Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 82

Thread: Worlds Abundant

  1. #1

    Default Worlds Abundant

    So Kepler has found a lot of stars with planets and a lot of them have more than one planet. And a lot of those are smaller planets like ours. This is such cool stuff.... I think we are close to being able to say the answer to the Fermi Paradox is not that planets, or planets much like ours, are rare and that's why there's no evidence for extraterrestrial civilizations.

    Stars With Multiple Planets Abound

    by Govert Schilling on 23 May 2011, 4:38 PM | Permanent Link | 2 Comments

    Email Print | More

    Previous Article Next Article

    Enlarge Image
    Two’s company. NASA’s Kepler space telescope has found 171 systems containing more than one planet, like the two-planet system in this artist impression.
    Credit: NASA


    BOSTON—Planets like company. No less than one in three of all planets around other stars found by NASA's Kepler space telescope are in multiple-planet systems. What's more, the sheer number of those systems suggests that they are more tranquil places than our own solar system, say astronomers working with the telescope.

    Since it was launched just over 2 years ago, Kepler has found 116 systems with two planets, 45 with three, eight with four, one with five, and one with six planets, astronomer David Latham of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, reported here today at the meeting of the American Astronomical Society. That's a total of 171 multiple-planet systems. "We thought we might see a few multiplanet systems," Latham says. "Instead, we found lots of them."
    Kepler detects a planet when it passes in front of its parent star, as seen from Earth. Such transits produce minute, periodic dips in the brightness of the star. Kepler continuously monitors 165,000 stars to search for those transits.

    The low expectation for multiple-planet systems was based on the fact that the eight planets in our own solar system do not orbit in exactly the same plane. For instance, the plane of Mercury's orbit is tilted by 7˚ relative to that of Earth. So if the solar system were viewed from a vast distance, if one planet produced transits, most others would not.

    This means Kepler's multiplanet systems must be very flat, with orbital tilts of less than a degree. "Most likely, if our solar system didn't have large planets like Jupiter and Saturn to have stirred things up with their gravitational disturbances, it would be just as flat," Latham says. In the Kepler systems found so far, smaller planets such as Neptune are much more common. Latham says, "Systems with smaller planets probably had a much more sedate history."

    Still, the planets do slightly disturb each other with their mutual gravity, pulling each other around a little bit and thus causing tiny variations in the exact timing of the transits. In fact, such transit timing variations provide information on the masses of the planets. "This is a completely new [tool in the] field that might become very important," says planetary scientist Sara Seager of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge.

    Transit timing variations even show "indications" of the existence of nontransiting planets in some of the multiplanet systems, says Kepler principal investigator William Borucki of NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffet Field, California. "We're looking into it," Borucki says. Those unseen planets' orbits may have been tilted a bit by the perturbations of a Neptune-like planet in the system. But Ames theorist Jack Lissauer says that if no transits are observable, it will be much harder to pin down the orbits and masses of these planets.

    Meanwhile, a thorough statistical analysis of the sizes of the planets Kepler has seen so far reveals "a very profound discovery," planet hunter Geoff Marcy of the University of California, Berkeley, reported at the meeting. "There are some Jupiters and some Saturns, but there are many more smaller planets out there," Marcy says, probably including a lot of them comparable in size to Earth.

    The ultimate goal of the Kepler mission, which has an operational lifetime of 3½ years, is to find the abundance of Earth-like planets orbiting stars like our own sun at distances where liquid water—and possibly life—could exist on their surfaces. Borucki expects an additional release of Kepler data in June 2012 and doesn't want to speculate about what it might show. "We don't want to get premature information out," he says. "There's still a lot of analysis that needs to be done."


    http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceno...und.html?rss=1
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  2. #2
    So should we avoid contact with them? What's the likelihood of contact between two alien peoples going just swimmingly.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    So should we avoid contact with them? What's the likelihood of contact between two alien peoples going just swimmingly.
    Hawking thinks its a bad idea. But that's seen through an anthropomorphic lense. Contact between humans of different techno levels has always turned out badly for the less advanced. But with aliens it could be a much better experience - or much worse. That sentiment itself could be the answer to the Fermi Paradox. Everyone's hiding out of fear for what contact would result in.

    But I doubt it. If we sent powerful signals into the cosmos pointed at regions likely harboring life as we know it for long enough that a civilization might happen across it (tens of thousands of years), the odds are still very very low any aliens would ever receive it, much less receive it in the time span of the existance of our civilization. Certainly the era of civilization that sent it would never see any payoff what-so-ever for the effort, so why go to the trouble? That's probably the answer to the Fermi Paradox. We're all just too damn far apart to ever make real contact so nobody's ever really tried. Or maybe many have tried, sending out what amounts to a cosmic "we were here," like carving your initials into a big tree on a visit to a national park. But we, in our very very short time of looking around, have just not happened across such a signal, which would have to be sparse in both time and space.

    One other possibility I could imagine is a civilization that 'goes on the road.' Maybe they make a huge generation starship and a bunch go exploring from star to star. It would be a scientific endeavor, with a multi-millenia long itinerary planned via telescope, to explore one system after another in great depth, just for the sake of knowledge and adventure. And still the chances of ever happening across another civilization before some catastrophe destroys the explorers is probably close to zero. And maybe that expense, of building such a starship, is far too high to justify too. Would any major human power contemplate such a thing today? Can you think of a reason to justify such an expense, assuming every civilization has resource issues like ours? Is there any reason to believe that in our future there will be a time when we do have an excess of resources to put toward such a project? It doesn't seem likely to me.
    Last edited by EyeKhan; 05-25-2011 at 11:06 AM.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  4. #4
    I saw, on the side of a bus, a wonderful advertisement today. It suggested to the viewer the purchase of a new type of shoe, of the Reino brand.

    Now, the Reino shoes are not very good, as far as shoes go. They retain heat, but not that well, they have a hard sole, but not that hard, they do not deter the advance of water, and being soft provide little protection. The type of shoe you'd wear indoors in winter-time, except today houses are so well insulated and heated that there is no need but the psychological.

    The shoes featured in the advertisement were novel due to their colouration, for you see instead of the customary two shades of brownish green, they are white and blue. In addition, they sport on their flank a lion wielding a sword. This is, of course, due to the recent ice hockey world championship game; a bunch of grown and well-trained men from Finland did mock combat against equally trained and equally grown Swedish men by smacking a small black object across a field of ice. And occasionally each other.

    Now the reason I told you all of this in detail; the whole exercise is entirely absurd, the reason behind the manufacture of these rather poor shoes is completely mindless, and yet? People will purchase them, these artifacts of absurdity, for themselves or their loved ones, and they will experience joy. Happiness. The reasons, the reasoning, behind this happiness is as absurd as the reason for the shoes' manufacture.

    What does this have to do with outer space? I think we should go. Despite the warnings of the realists, in their eternal greed and pettiness, that man must concern himself solely in the housing, warming and feeding of himself, admonishing every other activity as folly. We stand to gain very little from going; the expedition would be away for centuries, and would bring back information most of which we have probably already found from our activities within the confines of our solar system.

    Were there ever a chance to go, go out there? I would try. I wouldn't try very hard, because at my core I am cowardly and lazy. And they would not take me, because I am physically unfit and anyway mentally unsound. But I wouldn't be true to what I think of myself if I didn't try. You know?

    Why should anyone want to go? To be reduced to a tiny bladder of fluids prone to bursting at the slightest error? For my precious science? For a paper amounting to a few pages, a table of figures listing some property of alien stars and planets? A paper read by perhaps a few thousand eyes, attacked for this and that reason and anyway amounting to very little?

    I don't think so. It would be a motivation, sure. But it's not why.

    The expeditions to the poles, to the Moon? No one expected to bring back a rhinoceros that speaks only higher algebra. They went, to go. That's it. And they found a little happiness and comfort in that, like the lucky husband who receives his blue and white Reino shoes. I think that's sufficient. It is for me, and I am certainly not the only fool on the planet.

    I don't think it a great goodness on the annals of Man, even if we do go. It won't wash away the ash of Auschwitz, it won't undo the Gulag Archipelago, or the Aztec mania. But as in life, where there are goods and bads, the balances and counter-balances, so can there be in the lives of species. No? So, we should go. To be able to say we did.

    Unfortunately, we as a species seem to ignore the realists, in their eternal greed and pettiness, when it comes to different matters. We do not wish to expend energy on these type of expeditions, because we so desperately need that energy. For what? Manufacturing one Lager after another, over and over again, all the while quibbling about the reasons why we need all those Lagers. We as a species have a cultural tendency to find pornographic pleasure in the wailing and the gnashing of teeth. Therefore, all perfectly logical, we expend endless (seemingly) Joules, and the minds of our engineers, to make unto physical reality that wailing, and the gnashing of teeth.

    I suppose there is pleasure, there, too. Happiness. Purchase of shoes with blue and white, or beating the feet of another until they are unable to walk? And dreams of beating them again, as it will be twice as painful the second go around. I have a sneaking suspicion we like that happiness more than the happiness found at the poles of the world. Indeed, I would wager that quantifiably more people are made happy by boiling women alive under an Arizona sun than from visiting other worlds. We must construct cages for one another for otherwise we would be profoundly miserable, as a people.

    It need not be a moralistic, or religious, argument, not at all. The laws of the world, my precious science, instructs us that in this cosmos it is always, always easier to destroy and rend apart instead of constructing. Therefore it is perfectly logical and reasonable, indeed realistic, to tear each other apart in an endless diorama of misery instead of attempting to uplift anyone...
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    Hawking thinks its a bad idea. But that's seen through an anthropomorphic lense. Contact between humans of different techno levels has always turned out badly for the less advanced. But with aliens it could be a much better experience - or much worse. That sentiment itself could be the answer to the Fermi Paradox. Everyone's hiding out of fear for what contact would result in.
    There might be something to that. Alien species we encounter could be much more benign than us, but they could just as easily be much more aggressive than us. If we ran into Protectors or similar, the results would be catastrophic. The lightspeed barrier is a good defense, but it's hardly impenetrable.

    But I doubt it. If we sent powerful signals into the cosmos pointed at regions likely harboring life as we know it for long enough that a civilization might happen across it (tens of thousands of years), the odds are still very very low any aliens would ever receive it, much less receive it in the time span of the existance of our civilization. Certainly the era of civilization that sent it would never see any payoff what-so-ever for the effort, so why go to the trouble? That's probably the answer to the Fermi Paradox. We're all just too damn far apart to ever make real contact so nobody's ever really tried. Or maybe many have tried, sending out what amounts to a cosmic "we were here," like carving your initials into a big tree on a visit to a national park. But we, in our very very short time of looking around, have just not happened across such a signal, which would have to be sparse in both time and space.
    They could also be using something other than radio - the only thing we're seriously looking for. Or the galaxy could be secretly pretty talkative, and our instruments just aren't good enough to detect their signals at the range they're happening. Or maybe the time window where a civilization can communicate really is just too low to expect two+ in the same galaxy at the same time. Though there was the Wow! Signal...

    Can you think of a reason to justify such an expense, assuming every civilization has resource issues like ours? Is there any reason to believe that in our future there will be a time when we do have an excess of resources to put toward such a project? It doesn't seem likely to me.
    We have the resources to start now. And I can think of plenty of good reasons, but most governments and the populations they govern aren't capable of that kind of long term, species-level thought.

  6. #6
    Still waiting for those neutrino inverters...
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Wraith View Post
    The lightspeed barrier is a good defense, but it's hardly impenetrable.
    Given our current understanding of science, to go to another star is a huge endeavor in terms of either energy or time. For fragile, short lived humanity to go, its either a multi-generation trip or its gargantuanly expensive. And both would be dangerous in the extreme. We can imagine species that adapt themselves to hard vacuum and radiation or species that are for practical purposes immortal, and species that are either hyper aggressive or hyper curious. But if we imagine life that is fine-tuned to their own world, with cultures that are fine tuned by the necessity of surving and thriving there, who are pre-occupied with their own world and doing whatever wheeling and dealing their culture entails.... I don't know. I just don't see it ever happening. Not for us or anyone like us at any rate.

    We have the resources to start now. And I can think of plenty of good reasons, but most governments and the populations they govern aren't capable of that kind of long term, species-level thought.
    Ask all the economists in this community if we have the resources to even build orbital power. That is something we can justify in very practical terms, maybe life or death terms for our civilization, and yet the people who will be or advise our future leadership scoff at it as too expensive, too hard, too unnecessary. As a species I am more and more, the older I get, the more I see, convinced that we are incapable of such endeavors. We will never be peaceful. We will never make the effort to ensure every human has enough food, clean water, housing and medical care. We will never put the resources together to send a signal with any even minutely reasonable chance of being detected by an alien civilization. And we will never put the necessary wealth toward traveling to a different star. Its just not in us. And maybe we're typical and that's why the Universe appears empty.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    Given our current understanding of science, to go to another star is a huge endeavor in terms of either energy or time. For fragile, short lived humanity to go, its either a multi-generation trip or its gargantuanly expensive. And both would be dangerous in the extreme. We can imagine species that adapt themselves to hard vacuum and radiation or species that are for practical purposes immortal, and species that are either hyper aggressive or hyper curious. But if we imagine life that is fine-tuned to their own world, with cultures that are fine tuned by the necessity of surving and thriving there, who are pre-occupied with their own world and doing whatever wheeling and dealing their culture entails.... I don't know. I just don't see it ever happening. Not for us or anyone like us at any rate.
    If you're an aggressive species who believes it likely that other species will share your worldview, you won't need to send a colonization ship. Once you cut out life support concerns, it becomes much cheaper and faster to send things to other solar systems, especially if you don't care about braking. Upon locating other life, they could instead just send a relativistic kill vehicle, because if they don't, there's a chance that other species will do so first.

    Ask all the economists in this community if we have the resources to even build orbital power. That is something we can justify in very practical terms, maybe life or death terms for our civilization, and yet the people who will be or advise our future leadership scoff at it as too expensive, too hard, too unnecessary.
    The argument against it is that it's impractical, and inefficient. Khen's pushed that line of reasoning before, and for now (a space elevator may change things), I agree with him. I'm more in favor of solar-paving the moon via autonomous constructs. There's no similar option for orbital in-situ development - you have to push the material there one way or another, whether it's from Earth or dragging an asteroid into orbit.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Wraith View Post
    If you're an aggressive species who believes it likely that other species will share your worldview, you won't need to send a colonization ship. Once you cut out life support concerns, it becomes much cheaper and faster to send things to other solar systems, especially if you don't care about braking. Upon locating other life, they could instead just send a relativistic kill vehicle, because if they don't, there's a chance that other species will do so first.
    Analog had a pretty good short story about just such a thing a while back.

    The argument against it is that it's impractical, and inefficient. Khen's pushed that line of reasoning before, and for now (a space elevator may change things), I agree with him. I'm more in favor of solar-paving the moon via autonomous constructs. There's no similar option for orbital in-situ development - you have to push the material there one way or another, whether it's from Earth or dragging an asteroid into orbit.
    The engineering and infrastructure necessary to pave the moon is more or less the same as building giant orbiting collectors. The difference is 50% of your capacity is idle at all times which is extremely inefficient by comparison. And the moon's not particularly flat, so you're either going to need lots of superstructure or take pains to knock down mountains and fill in craters. By comparison to orbital solar, its an awful idea.

    Towing an asteroid to Earth orbit or whatever trailing orbit you decide to build your power stations in is not by any stretch of the imagination a waste or a burden. That asteroid if chosen correctly will have more metal, likely of every type, though especially of iron and nickel, than has been mined on Earth over the entire human history. It will yeild resources for building not just power stations but anything else we care to build, like habitats, science stations, industrial facilities, both zero g and lunar based, interplanetary space craft, colonies in any place suitable in the solar system and those resources, or products produced from them, could easily be returned to Earth to reduce the necessity for mining and industry here.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    Analog had a pretty good short story about just such a thing a while back.
    I have a stack of those I haven't had time to read. Give me an issue and title, and I could probably dig it up.
    The engineering and infrastructure necessary to pave the moon is more or less the same as building giant orbiting collectors.
    It's really not. With paving the moon via autonomous robots, all you need to send up is the robots (or robot singular, if you're a cheap bastard) and the relay and you're done. With giant orbiting collectors, you need to send the entire ready-made solar collector with built-in relay. To get more power, you need to send up alot more stuff. With the moon, you just have to wait a bit longer. Remember that the bulk of the cost is in launching and maintaining orbit, not manufacturing.

    The difference is 50% of your capacity is idle at all times which is extremely inefficient by comparison. And the moon's not particularly flat, so you're either going to need lots of superstructure or take pains to knock down mountains and fill in craters.
    You start at the peaks of eternal light, and when those areas are filled, move to the areas of almost-eternal light. There's enough of that real-estate that it'll keep us busy for a while. And then you move on. So we'll end up with more solar collectors than are actually active - who cares? They're being made in-situ, so the price per collector is almost nil, while in orbit the cost per collector is massive. I don't see why we'd need to knock down mountains or fill in craters either. Mountains are actually prime real-estate anyways. And when we get to places that don't work well for solar collectors, we can just skip them - it's not like there's a shortage of space and materials up there.

    Towing an asteroid to Earth orbit or whatever trailing orbit you decide to build your power stations in is not by any stretch of the imagination a waste or a burden. That asteroid if chosen correctly will have more metal, likely of every type, though especially of iron and nickel, than has been mined on Earth over the entire human history. It will yeild resources for building not just power stations but anything else we care to build, like habitats, science stations, industrial facilities, both zero g and lunar based, interplanetary space craft, colonies in any place suitable in the solar system and those resources, or products produced from them, could easily be returned to Earth to reduce the necessity for mining and industry here.
    Asteroids are more expensive, and while it's a good idea to do, you do it for the metals, not the energy. It's wasteful if your goal is more energy, and the technology is more difficult too.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Wraith View Post
    They could also be using something other than radio - the only thing we're seriously looking for. Or the galaxy could be secretly pretty talkative, and our instruments just aren't good enough to detect their signals at the range they're happening. Or maybe the time window where a civilization can communicate really is just too low to expect two+ in the same galaxy at the same time. Though there was the Wow! Signal...
    I'm sure someone has suggested it before, but has any real detailed explanation ever been offered that takes into account that realistically a successful species will both become efficient with and have better technology, that reduces the amount of signals being broadcast out into random parts of space, and that after a significant length of time with no reply, will stop looking for alien signals? For instance lets say there is another alien civilization within a decent communicable distance, but they are 250 years away from developing the ability to transmit radio signals that we'd be able to receive. Say also during that 250 year lead up we never find existence of another intelligent civilization. Would we even be listening for them in 2261? Hell I could even see an automated array listening for human radio signals coming from space in 2261 just ignoring or passing over said communication simply because it would be unintelligible noise compared to a broadcast done by a person.
    . . .

