Technological Adolesence

[puppychow]

**an old post from me from the FF forums. Been thinking about it lately, thought I would bring it here**

I have seen Stephen Hawking twice within the last 4 years. Both at the Kennedy Center in DC. If you can get past the robotic voice and listen to the message it is VERY interesting. I'm sure most know, but he is basically regarded as this generations Einstein: he was the primary source on true black hole theory and also the champion of a unified theory.

Anyways, his talks have become more and more dark. Pointing to the theory of technological adolesence. Stating in a much more obscure term than her ever could, the rationalle is as follows:

Humans are a relatively young society in terms of cosmic terms. There have been millions of other societies throughtout the universe that have matured past a point that we ever have. But there becomes a crux poit - a fulcrum - where the ability of technology to push a cilivliation to the stars is equally proportional to the ability to blow itself up and end the world.


His view is that there have been coutless societies out there in space but most of them do not, and cannot past the test of technologtical adolesence, again meaning the ability to destroy onseself if equal to moving past that point. According to Hawking to Hawking - That is why we have not been visitied - there are/were lots of societies older than humans who should have reached the interstellar travel era, but most societies don't get there, due to infighting, their own sects and religious factions (I believe it is innate for beings to believe in a creator - the problem arises when beings think their creator is better than others and war happens - earth anyone?)

So, basically this brilliant man is grim on our chances, and I think it makes sense. Think of the current middle-east conflict......what happens in 50 years when the equivilliant of the most powerful nuclear bomb in exsistance today, currently only deliverable through a massive rocket, and costly science in terms of money and effort is available in a backpack? Oh, and that ability WILL happen. When some crazy disinfranchised american/palestinian/russian/chineese - fill the blank there - has the ability to exterminiate socities with little effort of monetary resources? It's the end of everything.

And such is why Hawking proposes that space exploration must go forward. I can't stand when people say "omg all this $$$ is being spent on the space program when we really need it directed to social programs". Wrong. Rong Rong Rong Rong. Spece $$$$ and exploration is never for naught. Hawking is correct in his assumption that at some point that the earth is doomed, but if we have humans reaching out to the stars and populating them, maybe after our grave mistakes, we as a race could actually move forward.

But the earth IS DOOMED as long as people believe that Jesus>Mohammad<Jesus>Buddah(insert whatever theological deity you choose). If our basis of fighting is all about religion, a concept that is foolish at its heart, then goodbye earth. And maybe even because of secular causes as well (OKC Bombing).

[Tone-Loc]

So other societies have not visited us because we "are not ready." Is that the gist of this? I am pretty sure that Gene Roddenberry was preaching that as far back as the 60's... just watch pretty much any episode of Star Trek.

I find Hawking fascinating, and would agree with the "Einstein of our time" label placed upon him. However, I don't know if I agree that no society that might be out there would not announce theirself to us just because we are seemingly stuck on this teetering "fulcrum" of our societal development. I am of the belief that if we had proof and worldwide acceptance that there are other civilizations out there that a lot of our problems would fall by the wayside. And I am sure that some civilization that stumbled upon us would probably agree with that and would have the compassion to provide that proof to us, rather than watch us possibly kill ourselves and die out.

meh...

[puppychow]

no no no...

let me clarify.

he states there have been LOTS of other socities that have sprung up throughout the universe, and all go through technological adolecense - where it's quite easy to destroy ones self because of the awsome power of science and tech - and most of them fail that test, therefore most civ's do not make it to the point of being able to explore the stars in any extended fashion.

and we are getting closer and closer to this point ourselves is his point.

think when an extremeist of any religion can stuff his backpack with the largest nuke that we have today. the day when that is possible is not that far off.

Technological AD: An era where the ability to destroy your society through tech = the ability to push past that point, world conflicts are few, and interstellar travel begins.

[MidnightStalker]

While I deeply respect Stephen Hawkings and his works, he should stick to theoretical physics and not sci-fi.

[puppychow]

not really sci fi. science and philosophy have always been tied together.

you do not think the day is coming where suicide bombers now attach nukes to their bellies (and not dirty bombs as is possible to a limited extent now) in order of of several megatons? that science gets to a point where devloping a bomb like that is really easy to do? at that point no oversight from the un etc would even work.

[Tone-Loc]

I understand the gist of what you are focusing on, Pup. Thanks for clarifying that. I still believe in my statement, thought that was not your focus.

And to answer you question, I can absolutely seeing the suicide nuke bomber as a reality in the not-too-distant future... all the more reason why those who are working to bring about the apocolypse according to their own extreme view of their religion, should not be able to create their own or get them from anyone else.


Oh, and oversight from the UN doesn't work now, and never has IMHO.

[MidnightStalker]

Several Mt of explosives certainly isn't enough to bring the human civilization to an end. Devastating, yes. Regardless, I saw we should allow our species to die out. We are a worthless and ignorant species that exploits every other form of life. Image how perfectly stabalized a world would be without this race.

[puppychow]

true, but i guess i meant lots of "several mt's" :)

[Thrash]

Several Mt of explosives certainly isn't enough to bring the human civilization to an end. Devastating, yes. Regardless, I saw we should allow our species to die out. We are a worthless and ignorant species that exploits every other form of life. Image how perfectly stabalized a world would be without this race.
Would you include yourself in that definition?

I'm not trying to go "OMG YOURE PART OF US TO LOLOLOL" I'm asking do you genuinely feel the same when you consider yourself eliminated from the earth?

[MidnightStalker]

I am a human, last time I checked. So yes.

[Thrash]

Wouldn't be the first to condemn humanity but have too much of an ego to acknowledge yourself as part of the problem.

[MidnightStalker]

I thought I just said yes, or am I misreading/interpreting something?

[Thrash]

Actually what you're doing is being overly touchy about something. I didn't argue it with you, I just clarified why I asked. And the only reason I asked in the first place was out of curiosity, not out of spite.

[puppychow]

thrash, i got it, but on the thrird time - wasnt clear to the ave reader i think.

[leg]

Every year soceity (the world) pushes to change the world for the better in an attempt to acheive the a perfect and peaceful soceity (so it seems). Each year problems are solved but more dangerous ones arise. This is evident throughout history. As Hawking mentioned, our soceity/world will come to a point where one person can single handedly destory the world with a baseball sized bomb (anti-matter?). I think there is a way to prevent total destruction, but I doubt it will happen.

[Ignatz]

It isn't necessarily fanatics or people seeking to do deliberate damage that I worry about.

When Hawking says our potential for interstellar travel and our potential for self-destruction are proportional, I think of it more as a mathematical thing, hm how to describe this...

OK, imagine yourself walking from where you are to the other side of America. It would take a long time. Now imagine yourself driving in a car. It would take maybe three days. Your capacity for travel just increased by many factors, but the energy and force you used increased too. So much energy and force that you could easily be killed if you make just one wrong move. It doesn't have to be a crazy person jumping out in front of your car on the highway or leaving spikes in the road to cause car accidents. It could just as easily be a minor slip of the hand or some other tiny mistake.

Force = mass x acceleration, you know? It's a physical equation. Our bodies evolved to be able to handle the forces we could naturally generate, i.e. falling down when walking. People rarely die from that. But as the forces we can control go up, the consequences of our mistakes go up too. As the forces go way way up, enough for us to travel to the stars or enough to generate incredible energies from very small amounts of matter, the consequences of even tiny little mistakes could become catastrophic.

Consider the molecules in the air around you. Look at a nearby piece of furniture. I've heard it said that, if all the molecules in the air underneath a tabletop happened to move up all at the same time, the table would actually be lifted off the ground. This, of course, is a one in a multi-trillion chance, that kind of thing might never have happened once in all of human history.

The point is, though, that as we bring more and more forces into our technological command, the more we walk on the edge of a knife. Furthermore, the knife's edge only gets sharper and narrower, and the fall much greater if we slip. It could be that one day, it's only the random drift of a few atoms that unleashes enough force to devastate our planet. In fact, if technological advancement continues to rise exponentially, that scenario becomes all but inevitable.

[koruptid]

I assume Hawking realizes his theory is as much conjecture as any religion.

Regardless, I say we should allow our species to die out. We are a worthless and ignorant species that exploits every other form of life. Image how perfectly stabalized a world would be without this race.
Honestly, you have to be the most cynical person on these forums.

[Ignatz]

I assume Hawking realizes his theory is as much conjecture as any religion.
Actually there's no conjecture about it. It is a fact that humanity pursues technological advancement with no abatement in sight, and it's a fact that we already have incredibly destructive forces at our disposal.

Humanity will do one of three things: willingly halt the advancement before the forces become great enough to destroy us, survive long enough to expand beyond our planet, or be destroyed. There's nothing conjectural about that because there are no other options.

[puppychow]

Actually there's no conjecture about it. It is a fact that humanity pursues technological advancement with no abatement in sight, and it's a fact that we already have incredibly destructive forces at our disposal.

Humanity will do one of three things: willingly halt the advancement before the forces become great enough to destroy us, survive long enough to expand beyond our planet, or be destroyed. There's nothing conjectural about that because there are no other options.

ty for succinctly posting what i was trying to say. did it better than i was trying to.

[leg]

Yup, Smack is right and if MightnightStalker's truely believed in his statement he would not be living right now. Really, doesn't every living organism exploit some type of life?

[koruptid]

Actually there's no conjecture about it. It is a fact that humanity pursues technological advancement with no abatement in sight, and it's a fact that we already have incredibly destructive forces at our disposal.

Humanity will do one of three things: willingly halt the advancement before the forces become great enough to destroy us, survive long enough to expand beyond our planet, or be destroyed. There's nothing conjectural about that because there are no other options.
Oh, no, I agree with all that. I meant the "countless societies in space coming and going" theory. Sorry for not being more clear.

[MidnightStalker]

Yup, Smack is right and if MightnightStalker's truely believed in his statement he would not be living right now. Really, doesn't every living organism exploit some type of life?
Seeing how my death would not affect the overall functions of the human race, I would have to disagree.

Actually what you're doing is being overly touchy about something. I didn't argue it with you, I just clarified why I asked. And the only reason I asked in the first place was out of curiosity, not out of spite.I wasn't arguing either. I, too, was simply clarifying my answer.

Needless to say, perhaps a more befitting option, more in light of what Hawkings was talking about, is for a way for the human race to actually be able transport themselves to a suitable environment in another planetary system. Perhaps start anew, or perhaps contuining the endless bitching and violence until collapse or discovery of another suitable place to live. Perhaps my statesment about humans leaving Earth are objectional because your god may have stated that the Earth is ours and that we control all that is. To me, it's sounds a bit narcissistic. Cynicism or modesty.

[MV8]

Wouldn't be the first to condemn humanity but have too much of an ego to acknowledge yourself as part of the problem.


Algore...

[dys]

Even if every single species on the planet got along great, catastrophe is always a possibility. Asteroid, climate change, super volcano, etc.. That alone is enough to consider repopulating elsewhere whenever the ability to do so presents itself. We're talking about the survival of the entire human race. Now, whether or not that would happen before we blow ourselves up, which i think we are en route to do, I don't know.

I think by our own instinctual curiousity we'll continue to explore space and make it possible before the earth is gone. We're going to be on mars within the next 10 years. Purely conjecture on my part, but I think not long after we're on Mars we'll probably accept military and professional volunteers to colonize it. I really don't think it'd be that hard, once we're there. And not to belittle all of that, but in relation to the monstrous scientific possibilities some of you guys are imagining/suggesting, it's really not all that hard.

As far as those monstrous scientific possibilities go, i worry too. lol They will eventually become reality, and while I think that's cool and all, it's also very dangerous.

Two side notes, I think I would prefer the human species go extinct as opposed to oceanic domination where we have underwater buildings and cities and all that shit out of necessity resulted by overpopulation.

Way, way, wayyyy down the road the earth will be swallowed by a black hole that is in our solar system. So far away that it's not even worth worrying about, but at the same time kind of a sad note since our planet is as amazing as it is. Unless, of course, we're still alive as a species by then and have figured out how to put a cork in a black hole. :p

[Ignatz]

Oh, no, I agree with all that. I meant the "countless societies in space coming and going" theory. Sorry for not being more clear.
It's a little easier to understand where Hawking is coming from if you've read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

The Drake equation estimates the probability of any given star system giving rise to a civilization capable of communicating with us. Obviously a lot of the numbers are purely conjectural, but given the incredible number of stars in our Galaxy alone, even an exceedingly small result would mean there are many such possible civilizations.

Based on that, one would wonder why we have never seen evidence of any. Hawking is suggesting that the present predicament of humanity illustrates limiting factors that we may have disregarded or seriously underestimated.



Edit: Speculation on the limiting factor of species self-destruction is nothing new, though, to quote from the above article,The well-known astronomer Carl Sagan speculated that all of the terms, except for the lifetime of a civilization, are relatively high and the determining factor in whether there are large or small numbers of civilizations in the universe is the civilization lifetime, or in other words, the ability of technological civilizations to avoid self-destruction. In Sagan's case, the Drake equation was a strong motivating factor for his interest in environmental issues and his efforts to warn against the dangers of nuclear warfare. This was expressed by Sagan on the TV series Cosmos, which is where I first learned of the Drake equation.

[MidnightStalker]

It's a little easier to understand where Hawking is coming from if you've read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

The Drake equation estimates the probability of any given star system giving rise to a civilization capable of communicating with us. Obviously a lot of the numbers are purely conjectural, but given the incredible number of stars in our Galaxy alone, even an exceedingly small result would mean there are many such possible civilizations.

Based on that, one would wonder why we have never seen evidence of any. Hawking is suggesting that the present predicament of humanity illustrates limiting factors that we may have disregarded or seriously underestimated.

The Drake Equation applies to the star systems within Milky Way, not any given. Second, the intelligent life (wich, for all purpose, we'll assume takes a very long time to form) would have to have the same type of communication devices, or at least one's we're able intercept and decipher (and of course understand). For all we know, if there's intelligent life, they may have a more sophisticated and advanced form of communication via space that we may not be able to pick up (or simply made at different wavelengths we're not focusing on). The next factor that comes into play besides the time that has to occur for a form of life to become intelligent and able (and willing) to communicate is the time that is takes to relay the communications. Perhaps we may recieve a communication that we are able to decipher, but it will take a very long time to reach us by our standard of communication, and will take just as long to reply. By the time we will have made 4 successful exhcanges of coumnication, the probability of human life still existing on the planet are slim.

[Ignatz]

Whatever. To me, the significance of the Drake Equation is simply this: to illustrate that even if the rise of intelligent civilizations is an exceedingly rare event, the unbelievable volume of stars in our galaxy alone makes it almost mathematically certain that we are not the only one.

[MidnightStalker]

The requirements for life, as we know them, make it just as equal that we are.

[Ignatz]

What requirements are you referring to

Like i said, a lot of the numbers are speculatory. However, unless you believe that life on our planet arose ONLY because of a directing intelligence and not as a result of chemical reactions, then even if it was a one-in-a-billion chance, there have many many billions of opportunities for it to also occur elsewhere.

[Zogo]

I'd like my own planet. I think mormons get their own planet..

(and not dirty bombs as is possible to a limited extent now)

dirty bombs? have these even been proven to work? I hear them mentioned on the news 24/7 but most experts agree that it's just hype.

[puppychow]

forgetting about sheer numbers for a second, i think the question at hand, if you believe hawkins theory, is do you believe that all potential civs - from humanoid beings like ourselves in the rearby andromada galaxy to - whatever - super intelligent jellyfish like creatures on the planet Marklar in the 18th quadrant of the dinwiddie galaxy - go through trails and tribulations like humanity has?

That is - do most civs struggle through war, strife, jealousy, achievement, learning, terror like we do? Is that a walk of fire that most/all beings or civs go through? is it a template? or is it just us? Is it more like some yes and some no?

Hawking is inferring that the answer is it's kinda like a template - all (use all loosely) basically go through the same shit. I agree, but also wonder if we're being too human centric? But even after that thought, logic tells me that all societies struggle at some point.

It's delicious brain fodder really.

[Ignatz]

How could they not? The basic issue is, any civilization of discrete individual mortal lifeforms must come up against the same question: Who survives and who doesn't? All races, all religions, all nations, all communities fulfill basically the same function: to identify who is on your side and who isn't.

[dys]

I respectfully disagree, Smack. I think those assertions are based upon beliefs and things the way we know it, here on earth. The coolest thing about space and science fiction is that the possibilities are truely endless. As Tone referenced Roddenberry earlier, a lot of what we see in sci-fi eventually becomes reality, but a lot of what we've already developed orignated in someone's imagination. We cant bound the potentials of the universe by our own limited experience. I'm not about to write a mini sci-fi bit in here, but I can imagine beings of another form of life not being as segragated as we've made ourselves out to be.

[Ignatz]

I respectfully disagree, Smack. I think those assertions are based upon beliefs and things the way we know it, here on earth. The coolest thing about space and science fiction is that the possibilities are truely endless. As Tone referenced Roddenberry earlier, a lot of what we see in sci-fi eventually becomes reality, but a lot of what we've already developed orignated in someone's imagination. We cant bound the potentials of the universe by our own limited experience. I'm not about to write a mini sci-fi bit in here, but I can imagine beings of another form of life not being as segragated as we've made ourselves out to be.
that's why I said: "any civilization of discrete individual mortal lifeforms." Obviously, a civilization of beings that are immortal, or that are some kind of collective instead of individuals, would have different social development from us. However, any civilization of individuals as we know that concept would struggle with the desire for individual survival versus the survival of the species as a whole. I consider this a tautism.





Edit: "Tautism" means a logical concept that is proven, or can be assumed to be true, simply by the definition of its terms. "Three is one more than two" is a tautism as long as we agree on the definition of the values three and two. I don't mean to be condescending, for anyone that already understood this term. I was surprised to find that the word "tautism" is not included in any online dictionary I could find, though, so I felt I should explain it.

To me, the term "separate individuals" necessarily means that an individual being will always value its own existence. Not necessarily at the expense of all others, but enough that the tension between individual survival and species survival will always be a factor that must be considered.

[dys]

Gotcha, thanks for clarifying more for me. :)

[MidnightStalker]

wtf, tuatism isn't a word.

[Ignatz]

you're right. But tautism is. I just explained what it means.

[MidnightStalker]

Sorry, typo. I meant tautism.

[SithDrummer]

Just for the slight tangent, I've never heard of a tautism, I believe the word you mean to use is "tautology". But meh, doesn't change your point one way or the other.

[|RES|arod]

With our knowledge of the building blocks of life, the probability is essentially 1 that other intelligent life exists in our universe. I am talking hundreds of thousands of decimal places with repeating 9's. Carl Sagan gave rise to this very discussion on nuclear war and the possibilities of societies elsewhere that struggle with this issue. I posted it a week or so ago with a link to all 13 episodes of Cosmos. Earth is definitely on the highway to destruction considering our technological advances. http://youtube.com/watch?v=VuJ3Tjj40P8 All of humanity should be required to watch that masterpiece with Sagan.

This type of discussion is very intriguing. Just thinking about the enormity of the universe and other civilizations in the universe gets me excited.

[Zogo]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=VuJ3Tjj40P8

carl sagan talks like an agent from the matrix.