What's NASA Up To And Other Space Stuff

[Wraith]

So, if they're so superior why don't they get used in any conflicts? In fact, they must be inferior to our conventional weapons because we never use them. Right?

They are being used, they're just not being detonated. They cannot possibly be replaced by swords, no matter how big - swords just can't hope to accomplish the same things.

Also, I was trying to steer it towards "bombs" and not just nukes because you really need to see the full suite of what were doing instead of medieval weapons for the comparison. But we're already pretty far off track here now.

I think the assumption here that I have an issue with is that the cost-benefit analysis of total colonisation vs limited colonisation vs megastructure buidling is uniform across all of time and space. Just because it makes no sense for them to do it now, in this part of the universe doesn't mean it won't make sense for them, us, or someone else, to do it at some other point in time or some other part of the universe.

The assumption is also that regions of space, once colonised will stay colonised more or less indefinately.

If it's ever a good idea, then in a high sapient population universe (which there mere existence would imply - one species might be an anomaly, but two so close implies many about), then colonization should have already been done to death. We're also at least 4 billion and probably closer to 8 billion years late to the party - the universe should be packed if colonization were the way to go for anyone at any time. Once colonization starts, it should be virtually unstoppable, because once one system successfully sends out colony ships, now you have many systems with the tech to colonize the stars and they all have proof that it's a good idea.

Maybe some disasters will locally wipe out some populations, but on a cosmological scale then yes, once a region becomes colonized it should stay colonized until that becomes impossible (probably the degenerate era). Otherwise, this implies that races never get more than one or two steps outside of their star before somehow dying out totally, leaving nobody to recolonize. That isn't substantially different from no colonization at all.

Alternative theories:


* if life on Earth began elsewhere that would potentually add billions more years to the timescale of the evolution of life meaning that it is only around now that intelligent life begins to develop
* Once intelligent life is advanced enough, it stops expressing itself in ways which are detectable to us

The first one seems pretty unlikely, as if intelligent life were only now emerging into the universe but was doing so in large numbers it would mean we're one of the first races out of the gate. It would mean there's nothing special about our evolutionary history, except that we were faster at it than most. I guess maybe it's true, but damn that'd make us incredibly lucky. This also seems to go against what I know of evolutionary history - there were a couple big leaps that had to get made, and it should have been just chance that made them take as long as they did. There should be races far luckier than ours even if all/most life comes from panspermia.

I can't come up with any strong objections to the second at the moment, as it's stated.

The problem I have with this is that intersteller colonisation is plausible even with current or near future technologies (although not easy); certainly more plausible than megascale engineering, so it's hard to imagine what would keep civilisations from doing it *across the board*; especially when some races may find it a lot easier than we do - if they're on a world with lower gravity, getting into orbit isn't such a pain in the ass, races longer lived or less suseptable to radiation damage would find space travel a lot easier etc. I mean, space travel is hard but not that hard.

Some could leak out of their systems, as long as they figure out that it's a mistake before they get too many generations into it. If it stays a good idea in the long term for even one civilization, we get back to the problem of how the galaxy should be filled, but if colonization is anomalous whenever it happens, a mistake that gets fixed or contained, then we can have a populated galaxy with our system still being uncolonized.

Alternatively, a species rate of technological progress is no constant; after a certain point you reach more of a plateau and we'll catch them up before they get near us.

It's not them I'd be afraid of. It's whatever the thing is that keeps killing off other technological species before they can catch up to where those guys are right now. If they are anomalous, we can't count on being as lucky as them.

[Steely Glint]

They are being used, they're just not being detonated. They cannot possibly be replaced by swords, no matter how big - swords just can't hope to accomplish the same things.

Also, I was trying to steer it towards "bombs" and not just nukes because you really need to see the full suite of what were doing instead of medieval weapons for the comparison. But we're already pretty far off track here now.

Distant observers (in space or time) would not have access to the full suite of what we are doing, just like we don't have access to the full suite of what the KIC guys are up to.

The first one seems pretty unlikely, as if intelligent life were only now emerging into the universe but was doing so in large numbers it would mean we're one of the first races out of the gate.

We *are* one of the first races out of the gate; the universe is only 14 billion years old and most models of the ultimate fate of the universe have it remaining this way for at least tens of billions and possibly trillions more. Assuming those models are correct, we're in a very young universe.

It would mean there's nothing special about our evolutionary history, except that we were faster at it than most. I guess maybe it's true, but damn that'd make us incredibly lucky.

It doesn't necessarily make us the first or even close to the first, it just lowers the amount of time in which other intelligent races can potentially have been kicking around out there quit drastically (from billions down to millions); therefore potentially explaining the lack of evidence we see for them.

I can't come up with any strong objections to the second at the moment, as it's stated.

The more I think about it the more sense it makes, our science has already begun shown us that the reality we perceive in our day to day lives and the reality as it actually exists are not the same thing, and questions such as why the universe exists and is the way it is are currently completely beyond us; it makes sense that as a civilisation advances in knowledge over a period of millions of years they will come to understand our reality in ways we cannot even comprehend and will, presumably, also develop technology anchored in that understanding.

Some could leak out of their systems, as long as they figure out that it's a mistake before they get too many generations into it. If it stays a good idea in the long term for even one civilization, we get back to the problem of how the galaxy should be filled, but if colonization is anomalous whenever it happens, a mistake that gets fixed or contained, then we can have a populated galaxy with our system still being uncolonized.

An related idea is that intersteller colonisation *is* a good idea until you reach a certain point of development at which point it stops becoming a worthwhile endeavour. This may happen in fits and starts. For example:

* Interseller colonisation is current theoretically possible but very expensive so not worthwhile
* Technology develops; now it's worthwhile because it's cheaper and we're running out of living space
* A few hundred years later and now technology has developed to the point where we can build things like Halos/Culture orbitals and other elaborate megastructures to live on, so we don't need to expand into other stellar systems for more living space; we still do it sometimes just for the hell of it but there's no massive push to expand as there was in previous eras and expansion slows to a crawl
* Thousands of years later our society is so fantastically advanced we now need dyson spheres to meet our energy needs so we have to start expanding other stars again to meet our resource needs.
* Perhaps a million years on we're now so advanced we can now manipulate reality itself and everyone just moves into the giant Tardis we made

[Wraith]

We *are* one of the first races out of the gate; the universe is only 14 billion years old and most models of the ultimate fate of the universe have it remaining this way for at least tens of billions and possibly trillions more. Assuming those models are correct, we're in a very young universe.

Looked at that way, sure. But I meant that it's been billions of years since life such as ours should have been possible. Our star formed a few billion years later that a star like it could have, and we took a couple billion years longer evolving than we theoretically could have. So if sapient life is common, then there should be races in the galaxy with a couple billion years head start on us, more than enough time to fill it at even a sluggish pace.

The more I think about it the more sense it makes, our science has already begun shown us that the reality we perceive in our day to day lives and the reality as it actually exists are not the same thing, and questions such as why the universe exists and is the way it is are currently completely beyond us; it makes sense that as a civilisation advances in knowledge over a period of millions of years they will come to understand our reality in ways we cannot even comprehend and will, presumably, also develop technology anchored in that understanding.

A singularity or a vastly different way of life would probably be a perfectly good reason not to head out into the stars. Why colonize the galaxy when you can hop into a pocket universe instead, or you're all uploaded to an infinite capacity mainframe housed in a microsingularity, or you can make TARDISes arbitrarily bigger on the inside? Or some explanation that no human is even capable of thinking of.

An related idea is that intersteller colonisation *is* a good idea until you reach a certain point of development at which point it stops becoming a worthwhile endeavour. This may happen in fits and starts. For example:

* Interseller colonisation is current theoretically possible but very expensive so not worthwhile
* Technology develops; now it's worthwhile because it's cheaper and we're running out of living space
* A few hundred years later and now technology has developed to the point where we can build things like Halos/Culture orbitals and other elaborate megastructures to live on, so we don't need to expand into other stellar systems for more living space; we still do it sometimes just for the hell of it but there's no massive push to expand as there was in previous eras and expansion slows to a crawl
* Thousands of years later our society is so fantastically advanced we now need dyson spheres to meet our energy needs so we have to start expanding other stars again to meet our resource needs.
* Perhaps a million years on we're now so advanced we can now manipulate reality itself and everyone just moves into the giant Tardis we made

For the record, I wrote my TARDIS example before I read yours

This actually works I think. As long as colonization has constraints, it'd fit without resorting to low-probability scenarios while still allowing relatively common sapience.