I don't disagree that the planet is overpopulated. 1.5 billion sounds about right. But I see levels falling way below that. I am assuming thing like worldwide wealth and other assumptions in my android scenario. It is easier to have a relationship with an android that does what you want when you want and I think most people will choose the easy route.

I don't see what's so bad about plummeting birth-rates, sustainable population level is at 2 billion (or 1.5, depending on who you ask), so we need 5 billion less people... ^^

As I understand it, the current research is focused on preventing cell death, which is the cause of aging. All cells (with a few exceptions like sperm) can only replicate a set number of times before dying. If you can extend or eliminate that replication limit, then your body will be frozen at its current age. If they apply that treatment on you when you're 30, at age 70 you'll still have your 30 year old body. Although with a cybernetic body, you'd be able to jump 30 feet into the air, which is pretty cool. But it's probably a lot cheaper to take a few chemicals that modify our DNA than to have a mostly or fully robotic body.

Of course, as soon as we develop somewhat realistic androids with somewhat realistic AI, it will be the end of our species. Most men will buy and live with female androids, and never reproduce. Birthrates will plummet.

I don't want to be stuck in this rotting carcass that appears living though.. cybernetics could completely solve 99.99% of all health issues. And even if we stopped aging, people would still die left and right of absurd illnesses.

Best of all, replace the entire body, and energy production could be done via fuel cells instead of food. Meaning drink a bit of water, sit a bit in the sun and your power levels regenerate... lacking either, energy bars ;p

Mr. Tact wrote on Jun 14, 2013, 16:32:
AI is an interesting subject within this area. Will it happen? If so, when? What form will it take? Crazy enemy like "The Terminator"'s Cyber-dyne? Or the helpful friend, think "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". Or something more Star Trek like, very intelligent, but not sentient?

I think AIs will appear sentient, but will not be for some time. First, it is extremely difficult to program sentience. Also, there are dangers in programming an AI that way.

As for aging, I think before we develop decent cybernetics, we'll figure out how to halt the aging process. We're already well on our way.

Mr. Tact wrote on Jun 14, 2013, 12:57:

jdreyer wrote on Jun 14, 2013, 12:44:
I wish I could stay alive for another 100 years, we'd have interstellar probes by then.

If I could bet against you and get paid if I won, I would. I think it's overly optimistic to think technology will advance that far in 100 years. However, I hope I am wrong. Hell, I hope we have safe and simple interstellar travel in the next 100 years. But I doubt it.

You're probably right, 100 years is probably overly optimistic. Getting a probe up to speed is the challenge. We probably have the tech to build a probe that would send us data. But even at 10% light speed, that's 43 years to reach our closest neighbor, Alpha Centauri, and another 4 to start receiving data.

AI is an interesting subject within this area. Will it happen? If so, when? What form will it take? Crazy enemy like "The Terminator"'s Cyber-dyne? Or the helpful friend, think "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". Or something more Star Trek like, very intelligent, but not sentient?

At least cybernetic tech will be at a point that we might actually live to 100 and beyond with no trouble. But at what cost (monetary and biological) ...

Personally I'd love to see a world like in Ghost in the Shell become reality... 2029 All it needs is a true genius to come to a position where actual fundamental breakthrough can happen (mainly, a method to transfer consciousness into a cyber-brain). Technology doesn't always grow steadily, sometimes a great idea changes everything...


Personally, I think I would have enjoyed living another 50 years later... but we can't be picky I got to experience the digital age in all it's glory, and that's something... all that time before, free communication between different cultures was impossible... and now it is not just possible, it's as easy as typing and pressing submit...

Whatever happens.. things are going to remain interesting.

jdreyer wrote on Jun 14, 2013, 12:44:
I wish I could stay alive for another 100 years, we'd have interstellar probes by then.

If I could bet against you and get paid if I won, I would. I think it's overly optimistic to think technology will advance that far in 100 years. However, I hope I am wrong. Hell, I hope we have safe and simple interstellar travel in the next 100 years. But I doubt it.

We do live in interesting times, that's for sure. I wish I could stay alive for another 100 years, we'd have interstellar probes by then. It would be awesome to see planets from other solar systems.

jdreyer wrote on Jun 14, 2013, 03:39:
You missed my big post below that post.

I read it But I have nothing else to add ^^ I am not going to say I disagree or I agree to any particular point, because while interesting, if anything I am just curious what will really happen.

The phosphor link was interesting. But I am not sure how much of it is true and how much of it is spin to boost the phosphor price... even so, I don't see any shortage coming up that would utterly cripple humanities progress...

Anyhow, I read it and I went "mhh good points" But I don't feel like I could add anything more to the discussion.

You missed my big post below that post.

Well that sure is a lot of energy .... I think a 10m space-ship might be a bit small to fit a reactor and tech inside that produces and stores that much energy...

But it's nice that there is hope

eRe4s3r wrote on Jun 13, 2013, 14:33:
What does 1600 pounds of mass energy mean in that relation? I never considered it might be more than a crazy idea.

What Mr. Tact said. 1600 pounds (700kg or so) of mass converted to energy. This is a massive, massive amount of energy. One gram of mass converted into energy has more energy than half a million gallons of gasoline. It's not beyond the realm of possibility however.

I see your points. Humans aren’t just one pot, it’s true. However, my fear is that with very scarce resources, you end up with an oligarchical system that stifles innovation. That’s always what happens. The rich get into power, and instead of using that wealth for research, they use it to maintain their position. The USA is on that track currently with middle class wage stagnation and the wealthy consolidating all the wealth over the past 30 years. Luckily, there’s still plenty to go around so there’s still lots of innovation, but once oil runs out and GW hits hard, there will be a lot less. You need an egalitarian political system to foster technological innovation, and with resource scarcity that goes out the window.

Once you’re at the point where recycling is cheaper than mining new resources, you’re a very poor country. Take Cuba, for example, which experiences artificially induced scarcity from the US embargo . Recycles everything, very poor, no innovation comes from there. Everyone is too busy trying to feed themselves. That would preclude interstellar travel.

Also, oil isn't the only necessary resource being depleted. We’re currently in the “bumpy plateau” phase for peak phosphorus, which is just as scary as peak oil, if not more so. Once we deplete that, we’ll have to turn to much more expensive organic farming to produce food, and we'll be back to the 1800s.

Any developing civilization will inevitably use EM radiation for communication, whether it be radio, microwave, laser, IR, whatever. There is nothing else to use, it’s cheap, it’s a fundamental of our universe, it’s ubiquitous, and it travels at the speed of light. It’s too tempting and obvious not to use, regardless if the life form is carbon based like here on earth, or silicon based breathing ammonia with copper-based blood cells. Even ocean based life will have to leave the ocean to accomplish interstellar travel, when they do, their initial communication will all be done via EM radio waves.

That being said, as I mentioned, radio is only detectable over very short distances (hundreds of light years), before the weak signals get lost in the background radiation. And only for a short window of hundreds or thousands of years before some other technology is discovered. So, very, very hard to detect.

As for fully exploiting the resources of their solar system before moving to other stars: I think these would occur concurrently. That’s the way we would do it, and it only makes sense. If you can, you will. Europeans explored and discovered the new world before cultivating every square inch of Europe. At the same time, they continued cultivating Europe while developing new colonies. Even if an alien civilization decided to fully exploit their current solar system before moving to another star, you’re only talking a few thousands of years difference, a blink of an eye for an interstellar civ that could have developed millions of years ago.

As I said in my previous post, it *appears* that FTL is possible, but until we achieve it we don’t know. In the 1800s people thought going to the moon might be possible in theory, but there were many, many hurdles to overcome before we got there.

So to sum up:
The Fermi Paradox is not a paradox at all. It is the natural state of things.

1. Life may be common, but intelligent is likely quite rare (see how long it took Earth to achieve it, for example).

2. Even if intelligent life is developed, the chance that it develops interstellar travel is quite rare. Such civilizations are likely to collapse or destroy themselves before developing and exploiting the ability.

3. Even if they do develop interstellar travel and exploit it, they could collapse/destroy themselves before reaching us.

4. If they do reach us, they will orders of magnitude more advanced than us both technologically and philosophically, and they will have some form of the Prime Directive in place. They would observe from a distance, but never reveal themselves for fear of disrupting our development.

I'd assume he/they mean:

E = mc**2

where m = 1600 pounds of matter

What does 1600 pounds of mass energy mean in that relation? I never considered it might be more than a crazy idea.

eRe4s3r wrote on Jun 13, 2013, 10:50:
My (not science) theory is that whatever caused these fundamental forces to appear and separate must be something we can use to cancel them locally, essentially a field around a ship. All we need to do is create a localized and tiny cosmic inflation event to propel a space ship faster than light, until we stop the reaction and it stops moving...

Hey don't laugh, it could work ;p We don't even need to do much, except canceling the fundamental forces in a way that doesn't cause the implosion of the universe...

Right, I believe that's the way current FTL theory is headed: don't move the ship, but create a space-time bubble around the ship and move the space around the bubble. It's still a pretty big "if" though. And actually, referencing cosmic inflation was spot on. From the article:

Remember, nothing locally exceeds the speed of light, but space can expand and contract at any speed

Initially they thought the mass-energy of Jupiter would be required to acheive this, but the most recent calculations are about 1600 pounds of mass energy to move a 10 meter spacecraft.

I'll take it anyway we can get it. If I had one wish I would be severely tempted to use it to discover practical interstellar travel.

My (not science) theory is that whatever caused these fundamental forces to appear and separate must be something we can use to cancel them locally, essentially a field around a ship. All we need to do is create a localized and tiny cosmic inflation event to propel a space ship faster than light, until we stop the reaction and it stops moving...

Hey don't laugh, it could work ;p We don't even need to do much, except canceling the fundamental forces in a way that doesn't cause the implosion of the universe...