Why Life On Mars May Foretell Our Doom 431
Hugh Pickens writes "Nick Bostrom has an interesting interpretation on why the failure of the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) for the past half-century is good news and why the discovery of life on Mars could foretell our doom. Bostrom postulates a 'Great Filter,' which can be thought of as a probability barrier and consists of one or more evolutionary transitions or steps that must be traversed at great odds in order for an Earth-like planet to produce a civilization capable of exploring distant solar systems."
Ignores possibility of the Singularity (Score:5, Insightful)
After all our own civilization has pretty much lost interest in anything beyond putting up more geostationary TV transmitters.
What if most evolve beyond physical forms? What if most lose themselves in virtual realities. What if many simply don't bother leaving their own solar system because the speed of light proves to be unbreakable and they aren't interested in planting colonies that will have little or no contact or impact on their own civilization?
Or what if we just got lucky and got a galaxy to ourselves?
Re:R'd T F A (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Or... (Score:3, Insightful)
And SETI is searching a narrow range because the frequencies outside that range get garbled in the interstellar noise.
Re:Or... (Score:3, Insightful)
If true, then they wouldn't matter since we wouldn't be able to interact anyway.
Time. (Score:1, Insightful)
He ignores DISTANCE. (Score:2, Insightful)
Because the trilobites couldn't find a way to get to the sweet Earth oceans before Mars dried up on them. And, therefore, there is a "Great Filter" that prevents us from colonizing the galaxy.
WTF ?!?
The "Great Filter" is DISTANCE. It takes a LONG TIME and a LOT OF ENERGY to travel from one solar system to the next. Extrapolating our demise from the failure of a bunch of imaginary trilobites' space program is
The galaxy is HUGE. Even if there are 100 billion stars in it, we'd have to cross HALF A GALAXY to get to 50 billion of them.
Re:Ignores possibility of the Singularity (Score:2, Insightful)
I can explain the flaw easier. (Score:4, Insightful)
So his theory is flawed.
Now, whether a million years is significant or not
It is not in the entire history of Life.
It is VERY significant in the history of any single species.
You assume that such civilization would instantly launch a ship to each and every star and that none of those ships would have problems in the million year long flight. Although many ships would have to cross our galactic core.
Rather, a civilization would colonize the area around it
Re:R'd T F A (Score:3, Insightful)
No doubt. Of course, there's nothing about the concept of "ethic" that implies "We'll let you live out your pathetic lives peacefully on your planet, instead of building an Interstellar Bypass through it."
Remember, the Azteca had Ethics too.
"ethic" != "nice"
Any life on Mars in also on Earth (Score:3, Insightful)
So, there is is likely to be life on Mars, and it is likely to be pretty similar to some life on Earth, proving nothing on the big question of where is everybody.
Re:Ignores possibility of the Singularity (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand I do disagree with TFA that intergalactic colonization will ever be possible, essentially for the argument you may have inadvertently expressed above. Intergalactically the distances are too vast. But galactically not so much on the time scales he's talking about.
Re:Fermi Paradox (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd wait until the human race grows up a little before I came knocking on the door...that is, if I didn't already live here myself.
Re:Ignores possibility of the Singularity (Score:5, Insightful)
1) What if they already mapped our solar system a billion years ago, and it just wasn't to their taste. You assume there is something great about our solar system that they'd want to hang around. What if they like 7G's of gravity with a methane atmosphere and liquid water surface? We don't might not have any planets that are to their particular taste, so they moved on from this wasteland of a solar system.
2) What if they mapped it out, but it wasn't quite right then? Maybe they dropped off seeds to kick off life on earth. Maybe they started some 'terraforming' on some planet, say Mars, that has changed it's atmosphere, but they just haven't come back yet to move in to the changed digs?
3) Maybe it takes a hell of a lot of resources to make a generation ship needed for travel, and they take much longer to produce than you think, or aren't made at a lot of the 'destination' planets because it would use too much resources. In any case, exploration may take a lot longer than you think it should for them.
4) We've likely only been 'advanced' enough to be interesting to talk to (if we actually are yet) for maybe a few thousand years. That's a tiny, tiny, tiny amount of time on the galactic scale. If their nearest inhabited planet is a few hundred light years away, why would they waste resources sending a ship to say hi to some funny looking monkeys?
You're still thinking on the planetary scale. (Score:3, Insightful)
Our previous colonies could look forward to resupplies within a couple of years (at the most). A colony in another solar system
And THAT is even considering that you're on an Earth-clone planet. If you're on a space station (the way I believe it would work) then you're in even greater danger of dying out before help gets there. No, it is very easy to understand when you understand the DISTANCES involved. Why? You are stating their starting time as if it were a fact.
IF species X started at location Y, Z years ago.
And IF species X traveled A lightyears every B years.
THEN species X would be at location C by date D.
Assuming no problems were encountered.
That species X is NOT at location C
And his theory is SO flawed that if we don't expand, that means that there IS a "Great Filter".
And if we die out and are replaced by intelligent dolphins, they they won't expand because of the "Great Filter" except that THEIR "Great Filter" will be completely different than ours. And so on and so forth.
Which kind of negates the "Great" aspect of the "Great Filter". Because there is not a SINGLE "filter" that would apply to both cases.
What if interstellar travel IS the great filter? (Score:3, Insightful)
It may be, for example, that a minimal interstellar expedition costs 20 years production of the entire civilization.
That's a lot of effort to put into finding out that the neighboring star system consists of dead rocks, and even if we're lucky and find a habitable planet, it's our great-to-the-nth grandchildren who will reap the benefit.
Can you really see any human civilization taking such an enormous gamble? What politician is going to tell the people "You'll have to pay 20% more tax for the next 100 years, because I want to send a probe to Alpha Centauri, which is probably a dead rock, but our great-great-great-great grandchildren will be very interested in the result" ?
If a lunatic dictator did embark on such a folly, would his successor, and his successor, share his monomania?
It only takes one politician in a century tp see some advantage in offering the people a huge tax cut, and the project would lapse.
Re:Ignores possibility of the Singularity (Score:1, Insightful)