:) It was more that I kept getting sent the article by folks and decided doing an quick episode would be faster than replying to them all, of course 'quick' turned out not to be very quick. The paper is a good treatment.
"collapse is not synonymous with extinction then, it's just an alteration, usually to something tougher and stronger, except for when discussed by a historian who had a crush on the civilization under discussion, and dislikes the 'barbarians' who ended them." I just wanna say, as a #1 roman empire fanboi, I feel personally attacked by this relatable content
Scientist: "Mr. President, we've detected an incoming alien fleet!" General: "How many ships? How long until they get here? Mr. President, we need to go to Defcon 2!" Scientist: "Actually...they're invading the asteroid belt." President: "The asteroid belt? Why aren't they coming to Earth? Wouldn't they want to steal our water or something?" Scientist: "There's a lot more of everything they'd want out there in space. We did try to contact them and open negotiations. As near as we can tell, their return transmission translates as, 'Sure, there's plenty to go around...if you ever get out of that gravity well. Hehehehe. Suckers.'" And thus is ruin brought upon every alien invasion movie ever. :)
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the best channel on any media outlet. Seriously the quality of content coming from this channel rivals prime time television.
I'd only parse "rivals" when one could easily say "surpasses." I quit watching TV (including Netflix) a month ago and it may have been the best lifestyle change I've ever made. This guy helps keep TV out of my life.
The only show I can think of in recent memory that comes close was the new Cosmos. But even it was kinda held back by the necessity to appeal to a broader audience. Not that there's anything wrong with science content, in fact, I'd say we need far more of it, but it tends to only cover topics that're "old news" for the super-nerds which I'd wager are the majority of SFIA viewers.
"Planet Dweller" will, to the sorts of societies that will truly be colonizing a galaxy, have the same connotations as "Cave Dweller" does to our society.
@@MBKill3rCat that isn't "real" artificial gravity though, one would experience more Gs in one's feet than head. doesn't make for a very functional vascular system.
@@the_hanged_clown Coriolis can be minimised by increasing your diametre. On any reasonably-sized O'Neill cylinder, the coriolis will be negligible except for near the centre of spin, which isn't where most people will probably be spending most of their time
"It's under 30 minutes. For this channel, that is kinda short." is what I was going to say, until I looked at the lengths of actual recent videos... Eyeballing it, roughly half of the normal vids (i.e., not livestreams or the new channel trailer) have been in the 26-28 range... so... yeah...
I think what he meant by "short" was the prep time, not the video length; tho, he must have not realized that's not how most of us think. He drew extensively off his past videos and was simply refuting the current paper. It probably had a couple hours of writing time.
You know, this video got me thinking of something. I think that if we do eventually meet another civilization, it won't guarantee that all of a sudden the Fermi Paradox goes away, as we might very well also be the first civilization they meet. So the question will remain, where are all of the other civilizations, now that we at least have the knowledge that other ones can exist. Some interesting questions may arise, like what if the us and the other civilization are some freak occurrence. Maybe we find them by complete chance by stumbling upon one of their colonized solar systems one day, and we had no idea they existed because they spread out so sparsely, in small ships, so they were harder to detect, and weren't within radio range of us before we found them or something similar. Anyways, few things get me pondering about the future more than these episodes.
Agreed. Unless first contact is with a group of different alien civilizations similar to the federation from Star Trek, the fermi paradox still stands. But if the civilization we meet is intelligent, able to communicate effectively and also understand the paradox then it might be possible to trade notes with them as it were. Perhaps they have some solutions of their own that we hadn't thought of yet.
It depends a lot on the meeting, if the introduction is "Greetings! I'm Kre'zendanr, what you'd call an ambassador, though the direct translation is "He who speaks to vermin". What do you think of our Flagship, the Exterminator?" then you've probably got a solid FP solution there. Finding another in our own galaxy, but not very close to us, would indicate pretty strongly it was within an order of magnitude of 1 per galaxy but might be 10 in some or only 1 in 10 has one, we could draw some better guesses but the bigger your sample size the better.
Isaac Arthur - It also helps if you have better tools & procedures. A case in point is the “WOW Observation” which hasn’t been confirmed as artificial, because it occurred only once. SETI & other human attempts at communicating with aliens have almost always been broadcast only once, meaning that, if aliens use the same procedures we use, they couldn’t confirm our attempts at communication as artificial in origin, let alone as attempts at communication by intelligent beings...
On the other hand, the availability of data needed to solve the Fermi Paradox effectively increases exponentially with the number of civilizations with independent origins; you have more data points, data about the relationships between said civilizations (e.g. distances), and most importantly, improved ability to perform statistical analysis. After all, the Paradox is ultimately a statistical one.
Ah, the Drake equation. A useless formula you can only get a correct result out of when you already know the correct result, because most of its factors are derived from knowledge it is supposed to provide in the first place. Which doesn't stop anyone from drawing conclusions from it.
I am pretty sure he knew that. It is suppose to show the implications via the potential variables and what that could look like. If I am wrong than he is the dumbest Ph D in the world.
I heard about this theory earlier this week. As an avid fan of your channel, I was dubious from the start as the most likely habitats before starting colonizing nearby star systems seem to be artificial rotating habitats which might duplicate the homeworld's conditions. All a civilization needs is nearby stars with planets and other material, and if they have star-lifting capabilities, they would only need as much star system material as required to get starting building that infrastructure. Basically, each star is a potential colony with trillions of inhabitants capacity. Let's see what Isaac Arthur has to say about this.
My thinking too. Plus, who says the home world stops sending ships when the first wave are growing? Homeworld population will still have plenty of willing (or unwilling - think prison colonies) colonists ready to keep expanding. Just send a quick radio blip as you pass "Sorry guys, we're already headed there, you'll have to travel a bit further to the next resource rich system". Forget planets, just swarm after swarm of mobile O'Neil cylinders headed out into the void looking for new homes to orbit
I find it striking just how many proposed solutions to the Fermi paradox, like the one discussed here, rest mainly on a profound lack of imagination on the part of those who propose them. Fortunately, that is a failing this channel isn't suffering from.
It's a focus on different aspects of the problem. The paper specifically states that it's discussing the speed of settling planetary systems, and the intent is specifically to explain why Earth hasn't apparently been visited or colonized previously. Incorporating a failure rate parameter into galactic colonization isn't really something that others have approached before, so it's a novel means of modelling the problem. New approaches don't happen due to a lack of imagination.
@Blaine DeYoung The paper was explicitly and specifically about why we don't see current or recent settlements on Earth. Planetary colonization is the only kind that matters for that question. Meanwhile, pretending it isn't novel to talk about the survival rate of colonies is silly unless anyone can show a paper that utilizes the same concept.
You're being too generous to our friend Isaac there. His take on the Fermi Paradox also suffers from a lack of imagination, or as he prefers to call it here, confirmation bias. When discounting solutions, he usually takes two things for granted: 1) a coldly pragmatic, heavily automated civilization that sees stars as electric outlets; 2) an overpowering biological urge to grow and multiply. Either of these two traits might be the galactic standard, but I find it highly unlikely that they develop in tandem since they work at cross-purposes. Civilizations that utilize massive swarms of Von Neumann machines to gather materials and Dyson up their stars are unlikely to retain the base biological impetus to procreate and expand ad infinitum; going digital (or relying on AI) would make them far too rational for something like that - odds are they'd put limits on their ridiculous energy consumption instead. And vice versa, civilizations that remain crudely biological and multiply like locusts would gobble up the available resources and die out long before they reach K2 status. (Guess which one we are.)
@@SockPuppet80 Agreed on the most part. Isaac's biggest bias, however, is his "rare intelligence" view. He also contradicts himself several times across his videos, while evaluating different concepts -- like his takes on Machine rebellion and the Dark Forest. He failed to propose any reasonable arguments against the Dark Forest (which I'm still eager to find), forgetting every instance of such actions by hypothetical civilizations, he suggested in his episodes and himself described as plausible. Building Dyson swarms on its own, and even bragging about it in transmissions sent in every direction? That's ridiculously suicidal if even one civilization in our galaxy considers it a Dark Forest. By its rules it can be easily determined why establishing colonies in other systems is undesirable. Liu Cixin's hypothesis seems flawless at answering the Fermi paradox. At least so long as life is abundant in the universe. We should find out for certain in the next few dozen years.
You and your channel have come a very long way since the "Rascally Rabbit" videos. Subject matter has always been awesome, now graphics upgrades and a polished presentation make your channel pop out. Great work!
It's interesting to see that even scientifically molded mind can have low plasticity when it gets to discussions about future of mankind in space. We are still very much so shackled to the ground by chains of superficial analysis and/or lack of imagination. To place ourselves among the stars, we have to think big and out of the norms. Great episode Isaac, as always. See you at Thursday. :)
We're shackled by our inability to cooperate with one another. The Earth has plenty of resources, plenty of manpower and technology, and if the Apollo missions are a testament to anything it's that when we set a goal and all work towards getting it done.....it gets done. %100 of our problem is ourselves as humans unable to work together.
@@lionelmessisburner7393 yes exactly. The idea is that it's so rare for all of what happened to Earth to happen elsewhere that it's insanely unlikely that anything would produce stable life and, even in that instance, there's no guarantee it would lean toward intelligence. Ultimately, even if it did who says they escape nuclear wars and genocides that would completely annihilate their gene pool? One of our great filters is right in front of us now with the rise of the Post-Truth era and the lack of intelligence and critical thinking leaning a huge swath of our population into insane cults and genocidal thinking.
@@lylewood1762 I don’t think most civilizations would kill themselves off to be honest. Also we have no idea that other aliens are as power hungry as us. Life is likely somewhat rare. Yet I think there’s likely thousands upon thousands of civilizations in our galaxy atleast. But yea no ftl makes me believe this more
@@lionelmessisburner7393 Well, that is one of the great filters and we seem to be pretty good at it... I'd like to think our better nature will prevent it but we are continually tribal and we can't seem to grasp in/out group preference logically in tough situations. That said, I'll give you that, but we're well on the way to making our planet uninhabitable. Even if it's not climate change, we're destroying root ecosystems without adequately assessing the impact. Just yesterday I saw a crazy video where a bunch of researchers were actively trying to create swarms of little robots to pollenate because it looks very much like we're going to murder all the bees soon. As a matter of fact, we don't know if another great filter is right in front of us as well. It's a fascinating discussion, but the sheer volume of stars alone and the fact that we may not fully understand the potential avenues life may have taken to come about makes me lean toward your optimism. Though it may not be optimistic... If they come to us first that'll mean they're dramatically more advanced than us and, most likely, they're not coming to shake hands.
jason sullivan Yes, most of these episodes require your full concentration, so I don't watch until the end of the night. I just laugh when he talks about trillions of alien Astronomers with trillions of telescopes staring at us from across the galaxy, and aiming relativistic kill missiles at us. If you're a newbie, you will think this guy is fuckin crazy, or has done too much acid at first. It's totally different from the sci-fi I'm accustomed to. And I've opened my mind up to some very strange possibilities, just like that one. He would be perfect for the Joe Rogan show. Hopefully Oumoumua wasn't a warning shot!
Isaac, your videos are so full of wonderful ideas and thought-provoking content that I just want to crawl inside one and live there. Unfortunately, I now have to get ready to go out and live in our current world. Ugh. Thank you for all of the brief escapes into a hopeful future that you offer and thank you for not making them shorter. :-D
Evolution forged the entirety of sentient life on this planet using only one tool… The mistake. - Dr. Robert Ford (Anthony Hopkins), Westworld, Season 1: The Original
@@isaacarthurSFIA 😁 Like my old English teacher told me, make it the length a woman's skirt. Long enough to keep everything it needs to cover covered but short enough to keep it interesting
@Taiwanlight Believe it or not, it was also one of the most profound educational statements I've ever heard. (ie not one you forget and one that actually had a point.)
I actually think there's a fairly straight-forward and likely answer to the Fermi Paradox. Hear me out. It's hard to say for sure because we obviously don't have enough pieces of the puzzle yet, but I'd say that the following is most likely: Two factors contribute to our not seeing intelligent extra terrestrials (IETs) yet. 1. IETs are rare. We already have strong evidence that intelligent life is quite rare, if not extraordinarily rare. The longer it takes for us to find it, the more rare it is likely to be. For example, if there were several IETs already living in our galaxy, chances are some of them would be leaving traces, signals, detectable byproducts of their civilizations. Since we haven't found them yet, and the Fermi Paradox still needs an answer, IETs are probably very rare, as we are already observing. 2. Most IETs consider it unethical to expand indefinitely. Earth is currently in its population boom, but in 50 years or so, our population growth will level out and begin to decline at around 10-12 billion or so. We'll probably only hit that high 10-12 billion mark once, and never surpass it again. We're still thinking like expansionists when really we're not anymore. Wealthy countries already have birth rates well below replacement levels. Therefore, for the foreseeable centuries ahead, and likely the norm for civilizations more advanced than ours that still experience death, population tends to decline and will be difficult to maintain. Even if/when life extension technology takes off, an advanced civilization will probably consider indefinite expansion to be unethical, reckless, pointless, or far more trouble than it's worth. As we watch our planet suffer from our actions this century, we will ultimately become much more environmentally conscious and indefinite population growth will become extremely taboo. The norm for advanced IETs will be that of extreme care and balance over their existing environments. I've heard it predicted that a trillion humans will live throughout the solar system eventually. How can that be if we're already transitioning to an indefinite decline?
Mr. Isaac Arthur, you have the most interesting channel on RUclips. I love the quality of your content, and your voice is wonderful to listen to. Thank you for all your hard work.
5 лет назад
I am caught up with the older episodes now so I am always really happy when I see a new one pop up! thank you Isaac :)
In this video, Isaac Arthur spoke 1,333 unique words, and a total of 3,969 words in 1,459 seconds. This averages to 2.72 words per second. The word 'Fermi' was spoken ten times, while the word 'Aurora' was spoken three times. contact me for a full word spectrum and more info...
The problem with living in artificial habitats can be expressed in one word: maintenance. Structures, including our own bodies, the ecologies we live in, and literally everything we build needs to maintained. Small maintenance to keep systems running (reasonably) smoothly, and occasional replacements of entire structures which have failed (cf. kneecap replacement, for example) or are about to fail. Civilizations disturbed enough to go into collapse tend to slough off maintenance because it isn't an "immediate survival" issue. You're too busy keeping the Huns out of your gardens to keep up the aqueducts. It's possible we might build "artificial life" structures that do their own maintenance. (cf. "The Mechanic" by Hal Clement, Analog Magazine, September 1966) but if the disturbances are bad enough, it's possible to kill just about anything. And once you've killed your habitat, unless you have backups or other escape routes... We still don't have a good handle on the maximum lifespan of a civilization, and why that limit might exist. Just sayin'. Thank you for another superb and thoughtful episode. By all means, please keep 'em coming.
Except, you've forgotten how many of these cylinder pairs there should be... If you have ten million people (max) in a cylinder you're looking at trillions of cylinders for a full K2 level system. So there are enough of them that they will be being replaced continually. They will get old, people will build new ones, or move to newer ones. Sure moving house is a pain, but people do it all the time.
Why would it be a problem? its not like we now live maintenance-free, far from it. While nature supports us, true, we keep up very elaborate infrastructure, that wouldnt last a day without maintenance, before it would start to degrade. Only objective reason for struggling with, would be shortage of materials and energy, which isnt really the case, as long as settlement is in proximity of a star system. As for catastrophic failure, short of nearby star going supernova, there arent many. Perhaps our biggest concern would be ourselves.
One big question is birth rates. They keep falling everywhere. I don't think we'll see anywhere such a fast population growth anymore going into the future. Colonizing the galaxy needs a lot of folks. Like Jerry Seinfield would say, "Who are these people?" :)
You know, I went to archaeology college in my early twenties, and one of the things we learned was the fallacy of the ''myth of progression''. In other words, in our culture we have a ingrained believe that our society progresses to more complexity and that the past per definition has to be more primitive. To refer to Yuval Harari, the believe that the future will always be better is the bedrock of our capitalistic society. Without this myth our system simply does not work. However, as I mentioned a good archaeologist should know that this is simply a myth, because if you always are biased in thinking that the past is more primitive, you tend not being able to notice the complexity of, for example, a stone age civilization and you will overlook information. So what's the point that I want to get to? I think that the believe that a civilization will mostly likely tend towards constant growth and colonization is highly unlikely, and is a very biased assumption through our very narrow capitalistic perspective. Personally I think that any civilization that has this priority of exponential growth is going to ruin itself before it can fully escape its gravity well (this includes us). Secondly, we are already seeing that a society with such focus on material growth tends to hamper its own procreation, so the exponential growth will peak. Thirdly, I think that the most likely outcome of technological development probably tends towards efficient energy use rather than increased energy use. The reason for this is that the evolutionary step from being a planet-bound species to going interstellar is so astronomically difficult, that one can only survive this step if one learns to be efficient with their energy and resources. Once a species has gained the technology where it has virtual limitless access to resources and energy, efficiency will already have become a permanent part of their culture. At this point a species would have a very low priority of going out and exponentially colonizing the galaxy. To which I would like to add that if we look at ourselves we tend to underestimate the mental need we have for our original biosphere. We've never tested whether a human being can live the majority of their lives in a confound space such as a rotating habitat. And if you look at the current trends in modern society we are seeing that urban life causes a surprisingly high amount of unhappiness and mental disorder, but bringing people with these problems in contact with a natural landscape tends to be a great help and remedy. Human beings are animals that need a physical contact with our natural habitat, just like any other animal. The problem is that many people have never realized that they would benefit greatly from reestablishing this contact. If we can assume that evolution will follow the same rules for the rest of life in the universe, I think that many intelligent species would have a very strong physically induced nostalgia binding them to their original homeworld and that space-claustrophobia would be a really major obstacle for traversing the galaxy. So the conclusion that I want to reach is that I think that the Fermi Paradox is mostly a product of our bias towards the believe of exponentially growing civilizations due to our current capitalistic understanding of technological development. Ultimately, this specific understanding of technological development will probably not be the one that is capable of surviving the transition from being planet-bound to interstellar. And that we tend to underestimate the cultural significance of and mental need for a natural biosphere rather than a technological constructed one. Bit of long piece, but I would really like to start a discussion on this topic!
There is a certain amount of validity to most of your points. Personally (for example) I can't stand the "city". I am FAR happier when "amidst the trees", etc. However... the lifespan of our sun... IS finite. Therefore... (assuming that we survive long enough to face the demise of our sun), we had better learn to overcome each and every one of those hurdles. Thankfully... we still have a pretty long time to accomplish this.
I'm a bit late and not sure anyone will reply, but here it goes. The way I see it, if humanity survives the transition to postbiology, retains control, and the declining birth rates are similar to the declining death rates, our likely future is roughly what Isaac's "The Fermi Paradox & Virtual Worlds: Colonizing Inner Space" video is - that we will be one of those civilizations he describes that does it instead of massively colonizing the galaxy. On the other hand, if "birth" rates still decline, but the death rates do even more then the population will grow. If someone has a kid on average once every few centuries, but lives for millennia, the digital population will explode, meaning outside energy consumption and material utilization will rise. Virtual worlds, with enough design and processing power, can equal or surpass the quality of the natural world and meet that animal liking of the feeling of nature. Increasing energy efficiency leads to rising, not declining energy consumption. Look up the "Jevons paradox." The more efficient LED lights people are using instead of incandescent light bulbs will make climate change worse, not better, as long as the power is coming from fossil fuels. Similarly, I believe the Dyson dilemma is wrong because the infared waste heat is inefficiently being emitted at light speed to be lost forever. Instead, civilizations are going to try to halt stellar fusion and utilize more efficient forms of energy, possibly the Penrose process and superradiance in the short term, and then get the rest later through Hawking radiation in the long term. If there is too much energy and materials for anyone to want to utilize in the short term and they are instead focused on sustainability, instead of cutting back on consumption immediately many civilizations are going to want to go out and grab as much matter as they can for long-term use. The objective being to delay the heat death of the universe. The expansion of the universe is accelerating and if entirely natural processes are let to function, only the matter of the local group (merged into a single galaxy) will remain; all that matter and energy outside will go over the cosmological event horizon. The problem really comes in with the civilizations or entities that are effectively revisionist/revolutionary powers on a large scale - some of the ETASIs (extraterrestrial artificial superintelligence), especially the paperclip maximizers. The real question involving the fermi paradox is not "why haven't space opera aliens colonized Earth and the galaxy?" it's "why hasn't a postbiological civilization or entity reengineered a nearby galactic supercluster or our Laniakea Supercluster to meet it's goals?" especially considering the orthogonality thesis. Not all ASIs will want to take over the universe and many non-ASIs will many to also. Whether or not postbiological humanity - or alternatively, our usurper(s) to the throne - or most other postbiological civilizations or entities do is irrelevant as long as some do. We might share the nearest 1 million galaxies with 2, or 3, or maybe 5 others. But we probably cannot share it with 5000 as you get someone who wants to make a visible impact on the appearance of space, making it look unnatural. The higher the energy efficiency goes, the easier it becomes to do this. TL,DR; Natural environments can be simulated, postbiology might lead to declining death rates, higher efficiency means higher energy use (Jevons paradox), sustainability involves gathering and storing materials, rather than letting it drift away with the expansion of the universe (on Earth, resources are naturally fairly stagnant, but in the universe they decline without unnatural intervention), and some alien ASIs will have revolutionary objectives against the natural state of the universe that are not caused by the short-term profit motives of capitalism, and might be better managed. In summary, once postbiology taken into consideration, it's very hard to argue that it's anything other than extremely rare.
absolutely badass, props for mentioning my man Kim Stanley Robinson. His Mars trilogy books are what first got me into math and science way back in the 90's
I think given that a growing number of science writers think we won't be living in space inhabitants the problem is the size of habitats that does not mean we won't downloads ourselves
Since 1978 I have been transmitting a repeating signal out in to space that says, "We will find you. We will conquer you. You will serve as slaves to mankind." Good luck with your non-stop hypothesizing about Fermi's Paradox.
Excellent, as ever, Isaac. Took me a little more time to get my head round this one. Gradually watching all of your stuff as a great way of relaxing. Thanks for all the effort you put into it !
Is it so hard to imagine that the solution to the Fermi paradox is that, as with nearly every epoch we've yet had, we're in the first age in the grand sense. By our reckoning the universe is young and we are right in the pack with the rest of the species racing for the stars, and the reason we don't find the universe arranged in the way we would like to arrange it is because whatever force that has arranged it thus far is totally alien to our subjectivity.
Depends on the odds of civilizations being born and how long they've had to form, and we have wildly varying estimates on both of those numbers. It could be like someone several thousand years ago guessing whether or not other intelligent species existed, or them guessing whether or not other continents existed.
I think that only two possibilities have equal odds for being "the truth of it"... (1) All of the steps, from the formation of "simple life", to the evolution of "intelligent life", to the development of "advanced civilizations"... can only occur within a somewhat specific time frame (you know, give or take a million years or so). As such... the universe could be literally teeming with life, all of it being at roughly the same stage of development as we are ourselves... and that, the "signs of it" simply haven't reached us yet. If this is the case... once the "first signs" of it arrive... hold onto your hat... because "suddenly" we could be "bombarded" by signs of advanced civilizations coming from every direction. (2) It's just us.
As Francois Lacombe put it: *"I find it striking just how many proposed solutions to the Fermi paradox, like the one discussed here, rest mainly on a profound lack of imagination on the part of those who propose them."* I find that the Fermi Paradox itself rests upon a profound lack of imagination, thus its "solutions" tend to do the same. The solution is fairly obvious: the universe is *YOUNG* and *VAST.* It doesn't matter how much 13.8 billion years FEELS like an eternity, it simply is NOT an eternity. And even if there has been enough time for us to have been contacted, or our stellar neighborhood to have been plundered, that doesn't mean that there is anyone nearby who was interested in doing it. Even the idea of signs of civilization we can see from here is nearsighted hubris. It is assuming all of the following to be true: 1.) That even if a civilization can build a Dyson structure or Stellar Beacon, that they would want to. 2.) That even if a civilization can spread at some steady rate, that they would want to. 3.) That we are somehow so important to everything that it is impossible for lots of interesting stuff to be going on without us being a part of it.
It's an interesting notion that we could be the product of panspermia (artificial or natural [ie: amino acids on an asteroid]). If we are indeed "alien", we've adapted to Earth and have assimilated her very well. There is no flora or fauna that poses a danger we can not deal with using our technology and intelligence. There are few problems we can not solve. Most people have food, water & some form of entertainment/work/life activity. It's not incomprehensible to suggest we "could" be the product of panspermia as a result, however improbable it may be. To quote: "The universe is infinitely improbable"
I was just getting into this one when I heard a reference to KSR's book Aurora (Yeah. Seems obvious now). I'm 80 pages into the book and I don't want to chance any spoilers. Damnit! A bonus episode and I have to delay it! :-)
Oooh, you definitely don't want spoilers. Let's just say that book goes...nowhere NEAR the way the cover blurb would make you assume. And that's all I'm saying.
That comment on historians having a crush on an extinct civilization and thus, having a bad bias against the despoilers, is so accurate. Any person having studied in History know someone like that.
Hello Mr. Arthur, your videos are always well done, stimulating, and educational. One issue that I see with discussions about Space colonization is that it seems to assume that colonizing planets will be an important part of space colonization (and therefore that terraforming will be an important). It also assumes that that which is closer is easier to get to than that which is farther away. Your video include did a good job of addressing some of the problems with colonizing an entire planet and terraforming. However, I think an exploration needs to be made of how much colonization can take place that doesn't involve colonizing an entire planets. Which takes us to the second assumption. The idea that places that are closest to us are easier to get to than places that are farther away should be questioned. For the most part, and this is especially true when you have explored interstellar travel, the prevailing idea is to go to a specific spot and propel ourselves to it (although I think you did go over, say worm hole travel, and other alternatives). On earth distance wasn't always the main determinant that made travel feasible. For example, in the ancient world, with the right naval technology, you could get to places further away by water than you could by land. In some cases this resulted in naval based colonial systems (such as that of the Phoenicians). So if we set these two assumptions aside, space colonization may look like specific colonies, not necessarily close to each other, spread in specific spots of the galaxy (or even specific spots among different galaxies).
"Gravity wells are for suckers" but the SFIA ship Unity is still flying to stars. You just spent all that effort escaping the Sun's gravity well. The Milky Way has more Jupiter mass rogue planets than stars. There should be a larger number of Earth mass rogue planets. Rogue planets can accrete and retain deuterium and 3-helium. Rogue planets can retain asteroids and moons. Edit: Great episode, keep up the good work. Thanx for the bonus episode. :)
@@isaacarthurSFIA indeed. I do remember The Good Doctor Arthur mentioning the Kuiper belt and Ort clouds just might be the preferential places to colonize over any inner system efforts. And those seem to extend out to halfway to other stars, where that other star's belts start.
Yep, I agree. Once you have space habitats so good you can travel on them for millennia, you'd have to be a sucker to search out another planet to cling to as all they'd do is dock you movement points. After all, in our own solar system just getting into low Earth orbit gets you halfway to anywhere and the reason we like to be down here is that it is habitable in a way that can't yet be replicated artificially. For most interstellar colonization scenarios (bar seeding), however, we've solved that. If something like the Carrington event cyclically wipes out electronics in our neighbourhood we'd suddenly see evolution make a comeback in a big way. Over thousands of years only civilizations with Carrington-proof technology would prosper and expand. ;) I'm not quite convinced that we've seen the last of evolution yet, and evolution is in any case more about niche-filling than 'survival of the fittest'. If there is a niche to be filled you can evolve to fill it, even if the niche, and thus your species, are actually doomed in the short term - and that goes for evolving a culture to fill it as well (say, one dependent on electronics when perhaps that isn't a stable configuration for a civilization over the long term). We currently have a civilization in which traditional evolutionary pressures are no longer relevant - hereditary diseases are becoming curable, problems that would have spelt game over for reproduction are now manageable, and the health of society is thus increasingly technology dependent. But it's a recent enough development that I wouldn't necessarily be confident that it is stable yet. Plenty of species have evolved in seemingly ill-advised directions before only to have their arses handed to them eventually. Species like the poor dodo evolved in an environment without having to worry about natural predators and were doing just fine, until they weren't. A few million years from now we'll be able to say more convincingly whether we've really succeeded in replacing the logic of evolution with intelligent design (our own design, naturally ;)). I mean, I think that we probably will, but if you still aren't quite sure about leprachauns, well, this is much less clear cut than that... ;) There is also the iceball paradox to consider. From what we know now, subsurface oceans are a dime a dozen in the solar system, and likely throughout the universe. If life is common in any world with water then most should by rights exist in subglacial oceans. If that were true, however, *we* would expect to live in a subglacial ocean, because otherwise Earth is exceptional in a way not accounted for by the anthropic principle. Sure, even if life or intelligence is very unlikely, if we did not exist no one would then be around to ask the question. However if *Earth* is a very unlikely sort of place for life to develop, then we have a genuine freak on our hands. The jury is out on that, of course. We have yet to explore the other oceans in the solar system. But as much of a killjoy as it is, I think it's reasonable to surmise that they are probably all sterile for one reason or another. If they weren't... we would most likely be living in one. There are certainly things pointing strongly in the direction of rare Earth, with the questions starting to be how rare, and why rare? That doesn't upend the Fermi paradox though. If ultimately the sun is just a battery and planets are just building materials, "where are all the Dyson spheres?" is still a valid question to ask. Another question to ask is exactly how full would the solar system have to get before inhabitants would emigrate to another solar system out of necessity rather than curiosity? Another thing to bear in mind is that while for us several million years of divergent evolution may be enough to 'out-group' each other, that may not necessarily be the case for any intelligence. They may be more inclined to a charitable and inclusive notion of 'we'. Remember that we humans have a notion of 'we' that covers billions of vastly different individuals with differing histories, abilities and morphologies, something inconceivable for chimpanzees.