  12. #12
    I've read more musings on how we're constantly transmitting less and less outwards as we're getting more efficient with our messaging and information networks. So the "radio bubble" of humanity will more or less turn into a radio hollowed-out spherical shell.

    Which it'd also do if we had WW3. Hmm...

    Anyway, one thing the original Hungarians raised was civilizations vastly more advanced. Let's say the first metal-forming stars detonated around the first couple hundred million years of the cosmos's history. That still leaves a pretty wide time window, after the formation of metallic planetary bodies, say 10 billion years, for intelligence to evolve before us. Now, if they were a million years older than us, but had even faintly similar interests as the Hungarians, they'd be able to utilize immense amounts of power on transmitting....Something. Laser light, radio, whatever their astro-engineers thought most likely to be seen elsewhere.

    (All of this assumes intelligence evolves into something Hungarian-like, so on, so forth, but never mind for now)

    So where are their messages?
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    So where are their messages?
    If I'm a sentient being whose primary form of sensory input is echo location, versus say vision for humans, and I live underground because the surface of my planet is a shitstorm of horrible life-killing activity, do I even have a concept of space, stars, etc? There are vastly many reasons why a species either will not receive communication from another civilization, or not make transmissions themselves. Sentient/Intelligent life may not be unique to the universe but our brand of it might be, at least for the time period we exist in.
    . . .

  14. #14
    Sure, but that's just the same assumption in reverse, we don't really know whether alien intelligences will be more like moles than Hungarians. Either way.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    Sure, but that's just the same assumption in reverse, we don't really know whether alien intelligences will be more like moles than Hungarians. Either way.
    Off topic, but I just had the horrible thought that meeting said mole people, they might think we wielded magic, as having no concept of light and thus a good chance they don't possess technology to sense it, would be amazed at our ability of navigating without echo-locating something, and damned scared when they started dying for no discernible reason because we're shooting them with lasers.

    Either that or they'd be astounded by a creature that could see part of the electromagnetic spectrum, in the same way that we'd be if we met someone who could see radio waves.
    . . .

  16. #16
    But we've invented a lot of technology that augments our shoddy mortal shells, if the mole people did possess the same kinds of drives our ancestors (and we) do, ostensibly they'd follow suit. Non-technical intelligent civilizations seem, to me at least, relatively improbable. What possible circumstance would select for intelligence that wasn't based on the need to obtain energy better? Sheltering the young somehow? Even then you'd figure out eventually that we can use rocks as shields, or whatever, and there you go. I can't think of anything that'd produce an intelligent plant, for example, that didn't involve a need to manipulate either itself or its environment, likely both, in a complex manner. And then you become a tool-builder, eventually.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    And then you become a tool-builder, eventually.
    I'm not saying they aren't tool builders, I'm stating that their physiology has resulted in them having different technology than we do, or at least different applications of it. While a blind person could invent light bulbs, I don't think they'd conclude that improving this technology is of any importance. Also they'd be at an extreme disadvantage in doing so as while we can see how light works, they'd have to invent sensors to do so.
    . . .

  18. #18
    You'd think radar would be handy even in tunnels. Or signal lasers. Although I wonder how they'd discover the EM spectrum...Infrared first, I suppose.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    You'd think radar would be handy even in tunnels. Or signal lasers. Although I wonder how they'd discover the EM spectrum...Infrared first, I suppose.
    But this goes back to the other points mentioned, for instance how they communicate. I don't even know what a star is, why am I going to point another thing I haven't thought of, a laser, at its planets to communicate with their people? Unless it happens by accident, this technologically advanced mole civilization will likely never hear from nor communicate with another advanced civilization in its existence. Their even getting to space in the first place is hampered multiple times over both by lacking knowledge of it, being underground, the surface of their planet being a life killing shitstorm, and then getting through whatever is causing those conditions. I think its heavily taken for granted that we can just look up with our own unaided eyes and not only see our star, but another visible solid body (the moon), in addition to evidence that we live in a galaxy and that there are numerous other stars out there.
    . . .

  20. #20
    I'm glad we're in this side of the forum...

    As an intelligent, tool-making people, they'd ostensibly come up with tools to aid with digging. Probably even fire, but the fumes might be a problem in small spaces. Anyway, they'd expand, and eventually hit the surface, even by accident. (I wonder what their mythologies would say about the place their echo location senses can't perceive...) To understand this gravity business, I'm going to go ahead and say that they'd need to see planets and stars at some stage, even if by radar or whatever. Once they've dug all around the planet, and it's common knowledge, their mathematicians will have to answer why down is down.

    Secondly, using the EM spectrum is just so much more efficient a way to perceive the world for an organism. If they wanted to build tools, using their echo location thingy, they'd scream themselves hoarse making fires and chipping away at their stone axes. Light reflects and refracts, even infrared would be of some use. And most subterranean creatures with advanced neural systems we know have some kind of light sensitive areas.

    Anyway, bullshit argument heaped on bullshit argument, I'm going to say that it's much easier to become a tool builder if you can utilize EM.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    Anyway, one thing the original Hungarians raised was civilizations vastly more advanced.
    I can't parse this sentence.

    So where are their messages?
    Why would a million year old civilization want to send messages to anyone? Why would a 10k year old civilzation want to do that? And even if they, or factions of them, did want to send signals, why would they choose to go to the very large effort of doing it? None of our factions have done it, or even seriously proposed plans for doing it. And some of our greatest minds have cautioned against it even before considering the costs of doing it right. And we're supposed to be the outgoing, curious, non-xenophobic species.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Wraith View Post
    I have a stack of those I haven't had time to read. Give me an issue and title, and I could probably dig it up.
    All I can recall at the moment is that it was about a year or so ago. There's been a follow-up story too, since the original.

