Space expansion loving civilization

There have been many posts as to why a civilization which would not expand into the
galaxy. I have posted at least one. They are all based upon social assumptions. The basic
question is why would a civilization want to split off. But then the question is why do we
not see that as a basic impulse.

There are a couple of SF models, the Protectors and the K'zin. Intelligent species that
have strict blood line loyalties. If such species can make progress to the point where
they realize interstellar colonization is possible and if they realize their genetic
disposition to kill off members of other clans is holding them back they might agree to
head off to the great beyond for their own worlds.

That is much too simple but it is not quite possible to envision what an intelligent
species might do in a fully populated world. Say an ant or bee society runs a planet and
as they rule it when a nest sends out new queens and drones, nothing happens as there is
no place to settle as their world is settled. Such a species cannot get along with
neighbors. When they understand themselves enough spreading themselves across the stars to
new habitats is the normal thing to do.

Once it is realized as being possible it becomes part of the procreative drive much more
than a rocket as a phallic symbol.

This is just one scenario as opposed to our generally cooperative species as long as we
can kill off 10% ever decade or so to get rid of the bad blood. And species that simply
cannot get along and which takes may 100 million years after achieving intelligence
develops the knowledge and ability to start over some place else will do so. It only takes
one and another 100 million years to be here in the Fermi sense.

I have three or four other posts in the last month with the premise that a million years
is next to nothing that I think show every reason why they are not here can have
alternate. All of our reasons are anthropomorphic. I gave one based upon our approach to
science not even us as a species. So that was localized to just our current approach to
science.

So we are left with

1) if we are average then there are a very large number of intelligent species and we see
no signs of them.

2) if we are unique then there is something unique about this particular planet and solar
system which is eluding us.

3) if we are statistically unlikely there are so many stars that it has to be a very
small probability

But everything we have learned since Fermi supports 1).

4) there is no excuse with survives the extra 100 million years of progress option
without assuming we are the first and most advanced.

4a) someone always has to be first and will ask the same questions.

and finally

....

99) this is all a virtual reality program and we will likely return it to the store and
demand a refund as this game is boring and does not make sense.

99a) in the middle of seeing Matrix Revolutions it will end and this will be seen as a
trailer for Earth II: The Final Chapter

Which leads us back to 4a as the only reasonable option if we continue to continue to
discount every one of the reported encounters with other intelligent species.

The discounting should be some day on a rational and consistant grounds of physical
evidence and amateurs should be be permitted to participate. Not that I expect this to be
fruitful.

The problem is in 1976 life was detected on Mars. And the overwhelming response was to
explain it away. We explain away all UFOs. I expect if S@H detects a series of prime
number we will suddenly discover how nature can produce them naturally and the detection
will be explained away.

There is a middle ground between Agent Mulder and Agent Scully.

And that statement is a problem. As a species were are perpetually into two sides only.
Can there not be a third, fourth, fifth, and so forth position? As a species we do not and
perhaps cannot deal with more than two position, Prime Wolf and Wannabe Prime Wolf.
Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

But as scientists we are hardly allowed the simplistic luxury of light and dark, good and
evil, that was created around 1000-600 BC just because it is comfortable.

--
The most important thing never said about Ghandi is he
chose non-violence because he decided he could not win
using violence. Non-violence is not peace. It is a
strategy for victory.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2878

I have three or four other posts in the last month with the premise that a million years
is next to nothing that I think show every reason why they are not here can have
alternate. All of our reasons are anthropomorphic. I gave one based upon our approach to
science not even us as a species. So that was localized to just our current approach to
science.


If, in fact, it costs way more in resources to travel in space then
space travel brings in, then any civilization that devotes itself to
it for whatever reason will be unable to sustain both itself and the
space travel - so it will either stop the travel or die out.

That is not at all anthropomorphic - those are what "The Cold
Equations" might turn out to be.

