The Fermi Paradox and SETI Success

In talk.origins Tim Tyler wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote:

The definition of evolutionary success is reproduction. Using
that paradigm I conclude that intelligence, however defined,
is totally useless for evolutionary success.

That's not logical. The same argument "proves" that sex,
multicellularity, DNA, lipid membranes and mitochondria
are "totally useless for evolutionary success".

Not really. My point was made too obscurely. Lots of
"unintelligent" things reproduce. Clearly intelligence
is not *required*.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

On Aug 14, 11:42*pm, Tim Tyler wrote:
Timberwoof wrote:
I suspect that just as when one system of biochemistry establishes the
pattern of life, things that use it will eat anything else that shows
up, it is likely that when one highly intelligent species shows up, it
will limit the opportunities for anything else to evolve into sentience.

Whales are not "highly intelligent", then?
--

No. They're all at or below sea level.

In talk.origins wrote:

[massive deletions]

Once again, the distinction between correlation and causality must be
explained.

The human population has increased in correlation with technological
innovation. That *does not* mean that if there is a small population,
technology will vanish. Indeed, if the population were to start
dropping tomorrow, it would likely *stimulate* the development of
technology to replace labor.

First-world high-tech high-consumption living standards are perfectly
'sustainable' as long as there are few enough people.

I agree. I suspect it would be far easier to create an
electric generator than to start over with stone age
technology.

After all, how many of us know how to chip stones so as to form
a proper stone age tool? But lots of us know the fundamentals of
building a generator.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

In message
, Inez
writes
On Aug 14, 11:42*pm, Tim Tyler wrote:
Timberwoof wrote:
I suspect that just as when one system of biochemistry establishes the
pattern of life, things that use it will eat anything else that shows
up, it is likely that when one highly intelligent species shows up, it
will limit the opportunities for anything else to evolve into sentience.

Whales are not "highly intelligent", then?
--

No. They're all at or below sea level.

Cough. Cough. River dolphins.
--
alias Ernest Major

Ben Standeven wrote:

we don't actually know that
some of those fossil animals weren't more intelligent than we are,
after all. They just didn't leave any signs of civilization, a hundred
million years later.

For extinct species, you can get clues from the shape of the brain case
and from its encephalization quotient: the ratio of brain mass to body
mass. As you would expect, humans have the highest ratio of brain mass
to body mass of any of the medium and larger sized animals today. (This
method breaks down for the smallest creatures like insects; obviously
you need an animal of sufficient size to have any decent functioning brain.)

The dinosaur Troodon had a brain mass to body mass ratio comparable to a
modern baboon. And I believe that's the highest such ratio for any of
the dinosaur genera. Most had a smaller ratio; the sauropods especially
so. The Permian fauna were even worse.

But even the brain case of Troodon shows that it didn't have prefrontal
lobes like the modern human brain or the modern dolphin brain. So was
it intelligent? Probably at the level of a monkey or a cat. Not like a
human or a dolphin.

Finally, notice that "civilization" advanced relatively rapidly once
humans developed those prefrontal lobes. In the space of just 150,000
years (which is tiny compared to the age of the earth), we advanced from
spears and stone axes to interplanetary spaceships. The dinosaurs had
160 million years to play around and never did any such thing--or they
would have been all through our Solar System by now. That tells you
they didn't have that level of intelligence. It's a kind of "Fermi
Paradox" applied to extinct species right here on earth.


--
Steven L.
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

"Robert Carnegie" wrote in message
...
Paul J Gans wrote:
The Drake equation assumes that the ETs will be blasting out
electromagnetic waves at a furious rate. *We* started doing
that only in around 1920 or so and already we are doing less
and less of it. By 2120 we could easily be using wired or
directed sources and no indiscriminate electromagnetic radiation
at all.

I'd look for industrial emissions, such as signals from the cross-
country electric power grid. But maybe we will quickly improve our
efficiency and reduce energy losses, or switch to a 100% hydrogen
economy.

