Re: starship-design: Re: Aliens, Why don't we see them?

[kyle <stk@sunherald.infi.net>]

L. Parker wrote:
> 
> The point I was making is that even though there aren't an infinite
> number of stars (and therefore a finite number of possible civilizations)
> the number is still large enough that assuming ANY figure for a percent
> of stars with star-faring civilizations, there would still be so many
> that we would HAVE to see some evidence somewhere. Yet we don't. 

Maybe we HAVE seen evidence...ever heard of "Fast Walker"? If not, I'll
explain it.

> I'm not
> concluding there is a paradox here :-), just that something is wrong
> with our fundamental assumptions about the frequency of life on other
> worlds. In any event I find it difficult to accept that we are alone,
> but observational evidence would seem to indicate that this is the case.
> 
> >>Social science on the other hand is not so cut and dried. You do not
> >>expect a group of whales to behave with human values do you? Or better
> >>yet, how about a bunch of lizards? And we are only talking about
> >>terrestrial species so far. If anything, the gap will widen for non-
> >>terrestrial species.
> 
> >Social science is for the biggest part based on survival, which is rather
> >straightforward.
> 
> >- If a species doesn't work together, they are not likely to be able to
> >  develop anything complex.
> >- Thus an important need to get a technical civilization is to cooperate
> >  in some way.
> >- Once having a technical civilization, you have two options when finding
> >  a similar advanced species: Kill or be friends.
> >- Killing will risk all you care for. (And you do care, since you are a
> >  cooperative species.)
> >  So you will only kill if you have nothing to loose.
> >- Thus the only option left is to be friends.
> 
> Well that certainly sounds logical but your fundamental assertion is not
> valid, therefore the remaining arguments, however good, are also suspect.
> You cannot base an analysis of anything (much less social dynamics) on
> a single sample. Which effectively speaking is what Earth's entire
> ecosystem is - a single sample.
> 
> As for the remainder of the arguments, they don't even hold for humans
> (just ask any student of international politics).
> 
> I hope this has increased your level of confidence. <G>
> 
> Lee Parker
> 
>                                                           (o o)
> ------------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo---------
> Long experience has taught me not to believe in the limitations indicated by
> purely theoretical considerations. These - as we well know - are based on
> insufficient knowledge of all the relevant factors."
> 
> Guglielmo Marconi