I have three or four other posts in the last month with the premise that a million years
is next to nothing that I think show every reason why they are not here can have
alternate. All of our reasons are anthropomorphic. I gave one based upon our approach to
science not even us as a species. So that was localized to just our current approach to
science.


If, in fact, it costs way more in resources to travel in space then
space travel brings in, then any civilization that devotes itself to
it for whatever reason will be unable to sustain both itself and the
space travel - so it will either stop the travel or die out.

That is not at all anthropomorphic - those are what "The Cold
Equations" might turn out to be.

In John Ordover writes:


I have three or four other posts in the last month with the premise that a million years
is next to nothing that I think show every reason why they are not here can have
alternate. All of our reasons are anthropomorphic. I gave one based upon our approach to
science not even us as a species. So that was localized to just our current approach to
science.


If, in fact, it costs way more in resources to travel in space then
space travel brings in, then any civilization that devotes itself to
it for whatever reason will be unable to sustain both itself and the
space travel - so it will either stop the travel or die out.

Not so. If the "waste" of resources due to space travel is less
than the difference between the resources the civilization needs
to sustain itself and those it can obtain from other sources
then it can do both. You are arguing as though the only choices
were all resources used for space travel or none.

That is not at all anthropomorphic - those are what "The Cold
Equations" might turn out to be.
--
Remove any bits of tatt after the at in my address to reply

In John Ordover writes:


I have three or four other posts in the last month with the premise that a million years
is next to nothing that I think show every reason why they are not here can have
alternate. All of our reasons are anthropomorphic. I gave one based upon our approach to
science not even us as a species. So that was localized to just our current approach to
science.


If, in fact, it costs way more in resources to travel in space then
space travel brings in, then any civilization that devotes itself to
it for whatever reason will be unable to sustain both itself and the
space travel - so it will either stop the travel or die out.

Not so. If the "waste" of resources due to space travel is less
than the difference between the resources the civilization needs
to sustain itself and those it can obtain from other sources
then it can do both. You are arguing as though the only choices
were all resources used for space travel or none.

That is not at all anthropomorphic - those are what "The Cold
Equations" might turn out to be.
--
Remove any bits of tatt after the at in my address to reply

On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 20:22:29 GMT, Phil Turner
wrote:

In John Ordover writes:


I have three or four other posts in the last month with the premise that a million years
is next to nothing that I think show every reason why they are not here can have
alternate. All of our reasons are anthropomorphic. I gave one based upon our approach to
science not even us as a species. So that was localized to just our current approach to
science.


If, in fact, it costs way more in resources to travel in space then
space travel brings in, then any civilization that devotes itself to
it for whatever reason will be unable to sustain both itself and the
space travel - so it will either stop the travel or die out.

Not so. If the "waste" of resources due to space travel is less
than the difference between the resources the civilization needs
to sustain itself and those it can obtain from other sources
then it can do both. You are arguing as though the only choices
were all resources used for space travel or none.

.....which only means that if they can afford to do both they can do
both, and what I'm saying is that it's possible that space travel is
so draining of resources that it is impossible to sustain both a
civilization and space travel at the same time - and you need a
civilization to sustain space travel.

It's also possible, of course, that space travel is cheap and easy,
but if it is, we don't know how to do the cheap and easy way.

That is not at all anthropomorphic - those are what "The Cold
Equations" might turn out to be.

On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 20:22:29 GMT, Phil Turner
wrote:

In John Ordover writes:


I have three or four other posts in the last month with the premise that a million years
is next to nothing that I think show every reason why they are not here can have
alternate. All of our reasons are anthropomorphic. I gave one based upon our approach to
science not even us as a species. So that was localized to just our current approach to
science.


If, in fact, it costs way more in resources to travel in space then
space travel brings in, then any civilization that devotes itself to
it for whatever reason will be unable to sustain both itself and the
space travel - so it will either stop the travel or die out.

Not so. If the "waste" of resources due to space travel is less
than the difference between the resources the civilization needs
to sustain itself and those it can obtain from other sources
then it can do both. You are arguing as though the only choices
were all resources used for space travel or none.

