I've recently become somewhat obsessed with the fact that the Milky Way galaxy is about 10 billion years older than Earth, meaning any alien species may have been evolving a couple billions year longer than we have. If true, that pretty much demolishes any speculative projections we may have regarding what such aliens would be like. We're probably like a dog trying to understand algebra.
This is a great piece Andrew. I just completed an essay on this topic as well. It is certainly possible that an advanced civilization could be so far advanced that the very concept of Dyson spheres or resource accumulation is no longer relevant to them.
One counterpoint I might make, however, is that while those civilizations could exist, they are bound to the same laws of physics, presumably. They too face a struggle against entropy, a struggle to acquire energy, and so (unless our physics is completely wrong) they could see the universe in zero-sum terms.
Life on Earth was far more violent in the past because growth was mostly zero-sum. We only developed into a more peaceful state because we learned that growth can be positive sum. We still have vast resources of energy and matter to exploit; we can afford to think this way. A civilization able to cloak itself and traverse the cosmos with faster-than-light drives, however, perhaps cannot afford to lose energy to anyone else.
I'm not sure I'm convinced (in particular, I'm not sure if a small number of "defector" civilisations could overwhelm the enlightened ones), but I very much enjoyed the optimistic take, which is rather rare these days.
Really thought provoking - thanks for this one, can't wait to read your sci-fi novel in the future!
But is it correct to assume, that all kinds of intelligent life will have similar development trajectories/patterns in the dimensions of technology and society? It always feels like - no matter how nuanced these thought experiments are - that we always cling to "human experiences" to build these projections of intelligent life. What if, for example, emotions are drastically less pronounced? Wouldn't that change the societal dimension completely and thus "intergalactic behaviour"? For technology this is less nuanced, given that physics is physics. That's why I think we oftentimes end up with "humans with better rockets" as this is quite easy to imagine.
I've recently become somewhat obsessed with the fact that the Milky Way galaxy is about 10 billion years older than Earth, meaning any alien species may have been evolving a couple billions year longer than we have. If true, that pretty much demolishes any speculative projections we may have regarding what such aliens would be like. We're probably like a dog trying to understand algebra.
This is a great piece Andrew. I just completed an essay on this topic as well. It is certainly possible that an advanced civilization could be so far advanced that the very concept of Dyson spheres or resource accumulation is no longer relevant to them.
One counterpoint I might make, however, is that while those civilizations could exist, they are bound to the same laws of physics, presumably. They too face a struggle against entropy, a struggle to acquire energy, and so (unless our physics is completely wrong) they could see the universe in zero-sum terms.
Life on Earth was far more violent in the past because growth was mostly zero-sum. We only developed into a more peaceful state because we learned that growth can be positive sum. We still have vast resources of energy and matter to exploit; we can afford to think this way. A civilization able to cloak itself and traverse the cosmos with faster-than-light drives, however, perhaps cannot afford to lose energy to anyone else.
I like the out-of-the-box thinking, however.
On the point of self determination: isn’t this the “prime directive” concept in Star Trek?
I'm not sure I'm convinced (in particular, I'm not sure if a small number of "defector" civilisations could overwhelm the enlightened ones), but I very much enjoyed the optimistic take, which is rather rare these days.
Really thought provoking - thanks for this one, can't wait to read your sci-fi novel in the future!
But is it correct to assume, that all kinds of intelligent life will have similar development trajectories/patterns in the dimensions of technology and society? It always feels like - no matter how nuanced these thought experiments are - that we always cling to "human experiences" to build these projections of intelligent life. What if, for example, emotions are drastically less pronounced? Wouldn't that change the societal dimension completely and thus "intergalactic behaviour"? For technology this is less nuanced, given that physics is physics. That's why I think we oftentimes end up with "humans with better rockets" as this is quite easy to imagine.