The ideas presented blew my mind many times (and made me think). This is my favorite episode in a long time. Plus you had equations (just like your early episodes from years ago). Yay! More equations please!! More math too, please!!!
Kim Stanley Robinson also wrote Icehenge and a few other earlier books which are great reads and also you can see the formation of things to come in the mars books
Cool entry Sir!!!!. Brings to mind so many memories of books and movies on the subject . From "forbidden planet "-to the made directly TV 1979 movie about us having colonized mars and then proceeded to make war with natives we later encounter. After a long war,we forget our past. It was obscure. Your work also reminded me "rendezvous with Rama" & another Arthur C Clark tome on pan-spermia( whereby galactic drones had found fertile locations in obscure destinations and corners of the universe. Excitement and disbelief engulf the world when the remains of o e of these dri e is found and studied. Lastly, your video harks to works such as A.C. Clark's non-fiction book on how we go about terraforming Mars or other candidates ; the deep space mining aspects from A L I E N... The trials and triumphs of farming and survival from "The Martian" ; The movie OUTLANDER w/Sean Connery, DUNE and just for posterity STARWARS. Thanks for the memories 🤝👏
Hello man, what do you think about Multiverse? Can we potentially jump into another universe? If our universe in not infinite, and have limited size, then maybe multiverse have infinite size and not limited. Maybe you can create video about this cosmological theory.
Issac Arthur: "You should generally expect civilisations to over time get better, not worse." 21st Century Western Civilisation: "Hold my spiced pumpkin latte."
1. Pumpkin Spiced Lattes are delicious. 2. Having a generation you dislike doesn't mean civilization is in decline. Neither does a bit of new competition. (Insert China ref) 3. Even if there was some sort of decline in the West, the world today is globalized beyond return and even if the US became authoritarian tomorrow, modern civilization would be relatively unchanged. Civilization is broader than society.
The "stay in space" thing is even more valid after the recent paper showing that Pluto and Charon have not experienced small impactors, and the implication that small meteorites common to the Earth and Moon are actually a symptom of our location and the asteroid belt instead of the previous assumed uniformity of such space debris. It looks like the safest place to be is anywhere that is not close to here, in more open space.
Question, would it be possible to use some sort of eugenics to stop our colonist mutating from our Earth form? I can't imagine the consequences of us colonizing all these worlds and just mutating rapidly due to the various environments. Edit: Now that I think about it that could also be why some aliens might not want to colonize others worlds, fearing there descents become to different which could lead to many issues.
'Protector' by Larry Niven, prequel to Ringworld; Stephen Baxter's 'Xeelee' series and his collaboration with Terry Pratchettt on the 'Long Earth' go into the genetic and cultural drift opened up by effectively limitless ecological space. The Pak Protector is a xenophobe driven to extreme solutions, the human hegemon fighting the Xeelee ruthlessly enforces its own view of what is human.
Awesome. I read that article and immediately thought, why do we care about "earth like planets" for colonization? I hope mainstream thought processes and political will catch up to the idea that we need to begin building a planetary cloud now. This of course means the first step is an orbital ring so we have a cheap way to get the initial people and material into orbit. I wish I could be alive when humanity begins building our first dyson swarm
two other bad things about colonizing planets is that it either takes more work than to create space habitats or the planet is amazing and our arrival would send many species into extinction.
I like the novel "Encounter With Tiber", which goes into the idea of aliens living among our ancient ancestors, and it goes into tremendous detail with the hard science of space travel.
Most likely the solution of the Fermi Paradox is rare earth hypothesis and that all civilizations all die at great filters and do not have a substantial space presence before they die from great filters. Like our specie is going to die or collapse to a state where no space civilization is possible, because of runaway global warning. Would love to be wrong but it seems that this will be solution of the Fermi Paradox.
This was exactly my beef with Aurora. Immediately abandoning colonization due to incompatible planetary conditions made no sense. And especially when the ship was describes as two rings on the same axis, why in the name of Bob would you not build in between those rings and make a big cylinder?! Quite a few other things made no sense either, but I might have forgiven those if it wasn't for the big one.
Im not sure what this Thursday you speak of is but, we've got something around here called Arthursday the most awesome and highly anticipated day of the week. Is that possibly what you mean by Thursday?
@@isaacarthurSFIA that's alright my fine fellow. You don't have to. We your loyal fanbase have your back! Keep up the good work, until then I'll be waiting with my Arthursday stash of snacks and drinks!! Toodles :P
When I wrote it yesterday I was aiming for 12-13, but the draft was more like 19 or 20 and then Mark and Darius added more, like so many of our episodes, an intent for brevity failed horribly :)
I would argue the fall of Rome set Europe back quite a bit, considering the kingdoms which followed in Romes place were rather ghoulish in comparison. grant it that time period wasn't long but it is proof that stuff isn't always replaced with a stronger version after it collapses.
I think we will merge with A.I. before we can reach the next star with anything other than exploration probes. And once digitized the safest place to continue on would be outside the galaxies near red/orange dwarf interloper stars.
The tougher it is to colonize planets and find suitable habitable biospheres due to their rarity or distance, the more likely it is that intelligent life will be found to exist, including humanity at some point in the distant future (or now if you are a sim argument fan) in ‘designed’ environments as opposed to environments resulting from naturally occurring evolutionary and geological processes. Astronomical observations of exoplanet atmospheres in next 20 years could be very informative on where humanity might go, and also how unique the earth is - or isn’t. Easier to resolve and even more informative: If creating crude lifelike molecules from non-living matter right here on earth continues to be elusive despite the diligent efforts of thousands of scientists, then not only could that substantially ‘resolve’ the Fermi paradox, it could also raise serious questions about the origin of all life anywhere.
"This paper is so flawed I need to break my release schedule to debunk it."
This is why we love this channel.
:) It was more that I kept getting sent the article by folks and decided doing an quick episode would be faster than replying to them all, of course 'quick' turned out not to be very quick. The paper is a good treatment.
"collapse is not synonymous with extinction then, it's just an alteration, usually to something tougher and stronger, except for when discussed by a historian who had a crush on the civilization under discussion, and dislikes the 'barbarians' who ended them."
I just wanna say, as a #1 roman empire fanboi, I feel personally attacked by this relatable content
I found this comment just as Isaac Arthur was saying these words 🤣
like cooler history then 😎
😳 😄❗
Scientist: "Mr. President, we've detected an incoming alien fleet!"
General: "How many ships? How long until they get here? Mr. President, we need to go to Defcon 2!"
Scientist: "Actually...they're invading the asteroid belt."
President: "The asteroid belt? Why aren't they coming to Earth? Wouldn't they want to steal our water or something?"
Scientist: "There's a lot more of everything they'd want out there in space. We did try to contact them and open negotiations. As near as we can tell, their return transmission translates as, 'Sure, there's plenty to go around...if you ever get out of that gravity well. Hehehehe. Suckers.'"
And thus is ruin brought upon every alien invasion movie ever. :)
And thus they take all the comets and asteroids and well be stuck in this solar system for what seems like forever.
Actually, that would make a great movie. Suspense would build up until the last 2 minutes when the aliens pointed out how silly we were.
That's basically the plot to _Manifold: Space_ by Stephen Baxter.
long before Stephen Baxter, Charles Sheffield had a story where our asteroid belt is already colonized by aliens.
inb4 99% of all matter in our system is in the sun.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the best channel on any media outlet. Seriously the quality of content coming from this channel rivals prime time television.
I'd only parse "rivals" when one could easily say "surpasses." I quit watching TV (including Netflix) a month ago and it may have been the best lifestyle change I've ever made. This guy helps keep TV out of my life.
The only show I can think of in recent memory that comes close was the new Cosmos. But even it was kinda held back by the necessity to appeal to a broader audience. Not that there's anything wrong with science content, in fact, I'd say we need far more of it, but it tends to only cover topics that're "old news" for the super-nerds which I'd wager are the majority of SFIA viewers.
Up there with a Ken Burns documentary, but weekly ).
Reminds me of the good old days on discovery channel.
Grimetime tv is the pits.
1:10 Mass effect said it best I think: "Just because it's a garden world, doesn't mean it's a picnic.".
"Planet Dweller" will, to the sorts of societies that will truly be colonizing a galaxy, have the same connotations as "Cave Dweller" does to our society.
only if we figure out artificial gravity. humans didn't evolve to survive a lifetime in freefall
@@the_hanged_clown We already have. Spinning habitation ring go brrrrrr.
@@MBKill3rCat that isn't "real" artificial gravity though, one would experience more Gs in one's feet than head. doesn't make for a very functional vascular system.
@@the_hanged_clown Coriolis can be minimised by increasing your diametre. On any reasonably-sized O'Neill cylinder, the coriolis will be negligible except for near the centre of spin, which isn't where most people will probably be spending most of their time
@@MBKill3rCat I'm no mathematician, but isn't that centrifugal?
2 long videos in 3 days? this is heaven!
long? (normaly the videos are 40-50mins long).. medium lenght maybe.. okay. but long? nah.
Also, my favorite, in the beginning of this video we get some math we can toy with
Isaac: "Short episode"
Video: [is 24 minutes long]
Futurists don't perceive time in the same way as most of us.
Short attention span huh?
@@jacywilson I'm not complaining, I just thought it was funny. :)
"It's under 30 minutes. For this channel, that is kinda short." is what I was going to say, until I looked at the lengths of actual recent videos... Eyeballing it, roughly half of the normal vids (i.e., not livestreams or the new channel trailer) have been in the 26-28 range... so... yeah...
I think what he meant by "short" was the prep time, not the video length; tho, he must have not realized that's not how most of us think. He drew extensively off his past videos and was simply refuting the current paper. It probably had a couple hours of writing time.
