Andy:

Step #8 is a requirement for survival. Simply put, a species with enough technology to develop FTL travel, also has the technology to destroy itself if it continues to fight wars or if it fails to develop a sustainable relationship to its biosphere. It's not a matter of motivating the species to explore, but simply of the fact that it can't explore if it's extinct.

H.C.:

Each strategy has certain prerequisites. Intelligence as a strategy can't be attempted until life has evolved sufficient differentiation of brain and nervous system to make it possible. The brain initially served to process sensory information and control motor movements. Refinements of the sensory processing function, together with social interaction, probably led to intelligence of the monkey or crow level, which is what I'm talking about here. The apes and monkeys you referred to were both using this strategy, but it didn't exist in the Cambrian because it physically couldn't. Once it becomes physically possible, it happens, not once but repeatedly. Today, not only does the planet have a highly intelligent species capable of advanced technology, but it also has quite a large number of candidate-intelligence species. It's that candidate-intelligence that I was referring to as being an inevitable survival strategy.

Human-type intelligence has a chance to emerge when a candidate species is placed under survival pressure. Of course, the species also has a chance just to go extinct. I have no idea how many candidates did exactly that before the hominid line produced us, but it was probably quite a few. It's only because candidate species keep emerging and being tried that the emergence of higher intelligence becomes so likely. In any one specific case, it probably isn't.

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Rick, I like you survey, but it falsely implies that some category other than the last one is worth a dime of consideration, IMHO.

All categories are worth at least consideration, even if only to eventually reject them. :wink:

Originally Posted by Croakmore

I seriously doubt if there is even so much as a sponge anywhere else but on Earth. We are all alone out here on this marvelous rock. We are a one-off, an incredible freak of nature, and there is nothing I know of that suggests any other conclusion.

--Croaker

This is a reasonably argued position; more importantly, it is consistent with your other statements. I find Fermi's Paradox so intriguing because it has clear implications for our immediate behavior. So many people claim to believe as you do -- that Earth's biosphere is incredibly rare if not unique -- but they do not act accordingly. As you say, they persist in the hope that somebody will get them off this rock before it goes kablooey. They're waiting for their six-eyed, purple-tentacled Prince Charming to sweep them away in his silver saucer, instead of focusing on the mess we have to clean up here.

You're onto to something. In fact, the entire SETI community is motivated, IMO, by impulses that are not really as scientific as they like to tell themselves they are.

If you ever istened to Carl Sagan waxing eloquent about the likely importance of the discovery of aliens, and what they would mean, you wer hearing more of a religious experience than a rational analysis.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Andy:

Step #8 is a requirement for survival. Simply put, a species with enough technology to develop FTL travel, also has the technology to destroy itself if it continues to fight wars or if it fails to develop a sustainable relationship to its biosphere. It's not a matter of motivating the species to explore, but simply of the fact that it can't explore if it's extinct.

H.C.:

Each strategy has certain prerequisites. Intelligence as a strategy can't be attempted until life has evolved sufficient differentiation of brain and nervous system to make it possible. The brain initially served to process sensory information and control motor movements. Refinements of the sensory processing function, together with social interaction, probably led to intelligence of the monkey or crow level, which is what I'm talking about here. The apes and monkeys you referred to were both using this strategy, but it didn't exist in the Cambrian because it physically couldn't.

No, but it almost surely could have during the Permian, or any period afterward. That's a vast period of time. The Cretaceous Period alone was longer than all the time since it's end.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Andy:

Step #8 is a requirement for survival. Simply put, a species with enough technology to develop FTL travel, also has the technology to destroy itself if it continues to fight wars or if it fails to develop a sustainable relationship to its biosphere. It's not a matter of motivating the species to explore, but simply of the fact that it can't explore if it's extinct.

High tech warfare, even nuclear warfare, doesn't guarantee extinction. It would be a high probability, but far from a certainty.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Any species that reaches a successful conclusion to Step 8 above is going to be both pacifist and environmentalist. If they're not pacifist they'll blow themselves up,

This is an assumption, it can not be stated as fact. It may be a general truth, it may not.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Great discussion Rick is putting us through here. He's good at that.

But I must point out that humans are necessarily homo-centric. This is why we want to believe in ETIs.

That, too, is culturally dependent. The current public desire to believe in ETs and tendency to think they exist would have been 180 degrees reversed 100 years ago, and might be again 100 years from now. We've seen the scientific 'fashion' go from 'life is rare' in Victorian times, to 'life is universal', and now it's swining back to 'life is rare'. Partly that's a result of new data at each stage of the game, but a lot of it is cultural, too, and science is every bit as culturally influened as all other human activities.

