Peak Oil and the Fermi Paradox
I wrote this essay after reading (and commenting upon) John Michael Greer’s essay on the Fermi Paradox (“Solving Fermi’s paradox”) on his website at: http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/ . Readers might want to check it out. He reaches a conclusion which overlaps substantially with mine, but which also differs significantly as well.
Peak Oil and the Fermi Paradox
Talking about the likelihood of other civilizations existing in our galaxy, physicist Enrico Fermi reportedly asked in 1950: “Where is everybody?” This question became known as the Fermi Paradox. The Paradox arises because there should be at least a few other civilizations in our galaxy of 400 billion suns.
In 1960, Dr. Frank Drake, created the Drake equation (see discussion at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation ), which indicated that there ought to be at least 10 other civilizations in our galaxy right now. Yet we can find no evidence for their existence. Which takes us back to Fermi’s question: “Where is everybody?”
Location, Location, Location: The Earth As Prime Real Estate in the Universe
Our Earth’s placement within the habitable zone has also proved optimal. Consider Venus with its hellish runaway greenhouse atmosphere, and frigid Mars as examples of not-quite-right placement. Mars’ thin atmosphere and lack of plate tectonics also demonstrates what a not-quite-right size has on the chances for complex life to evolve.
Additionally, Earth orbits around the center of our Milky Way galaxy in a 226 million year long orbit. This orbit fortuitously keeps us far away from the dangerously radioactive core of our galaxy and outside of the galaxy’s supernova producing spiral arms. Our solar system possesses a galactic orbit that accommodates the needs of carbon based life such as we are.
First, plate tectonics promotes high levels of global biodiversity. In the last chapter we suggested that major defense against mass extinctions is high biodiversity. Here we argue that the factor on Earth that is most critical to maintaining diversity through time is plate tectonics. Second, plate tectonics provides our planet’s global thermostat by recycling chemicals crucial to keeping the volume of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere relatively uniform, and thus it has been the single most important mechanism enabling liquid water to remain on Earth’s surface for more than 4 billion years. Third, plate tectonics is the dominant force that causes changes in sea level, which, it turns out, are vital to the formation of minerals that keep the global level of carbon dioxide (and hence global temperature) in check. Fourth, plate tectonics created the continents on planet earth. Without plate tectonics Earth might look much as it did during the first billion and a half years of its existence: a watery world, with only isolated volcanic islands dotting its surface. Or, it might look even more inimical to life; without continents, we might by now have lost the most important ingredient for life, water, and in so doing come to resemble Venus. Finally plate tectonics makes possible one of Earth’s most potent defense systems: its magnetic field. Without our magnetic field Earth and its cargo of life would be bombarded by a potentially lethal influx of cosmic radiation, and solar wind “sputtering” (in which particles from the sun hit the upper atmosphere with high energy) might slowly eat away the atmosphere, as it has on Mars.
However, assuming an intelligent species survives until it develops an industrial technology, there is only a very short window of opportunity for an emergent planetary civilization to bootstrap itself into the solar system. Again quoting from The Path Through Infinity's Rainbow:
The hydrocarbon energy available to a planetary civilization is analogous to the yolk of an egg: just as the yolk offers a newly emerged creature needed energy to break out of the egg and get established in the wider world, so too does a planet's hydrocarbon energy deposits provide an emergent technological civilization the boost it needs to leave its birthworld and establish itself in its solar system. It offers a very brief window of opportunity to allow a species to develop the technologies and techniques to bootstrap itself off of its planet of origin. Once out into space, a civilization can take advantage of the thousandfold greater material and energy resources found across the solar system. Meanwhile the birthworld can rest and regenerate from its difficult birthing.
Slightly changing my metaphor, the umbilical cord can then be cut and the expanded civilization can then live off of the vastly greater resources of not just one planet, but of an entire solar system, without further material aid from its home planet. A civilization whose scale is that of an entire solar system can indeed accomplish interstellar travel.
