What's 'unknown' about ET not being here now ?


You hiding him in your crawlspace ?

(January 25, 2017 at 11:17 am)Aoi Magi Wrote: I can imagine us being alone quite easily, but I like the "dark forest" idea better. The universe might be full of life, but the basic rules are same, that is, resource is limited, and own survival takes priority, so if you are an advanced civilization, it is much better and safer for you to wipe out the competition before they do the same to you, and if you don't know the capabilities of the other civilization yet, you'd try to stay hidden till you are sure you are not the weakest. So maybe all intelligent civilizations are hiding from each other, and maybe those who tried to make themselves known got wiped out?

The counter-balance to "Dark Forest" is Greg Bear's "Forge of God". Xenophobic killer alien civilizations would pose a threat to all other worlds. They would face retribution from the empowered remnants of displaced species.

(January 25, 2017 at 5:08 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(January 25, 2017 at 11:17 am)Aoi Magi Wrote: I can imagine us being alone quite easily, but I like the "dark forest" idea better. The universe might be full of life, but the basic rules are same, that is, resource is limited, and own survival takes priority, so if you are an advanced civilization, it is much better and safer for you to wipe out the competition before they do the same to you, and if you don't know the capabilities of the other civilization yet, you'd try to stay hidden till you are sure you are not the weakest. So maybe all intelligent civilizations are hiding from each other, and maybe those who tried to make themselves known got wiped out?

The counter-balance to "Dark Forest" is Greg Bear's "Forge of God". Xenophobic killer alien civilizations would pose a threat to all other worlds. They would face retribution from the empowered remnants of displaced species.

Yes they might, but that doesn't really increase the chances of communication, rather as more civilizations destroy each other, communication possibilities will only go down.

(January 25, 2017 at 5:23 am)Alex K Wrote: Brian Cox likes to make provocative statements sometimes, but the way it is phrased sounds uncharacteristically stupid. I strongly suspect Daily Mail shitjournalism with this one, at least an out-of-context quote.

There probably is shit Daily Mail journalism going on, but there is always the danger that he is succumbing to the career of celebrity over scientist. It can easily happen if you spend enough time amongst fawning media types rather than working scientists who you know will question everything you say. Case in point Baroness Susan Greenfield who the Daily Mail love to quote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...rains.html

Personally I think Brian Cox is talking bollocks. There's good reason to think that the rise of intelligence, Darwinian evolution and life is all part of the same process that gives rise to complexity over time. We just need the right conditions, building blocks and enough time. We know that there are enough Earth Like Worlds out there because we can see them while exploring in Elite: Dangerous ... or something like that.

(January 25, 2017 at 5:44 pm)Aoi Magi Wrote:

(January 25, 2017 at 5:08 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: The counter-balance to "Dark Forest" is Greg Bear's "Forge of God". Xenophobic killer alien civilizations would pose a threat to all other worlds. They would face retribution from the empowered remnants of displaced species.

Yes they might, but that doesn't really increase the chances of communication, rather as more civilizations destroy each other, communication possibilities will only go down.

Mutual Assured Destruction is the restraint. Otherwise, yes. Any reduction in the number of civilizations would reduce the chances of communication. Unless I suppose one benevolent civilization became dominant. It could encourage peaceful coexistence under threat of judgement and wrath. Hmmm...sounds familiar.

(January 25, 2017 at 6:10 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(January 25, 2017 at 5:44 pm)Aoi Magi Wrote: Yes they might, but that doesn't really increase the chances of communication, rather as more civilizations destroy each other, communication possibilities will only go down.

Mutual Assured Destruction is the restraint. Otherwise, yes. Any reduction in the number of civilizations would reduce the chances of communication. Unless I suppose one benevolent civilization became dominant. It could encourage peaceful coexistence under threat of judgement and wrath. Hmmm...sounds familiar.

....till eventually the power corrupts them

(January 25, 2017 at 6:10 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(January 25, 2017 at 5:44 pm)Aoi Magi Wrote: Yes they might, but that doesn't really increase the chances of communication, rather as more civilizations destroy each other, communication possibilities will only go down.

Mutual Assured Destruction is the restraint. Otherwise, yes. Any reduction in the number of civilizations would reduce the chances of communication. Unless I suppose one benevolent civilization became dominant. It could encourage peaceful coexistence under threat of judgement and wrath. Hmmm...sounds familiar.

Oh yeah and that's worked out so well

Quote:There's good reason to think that the rise of intelligence, Darwinian evolution and life is all part of the same process that gives rise to complexity over time.

The idea that there is intelligent life on earth has just taken a serious hit.

(January 25, 2017 at 6:20 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:There's good reason to think that the rise of intelligence, Darwinian evolution and life is all part of the same process that gives rise to complexity over time.

The idea that there is intelligent life on earth has just taken a serious hit.

I can't argue with that.

(January 25, 2017 at 6:10 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(January 25, 2017 at 5:44 pm)Aoi Magi Wrote: Yes they might, but that doesn't really increase the chances of communication, rather as more civilizations destroy each other, communication possibilities will only go down.

Mutual Assured Destruction is the restraint. Otherwise, yes. Any reduction in the number of civilizations would reduce the chances of communication. Unless I suppose one benevolent civilization became dominant. It could encourage peaceful coexistence under threat of judgement and wrath. Hmmm...sounds familiar.

MAD presupposes communication, which over light-years is slow, tedious, and given the different technologies/bandwidths chosen by any given civilization, unlikely to be efficient enough to forestall aggressively defensive species. You can tell Mama Bear that you mean no harm to her cubs, but that grizzly will tear you apart all the same.