Stephen J. Gould is (or rather was) one of my favorite commentators on such matters, for various reasons. He realized, with crystal clarity, that the ideas of the 'ascent of Man' (the very phrasing reveals the hidden assumptions) or 'progression of life' were basically following the religious template of their times. Yet he himself could not seem to quite perceive that in his constant effort to reemphasize that there is no progress and no inherent pattern to evolutonary history, he himself was driven by cultural imperatives just as much as his 19th century predecessors.

In a recent issue of SciAm, Gould used a graphical example to make the point that the vast bulk of all life, throughout Earth's history, is as simple as it can be and be alive. Only a smattering of life forms are more complex, and he used that to illustrate that lack of any progression of importance.

But the exact same data could be graphically represented as a pyramid, with the most complex life forms at the top, naturally also the smallest, and it would fit equally well, or equally badly. Which visual you chose to use to illustrate the data would depend on your conscious and unconscious assumptions.

If 19th century naturalists were driven by ingrained assumptions of human centrism and human superiority, without even realizing it, early 21st century naturalists tend to be driven by no-better-grounded cultural imperatives of relativism and materialism, and they are no more aware of that cultural imprinting than their grandfathers were.

H.C.:

If a nuclear war occurred, and it neither rendered humanity extinct, nor destroyed civilization, then one of two things would happen instead. Either the lesson would render us pacifistic thereafter, or another nuclear war would occur down the road. At which point we would face the same bifurcation.

Eventually, a high-tech species either abandons war or destroys itself, although it may take more than one war to do the latter.

No, but it [intelligence] almost surely could have [evolved] during the Permian, or any period afterward. That's a vast period of time. The Cretaceous Period alone was longer than all the time since it's end.

I'm pretty sure it did emerge in some of the smaller dinosaurs during the Cretaceous only to be wiped out by the K/T extinction. I don't know of any fossil evidence of creatures that might have been following an intelligence strategy from the Permian. If there were any, though, the end-Permian extinction, which was the worst in geologic history, would probably have done them in. I'm a little fuzzier on the Triassic and Jurassic.

Intelligence pretty quickly emerged in the Tertiary and in multiple species. Rats and squirrels appeared within 5 million years after the extinction, monkeys in 15 million years, parrots and chimpanzees in 35 million. A lot of these intelligent species aren't even related to each other except to the extent that they're all either mammals or birds, so clearly we have multipe emergences, not a single emergence that branches.

I expect that the communication below is of the utmost importance to the posters on this thread. Pffffffshaw! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

EMAIL: VITAL MESSAGE FROM GALACTIC CONFEDERATION

Posted By: Via_Email <Send E-Mail>
Date: Tuesday, 4 May 2004, 8:26 a.m.

EDITOR: The following was just received via email - use your own discernment.

+++++++++++++++++++++

To whom it may concern. The following letter has been presented to me in complete trust by a member of The Galactic Confederation of Light on this day of May, 2nd. 2004. It has not been edited or rewritten. It is in the exact form and wording as I have received it to pass on. I have known this being long enough and well enough to know that it is authentic. This being is under the protection and constant monitoring of the Confederation as am I and the identity of said being will remain undisclosed. This being cannot be located by address, telephone or any other source than my own and will remain so until further notice. This letter goes out to the United Nations and all leaders of the Earth. This will include all Native Nations as well.
Regards;
Darrel Whitewolf Smith,
Wolf Clan Cherokee

A Vital Message for Gaia ( Earth ) and her Humanity.

From; The Galactic Confederation of Light. The Council of Twelve. Queen Angela of the Orion Star System King Ahn of the Sirus Star System

Subject; The closing of the cycle has arrived and so have we.

This letter is an Official Global Directive authorized and issued from the Galactic Confederation of Light.

The universal law of non interference has been officially overridden. A small group of souls, uniquely different, have collectively chosen to incarnate at this time. These beings carry the experience and wisdom necessary to invoke such a powerful law, such a powerful responsibility.

We of the Galactic Confederation of Light do not take such a decision lightly, especially when it involves what is

(continued at link below)

http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.net/....cgi?read=2265

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

The poll needs a 'none of the above', and a 'it's a big galaxy' option, too.

and, They are here and no one cares.

Creation myths talk of people of the Earth, people of the Sun, and people of the Stars. The latter are naturalized aliens and have become Terranized over the years and now act like the "natives".

