“We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn’t want to meet. I imagine they might exist in massive ships, having used up all the resources from their home planet. Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonize whatever planets they can reach,” he said. “If aliens ever visit us, I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn’t turn out very well for the Native Americans.”
“Ignoring the possibility [alien life] and hiding your head in the sand, waiting for them to find us is certainly isn’t a scientifically intelligent way to proceed or a good cultural way to anticipate something like that either...Our approach to it has been to be prepared. We’re not going to get caught, say like the Native Americans when Columbus came to their shores. We’ve been actively listening and hopefully we get some information before any eventual encounter ever happens.”
I'd say it's terribly conceited of us to go "oh, we know it's wrong to forcefully 'educate' another group, but the smarter, more advanced aliens don't!"
While I really think Stephen Hawking is selling himself out to sensationalize the whole thing with "Oooo, scary aliens!"...
Who says we do know it's wrong? Saying that it's wrong doesn't mean it doesn't happen every day on this planet
But suppose you're controlling the aliens, and you find some primitive alien race. Do you force yourself on them?
I always loved the theory that Alien Life would be so inherently different and unnatural that there could never be any true peace or understanding between us and them. We all assume they are humans with brow ridges but what stops them from being fundamentally different, physically and mentally, than us? Nothing. That's the scary shit. Aliens like humans would be a dream, because they would resemble our motives, but aliens that are actually alien are the true nightmare, what morals do they have? What views of life do they hold? Individuals to them might be nothing, or maybe the entire alien species is an individual... Do they use binary, trinary, do they even use computers? We assume that because the universe has the same elements and a consistent set of physics, that it's impossible aliens to be truly different.
Well, aliens that want to strip mine earth is a (very) distant possibility, think about it this way In their eyes: You've got earth, which is slowly running out of resources, and you've got resource rich planets like Mercury, and Mars. Moons like Io, Titan, Triton, or even our own moon. Why would you even waste resources wiping out the human race when you could get it for free without fighting and in greater quantities by completely ignoring the defenseless humans? ;)And to put into larger scale - why not strip mine the whole rest of the universe, as pretty much every star system, apart from the oldest ones, is composed of the same stuff as Earth and it's neighbours? Why the hell even bother anyway? What are you building with all those materials?
What are you building with all those materials?Players of halo might have an Idea (http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Installation_00). But really, why would they need something that big?
But suppose you're controlling the aliens, and you find some primitive alien race. Do you force yourself on them?
Ask yourself the same scenario, with humans as the "aliens". Hells yes, we'd force ourselves on them. Even if not in an overtly militaristic way.
They'd have Coke, Bibles and Nike rammed down their throats (or respective digestive orifices).
saintly bay12gamers?
But RedKing, we could never have invented the LHC unless we were absolutely pure of heart. We must be, as a species, saintly inventors of the ultimate goodness! And any alien who could do it must also be like us in that regard!
You're talking about folks who came up with a way to breed and harvest mermaids for their valuable bones and skin. Just because they could.
Now extrapolate that to aliens who could do basically the same thing to us. Just because they can. Technology and morality do not walk hand in hand.
Technology and morality do not walk hand in hand.
If we are very unlucky: We will encounter extremely advanced hostile aliens, that want us only for our bodies...
high hive-morality?
We do have high hive-morality... Do unto others and whatnot. Or in other cases, if someone kills a neighbor or even another human who you did not know, and you will get upset about it, despite it having no actual effect on yourself or your wellbeing.high hive-morality?
Um. Humans are extremely xenophobic, agressive,shortsighted, narrow-minded, high hive-morality when it comes to conflict. If anyone should be worried about fidning agressive aliens, it's these other species.
If we are very unlucky: We will encounter extremely advanced hostile aliens, that want us only for our bodies...
If we are very unlucky: We will encounter extremely advanced hostile aliens, that want us only for our bodies...
See, no matter how mind bogglingly different aliens could be I have trouble believing they would want to enslave us and start some prostitution racket.
Err, that's exactly what Jackrabbit said. Not to mention, no sane alien would entrust their young to the innards of nasty, diseased humans full of earth bacteria.If we are very unlucky: We will encounter extremely advanced hostile aliens, that want us only for our bodies...
See, no matter how mind bogglingly different aliens could be I have trouble believing they would want to enslave us and start some prostitution racket.
...That's not what I mean... *cue aliens from 'Alien' bursting out of random people's chests*
...I thought he meant aliens actually... Mating with humans... :oErr, that's exactly what Jackrabbit said. Not to mention, no sane alien would entrust their young to the innards of nasty, diseased humans full of earth bacteria.If we are very unlucky: We will encounter extremely advanced hostile aliens, that want us only for our bodies...
See, no matter how mind bogglingly different aliens could be I have trouble believing they would want to enslave us and start some prostitution racket.
...That's not what I mean... *cue aliens from 'Alien' bursting out of random people's chests*
It could go either way.Actually... If you took the concept of eating one's (male) mate found in various earth species, and gave them intelligence, you may very well end up with a female dominated species. And to anthropomorphize a bit much here, if they passed on family names/titles similar to humans, they may well end up with a gender disparity as males would be not only vied for because of those seeking multiple matings, but also because of an unwillingness for a family to waste resources on offspring which will gain them little and only live long enough to mate once and die. So maybe... They want our men. Or at least for the first night, after which they will rip their heads off and devour them. As a side note, this would make a decent sci-fi plot, but would be pretty much impossible in real life. :D
You know those aliens.
The want our women,
If we are very unlucky: We will encounter extremely advanced hostile aliens, that want us only for our bodies...
Sounds like a Larry Niven novel. (I hate that guy)
On the subject of extremely advanced and ancient aliens, Sci-Fi has these all over the place. They are generally called the Precursors, Old Ones, and various permutations on the same meaning. Star Trek has these highly advanced aliens all over the place, although they are usually non-corporeal, having transcended mortal forms or changed dimensions long ago.
Who knows, maybe WE humans are the first ones to develop sapience, so maybe we are the Progenitors. However, given the fact that some dinosaur species had evolved pretty high intelligence, on par with some of the more advanced mammals, so if they had survived, maybe they would have developed civilizaton a couple of million years before we would have.
On the subject of extremely advanced and ancient aliens, Sci-Fi has these all over the place. They are generally called the Precursors, Old Ones, and various permutations on the same meaning. Star Trek has these highly advanced aliens all over the place, although they are usually non-corporeal, having transcended mortal forms or changed dimensions long ago.
Who knows, maybe WE humans are the first ones to develop sapience, so maybe we are the Progenitors. However, given the fact that some dinosaur species had evolved pretty high intelligence, on par with some of the more advanced mammals, so if they had survived, maybe they would have developed civilizaton a couple of million years before we would have.
Nah. Cold blood is terrible in organizing and effectively doing anything.
This makes no sense. In what way exactly is Earth worthy of exploitation?Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, titanium, aluminum, silver, gold, the list goes on.
Is there some unobtanium hidden underneath my house?
The whole rest of the universe is composed of exactly the same stuff.This makes no sense. In what way exactly is Earth worthy of exploitation?Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, titanium, aluminum, silver, gold, the list goes on.
Is there some unobtanium hidden underneath my house?
This makes no sense. In what way exactly is Earth worthy of exploitation?Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, titanium, aluminum, silver, gold, the list goes on.
Is there some unobtanium hidden underneath my house?
@recent posters: There were supposedly both warm blooded and cold blooded dinosaurs.
The whole rest of the universe is composed of exactly the same stuff.This makes no sense. In what way exactly is Earth worthy of exploitation?Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, titanium, aluminum, silver, gold, the list goes on.
Is there some unobtanium hidden underneath my house?
How many planets have water?a lot.
How many planets have water? Our solar system is pretty hot in terms of resources, I think. What with the gas giants, and the moons of the gas giants.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water#Water_in_the_universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water#Water_in_the_universe)
I could never accept aliens on earth. Sure, maybe I am a paranoid xenophobe, but its better to expect them to betray and obliterate/enslave us then be TOTALLY SURPRISED when/if they do.
Also, Warhammer 40000.
You know, most of these posts are making the unlikely assumptions the aliens would be anything remotely similar to us; which is fairly unlikely. Its just as probable they wouldn't even recognize us as alive, or if they did, sentient. Our patterns and languages, our mathematics, might be as foreign to their brains as the pheremones of ants to ours. Theres no cosmic law dictating all life needs to be the format we see on earth.
You know, most of these posts are making the unlikely assumptions the aliens would be anything remotely similar to us; which is fairly unlikely. Its just as probable they wouldn't even recognize us as alive, or if they did, sentient. Our patterns and languages, our mathematics, might be as foreign to their brains as the pheremones of ants to ours. Theres no cosmic law dictating all life needs to be the format we see on earth.I see what you did there. (http://xkcd.com/638/)
You know, most of these posts are making the unlikely assumptions the aliens would be anything remotely similar to us; which is fairly unlikely. Its just as probable they wouldn't even recognize us as alive, or if they did, sentient. Our patterns and languages, our mathematics, might be as foreign to their brains as the pheremones of ants to ours. Theres no cosmic law dictating all life needs to be the format we see on earth.
Chemically speaking, it's entirely possible to make organic-styled life, i.e. life analogous to ours, from silicon. All the same sort of biochemical processes would take place, just at a temperature many thousands of degrees hotter and density even great. Conditions like the inside of a molten planet. Theoretically, there could be an entire ecosystem, even civilizations, of silicon-based life floating around under the Earth's mantel, completely oblivious to the fragile, carbon and water based life clinging to their planet's frozen outer crust.I always wanted to grab some chemistry PhD person, and interrogate him if this is really so, or just a mytho based on layman's misunderstanding of chemistry. After all, silicon might have the same valence as carbon, but what about other properties?
I always wanted to grab some chemistry PhD person, and interrogate him if this is really so, or just a mytho based on layman's misunderstanding of chemistry. After all, silicon might have the same valence as carbon, but what about other properties?
Time travel scares me.You'll get used to it, in time.
Only slight differences. The biggest hurdle to silicon based life is that silicon has only about 1/8 the prevalence of carbon. Which means carbon based life forms would be much more likely, and if carbon and silicon based life abiogenesized on the same planet, the carbon life forms would almost certainly outcompete the silicon life forms out of existance.
I see what you did there. :PTime travel scares me.You'll get used to it, in time.
Right.Which is exactly why specific guesses that their form would be anything recognizable are statistically impossible. Its the number of forms we could recognize, which is theoretically a finite number--only the traits that we have seen on livign creatures on earth-- over all the possible forms life could manifest itself, infinite. Any finite number divided by infinity is a value infinitesimally larger than zero. Thats way under statistical zero. Thus, we probably won't recognize the aliens when we encounter them.
Why would aliens be concerned with attacking our world when there are far more resources available in a far more accessible places?
One resource that we have in abundance which are *not* found widely throughout the universe (to our knowledge) is complex organic compounds.More (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_%28moon%29#Liquids) abundant (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/051018_science_tuesday.html) than (http://news.discovery.com/space/meteorite-crammed-with-millions-of-organic-compounds.html) you (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17628-found-first-amino-acid-on-a-comet.html) think (http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=complex-organic-molecules-detected-2009-04-22)
One resource that we have in abundance which are *not* found widely throughout the universe (to our knowledge) is complex organic compounds. Earth is a virtual biofactory of all sorts of fascinating hydrocarbons, amino acids, proteins, etc.Oh, come on. This comparision is flawed - lead transmutation requires huge effort and energy input, while all you need to do to produce some carbon compounds is grab a plant or some bacteria.
Maybe one of those turns out to be a cure for an alien plague. Or a drug. Or just a favored delicacy. I thought-gamed a scenario in a world-building group where an alien race goes to war with because they need our seawater. All of it.
Now of course, you can argue "But organic compounds are just carbon and hydrogen and oxygen stuck together in different ways! Those elements are abundant, and surely any race capable of interstellar travel could synthesize them." Which is true. But it's also true that we can technically turn lead into gold through nuclear transmutation. But it's a hell of a lot more cost-effective to go halfway around the world, dig really deep holes, and send people into dangerous conditions to extract tiny chunks of gold ore from the Earth.
Might be a lot easier to send a harvester to Earth for whatever chemical it is they're needing than to try and create it themselves. The good thing about that scenario is that if they're after a biochemical of some kind, they're not likely to unleash mega-weapons, as they need the Earth's ecology more or less intact to protect their supply. Might even be willing to trade for it.
You and your "science". When I was your age, space was nothing but lifeless rocks! And Pluto was a planet!QuoteOne resource that we have in abundance which are *not* found widely throughout the universe (to our knowledge) is complex organic compounds.More (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_%28moon%29#Liquids) abundant (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/051018_science_tuesday.html) than (http://news.discovery.com/space/meteorite-crammed-with-millions-of-organic-compounds.html) you (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17628-found-first-amino-acid-on-a-comet.html) think (http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=complex-organic-molecules-detected-2009-04-22)
Also, is it not possible that there is some selective pressure towards compassion? After all, the Drake Equation suggests not one but thousands or tens of thousands of alien entities. If this is correct, there is already an existent culture of interacting groups. In such a group, aggressive, violent life forms would be co-cooperatively destroyed by others who vastly outnumber them, and peaceful ones would be accepted in, strengthening this federation, erm, republic... well... my point is, if there is one alien, there are almost certainly many aliens; and if there are many aliens, ones that aggressively strike out in a many-fronted war will quickly loose out. So, good news for us is that if there is alien life, it's already pretty co-operative and benevolent.More like the peaceful races get wiped out by the aggressive ones, since it makes sense for militarists to be ahead in weapons technology and military infrastructure. Also, Drake's equation is a bunch of bull, but even if it's starting points were true there'd still be a very low number of civilizations because any prudent civilization would wipe out all competition *before* it becomes a threat (which, btw, is also a good reason for aliens to wipe us out if they find us).
Chemically speaking, it's entirely possible to make organic-styled life, i.e. life analogous to ours, from silicon. All the same sort of biochemical processes would take place, just at a temperature many thousands of degrees hotter and density even great. Conditions like the inside of a molten planet. Theoretically, there could be an entire ecosystem, even civilizations, of silicon-based life floating around under the Earth's mantel, completely oblivious to the fragile, carbon and water based life clinging to their planet's frozen outer crust.I always wanted to grab some chemistry PhD person, and interrogate him if this is really so, or just a mytho based on layman's misunderstanding of chemistry. After all, silicon might have the same valence as carbon, but what about other properties?
It's not about aliens being good or evil! The universe is vast, and there could be thousands of alien civilizations out there. All we have to do is contact one "bad" race, and it's curtains for the human race. At this time, humanity is not in a good position to be shouting "Hey! I'm here! Look at me!" because we exist on only one planet. All our eggs are in one basket. That's too -risky-.
It took one disease to decimate the populations of the New World.
Hell, we don't even have any way of protecting ourselves should anything come our way. We can't even protect ourselves from rogue asteroids, and we're still broadcasting our presence to the universe. What do we do if some alien species shows up and finds Earth would make a good resort, sans humanity?
It'd actually be more efficient than what we have. We currently have to have our brain cells shoot out one of two different chemicals to make the electrons flow or not. With a silicon-based cell, the energy producer (mitochondria for us) could simply charge and discharge the P and N junctions of a diode-like structure, which would cut out the chemical-based middleman.What do you mean, that silicon-based lifeforms would have a more efficient energy production system (through some alternative to the electron transport chain?), or a more efficient synaptic system?
I would have to agree, in some regards. Given that every form of life we know is based on a very similar chemical make up, with very similar senses, structures, and capabilities (all things considered) and given that the universe is full of vastly different worlds than our own... I don't suspect any other self-sustaining reaction similar to what we call "Life on Earth" can even be imagined. We are projecting ourselves and our knowledge into space, thinking of what we would do if an advanced form of ourselves were out there, comming for us in spaceships.
Look for a moment at cats and humans. We have vastly different emotional, sensory, and psychological structures than they do, and yet they share most of our DNA. When looking at Extraterrestrials, we aren't even necessarily looking at DNA, emotions, or minds at all anymore. They probably don't have the same shared ancestors as us, and we aren't looking at the biological systems and senses and so on that Earth Life evolved to use.
We might encounter a mass of self-replicating methane-componds that fueled its "biology" using electromagnetic pulses from a pulsar instead of sunlight or food, and "sensed" and communicated using fluctuations in magnetic fields. That's about as feasible as Earth life, which is a mass of carbon-based chemicals that that derives all its energy from UV radiation from a star, and communicates by making vibrations in the air, no?
When considering Alien "life" it's not a matter of languages or social differences or technological differences, but a completely different "thing" most probably sharing nothing in common with anything we have on Earth. We probably won't have enough similarities to even attempt communication, because we may well not share senses. They probably wouldn't even share our central nervous system, and may not even have memories or emotions or experiences anything like ours.
When considering alien "life", consider just how alien the thigns on earth are. Jellyfish have no brains, and yet can hunt, communicate, and reproduce just fine. Water Bears can dessicate completely, and remain completely dry and "dead" for hundreds of years, yet when they hit water, they come back to life. And we're all based on the same things. Imagine, then, what would emerge from planets that have no sun, or which drift through nebulas of ionized gas, or are blasted regularly by intense electromagnetism... and have chemical makeups nothing like that of Earth. Alien "life" may not even originalte on planets, but could be born from gas clouds left by supernovas, and could drift through space filtering chemicals out of nebulas over the centuries.
What then, is advanced technology going to do? If their "biology" prevented them from aging or freezing, and they came from a world with next to no gravity, they could just sling unprotected "explorers" of their kind into space with little more than a giant rubber band and a sketchpad to take notes. That could be the invasion we would face... a little lump of chemicals with the alien equivalent of a charcoal and sketchpad, that slipped into Earth's gravity, and burns up in the atmosphere, with no one any the wiser. Seriously.
On your other points - I feel that it's a little strange to talk about whether a species is carnivorous or herbivorous or whatever when we're discussing spacefaring species and the relationships between multiple thereof. Not only, as stated above, does it appear most likely that any extraterrestrial life would be extremely distinct from that which we know, it's also likely that a species that relies on... I forget my biological words. I'll say "ingestion". A species that relies on regular ingestion of whatever substance to survive isn't likely to be able to travel the vast distances involved in space travel without either a means of synthesizing such a substance, or a hugely abundant supply of it.
If we were talking about lifeforms that relied on something entirely different, something "slower" (even something as comparatively tame as photosynthesis), then food might be a viable excuse for travel through space. If we're talking about creatures with a similar metabolism to ours, then...
generally omnivores will have more developed brains (they need them),
but in this case allows them a more docile nature, and possibly a sense of ethics (not that they need to be hippies or anything).[...]Compare this with the killer instinct of a predator,
as well as the fact that its (the pradator's) reason for travel might very well be to obtain food, a situation not dissimiliar to early man migrating across Beringia in order to find new hunting grounds, eventually ending up in N. America!
A more efficient synaptic system.It'd actually be more efficient than what we have. We currently have to have our brain cells shoot out one of two different chemicals to make the electrons flow or not. With a silicon-based cell, the energy producer (mitochondria for us) could simply charge and discharge the P and N junctions of a diode-like structure, which would cut out the chemical-based middleman.What do you mean, that silicon-based lifeforms would have a more efficient energy production system (through some alternative to the electron transport chain?), or a more efficient synaptic system?
A silicon based lifeform would conduct better, no? They might manipulate subtleties in electric current and be able to feel it better than us. Also, their brain would work more rapidly.
Next person who so much as hints that silicon life would be a Rock Man will get a VERY STERN LECTURE.
But could we ever observe them? Could they ever observe us? Is there the possibility of any interaction whatsoever?
I can't help but recall that some deep sea creatures, when brought to the surface, disintegrate (possibly an exaggeration, but that's what i recall hearing somewhere).
That's just a bunch of underwater whales singing "Louie, Louie".
That's just a bunch of underwater whales singing "Louie, Louie".Also, is there in fact such a thing as an abovewater whale? Or are you merely messing with me again?
its only been in the last 50 million years that brains complex enough to take advantage of it have appeared.Nervous systems are far older than that. IIRC flatworms are the most ancient beings to have those.
Quoteits only been in the last 50 million years that brains complex enough to take advantage of it have appeared.Nervous systems are far older than that. IIRC flatworms are the most ancient beings to have those.
If you're proposing that the hypothetical silicon-based life was designed rather than evolved, then sure
Well, there's that. Then again, when the heat is spread out, the matter will still be there. Eventually (once the universe stops expanding) everything will slowly gravitate together, and the heat could be drawn in with the matter (due to heat being a property of the matter). Once it's all crushed up together into a singularity, it eventually builds up enough pressure to explode, creating a new universe in which silicon life forms have yet another chance to evolve.
Well, there's that. Then again, when the heat is spread out, the matter will still be there. Eventually (once the universe stops expanding) everything will slowly gravitate together, and the heat could be drawn in with the matter (due to heat being a property of the matter). Once it's all crushed up together into a singularity, it eventually builds up enough pressure to explode, creating a new universe in which silicon life forms have yet another chance to evolve.
Actually, doesn't thermodynamics pretty much render a Big Crunch impossible?
Well, there's that. Then again, when the heat is spread out, the matter will still be there. Eventually (once the universe stops expanding) everything will slowly gravitate together, and the heat could be drawn in with the matter (due to heat being a property of the matter). Once it's all crushed up together into a singularity, it eventually builds up enough pressure to explode, creating a new universe in which silicon life forms have yet another chance to evolve.I think the current observations rule out the Big Crunch.
It would be like a brain spontaneously coalescing in a solution of amino acids.Cosmically, that's exactly what happened. It didn't take all that much time for a bunch of Amino acids to form a thinking brain.
It would be like a brain spontaneously coalescing in a solution of amino acids.Cosmically, that's exactly what happened. It didn't take all that much time for a bunch of Amino acids to form a thinking brain.
Oh, and the proton may be unstable. :)
Oh, and the proton may be unstable. :)
Eh? As in "prone to spontaneous breakdown not entirely unlike radioactive decay" unstable? Source?
I'm thinking that if we're to ever meet these aliens, then we'd have to be just as unscrupulous and become robots ourselves, and trawl the universe looking for them...Unscrupulous? Sounds like my retirement plan ;3
It seems likely that any alien race that has the technology to reliably cross the space between stars (and face it, you pretty much need FTL of some sort to pull that off) would have little or no interest in mankind.This is assuming they do have FTL. That their technology isn't more like how science will realistically go without it - higher and higher speed computation, towards digitization of intelligence, or at least very powerful research and engineering tools. Realistically, interstellar distances are the exact opposite of what you need to build better computers. That means they might not have bothered to establish a foothold on other planets, and even if they have, they might be more vulnerable than we are to sudden attack, or at least more cautious with better tools to exercise that caution.
If you have FTL; there are most likely billions of other earthlike planets with plenty of resources on them that are not inhabited by intelligent and warlike beings. It would be far more resource efficient to note the planet has established intelligent life, and then go somewhere else. Maybe stop by for a chat in a few thousand years if the life is still around.
Mind you, if you have reliable FTL, there's no reason why you don't have solar stations orbiting handy-dandy stars, providing you with all the energy you could ever need.
This is assuming they do have FTL. That their technology isn't more like how science will realistically go without it - higher and higher speed computation, towards digitization of intelligence, or at least very powerful research and engineering tools. Realistically, interstellar distances are the exact opposite of what you need to build better computers. That means they might not have bothered to establish a foothold on other planets, and even if they have, they might be more vulnerable than we are to sudden attack, or at least more cautious with better tools to exercise that caution.
We aren't afraid of swords and plate-mail anymore. We have guns. Does that mean we'll let someone walk around in the city threatening people at sword-point? No. We detain them, kill them if we have good reason to believe they are about to kill someone else. Same, I think, with us. Our best bet is to step carefully. Unfortunately that will never happen.
It's a tossup. They might be quite close, depending on how common life is. http://www.solstation.com/stars3/100-ks.htm (http://www.solstation.com/stars3/100-ks.htm) and http://www.solstation.com/stars3/100-gs.htm (http://www.solstation.com/stars3/100-gs.htm) is one reference, for G and K type stars. Obviously the number in range is going to increase non-linearly - you won't find 1500 more by going out 200 light years, rather quite a bit more. 200 LY is not an impossible distance at sub-light speeds, especially not relativistic speeds relatively easily achievable with an unmanned device. If they were at exactly 200 ly, and were actively looking for radio waves with large telescopes and without much interference from their own technology (something we can assume given they are at a stage that requires long-range communications, since we haven't heard anything out there yet), we'd still have well over 300 years to prepare for an automated attack. But the way things are going now I don't think we'd be prepared, even given that time span... Eh, who knows really?This is assuming they do have FTL. That their technology isn't more like how science will realistically go without it - higher and higher speed computation, towards digitization of intelligence, or at least very powerful research and engineering tools. Realistically, interstellar distances are the exact opposite of what you need to build better computers. That means they might not have bothered to establish a foothold on other planets, and even if they have, they might be more vulnerable than we are to sudden attack, or at least more cautious with better tools to exercise that caution.
We aren't afraid of swords and plate-mail anymore. We have guns. Does that mean we'll let someone walk around in the city threatening people at sword-point? No. We detain them, kill them if we have good reason to believe they are about to kill someone else. Same, I think, with us. Our best bet is to step carefully. Unfortunately that will never happen.
If they don't have FTL, the chances of them finding us are pretty much nonexistant.
Seriously, space is just that big. Without FTL it's just flat out not feasible to travel beyond your star system and any immediate neighbours.
Look at it this way: if Bill Gates saw a 100$ bill on the street, would he pick it up? I think the answer is yes.A more apt comparison would be if Bill Gates saw a penny in the street guarded by vicious apes and requiring a steam-shovel to retrieve. It's much easier to mine asteroids and moons. Regardless of how cheap your propulsion is, it's still going to be cheaper and more profitable to scoop up all the relatively unweathered and metal-rich stuff in the asteroid belt. Now if they manage to do all that in a timeframe that I care about, -then- I'd be worried about them coming here and trying to get what we have too, just because it's there. Otherwise the argument from resources is plain silly.
Yeah, monkey butlers that proceed to steal the penny and punch you in the face just for good measure. Sure aliens might be superior to us in every way, but it would still take them some amount of effort to take over, and earth does not have that many resources.
If they blow up a couple of major cities, we're going to be crawling into their asses so deep you won't see our shoelaces, just if they promise to stop killing us.
And just what do you think we can do against orbital bombardment? If they blow up a couple of major cities, we're going to be crawling into their asses so deep you won't see our shoelaces, just if they promise to stop killing us.Blowing up cities takes resources. Resources that would be better spent mining some other planet for whatever they need. We offer some resistance simply by existing. No matter how advanced they are we must still be removed before earth can be taken over.
a 1,000,000 lightyear radius from the center of the universe.You might want to add a few zeros there, unless you're planning on making the Milky Way center of the Universe(which is an idea you best drop anyway).
It's a tossup. They might be quite close, depending on how common life is. http://www.solstation.com/stars3/100-ks.htm (http://www.solstation.com/stars3/100-ks.htm) and http://www.solstation.com/stars3/100-gs.htm (http://www.solstation.com/stars3/100-gs.htm) is one reference, for G and K type stars. Obviously the number in range is going to increase non-linearly - you won't find 1500 more by going out 200 light years, rather quite a bit more. 200 LY is not an impossible distance at sub-light speeds, especially not relativistic speeds relatively easily achievable with an unmanned device. If they were at exactly 200 ly, and were actively looking for radio waves with large telescopes and without much interference from their own technology (something we can assume given they are at a stage that requires long-range communications, since we haven't heard anything out there yet), we'd still have well over 300 years to prepare for an automated attack. But the way things are going now I don't think we'd be prepared, even given that time span... Eh, who knows really?This is assuming they do have FTL. That their technology isn't more like how science will realistically go without it - higher and higher speed computation, towards digitization of intelligence, or at least very powerful research and engineering tools. Realistically, interstellar distances are the exact opposite of what you need to build better computers. That means they might not have bothered to establish a foothold on other planets, and even if they have, they might be more vulnerable than we are to sudden attack, or at least more cautious with better tools to exercise that caution.
