On Mon, 04 Jul 2005,

Bobby D. Bryant wrote:

On Mon, 04 Jul 2005, "Zachriel"
<"http://www.zachriel.com/mutagenation/contact.asp"@giganews.com> wrote:

"chibiabos" <chib@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:040720050730027438%chib@nospam.com...

In article <ZJmdncSKJqI2DVXfRVn-hw@comcast.com>, JTEM
<gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:

And the "Fermi Paradox" is supposed to be an issue... why?

I don't know what you mean by "issue," but the Fermi paradox
overlooks
one very important fact: Somebody has to be first.

Maybe we're the first.

Quite possible, but that calls into question other
assumptions. There are many stars and many planets, many of them
older than Sol. If intelligent life (intelligent referring to
technology capable of interstellar travel) is a common occurrence,
then some of these older planets would have already colonized the
galaxy. Exponential growth being what it is, real estate would
become scarce in just a few millions of years, and many of these
planets are a billions years older than Earth.

Keep in mind the difference between exponential growth _on_ a planet,
and the manner of exponential growth _between_ planets as visualized
by the Fermi not-really-paradox.

Having each colony beget 2 colonies isn't going to help the problem
of exponential growth _on_ a planet; only a 'lucky' few would be
sent out as colonists.

Indeed, the exponential growth _on_ a planet will only make it harder
to come up with the resources needed for the grand 2-colony plan.

--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

The exponential growth *on a planet would also provide the motive
needed for some to support such a project.

Even if we had a Stargate we probably wouldn't be able to march people
off the planet as fast as our population is growing. Sending people
elsewhere simply isn't going to relieve the pressure.

And it may not be such a big deal a kiloyear from now.

Indeed, it *may* not. But unless it's *surely* not, we should be
talking about "Fermi's Question" instead of "Fermi's Paradox". There
simply isn't enough speculation-free reason to believe that we
'should' have encountered aliens by now.

Judging from our species's history so far, would you say that we
have a tendency to disperse or not?

Yep. And I also notice that our oceans were limits to that dispersal
up until a few centuries ago. So the question is, will interstellar
travel ever be easy enough to allow an intelligent species to colonize
the galaxy? And cheap enough to make it a worthwhile expenditure of
resources?

If we can build a generation ship or other slow craft, and send out
five... say, 100 years to go 10 light years. Suppose two of them
"take" and retain the knowledge that was sent with them. 900 years
later they send out 5 more... The galaxy is "only" 100,000 light
years across. It won't take but a few tens of millions of years to
fill it up pretty good.

Unless of course an insuficient fraction of the 'takes' see any reason
to follow through on the grand plan.

Also, even with exponential growth, that "few tens of millions of years"
is the result of speculative parameters re when it started, what the
exponential base is, and what the period of the cycle is. You can fudge
the numbers to get any "time required" you want.

If not us, another species. And we would only have to send out the
first few. Culturally and genetically, these populations would
diverge, and some of them would be more inclined to cast their seed,
so to speak.

Perhaps. But there are *way* too many ifs for me to think their absence
is any kind of paradox.

--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

On Mon, 04 Jul 2005,

Bobby D. Bryant wrote:

On Mon, 04 Jul 2005, "Zachriel" <"http://www.zachriel.com/mutagenation/contact.asp"@giganews.com> wrote:

"chibiabos" <chib@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:040720050730027438%chib@nospam.com...

In article <ZJmdncSKJqI2DVXfRVn-hw@comcast.com>, JTEM
<gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:

And the "Fermi Paradox" is supposed to be an issue... why?

I don't know what you mean by "issue," but the Fermi paradox overlooks
one very important fact: Somebody has to be first.

Maybe we're the first.

Quite possible, but that calls into question other
assumptions. There are many stars and many planets, many of them
older than Sol. If intelligent life (intelligent referring to
technology capable of interstellar travel) is a common occurrence,
then some of these older planets would have already colonized the
galaxy. Exponential growth being what it is, real estate would
become scarce in just a few millions of years, and many of these
planets are a billions years older than Earth.

Keep in mind the difference between exponential growth _on_ a planet,
and the manner of exponential growth _between_ planets as visualized
by the Fermi not-really-paradox.

Having each colony beget 2 colonies isn't going to help the problem
of exponential growth _on_ a planet; only a 'lucky' few would be
sent out as colonists.

