Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Superclass

by Lasthorseman Tue May 6th, 2008 at 09:47:53 PM EST

http://www.amazon.com/Superclass-Global-Power-Elite-Making/dp/0374272107
Little argument that great men do great things but even David points out that problems happen, wars, pestilence, dying civilizations, etc when the balance of money, power and influence get to far out of balance.  Like where we are now.


Powerful global elites jetting off to Davos.
Is this a good thing?  Let us blow through all of the earth's remaining resources in the time period it takes to light a match for the sole purpose of enhancing our profit margins?  Really how much do these people need?

Up until they take me to the American gulags I will always be an anti-globalist.

Display:
This was discussed a little bit.

I will add the following tangential twist:

The Fermi Paradox is an attempt to wrestle with the question of why we haven't yet encountered any evidence of alien civilizations. Wikipedia defines the paradox as follows:
The size and age of the universe suggest that many technologically advanced extraterrestrial civilizations ought to exist. However, this hypothesis seems inconsistent with the lack of observational evidence to support it.

Such evidence might include radio signals, UFO sightings, or pointy ears. But so far, we got nuthin'.

O'Reilly then references a piece by Nick Bostrom in the current Technology Review, "Where Are They? Why I hope the search for extraterrestrial life finds nothing," which gloomily suggests that one reason why we haven't ever met any other advanced extraterrestrial civilizations is because all such civilizations run into some unsurvivable disaster that dooms the development of space travel as part of the normal evolutionary cycle. Examples cited by Bostrom include nuclear war, nanotechnology run-amok gray goo, germ warfare, or an asteroid strike.

To which list of joyful future scenarios, O'Reilly adds "diminished access to readily available natural resources after a crash of civilization."

In other words, we haven't encountered alien space-faring civilizations because all such alien races that developed the technological capacity for space-flight smacked head on into peak oil and then reverted back to barbarism, or some other form of pre-Industrial Revolution social arrangement.

While elites were sure that all we need is get consumer satisfaction right now, we will suck up all energy resources to lift up enough rockets for our cosmic dreams...

by das monde on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 11:51:50 PM EST
Of course, the sheer problem of HUGE distances (requiring not just time but considerable energy to get you there -possibly more than the universe holds if you want to get there quickly) and just about no idea as to where to start looking for another inhabited planet would not be an explanation at all.

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 05:04:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The milky way is a rather young galaxy. We could be the first here. Transgalactic journeys maybe too long to do without necessity.
We could have already past much stronger filters. How probable is life on a planet with the right conditions? If there is life, is it multi-cellular? How probable is the development of intelligent life once there are higher life forms (unlikely as far as we know!)? Has the planet the resources for building up industry? Is there land (electricity would most likely not be developed by whales, even if they would be intelligent)? Do aliens want to expand and contact others (The Prime directive of the federation would forbid it)? And how exactly do you know that space travel over 1000s of light years is possible with acceptable speed at all?
I don't think that nuclear war, germ warfare or asteroid strike are main issues.

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers
by Martin (weiser.mensch(at)googlemail.com) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 05:20:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
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.

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
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.

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères

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.

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
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 (gk (gk quattro due due sette @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.

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi

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 Carrie (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.

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers

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 ]
I have seen estimates that the time required to colonize the galaxy even at slow speeds is of the order of a million years, so if we haven't made contact with extraterrestrial civilizations it's either because we're indeed first (and note that we're not even first yet, as we don't really have interstellar travel) or because there's a quarantine on emerging civilizations.

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 Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 07:28:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Migeru:
or because there's a quarantine on emerging civilizations.

Isn't that the Star Trek philosophy?

On a rational level, I'd find it supremely arrogant (or a cosmic comedy) to have humanity as the first species at least pondering on interstellar travel...

Yet on interstellar travel, I always get stuck in the quandary of transportation and time. Rumsfeldian "we don't know what we don't know" may offer a pinch of hope, but for a while now I've been leaning to the idea that intelligent life, even if has flowered copiously through the galaxy, is hopelessly stuck, each on their own gyrating piece of rock, each and every one feeling miserably alone. And in space, as the saying goes, no one hears you scream.

And that's what I'd call tragedy.

by Nomad (Bjinse) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 07:49:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My guess is that any species capable of multi-light year travel will not be interested in the things we are. Dyson spheres, inter-galactic trading networks, death stars, battle cruisers, blah blah blah, that's all an extension of our industrial age where humans compete for status and the affections of the opposite sex through material wealth.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 06:10:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
To put it another way: we haven't the slightest idea of what to look for.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 06:12:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I guess what both you and Gaianne are saying is: you don't find a more advanced civilization, they find you.

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 Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 06:34:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
visits and radio broadcasts.  

The former are obviously unlikely, in any form we would recognize.  

The latter assume they still use radio as a means of communication, using inefficient, simple codes.  Again, if they are using radio at all, the search for information efficiency has already lead them to formats that sound to outsiders like noise.  Guess what:  The universe is full of radio noise.  

Assuming they use radio at all.  But would they?  Not if they had something better.  What would THAT be?  Well, perforce we would have no clue--as should be obvious.  

The biggest problem, though, is that we imagine them to be like us.  But if they are, they have already crashed and burned, leaving no interstellar trace but a century of rapidly fading radio modulations--which no one (being either too primitive or having already crashed) has the sensitivity to catch.  

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 04:15:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]