.....which only means that if they can afford to do both they can do
both, and what I'm saying is that it's possible that space travel is
so draining of resources that it is impossible to sustain both a
civilization and space travel at the same time - and you need a
civilization to sustain space travel.

It's also possible, of course, that space travel is cheap and easy,
but if it is, we don't know how to do the cheap and easy way.

That is not at all anthropomorphic - those are what "The Cold
Equations" might turn out to be.

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 12:49:44 GMT, Matt Giwer
wrote:

John Ordover wrote:
I have three or four other posts in the last month with the premise that a million years
is next to nothing that I think show every reason why they are not here can have
alternate. All of our reasons are anthropomorphic. I gave one based upon our approach to
science not even us as a species. So that was localized to just our current approach to
science.

If, in fact, it costs way more in resources to travel in space then
space travel brings in, then any civilization that devotes itself to
it for whatever reason will be unable to sustain both itself and the
space travel - so it will either stop the travel or die out.

That is not at all anthropomorphic - those are what "The Cold
Equations" might turn out to be.

I have made several long posts showing there is no economic argument once the focus of
civilization shifts to low earth orbit. They are fairly straight forward. I hesitate to
recite them again a fifth time.

But since it never will, since there's no profit source, the arguments
are fallacious.



In summary once on LEO the energetics of raw material transport are cheaper from
non-earth sources than from Earth sources.

But we won't do that.

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 12:49:44 GMT, Matt Giwer
wrote:

John Ordover wrote:
I have three or four other posts in the last month with the premise that a million years
is next to nothing that I think show every reason why they are not here can have
alternate. All of our reasons are anthropomorphic. I gave one based upon our approach to
science not even us as a species. So that was localized to just our current approach to
science.

If, in fact, it costs way more in resources to travel in space then
space travel brings in, then any civilization that devotes itself to
it for whatever reason will be unable to sustain both itself and the
space travel - so it will either stop the travel or die out.

That is not at all anthropomorphic - those are what "The Cold
Equations" might turn out to be.

I have made several long posts showing there is no economic argument once the focus of
civilization shifts to low earth orbit. They are fairly straight forward. I hesitate to
recite them again a fifth time.

But since it never will, since there's no profit source, the arguments
are fallacious.



In summary once on LEO the energetics of raw material transport are cheaper from
non-earth sources than from Earth sources.

But we won't do that.

John Ordover wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 12:49:44 GMT, Matt Giwer
wrote:

John Ordover wrote:

I have three or four other posts in the last month with the premise that a million years
is next to nothing that I think show every reason why they are not here can have
alternate. All of our reasons are anthropomorphic. I gave one based upon our approach to
science not even us as a species. So that was localized to just our current approach to
science.

If, in fact, it costs way more in resources to travel in space then
space travel brings in, then any civilization that devotes itself to
it for whatever reason will be unable to sustain both itself and the
space travel - so it will either stop the travel or die out.

That is not at all anthropomorphic - those are what "The Cold
Equations" might turn out to be.

I have made several long posts showing there is no economic argument once the focus of
civilization shifts to low earth orbit. They are fairly straight forward. I hesitate to
recite them again a fifth time.

But since it never will, since there's no profit source, the arguments
are fallacious.

Why would not an economy develop centered on settlements in space? Every place people
have gone an economy develops. What makes space different? They have iron and stoney
asteriods and comets for water and oxygen. Why would they pay more to haul it up from
earth than it costs to get from further out?

In summary once on LEO the energetics of raw material transport are cheaper from
non-earth sources than from Earth sources.

But we won't do that.

Why not? If you were raising your family in LEO or L5 just as your parents raised you
there, why would you want to pay the higher price for "genuine earth" products?

--
Bye, Bye, Birdie. The mother says she is committing suicide
by putting her head in the kitchen oven. The son says,
"Don't worry, it's electric." Holocaust stories used to be
a joke for Broadway and Hollywood.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2881