    It's really not. With paving the moon via autonomous robots, all you need to send up is the robots (or robot singular, if you're a cheap bastard) and the relay and you're done. With giant orbiting collectors, you need to send the entire ready-made solar collector with built-in relay. To get more power, you need to send up alot more stuff. With the moon, you just have to wait a bit longer. Remember that the bulk of the cost is in launching and maintaining orbit, not manufacturing.
    Send your robots to the moon, launch material from there, manufacture in your fairly distant orbit. Cheaper, faster, more efficient than paving the moon. And besides, conservationists would have a cow over flattening the moon's surface.

    You start at the peaks of eternal light, and when those areas are filled, move to the areas of almost-eternal light. There's enough of that real-estate that it'll keep us busy for a while. And then you move on. So we'll end up with more solar collectors than are actually active - who cares? They're being made in-situ, so the price per collector is almost nil, while in orbit the cost per collector is massive. I don't see why we'd need to knock down mountains or fill in craters either. Mountains are actually prime real-estate anyways. And when we get to places that don't work well for solar collectors, we can just skip them - it's not like there's a shortage of space and materials up there.
    I took you literally about paving the moon with solar collectors. I think your almost nil figure and your massive figures are both exaggerations. Manufacturing and assembly can be done on site for the orbital power stations as easily as on the moon. And they don't have to be in Earth orbit either - they could be at a Lagrange point, they could be in a much more easily maintained solar orbit.

    Asteroids are more expensive, and while it's a good idea to do, you do it for the metals, not the energy. It's wasteful if your goal is more energy, and the technology is more difficult too.
    More expensive than what? I did say metals, right? I don't mean to use an asteroid as a platform for power generators, but as a material source and maybe a platform for processing materials and manufacturing things, if that's even necessary, which I doubt it is. The wealth gained by towing a single asteroid into a usable orbit and mining it for metals would be immeasurably more than the cost of the entire operation.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    I'm sure someone has suggested it before, but has any real detailed explanation ever been offered that takes into account that realistically a successful species will both become efficient with and have better technology, that reduces the amount of signals being broadcast out into random parts of space, and that after a significant length of time with no reply, will stop looking for alien signals? For instance lets say there is another alien civilization within a decent communicable distance, but they are 250 years away from developing the ability to transmit radio signals that we'd be able to receive. Say also during that 250 year lead up we never find existence of another intelligent civilization. Would we even be listening for them in 2261? Hell I could even see an automated array listening for human radio signals coming from space in 2261 just ignoring or passing over said communication simply because it would be unintelligible noise compared to a broadcast done by a person.
    Unless purposely obfuscated, broadcasts from an intelligent source should be fairly distinctive and unmistakable, neatly ordered in contrast to the random background noise. Even if we can't understand the information being carried, I think our chances are very good for realizing that a given signal carries information.

    But I agree with the other things you said. There's a good chance that they're all using messaging lasers, or a similar point-to-point technology, and we have virtually no chance at all at eavesdropping on something like that.

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    I can't parse this sentence.
    Replace "thing" with "point" or "issue", see if that helps.
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    Why would a million year old civilization want to send messages to anyone? Why would a 10k year old civilzation want to do that? And even if they, or factions of them, did want to send signals, why would they choose to go to the very large effort of doing it? None of our factions have done it, or even seriously proposed plans for doing it. And some of our greatest minds have cautioned against it even before considering the costs of doing it right. And we're supposed to be the outgoing, curious, non-xenophobic species.
    Ah, but I stipulated that they'd have to resemble the Hungarians.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    Send your robots to the moon, launch material from there, manufacture in your fairly distant orbit. Cheaper, faster, more efficient than paving the moon. And besides, conservationists would have a cow over flattening the moon's surface.
    We don't need to flatten the moon's surface, and fuck the conservationists.

    I took you literally about paving the moon with solar collectors. I think your almost nil figure and your massive figures are both exaggerations.
    The cost is the (cost per robot plus launching costs) divided by (the amount of area they can convert to solar collectors before the mean time to failure). If the robots have any sort of durability - and this is probably a more forgiving environment than mars (for robots, at least) - then the cost quickly approaches zero. I'd heard one estimate that we could get to about $0.03 per square foot. That's ~$12 trillion for the entire moon, which is a good deal considering it's ~2000x the energy we could even use (assuming no solar collection tech improvements before first launch).
    Manufacturing and assembly can be done on site for the orbital power stations as easily as on the moon.
    No, they really can't. There's no materials on site in orbit, but there is on the moon.
    And they don't have to be in Earth orbit either - they could be at a Lagrange point, they could be in a much more easily maintained solar orbit.
    Launching costs are the biggest part of an orbital power scheme, and putting it at a Lagrange point just makes it more cost prohibitive.

    More expensive than what?
    Anything else we discussed.
    I did say metals, right? I don't mean to use an asteroid as a platform for power generators, but as a material source
    I don't know the asteroid composition that well, but I'm wondering if there any good candidates that can provide both metals and the other raw materials we need for solar cell manufacture.
    The wealth gained by towing a single asteroid into a usable orbit and mining it for metals would be immeasurably more than the cost of the entire operation.
    Probably, but the cost is still incredible, and completely dwarfs anything else being discussed, and time until payback is probably larger too. I suspect it might also be more effecient to just mine the asteroid where it is with autonomous robots and only ship off the parts that are actually useful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    Ah, but I stipulated that they'd have to resemble the Hungarians.
    Systems Hungarians or Apps Hungarians?

  26. #26
    These Hungarians pre-date that.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    But we've invented a lot of technology that augments our shoddy mortal shells, if the mole people did possess the same kinds of drives our ancestors (and we) do, ostensibly they'd follow suit. Non-technical intelligent civilizations seem, to me at least, relatively improbable. What possible circumstance would select for intelligence that wasn't based on the need to obtain energy better? Sheltering the young somehow? Even then you'd figure out eventually that we can use rocks as shields, or whatever, and there you go. I can't think of anything that'd produce an intelligent plant, for example, that didn't involve a need to manipulate either itself or its environment, likely both, in a complex manner. And then you become a tool-builder, eventually.
    There's an ever growing body of evidence that dolphins are extremely intelligent - like on the scale of people. There's an article about it either in a recent Science magazine examining whether its acceptable to keep them in captivity. If this is so, our interaction with the dolphins closely follows a Lem story line. Not only can we not communicate with them, we can't even tell for sure if they are intelligent and so we cruelly experiment on them, kill them when they get in the way of tuna fishing, capture them with brutal methods that results in hundreds of unattractive animals dead and a few pretty ones sold to Sea World, and we make steaks out of them. So why can't we tell if they are smart? Because they don't have any hands to use tools with or create symbolic language with and their spoken language is so strange to us we dismiss it as barely sensible jibber jabber. They are so alien we cannot begin to understand them - yet research shows they are very self aware, they each have unique names, they play, and they have sex for fun, not just to breed.

    Here's the article from Science, you need a PW to get to the original:

    Science 29 April 2011:
    Vol. 332 no. 6029 pp. 526-529
    DOI: 10.1126/science.332.6029.526
    • News Focus
    Animal Cognition
    Animal Cognition Are Dolphins Too Smart for Captivity?


    A new movement seeks to end all dolphin research in zoos and aquariums, but critics say that could kill a productive field and hurt these animals in the wild.

    View larger version:



    Early show. Some of the first work on dolphin cognition took place at Florida's Marine Studios, now Marineland.
    CREDIT: © LUIS MARDEN/NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY/CORBIS


    Tab and Presley were your typical show dolphins. They spent their days at Brooklyn's New York Aquarium gliding through the turquoise water of their large outdoor pool, rocketing into the air for cheering spectators, and being ogled through thick windows of Plexiglas. But in 1998, they had the chance to participate in a revolutionary science experiment.

    Working in the morning before shows, cognitive psychologist Diana Reiss scribbled a few black triangles and circles on Tab's and Presley's foreheads, backs, and flippers—all places the bottlenose dolphins couldn't see. Then, while biopsychologist Lori Marino watched from afar, Reiss put a mirror in the tank. The two dolphins swam to it and immediately began checking out their new tattoos, twisting their bodies so they could make out every mark.

    Though it seemed a simple behavior, Tab and Presley had just done something extraordinary. They had shown that they could recognize their own reflections—a test of self-awareness that only chimpanzees and humans had passed at the time.

    The finding was a breakthrough in dolphin research and a milestone in the field of animal cognition. But it also sowed an uncomfortable seed in Marino's mind. If dolphins were as self-aware as people, she recalls thinking, how can we keep them locked up in concrete pens?

    Marino tried to repress the thought. The science, she told herself, had to come first. But when she and Reiss attempted to continue the mirror studies a couple of years later, they learned that Tab and Presley had been transferred to other aquariums where both had died of infections at about 20 years of age, half a dolphin's normal life span in the wild.

    The deaths affected Marino profoundly. In the following years, she abandoned her aquarium work, severed her relationship with Reiss, and launched a crusade to free all dolphins from captivity.

    Marino is swimming upstream, however. Although her colleagues are concerned about the welfare of dolphins, most have concluded that captive research is both the best way to learn about the intelligence of these creatures and the best way to protect them in the wild. “There are always ethical issues with working with animals in captivity,” says Richard Connor, an animal behaviorist at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, who studies wild dolphins in Shark Bay, Australia. “But what Marino is proposing would completely kill the field of dolphin cognition.”
    Flipper's brain

    Tab and Presley may have proved that dolphins have brains to be reckoned with, but their predecessors were a black box to early researchers. The first serious studies of dolphin intelligence took place at a decidedly nonserious location: Marine Studios, an aquarium on Florida's northeast coast that served as the backdrop for B movies such as 1954's Creature from the Black Lagoon. (Its name was later changed to Marineland.)

    During a visit to the park in 1955, a pioneering brain researcher named John Lilly became fascinated with its bottlenoses and set up a research lab there. His early experiments were crude. He hammered electrodes into the skulls of live dolphins, for example. But he also performed less invasive studies, analyzing the animals' chirps, whistles, and other sounds. Lilly's work convinced him that dolphins were highly intelligent and possessed a complex vocabulary—findings that enticed a new breed of researcher to study them.

    By the 1960s, the U.S. Navy had invested heavily in dolphin research. Its primary interest was militaristic, training some of its first dolphins to recover practice rockets and mines from the sea floor. Working in large, open-water pens, the Navy also made major advances in understanding dolphin physiology and echolocation. (Using a focused beam of clicks, dolphins can find a fish buried in the sand from several meters away.).

    Meanwhile, Lilly had begun to wander off the deep end. Although his work had captured the public's imagination—inspiring movies like 1963's Flipper and helping foster the rise of marine parks—he began making increasingly fantastic claims, arguing, for example, that dolphins held the key to communicating with extraterrestrials. He also gave some dolphins LSD in an attempt to talk to them. Lilly's behavior threatened to torpedo the entire field.

    But dolphin research found a savior in Lou Herman, a former Air Force intelligence officer who founded a research-only dolphin facility in Honolulu, Hawaii, in 1970. Working in former shark tanks, Herman showed that dolphins could understand two artificial languages—one based on electronic sounds, and the other on a trainer's hand gestures—and that they grasped grammar and syntax. They could even create their own novel behaviors on command and comprehend human pointing, a skill that eludes chimpanzees.

    By the time Herman closed his lab in 2004, he had seeded the field with countless researchers, many of whom continue to demonstrate additional signs of dolphin intelligence, including tool use and cultural traditions. When Marino had her epiphany at the New York Aquarium, it wasn't just the deaths of Tab and Presley that moved her. It was the mounting weight of decades of this research suggesting that the dolphin brain isn't that much different from our own.
    View larger version:



    Deep thoughts. Lori Marino's work on dolphin brains helped convince her that the animals were too sentient for captivity.
    CREDIT: JACK KEARSE/EMORY UNIVERSITY



    The crusade against captivity

    In late January of 2006, a young bottlenose dolphin named Harley jumped out of his tank at the Minnesota Zoo and smacked his head on the surrounding concrete. His trainers, assuming nothing was wrong, returned him to the water, where he soon stopped coming up for air. By the time divers reached him, Harley had died, the victim of a fractured skull.

