The case for globalism

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The case for globalism

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Pochoclo posted:

What if we are the most advanced civilization in the universe? What if we -are- the Ancients?

If there are many alien species with technological capability even moderately exceeding our own, they are certainly showing - without exception - a great deal of restraint as they go about their business.

# ? Aug 21, 2016 13:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 30, 2024 10:22

Pochoclo: Feb 4, 2008; No...; Clapping Larry

As the Ancients, we should be seeding life everywhere we can so that in a few more billion years, they can grow into intelligent civilizations and they won't have to feel lonely like we do.

Then they will come to our homeworld, seeking the wisdom of the long-gone Ancients, in our broken dead world orbiting a red giant, and they will find the Internet and peruse it.

We really have to wipe out the internet's history before we die out.

# ? Aug 21, 2016 13:48

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Kilroy posted:

If there are many alien species with technological capability even moderately exceeding our own, they are certainly showing - without exception - a great deal of restraint as they go about their business.

Isn't there a decent chance the signals emanating from our solar system indicating intelligent life just turn into background noise at relatively limited (on the cosmic scale) distance? Which would of course also apply to any aliens out there.

# ? Aug 21, 2016 14:49

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Isn't there a decent chance the signals emanating from our solar system indicating intelligent life just turn into background noise at relatively limited (on the cosmic scale) distance? Which would of course also apply to any aliens out there.

It's not even just signals - if there were Kardashev type-III civilizations out there you would expect to see some evidence of it. And I mean literally see, with a telescope looking at the visible spectrum of light. A supernova from a star that shouldn't have supernova'd according to our understanding of stellar physics, a sequence alteration out of no where of some star, celestial objects putting shitloads of energy at certain frequencies but missing the corresponding energy signature at other frequencies that you would expect from natural phenomena, and so on.

Same goes to a more limited extent for type-II civilizations, for that matter.

To be fair we haven't looked that hard even within our own galaxy. But, we have looked hard enough that if intelligent life were anything other than really incredibly rare, and perhaps even unique to Earth, then we should have seen something by now.

# ? Aug 21, 2016 15:44

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Kilroy posted:

It's not even just signals - if there were Kardashev type-III civilizations out there you would expect to see some evidence of it. And I mean literally see, with a telescope looking at the visible spectrum of light. A supernova from a star that shouldn't have supernova'd according to our understanding of stellar physics, a sequence alteration out of no where of some star, celestial objects putting shitloads of energy at certain frequencies but missing the corresponding energy signature at other frequencies that you would expect from natural phenomena, and so on.

Same goes to a more limited extent for type-II civilizations, for that matter.

To be fair we haven't looked that hard even within our own galaxy. But, we have looked hard enough that if intelligent life were anything other than really incredibly rare, and perhaps even unique to Earth, then we should have seen something by now.

I think type II/III civilizations are a bit beyond simply "moderately exceeding our own".

# ? Aug 21, 2016 16:00

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

A Buttery Pastry posted:

I think type II/III civilizations are a bit beyond simply "moderately exceeding our own".

The leap from type-I to type-II is not that great in the sense that it is merely a matter of technological achievement. It's not farfetched at all to think we'll get there in 500 years - perhaps much sooner - and even on the scale of human history that is certainly a moderate amount of time. On the scale of real history it's not even worth thinking about, of course.

Assuming you can't do FTL, the jump from type-II to type-III must take many hundreds of thousands of years. So that's more than moderate, sure. And it doesn't seem that anyone has done it yet.

# ? Aug 21, 2016 16:08

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Kilroy posted:

The leap from type-I to type-II is not that great in the sense that it is merely a matter of technological achievement. It's not farfetched at all to think we'll get there in 500 years - perhaps much sooner - and even on the scale of human history that is certainly a moderate amount of time. On the scale of real history it's not even worth thinking about, of course.

I don't think using time as the scale makes much sense for a discussion of technological achievement, at least not a linear one if you do. I mean, the capabilities of humanity over the last 100 years seems to have grown much faster than they did the previous 100, which themselves saw greater change than the 100 previous to that. You also compare those 500 years to all of human history, but if we compare to for example to the start of the scientific revolution, we have just as long to go as we've already passed, or in the case of the industrial revolution, twice as long to go, before considering whether the rate of change of those last 500 years might not be faster than the first 500/250 years.