I'm, curious if anyone expects feathers to evolve on other planets, just because they happened to show up here. Gould regarded consciousness, too, as an exaptation--a one-off trait of pure coincidence--rather than some kind of progressional adaptation, like legs perhaps. Please notice that bugs, bats, and flying fish have no feathers at all (if you catch my drift).

We can bicker over the true meanings of consciousness and intelligence, but not even the elephants leave grave goods behind to honor their dead. And I think that is a prerequisit for the big C.

BTW: I am so impressed by the level and quality of this discussion.

--Croak

Croakmore: Is consciousnes equivalent to feathers or to flight?

Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec

Croakmore: Is consciousnes equivalent to feathers or to flight?

I'd say to feathers, which are special. But you make a good point. Many different kinds of animals have legs for walking, for example, so neither legs nor walking are special. But feathers are unique. So is consciousness of the self-reflective kind.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

The poll needs a 'none of the above', and a 'it's a big galaxy' option, too.

The "It's a big galaxy" option is already covered by "slow boat", and as for "none of the above", you're limited to 10 options per poll. In fact, when I tried to add more, I think I crashed the database :oops:

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

and, They are here and no one cares.

Creation myths talk of people of the Earth, people of the Sun, and people of the Stars. The latter are naturalized aliens and have become Terranized over the years and now act like the "natives".

That's the "Chariots Of The Gods" option.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

I'm, curious if anyone expects feathers to evolve on other planets, just because they happened to show up here.

Good question. I'm not convinced either feathers or fur would necessarily be found in non-terrestrial life, but their functions (insulation and flight) would be met, if not by them then by something equivalent.

Gould regarded consciousness, too, as an exaptation--a one-off trait of pure coincidence--rather than some kind of progressional adaptation

I will be absolutely flabbergasted if Gould or anyone else can even define consciousness in any objective way, let alone make valid speculations about it.

But perhaps, as usual with such pronouncements, Gould means something else, not consciousness. Can you enlighten us as to what exactly he was talking about?

We can bicker over the true meanings of consciousness and intelligence, but not even the elephants leave grave goods behind to honor their dead. And I think that is a prerequisit for the big C.

Then we have a HUGE disagreement over what the word "consciousness" means. In my view, elephants -- and a lot of animals far less intelligent than they -- are as conscious as we are.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by Croakmore

I'm, curious if anyone expects feathers to evolve on other planets, just because they happened to show up here.

Good question. I'm not convinced either feathers or fur would necessarily be found in non-terrestrial life, but their functions (insulation and flight) would be met, if not by them then by something equivalent.

Gould regarded consciousness, too, as an exaptation--a one-off trait of pure coincidence--rather than some kind of progressional adaptation

I will be absolutely flabbergasted if Gould or anyone else can even define consciousness in any objective way, let alone make valid speculations about it.

But perhaps, as usual with such pronouncements, Gould means something else, not consciousness. Can you enlighten us as to what exactly he was talking about?

We can bicker over the true meanings of consciousness and intelligence, but not even the elephants leave grave goods behind to honor their dead. And I think that is a prerequisit for the big C.

Then we have a HUGE disagreement over what the word "consciousness" means. In my view, elephants -- and a lot of animals far less intelligent than they -- are as conscious as we are.

Yes we do have a HUGE disagreement here. First off, Gould is dead, as I'm sure you know, so he's out of touch for our immediate purposes. Sorry, though, but I can't dig out of my literature his alleged remarks on consciousness. I'll have to wing it, so to speak.

Don't you differentiate ordinary "consciousness" from the so-called human variety? I do. True, an elephant or a crow can be knocked "unconscious." But why should that mean either one is truly "conscious" in the human context?

Here's where I draw the line: If a living thing can reflect on itself in terms of its eventual mortality, and if it uses this reflection in any way to address that horrifying revelation, then I would call it "conscious" of the Big C variety. This is something only humans can do (human frogs notwithstanding). This special act requires a temporal projection so unique that it amounts to the very first "discovery of time" by any living organisms on this planet (or anywhere else, as I contend). I think grave goods hold the key to the essential definition. This is where humans stand alone. In my opinion, "fear of eventual and unavoidable death" and "fear of God Almighty" are the same thing. No animals (or plants) other than humans recognize that death is certain to happen to them eventually. And no animal other than humans takes measures to appease this terrorifying condition. That's where religion comes from--the fear factor.