We aren't afraid of swords and plate-mail anymore. We have guns. Does that mean we'll let someone walk around in the city threatening people at sword-point? No. We detain them, kill them if we have good reason to believe they are about to kill someone else. Same, I think, with us. Our best bet is to step carefully. Unfortunately that will never happen.
If they don't have FTL, the chances of them finding us are pretty much nonexistant.
Seriously, space is just that big. Without FTL it's just flat out not feasible to travel beyond your star system and any immediate neighbours.
And just what do you think we can do against orbital bombardment? If they blow up a couple of major cities, we're going to be crawling into their asses so deep you won't see our shoelaces, just if they promise to stop killing us.
No, it's more like a penny being delivered by monkey butlers.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_belt#Composition
Oh, and I reckon that asteroid belt isn't all that rich in heavy metals. Even M type are mostly lighter metals. heavy stuff tends to be closer to the system's centre, which tend to be fairly asteroid-free.
Oh i'm not saying it would be infeasible to find other aliens nearby, just that it would be infeasible to actually do anything to them.To quote yourself,
To take your 200 LY example, that means that even at light speed, it's going to take at least 200 years to get from there to here. There is no way in hell you can manage any sort of invasion or anything with a 200 year travel time.
We can already send nuclear missiles into space you know. If they're in orbit, they're in range.They wouldn't have to come here to kill us at all. That would be silly. They'd just have to send something that could. Nukes are primitive though, and would ruin a perfectly good planet. I'd expect Von-Neumann machines programmed to destroy sources of electromagnetic radiation. That would bring us to our knees pretty quickly (can you say Dark Ages?), and keep us there unless we were very, very organized and reacted quickly to preserve the technology to -maybe- rebuild and fight back with our own machines. Which humans tend not to do in the face of crisis.
They wouldn't have to come here to kill us at all. That would be silly. They'd just have to send something that could. Nukes are primitive though, and would ruin a perfectly good planet. I'd expect Von-Neumann machines programmed to destroy sources of electromagnetic radiation. That would bring us to our knees pretty quickly (can you say Dark Ages?), and keep us there unless we were very, very organized and reacted quickly to preserve the technology to -maybe- rebuild and fight back with our own machines. Which humans tend not to do in the face of crisis.
Congratulations, you've destroyed and subdued a planet that is so far away that actually doing anything worthwhile with it is a complete waste of time and resources!Terraforming is still expensive compared to that :P They might just want the nice trees to look at, and puppies. And I still maintain they'd choose the 'better safe than sorry' approach, such that they'd -want- to take out a civilization capable of producing similar technology that could destroy them. Which we really might be.
Wait, this plan had a flaw in it...
and no angry/noisy apesHow many times do I have to say that we're not a problem, but an asset? We're advanced enough to mine and refine metal, and then deliver it to our orbit, but we're not advanced enough to be much of a threat. And if there's one thing humans know how to do, it's kneeling before those stronger than us (our entire history proves this quite well). There wouldn't be much of a conquest, they'd just need to make examples of a couple of cities.
How many times do I have to say that we're not a problem, but an asset?
and no angry/noisy apesHow many times do I have to say that we're not a problem, but an asset? We're advanced enough to mine and refine metal, and then deliver it to our orbit, but we're not advanced enough to be much of a threat. And if there's one thing humans know how to do, it's kneeling before those stronger than us (our entire history proves this quite well). There wouldn't be much of a conquest, they'd just need to make examples of a couple of cities.
And free labour is cheaper than doing something yourself, however you look at it.
Alternatively, melt the Earth into a ball of easily consumable molten rock from a distance at which we can neither target them or maybe even see them.Do you have any fucking idea how much energy that would require? A Type II civilization (on the Kardashev) scale might be able to harness that much energy (depends on the size of it)...but it couldn't transport it.
The fact that he appears to have suggested it as a viable course of action clearly indicates he does not.Alternatively, melt the Earth into a ball of easily consumable molten rock from a distance at which we can neither target them or maybe even see them.Do you have any fucking idea how much energy that would require? A Type II civilization (on the Kardashev) scale might be able to harness that much energy (depends on the size of it)...but it couldn't transport it.
I agree; I was being rhetorical. People who can't do math are funny.The fact that he appears to have suggested it as a viable course of action clearly indicates he does not.Alternatively, melt the Earth into a ball of easily consumable molten rock from a distance at which we can neither target them or maybe even see them.Do you have any fucking idea how much energy that would require? A Type II civilization (on the Kardashev) scale might be able to harness that much energy (depends on the size of it)...but it couldn't transport it.
It does raise the important point. Any civilization with the ability to produce energy and material tools on the scale need to launch invasions of solar systems from other solar systems, almost certainly has the capability to produce energy and material in such abundance that it would never need to conquer anything. Even if you did need a planet's worth of iron or something, there's plenty of perfectly serviceable dead-rock worlds, without the muss and fuss of turning a planet like Earth into an ingot.
So you think feudalism is just a conspiracy theory?and no angry/noisy apesHow many times do I have to say that we're not a problem, but an asset? We're advanced enough to mine and refine metal, and then deliver it to our orbit, but we're not advanced enough to be much of a threat. And if there's one thing humans know how to do, it's kneeling before those stronger than us (our entire history proves this quite well). There wouldn't be much of a conquest, they'd just need to make examples of a couple of cities.
And free labour is cheaper than doing something yourself, however you look at it.
Actually our entire history proves that what you are proposing (violent suppression of Humans) never works out in the long term.
So you think feudalism is just a conspiracy theory?and no angry/noisy apesHow many times do I have to say that we're not a problem, but an asset? We're advanced enough to mine and refine metal, and then deliver it to our orbit, but we're not advanced enough to be much of a threat. And if there's one thing humans know how to do, it's kneeling before those stronger than us (our entire history proves this quite well). There wouldn't be much of a conquest, they'd just need to make examples of a couple of cities.
And free labour is cheaper than doing something yourself, however you look at it.
Actually our entire history proves that what you are proposing (violent suppression of Humans) never works out in the long term.
I'm gonna quote my Physics prof, who probably stole this from somewhere, and say: "A state is not defined by its system of government. It is not defined by its religion, or its people, or its language. It is defined by its monopoly on violence. A state that has lost the monopoly on the capacity to inflict violence is a failed state."
So, yeah. Rule of force has worked in the past, and will work in the future.
So you think feudalism is just a conspiracy theory?I think emphasis is more on long-term here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastille_Day)
I'm gonna quote my Physics prof, who probably stole this from somewhere, and say: "A state is not defined by its system of government. It is not defined by its religion, or its people, or its language. It is defined by its monopoly on violence. A state that has lost the monopoly on the capacity to inflict violence is a failed state."
