paradox, it's a conjecture. Anyway - thoughts? I can't seem to find the quantities 'dollar', denoted by the symbol '$', 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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The Fermi Paradox and Economics
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 '$', anywhere in the fundamental SI units, constants and quantities tables at : http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net/science.htm#units Economics is not a science, but you are a demonstrated moron. Now I have to killfile you on this newsgroup too. Thomas Lee Elifritz http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The Fermi Paradox and Economics
The allocation of resources is a non-trival problem for any
civilization. You can call that dollars, or you can call it anything you like - if space travel burns up far more resources than it brings in, it's not sustainable. On 27 Oct 2003 17:00:48 -0800, (Thomas Lee Elifritz) wrote: October 27, 2003 John Ordover wrote in message : Here's a solution to the Fermi Paradox ... It's not a paradox, it's a conjecture. Anyway - thoughts? I can't seem to find the quantities 'dollar', denoted by the symbol '$', 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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The Fermi Paradox and Economics
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The Fermi Paradox and Economics
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
The Fermi Paradox and Economics
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The Fermi Paradox and Economics
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
The Fermi Paradox and Economics
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Our future as a species - Fermi Paradox revisted - Where they all are | william mook | Policy | 157 | November 19th 03 12:19 AM |