I believe that star flight will always be difficult—nothing at all like Star Trek—but that it is indeed possible for a solar system wide civilization. Such a civilization would indeed ultimately spread across the galaxy over a very long period of time.
Readers might wonder if there are actually sufficient solar system resources available, and if these are easy enough to obtain to allow for an off-Earth civilization to become wholly self-sufficient. The clear answer to this question is yes.
Between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter there exists a vast asteroid belt. Contained within it is not only every metal and mineral needed to sustain a civilization, but also vast quantities of water ice as well as other frozen volatiles such as methane ice (note that methane is natural gas!). See the recent article in New Scientist at: http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn8887--clandestine-comets-found-in-main-asteroid-belt.html. Readers wishing to research this topic further might read Mining the Sky by University of Arizona astrophysicist John S. Lewis. Also Islands in the Sky: Bold New Ideas for Colonizing Space by Stanley Schmidt and Robert Zubrin.
The bottom line is clear: our civilization could have expanded off planet and established itself among the moons, asteroids, and in the case of Mars, even planets of our solar system. Except that we didn’t. Instead we had the Cold War, we had the Vietnam War, while Soviet Russia had its Afghan War, etc. In just the past half decade, a fraction of the monies that will ultimately be squandered on the futile Iraq war (trillions of dollars) could have, if directed by a pragmatic visionary such as Robert Zubrin, bootstrapped our species out into the solar system.
Without our realizing it, the window of opportunity for humans to expand into our solar system is rapidly closing. With all of the multiple crises which are bearing down upon our civilization—peak oil, climate change, capture of our government and our economy by rapacious, undemocratic corporate elites, etc., I do not believe that we will (pun intended) rise to the occasion.
That is the stark answer to the Fermi Paradox, as I see it.
At a deeper level I have come to the conclusion that perhaps even the vast resources of our solar system are themselves ultimately limited. If a solar system wide civilization were to emerge, it would likely grow to a population of hundreds of billions. If such a civilization were to merely be an expanded version of our present day civilization, it seems likely that we would just end up consuming or destroying utterly irreplaceable resources on not just a planetary scale, but rather upon a solar system wide scale. This is not good as these resources could be put to effective use by a more culturally evolved civilization—unless they had already been senselessly trashed by cultural primitives such as ourselves.
Consider that some wiser successor civilization to ours--whether human in the relatively near future, or something else, or say, a species of intelligent avians perhaps, which would evolve in the distant future--might actually possess the cultural advancement needed to properly utilize these resources. Eventually after geological ages have passed some new oil will be generated. This might provide the more culturally advanced new civilization just enough of a boost to get them out into the solar system. My new book actually features a short story about an avian-descended species living 65 million years in the future, that learns about our fate and tries to get things right the second time around.
So, in the greater scheme of things, it might be for the best that our present immature, selfish and destructive, civilization not leave the Earth just yet. In my new book I make this point in detail, and go on to propose that perhaps a transformed, wiser, more humane, post-Collapse civilization would be better suited to accomplishing this immense task. As I've said just above, I do explain a strategy for keeping our options open, post-Collapse, with respect to achieving this transcendent goal when we, as a species, are finally ready. I hope that day comes. Just possibly WE might be the first species in our galaxy to solve Fermi's paradox. However, it won't be our present civilization which accomplishes this, but rather some more *culturally* advanced successor.
In The Path Through Infinity's Rainbow I talk about how we can use the rapidly approaching crises of our civilization to transform ourselves into that worthy successor civilization. One way to approach the coming Collapse of our civilization is to treat it as a learning experience. Our impending disasters have come about not because of the intervention of cruel, malicious gods; rather it is our deepest values which have led us to the abyss. In the years ahead, we will have an opportunity for deep and fundamental change within ourselves, as well as in the deep nature of our civilization. In fact if we don't learn these lessons, we probably won't survive at all. In The Path Through Infinity's Rainbow, I describe how we can organize together to attain this transformational objective and create a humane, ecologically rational civilization.
how do I get your new book? You have no info on your blog concerning this.