So, yeah. Rule of force has worked in the past, and will work in the future.
True, but still. Blowing up a few cities alone wouldn't be the end of it. They'd need either a large force to enslave the local population to work, or some kind of remuneration to those that do mine for them.
Humans never work for free. We'll work for pay, work to avoid pain or death. But only if these are immediate, and real.
Which begs the question, why not just mine an easier target?
As for possible uses for earth? Luxury for one. Earth has some very pretty sights, certainly rare sights in a work dominated by lifeless rocks. Our flora and fauna are unique to our planet.
Another possibility is colonization. Earth is already in the galactic 'Sweet Spot' for life. It'd be much easier to re-purpose to suit Alien needs then a barren rock with a weak atmosphere.
Oh! The mind control!So you think feudalism is just a conspiracy theory?I think emphasis is more on long-term here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastille_Day)
I think humanity would have too many insurrections to be useful slaves. Not to mention if they have technology to come here they would have technology that would be cheaper, faster and more efficient than slavery.
It didn't last, did it?So you think feudalism is just a conspiracy theory?and no angry/noisy apesHow many times do I have to say that we're not a problem, but an asset? We're advanced enough to mine and refine metal, and then deliver it to our orbit, but we're not advanced enough to be much of a threat. And if there's one thing humans know how to do, it's kneeling before those stronger than us (our entire history proves this quite well). There wouldn't be much of a conquest, they'd just need to make examples of a couple of cities.
And free labour is cheaper than doing something yourself, however you look at it.
Actually our entire history proves that what you are proposing (violent suppression of Humans) never works out in the long term.
It didn't last, did it?So you think feudalism is just a conspiracy theory?and no angry/noisy apesHow many times do I have to say that we're not a problem, but an asset? We're advanced enough to mine and refine metal, and then deliver it to our orbit, but we're not advanced enough to be much of a threat. And if there's one thing humans know how to do, it's kneeling before those stronger than us (our entire history proves this quite well). There wouldn't be much of a conquest, they'd just need to make examples of a couple of cities.
And free labour is cheaper than doing something yourself, however you look at it.
Actually our entire history proves that what you are proposing (violent suppression of Humans) never works out in the long term.
I think emphasis is more on long-term here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastille_Day)Actually, I can't think of a single case where the indentured people successfully overthrew their oppressors on their own.
I think humanity would have too many insurrections to be useful slaves. Not to mention if they have technology to come here they would have technology that would be cheaper, faster and more efficient than slavery.
If by 'it did well enough for a time' you mean 'it did fine when there weren't any viable alternitives' then yes.It did well enough for a time. And it still exists as a political, if not an economic system.It didn't last, did it?So you think feudalism is just a conspiracy theory?and no angry/noisy apesHow many times do I have to say that we're not a problem, but an asset? We're advanced enough to mine and refine metal, and then deliver it to our orbit, but we're not advanced enough to be much of a threat. And if there's one thing humans know how to do, it's kneeling before those stronger than us (our entire history proves this quite well). There wouldn't be much of a conquest, they'd just need to make examples of a couple of cities.
And free labour is cheaper than doing something yourself, however you look at it.
Actually our entire history proves that what you are proposing (violent suppression of Humans) never works out in the long term.
I think emphasis is more on long-term here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastille_Day)Actually, I can't think of a single case where the indentured people successfully overthrew their oppressors on their own.
I think humanity would have too many insurrections to be useful slaves. Not to mention if they have technology to come here they would have technology that would be cheaper, faster and more efficient than slavery.
Roman slavery - ended by barbarians, not slave revolt
Feudalism - ended by bourgeoisie and monarchs (to weaken the nobility), not serfs
Slavery in USA - ended by North, not blacks
(arguably) communism - ended by economic meltdown, not popular revolt
I'm sure you could dig out some minor case of a successful peasant or slave rebellion, but overwhelming majority of them were failures.
And slavery has lasted much, much longer than our modern freedom.
With a little application of time and technology, Mankind is pretty much perfectly set to become a manufacturing powerhouse; we have the intelligence and knowledge to build and run run matter synthesisers if somone explains how, but we don't have the technology or civilisation to really use them that much.
The inability of you guys to comprehend the sheer numbers involved in the undertakings you are suggesting is so very, very human.:P
Yes, slave rebellions never seem to work out by the slaves on their own, but that's the thing, the slaves are never on their own.And who would these others be? Alien specie that's at war with our enslavers? Sure, they could arm us for rebellion, or they could just glass the whole planet to weaken the enemy's industrial base. Much easier than teaching monkeys how to use computers.
To draw an allegory, Roman slaves were like middle-class salaried blue-collar workers of the modern age. They recieved a stipend from their employer (owner) and got a house of their own, etc. etc.
Also, I find the whole "but they have enough resources" argument naive. That's like saying they have enough dakka.... But they really, really do. I mean unless they're all around us in every system proximate to Earth, in huge populations that dwarf our own (very unlikely considering how silent it is out there), there's so much resources in our own system alone off of Earth that you can't possibly believe they'd come here just for Earth's.
Another alternative is that there simply aren't aliens more advanced than us. And I don't think that STL resource collection is practical at all.
You mean they're doomed.
You mean they're doomed.
And I also think that FTL travel is as likely as perpetuum mobile.
Yes, slave rebellions never seem to work out by the slaves on their own, but that's the thing, the slaves are never on their own.And who would these others be? Alien specie that's at war with our enslavers? Sure, they could arm us for rebellion, or they could just glass the whole planet to weaken the enemy's industrial base. Much easier than teaching monkeys how to use computers.
As for all insurrection stuff - just how would you do it? The enemy's homeworld is out of reach, and their war ships are in our orbit, where we can't do shit to them but they can kill us at their leisure. Best we could do is attack those that comply with aliens' demands, but then they'd just decide we need more examples because we're not meeting our quotas.
Also, I find the whole "but they have enough resources" argument naive. That's like saying they have enough dakka.
Earths minerals are not valuable. Billions of other planets have those, without the annoyance of trading, enslaving, or even talking to another species. Earth is a planet that sustains life. That's a valuable commodity in the Universe. If an aliens force comes to earth, and decides they want to colonize, it is very possible to have trillions of aliens escaping from overcrowding and low economic opportunity come to earth to find that. And we would be the 'ignorant' 'savage' species that was in the way.
If you're still not sure how this is going to turn out, ask the Native Americans. They know.
Maybe; we don't actually know how common Earth-Type planets are. They could be a dime a dozen.
Maybe; we don't actually know how common Earth-Type planets are. They could be a dime a dozen.
We can make an educated guess. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability)
One of the cool things about a growing population is size alone doesn't make it slow it's grow. If there is room to expand, birthrates rocket up to accommodate. For instance, settlers in America had an average of 6-8 kids in the early years. The same is true in Africa today. Livable land will always be a valuable commodity.Maybe; we don't actually know how common Earth-Type planets are. They could be a dime a dozen.
We can make an educated guess. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability)
Yeah, and that educated guess puts earth-type planets as surprisingly common.
Hell, even if they were suitably rare, say one per ten thousand stars, there are enough stars in the galaxy that that still means millions of the damn things.
