Enterovirus71 t1_ixbf112 wrote
Reply to comment by simcoder in Artemis is cool, but there really isn't a good reason we're going back to the Moon (or to Mars and beyond). by [deleted]
Our existence in this universe as a species is a drop in the ocean. The scale might be our way to try to conceptualize how much a civilization could theoretically advance. That doesn't necessitate the existence of a civilization that exceeds two on the scale for example. The other thing to consider is the possibility that we may be the only intelligent life in the universe that has ever existed. As cynical as it may sound, the conditions for life to form are extremely rare. The right things had to happen at the right time in the right way and survive long enough to replicate. It then took billions of years for homo sapiens to arise.
simcoder t1_ixbfcow wrote
Surely. It's all existential at that level.
But another way to think about it is that maybe the universal colonial self limiter is the reason that life here got a chance to evolve essentially on its own and without colonial interference.
If life randomly sprung up here and seems to be everywhere we look here no matter how harsh the environment, seems like that should also apply to the universe and all its large numbers.
Enterovirus71 t1_ixbhnhu wrote
There is a really good video by Kurzegast that describes the general principles of the idea you are talking about. I tend not to put too much stock in the idea, though. If this self-limiter existed, shouldn't we see traces of this civilization? Surely they didn't advance too far, or we would have detected something by now. We have analyzed the atmospheres of thousands of candidate planets and yet nothing.
We are simply too naiive, and we definitely need to further our understanding of physics before we can narrow down the various hypotheses that have emerged. Ockhams razor and lack of tangible evidence suggests that we are and always were alone, but it seems so unlikely that 13 billion years went by without another civilization emerging and potentially collapsing.
simcoder t1_ixbji0o wrote
The self limiter is not a civilization. It's more or less just an extension of the same forces that balance out the biosphere that gave rise to us. I'm not sure how Kurtzgesagt described it but that's how I think of it.
And you do sort of see this self limitation all over the biosphere. Anytime a population exceeds the carrying capacity of its biosphere, hunger and disease, etc tend to self limit that population back down to the carrying capacity.
It's not really an active agent rather more an artifact of a limited biosphere. Technology kind of lets you ignore that for a time but essentially you're just building a bigger bust into the situation if you rely solely on technology to save the day. Temporarily.
Enterovirus71 t1_ixblh5l wrote
Oh, for sure. I just don't m know what this self-limiting natural force would be. If you keep exploring new planets and stars, thus garnering unimaginable resources and energy, it's hard to imagine that the ecosystem would work against you in some mysterious way. The limiting factor, in my opinion, will be cosmic forces, i.e., the redshift. We will eventually be confined to a small sliver of the universe as the universe expands and the distances between galaxies become too far to for intergalactic travel. My point is, the limitation does not have to be catastrophic. It can merely be an endpoint in exploration when we realize that expansion would no longer be possible due to distance constraints.
simcoder t1_ixbmmz6 wrote
Take LEO for example. It's a limited resource.
And if you just blunder into it willy nilly and go full colonial mode on it, you could lock yourself out by having just a little war or a lot of capitalism treating it as an externality. Either of which could lead to Kessler.
That would be one form of space based self limiting. You basically create the very trap that keeps you locked on your own planet.
And I get that the limitation doesn't have to be catastrophic. In fact, as a self aware species with a great deal of intelligence and the foreknowledge that actions have consequences, we or other civilizations could possibly make the adjustments necessary to prevent a catastrophic limitation.
But that requires going against the things that got you to that point in the first place (giving up conquering and colonialism to get you out of your biosphere deficit and embracing a lower energy, symbiotic lifestyle...though I'm not sure if that's even an option at this point...i like my lifestyle just as much as the next person).
So it's probably a really tricky spot for most civilizations that get to this point.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments