The Fermi-Hart Paradox
N = R* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L
Faith comes in many guises, and ignorance and pride is in our DNA. But, contemplating Drake's formula above, and recognizing that any series of numbers multipled by zero is zero, I would say anything that posits N as greater than one is manifestly ignorant or at least disdainful of empericism. The Fermi-Hart paradox seems a tad more compelling, at least to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
Which variable is necessarily zero? There's at least us, unless you're a terminal pessimist and don't consider humans to be intelligent, or something. R* and fp are numbers that are getting refined every year, and we're slowly getting a very good idea about ne (Here I'm presuming rather stupidly that ne solely refers to the water habitable zone around a given star). Anything further past that, positing life, is complete speculation. That's pretty much the point of the Drake equation anyway. I don't know any scientists that take the Drake equation as hard science anyway. More of a thing to speculate about and debate over coffee.
There's a really fascinating story about how Sagan used the Drake equation and the Cold War to help get funding for SETI from a stubborn senator. He put a lot of emphasis on L and how it looked like the US and the USSR were about to take the chance of making N=0, and low and behold that senator helped get Congressional funding.
I only state the obvious. In 7,000 years of recorded history, there hasn't been an iota of indisputable evidence that such life exists. As to the question as to which variable can be assigned a zero, my vote would be fc, which is the fraction of the subset of life which is willing and able to communciate. If there is life that is smarter than us, nothing would be gained by communicating to us any more than us trying to figure out a way to communicate to ants. If they are dumber than us, then they cannot communicate with us. If there are as smart as us, they would either ignore us or figure out a way to kill us. I would also be skeptical about L, the assumed lifetime of an intelligent civilization. We have been in the atomic era for roughly a half century. It takes more optimism that I can muster to assume that we man can continue for another half century much less a 1,000 or 10,000 years given its tendencies to resolve conflicts using weapons of mass destruction. If the Drake assumptions are correct, then what we essentially have are civilizations that emerge and fizzle throughout the universe over an infinity of time. The big assumption is, of course, whether two civilizations can emerge simultaneously with such proximity, syncronicity of technology (within about a decade or so), and mutual curiosity so as to make intergalactic communication and contact possible. I would have advised the senator to fund SETI as they may be collateral benefits to such research. However, I would also advise him that the chances of finding intelligent extraterrestial life in our lifetime is nil.
Faith comes in many guises, and ignorance and pride is in our DNA. But, contemplating Drake's formula above, and recognizing that any series of numbers multipled by zero is zero, I would say anything that posits N as greater than one is manifestly ignorant or at least disdainful of empericism. The Fermi-Hart paradox seems a tad more compelling, at least to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
Which variable is necessarily zero? There's at least us, unless you're a terminal pessimist and don't consider humans to be intelligent, or something. R* and fp are numbers that are getting refined every year, and we're slowly getting a very good idea about ne (Here I'm presuming rather stupidly that ne solely refers to the water habitable zone around a given star). Anything further past that, positing life, is complete speculation. That's pretty much the point of the Drake equation anyway. I don't know any scientists that take the Drake equation as hard science anyway. More of a thing to speculate about and debate over coffee.
There's a really fascinating story about how Sagan used the Drake equation and the Cold War to help get funding for SETI from a stubborn senator. He put a lot of emphasis on L and how it looked like the US and the USSR were about to take the chance of making N=0, and low and behold that senator helped get Congressional funding.
I only state the obvious. In 7,000 years of recorded history, there hasn't been an iota of indisputable evidence that such life exists. As to the question as to which variable can be assigned a zero, my vote would be fc, which is the fraction of the subset of life which is willing and able to communciate. If there is life that is smarter than us, nothing would be gained by communicating to us any more than us trying to figure out a way to communicate to ants. If they are dumber than us, then they cannot communicate with us. If there are as smart as us, they would either ignore us or figure out a way to kill us. I would also be skeptical about L, the assumed lifetime of an intelligent civilization. We have been in the atomic era for roughly a half century. It takes more optimism that I can muster to assume that we man can continue for another half century much less a 1,000 or 10,000 years given its tendencies to resolve conflicts using weapons of mass destruction. If the Drake assumptions are correct, then what we essentially have are civilizations that emerge and fizzle throughout the universe over an infinity of time. The big assumption is, of course, whether two civilizations can emerge simultaneously with such proximity, syncronicity of technology (within about a decade or so), and mutual curiosity so as to make intergalactic communication and contact possible. I would have advised the senator to fund SETI as they may be collateral benefits to such research. However, I would also advise him that the chances of finding intelligent extraterrestial life in our lifetime is nil.
posted by My Mall and News at
3:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home