You know, this video got me thinking of something. I think that if we do eventually meet another civilization, it won't guarantee that all of a sudden the Fermi Paradox goes away, as we might very well also be the first civilization they meet. So the question will remain, where are all of the other civilizations, now that we at least have the knowledge that other ones can exist. Some interesting questions may arise, like what if the us and the other civilization are some freak occurrence. Maybe we find them by complete chance by stumbling upon one of their colonized solar systems one day, and we had no idea they existed because they spread out so sparsely, in small ships, so they were harder to detect, and weren't within radio range of us before we found them or something similar. Anyways, few things get me pondering about the future more than these episodes.
Agreed. Unless first contact is with a group of different alien civilizations similar to the federation from Star Trek, the fermi paradox still stands. But if the civilization we meet is intelligent, able to communicate effectively and also understand the paradox then it might be possible to trade notes with them as it were. Perhaps they have some solutions of their own that we hadn't thought of yet.
It depends a lot on the meeting, if the introduction is "Greetings! I'm Kre'zendanr, what you'd call an ambassador, though the direct translation is "He who speaks to vermin". What do you think of our Flagship, the Exterminator?" then you've probably got a solid FP solution there.
Finding another in our own galaxy, but not very close to us, would indicate pretty strongly it was within an order of magnitude of 1 per galaxy but might be 10 in some or only 1 in 10 has one, we could draw some better guesses but the bigger your sample size the better.
Isaac Arthur - It also helps if you have better tools & procedures. A case in point is the “WOW Observation” which hasn’t been confirmed as artificial, because it occurred only once. SETI & other human attempts at communicating with aliens have almost always been broadcast only once, meaning that, if aliens use the same procedures we use, they couldn’t confirm our attempts at communication as artificial in origin, let alone as attempts at communication by intelligent beings...
@Acid Trip F*** off, dumbass
On the other hand, the availability of data needed to solve the Fermi Paradox effectively increases exponentially with the number of civilizations with independent origins; you have more data points, data about the relationships between said civilizations (e.g. distances), and most importantly, improved ability to perform statistical analysis. After all, the Paradox is ultimately a statistical one.
Ah, the Drake equation. A useless formula you can only get a correct result out of when you already know the correct result, because most of its factors are derived from knowledge it is supposed to provide in the first place. Which doesn't stop anyone from drawing conclusions from it.
It's useful for outlining the complexity of the question. But beyond that yeah, it's a conversation reference point more than anything else.
I am pretty sure he knew that. It is suppose to show the implications via the potential variables and what that could look like. If I am wrong than he is the dumbest Ph D in the world.
It's just a way to frame the problem/question
69 upvote gang HOLDDDDD!
Woah, that's a lot of thumbs. I did not expect that.
I heard about this theory earlier this week. As an avid fan of your channel, I was dubious from the start as the most likely habitats before starting colonizing nearby star systems seem to be artificial rotating habitats which might duplicate the homeworld's conditions. All a civilization needs is nearby stars with planets and other material, and if they have star-lifting capabilities, they would only need as much star system material as required to get starting building that infrastructure. Basically, each star is a potential colony with trillions of inhabitants capacity.
Let's see what Isaac Arthur has to say about this.
My thinking too. Plus, who says the home world stops sending ships when the first wave are growing? Homeworld population will still have plenty of willing (or unwilling - think prison colonies) colonists ready to keep expanding. Just send a quick radio blip as you pass "Sorry guys, we're already headed there, you'll have to travel a bit further to the next resource rich system". Forget planets, just swarm after swarm of mobile O'Neil cylinders headed out into the void looking for new homes to orbit
I find it striking just how many proposed solutions to the Fermi paradox, like the one discussed here, rest mainly on a profound lack of imagination on the part of those who propose them. Fortunately, that is a failing this channel isn't suffering from.
It's a focus on different aspects of the problem. The paper specifically states that it's discussing the speed of settling planetary systems, and the intent is specifically to explain why Earth hasn't apparently been visited or colonized previously. Incorporating a failure rate parameter into galactic colonization isn't really something that others have approached before, so it's a novel means of modelling the problem. New approaches don't happen due to a lack of imagination.
@Blaine DeYoung The paper was explicitly and specifically about why we don't see current or recent settlements on Earth. Planetary colonization is the only kind that matters for that question. Meanwhile, pretending it isn't novel to talk about the survival rate of colonies is silly unless anyone can show a paper that utilizes the same concept.
@Blaine DeYoung Failure rate as a factor is new, not planets. Read what he actually wrote dude.
You're being too generous to our friend Isaac there. His take on the Fermi Paradox also suffers from a lack of imagination, or as he prefers to call it here, confirmation bias. When discounting solutions, he usually takes two things for granted: 1) a coldly pragmatic, heavily automated civilization that sees stars as electric outlets; 2) an overpowering biological urge to grow and multiply. Either of these two traits might be the galactic standard, but I find it highly unlikely that they develop in tandem since they work at cross-purposes.
Civilizations that utilize massive swarms of Von Neumann machines to gather materials and Dyson up their stars are unlikely to retain the base biological impetus to procreate and expand ad infinitum; going digital (or relying on AI) would make them far too rational for something like that - odds are they'd put limits on their ridiculous energy consumption instead.
And vice versa, civilizations that remain crudely biological and multiply like locusts would gobble up the available resources and die out long before they reach K2 status. (Guess which one we are.)
@@SockPuppet80 Agreed on the most part. Isaac's biggest bias, however, is his "rare intelligence" view. He also contradicts himself several times across his videos, while evaluating different concepts -- like his takes on Machine rebellion and the Dark Forest. He failed to propose any reasonable arguments against the Dark Forest (which I'm still eager to find), forgetting every instance of such actions by hypothetical civilizations, he suggested in his episodes and himself described as plausible.
Building Dyson swarms on its own, and even bragging about it in transmissions sent in every direction? That's ridiculously suicidal if even one civilization in our galaxy considers it a Dark Forest.
By its rules it can be easily determined why establishing colonies in other systems is undesirable.
Liu Cixin's hypothesis seems flawless at answering the Fermi paradox. At least so long as life is abundant in the universe. We should find out for certain in the next few dozen years.
An early SFIA episode?! And a Fermi Paradox episode too, thanks for making my Sundarthursday!
You and your channel have come a very long way since the "Rascally Rabbit" videos. Subject matter has always been awesome, now graphics upgrades and a polished presentation make your channel pop out. Great work!
My library recently purchased 3D printers. Do I print an orbital ring or a paperclip optimizer?
Another 3d printer of course!
@lifesentence If were gonna talk about food then it's gotta be the cloning machine from ATHF. I want brownies monsters.
Would save having to wait in line. But the Paper clip machine would speed up redevelopment
of the city's downtown.
Print the Clipifier!
Death star
It's interesting to see that even scientifically molded mind can have low plasticity when it gets to discussions about future of mankind in space. We are still very much so shackled to the ground by chains of superficial analysis and/or lack of imagination. To place ourselves among the stars, we have to think big and out of the norms.
Great episode Isaac, as always. See you at Thursday. :)
it's exactly those minds that have more constraints
We're shackled by our inability to cooperate with one another. The Earth has plenty of resources, plenty of manpower and technology, and if the Apollo missions are a testament to anything it's that when we set a goal and all work towards getting it done.....it gets done. %100 of our problem is ourselves as humans unable to work together.
a drink, a sandwich and an Isaac Arthur Video - great way to pass lunch hour!
A Drink, Some biscuits and gravy and Isaac Arthur. It has been a good Sunday.
Thanks so much for the bonus episode, Isaac! Your Fermi Paradox vids are by far my favorites.
Please keep up the amazing work.
Coupling "Rare Earth" with "Rare Intelligence" filters... I tend to lean toward these and, frankly, I think this is really on point.
And these don’t usually mean no aliens, just more like a couple 10000 civilizations in our galaxy. This is believable since ftl isn’t likely possible
@@lionelmessisburner7393 yes exactly. The idea is that it's so rare for all of what happened to Earth to happen elsewhere that it's insanely unlikely that anything would produce stable life and, even in that instance, there's no guarantee it would lean toward intelligence. Ultimately, even if it did who says they escape nuclear wars and genocides that would completely annihilate their gene pool? One of our great filters is right in front of us now with the rise of the Post-Truth era and the lack of intelligence and critical thinking leaning a huge swath of our population into insane cults and genocidal thinking.
@@lylewood1762 I don’t think most civilizations would kill themselves off to be honest. Also we have no idea that other aliens are as power hungry as us. Life is likely somewhat rare. Yet I think there’s likely thousands upon thousands of civilizations in our galaxy atleast. But yea no ftl makes me believe this more
@@lionelmessisburner7393 Well, that is one of the great filters and we seem to be pretty good at it... I'd like to think our better nature will prevent it but we are continually tribal and we can't seem to grasp in/out group preference logically in tough situations. That said, I'll give you that, but we're well on the way to making our planet uninhabitable. Even if it's not climate change, we're destroying root ecosystems without adequately assessing the impact.
Just yesterday I saw a crazy video where a bunch of researchers were actively trying to create swarms of little robots to pollenate because it looks very much like we're going to murder all the bees soon.
As a matter of fact, we don't know if another great filter is right in front of us as well.
It's a fascinating discussion, but the sheer volume of stars alone and the fact that we may not fully understand the potential avenues life may have taken to come about makes me lean toward your optimism.
Though it may not be optimistic... If they come to us first that'll mean they're dramatically more advanced than us and, most likely, they're not coming to shake hands.
A Sunday upload? Now what are all the "Happy Arthursday" commenters going to do?
Happy Arthursunday!!! How's that??!!
sunthurday duh!
Uhhh happy sunsac? Lol
@@DrogoBaggins987 I like your response better than mine lmao
Watch these vids for Arthurternity
Isaac your videos are just so damn enjoyable. The content and your voice is just so relaxing.
Brian
Yeah I use them for sleep. Still haven't gotten all the way through the panspermia episode and I've cued it up like 8 times.
I enjoy listening to him on my drive to work and home. Any other time too much background noise to truly appreciate his voice.
jason sullivan
Yes, most of these episodes require your full concentration, so I don't watch until the end of the night. I just laugh when he talks about trillions of alien Astronomers with trillions of telescopes staring at us from across the galaxy, and aiming relativistic kill missiles at us. If you're a newbie, you will think this guy is fuckin crazy, or has done too much acid at first. It's totally different from the sci-fi I'm accustomed to. And I've opened my mind up to some very strange possibilities, just like that one. He would be perfect for the Joe Rogan show. Hopefully Oumoumua wasn't a warning shot!
@@TotalyRandomUsername lol i had to watch clarktech 4 times until i didnt fall asleep and got the whole episode
Isaac, your videos are so full of wonderful ideas and thought-provoking content that I just want to crawl inside one and live there. Unfortunately, I now have to get ready to go out and live in our current world. Ugh. Thank you for all of the brief escapes into a hopeful future that you offer and thank you for not making them shorter. :-D
What a pleasant surprise! Just when I finished studying for my chemistry finals!
"When you master transmutation, send me riches!" - Ben "Top Alchemist" Franklin
Evolution forged the entirety of sentient life on this planet using only one tool… The mistake.
- Dr. Robert Ford (Anthony Hopkins), Westworld, Season 1: The Original
Oops, I think instead of springing ahead 1 hour, I sprang ahead 97.
Did you contract while so moving so fast?
Yep
Short.... 30 minutes. I love this channel
25... but I'd meant to do 12 or 13 when I started writing yesterday :)
@@isaacarthurSFIA 😁
Like my old English teacher told me, make it the length a woman's skirt. Long enough to keep everything it needs to cover covered but short enough to keep it interesting
@Taiwanlight Teacher was a she.
But yeah, it was about 25 years ago
@Taiwanlight Believe it or not, it was also one of the most profound educational statements I've ever heard. (ie not one you forget and one that actually had a point.)
It's a Monday for me (New Zealand). Great to have a bonus episode!
Thanks mate. Pretty awful here today.
Arthsunsday? I don't know what to call these magical days, it isn't Arthursday and we're getting a new SFIA! how delightful.
I actually think there's a fairly straight-forward and likely answer to the Fermi Paradox. Hear me out. It's hard to say for sure because we obviously don't have enough pieces of the puzzle yet, but I'd say that the following is most likely: Two factors contribute to our not seeing intelligent extra terrestrials (IETs) yet.
1. IETs are rare. We already have strong evidence that intelligent life is quite rare, if not extraordinarily rare. The longer it takes for us to find it, the more rare it is likely to be. For example, if there were several IETs already living in our galaxy, chances are some of them would be leaving traces, signals, detectable byproducts of their civilizations. Since we haven't found them yet, and the Fermi Paradox still needs an answer, IETs are probably very rare, as we are already observing.
2. Most IETs consider it unethical to expand indefinitely. Earth is currently in its population boom, but in 50 years or so, our population growth will level out and begin to decline at around 10-12 billion or so. We'll probably only hit that high 10-12 billion mark once, and never surpass it again. We're still thinking like expansionists when really we're not anymore. Wealthy countries already have birth rates well below replacement levels. Therefore, for the foreseeable centuries ahead, and likely the norm for civilizations more advanced than ours that still experience death, population tends to decline and will be difficult to maintain. Even if/when life extension technology takes off, an advanced civilization will probably consider indefinite expansion to be unethical, reckless, pointless, or far more trouble than it's worth. As we watch our planet suffer from our actions this century, we will ultimately become much more environmentally conscious and indefinite population growth will become extremely taboo. The norm for advanced IETs will be that of extreme care and balance over their existing environments. I've heard it predicted that a trillion humans will live throughout the solar system eventually. How can that be if we're already transitioning to an indefinite decline?
Clarketech! Civilizations at the end of Time: Dying Stars! Im so excited!
What is this? A gift from Sir Arthur? This makes me quite happy! Thank you good sir!
Isaac. Have a nice Sunday . Wish me luck I am going through stressful period of my life. Your voice helps ..
Good luck Besiktas. I am also going through a very tough patch in my life. Sending you my thoughts.
Benjamin Crom Thanks buddy. Hang on there and be calm and patient . Just remind yourself it will pass..
Mr. Isaac Arthur, you have the most interesting channel on RUclips. I love the quality of your content, and your voice is wonderful to listen to. Thank you for all your hard work.
I am caught up with the older episodes now so I am always really happy when I see a new one pop up! thank you Isaac :)
In this video, Isaac Arthur spoke 1,333 unique words, and a total of 3,969
words in 1,459 seconds. This averages to 2.72 words per second. The word
'Fermi' was spoken ten times, while the word 'Aurora' was spoken three times.
contact me for a full word spectrum and more info...
The problem with living in artificial habitats can be expressed in one word: maintenance. Structures, including our own bodies, the ecologies we live in, and literally everything we build needs to maintained. Small maintenance to keep systems running (reasonably) smoothly, and occasional replacements of entire structures which have failed (cf. kneecap replacement, for example) or are about to fail.
Civilizations disturbed enough to go into collapse tend to slough off maintenance because it isn't an "immediate survival" issue. You're too busy keeping the Huns out of your gardens to keep up the aqueducts. It's possible we might build "artificial life" structures that do their own maintenance. (cf. "The Mechanic" by Hal Clement, Analog Magazine, September 1966) but if the disturbances are bad enough, it's possible to kill just about anything. And once you've killed your habitat, unless you have backups or other escape routes... We still don't have a good handle on the maximum lifespan of a civilization, and why that limit might exist.
Just sayin'. Thank you for another superb and thoughtful episode. By all means, please keep 'em coming.
Except, you've forgotten how many of these cylinder pairs there should be... If you have ten million people (max) in a cylinder you're looking at trillions of cylinders for a full K2 level system. So there are enough of them that they will be being replaced continually. They will get old, people will build new ones, or move to newer ones. Sure moving house is a pain, but people do it all the time.
I'd expect any group capable of making space habits would also have the design such that it would be maintained by itself via an army of robots..
Why would it be a problem? its not like we now live maintenance-free, far from it. While nature supports us, true, we keep up very elaborate infrastructure, that wouldnt last a day without maintenance, before it would start to degrade. Only objective reason for struggling with, would be shortage of materials and energy, which isnt really the case, as long as settlement is in proximity of a star system.
As for catastrophic failure, short of nearby star going supernova, there arent many. Perhaps our biggest concern would be ourselves.
Human using robots to perform inspection is probably a fun sport in the future. Robots... man.. Robots. Perfect maintenance buddies.
One big question is birth rates. They keep falling everywhere. I don't think we'll see anywhere such a fast population growth anymore going into the future. Colonizing the galaxy needs a lot of folks. Like Jerry Seinfield would say, "Who are these people?" :)
Lower taxes.
Yet another masterclass? You are a dynamo. Thank you, Isaac Arthur.
You know, I went to archaeology college in my early twenties, and one of the things we learned was the fallacy of the ''myth of progression''. In other words, in our culture we have a ingrained believe that our society progresses to more complexity and that the past per definition has to be more primitive. To refer to Yuval Harari, the believe that the future will always be better is the bedrock of our capitalistic society. Without this myth our system simply does not work. However, as I mentioned a good archaeologist should know that this is simply a myth, because if you always are biased in thinking that the past is more primitive, you tend not being able to notice the complexity of, for example, a stone age civilization and you will overlook information.
So what's the point that I want to get to? I think that the believe that a civilization will mostly likely tend towards constant growth and colonization is highly unlikely, and is a very biased assumption through our very narrow capitalistic perspective. Personally I think that any civilization that has this priority of exponential growth is going to ruin itself before it can fully escape its gravity well (this includes us). Secondly, we are already seeing that a society with such focus on material growth tends to hamper its own procreation, so the exponential growth will peak.
Thirdly, I think that the most likely outcome of technological development probably tends towards efficient energy use rather than increased energy use. The reason for this is that the evolutionary step from being a planet-bound species to going interstellar is so astronomically difficult, that one can only survive this step if one learns to be efficient with their energy and resources. Once a species has gained the technology where it has virtual limitless access to resources and energy, efficiency will already have become a permanent part of their culture. At this point a species would have a very low priority of going out and exponentially colonizing the galaxy.
To which I would like to add that if we look at ourselves we tend to underestimate the mental need we have for our original biosphere. We've never tested whether a human being can live the majority of their lives in a confound space such as a rotating habitat. And if you look at the current trends in modern society we are seeing that urban life causes a surprisingly high amount of unhappiness and mental disorder, but bringing people with these problems in contact with a natural landscape tends to be a great help and remedy. Human beings are animals that need a physical contact with our natural habitat, just like any other animal. The problem is that many people have never realized that they would benefit greatly from reestablishing this contact. If we can assume that evolution will follow the same rules for the rest of life in the universe, I think that many intelligent species would have a very strong physically induced nostalgia binding them to their original homeworld and that space-claustrophobia would be a really major obstacle for traversing the galaxy.
So the conclusion that I want to reach is that I think that the Fermi Paradox is mostly a product of our bias towards the believe of exponentially growing civilizations due to our current capitalistic understanding of technological development. Ultimately, this specific understanding of technological development will probably not be the one that is capable of surviving the transition from being planet-bound to interstellar. And that we tend to underestimate the cultural significance of and mental need for a natural biosphere rather than a technological constructed one.
Bit of long piece, but I would really like to start a discussion on this topic!
There is a certain amount of validity to most of your points.
Personally (for example) I can't stand the "city". I am FAR happier when "amidst the trees", etc.
However... the lifespan of our sun... IS finite. Therefore... (assuming that we survive long enough to face the demise of our sun), we had better learn to overcome each and every one of those hurdles.
Thankfully... we still have a pretty long time to accomplish this.
I'm a bit late and not sure anyone will reply, but here it goes. The way I see it, if humanity survives the transition to postbiology, retains control, and the declining birth rates are similar to the declining death rates, our likely future is roughly what Isaac's "The Fermi Paradox & Virtual Worlds: Colonizing Inner Space" video is - that we will be one of those civilizations he describes that does it instead of massively colonizing the galaxy. On the other hand, if "birth" rates still decline, but the death rates do even more then the population will grow. If someone has a kid on average once every few centuries, but lives for millennia, the digital population will explode, meaning outside energy consumption and material utilization will rise. Virtual worlds, with enough design and processing power, can equal or surpass the quality of the natural world and meet that animal liking of the feeling of nature.