    Marino, now at Emory University in Atlanta, says such incidents illustrate the ills of captivity. Dolphin tanks are chemically treated, bereft of other marine life, and just a tiny fraction of the hundred-square-kilometer ranges these animals are used to, she says. In these bland and sterile environments, Marino says, it's no wonder that intelligent, social dolphins swim in circles and jump out of their pools, and that these stresses contribute to their premature deaths from gastroenteritis, fungal infections, and other ailments: “You can't replicate the natural settings for these animals.”

    A 2009 report sponsored by The Humane Society of the United States and the World Society for the Protection of Animals came to a similar conclusion. Citing figures from marine parks and aquariums, the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, and longitudinal studies of wild dolphins, The Case Against Marine Mammals in Captivity found that between 5.6% and 7.4% of dolphins die each year in captivity versus 3.9% in the wild. The numbers for orca whales are even more dramatic: 6.2% to 7% mortality rates in captivity versus 2.3% in the wild. “The totality of the captive experience for marine mammals is so contrary to their natural experience that it should be rejected outright,” the report concludes.

    After Tab and Presley died, Marino began refusing offers to work in aquariums and studied only dolphins that had already died. Conducting MRI and CT scans on stranded wild dolphins, she found that—adjusted for body size—the animals sported the second biggest brains on the planet, larger than chimps' and just below humans'. She also discovered that dolphins have a very complex neocortex, which has been linked to problem solving, self-awareness, and processing emotions in people (Science, 26 February 2010, p. 1070).

    Armed with these data, “I couldn't in good conscience continue to support captive research,” Marino says. She now calls herself a “scholar advocate” and has gathered allies, such as Denise Herzing, a psychologist at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, who works only in the wild. Other dolphin researchers have objected to captivity, Herzing says, but like her they simply moved their studies outdoors. What's different about Marino is that she's trying to foment a revolution.
    Marino has also teamed with advocacy groups like TerraMar Research, a nonprofit organization based in Seattle, Washington, dedicated to protecting marine wildlife. TerraMar's director, Toni Frohoff, argues that if dolphins are as self-aware as people, they deserve the same basic rights. “The more sentient we see dolphins to be,” she says, “the greater our ethical obligation to them. We can't study them like goldfish or lab rats.”

    Taking a cue from the Great Ape Project, a collection of scientists and advocates who have argued that chimps and their relatives deserve basic legal rights (Science, 1 April, p. 28), Marino banded together with other scientists, activists, and philosophers to draft a “Declaration of Rights for Cetaceans” in 2010. It states that no cetaceans—a group that includes whales and dolphins—“should be held in captivity … or removed from their natural environment.” Instead, live cetaceans should only be studied in the wild. Marino and her allies have gathered more than 3200 signatures and hope eventually to bring the declaration before the United Nations. “We want to use this as a jumping-off point for changing policy,” Marino says. “We need to move the science to a place that doesn't compromise our ethics.”

    Counterattack

    Stan Kuczaj hadn't even heard of Marino's fledgling movement when, in 2010, he commissioned a barrage of articles on marine animals for the International Journal of Comparative Psychology, which he edits. His target was the 2009 Humane Society report, and over the course of two issues and 600 pages, some of the biggest names in the field argued that captive research was critical to understanding dolphins and other marine mammals and to protecting them in the wild.

    Kuczaj, a psychologist at the University of Southern Mississippi in Hattiesburg who studies dolphin behavior and communication in captivity and the wild, also feels that the papers are an effective rebuttal to Marino and her allies. “I don't think there are unequivocal data to support some of the claims that they make,” he says. He agrees that dolphins are smart, for example, but says there's no evidence that they're comparable to people. “We suck at being able to validly measure intelligence in humans. We're even worse when we try to compare species,” he says. Marino and her allies are “trying to push their personal opinion on the field.”

    Herman agrees. The godfather of research on dolphin cognition and a contributor to the journal package, he says that the evidence for higher dolphin mortality in captivity versus in the wild is “very, very questionable,” adding that a recent study based on National Marine Fisheries Service data showed no significant difference. “The mortality is horrific in the wild. Fifty percent of wild dolphins bear shark scars—and those are the ones that are still alive.” Marino, he says, reminds him of John Lilly, who eventually railed against captivity as a concentration camp: “Once you mix politics with science, you lose objectivity.”
    View larger version:



    Finned soldier. Navy research has revealed much about the physiology of dolphins.
    CREDIT: U.S. NAVY/BRIEN AHO


    Herman says he, too, has struggled with the ethics of keeping dolphins in captivity. But he notes that Marino is basing many of her ethical arguments on understanding gained from captive research. “That's the irony of it. How do they know dolphins are intelligent? Because of the captive studies. And now they don't want us to do that research.” Herman says he never could have made his cognitive breakthroughs in the wild. Researchers have to train animals, collect baseline readings, and follow individuals for months or years, he notes: “Science demands controls and replication. What they're proposing is a fantasy.”
    View larger version:



    Getting the message. Lou Herman's work in a Hawaii facility has shown that dolphins grasp grammar and syntax.
    CREDIT: ED KASHI/GETTY IMAGES


    And are dolphins really unhappy in captivity? Dorian Houser, director of biological research at the National Marine Mammal Foundation in San Diego, California, doesn't think so. “Humans have forgotten what it's like to forage for their own food and be the prey item of another animal,” says Houser, who has worked with Navy dolphins. “These animals get three square meals a day and regular medical care that's probably better than most people have.” In San Diego Bay, the only thing that separates the Navy's open-water pens from the rest of the ocean is a small walkway, he says, which the dolphins could easily jump over—but don't.

    Plus, says Houser, information gleaned from captive studies has helped scientists understand dolphins' sensitivity to noise, pollution, and other dangers—all of which have helped the Navy draft better conservation guidelines—while decades of research on dolphin physiology has helped rescuers save stranded animals. Captive research, he notes, is also heavily regulated by a variety of government agencies, a position echoed by Marilee Menard, the executive director of the Alliance of Marine Mammal Parks and Aquariums, which represents 55 facilities around the globe. “These animals are stress-free, they're reproducing fabulously,” she says. “What other standards do you want?”

