Interstellar civilization impossible?

[jake williams]

How likely is it that the accessible solar system simply doesn't contain enough matter or energy for our species over any amount of time to get to the point where we can acquire matter/energy to expand outside our own solar system? I should make clear I'm not asking as an abstract physical question, but as an engineering one for humans on Earth.

[Luisrah]

How likely is it that the accessible solar system simply doesn't contain enough matter or energy for our species over any amount of time to get to the point where we can acquire matter/energy to expand outside our own solar system? I should make clear I'm not asking as an abstract physical question, but as an engineering one for humans on Earth.

I'd say it's possible, but back in 1300 people thought you'd fall out of the Earth if you kept sailing, that there were monsters down in Africa, and they were afraid to explore and discover. Look how that turned out.

What I'm trying to say is, I'm sure we'll get there. Technology never stops amazing us.

[CommunityBeliever]

Totally possible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starseed_launcher)

[piet11111]

Voyager is already outside the solar system.

[jake williams]

Voyager is already outside the solar system.
According to Wiki, escape velocity from the Sun travelling from Earth is about 40 km/s. That's not that fast. The question isn't about our capacity to leave the solar system at all, which we absolutely can if unininterested in return, with old technology.

The question is whether or not we're able to self-replicate to other stellar systems, which would mean that given enough time, assuming reasonable uniformity of the galaxy, we could go just about anywhere. Alternatively, we might simply be able to leave - and not do anything when we get anywhere.


I'd say it's possible, but back in 1300 people thought you'd fall out of the Earth if you kept sailing, that there were monsters down in Africa, and they were afraid to explore and discover. Look how that turned out.

What I'm trying to say is, I'm sure we'll get there. Technology never stops amazing us.
Assuming we don't physically alter the Sun (and a few other things), we have several billion years to figure out the problem. We have what may be an infinitesimal knowledge of the physical universe - it doesn't appear that we have any way to know how much we know. So it's more than possible that any number of things could happen that would render the question moot, perhaps even near the scale of discovering that the Earth is round.

But, as much as we have any capacity to guess, I'm curious as to the best numbers of what mass/energy/amount of some particular substance we would need to leave and come back enough to reproduce the same capacity in another stellar system, and how that compares to what we have. Given the amount of time available to us as a species, which, again, is easily several hundred million years.

[Queercommie Girl]

Actually interstellar travel shouldn't be metaphysically written-off at all, even if it's not possible with present-day technology.

Slower-than-light starships are already on the design tables of engineers, several decades ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus

Even faster-than-light starships cannot be theoretically ruled out, even though it's completely theoretical at the moment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

How likely is it that the accessible solar system simply doesn't contain enough matter or energy for our species over any amount of time to get to the point where we can acquire matter/energy to expand outside our own solar system?

Not very likely at all. The Solar System is lousy with potential energy sources. As an example, the face of the Earth is bombarded with 42 megatons worth of solar energy every second. Obviously tapping anywhere near all of that energy is impractical, not least for environmental reasons. Now on the other hand, while Mercury has a smaller surface area, it's also closer to the sun which makes insolation per square metre more intense, and is also a rocky planet rich in metals, so no shortage of building materials. But it would be entirely possible to cover the surface of Mercury with solar energy collectors, and either use that energy to directly push a spacecraft in the form of a giant laser beam, or use massive banks of particle accelerators to turn the collected energy into highly reactive antimatter which is then used to fuel interstellar starships.

If controllable nuclear fusion is an option, then Saturn is reckoned to have huge reserves of Deuterium and Helium-3, potential nuclear fuels. Uranus and Neptune are similar, with the advantage of being smaller and thus easier to extract resources from, although this is tempered by their further distance. All three planets have rocky and icy moons with the right mix of raw materials to support humanoid life if habitats were built.


I should make clear I'm not asking as an abstract physical question, but as an engineering one for humans on Earth.

The main problem at the moment is the sheer expense in energy terms as well as dollar cost involved in getting things into Earth orbit - once you're in orbit, you're practically halfway to anywhere.


According to Wiki, escape velocity from the Sun travelling from Earth is about 40 km/s. That's not that fast. The question isn't about our capacity to leave the solar system at all, which we absolutely can if unininterested in return, with old technology.

The question is whether or not we're able to self-replicate to other stellar systems, which would mean that given enough time, assuming reasonable uniformity of the galaxy, we could go just about anywhere. Alternatively, we might simply be able to leave - and not do anything when we get anywhere.

It really depends on where we go and what we take with us. An Earthlike planet would be the most familiar destination, but one that is also likely to be at least several light years away.

Considering the rate at which we are currently discovering extrasolar planets, as well as advances in observational techniques and technology, it seems likely that by the time we'll be able to seriously consider a trip to another star system, we'll have plenty of candidates to choose from.


Assuming we don't physically alter the Sun (and a few other things), we have several billion years to figure out the problem. We have what may be an infinitesimal knowledge of the physical universe - it doesn't appear that we have any way to know how much we know. So it's more than possible that any number of things could happen that would render the question moot, perhaps even near the scale of discovering that the Earth is round.

I actually think that colonisation of the rest of the Solar System before heading to the stars is easier and thus more likely to happen first, even if we have to bring along our own little sealed environments to do so. In any case, some degree of colonisation off the Earth's surface is going to be necessary if we are to ever develop the needed industrial capacity to build robust interstellar craft.

It may turn out that interstellar colonisation happens after a period of expansion onto more adjacent bodies. In broad terms, we could first colonise and industrialise the inner Solar System, then move on to the Asteroid Belt, the outer planets, the Kuiper Belt, and from then on expand stepwise into the great unknown. The Oort Cloud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud) may provide just enough widely-spaced stepping stones in the forms of asteroids and comets to put us within striking distance of interstellar space, which may not be as empty as we have been lead to believe; planetary-mass objects or planemos are effectively orphaned planets, having been formed outside the gravitational influence of a stellar primary, or having been ejected from same. Solid examples may be big enough to produce geothermal heat through pressure, or may be young enough to experience radiogenic heating, either of which would simplify the task of colonisation. Gaseous examples may have moons orbiting them, warmed up by tidal flexing. Brown dwarfs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_dwarf) may be more common than we think (they're hard to spot, what with not really being proper stars and all), and may have their set of moons like a star system in miniature.

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j99/NoXion604/kuiper_oort.jpg
Oort Cloud diagram

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j99/NoXion604/th_119527main_image_feature_357_ys_full.jpg (http://s78.photobucket.com/albums/j99/NoXion604/?action=view&current=119527main_image_feature_357_ys_full.jpg)
Side-by-side comparison of Solar system with brown dwarf system. Click to embiggen

Once a habitable system is found, the process that started out from Earth is then played out in reverse. It would be the sort of thing that would likely take the course of several generations (of ordinary humans), but it would also be something that would happen without any real intention beyond expanding into unclaimed real estate.


But, as much as we have any capacity to guess, I'm curious as to the best numbers of what mass/energy/amount of some particular substance we would need to leave and come back enough to reproduce the same capacity in another stellar system, and how that compares to what we have. Given the amount of time available to us as a species, which, again, is easily several hundred million years.

A lot of the question relies on technological and social questions that haven't been answered yet. In your case, and out of curiosity because I don't think I've ever asked this question, I would have to ask which of the following solutions you find politically acceptable, if you get what I mean:

1) The above-detailed "stepping stone" approach, which may happen as a side-effect of cheap and easy extraterrestrial colonisation.

2) The good old "Generation ship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_ship)". Doesn't require transhumanism or stupidly advanced stardrives, but does require robust artificial environment technology.

3) The "Seed ship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo_space_colonization)", which carries around a human civilisation in embryonic form. Would most likely require robots capable of bringing up healthy children, which seems a big ask.

4) Digitise the crew. Although this offers a whole host of advantages, uploading humans opens a massive can of philosophical worms.

5) Sleeper ship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeper_ship). This would a simple solution if we could get it to reliably work. On longer journeys the crew and passengers would need to be revived occasionally so that damage from naturally occurring radioactive isotopes could be healed.

6) Increased life spans. A century or two is expendable if one's lifespan is measured in millennia. Effective immortality would, however, have a transformative effect on society.

[Queercommie Girl]

You are forgetting FTL. One should not rule out FTL in theory.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You are forgetting FTL. One should not rule out FTL in theory.

All the indications are that even if FTL is possible, it won't necessarily be easy (even in comparison to industrialising the entire surface of Mercury!). My understanding is that Alcubierre metrics require non-trivial (IE, fuckhuge) amounts of negative energy, which considering we don't know if it even exists the first place, could be much harder to mass produce than antimatter, which we at least can make in tiny quantities today and thus could make more tomorrow.

There is another issue. FTL equals time travel (http://sheol.org/throopw/tachyon-pistols.html), which means that if time travel is impossible, then so is FTL.

Moreover, I think solving the problems associated with non-FTL space travel is a safer bet, especially since considering at the moment we can barely leave the Earth's surface. Even if FTL is possible, it may be limited in some fashion that requires us to have more than a passing familiarity with STL interstellar travel.

[Queercommie Girl]

All the indications are that even if FTL is possible, it won't necessarily be easy (even in comparison to industrialising the entire surface of Mercury!). My understanding is that Alcubierre metrics require non-trivial (IE, fuckhuge) amounts of negative energy, which considering we don't know if it even exists the first place, could be much harder to mass produce than antimatter, which we at least can make in tiny quantities today and thus could make more tomorrow.

There is another issue. FTL equals time travel (http://sheol.org/throopw/tachyon-pistols.html), which means that if time travel is impossible, then so is FTL.

Moreover, I think solving the problems associated with non-FTL space travel is a safer bet, especially since considering at the moment we can barely leave the Earth's surface. Even if FTL is possible, it may be limited in some fashion that requires us to have more than a passing familiarity with STL interstellar travel.


Alcubierre doesn't actually imply real FTL travel, since nothing is travelling faster than light relative to local space. It's only space itself that's been distorted. I don't think your example would apply.

Of course, no-one is saying that FTL is just as straightforward as STL at all, I'm just saying that theoretically it cannot be ruled out. Obviously in practical terms STL interstellar travel would be humanity's first step. Even today we are not so far away from most of the core STL technologies, not just in theory, but at the actual design stage.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Alcubierre doesn't actually imply real FTL travel, since nothing is travelling faster than light relative to local space. It's only space itself that's been distorted. I don't think your example would apply.

It would still be possible for an Alcubierre-equipped ship to set off to a distant star system and then come back before it set off from the point of view of a stationary observer on Earth. Although travel through wormholes also never exceeds the speed of light locally speaking, they are also potential time machines.


Of course, no-one is saying that FTL is just as straightforward as STL at all, I'm just saying that theoretically it cannot be ruled out. Obviously in practical terms STL interstellar travel would be humanity's first step. Even today we are not so far away from most of the core STL technologies, not just in theory, but at the actual design stage.

In terms of practical engineering I think it's still more useful to concentrate on technologies that require the fewest leaps in social, technological and scientific knowledge. At the very least, we know that STL travel to other star systems is at least a possibility given our current state of knowledge.

Another reason for considering FTL to be extremely difficult is the Fermi paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox); life, even intelligent life, could be fairly common in the universe, but FTL could be so difficult that no nearby civilisations have yet had the time to reach us.

[Queercommie Girl]

Another reason for considering FTL to be extremely difficult is the Fermi paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox); life, even intelligent life, could be fairly common in the universe, but FTL could be so difficult that no nearby civilisations have yet had the time to reach us.


This is not how I would answer the Fermi Paradox though.

Unless you consider FTL is to completely impossible in the absolutist sense, given how long the universe has been around if only relatively few very old alien civilisations developed FTL, then they would have arrived on Earth by now.

Even with nothing else except STL travel, one would only need several million years to colonise the entire Milky Way galaxy in theory. The universe has been around for 15 billion years or more.

I don't think the aliens aren't on Earth because they can't, I think they aren't here because they choose not to. I think something similar to the Prime Directive in Star Trek or how environmentalists take care to not disturb wild habitats with human activity is at work here.

See:

http://www.astrobio.net/index.php?option=com_retrospection&task=detail&id=1745

The Cosmic Quarantine Hypothesis, as an answer to the Fermi Paradox.

Also, for Marxists, such a scenario is also likely from the perspective of Historical Materialism. Generally speaking, there is nothing specifically "human" about communism, communism is basically the natural result of a sufficiently advanced sentient civilisation. One would expect the majority of highly advanced alien civilisations to be communist and highly enlightened, if the basic principles of Marxist historical materialism is extrapolated into the future in the most general sense.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This is not how I would answer the Fermi Paradox though.

Unless you consider FTL is to completely impossible in the absolutist sense, given how long the universe has been around if only relatively few very old alien civilisations developed FTL, then they would have arrived on Earth by now.

Yet they haven't; which indicates that even if FTL is technically possible, it is prohibitively expensive or otherwise impractical even for a civilisation that is billions of years old.


Even with nothing else except STL travel, one would only need several million years to colonise the entire Milky Way galaxy in theory. The universe has been around for 15 billion years or more.

Don't forget that the conditions suitable for Earthlike life have not been present in the universe since the beginning - the first generation of stars would have condensed out of clouds of hydrogen and helium with the occasional lithium atom thrown in for good measure - poor stuff for making life as we know it.


I don't think the aliens aren't on Earth because they can't, I think they aren't here because they choose not to. I think something similar to the Prime Directive in Star Trek or how environmentalists take care to not disturb wild habitats with human activity is at work here.

I'm extremely leery of assuming that alien thought processes, cultural idioms and intellectual tenets will be remotely familiar to 21st century humans. Remember that both Star Trek and environmentalism as we would recognise it are the products of humans; what reasons have we to assume that alien intelligences will have anything remotely similar?

Although it seems fashionable among some leftists to deny it, our evolutionary heritage provided the context for everything that was to follow and thus shaped it. Civilisation is part of our attempts to lift ourselves above the law of the jungle, and it's a noble and precious thing, but I have no reason to believe that the path we have taken, under the conditions we have experienced, is the only or even "correct" approach.


See:

http://www.astrobio.net/index.php?option=com_retrospection&task=detail&id=1745

The Cosmic Quarantine Hypothesis, as an answer to the Fermi Paradox.

Edwin Harrison conflates expansionism with aggression, which is a mistake since they are not necessarily the same thing. Even then, the implication that aggressive species are doomed to wipe themselves out doesn't follow; it's a relic from the Cold War days where everyone had a nuclear Sword of Damocles hovering over their head and some believed it would inevitably fall one day - extrapolated, in a subtle but important act of anthropomorphism, to alien intelligences. Fortunately, our world turned out to be more complicated than that and we know that preparing for life in a post-apocalyptic Mad Max nuclear wasteland is a waste of time.


Also, for Marxists, such a scenario is also likely from the perspective of Historical Materialism. Generally speaking, there is nothing specifically "human" about communism, communism is basically the natural result of a sufficiently advanced sentient civilisation. One would expect the majority of highly advanced alien civilisations to be communist and highly enlightened, if the basic principles of Marxist historical materialism is extrapolated into the future in the most general sense.

I disagree. In fact, I would be astounded if the development of alien civilisation was anything like our own, because such a civilisation would be uncannily human, and certainly worthy of further investigation as to why.

Consider human reproductive strategy; we typically have few young, but lavish considerable attention and resources on them. So it is unsurprising that all human cultures (that I know of) value children over and above their contribution to the continuance of the in-group. But now think of a species with the more or less opposite strategy; large numbers of young are born (or spawned, or hatched, whatever), with sheer numbers making up for any losses caused by lower parental investment. Such a species may value children in the abstract, or as a whole, but place relatively little importance on the value of a singular child. This has far-reaching implications for the alien society; certainly I think such a society would be much less individualistic than even the most conformist of human societies - ideas like "privacy" or "personal space" are likely to be completely alien (ahem) to them.

The anthropomorphisation of aliens is somewhat inevitable - we have a tendency to think that intelligence will necessarily be like us, mainly because evolution equipped our instincts to deal with fellow humans rather than intelligent non-humans. But it also obscures what I think is something we need to constantly keep in mind - that whatever aliens are like, they will not be like us, and indeed are likely to have moral and ethical frameworks entirely orthogonal to our own (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlueAndOrangeMorality).

If you have the time, I highly recommend that you take the time to read the story Three Worlds Collide (http://lesswrong.com/lw/y4/three_worlds_collide_08/) by Eliezer Yudkowsky, in my estimation a way-better-than-average "First Contact" tale with some serious thought behind it.

[Queercommie Girl]

Yet they haven't; which indicates that even if FTL is technically possible, it is prohibitively expensive or otherwise impractical even for a civilisation that is billions of years old.


There are multiple possible explanations for why aliens aren't on Earth. The fact that they can't come clearly isn't the only possible reason.



Don't forget that the conditions suitable for Earthlike life have not been present in the universe since the beginning - the first generation of stars would have condensed out of clouds of hydrogen and helium with the occasional lithium atom thrown in for good measure - poor stuff for making life as we know it.
Even Population I and II stars have been around for nearly 10 billion years.



I'm extremely leery of assuming that alien thought processes, cultural idioms and intellectual tenets will be remotely familiar to 21st century humans.
This is irrelevant. It is actually pretty anthro-centric to assume that historical materialism can only apply to humanity. The specific nature of alien cultures and intellects doesn't matter, just that they are also sentient and technologically advanced civilisations.

Or to put it in even more basic terms, once organisms possess central nervous systems of sufficient complexity, the general laws of historical materialism would apply. Marx has always stressed that human history is nothing but the continuation of natural evolution on a higher qualitative level - made possible by no other than our very large brains.



Although it seems fashionable among some leftists to deny it, our evolutionary heritage provided the context for everything that was to follow and thus shaped it. Civilisation is part of our attempts to lift ourselves above the law of the jungle, and it's a noble and precious thing, but I have no reason to believe that the path we have taken, under the conditions we have experienced, is the only or even "correct" approach.
No it has nothing to do with "nobility". The very human act of negating the law of the jungle is itself a completely natural process. There is no distinction between the natural and the artificial, since humanity is also a part of nature. "Lifting oneself" or whatever is not "special" in any sense at all, but simply the natural consequences of possessing a highly developed central nervous system for all organisms. For organisms with highly developed central nervous systems, negating lower forms of evolutionary behaviour is generally speaking an evolutionary advantage in itself. Humanity would never have achieved the necessary complex social organisation to advance to our present-day levels of productivity if our society remained at the same crude level as the other great apes.

In short, there is nothing noble about anti-social darwinism. Anti-social darwinism is actually strictly speaking rationally sound from a darwinian perspective.



Even then, the implication that aggressive species are doomed to wipe themselves out doesn't follow; it's a relic from the Cold War days where everyone had a nuclear Sword of Damocles hovering over their head and some believed it would inevitably fall one day - extrapolated, in a subtle but important act of anthropomorphism, to alien intelligences. Fortunately, our world turned out to be more complicated than that and we know that preparing for life in a post-apocalyptic Mad Max nuclear wasteland is a waste of time.
The Cold War may be over, but the danger of nuclear war clearly isn't. Have you been following any global politics lately?

The implication that imperialism leads to self-destruction is also a Marxist notion. As Rosa Luxemburg once put it: humanity would either advance forward to socialism or regress backward to barbarism.

Unless you think Marxism is always a "waste of time", I suggest you reconsider.



I disagree. In fact, I would be astounded if the development of alien civilisation was anything like our own, because such a civilisation would be uncannily human, and certainly worthy of further investigation as to why.
No-one said anything about aliens being "human-like". What you fail to realise is that objectively speaking there is nothing specifically "human" about historical materialism. Extrapolating historical materialism towards the future in the most general sense has nothing to do with specific human cultural or intellectual traits.



Consider human reproductive strategy; we typically have few young, but lavish considerable attention and resources on them. So it is unsurprising that all human cultures (that I know of) value children over and above their contribution to the continuance of the in-group. But now think of a species with the more or less opposite strategy; large numbers of young are born (or spawned, or hatched, whatever), with sheer numbers making up for any losses caused by lower parental investment. Such a species may value children in the abstract, or as a whole, but place relatively little importance on the value of a singular child. This has far-reaching implications for the alien society; certainly I think such a society would be much less individualistic than even the most conformist of human societies - ideas like "privacy" or "personal space" are likely to be completely alien (ahem) to them.
Really? Why don't you consider the reproductive strategy of all higher animals (animals with generally greater intelligence)? Isn't it true that the more intelligent the species is, generally speaking, the less children it has? How many primates do you know that breed like invertebrates?

I find it highly unlikely, from a biological perspective, that any advanced alien intelligence would adopt the strategy of having a large number of offspring with only a few surviving, if we assume that all biological life in the universe tend to be similar in the basic chemical sense. (E.g. carbon-based)



The anthropomorphisation of aliens is somewhat inevitable - we have a tendency to think that intelligence will necessarily be like us, mainly because evolution equipped our instincts to deal with fellow humans rather than intelligent non-humans. But it also obscures what I think is something we need to constantly keep in mind - that whatever aliens are like, they will not be like us, and indeed are likely to have moral and ethical frameworks entirely orthogonal to our own (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlueAndOrangeMorality).
I never assumed that alien intelligences are like ours at all, I only assume that alien intelligences are like intelligences, and all intelligences fundamentally share certain basic traits.

It's also a mistake to think that all science fiction etc deal with humanoid alien intelligences. Even in popular science fiction like Star Trek, there are plenty of alien forms which are very different from anything human-like. (E.g. the Borg)

Humans have already communicated with non-human sub-intelligences here on Earth, such as with other great apes and dolphins. Apes are genetically very close to humans, so one would expect human intelligence and ape intelligence to be similar in certain key basic ways. Yet dolphins belong to a completely different order of mammals, which split from the human line nearly 100 million years ago. But dolphins still show certain sub-intelligent behaviour that is generally in line with what humans would expect. (E.g. empathy, proto-linguistic abilities, complex social behaviour, problem-solving etc) It is likely that the basic attributes of all intelligences are universal.

Also, from a Marxist perspective, it would be strange if historical materialism were not universal, but only applicable to humans. Because this would imply that there is something "special" about humans, which for serious Marxists is non-sense. Not only is Marxism a materialist philosophy that completely rejects the "human soul", it is not even a humanist philosophy in the general bourgeois sense strictly speaking. Marxists don't believe humans have any kind of abstract innate qualities. Humans and human civilisations are nothing more than the natural products of billions of years of evolution, there is nothing more to it. Why would it be the case that only humans, and not other intelligences, can build communism? Remember that communism in the objective sense is not based on any kind of specific cultural or intellectual trait at all. It's only an advanced form of social organisation. Social organisation is simply universal for any kind of hypothetical higher intelligence. Therefore there is absolutely nothing wrong with speculating about "alien commies" in the abstract sense.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

There are multiple possible explanations for why aliens aren't on Earth. The fact that they can't come clearly isn't the only possible reason.

Obviously my statement was made with the assumption that life and civilisation are relatively common occurrances. They may not be, in which case the original question is moot.


Even Population I and II stars have been around for nearly 10 billion years.

Fair enough, but that makes the silence from the stars all the more deafening.


This is irrelevant. It is actually pretty anthro-centric to assume that historical materialism can only apply to humanity. The specific nature of alien cultures and intellects doesn't matter, just that they are also sentient and technologically advanced civilisations.

Or to put it in even more basic terms, once organisms possess central nervous systems of sufficient complexity, the general laws of historical materialism would apply. Marx has always stressed that human history is nothing but the continuation of natural evolution on a higher qualitative level - made possible by no other than our very large brains.

Quoting from Wikipedia:


Historical materialism can be seen to rest on the following principles:

* 1. The basis of human society is how humans work on nature to produce the means of subsistence.

* 2. There is a division of labour into social classes (relations of production) based on property ownership where some people live from the labour of others.

* 3. The system of class division is dependent on the mode of production.

* 4. The mode of production is based on the level of the productive forces.

* 5. Society moves from stage to stage when the dominant class is displaced by a new emerging class, by overthrowing the "political shell" that enforces the old relations of production no longer corresponding to the new productive forces. This takes place in the superstructure of society, the political arena in the form of revolution, whereby the underclass "liberates" the productive forces with new relations of production, and social relations, corresponding to it.

The first point refers explicitly to humans - if Marx had intended to describe in general how intelligences develop society and civilisation, I'm sure he would have said from the start!

The second point could well indicate a universal for technological species, that of division of labour. But, if the very concept of property ownership doesn't exist, then the division of labour must be based on something else. This is the first and major potential stumbling block for Marxism as applied to non-human civilisations.

The third and fourth points, stripped of typical Marxist cant, basically say that social, economic and technological progress are intertwined. This is such an obvious point that I don't think historical materialism deserves any "credit" for that particular observation.

The fifth and final point is perhaps the most anthropocentric of them all, because it is based on human forms of conflict resolution (remembering that revolution is one) and is wrapped in the language (in this case, Marxist) of human political discourse.


No it has nothing to do with "nobility". The very human act of negating the law of the jungle is itself a completely natural process. There is no distinction between the natural and the artificial, since humanity is also a part of nature. "Lifting oneself" or whatever is not "special" in any sense at all, but simply the natural consequences of possessing a highly developed central nervous system for all organisms.

And what a wonderful natural consequence it is! Obviously labels such as "natural" and "artificial" are ontologically speaking just that, labels, rather than some intrinsic signifier.

But I do think we should make a conscious effort to improve on the natural processes that came before us, that shaped us (at least initially) and that still influence our behaviour to this day. That's a purpose, something that the rest of the universe seems to lack.

In fact, I would argue that the division between natural and artificial, if there is to be one, is one of purpose (or at least the convincing illusion of same). Artificial objects and processes exist for some kind of purpose, even if that purpose is to merely exist.


For organisms with highly developed central nervous systems, negating lower forms of evolutionary behaviour is generally speaking an evolutionary advantage in itself. Humanity would never have achieved the necessary complex social organisation necessary to advance to our present-day levels of productivity if our society remained at the same crude level as the other great apes.

Indeed. But my point was that all the myriad ways that humans have done such things is but one small slice of a much vaster multi-dimensional space of possibilities, and it is as foolish to assume that other intelligences will map closely to ours as it is to assume that a penny dropped on North America will land on a particular ant.


In short, there is nothing noble about anti-social darwinism. Anti-social darwinism is actually strictly speaking rationally sound from a darwinian perspective.

Obviously as an alien civilisation develops, there will arise new behaviours and customs that will better serve the purpose of in-group survival. But that's not to say that the behaviours and customs will be anything like ours, and I don't think that's the kind of observation that's unique to historical materialism.


The Cold War may be over, but the danger of nuclear war clearly isn't. Have you been following any global politics lately?

Even during the Cold War, it was far from certain that an all-out nuclear war would wipe out human civilisation as a whole, rather than those that got hit and those in the (geographically speaking) immediate vicinity.

These days it's even less likely that nuclear war would threaten civilisation. That's not to say that Pakistan and India going nuclear on each other, or Seoul disappearing in a column of superheated smoke wouldn't be a big deal, but it would certainly be a blow from which we would recover.

Moreover, as the world becomes increasingly interconnected, the greater incentive there is to avoid nuclear confrontation. Cities are more profitable before they're turned into radioactive firestorm-ridden rubble piles.


The implication that imperialism leads to self-destruction is also a Marxist notion. As Rosa Luxemburg once put it: humanity would either advance forward to socialism or regress backward to barbarism.

That seems to be more a point of doctrine than a finding of science - individual empires may overstretch themselves and collapse, but human civilisation as a whole continues.


Unless you think Marxism is always a "waste of time", I suggest you reconsider.

Despite my dislike of some people who claim to be Marxists, I think Marxism has some genuinely useful and true ideas. However, Marxism is something created by humans for the purpose of trying to understand how human societies operate and develop, and I certainly do not share your confidence that it would be applicable to aliens.


No-one said anything about aliens being "human-like". What you fail to realise is that objectively speaking there is nothing specifically "human" about historical materialism. Extrapolating historical materialism towards the future in the most general sense has nothing to do with specific human cultural or intellectual traits.

On the global level, Marxism draws its experiences and inferences from a single sample - Earth. Furthermore, it has only been formulated through the study of one intelligent species with a specific evolutionary history.

Extrapolating from a sample size of one does not strike me as particularly smart, especially considering the vast amount of variables involved.


Really? Why don't you consider the reproductive strategy of all higher animals (animals with generally greater intelligence)? Isn't it true that the more intelligent the species is, generally speaking, the less children it has? How many primates do you know that breed like invertebrates?

I find it highly unlikely, from a biological perspective, that any advanced alien intelligence would adopt the strategy of having a large number of offspring with only a few surviving, if we assume that all biological life in the universe tend to be similar in the basic chemical sense. (E.g. carbon-based)

Why? Specific conditions on Earth may have favoured one approach for more intelligent species, but we're not talking about Earth here.


I never assumed that alien intelligences are like ours at all, I only assume that alien intelligences are like intelligences, and all intelligences fundamentally share certain basic traits.

It's also a mistake to think that all science fiction etc deal with humanoid alien intelligences. Even in popular science fiction like Star Trek, there are plenty of alien forms which are very different from anything human-like. (E.g. the Borg)

If you think the Borg are a good example of a non-humanoid species, then you've been poorly served in that department. I have a couple of reading recommendations - Solaris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solaris_%28novel%29) by Stanisław Lem and Blindsight (http://www.rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm) by Peter Watts (which can be downloaded for free off the page). Both involve non-humanoid intelligence and the problems that crop up when vastly different kinds of mind attempt to communicate with each other.


Humans have already communicated with non-human sub-intelligences here on Earth, such as with other great apes and dolphins. Apes are genetically very close to humans, so one would expect human intelligence and ape intelligence to be similar in certain key basic ways. Yet dolphins belong to a completely different order of mammals, which split from the human line nearly 100 million years ago. But dolphins still show certain sub-intelligent behaviour that is generally in line with what humans would expect. (E.g. empathy, proto-linguistic abilities, complex social behaviour, problem-solving etc) It is likely that the basic attributes of all intelligences are universal.

The problem is that we both evolved on the same planet, and even if we take that into account, dolphins are still vertebrate mammals with which we share large parts of our genome.

Seriously, we would likely have more in common with a cauliflower than we would with an alien.


Also, from a Marxist perspective, it would be strange if historical materialism were not universal, but only applicable to humans. Because this would imply that there is something "special" about humans, which for serious Marxists is non-sense. Not only is Marxism a materialist philosophy that completely reject the "human soul", it is not even a humanist philosophy in the general bourgeois sense strictly speaking.

The word you are looking for is "unique". Evolution isn't like clockwork or some other pre-determined process; start it again from an earlier point, and the new outcome would be vastly different from the old, more so the further back one restarts.

"Unique" doesn't mean that we're some special creation of some being, anymore than a particular pattern of raindrops on the pavement is a special creation.


Marxists don't believe humans have any kind of abstract innate qualities. Humans and human civilisations are nothing more than the natural products of billions of years of evolution, there is nothing more to it. Why would it be the case that only humans, and not other intelligences, can build communism? Remember that communism in the objective sense is not based on any kind of specific cultural or intellectual trait at all. It's only an advanced form of social organisation. Social organisation is simply universal for any kind of hypothetical higher intelligence. Therefore there is absolutely nothing wrong with speculating about "alien commies" in the abstract sense.

If evolution is a contingent process, then it doesn't make sense to me to posit a particular form of socioeconomic organisation as an inevitable step in a chain, rather than as simply one branch among many, so to speak.

[Sword and Shield]

It would still be possible for an Alcubierre-equipped ship to set off to a distant star system and then come back before it set off from the point of view of a stationary observer on Earth. Although travel through wormholes also never exceeds the speed of light locally speaking, they are also potential time machines.

Wrong! Unless you build two accelerating Alcubierre routes or wormholes (in which case it's conjectured that quantum fluctuations would destroy it), you cannot violate causality by warping spacetime.

On another note, please remember that while the conventional wisdom is that you can't have FTL, special relativity, and causality at the same time, this is somewhat misleading. The only aspect of special relativity you can't have if you want to hold on to FTL and causality is the lack of preferred reference frames. For example, there could be a hyperspace that allows FTL travel, but that hyperspace will map to and from a preferred inertial frame in regular space.

[Queercommie Girl]

Obviously my statement was made with the assumption that life and civilisation are relatively common occurrances. They may not be, in which case the original question is moot.

Fair enough, but that makes the silence from the stars all the more deafening.


There are other possible answers to the Fermi Paradox, such as the one I raised, which you don't seem to be considering for some reason.

I think the possibility that alien life is very rare or non-existent is even more unlikely than the possibility that interstellar travel is impossible.



The first point refers explicitly to humans - if Marx had intended to describe in general how intelligences develop society and civilisation, I'm sure he would have said from the start!

The second point could well indicate a universal for technological species, that of division of labour. But, if the very concept of property ownership doesn't exist, then the division of labour must be based on something else. This is the first and major potential stumbling block for Marxism as applied to non-human civilisations.

The third and fourth points, stripped of typical Marxist cant, basically say that social, economic and technological progress are intertwined. This is such an obvious point that I don't think historical materialism deserves any "credit" for that particular observation.
I didn't suggest that one could just apply historical materialism "as it is" on top of this issue, without certain extrapolations and speculations.

Orthodox historical materialism indeed deals with human history, but it deals with human society at a relatively basic materialist level, a level which is unlikely to be unique to humans. One should expect all sentient intelligences to possess the qualities of "social interaction, tool use/labour, problem-solving, language-like communication" etc.



The fifth and final point is perhaps the most anthropocentric of them all, because it is based on human forms of conflict resolution (remembering that revolution is one) and is wrapped in the language (in this case, Marxist) of human political discourse.
Why is the "human form" of conflict resolution so special? It's merely a particular form of conflict resolution and conflict over resources underpinned by violent behaviour.



And what a wonderful natural consequence it is! Obviously labels such as "natural" and "artificial" are ontologically speaking just that, labels, rather than some intrinsic signifier.

But I do think we should make a conscious effort to improve on the natural processes that came before us, that shaped us (at least initially) and that still influence our behaviour to this day. That's a purpose, something that the rest of the universe seems to lack.

In fact, I would argue that the division between natural and artificial, if there is to be one, is one of purpose (or at least the convincing illusion of same). Artificial objects and processes exist for some kind of purpose, even if that purpose is to merely exist.
"Purpose" is not an intrinsic metaphysical quality. The ability to have "purpose" is itself a product of natural evolution.



Indeed. But my point was that all the myriad ways that humans have done such things is but one small slice of a much vaster multi-dimensional space of possibilities, and it is as foolish to assume that other intelligences will map closely to ours as it is to assume that a penny dropped on North America will land on a particular ant.

Obviously as an alien civilisation develops, there will arise new behaviours and customs that will better serve the purpose of in-group survival. But that's not to say that the behaviours and customs will be anything like ours, and I don't think that's the kind of observation that's unique to historical materialism.
I didn't say the specific form of intelligence in hypothetical aliens would be similar to human intelligence, but in the most basic, general and abstract way, there are certain attributes of intelligence which would seem to be universal, such as complex communication, complex social interaction, tool use/creation, problem-solving etc.



Even during the Cold War, it was far from certain that an all-out nuclear war would wipe out human civilisation as a whole, rather than those that got hit and those in the (geographically speaking) immediate vicinity.

These days it's even less likely that nuclear war would threaten civilisation. That's not to say that Pakistan and India going nuclear on each other, or Seoul disappearing in a column of superheated smoke wouldn't be a big deal, but it would certainly be a blow from which we would recover.

Moreover, as the world becomes increasingly interconnected, the greater incentive there is to avoid nuclear confrontation. Cities are more profitable before they're turned into radioactive firestorm-ridden rubble piles.
Nuclear war I think is still a serious threat, but it's not the most pressing threat facing humanity at the moment.



That seems to be more a point of doctrine than a finding of science - individual empires may overstretch themselves and collapse, but human civilisation as a whole continues.
Yet no historical empire has ever reached a truly global scale, nor possessed the necessary power to destroy all life on Earth many times over in theory.

When the empire becomes completely global, like the globalised capitalist empire today, then its collapse would obviously have global consequences, just as the collapse of old empires in history had regional consequences. It's just a logical extrapolation of historical scenarios.



Despite my dislike of some people who claim to be Marxists, I think Marxism has some genuinely useful and true ideas. However, Marxism is something created by humans for the purpose of trying to understand how human societies operate and develop, and I certainly do not share your confidence that it would be applicable to aliens.

On the global level, Marxism draws its experiences and inferences from a single sample - Earth. Furthermore, it has only been formulated through the study of one intelligent species with a specific evolutionary history.

Extrapolating from a sample size of one does not strike me as particularly smart, especially considering the vast amount of variables involved.
But the same can be said about the whole of astrobiology or exobiology. Since Earth is the only known location in the universe with life, all ideas about aliens are necessarily no more than pure speculation. To think that aliens are similar to humans is speculation, to think that aliens are extremely different from humans is also just speculation. Empirically there is no direct evidence for either one.

However, if we speculatively assume that alien intelligences are so different from humans that essentially we can not possess any more than a completely agnostic attitude towards them, then it would essentially imply that any serious scientific speculation would be totally futile. On the other hand, if we assume that alien intelligences would share certain general and universal traits which all intelligences would have, then we have a speculative basis on which to engage in interesting "thought experiments". I agree with Einstein that serious "thought experiments" are certainly not useless in science at all.

I'm not suggesting that Marxism as it exists now can be directly applied to the field of astrobiology. I agree that astrobiology/exobiology is a scientific field that is wider than the theoretical assumptions of historical materialism. However, this doesn't mean certain ideas from historical materialism cannot be effectively borrowed to aid in the process of engaging in "thought experiments" in this particular field.



Why? Specific conditions on Earth may have favoured one approach for more intelligent species, but we're not talking about Earth here.
Why would Earth be so special and stand out so much? Furthermore there is actually a logical reason why higher animals generally have less offspring. Higher animals are more complex and their behaviours are more plastic and fluidic (which means much of it need to be learned in the environment rather than just directly coded in genes - direct genetic coding is generally speaking a poor way of producing complex and variable behaviour). This means young animals can only fully develop within a particular environment which helps them to learn such complex behaviour. It is pointless to have a huge number of offspring since it is not possible to provide the right learning environment for such a huge number of individuals. Lower animals produce a huge number of offspring because most of its behaviour are simply directly coded by genes, so each individual offspring can potentially become a fully developed adult without any special care or learning processes.



If you think the Borg are a good example of a non-humanoid species, then you've been poorly served in that department. I have a couple of reading recommendations - Solaris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solaris_%28novel%29) by Stanisław Lem and Blindsight (http://www.rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm) by Peter Watts (which can be downloaded for free off the page). Both involve non-humanoid intelligence and the problems that crop up when vastly different kinds of mind attempt to communicate with each other.
I think it is just as problematic and without evidence to simply assume that alien intelligences must be extremely different from humanity as it is to assume that they must be similar to humanity. The real situation is more likely to be somewhere in between.

The Borg may have become cliche, but it is still an example of an alien civilisation that is fundamentally different from ours. In fact, some novels actually depict the existence of non-humanoid Borg drones (i.e. drones without a human-like body plan and shape), the only reason such are not shown in the TV series is because frankly it would cost too much to do the required make-up and computer animation etc.

Another example of a non-humanoid alien civilisation from Star Trek would be Species 8472. (Sometimes referred to as the Undine)



The problem is that we both evolved on the same planet, and even if we take that into account, dolphins are still vertebrate mammals with which we share large parts of our genome.

Seriously, we would likely have more in common with a cauliflower than we would with an alien.
Again, why would Earth be so special? Wouldn't you assume that most forms of life elsewhere in the universe would also be based on the same kind of carbon biochemistry as life on Earth are?

Non-carbon biochemistry (e.g. silicon-based) is potentially possible, but wouldn't be in the majority, since biochemically speaking no other element is as suitable for the development of life as carbon is.



The word you are looking for is "unique". Evolution isn't like clockwork or some other pre-determined process; start it again from an earlier point, and the new outcome would be vastly different from the old, more so the further back one restarts.

"Unique" doesn't mean that we're some special creation of some being, anymore than a particular pattern of raindrops on the pavement is a special creation.

If evolution is a contingent process, then it doesn't make sense to me to posit a particular form of socioeconomic organisation as an inevitable step in a chain, rather than as simply one branch among many, so to speak.Evolution is not pre-determined, but it's not merely random either. There is a general trend which leads to an increase in informational complexity. This is a point that has already been noted by many scientists.