I'm told that the United Kingdom is unique in having power demand
surges in the evening at particular times each day. This is because
certain television programmes have large numbers of viewers, and when
the programme breaks or ends, tea is brewed, by using electric
kettles. With digital choices, catch-up, and services such as
YouTube, this may soon change. (And anyway, I recently heard about it
once more from the people who broadcast the television programmes for
which claims are made.)


Especially at the end of the soap "East Enders". Last week a documentary
about Britain included the National Grid controller who keeps a TV on in the
control room, so he knows when the program ends, and he is able to bring up
the various hydroelectric pumped storage dynamos on time until the 50-Hz
average frequency is stabilized again.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

"Paul J Gans" wrote in message
...
In talk.origins John Wilkins wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote:

In talk.origins John Harshman wrote:
...
Yes, one solution would be for all civilizations to render themselves
undetectable very soon after becoming detectable. This assumes they
don't go in for travel or communication, and never make noticeable
changes to their habitat (like Dyson spheres and such). It seems to me
that this assumption would require humans to be a very unusual sort of
intelligence, because we're going to go in for communication and travel
as soon as we figure out how, if we don't collapse first.

Other civilizations might well be signalling us like mad using
techniques we've not yet invented.

Or techniques we have abandoned? Semaphores?

Or obviously artificial signals such as the ones that begin:

"I am Mr. Harson Gumbaw, nephew of the reigning oligarch
of Obway. I would like you to join me in a business venture
that will make us both rich..."

--
--- Paul J. Gans


Contest proposal: the best interstellar Nigeria-scam radiogram.

"Paul J Gans" wrote in message
...
In talk.origins wrote:

[massive deletions]

Once again, the distinction between correlation and causality must be
explained.

The human population has increased in correlation with technological
innovation. That *does not* mean that if there is a small population,
technology will vanish. Indeed, if the population were to start
dropping tomorrow, it would likely *stimulate* the development of
technology to replace labor.

First-world high-tech high-consumption living standards are perfectly
'sustainable' as long as there are few enough people.

I agree. I suspect it would be far easier to create an
electric generator than to start over with stone age
technology.

After all, how many of us know how to chip stones so as to form
a proper stone age tool? But lots of us know the fundamentals of
building a generator.

--
--- Paul J. Gans


There are archaeologists who specialise in just this area--the best way to
make assorted flint tools with materials at hand (other stones, deer
antlers, etc).

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

Chris.B wrote:
Sod the chemistry! Every assumption we make is only that. We know
almost nothing about our own planet. Particularly below the surface of
the seas which cover much of our own world. We cannot imagine any
dominantly intelligent species not having our avarice, aggression and
chronic immorality. It is completely beyond our way of thinking except
in sci-fantasy terms. Our intelligence is based on learning to take
something from somebody else, by force, rather than obtaining it for
ourselves.

The fact that ants and termites conduct organized warfare and organized
pillage suggests that war is not something that is unique to humans.

Ants and termites live in societies, just like we do. And guess what,
they make war on their own kind, just like we do. They enslave their
captives, just like we used to do.

They don't sit around and take a vote whether to go to war. This is
instinctive behavior, built into their genes.

And if ants had ever evolved into an intelligent tool-using
civilization, they would be at least as savage and cold-blooded warriors
as we are. They would, in fact, resemble the "Borg" of Star Trek.
Humanoid ants.



--
Steven L.
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

In article ,
says...

In conclusion? You have just denied the entire rest of your post. First
you claim that life is rare but intelligence is inevitable given life.
And to conclude you claim that life is common but intelligence is rare.
What exactly are you smoking?

Not true. He stated that there is lots of life, but that it is extremeky
rare, 1 in 10^75 planets puts an awful lot of space between worlds.

Note that I really don't mean to disagree with your well-reasoned
conclusions. The post you responded to really was a mess. I just wanted to
point out your own substantial error in understanding the post.


-Tim