# ? Aug 21, 2016 16:51

Doc Hawkins: Jun 15, 2010; Dashing? But I'm not even moving!

Pochoclo posted:

What if we are the most advanced civilization in the universe? What if we -are- the Ancients?

I have essentially no basis for saying this, but I think it's likely. Here's an interactive Drake Equation widget. When I first found it, I selected "today's skeptical estimate," then scrolled down and noticed that the odds given for intelligent life evolving were at fifty percent. I had recently read an article which convinced me that environments which select for hominid-level intelligence are much less common than people typically expect, so that seemed high. But adjust it down even slightly you'll notice the results immediately collapse to there tending to be zero communicating civilizations in our galaxy at any given time (though there should still be tens of billions in the observable universe).

# ? Aug 21, 2016 18:27

jiggerypokery: Feb 1, 2012; ...But I could hardly wait six months with a red hot jape like that under me belt.

The problem with the fermi paradox and the drake equation etc is that our definition of intelligent is woefully inadequate. We assume it to mean homosapien-like. Of course we do. The problem with that definition is that we totally overstate our own intelligence. Genetically there is less difference between us and chimpanzees than there is between rats and mice, but a human toddler can perform times tables and a human adult can seriously question the nature of intelligence as I am here. The difference between us and alien life in terms of intelligence could be unfathomable. Particularly if genetics turns out to be fairly unique to earth.

Intelligent life could be everywhere, just completely imperceptible to us as we haven't even considered its effect measurable yet. Consider we only discovered radioactivity recently. What if consciousness were 'measurable' on a device like some form of Geiger counter also? Simply because we haven't discovered some means to measure it yet. It could be everywhere. DNA based 'life' could be very very unique indeed. Consciousness on the other hand could be ubiquitous.

# ? Aug 21, 2016 19:17

Kurtofan: Feb 16, 2011; hon hon hon

Kilroy posted:

It's not even just signals - if there were Kardashev type-III civilizations out there you would expect to see some evidence of it. And I mean literally see, with a telescope looking at the visible spectrum of light. A supernova from a star that shouldn't have supernova'd according to our understanding of stellar physics, a sequence alteration out of no where of some star, celestial objects putting shitloads of energy at certain frequencies but missing the corresponding energy signature at other frequencies that you would expect from natural phenomena, and so on.

Same goes to a more limited extent for type-II civilizations, for that matter.

To be fair we haven't looked that hard even within our own galaxy. But, we have looked hard enough that if intelligent life were anything other than really incredibly rare, and perhaps even unique to Earth, then we should have seen something by now.

Haven't you considered that the government is hiding things from us

trust no one

# ? Aug 21, 2016 20:05

erosion: Dec 21, 2002; It's true and I'm tired of pretending it isn't

Doc Hawkins posted:

But even if you disagree with Carl and think the benefits of preparation outweigh his concern, it sounds like you're just making the case for asteroid defense, not globalism.

Actually, what do you mean by that word? I was expecting this thread to be a defense of global trade, however uncharacteristic it would have been for D&D, but it sounds like you're talking about having a global and inclusive perspective on the possibilities and dangers of human affairs. Something like the overview effect?

If that's roughly what you mean, who are you trying to convince? Who do you see as arguing against a global and inclusive perspective, such that you have to make the case for it?

It's a poo poo post intended to poke fun at lolbertarians. I've also been playing at turning the xenophobia outward and making morons afraid of space aliens instead of blacks, but not so much on this forum as Facebook. Example:

quote:

I will build a great shield � and nobody builds shields better than me, believe me �and I�ll build it very inexpensively. I will build a great, great shield above our atmosphere, and I will make Alpha Centauri pay for that shield. Mark my words!

A planet without an energy shield is not a planet at all. We must have a shield. The rule of law matters.

and

quote:

Progressive? Yeah, I believe in progress. We shouldn't be rolling around in gas guzzling tanks firing depleted uranium shells at each other. We should be marching around in nuclear powered walking tanks firing lasers at each other!
And where the hell are my energy shields???

# ? Aug 21, 2016 20:28

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

jiggerypokery posted:

The problem with the fermi paradox and the drake equation etc is that our definition of intelligent is woefully inadequate. We assume it to mean homosapien-like. Of course we do. The problem with that definition is that we totally overstate our own intelligence. Genetically there is less difference between us and chimpanzees than there is between rats and mice, but a human toddler can perform times tables and a human adult can seriously question the nature of intelligence as I am here. The difference between us and alien life in terms of intelligence could be unfathomable. Particularly if genetics turns out to be fairly unique to earth.

Intelligent life could be everywhere, just completely imperceptible to us as we haven't even considered its effect measurable yet. Consider we only discovered radioactivity recently. What if consciousness were 'measurable' on a device like some form of Geiger counter also? Simply because we haven't discovered some means to measure it yet. It could be everywhere. DNA based 'life' could be very very unique indeed. Consciousness on the other hand could be ubiquitous.

It goes in both directions, too. Chimpanzees have more working memory than we do, and can perform feats of memorization that no human who has ever lived could hope to match.

# ? Aug 22, 2016 03:48

jiggerypokery: Feb 1, 2012; ...But I could hardly wait six months with a red hot jape like that under me belt.

Right, I knew someone was going to say that! The point being we can at least comprehend what working memory is, so having creatures better than it than us doesn't really make the point. Can a chimp comprehend something really abstract like imagination or calculus? Maybe, who knows, but it is pretty safe to say a banana can't and we are something like 97% banana genetically.

Imagine what intelligence looks like in alien life which we have far less in common with. 10% if they, say, use a mitochondrial process for energy or 0% if they are entirely different.

The entire need for language is moot if instead of developing something fundamental like we did on earth like eyes is replaced with the ability to navigate and communicate by projecting consciousness by some quantum process, say.

We know photosynthesis hooks into quantum processes for efficiency so the idea that entirely alien creatures couldn't develop this much deeper is crazy. If the great filter is quantum affinity, then we are doomed to be very, very lonely.

# ? Aug 22, 2016 07:08

Doc Hawkins: Jun 15, 2010; Dashing? But I'm not even moving!

jiggerypokery posted:

The problem with the fermi paradox and the drake equation etc is that our definition of intelligent is woefully inadequate. We assume it to mean homosapien-like. Of course we do. The problem with that definition is that we totally overstate our own intelligence. Genetically there is less difference between us and chimpanzees than there is between rats and mice, but a human toddler can perform times tables and a human adult can seriously question the nature of intelligence as I am here. The difference between us and alien life in terms of intelligence could be unfathomable. Particularly if genetics turns out to be fairly unique to earth.

If I understand what you're saying, I think those ideas can be modeled in the drake equation. In those terms, intelligence is defined as the quality which could enable the behavior of tool-creation, including potentially radio transmitters. If people have too narrow a definition of intelligence, then I think they would underestimate the chance of live evolving intelligence, but over-estimate the chance it would follow a human-like path and eventually send out radio signals. If people have too narrow a definition of life, then they would underestimate the number of planets where life could evolve, assuming they'd be earth-like.

# ? Aug 22, 2016 09:19

jiggerypokery: Feb 1, 2012; ...But I could hardly wait six months with a red hot jape like that under me belt.

Doc Hawkins posted:

If I understand what you're saying, I think those ideas can be modeled in the drake equation. In those terms, intelligence is defined as the quality which could enable the behavior of tool-creation, including potentially radio transmitters. If people have too narrow a definition of intelligence, then I think they would underestimate the chance of live evolving intelligence, but over-estimate the chance it would follow a human-like path and eventually send out radio signals.

Not quite, any estimations are pure conjecture anyway. The drake equation is not intended to produce anything meaningful in terms of numbers, rather it is simply as a device to get people thinking. To spark discussions like these and provide some basis for why radio signals are a good place to start looking.

Doc Hawkins posted:

If people have too narrow a definition of life, then they would underestimate the number of planets where life could evolve, assuming they'd be earth-like.

This is closer to the money. The third variable, the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets, makes some enormous assumptions. Far bigger assumptions than people give it credit. The very origin of life, the common ancestor of the simplest biological matter, is as yet unknown to us. Given that genetically there is 3% deviation between you and banana, consider that genetics may not even be part of the common ancestor for life in our biosphere. Then suppose that quantum effects are seen in the process of photosynthesis http://phys.org/news/2014-01-quantum-mechanics-efficiency-photosynthesis.html. That is literally processes life we recognise relying not even on matter, rather the vibrations that make an atom green.

So what if the common ancestor of life on earth, the origin of our biosphere, and consequentially intelligence isn't even something like some primordial amino acid or even matter, rather some quantum process? If the tree of life splits before DNA, before proteins, or before even amino acids there could be life even on earth so far removed from anything our senses can comprehend we may never, ever be able to fathom it. And that is just earth.

Once you break the supposition that even DNA is requisite for 'life', combined with the fact that we can make radio waves because our ancient ancestors simply evolved eyes (long long after genetics) rather than something like telepathy and we are 99.99999999% chimp or whatever... (imagine the same deviation between us and chimp but upwards in intelligence) you begin to realise just how how absurd the notion that recognisable life elsewhere is. It's every bit as arrogant to presume we are alone as it is to presume we have the intellectual capacity to fathom it let alone recognise it if it was there.

Basically, it is better to presume we are alone, and take the moral obligations that come with it than to assume life, let alone intelligence, exists in a recognisable form.

# ? Aug 22, 2016 21:17

i am harry: Oct 14, 2003

Kilroy posted:

It's not even just signals - if there were Kardashev type-III civilizations out there you would expect to see some evidence of it. And I mean literally see, with a telescope looking at the visible spectrum of light. A supernova from a star that shouldn't have supernova'd according to our understanding of stellar physics, a sequence alteration out of no where of some star, celestial objects putting shitloads of energy at certain frequencies but missing the corresponding energy signature at other frequencies that you would expect from natural phenomena, and so on.

Oh I don't know, do these advanced civilizations need to inhabit advanced states of population? With robots and AI, couldn't we get by with less of us, and therefore, less visible output?

# ? Aug 22, 2016 21:20

ugh its Troika: May 2, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

The fact that the universe isn't infested by self-replicating Von Neumann probes is pretty good circumstantial evidence that there's no other intelligent life.

# ? Aug 22, 2016 21:45

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

-Troika- posted:

The fact that the universe isn't infested by self-replicating Von Neumann probes is pretty good circumstantial evidence that there's no other intelligent life.

It might be, but those galaxies are too far away for us to see what they're up to yet.

# ? Aug 22, 2016 21:46

Pochoclo: Feb 4, 2008; No...; Clapping Larry

Dark matter is actually a massive network of computational substrate that conforms the actual lifeform this universe was made for. We're simply one of its many experiments. :2bong:

Seriously though, I think the enormous, unfathomable distance involved is the real limiting factor in everything discussed here. The universe is a biiiiiiiiig place.

# ? Aug 23, 2016 00:22

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

-Troika- posted:

The fact that the universe isn't infested by self-replicating Von Neumann probes is pretty good circumstantial evidence that there's no other intelligent life.

what if...we're the von neumann probes

# ? Aug 23, 2016 01:37

Peztopiary: Mar 16, 2009; by exmarx

-Troika- posted:

The fact that the universe isn't infested by self-replicating Von Neumann probes is pretty good circumstantial evidence that there's no other intelligent life.

It might be that other races aren't dumb enough to do that. I mean, we've already got the theory and are pretty clear on it being a terrible idea, so maybe we won't do it. It's like nuclear war, it's just too dumb to actually have happen, contra Donald Trump.

# ? Aug 23, 2016 02:05

erosion: Dec 21, 2002; It's true and I'm tired of pretending it isn't

-Troika- posted:

The fact that the universe isn't infested by self-replicating Von Neumann probes is pretty good circumstantial evidence that there's no other intelligent life.

WE COME IN PEACE. WE ARE A FRIENDLY RACE EXPLORING THE COSMOS.

PRIORITY OVERRIDE; NEW BEHAVIOR DICTATED. MUST BREAK TARGET INTO COMPONENT MATERIALS.

# ? Aug 23, 2016 02:33

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

i am harry posted:

Oh I don't know, do these advanced civilizations need to inhabit advanced states of population? With robots and AI, couldn't we get by with less of us, and therefore, less visible output?

Simply put you can do more stuff with more energy, so if you can consume more energy why wouldn't you? Yes, they can live lives of fabulous luxury by our standards, but if you're already consuming 40% of the energy output of your star to perform computations, why wouldn't you want to do that one trillion more times if you could? And that's not even getting into the arms race aspect of it: once they get to the point where they can make the jump to a type-III galactic civilization, choosing not to is equivalent to waiting around to be gobbled up by the first civilization that does make the jump.

jiggerypokery posted:

Then suppose that quantum effects are seen in the process of photosynthesis http://phys.org/news/2014-01-quantum-mechanics-efficiency-photosynthesis.html. That is literally processes life we recognise relying not even on matter, rather the vibrations that make an atom green.

So what if the common ancestor of life on earth, the origin of our biosphere, and consequentially intelligence isn't even something like some primordial amino acid or even matter, rather some quantum process?

FYI you're really crawling up your own rear end in a top hat with the quantum physics stuff. The quantum-mechanical processes that are a part of photosynthesis are interesting, but you're acting like they upend our understanding of the origin of life on Earth, which is not true.

jiggerypokery posted:

the fact that we can make radio waves because our ancient ancestors simply evolved eyes (long long after genetics) rather than something like telepathy

# ? Aug 23, 2016 02:44

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

rudatron posted:

what if...we're the von neumann probes

Prometheus was such a lovely movie in so many interesting ways - it's almost worth a watch on that basis alone.

# ? Aug 23, 2016 02:45

Elukka: Feb 18, 2011; For All Mankind

Kilroy posted:

Simply put you can do more stuff with more energy, so if you can consume more energy why wouldn't you? Yes, they can live lives of fabulous luxury by our standards, but if you're already consuming 40% of the energy output of your star to perform computations, why wouldn't you want to do that one trillion more times if you could? And that's not even getting into the arms race aspect of it: once they get to the point where they can make the jump to a type-III galactic civilization, choosing not to is equivalent to waiting around to be gobbled up by the first civilization that does make the jump.

Well, we've so far made the choice not to expand beyond our planet. This is generally seen as a sensible choice by many, and may well end up being permanent.

I think the main problem in speculating on the motivations of long-lived civilizations is that we have a total sample size of one for civilizations in general and zero for long-lived ones. The idea that more energy = more better is sensible enough, but I still can't help feeling like a caveman speculating on Cold War geopolitics. There could be all sorts of social and political factors governing these civilizations we haven't really thought of.

# ? Aug 23, 2016 03:40

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

You say that as if space colonization was possible with modern technology. There is only one closed biosphere that we know of.

# ? Aug 23, 2016 04:52

cargo cult: Aug 28, 2008; by Reene

Kurtofan posted:

We're at a point where the dystopian cyberpunk future of the 1990's look more enviable to what we got.

I never asked for this

# ? Aug 23, 2016 05:00

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

Kurtofan posted:

We're at a point where the dystopian cyberpunk future of the 1990's look more enviable to what we got.

I never asked for this

I thought neuromancer was a boring book

Also I didn't like blade runner but we still have real animals so there's that

# ? Aug 23, 2016 05:43

Elukka: Feb 18, 2011; For All Mankind

Arglebargle III posted:

You say that as if space colonization was possible with modern technology. There is only one closed biosphere that we know of.

It's not something that'll just happen if not actively pursued. I don't wanna start an argument here on whether it's worthwhile or not, just saying that we may well make the choice never to leave this planet despite being potentially able to do so. If we might choose that, what does that say about the idea that other civilizations would spread as far as they're able as a matter of course?

# ? Aug 23, 2016 07:03

jiggerypokery: Feb 1, 2012; ...But I could hardly wait six months with a red hot jape like that under me belt.

Kilroy posted:

FYI you're really crawling up your own rear end in a top hat with the quantum physics stuff. The quantum-mechanical processes that are a part of photosynthesis are interesting, but you're acting like they upend our understanding of the origin of life on Earth, which is not true.

Hmm I didn't mean to but you are probably right, it's a little too far down hyperbole road. My point is simply that people are inclined to massively overstate our intelligence in relation to what intelligence could be given just how different a different biosphere could be and how stupid extremely similar things are to us relative to us.

jiggerypokery fucked around with this message at 07:57 on Aug 23, 2016

# ? Aug 23, 2016 07:15

Hollismason: Jun 30, 2007; Get Ready for Price Time , Bitch

What about the great filter theory and how maybe we are in it right now.

# ? Aug 23, 2016 23:14

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

jiggerypokery posted:

The problem with the fermi paradox and the drake equation etc is that our definition of intelligent is woefully inadequate. We assume it to mean homosapien-like. Of course we do. The problem with that definition is that we totally overstate our own intelligence. Genetically there is less difference between us and chimpanzees than there is between rats and mice, but a human toddler can perform times tables and a human adult can seriously question the nature of intelligence as I am here. The difference between us and alien life in terms of intelligence could be unfathomable. Particularly if genetics turns out to be fairly unique to earth.

Intelligent life could be everywhere, just completely imperceptible to us as we haven't even considered its effect measurable yet. Consider we only discovered radioactivity recently. What if consciousness were 'measurable' on a device like some form of Geiger counter also? Simply because we haven't discovered some means to measure it yet. It could be everywhere. DNA based 'life' could be very very unique indeed. Consciousness on the other hand could be ubiquitous.

Eh, once you start talking about stuff like this you may as well be talking about magic/the supernatural. The universe isn't that mysterious; we know that, for instance, all matter is made of the same atoms. No matter where you go in the universe, the same known elements (which would be building blocks for life) exist. The same goes for those same building blocks composing the environments alien life would evolve within. So it stands to reason that life would be something that we recognize as life.

While you can't disprove the idea of some invisible life made out of ether or something, that's no different than discussing the existence of a God or any other supernatural thing.

# ? Aug 24, 2016 08:15

radmonger: Jun 6, 2011

One thing a lot of discussion of the Drake equation get wrong is that they assume the average lifetime of a civilisation is a few hundred years.

However, while there are speculative ideas about nuking the Sun,, the harsh reality is that there are no known technological way to destroy civilisation so thoroughly it doesn't rebuild in a few hundred years. Nuclear war, global warming or a bioengineered plague never kill everyone; 99.99% mortality is a blip on a graph on a large enough scale. 100% never happens by accident.

So one of the most plausible long term futures is an endless drunken walk between the 17th to 21st C.

Which means the total time spent in the radio-spewing 20C is indefinitely large, probably hundreds of millions of years. But civilisations doing that would be hard to spot by current tech at anything greater than a few light years. So there could be billions of technological civilisations in this galaxy alone.

# ? Aug 24, 2016 14:08

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

There's a star recently observed with a really weird dimming pattern, that no one has a good explanation for, but might plausibly be a Dyson swarm, so who knows.

But until anything is confirmed, the drake equation is napkin-level speculation, and therefore useless.

# ? Aug 24, 2016 14:13

Samuel Clemens: Oct 4, 2013; I think we should call the Avengers.

radmonger posted:

However, while there are speculative ideas about nuking the Sun,, the harsh reality is that there are no known technological way to destroy civilisation so thoroughly it doesn't rebuild in a few hundred years. Nuclear war, global warming or a bioengineered plague never kill everyone; 99.99% mortality is a blip on a graph on a large enough scale. 100% never happens by accident.

So one of the most plausible long term futures is an endless drunken walk between the 17th to 21st C.

Now I'm imagining a civilisation that just can't help but nuke itself every few centuries.

"Okay, I know we messed up badly the last 32 times, so this time, let's really try not to hit that red button."
*click*
"Damnit!"

# ? Aug 24, 2016 15:08

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

radmonger posted:

One thing a lot of discussion of the Drake equation get wrong is that they assume the average lifetime of a civilisation is a few hundred years.

However, while there are speculative ideas about nuking the Sun,, the harsh reality is that there are no known technological way to destroy civilisation so thoroughly it doesn't rebuild in a few hundred years. Nuclear war, global warming or a bioengineered plague never kill everyone; 99.99% mortality is a blip on a graph on a large enough scale. 100% never happens by accident.

So one of the most plausible long term futures is an endless drunken walk between the 17th to 21st C.

You're ignoring something kinda big; fossil fuels. What is the basis for another industrial revolution, when you already stripped the most easily accessibly/usable fuels the first/second/third time around? You're not going to be creating a nuke-making civilization on wood alone. Seems more likely that society would just end up stuck on the cusp of industrialization, a really really long 18th century.

# ? Aug 24, 2016 20:06

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

A Buttery Pastry posted:

You're ignoring something kinda big; fossil fuels. What is the basis for another industrial revolution, when you already stripped the most easily accessibly/usable fuels the first/second/third time around? You're not going to be creating a nuke-making civilization on wood alone. Seems more likely that society would just end up stuck on the cusp of industrialization, a really really long 18th century.

There's also the fact that even if it took a long time to physically build civilization back up, the information would probably still exist, vastly cutting the amount of time necessary to redevelop. People probably wouldn't have to reinvent how to build a nuclear power plant, for example.

# ? Aug 24, 2016 22:40

radmonger: Jun 6, 2011

Ytlaya posted:

People probably wouldn't have to reinvent how to build a nuclear power plant, for example.

Lack of fossil fuels, when they eventually run out on Civilisation 10.0 or something, would change things somewhat. It'd be hard to mine uranium with a pick axe. But i don't see why you couldn't build a small hydro plant or windmill manually and then expand from there. Plus 9 catastrophes out of 10 there would be at least one country left with a working power plant.

Solar, wind, probably seawater uranium are not going to run out until the Sun leaves the main sequence.(5 billion years or so).

The 18C led inexorably to the 19th; it seems to really take some kind of motivated reasoning to imagine it could ever continue indefinitely. On the plus side, 5 billion years is enough time for a large enough statistical sample of civilisations that you can be confident every population group will get their fair share of time having a go on the Maxim gun.

# ? Aug 25, 2016 08:20

A Festivus Miracle: Dec 19, 2012; I have come to discourse on the profound inequities of the American political system.

The planet won't be inhabitable for 5 billion years. I forget where I read this, but as solar radiation increases over the millenias, the planet will get less and less habitable. The projections were that the planet would stop being habitable within the next billion years, on a timescale that's well beyond the lifespan of our civilization but pretty soon, in galactic terms.

I think that you guys are seriously overestimating just how plastic human civilization may be. It took humans almost 200,000 years to get to the point where we are, right now. An ultra-destructive nuclear war(something which we're perfectly capable of, considering the massive stockpile of nukes we have) might set us back far more than just a couple hundred years. While sure, isolated pockets of humanity would continue to live on because they happen to live in the middle of loving nowhere, the kind of environmental havoc setting off so many nukes would reek would be a serious challenge to live with. Radiation isn't just something that we as a species could just adapt to. We're not fungus, though human ingenuity is very impressive. There are simply some challenges that are impossible to mount, and a full-scale MAD style nuclear war might be one of them.

Ultimately, and on really big timescales, we also have to worry about getting zapped by a pulsar (which would be the end of life on this planet, no questions asked), or getting nailed by a slightly more than average sized rock. The FOOF thread in PYF even had a discussion about the kind of damage a postage stamp accelerated to a couple of percentage of the speed of light could do. Imagine if some well meaning race out there amongst the stars wanted to find other life, and accidentally obliterated us in a galactic case of comical relativistic baseball.

# ? Aug 25, 2016 12:23

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 30, 2024 10:22

radmonger: Jun 6, 2011

A White Guy posted:

The planet won't be inhabitable for 5 billion years. I forget where I read this, but as solar radiation increases over the millenias, the planet will get less and less habitable. The projections were that the planet would stop being habitable within the next billion years, on a timescale that's well beyond the lifespan of our civilization but pretty soon, in galactic terms.

That's true. On the other hand a steady state rise-and-collapse civilisation might get to the point of being able to setup/fix mitigation measures every thousand years or so.

Even if not, a billion years is a pretty long time.

quote:

Radiation isn't just something that we as a species could just adapt to. We're not fungus, though human ingenuity is very impressive. There are simply some challenges that are impossible to mount, and a full-scale MAD style nuclear war might be one of them.

Unlikely; the usual estimated global impact of exploding every nuke that ever existed is about a 1% rise in background radiation. Which wouldn't even be noticeable, except within a society that's publishing scientific papers on cancer rates.

You could probably do better if you really tried, with a cobalt bomb, or nuking the Sun. But that's all hypothetical technology that doesn't actually exist.

If you are going to get hypothetical, hyper-tech aliens would doubtless have a wide arrange of means of wiping out all life, and probably physically destroying the Earth. Less hypothetically, plenty of natural phenomena could get the job done too, though I think the jury is currently out on any being statistically expected within a billion years.

# ? Aug 25, 2016 13:15

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The case for globalism

«‹›3 »