Also if life isn't guaranteed to happen on a earth like planet they will probably prefer one without life so they can more easily create a ecosystem like their own and grow crops they can use.This is simple enough to remedy, alter the atmosphere artificially to what you need it to be, that'll kill off the majority of unwanted life. Some creatures will evolve to cope, the number depending on just how much the atmosphere changes. Then just begin ecosystem. Much easier then trying to say, start an ecosystem on Mars the same way.
One of the cool things about a growing population is size alone doesn't make it slow it's grow. If there is room to expand, birthrates rocket up to accommodate. For instance, settlers in America had an average of 6-8 kids in the early years. The same is true in Africa today. Livable land will always be a valuable commodity.Maybe; we don't actually know how common Earth-Type planets are. They could be a dime a dozen.
We can make an educated guess. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability)
Yeah, and that educated guess puts earth-type planets as surprisingly common.
Hell, even if they were suitably rare, say one per ten thousand stars, there are enough stars in the galaxy that that still means millions of the damn things.
In other words, lots of life-sustaining planets just means a bigger alien population, not a lot of unused habitable planets.
Also if life isn't guaranteed to happen on a earth like planet they will probably prefer one without life so they can more easily create a ecosystem like their own and grow crops they can use.This is simple enough to remedy, alter the atmosphere artificially to what you need it to be, that'll kill off the majority of unwanted life. Some creatures will evolve to cope, the number depending on just how much the atmosphere changes. Then just begin ecosystem. Much easier then trying to say, start an ecosystem on Mars the same way.
Some things, like the Gravity of the planet would be much harder if impossible to alter.
Since Humanity became seriously civilized, it's taken. Oh, let's be generous. ten thousand years to get to the population we are at today? That isn't even a blip on the radar of the galaxy. Hell, that isn't even a blip for Earth. Considering Lifespans will continue to increase, deathrates will continue to get lower, if we brought 1 million people to a habitable planet, we'd be able to fill it in 4000 years. And thats if we magicly where able to do so today. That planet becomes a huge population center, people leave to new planets. Repeat as needed.
And once again you show you literally have absolutely no conception of just how big the numbers we are talking about.
If we take Humans as an example, we could indeed colonize every habitable planet in the galaxy.
It would probably take us longer than the lifetime of the universe, but otherwise we could totally do it.
That would fill up planets pretty fast. But as Neruz said, you have no idea what a ridiculously huge number of available planets there are.
Since Humanity became seriously civilized, it's taken. Oh, let's be generous. ten thousand years to get to the population we are at today? That isn't even a blip on the radar of the galaxy. Hell, that isn't even a blip for Earth. Considering Lifespans will continue to increase, deathrates will continue to get lower, if we brought 1 million people to a habitable planet, we'd be able to fill it in 4000 years. And thats if we magicly where able to do so today. That planet becomes a huge population center, people leave to new planets. Repeat as needed.
And once again you show you literally have absolutely no conception of just how big the numbers we are talking about.
If we take Humans as an example, we could indeed colonize every habitable planet in the galaxy.
It would probably take us longer than the lifetime of the universe, but otherwise we could totally do it.
Once transporting large numbers of people to other planets becomes feasible though, I have this feeling that humanity will expand exponentially. This assumes there aren't any horrible disasters that wipe out most of the human population.
Look at it this way, there are several ways to wipe out massive amounts of people:
Star problems.
Nearby star problems.
Planet problems.
New diseases.
War.
Asteroids.
Comets.
And Black holes.
If I was ruler of a civilization that could feasibly travel between stars, I'd forget about planets all together. Who needs those pesky gravity wells anyway? We'll just build everything in space out of melted asteroids.Funny, that's what that guy in the irc channel said 10 days ago. With the same words.
If I was ruler of a civilization that could feasibly travel between stars, I'd forget about planets all together. Who needs those pesky gravity wells anyway? We'll just build everything in space out of melted asteroids.Funny, that's what that guy in the irc channel said 10 days ago. With the same words.
I still disagree, for the record. Being able to do that doesn't necessarily make it more practical
It's not just a matter of energy, but also of infrastructure
In particular, the IRC argument ran about crops. There was a guy who kept ranting against "gravity wells" and said that food could be grown in "vats" (biorreactors, I assume). We countered that it likely would be more practical to grow it in planets and send it to orbit.
BTW: Notice how not only I answered your troll reply seriously, but did it without any kind of snark. I did this as an exercise in maturity. Try it sometime, it feels good.
That was pretty snarky at the end.Drats!
Anyway, what's "likely" depends entirely on the technology available. If you lived on an asteroid with modern technology, you'd grow your there, because it be a lot easier, faster, and cheaper than growing it on Earth and shipping it.
That was pretty snarky at the end.Drats!QuoteAnyway, what's "likely" depends entirely on the technology available. If you lived on an asteroid with modern technology, you'd grow your there, because it be a lot easier, faster, and cheaper than growing it on Earth and shipping it.
My point was that it was not only a matter of technology, but resources at hand and practicality. For instance, if you were in deep space and/or far away enough from a potentially crop producing planet, it might indeed be more practical to resort to biorreactor grown food/hydroponics. But such a rig requires maintentance, too, which has a cost, and various sorts of resources, which you might or might not be able to get from the neighbouring area. So IMHO, it would be easier to grow it on a planet, and ship it to orbit. Though it would depend on circumstances, of course.
Heh, Finally a use for all those brown dwarfs in the galaxy.
Actually brown dwarfs are useless. Red Dwarfs are where it's at.
Let's make the BIGGEST BROWN DWARF OF ALL
By clumping them together :3
I highly doubt that that is a good idea. :P
Depends on how far from the dwarf and what type of brown dwarf it is.Heh, Finally a use for all those brown dwarfs in the galaxy.Actually brown dwarfs are useless. They're far too cold to be of any use.
*words*The main flaw with your argument is this: Growth would not be exponential, or at least not in such a simple way. The limits of lightspeed would slow our possible rate of expansion greatly. we could, at most, colonize a sphere of space growing at the speed of light. We would still run out eventually, but in a much greater span of time than you predict. Not to mention, there is no reason to colonize so quickly. Just because we could reproduce so quickly doesn't mean we will. Migrating due to using up resources makes sense, but once a planet cannot support more population... stop making more. It's a simple solution, that might even come up on earth.(we are estimated to still only be using a fraction of the maximum population earth can support)
Okay, I keep getting told I have no idea of the number involved, so I'll use some numbers to help clear things up. The milky way is theorized to have anywhere from 200-400 billion planets.
Okay, I keep getting told I have no idea of the number involved, so I'll use some numbers to help clear things up. The milky way is theorized to have anywhere from 200-400 billion planets.
That is an incredibly conservative estimate. We're looking at at least 200 billion stars in the Milky Way, possibly up to 400 billion. Trying to work out exactly how many is pretty much impossible at the moment, but to reach 200 - 400 billion planets, all we would need is every Red Dwarf to have 1 planet orbiting it. That's it. Every single other star in the galaxy could be completely barren of planets.
