|
Extensive Vamping posted:Forget the aliens, it's silly to even mention it. Far more likely is an asteroid or comet. Let's look at some ideas for asteroid or comet defense. This link has several options, such as attaching rockets to an offending body, that I hadn't thought of. If you consider yourself an environmentalist in the slightest, or even if you're just concerned about American survival, you must at least consider the threat posed to the earth (and America) by large rocks/ice in space. Our children deserve no less. the linked wikipedia article posted:Considering the history of genocidal political leaders and the possibility of the bureaucratic obscuring of any such project's true goals to most of its scientific participants, he judged the Earth at greater risk from a man-made impact than a natural one. Sagan instead suggested that deflection technology only be developed in an actual emergency situation. 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?
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2016 09:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 02:34 |
|
|
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 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
|
|