Indeed, the exponential growth _on_ a planet will only make it harder
to come up with the resources needed for the grand 2-colony plan.

--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

The exponential growth *on a planet would also provide the motive
needed for some to support such a project.

Even if we had a Stargate we probably wouldn't be able to march people
off the planet as fast as our population is growing. Sending people
elsewhere simply isn't going to relieve the pressure.

And it may not be such a big deal a kiloyear from now.

Indeed, it *may* not. But unless it's *surely* not, we should be
talking about "Fermi's Question" instead of "Fermi's Paradox". There
simply isn't enough speculation-free reason to believe that we
'should' have encountered aliens by now.

Judging from our species's history so far, would you say that we
have a tendency to disperse or not?

Yep. And I also notice that our oceans were limits to that dispersal
up until a few centuries ago. So the question is, will interstellar
travel ever be easy enough to allow an intelligent species to colonize
the galaxy? And cheap enough to make it a worthwhile expenditure of
resources?

If we can build a generation ship or other slow craft, and send out
five... say, 100 years to go 10 light years. Suppose two of them
"take" and retain the knowledge that was sent with them. 900 years
later they send out 5 more... The galaxy is "only" 100,000 light
years across. It won't take but a few tens of millions of years to
fill it up pretty good.

Unless of course an insuficient fraction of the 'takes' see any reason
to follow through on the grand plan.

Also, even with exponential growth, that "few tens of millions of years"
is the result of speculative parameters re when it started, what the
exponential base is, and what the period of the cycle is. You can fudge
the numbers to get any "time required" you want.

If not us, another species. And we would only have to send out the
first few. Culturally and genetically, these populations would
diverge, and some of them would be more inclined to cast their seed,
so to speak.

Perhaps. But there are *way* too many ifs for me to think their absence
is any kind of paradox.

--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

Therion Ware wrote:

Point of order! Interstellar travel is trivial, as Voyager currently
illustrates.

Voyager has barely made it out of the solar system. Pluto is about 5
1/2 light-hours from the Sun. Alpha Centauri is 4.2 light-YEARS, or
36,792 light-hours.

Pluto - 5.5 light-hours
Alpha C - 36,000 light-hours

That's over 6,600 times as far as Voyager has gone so far. That's a
*huge* difference.

On Mon, 04 Jul 2005, "Zachriel"
<"http://www.zachriel.com/mutagenation/contact.asp"@giganews.com> wrote:

"VoiceOfReason" <papa_fox@cybertown.com> wrote in message
news:1120484084.600428.289620@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

JTEM wrote:

"VoiceOfReason" <papa_fox@cybertown.com> wrote

It's based on assumptions that there should be space
aliens travelling and visiting all over the place.

Which is weird, to say the least.

It's like saying, "Assuming life on Earth isn't unique, then
life on Earth must be unique."

Because, the assumptions certainly don't fit the model of
life on Earth.

Here on Earth, separate populations -- like those separated
by years of travel at light speed -- tend to follow their own
unique evolutionary path. Here on Earth, the one real model
of life in the universe we have to base assumptions on,
isolation is the engine of evolution.

So, with the limitations of light speed, Fermi's alien culture
very quickly becomes "cultures," which if we stick with the
Earth model very quickly develops into rivalry... conflict.

In other words, it's nonsense.

Uh, you snipped the most important point of the post: "Then again,
maybe interstallar travel really is impractical. We could be one of
many islands of intelligent beings who will never know each other."

Assuming intelligent beings will travel interstellar distances like the
popular Star Trek / Star Wars *fictions* is a huge leap. Those depend
on faster-than-light travel to make the stories work out, which is
purely an invention of science fiction writers.

Actually, not. It only takes self-sufficient space colonies (fusion power
during the interregnum). Traveling at even a few percent of the speed of
light, an exponentially populating colonizing species would saturate the
entire galaxy in a few millions of years.

Hence the Fermi Paradox.

But why should we expect an exponentially populating colonizing species?

How many human colonies have been content to pursue the mother country's
agenda generation after generation, when contact with the mother country
is weak?

How many of our grand plans go unmutated for more than a few generations?

Or, in the modern world, more than a few election cycles?

If a species had so little initiative that colonists would slavishly
dedicate their lives to some Grand Plan of forgotten ancestors, would
they have the initiative to invent and build a technological civilization
in the first place?

--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas