European Tribune

Display:
All those parameters and factors were estimated by specialists of sorts, and they still introduced the Fermi paradox - it is called a paradox for a reason.

What if the real filter is a greed filter - those civilizations that keep playing "Darwinian" games of arm races and egotistic resource exploitation do not get a chance to venture and explore the space beyond their native star system; at best they get stuck on their own planet, without resources to get off and spread.

Actual space colonization might turn out to be far from our "Star Wars" fantasies. By the time we would be able to contact an extraterrestrial civilization, we (and they) would value any germ of life and energy preciously, would be desperate to join forces for continued existence, and would do anything to prevent destroying anything of each other, let alone to turn the "inferior" organization into dust. What the universe is certainly not lacking is dust...

by das monde on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 05:58:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think a Darwinian bottle neck is very likely. I've suggested this before. Intelligence has an evolutionary price, which means it's likely to be good enough to deal with immediate survival needs but a few steps short of what's needed to manage a planet successfully.

So it's likely that most eco-systems which rely on competition will crash. Every so often you'll get a planet that makes it through, but it won't be a common happening.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 06:45:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Biological evolution gives solutions to various problems of life, and Malthusian problems were certainly "addressed" numerous times. Competition drives are probably well contained in Nature.

Human intelligence must be facing Malthusian predicaments headlong for the first time. Local over-exploitation dramas must have happened many times before, with various outcomes: migration to (or concurring) other region was probably most frequent solution. But for the first time really, we won't have the option to migrate, so it's gonna be "interesting". We should not rely on the empirical intuition that laisse faire nature runs no real risk of catastrophic collapse.

by das monde on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 07:20:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Malthusian predicaments have been faced headlong by societies in Europe, and I guess, Asia, for quite some time. European population has been intermittently near top carrying capacity for about three thousand years. Migration wasn't the solution then ; famines and birth control were more current.

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 07:45:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Which historical circumstances would you identify as Malthusian predicaments? Black Death is not exactly a Malthusian restriction. Wars were hardly fought out of desperation, but rather because it was an "enjoyable" and quite ample way of making living. Europe's population now is much higher than during any possible previous Malthusian peaks.
by das monde on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 08:07:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What do you identify as a Malthusian predicament ?

For quite a few centuries, around the Roman invasion, between 10th-14th century and from the 16th onward, France's population remained near the Malthusian maximum. And it wasn't wars that kept the population in check, but rather regular famines - due to lack of food. Hardly more Malthusian. Famines didn't cut the population in half like the Black Death, but rather killed a few percentages here and there, the poorest and weakest... And were a regular occurence.

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 12:11:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It wasn't faced consciously, it just happened. It could easily just happen again. The predator curve peaks, there's a die-off, everyone is happy.

European populations have been alternating between increasing (short term) carrying capacity and hitting the limits of existing capacity, with the usual round of death and famine that happens around that point.

The challenge this time seems to be to manage the death and famine intelligently, rather than have them just happen.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 08:09:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
During the 17th and 18th century, European population stayed approximately at the carrying capacity. And at least France was conscious  that there were too many people : marriage age was increased, many babies were sent to die in orphanages... And that wasn't enough to avoid such population growth as to avoid famine. But there was an at least semi-conscious attempt at avoiding it.

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 12:06:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But what does Malthus have to do with the situation in Europe now? He was mainly concerned about the consequences of population increase, and the birth rates in most of Europe suggest that we've finally solved that problem. We may be running out of natural resources, such as energy, which will be a very serious problem if we don't come up with a solution in time. But this has nothing to do with Malthus: A solution, whether renewables, or energy efficency, might really be a solution, whereas under Malthus it will just buy time until the population gets even bigger.
by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 08:20:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"it is called a paradox for a reason."

That's no proof at all. You still read about the Zeno's paradoxs, yet they are no paradox whatsoever.

"The womb that spawned that thing is fertile yet"

by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 06:47:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Exactly, a "paradox" often points to mistakes in one's unstated assumptions.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 07:29:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"estimated by specialists of sorts"
And other experts come to completely different results. What is an expert on a field, when there are so very few facts. What did Fermi know? In his time very important facts were not known and false assumptions were made. The earth is much more special than was thought in Fermi's time. Fermi never had the chance to observe the galaxy in that detail that we are able to.

Egoistic resource exploitation could be as easily positive as negative, because less resources are wasted on everyday living of many people. Arms races can help technological development. Slave labour can help to do things which people don't see as important enough to engage themselves.
More effective than competing nations could be of course a plutocracy, which eliminates most old, useless  or disabled people, sucks all resources normal people don't need to survive into their pet projects, and has no scruples to send people on deadly risky missions for their entertainment.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahrg

by Martin (weiser.mensch(at)googlemail.com) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 07:08:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm keeping irony impersonal.

Egoistic resource exploitation could be as easily positive as negative,

Ah, the positive sides of blind selfishness... for some!

because less resources are wasted on everyday living of many people

Right, the "rational" selfishness is nothing but dumb altruism objectively. So many people are working their asses out, for real benefit of few.

Arms races can help technological development.

Perpetum mobile still can't be invented...

What do we need efficiency for, after all? So that we would meet a technological and social collapse sooner?!

Slave labour can help to do things which people don't see as important enough to engage themselves.

Too bad only few will have time to do something "unimportant".

By the way, what did Romans do with their free time?

More effective than competing nations could be of course a plutocracy, which eliminates most old, useless  or disabled people, sucks all resources normal people don't need to survive into their pet projects, and has no scruples to send people on deadly risky missions for their entertainment.

We are back to the subject of elites. As they like to marginalize all opinions except of their own, we will be lucky if they get some right ideas just in time :-]

by das monde on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 07:38:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Recommended Diaries
First Snow 2008/9!
by DoDo - Nov 23
40 comments

THE LEFT, THE RIGHT, THEISM AND THE POLITICAL DEBATE...
by Lily - Nov 22
24 comments

Help oppose Sarko's three strike nonsense
by nicta - Nov 20
18 comments

LQD: NATO as 'convenient threat' for Russia
by marco - Nov 21
34 comments

Early Friday Photography Blog No. 62
by LEP - Nov 20
66 comments

So I met Bill McKibben
by SacredCowTipper - Nov 20
5 comments

Computational simulations in science
by tiagoantao - Nov 20
24 comments

The Puritan Edge
by rg - Nov 20
130 comments

Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series