You can argue that other animals have technologies, sometimes even spectacular ones like spider webs, avian gravity drops, and caddisfly contraptions, but those do not impart the Big C. Chimps make tools, too, but they don't make Bibles.

Honoring the dead is unique and necessary if you know that someday you will be dead, too. Elephants may have burial grounds, and they may even cry over their dead, but they haven't a clue about what awaits them in the end. Otherwise, they would place flowers and trinkets at their grave sites. Show me one other species that does that, Brian, and I'll come over to your side of the argument.

--Croaker

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

H.C.:

If a nuclear war occurred, and it neither rendered humanity extinct, nor destroyed civilization, then one of two things would happen instead. Either the lesson would render us pacifistic thereafter, or another nuclear war would occur down the road. At which point we would face the same bifurcation.

Eventually, a high-tech species either abandons war or destroys itself, although it may take more than one war to do the latter.

You might be right, but it's not a certainty, since we lack enough data to make a confident analysis. We don't know what technological changes will bring (for ex, if defensive arms race ahead of offense again, for whatever unforeseeable reasons, the pattern changes).

Also, the term 'nuclear war' covers a great deal of territory, as Herman Kahn pointed out in his detailed analysis, On Thermonuclear War.

Croaker:

The problem with using the word "consciousness" is that it's inherently mystical, and invites over-mystifying what we are actually talking about (which isn't consciousness, and which is, unlike consciousness, amenable to observation and study). As indeed you have done by tying in awareness of one's own mortality, one of the great religious themes.

I don't find mortality "horrifying," myself, and that changes my whole perspective on the subject, and renders me unwilling to give it the importance that you do. Even if I didn't know that consciousness is immortal (although my personality is not), still what is there to be afraid of in an eternal sleep? Only suffering is fearful, and the dead do not suffer, even through lack of joys, of which lack they are unaware.

No, I don't think human consciousness is any different from that of an elephant, or for that matter a fruit fly. And I do not wish to use that word to refer to self-referent behavior (which may be observed) or self-knowledge (which may reasonably be inferred from observation), since consciousness cannot be observed or reasonably inferred, only known through inner awareness completely outside the bounds of science.

That said, of course there is a quantitative difference between human intelligence and that of other animals, and this quantitative difference gives rise to qualitative differences as emergent properties. All of the more intelligent animals show awareness of death. Awareness that they will die? I'm not so sure about that, but awareness that they can die, yes, certainly. As for self-referent behavior, and (by inferrence) self-knowledge, experiments have demonstrated these qualities in the great apes, and I have observed them less rigorously in the larger parrots. There is a difference, but I do not see it as such a great and vast leap. Rather, it seems to me that these qualities, like language, advanced tool use, and the control of fire, emerge inevitably as intelligence increases, once a threshold is crossed.

I will admit, though, that we have actually seen that threshold crossed only once. But I see nothing to prevent it being crossed multiple times, save that the niche is currently occupied. I see nothing to make the evolution of high intelligence unlikely, once a pool of candidate intelligent species exists.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

H.C.:

If a nuclear war occurred, and it neither rendered humanity extinct, nor destroyed civilization, then one of two things would happen instead. Either the lesson would render us pacifistic thereafter, or another nuclear war would occur down the road. At which point we would face the same bifurcation.

Eventually, a high-tech species either abandons war or destroys itself, although it may take more than one war to do the latter.

You might be right, but it's not a certainty, since we lack enough data to make a confident analysis. We don't know what technological changes will bring (for ex, if defensive arms race ahead of offense again, for whatever unforeseeable reasons, the pattern changes).

Also, the term 'nuclear war' covers a great deal of territory, as Herman Kahn pointed out in his detailed analysis, On Thermonuclear War.

I wonder what Brian would make of Larry Niven's Kzin.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

We don't know what technological changes will bring (for ex, if defensive arms race ahead of offense again, for whatever unforeseeable reasons, the pattern changes).

Let's consider what actually is happening during times when "defensive" arms overpower offense. Two historical periods will serve to illustrate: the age of chivalry and castles, and the pre-tank rifle/machinegun era.

In the pre-gunpowder period, the art of fortification, together with the invention of the crossbow and of the longbow, gave defense a big advantage over attack. But how did it do so? By giving defenders inside a castle the ability to strike at and kill invaders, while remaining themselves largely protected. The bows -- an offensive arm in that they were weapons rather than armor -- were as important in this as the castle walls. Invaders could bypass the castles and ravage the countryside, but they always had to worry about troops sheltered in the castles, which could emerge and strike at will, then retreat to safety. What made the difference was not that one side was effectively protected against the weapons of the other, but that the side in the castle was better protected than the other side. Another way to put this is that the attackers were more vulnerable than the defenders.

In the pre-tank period, something similar happened. Defenders could protect themselves in trenches and behind barbed-wire fortifications, and emplaced machine guns, along with hunkered-down riflemen, could kill attackers while remaining themselves immune to all but the most determined (and costly) offense. Again, however, the defenders were not truly protected against the weapons of the attackers. Their protection was only partial, but it was sufficient that, as in the castle era, the attackers were more vulnerable than the defenders by a significant margin. And it is especially noteworthy in this context that what changed the balance was not the improvement of offensive weaponry, so much as the improvement of the attackers' defenses, through the invention of the armored tank.

Now, how could that sort of thing apply to nuclear war? (Let alone to even more destructive weapons that science fiction might conjure, e.g. antimatter or gravitational weapons.) There is no such thing as a perfect defense against any weapon of a technological grade comparable to the defense's. All defenses are marginal. A Roman legion using a testudo formation, charging a group of archers, would still suffer a number of men downed by arrows before reaching the enemy, but not as many casualties as if they had no shields, and that could make the difference between victory and defeat. An armored division, attacking a force of infantry, will still suffer casualties from ATGW, mines, or even Molotov cocktails, but fewer casualties than if all the troops were on foot.

What's different about nuclear weapons is that a defense has to be perfect. Marginal defense is useless. One hit in ten -- and that is, in military history, an exceedingly high effectiveness for any defense -- is sufficient for complete ruin. Also, in nuclear war, the casualties are not soldiers in the field; they are whole nations. Finally, the environmental consequences of nuclear war should not be forgotten. Even victory can spell total disaster.

Also, the term 'nuclear war' covers a great deal of territory

Well, yes. But the only meaningful territorial distinction is between total war and an extremely limited exchange. We do not even know if a limited exchange is possible except under the circumstance that it is mandated by limited arms supplies (as at the end of World War II). But if it is, then the fact that we dare not engage in total war still represents a change of such magnitude that the raison d'etre of the nation-state -- war -- no longer exists except in vestigial form.

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

I wonder what Brian would make of Larry Niven's Kzin.

I find them highly entertaining and humorous, but no more realistic than his concept of magic as a nonrenewable resource.

And incidentally, the Ringworld is unstable.

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

See my follow-up post on Von-Neumann probes. We are close to this capability already, and once we have launched the first couple dozen, our interest (or even our continued existence) is irrelevant.

I have a hard time believing that we are close to this, else, Huey Long's slogan of "Every Man a King" would become a reality. Replicating machines would create unlimited wealth. Imagine "growing" a crop of self-replicating solar cell assemblys in a desert. Solves the energy crisis.

I would think our species would become hopelessly decadent in a few generations and that would rule out any interest in exploration or pretty much anything else.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Now, how could that sort of thing apply to nuclear war? (Let alone to even more destructive weapons that science fiction might conjure, e.g. antimatter or gravitational weapons.

Actually, throwing sand or grit at relativistic speeds is a pretty devastating weapon. 60,000 tons of fine sand or grit (about one large freighter's cargo) at close to the speed of light contains sufficient energy if deposited fairly evenly to heat the atmosphere to over 900 degrees, pretty much wiping out civilization. A smaller amount dumped in a more concentrated fashion could wipe out civilization on localized portions of the earth surface.

This is why formal weapons in spacecraft capable ot interstellar travel is unnecessary. The ship itself or anything it carries is the ultimate weapon by virtue of its great speed.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

I have a hard time believing that we are close to this, else, Huey Long's slogan of "Every Man a King" would become a reality. Replicating machines would create unlimited wealth.

Self-replicating machines obviate only the need for human labor. The need for raw materials remains unchanged. They "replicate" not by violating the first law of thermodynamics, but by building replicas of themselves. This requires energy and sources of the materials needed to build them.

Still, this brings up something which hasn't been considered yet and which may throw a monkey-wrench into many of our ideas, including mine. How about artificial intelligence? Biological intelligence must colonize planets, but machine intelligence could colonize space itself. Stars provide plenty of energy, and planets (habitable or not) or even asteroids provide plenty of material.

OTOH, maybe machines would still need organic substances like plastics and lubricants, so maybe they would still be bound to a biosphere, if not quite so tightly.