Reply to this
Harry,
The book is still in final editing. It will be available from Amazon, Barnes & noble, and hopefully bookstores later this year--I think about the end of October. I will have complete information on this site as well.
Sincerely,
Mike Byron
Reply to this
Michael, I have just finished reading your article above. I don't agree with it entirely. Have you heard of Zero Point Energy? What we need to do is to work towards adopting this new clean and free type of energy that is in abundance throughout our universe. Have a look at some of the energy links on my blog for a description on Zero Point Energy.
Regards,
Phil
Reply to this
Phillip,
Thanks for your comments. I have indeed heard of Zero Point energy, I know about the Casmir effect etc. However, I do not yet see any evidence that this energy can be harnessed in a practical manner.
I don't believe that this is something that can be practically utilized. At least not with the level of technology we now possess. I'll change my mind once actual technology which does useful work is developed and publicly demonstrated.
I sincerely HOPE that you are right and I am wrong in this matter. Call me a "doubting Thomas" in this matter.
I note that the link to your blog is not in your correspondence. If you will resend it, I will post it, so that it will be available for other readers to check out and factor into their own conclusions.
Sincerely,
Mike Byron
Reply to this
Walter,
Right now my site does not have the capability to sign up anyone. You should just check back from time to time. Later, with an upgrade the site will be able to do that. When that time comnes, I will sign you up.
Sincerely,
Mike Byron
Reply to this
Immensely important article.
Please enter me as a subscriber.
Thank you.
Reply to this
The concept of a single window of opportunity to leave the gravity well of the home planet is very interesting, nice post.
Though it's still puzzling that, as the Fermi Paradox implies, not a single civilization seems to have done that in the past millions, or even billion of years.
And that's assuming a technological civilization is the only one capable of engineering the Galaxy. Some giant lifeform capable of spreading through interstellar distances would also colonize the whole Galaxy. That also didn't happen.
The Fermi Paradox is puzzling , and perhaps will be puzzling until we either explore the whole Galaxy ourselves -- and find that we were, by pure chance, the firt to do that --, or else find where the hell is everybody.
Reply to this
Kentaro,
I think that it provides indirect evidence for the rare Earth hypothesis. That would mean that since conditions necessary for complex life to develop are very unusual, there have been few advanced civilizations that have arisen during the last few billion years. That of this small number of civilizations none has succeeded is less puzzling when you consider that there have not been many attempts.
Mike Byron
Reply to this
Dr. Byron.
Have you thought of what social or political organization would be required to accomplish the task of colonizing the solar system? We were barely able to sustain the American public’s attention long enough to put a man on the moon. What could amount to a multiple lifetime project would be unsustainable if done by popular consent and voluntary sacrifice, not to mention requiring a change in disposition from a war like mentality to one willing to pour ones energies into a project of this scale.
I think to do what you are suggesting would require an absolute authority comparable to the Egyptian pharaohs building of the pyramids. The boss says it, it gets done. I wonder if this is possible on a planetary, not just a national, scale? If some other civilization ‘out there’ developed a society governed by a technological elite where the masses of farmers, craftsmen and engineers just did what they were told, instead of a self gratifying civilization, maybe it would be possible. Of course, we did not evolve that way and would probably consider such a culture fascist and its citizens slaves laboring in a hive if we were to encounter them. What they would think of us is anybody’s guess. That may make great science fiction, but it’s really the only way a project of this scale could be undertaken.
Jon Loux.
Reply to this
Jon,
I'm not so sure that an authoritarian state is the only way to do this.
First, it could be possible for ET's with a more social and communitarian nature to accomplish this goal fairly harmoniously and voluntarily once they had decided to undertake it. The cooperative limitations of human nature need not be operative for some other intelligent species.