The Red Dwarf planets btw, are probably mostly sterilized, plenty could support life, but the early years of turbluence in the Red Dwarf and the close proximity required to give sufficient heat would probably have wiped out any organic life, although some hardy bacterium might survive on the cold side of the planet.
Okay, I keep getting told I have no idea of the number involved, so I'll use some numbers to help clear things up. The milky way is theorized to have anywhere from 200-400 billion planets.
That is an incredibly conservative estimate. We're looking at at least 200 billion stars in the Milky Way, possibly up to 400 billion. Trying to work out exactly how many is pretty much impossible at the moment, but to reach 200 - 400 billion planets, all we would need is every Red Dwarf to have 1 planet orbiting it. That's it. Every single other star in the galaxy could be completely barren of planets.
The Red Dwarf planets btw, are probably mostly sterilized, plenty could support life, but the early years of turbluence in the Red Dwarf and the close proximity required to give sufficient heat would probably have wiped out any organic life, although some hardy bacterium might survive on the cold side of the planet.
Did I type planets? I meant stars. The rest of the post is working under that being stars, not planets.
Eh, give it another 50,000 years and the number would cover every star in the milkyway nearly 3 times over.
Keep in mind that your estimate is also for purely earthlike worlds capable of sustaining life on their own. Add in some simple terraforming of marslike planets and that number jumps dramatically. Add in spaceborne habitations orbiting stars and the number begins approaching something rediculous.
Hell, i don't remember the exact numbers, but a single Dyson Swarm around a Sun-type star would provide enough energy and habitation to support the earth something like a million times over, or something similarly ludicrous. I can't say i really care enough to go find the exact numbers, although they're probably on Wikipedia.
*words*The main flaw with your argument is this: Growth would not be exponential, or at least not in such a simple way. The limits of lightspeed would slow our possible rate of expansion greatly. we could, at most, colonize a sphere of space growing at the speed of light. We would still run out eventually, but in a much greater span of time than you predict. Not to mention, there is no reason to colonize so quickly. Just because we could reproduce so quickly doesn't mean we will. Migrating due to using up resources makes sense, but once a planet cannot support more population... stop making more. It's a simple solution, that might even come up on earth.(we are estimated to still only be using a fraction of the maximum population earth can support)
Eh, give it another 50,000 years and the number would cover every star in the milkyway nearly 3 times over.
Keep in mind that your estimate is also for purely earthlike worlds capable of sustaining life on their own. Add in some simple terraforming of marslike planets and that number jumps dramatically. Add in spaceborne habitations orbiting stars and the number begins approaching something rediculous.
Hell, i don't remember the exact numbers, but a single Dyson Swarm around a Sun-type star would provide enough energy and habitation to support the earth something like a million times over, or something similarly ludicrous. I can't say i really care enough to go find the exact numbers, although they're probably on Wikipedia.
I'm not saying that we'll suddenly run out of room, then curl up in a ball and die. But as I said, a planet like earth would be very valuable, and not for it's minerals.
Sex is a big biological imperative. However, birthcontrol that far in the future is going to be pretty spot on
Sex is a big biological imperative. However, birthcontrol that far in the future is going to be pretty spot on
That and what do you think is going to happen to the world birth rate once we prefect sex bots less horrifyingly deep in the uncanny valley than the ones currently available?
http://www.cracked.com/funny-37-technology/ (http://www.cracked.com/funny-37-technology/)
Motherhood another big biological imperative, also the idea of creating something that lives, thinks, and breathes and will carry on your DNA and in a way help immortalize you is another big one. Frankly, I don't see everyone on the planet up and leaving when they can't have kids, but oh yeah, a good number will move onto greener pastures. Figuratively Speaking.
Having children != population growth. Having more than two children does.Motherhood another big biological imperative, also the idea of creating something that lives, thinks, and breathes and will carry on your DNA and in a way help immortalize you is another big one. Frankly, I don't see everyone on the planet up and leaving when they can't have kids, but oh yeah, a good number will move onto greener pastures. Figuratively Speaking.
And that's the thing DJ; if they can cover the gulf of space in any reasonable fashion, they do have enough resources. Once you have a means of crossing interstellar space without expending ludicrous amounts of resources to do so you suddenly have access to an absolutely insane amount of raw materials and energy.There is no such thing as enough resources. That's like saying you can have enough money. Having more just makes your appetite bigger.
And that's the thing DJ; if they can cover the gulf of space in any reasonable fashion, they do have enough resources. Once you have a means of crossing interstellar space without expending ludicrous amounts of resources to do so you suddenly have access to an absolutely insane amount of raw materials and energy.There is no such thing as enough resources. That's like saying you can have enough money. Having more just makes your appetite bigger.
As for having more planets that we can colonize - population growth is an exponential function. They grow really really fast. Given good conditions, human population could probably double every 30 years or so. That's over 4 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 00 people in just two thousand years, starting with 6 billion.
I reckon most systems have way less resources than Sol.
I reckon most systems have way less resources than Sol.
Well, you could bend it instead of breaking it and just pull mass out of the future or something (since you can already bend space-time).
And time travel is impossible because nobody has assassinated Hitler yet.
Oh, and I thought the whole alternate universes thing is *very* fuzzy science.
Who said anything about putting things up? Presumably we'd send things from orbit to Earth.
And yeah, our knowledge will surely expand. But I can't think of many old laws of physics that were rendered outright obsolete by our modern advances. And assuming that we'll figure out how to make all those things from sci-fi books is even more laughable.
Well obviously you need an initial investment for sending equipment into orbit, but it pays off once you start catapulting stuff like He3 from Moon to Earth.
So, did you guys hear that Stephen Hawking is afraid of aliens? It's like he thinks that they're our mortal enemies.
I never knew you were cold-hearted enough to blow up a man and his wheelchair.
;D
Pretty much. Also, why would you have to return containers? You can make new ones on the Moon.
Oh god, now you want to mine the moon? You have any idea how fucking expensive that would be? Clearly not, you just suggested it.
if there is anything that is required in large quantities and can only be made on the moon, that isNot necessarily -only- on the moon, but cheaper on the moon. Titanium is one big possibility. It's extremely light by volume, and the vacuum and low gravity of space provides interesting qualities to space production and even manufacturing that is difficult to achieve on Earth. Nanomaterials are also sensitive during their production stages, often requiring a vacuum or an atmosphere of inert gas. I think if we ever make an actual space elevator with carbon construction, most of the ribbon will (economically) have to be made in space.
You both fail. hard. We dont know about minerals on moon. Yes, we fucking dont. We never prospected.Psst. This is wrong, for clearly obvious reasons. If you're such hot shit, surely you can figure out why.
And NASA did prospect (for water, but it still counts) a couple of months ago, by smashing a hunk of metal into it and observing the dust that rose from the impact.
That wasn't just a fuckton of metal; that was an 80 million dollar fuckton of metal.
*Ba dum tish*That wasn't just a fuckton of metal; that was an 80 million dollar fuckton of metal.
Man, that's so Metal.
That wasn't just a fuckton of metal; that was an 80 million dollar fuckton of metal.
Man, that's so Dwarven.