Increasing energy efficiency leads to rising, not declining energy consumption. Look up the "Jevons paradox." The more efficient LED lights people are using instead of incandescent light bulbs will make climate change worse, not better, as long as the power is coming from fossil fuels. Similarly, I believe the Dyson dilemma is wrong because the infared waste heat is inefficiently being emitted at light speed to be lost forever. Instead, civilizations are going to try to halt stellar fusion and utilize more efficient forms of energy, possibly the Penrose process and superradiance in the short term, and then get the rest later through Hawking radiation in the long term.
If there is too much energy and materials for anyone to want to utilize in the short term and they are instead focused on sustainability, instead of cutting back on consumption immediately many civilizations are going to want to go out and grab as much matter as they can for long-term use. The objective being to delay the heat death of the universe. The expansion of the universe is accelerating and if entirely natural processes are let to function, only the matter of the local group (merged into a single galaxy) will remain; all that matter and energy outside will go over the cosmological event horizon.
The problem really comes in with the civilizations or entities that are effectively revisionist/revolutionary powers on a large scale - some of the ETASIs (extraterrestrial artificial superintelligence), especially the paperclip maximizers. The real question involving the fermi paradox is not "why haven't space opera aliens colonized Earth and the galaxy?" it's "why hasn't a postbiological civilization or entity reengineered a nearby galactic supercluster or our Laniakea Supercluster to meet it's goals?" especially considering the orthogonality thesis. Not all ASIs will want to take over the universe and many non-ASIs will many to also. Whether or not postbiological humanity - or alternatively, our usurper(s) to the throne - or most other postbiological civilizations or entities do is irrelevant as long as some do.
We might share the nearest 1 million galaxies with 2, or 3, or maybe 5 others. But we probably cannot share it with 5000 as you get someone who wants to make a visible impact on the appearance of space, making it look unnatural. The higher the energy efficiency goes, the easier it becomes to do this.
TL,DR; Natural environments can be simulated, postbiology might lead to declining death rates, higher efficiency means higher energy use (Jevons paradox), sustainability involves gathering and storing materials, rather than letting it drift away with the expansion of the universe (on Earth, resources are naturally fairly stagnant, but in the universe they decline without unnatural intervention), and some alien ASIs will have revolutionary objectives against the natural state of the universe that are not caused by the short-term profit motives of capitalism, and might be better managed. In summary, once postbiology taken into consideration, it's very hard to argue that it's anything other than extremely rare.
Always nice to get an extra episode of SFIA.
In parallel universe I make videos about vegetables and Isaac Arthur watches every episode.
Dude! Thank you!! Arthusday on a Sunday! So awesome. AND! Fermi Paradox!! My favorite topic here on SFIA! Weekend is complete now.
Finally finished KSR's Aurora! Now I get to watch the whole video!
A thorough, thoughtful, calm and subtly savage debunking as only Isaac can do.
I hit like before I listen because I know it’s gonna be good.
You mean Assume rather than Know? Isaac may just once do a duff vid .... Call it a Lepricorn Video if you will ;0)
absolutely badass, props for mentioning my man Kim Stanley Robinson. His Mars trilogy books are what first got me into math and science way back in the 90's
I think given that a growing number of science writers think we won't be living in space inhabitants the problem is the size of habitats that does not mean we won't downloads ourselves
Since 1978 I have been transmitting a repeating signal out in to space that says, "We will find you. We will conquer you. You will serve as slaves to mankind."
Good luck with your non-stop hypothesizing about Fermi's Paradox.
New video is a great way to end my birthday. Thanks for that!
Excellent, as ever, Isaac. Took me a little more time to get my head round this one. Gradually watching all of your stuff as a great way of relaxing. Thanks for all the effort you put into it !
We could start terraforming Earth!
Same problem as Martian geology.
We are terraforming it already.
Is it so hard to imagine that the solution to the Fermi paradox is that, as with nearly every epoch we've yet had, we're in the first age in the grand sense. By our reckoning the universe is young and we are right in the pack with the rest of the species racing for the stars, and the reason we don't find the universe arranged in the way we would like to arrange it is because whatever force that has arranged it thus far is totally alien to our subjectivity.
Depends on the odds of civilizations being born and how long they've had to form, and we have wildly varying estimates on both of those numbers. It could be like someone several thousand years ago guessing whether or not other intelligent species existed, or them guessing whether or not other continents existed.
I think that only two possibilities have equal odds for being "the truth of it"...
(1)
All of the steps, from the formation of "simple life", to the evolution of "intelligent life", to the development of "advanced civilizations"... can only occur within a somewhat specific time frame (you know, give or take a million years or so).
As such... the universe could be literally teeming with life, all of it being at roughly the same stage of development as we are ourselves... and that, the "signs of it" simply haven't reached us yet.
If this is the case... once the "first signs" of it arrive... hold onto your hat... because "suddenly" we could be "bombarded" by signs of advanced civilizations coming from every direction.
(2)
It's just us.
As Francois Lacombe put it: *"I find it striking just how many proposed solutions to the Fermi paradox, like the one discussed here, rest mainly on a profound lack of imagination on the part of those who propose them."* I find that the Fermi Paradox itself rests upon a profound lack of imagination, thus its "solutions" tend to do the same. The solution is fairly obvious: the universe is *YOUNG* and *VAST.* It doesn't matter how much 13.8 billion years FEELS like an eternity, it simply is NOT an eternity. And even if there has been enough time for us to have been contacted, or our stellar neighborhood to have been plundered, that doesn't mean that there is anyone nearby who was interested in doing it. Even the idea of signs of civilization we can see from here is nearsighted hubris. It is assuming all of the following to be true:
1.) That even if a civilization can build a Dyson structure or Stellar Beacon, that they would want to.
2.) That even if a civilization can spread at some steady rate, that they would want to.
3.) That we are somehow so important to everything that it is impossible for lots of interesting stuff to be going on without us being a part of it.
It's an interesting notion that we could be the product of panspermia (artificial or natural [ie: amino acids on an asteroid]). If we are indeed "alien", we've adapted to Earth and have assimilated her very well.
There is no flora or fauna that poses a danger we can not deal with using our technology and intelligence. There are few problems we can not solve. Most people have food, water & some form of entertainment/work/life activity. It's not incomprehensible to suggest we "could" be the product of panspermia as a result, however improbable it may be.
To quote: "The universe is infinitely improbable"
I was just getting into this one when I heard a reference to KSR's book Aurora (Yeah. Seems obvious now). I'm 80 pages into the book and I don't want to chance any spoilers.
Damnit! A bonus episode and I have to delay it! :-)
Oooh, you definitely don't want spoilers. Let's just say that book goes...nowhere NEAR the way the cover blurb would make you assume.
And that's all I'm saying.
I love your dark voice combined with this "a" -Pronounciation/Speech Pattern
That comment on historians having a crush on an extinct civilization and thus, having a bad bias against the despoilers, is so accurate. Any person having studied in History know someone like that.
Hello Mr. Arthur, your videos are always well done, stimulating, and educational.
One issue that I see with discussions about Space colonization is that it seems to assume that colonizing planets will be an important part of space colonization (and therefore that terraforming will be an important). It also assumes that that which is closer is easier to get to than that which is farther away.
Your video include did a good job of addressing some of the problems with colonizing an entire planet and terraforming. However, I think an exploration needs to be made of how much colonization can take place that doesn't involve colonizing an entire planets. Which takes us to the second assumption. The idea that places that are closest to us are easier to get to than places that are farther away should be questioned. For the most part, and this is especially true when you have explored interstellar travel, the prevailing idea is to go to a specific spot and propel ourselves to it (although I think you did go over, say worm hole travel, and other alternatives). On earth distance wasn't always the main determinant that made travel feasible. For example, in the ancient world, with the right naval technology, you could get to places further away by water than you could by land. In some cases this resulted in naval based colonial systems (such as that of the Phoenicians).
So if we set these two assumptions aside, space colonization may look like specific colonies, not necessarily close to each other, spread in specific spots of the galaxy (or even specific spots among different galaxies).
Isaac thanks for this extra episode. It was a wonderful Sunday-night surprise. Maybe I won't even listen to "Gloomy Sunday" like I usually do.
Frasier "gravity wells are for suckers" Cain. Now we need one for Isaac, any suggestions?
Isaac "moving a planet is fairly easy" Arthur
Very informative, Coach
Blue blah BLAHA
@@gaminguploads1851 Wtf, didn't expect to find anyone knowing our boi Hemingway here... ... kudos
"Gravity wells are for suckers" but the SFIA ship Unity is still flying to stars. You just spent all that effort escaping the Sun's gravity well. The Milky Way has more Jupiter mass rogue planets than stars. There should be a larger number of Earth mass rogue planets. Rogue planets can accrete and retain deuterium and 3-helium. Rogue planets can retain asteroids and moons.
Edit: Great episode, keep up the good work. Thanx for the bonus episode. :)
:) We've discussed the flaw of assuming only stars get colonized too
@@isaacarthurSFIA indeed. I do remember The Good Doctor Arthur mentioning the Kuiper belt and Ort clouds just might be the preferential places to colonize over any inner system efforts. And those seem to extend out to halfway to other stars, where that other star's belts start.
Happy daylight savings! Love this channel!
It’s pronounced Daylight Saving
This episode opened up my mind just a little bit more than the usual SFIA videos lol.... Well done, sir.
Awesome Sunday release, I totally enjoyed listening while I eat my Dinner,... Thanks again, Isaac.
Definetly didnt expect this, its like a present
Yep, I agree. Once you have space habitats so good you can travel on them for millennia, you'd have to be a sucker to search out another planet to cling to as all they'd do is dock you movement points. After all, in our own solar system just getting into low Earth orbit gets you halfway to anywhere and the reason we like to be down here is that it is habitable in a way that can't yet be replicated artificially. For most interstellar colonization scenarios (bar seeding), however, we've solved that.
If something like the Carrington event cyclically wipes out electronics in our neighbourhood we'd suddenly see evolution make a comeback in a big way. Over thousands of years only civilizations with Carrington-proof technology would prosper and expand. ;) I'm not quite convinced that we've seen the last of evolution yet, and evolution is in any case more about niche-filling than 'survival of the fittest'. If there is a niche to be filled you can evolve to fill it, even if the niche, and thus your species, are actually doomed in the short term - and that goes for evolving a culture to fill it as well (say, one dependent on electronics when perhaps that isn't a stable configuration for a civilization over the long term). We currently have a civilization in which traditional evolutionary pressures are no longer relevant - hereditary diseases are becoming curable, problems that would have spelt game over for reproduction are now manageable, and the health of society is thus increasingly technology dependent. But it's a recent enough development that I wouldn't necessarily be confident that it is stable yet. Plenty of species have evolved in seemingly ill-advised directions before only to have their arses handed to them eventually. Species like the poor dodo evolved in an environment without having to worry about natural predators and were doing just fine, until they weren't. A few million years from now we'll be able to say more convincingly whether we've really succeeded in replacing the logic of evolution with intelligent design (our own design, naturally ;)). I mean, I think that we probably will, but if you still aren't quite sure about leprachauns, well, this is much less clear cut than that... ;)
There is also the iceball paradox to consider. From what we know now, subsurface oceans are a dime a dozen in the solar system, and likely throughout the universe. If life is common in any world with water then most should by rights exist in subglacial oceans. If that were true, however, *we* would expect to live in a subglacial ocean, because otherwise Earth is exceptional in a way not accounted for by the anthropic principle. Sure, even if life or intelligence is very unlikely, if we did not exist no one would then be around to ask the question. However if *Earth* is a very unlikely sort of place for life to develop, then we have a genuine freak on our hands. The jury is out on that, of course. We have yet to explore the other oceans in the solar system. But as much of a killjoy as it is, I think it's reasonable to surmise that they are probably all sterile for one reason or another. If they weren't... we would most likely be living in one. There are certainly things pointing strongly in the direction of rare Earth, with the questions starting to be how rare, and why rare?
That doesn't upend the Fermi paradox though. If ultimately the sun is just a battery and planets are just building materials, "where are all the Dyson spheres?" is still a valid question to ask.
Another question to ask is exactly how full would the solar system have to get before inhabitants would emigrate to another solar system out of necessity rather than curiosity? Another thing to bear in mind is that while for us several million years of divergent evolution may be enough to 'out-group' each other, that may not necessarily be the case for any intelligence. They may be more inclined to a charitable and inclusive notion of 'we'. Remember that we humans have a notion of 'we' that covers billions of vastly different individuals with differing histories, abilities and morphologies, something inconceivable for chimpanzees.
Hey Isaac! I came early this time. Right during lunch break!
Aurora effect? You mean aurora borealis? Hmm...can we incorporate Steamed Hams into this?
Hello wonderfull Isaak this is Anton
The ideas presented blew my mind many times (and made me think). This is my favorite episode in a long time. Plus you had equations (just like your early episodes from years ago). Yay! More equations please!! More math too, please!!!
Kim Stanley Robinson also wrote Icehenge and a few other earlier books which are great reads and also you can see the formation of things to come in the mars books
Cool entry Sir!!!!. Brings to mind so many memories of books and movies on the subject . From "forbidden planet "-to the made directly TV 1979 movie about us having colonized mars and then proceeded to make war with natives we later encounter. After a long war,we forget our past. It was obscure. Your work also reminded me "rendezvous with Rama" & another Arthur C Clark tome on pan-spermia( whereby galactic drones had found fertile locations in obscure destinations and corners of the universe. Excitement and disbelief engulf the world when the remains of o e of these dri e is found and studied. Lastly, your video harks to works such as A.C. Clark's non-fiction book on how we go about terraforming Mars or other candidates ; the deep space mining aspects from A L I E N...
The trials and triumphs of farming and survival from "The Martian" ; The movie OUTLANDER w/Sean Connery, DUNE and just for posterity STARWARS. Thanks for the memories 🤝👏
Hello man, what do you think about Multiverse? Can we potentially jump into another universe? If our universe in not infinite, and have limited size, then maybe multiverse have infinite size and not limited. Maybe you can create video about this cosmological theory.
Most scientific multiverse theories imply that travel between universes is about as practical as relativity says travel out of black holes is.
Issac Arthur: "You should generally expect civilisations to over time get better, not worse."
21st Century Western Civilisation: "Hold my spiced pumpkin latte."
1. Pumpkin Spiced Lattes are delicious.
2. Having a generation you dislike doesn't mean civilization is in decline. Neither does a bit of new competition. (Insert China ref)
3. Even if there was some sort of decline in the West, the world today is globalized beyond return and even if the US became authoritarian tomorrow, modern civilization would be relatively unchanged. Civilization is broader than society.
Populist romanticism notwithstanding, Western civilization is still improving by any reasonable metric.
It's a joke guys. Chill.
The "stay in space" thing is even more valid after the recent paper showing that Pluto and Charon have not experienced small impactors, and the implication that small meteorites common to the Earth and Moon are actually a symptom of our location and the asteroid belt instead of the previous assumed uniformity of such space debris.
It looks like the safest place to be is anywhere that is not close to here, in more open space.
Yeah Isaac didn't get to far into explaining the theory in question before I was asking "why would settle on planets?"
Question, would it be possible to use some sort of eugenics to stop our colonist mutating from our Earth form? I can't imagine the consequences of us colonizing all these worlds and just mutating rapidly due to the various environments.
Edit: Now that I think about it that could also be why some aliens might not want to colonize others worlds, fearing there descents become to different which could lead to many issues.
'Protector' by Larry Niven, prequel to Ringworld; Stephen Baxter's 'Xeelee' series and his collaboration with Terry Pratchettt on the 'Long Earth' go into the genetic and cultural drift opened up by effectively limitless ecological space. The Pak Protector is a xenophobe driven to extreme solutions, the human hegemon fighting the Xeelee ruthlessly enforces its own view of what is human.
oh wow, you had so many extra videos lately, those podcasts, sunday videos, we are spoiled here!
Maybe one of your best episodes ever, Isaac! Bravo
Love the mini episode! Also this is my favorite topic on the channel
One of those clips there really looked like Elvis Costello having a hard day teaching higher math. :)
Awesome. I read that article and immediately thought, why do we care about "earth like planets" for colonization? I hope mainstream thought processes and political will catch up to the idea that we need to begin building a planetary cloud now. This of course means the first step is an orbital ring so we have a cheap way to get the initial people and material into orbit. I wish I could be alive when humanity begins building our first dyson swarm
Great Sunday surprise! Thanks.
two other bad things about colonizing planets is that it either takes more work than to create space habitats or the planet is amazing and our arrival would send many species into extinction.
Playing Stellaris as a Void Dwelling Rogue Servitor Machine Empire with the SFIA Advisor is peak Isaac Arthur gameplay isn't it
I like the novel "Encounter With Tiber", which goes into the idea of aliens living among our ancient ancestors, and it goes into tremendous detail with the hard science of space travel.
Answer the following questions:
"What exactly matters throughout all of future eternity and to whom does it exactly and eternally matter to?"
Depends on the lifespan of the entity.
Most likely the solution of the Fermi Paradox is rare earth hypothesis and that all civilizations all die at great filters and do not have a substantial space presence before they die from great filters. Like our specie is going to die or collapse to a state where no space civilization is possible, because of runaway global warning. Would love to be wrong but it seems that this will be solution of the Fermi Paradox.
Or maybe it's really just that space is big. Unfathomable big.
This was exactly my beef with Aurora. Immediately abandoning colonization due to incompatible planetary conditions made no sense. And especially when the ship was describes as two rings on the same axis, why in the name of Bob would you not build in between those rings and make a big cylinder?! Quite a few other things made no sense either, but I might have forgiven those if it wasn't for the big one.
Im not sure what this Thursday you speak of is but, we've got something around here called Arthursday the most awesome and highly anticipated day of the week. Is that possibly what you mean by Thursday?
:) I can never quite bring myself to call it that, it might slip into my normal vocabulary and have my friends lock me up at an asylum for narcissism
@@isaacarthurSFIA that's alright my fine fellow. You don't have to. We your loyal fanbase have your back! Keep up the good work, until then I'll be waiting with my Arthursday stash of snacks and drinks!! Toodles :P
I love that this shorter video is 24 minutes long.
One of the perks of being a fan.
When I wrote it yesterday I was aiming for 12-13, but the draft was more like 19 or 20 and then Mark and Darius added more, like so many of our episodes, an intent for brevity failed horribly :)
Isaac Arthur And I appreciate it!
And you fall with style.
Oh boy two episodes on a week, thanks!
I would argue the fall of Rome set Europe back quite a bit, considering the kingdoms which followed in Romes place were rather ghoulish in comparison. grant it that time period wasn't long but it is proof that stuff isn't always replaced with a stronger version after it collapses.
I think we will merge with A.I. before we can reach the next star with anything other than exploration probes. And once digitized the safest place to continue on would be outside the galaxies near red/orange dwarf interloper stars.
I still haven't given hope that we find that derelict in the desert that brought us here and follow it's instructions to find our actual homeworld.
lay off the acid.
This was fantastic and the upcoming videos look awesome! It must be my half-birthday present (I’m thirty-two and a half as of yesterday).
some futurists are skeptical about artificial space habitats long-term viability. Have you addressed this?
I know it is presumptuous of me but I like the video before I have even watched it.
Love your work Arthur.
The tougher it is to colonize planets and find suitable habitable biospheres due to their rarity or distance, the more likely it is that intelligent life will be found to exist, including humanity at some point in the distant future (or now if you are a sim argument fan) in ‘designed’ environments as opposed to environments resulting from naturally occurring evolutionary and geological processes. Astronomical observations of exoplanet atmospheres in next 20 years could be very informative on where humanity might go, and also how unique the earth is - or isn’t. Easier to resolve and even more informative: If creating crude lifelike molecules from non-living matter right here on earth continues to be elusive despite the diligent efforts of thousands of scientists, then not only could that substantially ‘resolve’ the Fermi paradox, it could also raise serious questions about the origin of all life anywhere.