Second, for humans working towards a transcendent goal has occurred before in our history. Usually this has involved religion, but this need not always be the case. If humans understood that they had one shot at expansion into their solar system and that the consequences of not acting would be devastating for their immediate descendants, they might well act. At least if control over societal decision making had not been hijacked by short term profit oriented entities--i.e. corporations. That is why I identify corporate personhood as likely the singly worst mistake that humanity has ever made. Nearly everything is now done for short-term gain. Humans themselves are capable of much more than this.
Finally, the endeavor of expansion into the solar system involves considerably less mass effort, sustained by government's use of its monopoly on the legitimate application of coercion, than you might suspect. I know Dr. Bob Zubrin personally, though we have not gotten together for about 7 years now. He has not only published numerous books and articles demonstrating this reality, he has actually BUILT much of the equipment needed for a self-sustaining human presence off planet, himself. I am impressed at his accomplishments in this regard. accordingly, I base my opinion of what is possible at what level of difficulty largely on his research.
Mike Byron
Reply to this
The Fermi paradox and the Drake equations make some incredible presumptions, most especially: (1) that intelligent life on other worlds must develop in the same way humans have, (2) that it must develop the same or similar technological desires. I use "desires" advisedly. There are and were, after all, civilizations on the planet that never developed the wheel, for instance. But you can't call them unintelligent or uncivilized. Therefore, why should we presume that intelligent life on other worlds, even if older than humankind, should have created radios, or flying machines, or televisions (especially if they're intelligent beings!)? Why should they have developed in such a way that we should notice them at just this point in our history? And why should they even care about whether we notice them or not?
The inherent self-centeredness of humankind is constantly being revealed by these notions. It's this kind of blinkered thinking that hinders us. With this kind of thinking, if intelligent life does exist but doesn't happen to look like us or act like us, we wouldn't even acknowledge it.
I don't know whether there's intelligent life elsewhere, but I would be more sanguine about the possibility if I saw more of it here.
Reply to this
Brian,
The Fermi paradox originates from his 1950 statement re extra-terrestrial civilizations not having VISITED EARTH. Not finding evidence for this, he asked "Where are they?" His idea was that a sufficiently advanced alien civilization would have reached and surpassed Earth's level of technology. His presumption was that soon after surpassing our level of technology, they would colonize their solar system, and then move outwards across the stars. Eventually--perhaps after millions of years time, they would colonize the entire galaxy. Which means they'd already be here. "So where are they" Fermi retorted to this.
You are correct in that one possible answer is that many ET civilizations are simply uninterested in spaceflight. In fact if ice moons such as Europa are indeed places in which life--complex life--could thrive--beneath miles of ice it, could be that underwater civilizations exist which never learn of the existence of the surrounding universe. They would think that the ice shell is the boundary of the universe.
I *explicitly* assume that there are now, or at least have been in the past, multiple alien civilizations in our galaxy. Though because I also believe the rare Earth hypothesis, that number would not be large. Its hard to quantify--something like 100 in the last few billions of years seems reasonable. Of those alien civilizations, it is reasonable to assume that at least some would have similar motives and drives to humanity. To assume otherwise would be to assume that humanity was an extreme outlier behaviorally speaking. However the requirements to survive in a competitive ecosystem (i.e. to eat the tiger rather than being eaten by it), and to control enough territory to provide the food resources your tribe requires, seem likely to produce aggression, desire for territorial expansion, etc. at least some of the time, all across the cosmos.
So for those species which have motives at least somewhat similar to humanity's, a subset of all intelligent species true, Fermi's question applies: "Where are they?"For the others, eventually someone will visit them. We can only hope that someone will be culturally advanced, and so will not destroy them as say the Spanish did to the Inca's Aztecs, Mayas, etc. You might note that i state that WE are not yet culturally advanced enough yet. Basically we are the same as the 1500's Spanish Conquistador e's except that we have bigger guns.
Finally you say:
"I don't know whether there's intelligent life elsewhere, but I would be more sanguine about the possibility if I saw more of it here. "
I could not agree with you more!
Reply to this
Hi Michael,
I appreciated your article, especially the part about fossil fuel being like the yoke of an egg. Great metaphor.
I also liked your pointing out the following:
"Our impending disasters have come about not because of the intervention of cruel, malicious gods; rather it is our deepest values which have led us to the abyss. In the years ahead, we will have an opportunity for deep and fundamental change within ourselves, as well as in the deep nature of our civilization."
On that note, I'd recommend your checking out this website:
http://www.global-mindshift.org
I'd like to hear your comments.
Best regards,
Alan Zulch
Global MindShift
Reply to this
Alan,
You're doing exactly what needs to be done. And you are doing it well!
I'm finishing up my final final editing on the new book, and I've added a footnote to its text (not and endnote) in an appropriate place. It reads as follows:
[1] As I was finalizing the text of this book I became aware of an outstanding example of a change-oriented organization which exists to facilitate the worldwide movement which I call "the Renewal." It's called Global Mindshift.org. I strongly encourage readers to check out their website at: http://www.global-mindshift.org/.
Best,
Mike Byron
Reply to this
I believe that humans can achieve greater things, and survive the coming collapse if we develop a collective consciousness. It's the only way to keep things balanced on our planet. The problem we face is who, or what, will be in charge of directing the collective consciousness for the good of all humans, animals, plants, etc. on our planet. I didn't really care for the "Borg" Queen as the leader on Star Trek, but she was effective.
Reply to this
Richard,
We can't easily just develop a "collective consciousness" while facing civilizational collapse. However, you are right we need to work together towards a common end--survival and the reconstruction of civilization on more ecologically rational grounds. Doing that does require changes in ourselves which would allow for the emergent properties of the resultant civilization to be greater. I discuss this in my new book.
Best,
Mike Byron
Reply to this
Well written and I am looking forward to reading your book.
I may find it in your book, however, in the article I keep looking for the retarding force and devistation that continues to be caused by religion upon civilization. The Iraq war is a prime example, though it's being misbilled as a war on terrorists.
Robin Armour
San Diego
Reply to this
Michael,
Congratulations on attacking an expansive issue that overlaps many different sciences. But you fall just a single step short of the final question. If as you conclude the galaxy is not teeming with intelligent life achieving star travel, then the burning question is Why?
What is the point of the galaxy, and for that matter the universe? I am not a deeply religious person, but suddenly the discussion reaches a very religious level. Who are we here on this little rock? Are we insignificant mammals on a speck of dust circling a plain star in a forgotten corner of an ordinary galaxy where other intelligent life exists?
Or are we alone?
Or are we one of just a handful, the very special chosen few.
Are we all that intelligent after all, or are we destined for extinction?
At this point I realize there are nothing but questions, most that can't be answered.
A learned friend recently pointed out, "what makes you think any of us have the capacity to understand why the universe is here?"
But like a 3 year old we can still ask Why?
Sometimes I've been lucky enough to get away from the lights and pollution of the big city, and when I peer at night up into the Cosmos I am overwhelmed by the thought that there MUST be someone else out there, otherwise why did 'mother nature' bother making a Universe at all?
Reply to this
Robin,
I agree completely. I discuss this issue at lenght in the new book.
Best,
Mike Byron
Reply to this
Mike, I would like to respond to you in two posts. I hope you don't mind.
Your points are interesting, but I don’t quite understand your conclusions. You say, ‘it could be possible for ET's with a more social and communitarian nature to accomplish this goal fairly harmoniously and voluntarily once they had decided to undertake it.’
Under what circumstances would an ET civilization decide to do this? Would this be a spontaneous democratic decision or the decision of an oligarchy? If the former, then what evolutionary pressures would produce this trait? According to evolution, for a mutation to be selected it must increase the fitness of the individual possessing it. That’s the only requirement. Evolution does not operate on the group level. If the latter, then we are back to a ruling benevolent elite in control of a domesticated lower class. Incidentally, a trait for following a charismatic leader does increase the fitness of the individual. If you play by the rules you are allowed to live and pass on those ‘sheeple’ genes. If you are particularly aggressive, you are eliminated or, if you happen to be a part of the ruling elite, you may become emperor some day and pass on those Caesar genes (also true if you happen to be lucky enough to win an insurrection. You can establish the next ruling elite.) We have been evolving as city dwellers for only about 10,000 years. Apparently this has not been enough time to fully domesticate humans. Too bad we stumbled upon the ‘yolk’ now instead of in ten or twenty more thousand years.
If you think that an enlightened group of learned individuals might be able to instruct the remaining population and make them understand and, therefore, change their behavior, then you are incredibly naïve. The Mensa Club and other ‘think tanks’ believe that the world’s leaders will consult them in issues requiring a high IQ response. Of course, world leaders don’t want a resolution to the species’ burning issues. World leaders want to remain world leaders, thank you very much. You can keep your tank of brains to yourself.
Can we imagine an ET civilization where this would be different? Sure. But we would still expect them to have a philosopher king. Common people (and ET’s) everywhere would have common problems to deal with. It would be much easier for them to just follow their leaders than to think for themselves. Mass populations that do think for themselves tend to become factious, not harmonious. This is what mass manipulation and propaganda are all about.
.....
Reply to this
Continued…
Any ET civilization would have to evolve a natural ability to cooperate (or to obediently accept programs mandated to them.) Since the laws of evolution presumably apply on every other world just like they do on ours, billions of years of evolution are going to produce creatures that preserve themselves, their family and perhaps their extended family. Any individual beyond that small circle is a competitor, not a potential partner. To create a society based on cooperation, division of labor, etc, beyond that you need coercion (laws plus enforcement) or propaganda (religion or nationalism.) Or both.
Look at the earliest legal systems from Mesopotamia. They deal with boundary marker placement, proper weights and measures, clashes between farmers and herders, taxes, and the penalties for their neglect. Can we image a civilization that evolved to conduct fair and even transactions with everyone they met, generously and voluntarily fund their government and treat every stranger as an honest friend? Evolution pretty much guarantees against it. Someone else will evolve to take advantage of gullible people like this. ET’s will have their own E.T. Barnum’s.
‘Second, for humans working towards a transcendent goal has occurred before in our history.’
When? What goal are you thinking of?
For your third point:
I am not familiar with Dr. Zubrin’s work. However, I suspect that his inventions take a lot more than you imagine. To build anything (a dam, a bridge, an ocean liner or a space ship) takes an infrastructure. Steel and aluminum don’t refine themselves. Copper wire doesn’t leap from the ground. You need miners, smelters, transportation and farmers to grow the food to feed the people to smelt the steel to roll it into usable products. You need engineers, not to mention the long history of philosophical development and experimentation necessary to provide the engineering expertise to design such a thing and creative vision to imagine it in the first place, plus the trades and training necessary to build it.
Your friend has a PhD? He can thank the janitor who cleaned his lab since he was as much a part of the infrastructure as anybody else. All of these workers need housing, food, schools for their families, gas for their lawn mowers, local sports arenas and the bar up the street. And all of these things need a similar support structure, et cetera. No, it takes a village to build a space ship.
The question really is: Is it possible for a culture to evolve that is creative enough to invent the structure required to colonize space but also cooperative enough to do it? It is certainly possible to imagine, but that society would still be extremely foreign to us, perhaps even abhorrent.
Jon.
Reply to this
Jon,
You summarize:
"The question really is: Is it possible for a culture to evolve that is creative enough to invent the structure required to colonize space but also cooperative enough to do it? It is certainly possible to imagine, but that society would still be extremely foreign to us, perhaps even abhorrent."
Of course the thing about aliens is that they are indeed alien! Herodotus remarked in The Histories that if cows had gods they would doubtless look like cows. Meaning that every species perceives reality from its own biological and cultural perspective. Given that we are not really able to judge what is or is not "abhorrent".
Ultimately there is only one issue: Why given several billion years in which advanced civilization could have arisen in our galaxy, and upon developing technology, expanded across the galaxy, why hasn't that happened? The characteristics of their biology and sociology are irrelevant in answering the question unless we conclude that the degree of aggressiveness required to create an expansive civilization is to great to allow for coherent, purposive group activity directed towards expansion during the window of opportunity. Cooperative species would not be motivated to expand-at least not before the opportunity to do so had passed. Aggressive species would be too disunited to do so. Still, there must exist a zone where cooperation and aggression, culturally mediated, would allow for off planet expansion.
My best guess is that this has not yet occurred because per the rare Earth hypothesis there have not yet been a sufficient number of advanced civilizations for the improbable to occur.
Best,
Mike Byron
Reply to this
Hi Mike,
By referring to other species as ‘abhorrent’ I meant ‘abhorrent to us’ not absolutely. An advanced alien species who was capable of space exploration and colonization might find us equally abhorrent.
I am thinking anthropologically. Evolution, which I assume works the same way on other worlds as it does on ours, only operates on individuals, not on groups. So any randomly mutated trait that benefits that one individual and can be passed on to its offspring gets selected. Some people have pointed out that hives work together for the good of the group. But members of a hive are not individuals since they derive their genetics from one fertilized queen. It is more appropriate to consider them cells in a single organism than individuals that could evolve by themselves and pass on independent genes to their own offspring. This is not possible. A hive species of intelligent individuals is unlikely due to physical constraints. (I wouldn’t want to be that queen.)
One other possibility is a species that reproduced asexually. This is nearly as good as a hive since every member is identical and traces her origin back to one distant matriarch. An individual that mutated to think in terms of the group instead of the individual, and then flooded her niche with copies of herself, crowding out more selfish members, could easily conceive of space travel and the need to work together to colonize other worlds.
Both of these possibilities would appear pretty weird to us.
Thanks for the interesting discussion.
Jon.
Reply to this
A most interesting article about a topic that I have pondered from time to time.
You suggest that it is probably too late for the human species to populate our solar system before we suffer a home world collapse. I agree with this completely. But I have often wondered whether it might still be possible to hedge our bets by 'seeding' other planets before the collapse, thus bypassing the requirement for populating the solar system as a first step to interstellar travel. We are already getting pretty close to being able to detect earth-like planets around other stars. We also have the technology, in my opinion, to send starships to these other stars using solar sails -- all we need is time for the flight. Lots and lots of time!
We certainly can't send a number of human volunteers in a ship to cross the distances between the stars without expecting them to consume such vast quantities of resources that it would make the trip simply impossible. So what is the solution?
I would propose that we would need to freeze the 'colony' on the ship until it arrived at the new world to be seeded. Of course this is not possible just now with our current human DNA. So we would need to create a new species that would allow it to survive the freezing process. This may be possible by splicing genes from some animal or other that already has this unique ability. I know that some species of frogs, for example, can be frozen solid, and then removed from the freezer to thaw out, whereupon they happily flip over onto their legs and merrily go on about their business.
If this gene splicing were successful, this might at least provide us with a chance to send out several ships with seeding colonies to whatever interstellar planets that we deem as best possible hosts from our interstellar planetary survey. If we could seed several other plants in this way, we could literally provide them with all the sum total of human knowledge to date -- a digital encyclopedia galactica. This will give them a 10,000 year head start on whatever world they find, and enabling them to avoid many of our gross mistakes. Read your Malthus my would-be space traveler!
Best regards
Reply to this
"humanity's 100,000 thousand year history " seems wrong, I think it is
100,000 year
or
100 thousand year.
Please check it.
Truman
Reply to this