Gerhard Van der Leun has some thoughts about why we should go to Mars (which actually apply to leaving the planet in general).

We might be the only planet with life in the universe, but I tend to doubt it. We might also be the only planet that has ever had "intelligent life," but I tend to doubt this too.

What I do wonder is if intelligence itself eventually tends to lead the species which posseses it into extinction if it acquires technology and science. As for ourselves, prosperity in the developed countries has resulted in populations which breed below their replacement rate. What happens when the entire world attains the levels of the advanced nations? Will we slowly go extinct? And what if we were a more aggressive species? Would we have killed ourselves off with nuclear wars?

Don't get me wrong; I'm not some Luddite who wishes to get us all back to a state of nature, I'm just pondering a question. Technology gives power to transcend limitations, but from a biological perspective some limitations are needed to keep any given species alive. Could it be that whatever (if any) civilizations that existed before us on some far star(s) have been ultimately done in by their own advanced technolgy?

The last sentence sums it up. Either we are alone or part of the crowd, either way, we gotta go!

Debating religion is generally recognized as a waste of time and SETI et al. is certainly religion by any other name.

But I swear that the Moon, Mars and the Asteroids look a lot to me, like the toys provided by a loving parent for the well being of us children.

One day that might seem like a profound thought (with no drugs being harmed in the making of this generalization.) We continue now with your regularly scheduled work week.

A very strange and unusual book called "Star of the Unborn" by Franz Wherful (sp?) is the story of the earth tens of thousands of years in the future where it was discovered that in fact we are alone. Much other weirdness in there though. Made my brain hurt.

unrelated, but
LOL, check out the short guide on how to abuse the word "Vision",
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=924
"Overview of NASA's FY 2005 Budget"
Apparently viewgraph people have caught the fact that "space Vision" has been the buzzword for a better part of last year, thus they are putting out budget graphs such as this:
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2004/02.01.04.chart.2.lrg.jpg
The "with vision vs. without vision" title literally made me to laugh out loud.

tcobb

Not to be a doom-sayer 'cause I'm not. I hope. I like to think I'm generally optimistic about the future.

But a question the has crossed my mind from time to time "is intelligence actually the universal equivalent of cancer?" Something of like a self-correcting problem.

With the inevitable result?

Maybe that's why no one calls.

Where is everybody? A few possibilities:

1. Civilizations routinely develop large-scale antimatter production before leaving their home planets. Once that happens, a single deranged individuals can wipe out the species single-handedly.

2. Civilizations routinely stagnate and decline before becoming spacefaring. Thousands of human civilizations have followed that path, after all, and our own civilization might head the same way.

3. Dark matter is far more abundant than regular matter. If dark matter can be converted into regular matter and into energy, the spacefaring aliens will spread to where the dark matter is and pretty much ignore stars and solar systems.

Ive often pondered whether intelligence leads to civilization very often at all. Perhaps the most common property of intelligent life is desire to wipe out neighbors and destroy its own opportunities for evolution in the process. Perhaps humans have only gotten this far because of couple freak arms balances that have occured along the way.

I think there's actually a strong case to be made that intelligence is really self limiting. Progress is made primarily by those who are 2 sigma or more above the mean on any given measure of intelligence. You only get a limited number of Einsteins, Darwins, etc. The hallmark of civilization is that the contributions of the best are preserved and passed on. Any civilization will therefore gradually accumulate technical prowess up to and past the point where it is capable of total self annihilation. Now consider that there is no reason why political prowess need be intrinsically connected to intelligence in understanding the full consequences of one's actions - after all, power is gained by playing to those who are near the mean, not at the extremes.

It seems reasonable to suppose that a significant proportion of civilizations will end up in a situation where they have the power to self-destruct (which is created by individual effort of the smartest) and lack the (collective) wisdom to avoid getting into situations where that power is used.

Humanity itself came damn close a couple of times in the past century, and we are currently in a struggle with a foe who is more than willing to go down that path again, restrained only by a lack of resources. Over the next millennium or so it is likely that sooner or later someone will have both resources and desire. Be nice if there was a backup off world by the time that happens.

I think the reason we havent heard ET is because to them, Radio Frequency carrier wave technology is passe'. Remember, we have only possessed it oruselves for about one century. Even RF tech being state of the art for a couple of millenia would be a blip in the cosmic timescale.

What is ET uses some form of quantum entanglement to exchange data over large spaces?

There are hundreds of ideas on the Fermi Paradox. It is great speculation, but we simply don't have enough information yet. In a debate, I could easily argue either side.

For instance, there are hundreds of issues that would limit the number of worlds that could sustain earthlike life and have an environment stable long enough for a sentient species to develop and create a space faring civilization.

On the other hand, it is dangerous to assume that life would have to be earthlike. And I could argue workarounds for most of the limiting issues.

It is easy to forget that it has only been the last half century that we have been able to discuss realistic, though theoretical, ways to reach the stars. It has only been in the last decade we could observe planets in other solar systems. We still know almost nothing about the structure of any solar system other than our own. It's tempting to say that, because of the vast number of stars, there must be other technological species, but that's not science - you also have to make many assumptions about how life develops. Hopefully, future telescopes that can image earth sized planets in other systems will give us something to work with. My own guess, though I wouldn't try to defend it, is that there are other technological species, but there are very few of them.

What kind of person goes hunting with bow and arrow? What kind of person rides horses or uses wind power for transportation? What kind of person does calligraphy or paints portraits?

Sorry, but obsolete technologies are still used, often by otherwise weathly people as a hobby. And such people take their hobbies seriously.

So someone ought to be complaining real soon about our stinking up the EM spectrum in the neightborhood.

As for intellegent life being cancer-- isn't that the belief of the Greens and other misanthropic types? I prefer to think of intellegence as Gaia's reproductive organ, and right now it's trying to spread life to the rest of this solar system (and maybe beyond) with us as the medium.

A vacuous essay--three dozen paragraphs with nothing more to say than three words. You gotta go?

I think this author may appeal more to SETI types.

Ken - maybe dark matter IS Dyson spheres. ;-)

Mabey he could have thrown in some made up numbers like Easterbrook does to make you happy Helen.