<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Some Thoughts on Fermi's Paradox</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/fermis-paradox.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/fermis-paradox.html</link>
	<description>NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2008 03:30:45 +0000</pubDate>
	
		<item>
		<title>By: Moody834</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/fermis-paradox.html#comment-27958</link>
		<dc:creator>Moody834</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:35:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/fermis-paradox.html#comment-27958</guid>
		<description>My guess? Vorlons and Shadows. Or Xeelee... Yeah, definitely Xeelee.

Seriously, FWIW, it seems likely to me that we are "among the first". It makes us special, but not in a really rewarding way that would support any egotism about it; it was a crap shoot, blind 'luck', -- so what? In the end, it does not seem likely that we'll be around to see the eventual swelling up of our sol, because even if our descendants are around &lt;i&gt;they&lt;/i&gt; won't be us (though whoever &lt;i&gt;is&lt;/i&gt; around will certainly have want of the ability to get off the earth, eh?). The insular Chinese (mentioned in other comments above) would probably have started exploring again -- and with great gusto -- had their known world looked to become inhospitable to life.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My guess? Vorlons and Shadows. Or Xeelee... Yeah, definitely Xeelee.</p>
<p>Seriously, FWIW, it seems likely to me that we are "among the first". It makes us special, but not in a really rewarding way that would support any egotism about it; it was a crap shoot, blind 'luck', -- so what? In the end, it does not seem likely that we'll be around to see the eventual swelling up of our sol, because even if our descendants are around <i>they</i> won't be us (though whoever <i>is</i> around will certainly have want of the ability to get off the earth, eh?). The insular Chinese (mentioned in other comments above) would probably have started exploring again -- and with great gusto -- had their known world looked to become inhospitable to life.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Foster</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/fermis-paradox.html#comment-26446</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Foster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Aug 2007 10:50:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/fermis-paradox.html#comment-26446</guid>
		<description>For those of you that want a counterargument to the ideas proposed in Rare Earth, you may want to peruse Evolving The Alien by Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart(Cohen is a reproductive biologist and Stewart a mathematician) .The Rare Earth hypothesis gets something of a good beating in this book and I found Cohen and Stewart's further ideas on alien intelligences very interesting.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For those of you that want a counterargument to the ideas proposed in Rare Earth, you may want to peruse Evolving The Alien by Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart(Cohen is a reproductive biologist and Stewart a mathematician) .The Rare Earth hypothesis gets something of a good beating in this book and I found Cohen and Stewart's further ideas on alien intelligences very interesting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bassmanpete</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/fermis-paradox.html#comment-26296</link>
		<dc:creator>bassmanpete</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Aug 2007 02:56:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/fermis-paradox.html#comment-26296</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;it is as though this universe was designed to support Human life.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Typical human arrogance! There are plenty of other life forms on the planet and most of them have been around a lot longer than we have. Also, apart from this 'Pale Blue Dot', the rest of the Universe doesn't appear to be very conducive to humans or anything else without some form of life support system.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>it is as though this universe was designed to support Human life.</p></blockquote>
<p>Typical human arrogance! There are plenty of other life forms on the planet and most of them have been around a lot longer than we have. Also, apart from this 'Pale Blue Dot', the rest of the Universe doesn't appear to be very conducive to humans or anything else without some form of life support system.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Caos de le Mente</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/fermis-paradox.html#comment-26289</link>
		<dc:creator>Caos de le Mente</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Aug 2007 00:31:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/fermis-paradox.html#comment-26289</guid>
		<description>Perhaps there is another solution...one that we may think about and but few will openly ponder. Simply, we are alone (see the book "50 Answers to Fermi's Paradox"). That being said, what does this mean? Perhaps there is a Creator...as Martin Reese said in his book "Just 6 Numbers", it is as though this universe was designed to support Human life. We may dance around the issue of a Supreme Being creating life, but this appears to be a huge piece of evidence to support that idea. Simply, given the age of our galaxy, the relatively young age of our sun, and the alledged ease that life can evolve, we should have seen plenty of evidence of life - including intellegent life - somewhere. Not all civilizations on our planet are pacifist, non-expansionist, and homebody enough not to thrust thier civilizations into new lands and worlds. Even the simplist of life forms do this. Extrapolated on a cosmological scale, if life is common, and intellegence is a natural by-product of evolution, they should be everywhere. Thier not because they don't exist...period. That is a profound thought. Why? Because if we are alone, without a Creator to guide us we are doomed. We have proven horrible stewards of our world. I firmly believe that Enrico Fermi hit on the ultimate answer to the idea of Creator - we are unique because it was willed, we were created - and for a purpose.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Perhaps there is another solution...one that we may think about and but few will openly ponder. Simply, we are alone (see the book "50 Answers to Fermi's Paradox"). That being said, what does this mean? Perhaps there is a Creator...as Martin Reese said in his book "Just 6 Numbers", it is as though this universe was designed to support Human life. We may dance around the issue of a Supreme Being creating life, but this appears to be a huge piece of evidence to support that idea. Simply, given the age of our galaxy, the relatively young age of our sun, and the alledged ease that life can evolve, we should have seen plenty of evidence of life - including intellegent life - somewhere. Not all civilizations on our planet are pacifist, non-expansionist, and homebody enough not to thrust thier civilizations into new lands and worlds. Even the simplist of life forms do this. Extrapolated on a cosmological scale, if life is common, and intellegence is a natural by-product of evolution, they should be everywhere. Thier not because they don't exist...period. That is a profound thought. Why? Because if we are alone, without a Creator to guide us we are doomed. We have proven horrible stewards of our world. I firmly believe that Enrico Fermi hit on the ultimate answer to the idea of Creator - we are unique because it was willed, we were created - and for a purpose.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chas</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/fermis-paradox.html#comment-25977</link>
		<dc:creator>Chas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 2007 12:54:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/fermis-paradox.html#comment-25977</guid>
		<description>I would like to make an analogy. When we were babies we were not even aware of our own body parts let alone of the ENTIRE universe that existed. We have not even explored many parts of the earth let alone the universe. What are we thinking. Do you really think that an advanced culture would use radio waves to communicate??? PLEAZEEE. Let's not give ourselves so much credit. We don't know jack. My guess is that there are thousands of advanced civilizations out there. We just don't know how to receive the information yet. 

Plus, do we even WANT to know. We can not even get along with our own species. What makes us think that bringing in a new one with much more advanced technologies is going to make it better??? I HOPE we don't find other civilizations with technologies that we don't understand. We can not control what we have now. Lets learn to observe before we start running toward a path we don't know it leads to.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would like to make an analogy. When we were babies we were not even aware of our own body parts let alone of the ENTIRE universe that existed. We have not even explored many parts of the earth let alone the universe. What are we thinking. Do you really think that an advanced culture would use radio waves to communicate??? PLEAZEEE. Let's not give ourselves so much credit. We don't know jack. My guess is that there are thousands of advanced civilizations out there. We just don't know how to receive the information yet. </p>
<p>Plus, do we even WANT to know. We can not even get along with our own species. What makes us think that bringing in a new one with much more advanced technologies is going to make it better??? I HOPE we don't find other civilizations with technologies that we don't understand. We can not control what we have now. Lets learn to observe before we start running toward a path we don't know it leads to.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: grendelkhan</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/fermis-paradox.html#comment-25959</link>
		<dc:creator>grendelkhan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Aug 2007 14:41:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/fermis-paradox.html#comment-25959</guid>
		<description>There's also the "babe in the woods" hypothesis, where "noisy"--emitting a great deal of EM radiation--civilizations are quickly dispatched by Von Neumann machines set in motion aeons ago by extremely xenophobic aliens. See Greg Bear's &lt;i&gt;The Forge of God&lt;/i&gt; for a good example.

And, of course, there's the hypothesis that intelligent life may be relatively common, but that it invariably causes its own extinction, whether by nuclear holocaust, by nanotech gray goo, or by some other technological catastrophe which has to do with a device which we've yet to envision.

These are more like interesting plot devices for SF stories than serious hypotheses, but they sure are fun to ponder.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There's also the "babe in the woods" hypothesis, where "noisy"--emitting a great deal of EM radiation--civilizations are quickly dispatched by Von Neumann machines set in motion aeons ago by extremely xenophobic aliens. See Greg Bear's <i>The Forge of God</i> for a good example.</p>
<p>And, of course, there's the hypothesis that intelligent life may be relatively common, but that it invariably causes its own extinction, whether by nuclear holocaust, by nanotech gray goo, or by some other technological catastrophe which has to do with a device which we've yet to envision.</p>
<p>These are more like interesting plot devices for SF stories than serious hypotheses, but they sure are fun to ponder.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: aweb</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/fermis-paradox.html#comment-25922</link>
		<dc:creator>aweb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:23:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/fermis-paradox.html#comment-25922</guid>
		<description>It's important to remember that projects like SETI aren't loooking for intentional signals meant to communicate with other planets, they're looking for anything that looks to be "unnatural". On Earth, we have been transmitting radio signals to outer space for more than a century, and the first ones would be, I imagine, almost undetectable once in space. There's no reason to think any planetary civilization would be spending time sending intentional signals all over the galaxy. If we ever hear anything, it definitely won't be aninterplanetary hello. 

Also, it seems unlikely that the "light-speed problem" will ever be solved, which makes the whole colonization problem pretty insurmountable. Hundreds of years in hostile environments where if anything goes wrong, everyone dies (i.e., a space flight to a nearby planet)?  Humans can't even muster up the enthusiasm for a 2 year trip to Mars. Exploring space with space probes seems like the only possible way to proceed, and even then, the timescales are such that there are no short-term gains. And engineering a probe that can harvest raw materials and self-replicate? That seems apocalyptically dangerous, even if it may be plausible to imagine. Maybe the "dark matter" providing so much gravity for the universe is a self-replicating probe gone horribly wrong.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It's important to remember that projects like SETI aren't loooking for intentional signals meant to communicate with other planets, they're looking for anything that looks to be "unnatural". On Earth, we have been transmitting radio signals to outer space for more than a century, and the first ones would be, I imagine, almost undetectable once in space. There's no reason to think any planetary civilization would be spending time sending intentional signals all over the galaxy. If we ever hear anything, it definitely won't be aninterplanetary hello. </p>
<p>Also, it seems unlikely that the "light-speed problem" will ever be solved, which makes the whole colonization problem pretty insurmountable. Hundreds of years in hostile environments where if anything goes wrong, everyone dies (i.e., a space flight to a nearby planet)?  Humans can't even muster up the enthusiasm for a 2 year trip to Mars. Exploring space with space probes seems like the only possible way to proceed, and even then, the timescales are such that there are no short-term gains. And engineering a probe that can harvest raw materials and self-replicate? That seems apocalyptically dangerous, even if it may be plausible to imagine. Maybe the "dark matter" providing so much gravity for the universe is a self-replicating probe gone horribly wrong.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tommykey</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/fermis-paradox.html#comment-25915</link>
		<dc:creator>Tommykey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:48:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/fermis-paradox.html#comment-25915</guid>
		<description>The geography and climate on other planets capable of supporting life is an important factor too.  A planet might have higher forms of marine life, but if it has only a few small land areas instead of the continents we have, then the conditions will not exist for land based life forms capable of evolving into intelligent beings capable of space flight.  Also, does the planet possess the necessary raw materials in abundance?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The geography and climate on other planets capable of supporting life is an important factor too.  A planet might have higher forms of marine life, but if it has only a few small land areas instead of the continents we have, then the conditions will not exist for land based life forms capable of evolving into intelligent beings capable of space flight.  Also, does the planet possess the necessary raw materials in abundance?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/fermis-paradox.html#comment-25905</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Aug 2007 10:41:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/fermis-paradox.html#comment-25905</guid>
		<description>I can't help but think of a bit of wisdom from Calvin and Hobbes. "I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us yet"</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can't help but think of a bit of wisdom from Calvin and Hobbes. "I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us yet"</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: XanderG</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/fermis-paradox.html#comment-25903</link>
		<dc:creator>XanderG</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Aug 2007 09:29:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/fermis-paradox.html#comment-25903</guid>
		<description>Though I feel you are right about the sudden appearance of life indicating a high possiblity of life in the universe, I feel that intelligent life will be far less common. Life appeared roughly 4,000 million years ago, but modern humans did not appear until 100,000 years ago, and civilisation did not appear until around 10,000 years ago. 

You can see there is a massive gap where there is no 'intelligent' life. It also seems that are civilisation rests upon the brief stable climate and only within this window of stable temperatures could an agricultural revolution take place, and civilization begin. Of course different types of civilizations could form on other planets, but I think there are a lot of obstacles to the development of an advanced species that can communicate across the universe or galaxy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Though I feel you are right about the sudden appearance of life indicating a high possiblity of life in the universe, I feel that intelligent life will be far less common. Life appeared roughly 4,000 million years ago, but modern humans did not appear until 100,000 years ago, and civilisation did not appear until around 10,000 years ago. </p>
<p>You can see there is a massive gap where there is no 'intelligent' life. It also seems that are civilisation rests upon the brief stable climate and only within this window of stable temperatures could an agricultural revolution take place, and civilization begin. Of course different types of civilizations could form on other planets, but I think there are a lot of obstacles to the development of an advanced species that can communicate across the universe or galaxy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
