|
Post by Bill Thompson on Nov 8, 2007 17:26:54 GMT -4
How long were the native Americans "primitive"? Would they have ever stopped being "primitive" if Europeans hadn't interfered? Sure. In fact the Europeans caught them on a temporary downward trend. If they had come to the new world 100 years prior, they would have met a more sophisticated society and one they could not have run over so easily. The Anastazi were pretty advanced and organized. Too bad they depended on corn so much and a drought ended their society. It was all timing, The Native Americans would have returned to their sophisticated status and even advanced beyond it. This is the case with many cultures that were cut-off from each other and spread all over the world. China and Europe advanced separate from each other for a long time. The Maya and the Aztecs are also examples.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 8, 2007 17:33:05 GMT -4
How about the australian aborigenes then? As far as I've heard scientists think their society remained unchanged in it's "primitive" state for as long as 10,000 years.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Nov 8, 2007 18:07:05 GMT -4
How about the australian aborigenes then? As far as I've heard scientists think their society remained unchanged in it's "primitive" state for as long as 10,000 years. Cosmic blink of an eye.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 8, 2007 18:19:46 GMT -4
But we've only had the ability to look for other civilizations with radio telescopes for a much shorter blink of an eye, and we still don't have the ability to go out and look for them ourselves.
So by "they can't stay primitive for long" what time period were you thinking of as "long"?
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Nov 8, 2007 19:45:24 GMT -4
But we've only had the ability to look for other civilizations with radio telescopes for a much shorter blink of an eye, and we still don't have the ability to go out and look for them ourselves. Where is the point you are making? There isn't any correlation. What is the connection between the amount of time we have spent looking at the sky for radio signals and the speed that human cultures advance? That depends on a lot of things including luck and resilient deceases and the persistence and pervasion of natural disasters. We have a cushy environment by having super-giant planets suck up most extinction causing asteroids and comets. We are lucky to have things timed well enough so that we are just about going to be able to do something to divert the next mass extinction to wipe us out. We were also smart enough to know about microbes to have the idea of quarantine to prevent us from becoming extinct in the 1918 Influenza Pandemic. Our own intelligence has kept us from going extinct and just might save us in the near future. There are also the cures we have come up with and ways to fight natural disasters.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Nov 8, 2007 20:54:21 GMT -4
And what if advanced civilizations don't use radio?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Nov 8, 2007 22:44:11 GMT -4
Sorry to butt in, but is Bill saying that if other civilizations exist in the universe exist it is not worth trying to communicate with them because the chances of contact are nil, or is he saying that they don't exist at all?
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Nov 8, 2007 22:57:21 GMT -4
And what if advanced civilizations don't use radio? There are lots of ways to answer that depending on how serious you are or not. Fermi didn't have radio communications in mind. (He thought they should be walking down Main Street by now) But to answer your question, lots of people in Berkley who started SETI@Home thought it would be a no-brainer for an marginally advanced civilization to have radio. Which makes me wonder if you are serious or not. Sorry to butt in, but is Bill saying that if other civilizations exist in the universe exist it is not worth trying to communicate with them because the chances of contact are nil, or is he saying that they don't exist at all? It is a big universe. So I am saying neither. It is a big enough universe for Star Wars to be a reality somewhere. But it is also so big that we would never know about it.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Nov 9, 2007 2:08:02 GMT -4
A society cannot be primitive and intelligent? Not for long. Define "primitive." The 1980's were primitive, compared to today.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Nov 13, 2007 0:31:30 GMT -4
Define "primitive." The 1980's were primitive, compared to today. There is alot of talk about humankind 100, 1000 or 10,000 years ago. All that is such a tiny fraction of time!! For all practical purposes, as soon as human beings came to be, we came to be space travelers!! Enrico Fermi was right!! If there were intelligent beings populating our gallaxy, they sould be waking down the street right now by now!! Our intelligence helps us to survive too. Thinking that an intelligent species can live in the stone age for hundreds of millions of years is a stretch that pulls to the point of a logical break from reality.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 13, 2007 11:51:48 GMT -4
So who's to say that other species didn't develop at about the same rate we did, and therefore are at a similar technological state (in other words, without interstellar capability as of yet).
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Nov 13, 2007 12:32:43 GMT -4
If Fermi made the statement you attribute to him, pleace cite your source. From what I've seen, he didn't make a statement, he asked a question. They are. And jogging, and running, and biking, and driving. Why? Was stone age man not intelligent? Did man only become intelligent post-stone-age? What is the maximum duration that an intelligent species can survive in the stone age? What is the barrier impeding the survival of an intelligent species beyond the limit specified in your answer to the previous question? And, please show all your work.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Nov 28, 2007 12:29:22 GMT -4
GOOD LORD I can't believe this is actually a debate that is ongoing. In fact, I'm not quite sure how Fermi's Paradox is even regarded as a theory, or even remotely respectable. Who forms their theory based on the abstract and illogical notion that if it existed we would already know about it? I remember reading about the principles of logic, and the black raven description perfectly suited this "debate." I believe it went something like:
"All ravens are black" is equivilant to "all nonblack things are not ravens."
"all nonblack things are not ravens" seems to be confirmed by the appearance of a white shoe.
So, coming across a white shoe confirms that all ravens are black. See how it's getting weird? Fermi's Paradox reminds me of the white shoe. Let's continue. I quote from the book "Theory and Reality" by Peter Godfrey-Smith:
"No biologist would seriously wonder whether seeing thousands of black ravens makes it likely that all ravens are black. Our knowledge of genetics and bird coloration leads us to expect some variation, such as cases of albinism, even when we have seen thousands of black ravens and no other colors."
The rest of the raven problem is irrelevent to this discussion but very interesting. Godfrey-Smith goes on to say later that one could spend eternity attempting to prove all ravens are black, witnessing nothing but billions of black ravens, but he could never prove that statement to be true, because at any moment he could come across a white raven. The same can be said here. The human race could easily die out without ever finding a shred of evidence of ETI, but that doesn't prove there isn't any in the entire universe. Not only is it foolish but it is also irresponsible to think the way Fermi's Paradox asks you to think.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Nov 28, 2007 12:41:20 GMT -4
I was quite shocked this past summer to see a white American crow, a close relative of the raven. I had never seen a non-black crow before. It was in the woods of East Texas at the summer camp my kids were attending. But then, having to live in the vicinity of all those raging teen hormones would turn anyone's hair or feathers white.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Nov 28, 2007 17:43:56 GMT -4
I am sick of this place. You are all idiots, and lunar orbit is the biggest idiot of all. Does it make you feel importent to be an admin? This is bullsh*t, anyone can do it. When you try to pick up girls in bars and tell them you are the administrator, are they impressed? Or do they call you a pathetic looser? You are a joke. It is not posible to have intelligent discussion in your playgroup, people are too illogicial and beleive in ridiculous supersticions. I will not waist anymore time here, it is hopeless, you people do not want to think, there are things in the world and the universe that make you uncomfortable, so you make up nice stories to make yourselves feel better. You are pathetic.
|
|