Seems pretty egotistical to believe our concepts of communication are the only and/or best in existence.
Why We Haven’t Met Any Aliens
181–190 of 231 posts
Re: Why We Haven’t Met Any Aliens
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is completely legitimate, right? There must be a most advanced civilization. Why can't we be it?
Yes, that's possible. It just goes against the Copernican Principle ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle ), and that's why many people are not happy with that explanation.
There's also Anthropic Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle) which states pretty much the opposite to what the Copernican says.
Re: Why We Haven’t Met Any Aliens
#183I really did not expect this much resistance on HN to a fairly classical solution to the fermi paradox. Mostly it's spun in a more positive "retreat into virtual reality" type situation but it's the same thing. We have no idea how humans will react to the ability to sate every desire and wish artifically. It's not just hyper-porn and the xbox 720, this would apply to the desire for exploration, solving hard problems,…
I too am surprised. In my mind, it has long been inevitable that - at the very least - the wealthy population of the planet will retreat into a virtual world, ala "The Matrix". It's not just the benefits of instant, unlimited sensory gratification (which are IMMENSE - real-world physical attraction and location no longer becomes an issue for finding partners, you can enjoy any activity at any time which in the past c…
I generally agree with the premise that the wealthy (ie most of the developed world) are retreating into stimulation of their pleasure centres, aided and abetted by an industries which are increasingly focused upon satisfying this. And I also agree that it's a real risk to the ultimate future of our species. This is hardly a new idea: Olaf Stapledon wrote in "Starmaker", in 1937, about a VR-obsessed species anaesthetizing itself into extinction.
What I find curious is that many of the very wealthiest are rejecting this trend in very absolute terms. Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Robert Bigelow are spending their fortunes on real hardware rather than virtual reality, with the explicitly stated goal of making humanity a multiplanetary species. Other billionaires (Paul Allen, Richard Branson) are making complementary efforts, although without quite the same degree of aspirational rhetoric.
If they collectively succeed in establishing small colonies on Mars, then the initial rigours of colonial life will not allow for the kind of idle narcissism that is currently feasible for the wealthy on Earth. Whatever the fate of Earth, that will at least postpone the onset of a cultural coma for our species.
I tend to think that if this happens, then complete culture death at the hands of artificial pleasure is no longer possible. Once we're out of the deep gravity well of Earth, the marginal cost of establishing additional colonies elsewhere is very much lower; if even a very very small minority of the population keeps the spirit of evolution alive, then that will be sufficient to spread through the universe.
So, I don't really see this as a good solution for the Fermi paradox, since it seems highly improbable that EVERY civilisation would succumb to video games before becoming multi-planetary.
Re: Why We Haven’t Met Any Aliens
#184A terrible article. So let's say something more interesting. There are several important ideas intertwined together around the Fermi Paradox: 1) Fermi Paradox Why haven't we seen any evidence in the observable universe of megascale activities and exponential growth comparable to those that we know that our descendants will be capable of, and fairly soon? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox 2) The Outer Bounds…
Possible answer: First nearly every civilization that mastered, say, radio, did it millions of years ago. Second, nearly every such civilization long ago found much better means of communications than we know about. Third, they realize that trying to communicate via radio is silly and use much better means we don't know about. Net, they are out there and communicating, but we don't hear them and they don't hear us or…
While that's certainly 'possible' it doesn't seem particularly logical.
Why would "nearly every" intelligent civilization have evolved millions of years before ours?
Re: Why We Haven’t Met Any Aliens
#185I really did not expect this much resistance on HN to a fairly classical solution to the fermi paradox. Mostly it's spun in a more positive "retreat into virtual reality" type situation but it's the same thing. We have no idea how humans will react to the ability to sate every desire and wish artifically. It's not just hyper-porn and the xbox 720, this would apply to the desire for exploration, solving hard problems,…
While a subset of humanity definitely can become addicted to such 'artificial' stimuli -- porn, videogames, webcam, television, books, drugs, etc -- most of us do not.
Most people who play videogames still go to work and make things. Most people who consume porn still seek out physical mates. Most people who have done opium still seek out life and pleasures beyond the artificial orgasmic haze of the high. Most people who smoke pot still go about life like the rest of us. And more to the point: most people who interact with computers do not do so the way that HN readers do.
Have we learned nothing from the rise of "social" software? Most people are not like us. They value technology based on how useful it is in helping them perform tasks in the real world. Most of them don't sit on Facebook all day and artificially interact. They coordinate parties and playdates, buy concert tickets and share the results of their real world interactions. Hell, a big chunk of the latest batch of popular social apps are predicated on using technology to record and socially-score real-world activities (the various photo sharing services, travel services, shop review services, location check-in services, etc).
Any argument predicated on using the behavior of addicts as predictive of the behavior of the wider public is fundamentally flawed. And particularly so, when it comes to assumptions that the wider public will ever use computers in ways that seem inevitable and obvious to geeks.
Re: Why We Haven’t Met Any Aliens
#186This stage in behaviour will eventually subside as we discover and experience the negative side-effects of such a facade of quality of life. Lack of activity and obesity, lack of education for allowing socializing and deep bonding, lack of real socializing and bonding / relationships with people; It keeps us in our heads, and not grounded - not connected. As Carlota Per sees it, we are heading towards a shift to wellness, and quality; Eliminating planned obsolescence, etc., and this will include more time for and with eachother.
Re: Why We Haven’t Met Any Aliens
#187This article struck me as a bit of shoddy reasoning together with odd conjecture strung together for the purpose of moralistic finger-wagging.
On a purely subjective note, I don't see how escaping into virtual reality is a "darker" fate than nuclear self-annihilation.
existence > non-existence
Re: Why We Haven’t Met Any Aliens
#188A terrible article. So let's say something more interesting. There are several important ideas intertwined together around the Fermi Paradox: 1) Fermi Paradox Why haven't we seen any evidence in the observable universe of megascale activities and exponential growth comparable to those that we know that our descendants will be capable of, and fairly soon? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox 2) The Outer Bounds…
Wow, thanks for links 3 and 4. I bet just about everyone here has had a similar idea to the the "Simulation Argument." I could never find any official name for it though. How hilarious would that be if reality was in fact a simulation and the ones watching us get the biggest kick out of everyone trying to figure out why we're here. I guess that assumes that the creators of this simulation have a sense of humor.
Check this article out for more on simulation argument:
Re: Why We Haven’t Met Any Aliens
#189I think it's more likely we are already in a our own virtual reality in the form of a history simulation (see: Holographic Universe Principle). To me this explains why we haven't detected any other life-forms; after-all it's a living history of our species.
Re: Why We Haven’t Met Any Aliens
#190This essay is analogous to a mathematical proof that begins "Assume A and not A" and concludes: "and therefore P≠NP." It's not that I disagree with Miller's conclusion, it's just his premise is a contradiction, and thus capable of proving anything. First, the contradiction: Fermi's paradox says that intelligent species are common, and that some fraction of intelligent species will engage in interstellar colonization.…
> we're tempted to overlook the sloppy reasoning.
Not in the slightest. This is a political opinion piece. There is a negative political statement about nuclear weapons. Then about video games. Then about consumerism, etc etc
You can use anything you perceive as self destructive to show how the aliens wiped themselves out and we will too! That much is obvious without any attempt at serious reasoning.
Fast food is destroying our country. Obesity! Aliens got too fat, wiped themselves out, that's why there aren't any around. Replace fast food with any other activity which offends commonly accepted political decency.