Advanced Civilizations Could be Indistinguishable from Nature
Advanced Civilizations Could be Indistinguishable from Nature
Can civilizations really expand technologically until they build Dyson Spheres? Or do they need to conform to biospheres to survive?
Article is a response to the paper:
“THE SUSTAINABILITY SOLUTION TO THE FERMI PARADOX”
This reminded me of Latour's ideas of Terrestrial.
He calls this ‘the Terrestrial’, for it follows the idea that humans do not comprise the ‘centre’ of nature anymore; rather, we are in constant interaction with other beings and natural phenomena. Hence, the New Climatic Regime demands a focus on the geo-social: each human activity has to be considered along with the impact it will have on the planet.
Their sustainability solution states that we don’t see any evidence of ETIs because rapid growth is not a sustainable development pattern. From this perspective, the Kardashev Scale is rendered futile. No civilization will ever use all available energy from its planet, star, or galaxy, because the growth required to reach that level of mastery is unsustainable.
I think that makes so much sense. I don't think it makes sense to define "advanced" as a civilization that grows at a rapid and exponential rate, like a plague of locusts, depleting nonrenewable resources and causing irreparable damage to the only human habitable planet known to exist in the entire universe. Even if it can be considered advanced, it should also be considered extremely unwise.
When I was a young teem, a teacher put a slice of apple in a sealed container with a few fruit-flies. A week later, there were hundreds of fruit-flies. In another week the bottom of the container was covered with the bodies of fruit-flies. Quick, unforgettable lesson.
So basically not being sustainable and harmonious with nature would be the Great Filter.
I really like this theory, makes sense. Though in context of humanity and our trajectory it's a bit depresing.
Seems like we -may- have had it worked out already. The major problem is: how do we rein in the people who want to do it their way and become kings?
Applying human levels of greed and selfishness to other species was always a mistake. The idea that all life disconnects from the greater good and only cares about individuals and allows their civilizations to be designed to serve a wealthy few is incredibly short-sighted.
In fact, any civilization capable of long distance space travel would have to overcome such idiocy and maximize the potential of all individuals, regardless of the wealth they were born into.
The idiots who hold back progress because of their wealth would also need to be dealt with. You’re not going to have a meaningful future in space with Elons in charge.
The article is wrong. You don't need high growth, any amount of growth more than 0 over a long time frame will inevitably see a civilization spread throughout the galaxy. If there was a civilization a hundred million years old in our galaxy it would be noticeable.
In fact, any civilization capable of long distance space travel would have to overcome such idiocy and maximize the potential of all individuals, regardless of the wealth they were born into.
I'd be curious what you base this statement on? Historically, the societies which did the most long distance travel and exploration were the opposite of this. Spain and Portugal were absolute monarchies, with well defined feudal systems which exploited anyone outside the noble class. Yet, their efforts to "explore" and dominate the Americas were incredibly successful. The UK's greatest exploration and extent was a direct offshoot of Mercantilism, with the East India Trading Company being both the primary actor and beneficiary. US Westward expansion was predicated on theft, war and genocide. Though, as a counter-point, the modern US system does a better job of providing opportunity to most people (with some notable problems), than it used to. And the US has been a hotbed of advancement in the last century.
In modern times, space exploration was originally driven by the desire to find new and interesting way to kill other people. And it's only been recently that peaceful sharing of information has been normalized. Even there, the cutting edge of space exploration seems to be back in the hands of mercantilist forces. I mean, I love me some SpaceX, "let's catch a rocket" shenanigans. But, we also shouldn't pretend that SpaceX is anything other than a for-profit corporation under a leadership which would be happy to harvest organs from people for a profit.
I know it's popular to think that space exploration must be a Star Trek style "space communism". But, this doesn't really align with the examples we have from history. And while that is certainly a human centric way to look at the problem, it's also the only real world example we have to look at. Everything else is just philosophers sitting around, passing a bong and saying, "man, what if..." It can be a useful exercise to think about other possibilities. But, I'd tend to focus more effort on what we have evidence for, than made up ideas.
I watched a video on two LLMs fed on the history of philosophy. When they arrived at morality, it was funny to listen to them “talk” (this LLM generates a podcast). They talked about how humans strive for concepts like justice, good, or equality, but we’re very fraught with human tendencies around tribalism and brinksmanship. The AIs said something like, “It’s like they can’t imagine a species that wouldn’t have these features.”
And it’s like…yeah, good point weird autocorrect engines. We constantly impart our qualities on to things, but that’s just the blind spot of our superiority on this planet. Why wouldn’t aliens or AI seek a system in which all are valued for their best qualities?
Humans are still animals, very much so. We compete, we fight, but it’s all one species. I wish we would wake up and realize it.