dagblog - Comments for "If aliens don't exist, does God?"

Cool post. My favorite

Michael Wolraich — Sat, 09 Oct 2010 22:32:14 +0000

In reply to My take on extraterrestrials,

Cool post. My favorite variant is Space Nazis disguised as Fluffy Bunnies. Have you read Larry Niven's A Mote in God's Eye? It imagines the Fermi scenario you present. I will avoid saying more to avoid giving anything away, but I really enjoyed it. (Don't bother with the sequel, though.)

But you left out a small but important category in which humans are the colonizers, and the aliens are Ignorant Savages. The best of I've read is The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell, in which Jesuit colonists from Earth seek to convert an alien race. (Again, you can skip the sequel.)

My take on extraterrestrials,

miguelitoh2o — Sat, 09 Oct 2010 21:54:40 +0000

In reply to If aliens don't exist, does God?

My take on extraterrestrials, the Fermi paradox, and whether we should get on board their space ships when they come a callin'.

And we should all be

acanuck — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:52:48 +0000

In reply to I can imagine several

And we should all be knee-deep in Von Neumann machines. Or, as you say, at least one assumption is wrong. Since we're not knee-deep, I'm going with the latter.

Look, we're marooned on a desert island, with one tree that produces edible fruit. Do you cut it down to make a raft in a desperate attempt to escape? Or do you nurture seedlings to ensure a long-term food supply?

Of course, then you could cut down one of the spare trees to make a raft. But did I mention you have a stunningly beautiful woman stranded with you? No? I was sure I did.

I can imagine several

Nebton — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:58:21 +0000

In reply to who's to say they'd be

I can imagine several intelligent species not being insanely curious about what exactly is up there, but I cannot imagine that all of them would not be.

Part of the Fermi paradox is that if there was only 1 species in our galaxy that was more advanced than us, interested in expansion, and didn't destroy itself too early, it would likely grow exponentionally. Anyone who's had experience with exponential functions can tell you what that means. If their galactic population doubled every 1,000 years after achieving interstellar travel (a fairly slow doubling rate), then after 10,000 years they would occupy about 1,000 worlds, after 20,000 years they would occupy over a million worlds, after 30,000 years they would occupy over a billion worlds, and and after 40,000 years they would occupy every nook and cranny of the Milky way. Consider that our Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. 40,000 years is nothing compared to that, so it's not at all unlikely that there would be another civilization 50,000 years ahead of us - let's assume it takes us another 10,000 years before we're capable of colonizing interstellar space. Of course, I'm also assuming a lot of other things not mentioned, and since I don't think there are any ETs among us, at least one of those assumptions is wrong. (Despite what I wrote earlier, I'm also assuming we're not living in a simulation.)

who's to say they'd be

Deadman — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:14:00 +0000

In reply to Re Nebton's link to

who's to say they'd be looking for other worlds to ravage??? i don't think that's at all the reason we started looking outward. obviously, i'm looking at this through the only lens I know - the human one - but i can't imagine any species not being insanely curious about what exactly is 'up' there in space.

Yes, I'm back and more Yay!

Bluesplashy — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 02:33:18 +0000

In reply to Splashy! You're back. Yay!

Yes, I'm back and more Yay! about it than you! It took a while but my brother in law was a big help and got me hooked up with wireless broadband and an antenna.

This Fermi guy seems like a

DF — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:41:38 +0000

In reply to Re Nebton's link to

This Fermi guy seems like a bright fellow

I thought it was the Brits who had the gift for understatement.

Re Nebton's link to

acanuck — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:28:18 +0000

In reply to If aliens don't exist, does God?

Re Nebton's link to that Wikipedia article: This Fermi guy seems like a bright fellow, but the article quite fairly notes that many of the assumptions he relies on are open to debate.

The No. 1 assumption we all tend to make is to see intelligent life elsewhere in the universe as human-like, and more specifically as technologically advanced. We conflate the past few centuries with millions of years of evolution. It seems reasonable, but we're generalizing from too small a sample over too short a time frame.

Isn't it more likely for intelligent lifeforms to have reached a sustainable balance with their home planet's resources and other living things, than to follow our current trajectory of trashing our planet, then looking for other worlds to ravage? I don't see successful species needing to spread through the galaxies. Maybe we haven't heard from them because they are contentedly cultivating their gardens.

Last night, as I watched the

acanuck — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:59:24 +0000

In reply to acanuck, i said in the piece

Last night, as I watched the Canadiens skate off the ice, I briefly considered a dagblog post On Watching Your Team Swept in Four. But I'd already transitioned from wine to Bailey's -- and what is there to say, anyway?

I'll try to muster some enthusiasm for my Vancouver namesakes (sorry!) but I know from experience it will be pro forma and tepid. This year was supposed to mark the return of Habs hegemony -- the government even minted a special centennial loonie. Boy, did that not work out!

What she said!

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:00:59 +0000

In reply to Splashy! You're back. Yay!

What she said!