    The biggest concern among those who study dolphins in captivity, however, is that removing the animals from zoos and aquariums would destroy the field of dolphin cognition. In the past decade, researchers have made astounding cognitive discoveries in other animals, showing, for example, that jays can plan ahead and dogs understand inequity. “Well, dammit, we need to have that looked at in dolphins,” says Connor of the University of Massachusetts. “We've just scratched the surface of figuring out what these animals are capable of,” he says. “You can't just say, ‘Hey, a dolphin recognizes itself in the mirror,’ and go home.”
    View larger version:



    Marine lab. Denise Herzing studies dolphins in the Bahamas, where the animals come and go as they choose.
    CREDIT: WILD DOLPHIN PROJECT


    Still, Connor says he is open to exploring ways of studying cognition in the wild: “If they can do these studies in free-ranging dolphins, great. But the burden of proof is on them.”

    A new paradigm

    Marino and her crew plan to spend the next several years overcoming that burden. But even in the wild, they want ethics to be paramount. That means working only with whales and dolphins that have “decided” to interact with humans—either because they're curious or because they've become used to people—a controversial approach Marino and Frohoff call “collaborative research.”

    Their model is the work of Florida Atlantic University's Herzing. For more than 2 decades, Herzing and her colleagues have been hanging out on a catamaran in the Bahamas, about 65 kilometers from shore. The water is shallow and clear, and two communities of dolphins come and go as they please. The researchers have been there so long that the dolphins ignore them, as habituated great apes and elephants ignore human observers in the wild. Snorkeling nearby, Herzing and her colleagues use cameras and hydrophones to record behaviors and sounds, and collect genetic data from feces, all without interfering with the animals. In 2008, her team showed that mothers teach calves how to fish, considered the highest form of social learning and usually thought restricted to primates. “We want to get scientists thinking about new tools and new techniques,” Herzing says. Kuczaj says she has been “living the goal” of doing good cognitive work in the wild.
    Marino herself is working on adapting several captive-research protocols to the wild. She'd like to see, for example, if she can replicate her mirror studies in the open ocean by modifying the techniques she and Reiss used at the New York Aquarium.

    While Marino and her allies work out the details, they're also developing an ambitious plan to phase out all whale and dolphin captivity in the United States. They hope their efforts will sway public sentiment against the 30 U.S. marine parks and aquariums, forcing them to close their dolphin and whale exhibits, which house about 400 animals. Herzing dreams of creating some sort of “retirement center,” such as a lagoon where these animals could live with other members of their species until they died, similar to chimp and elephant sanctuaries.

    Marino says her ultimate goal is to convince the next generation of dolphin researchers that they don't need to work in captivity. She wants them to go straight to the wild, without having to endure a Tab and Presley moment first.

    Reiss, who continues to work with dolphins in captivity—a position that drove Marino to stop speaking to her in 2009—doesn't support Marino's movement, arguing that there's still value in captive research. But Reiss does think dolphin researchers can find common ground. Now at Hunter College in New York City, she is spearheading a campaign to stop the bloody dolphin hunts in Taiji, Japan, for example. Marino joined this effort, as did scientists on both sides of the captivity debate. Reiss and others who support captive research also believe that many zoos and aquariums should improve their dolphin facilities. Everyone wants the best for these animals, Reiss says: “To me, the biggest thing is to keep the knowledge coming, whether they're in captivity or in the wild.”

    The issue reaches far beyond dolphins, says Karen McComb, a behavioral ecologist at the University of Sussex in the U.K. who has chosen to study elephant cognition in the wild rather than in zoos. The more we learn about the intelligence of other animals, she says, the more we're forced to consider the ethical implications of studying them. “Everyone is coming to a point where it's relevant to stand back and reconsider these issues,” she says. “It's a really important debate.”
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  28. #28
    I can access the article at work, so I'll maybe look at it. Even if dolphins, or octopi, were about as smart as proto-men, they're a) not very interesting as they're not tool-builders 2) if we choose the three species as our sampling, one in three "intelligent" species should roughly be tool-making µ) they probably can't evolve into tool-makers because we're here.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  29. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Wraith View Post
    and fuck the conservationists.
    You know what I mean.

    The cost is the (cost per robot plus launching costs) divided by (the amount of area they can convert to solar collectors before the mean time to failure). If the robots have any sort of durability - and this is probably a more forgiving environment than mars (for robots, at least) - then the cost quickly approaches zero. I'd heard one estimate that we could get to about $0.03 per square foot. That's ~$12 trillion for the entire moon, which is a good deal considering it's ~2000x the energy we could even use (assuming no solar collection tech improvements before first launch).
    The only difference in cost is the need to sling material or parts off the moon to the orbital location, and frankly the gravity well of the moon is shallow. Launch costs from there are miniscule.

    No, they really can't. There's no materials on site in orbit, but there is on the moon. Launching costs are the biggest part of an orbital power scheme, and putting it at a Lagrange point just makes it more cost prohibitive.
    Again, slinging material or sub-assemblies from the moon would cost very little.

    I don't know the asteroid composition that well, but I'm wondering if there any good candidates that can provide both metals and the other raw materials we need for solar cell manufacture.
    I read some on it a while back and iirc there's roughly two kinds of asteroids - those with large amounts of metal and those composed mostly of organics and frozen volatiles. Both would be extremely valuable towed in or, as you already suggested, mined in their original orbits and slung to whatever construction site because they're already outside Earth's gravity well.

    Probably, but the cost is still incredible, and completely dwarfs anything else being discussed, and time until payback is probably larger too. I suspect it might also be more effecient to just mine the asteroid where it is with autonomous robots and only ship off the parts that are actually useful.
    Start-up costs and the time to recoup them and make previously undreamed of wealth are definitely the barrier. Our current culture is too short sited.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    I can access the article at work, so I'll maybe look at it. Even if dolphins, or octopi, were about as smart as proto-men, they're a) not very interesting as they're not tool-builders 2) if we choose the three species as our sampling, one in three "intelligent" species should roughly be tool-making µ) they probably can't evolve into tool-makers because we're here.
    I only wanted to point out that intelligence doesn't have to mean tool using technospecies. And even if it does mean that, here we are on our own world interacting with a species that is physiologically very like ourselves and we can't even tell for sure it is intelligent or not, much less communicate with it and exchange information. It reminds me a lot of Fiasco. Imagine if a species just like dolphins but with arms and primitive tool use was found in a big Europan ocean biosphere. We would only know they were fairly intelligent because they have arms to do stuff with. They would otherwise be completely alien, we would have a hell of a time ever communicating and exchanging meaningful information with them.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •