How is irrelevance relevant?

And, ???? If it doesn't reproduce, it isn't life? At the species level?

Irrelevance relevant? What we think is irrelevant to reality, to the question of whether or not aliens exist and their lets say goals.

Define life without reproduction, instead of asking questions.

I would mention my mate Peter. Not had a shag in decades.

The irrelevance of what we think and therefore talk about is clearly irrelevant to a forum. If you want only discussions where the participants have definitive knowledge of everything they talk about, you're going to have a quiet forum. I haven't heard a single reason to expect advanced civilizations to want to expand and reproduce. It's simply silly to think that the virtual realities they will be capable of creating will be somehow inferior to the external, 'real' world. If nothing else, they could simulate a universe far safer, closer, and vastly more varied.

And why on earth would 'life' require reproduction? I'm not going to reproduce, am I not alive? Anyway, I said they wouldn't reproduce, not that they couldn't. Trying to define life in this regime just isn't the same as trying to define it at its creation. My questions weren't really questions, I thought that would be obvious????

/shrugs

I indicated not to be taken too seriously by a wink ;) but rant away anyway.

---
edit: and if you think that I am gonna have conversation with someone who thinks that my opinions, which are as valid as anyone else in this case, are silly, you are deeply mistaken.

DougC wrote:I would mention my mate Peter. Not had a shag in decades.

'Having a shag' is not reproduction, hasn't even been a requirement for some time. My condolences to your mate, unless he's a priest, and then it's congratulations.

tuco wrote:/shrugs

I indicated not to be taken too seriously by a wink but rant away anyway.

---
edit: and if you think that I am gonna have conversation with someone who thinks that my opinions, which are as valid as anyone else in this case, are silly, you are deeply mistaken.

I called what seems to be the conventional wisdom 'silly', nothing personal meant, didn't mean to cause offense, sorry. You haven't answered a single objection or issue raised.

Either we admit that opinions are valid or not. If we admit they are, it makes no sense to call any of them silly, unless we want to discredit them, respectively make other opinions appear superior.

I am not interested in debating opinions. I like blue you like yellow, lets debate this. No thanks. I comment and read other comments and base my opinions upon such input.

There is no point to answer objections, issues raised, which using chess terminology are on level of move #1 when I am already at move #5. Practical example:

One of the assumptions of the Drake eq, and the Fermi Paradox, is that an advanced civilization would want, even need, to expand. I don't see this, the evidence we have so far is that the more advanced the nation, the less the reproductive rate. Japan and italy, to name a couple, have negative population growth.

Civilizations, species, which do not reproduce die. What is dead is not a life. So because some countries have unsustainable reproductive rates in past couple of decades, you conclude that "advanced civilization would not want to expand", which is apparently not silly. This is disregarding millions of years of evolution of life on Earth where "reproduction" is fundamental property of life as we know it. And when I ask about definition of life without reproduction you answer: I'm not going to reproduce, am I not alive? Of course, you are alive but you will not be in couple of decades and if everyone was like you, there would not be life. Move #1

----
edit: from wiki on the Selfish Gene

Dawkins uses the term "selfish gene" as a way of expressing the gene-centred view of evolution as opposed to the views focused on the organism and the group.

Its not about you nor me.

Ah, life as we know it. There's the problem. Advanced civilizations will have no use for that.

John Maynard Keynes, the famous economist, made a very keyne observation: In the long run, we are all dead." I'll leave what the implications of this are to the reader.

Observation or hypothesis or even just assertion?

I am not saying your opinion is silly, I am saying its just an opinion. Admittedly, I am an optimist when it comes to hairless monkeys:



If everyone was like me, we would probably be fucked indeed.

tuco wrote:Either we admit that opinions are valid or not. If we admit they are, it makes no sense to call any of them silly, unless we want to discredit them, respectively make other opinions appear superior.

I am not interested in debating opinions. I like blue you like yellow, lets debate this. No thanks. I comment and read other comments and base my opinions upon such input.

There is no point to answer objections, issues raised, which using chess terminology are on level of move #1 when I am already at move #5. Practical example:

One of the assumptions of the Drake eq, and the Fermi Paradox, is that an advanced civilization would want, even need, to expand. I don't see this, the evidence we have so far is that the more advanced the nation, the less the reproductive rate. Japan and italy, to name a couple, have negative population growth.

Civilizations, species, which do not reproduce die. What is dead is not a life. So because some countries have unsustainable reproductive rates in past couple of decades, you conclude that "advanced civilization would not want to expand", which is apparently not silly. This is disregarding millions of years of evolution of life on Earth where "reproduction" is fundamental property of life as we know it. And when I ask about definition of life without reproduction you answer: I'm not going to reproduce, am I not alive? Of course, you are alive but you will not be in couple of decades and if everyone was like you, there would not be life. Move #1

----
edit: from wiki on the Selfish Gene

Dawkins uses the term "selfish gene" as a way of expressing the gene-centred view of evolution as opposed to the views focused on the organism and the group.

Its not about you nor me.

You've taken a comment Crank made and turned it into a false dichotomy. Crank wasn't saying that species stop reproducing... he was speaking of population growth being net "zero". Technologically advanced cultures tend to slow population growth to a net "zero." I understood that.

solazy wrote:Where are they?

Ah, the Fermi Paradox.

The answer to which is the Great Filter.

Essentially, as a civilisation attains the ability to contact another solar system, it must necessarily develop the ability to destroy itself. Given the systemic risk posed by such an ability, one would expect most such civilisations to fail to pass this test.

It occurs to me that the Great Filter might take another form: a civilisation that fails to free itself from it's planet of origin before that planet's fossil fuels are exhausted, probably just stays there.

Nicko wrote:It occurs to me that the Great Filter might take another form: a civilisation that fails to free itself from it's planet of origin before that planet's fossil fuels are exhausted, probably just stays there.

I have pondered the notion that, a long time ago, in a galaxy, far, far away, as to why a vast interstellar republic appeared to have nothing analogous to e-mail or the internet or similar modes of communication to those of us on earth.

Somehow, the races of the republic managed to dodge the bullet of creating an internet and instead of becoming inward facing, cat picture fixated, navel gazing, societies, they just forged ahead with making bigger and better spaceships, until they began questing amongst the stars and eventually developing tools to annihilate planets and solar systems.

Our species 'Great Filter' comes with likes, vines, youtube and all the cute cat pics you can stomach. We'll imagine future and other worlds and render them in exquisite detail for us to explore, whilst safely keeping our asses in a comfy chair.

Sendraks wrote:

Nicko wrote:It occurs to me that the Great Filter might take another form: a civilisation that fails to free itself from it's planet of origin before that planet's fossil fuels are exhausted, probably just stays there.

I have pondered the notion that, a long time ago, in a galaxy, far, far away, as to why a vast interstellar republic appeared to have nothing analogous to e-mail or the internet or similar modes of communication to those of us on earth.

Somehow, the races of the republic managed to dodge the bullet of creating an internet and instead of becoming inward facing, cat picture fixated, navel gazing, societies, they just forged ahead with making bigger and better spaceships, until they began questing amongst the stars and eventually developing tools to annihilate planets and solar systems.

Our species 'Great Filter' comes with likes, vines, youtube and all the cute cat pics you can stomach. We'll imagine future and other worlds and render them in exquisite detail for us to explore, whilst safely keeping our asses in a comfy chair.

Yup. Several people have made comments in this thread that indicate they can't remove themselves from the "standard" that is humanity... Like, aquatic animals couldn't advance because they couldn't use fire to advance. Maybe they can forge steel by exposing it to great pressures... or maybe they've found alternatives to steel... or maybe they have a symbiotic relationship with a land creature or whatever. To think life can only evolve in the manner in which it has on this planet is short-sighted.

Meanwhile, our great filter holds us prisoner. Trump is a great example of regression as a result of technology. Oh well, it was a good run.

PensivePenny wrote:

tuco wrote:Either we admit that opinions are valid or not. If we admit they are, it makes no sense to call any of them silly, unless we want to discredit them, respectively make other opinions appear superior.

I am not interested in debating opinions. I like blue you like yellow, lets debate this. No thanks. I comment and read other comments and base my opinions upon such input.

There is no point to answer objections, issues raised, which using chess terminology are on level of move #1 when I am already at move #5. Practical example:

One of the assumptions of the Drake eq, and the Fermi Paradox, is that an advanced civilization would want, even need, to expand. I don't see this, the evidence we have so far is that the more advanced the nation, the less the reproductive rate. Japan and italy, to name a couple, have negative population growth.

Civilizations, species, which do not reproduce die. What is dead is not a life. So because some countries have unsustainable reproductive rates in past couple of decades, you conclude that "advanced civilization would not want to expand", which is apparently not silly. This is disregarding millions of years of evolution of life on Earth where "reproduction" is fundamental property of life as we know it. And when I ask about definition of life without reproduction you answer: I'm not going to reproduce, am I not alive? Of course, you are alive but you will not be in couple of decades and if everyone was like you, there would not be life. Move #1

----
edit: from wiki on the Selfish Gene

Dawkins uses the term "selfish gene" as a way of expressing the gene-centred view of evolution as opposed to the views focused on the organism and the group.

Its not about you nor me.

You've taken a comment Crank made and turned it into a false dichotomy. Crank wasn't saying that species stop reproducing... he was speaking of population growth being net "zero". Technologically advanced cultures tend to slow population growth to a net "zero." I understood that.

Even at "zero", what is the reason to believe that such civilization, let me quote now: is that an advanced civilization would want, even need, to expand? Followed by:

I don't see this, the evidence we have so far is that the more advanced the nation, the less the reproductive rate. Japan and italy, to name a couple, have negative population growth.

What's your point tuco? Yes, some countries have a negative population growth. Any colony has a maximum sustainability in a finite environment. It self corrects and can be measured in the form of population growth. It doesn't mean the species dies. In fact, the species continues to evolve even in the presence of negative population growth... go figure!

I can only repeat myself.

Move #1: define life without reproduction.
Move#2: what is the reason to believe that poultion dynamics will not change in time? Past couple of decades vs millions of years of evolution of life on Earth.
Move#3: even if it will be "zero" what is the reason to believe in no need nor desire to expand?

We actually might get to move #5 this way, but as you can see, for me its not very productive.

tuco wrote:I can only repeat myself.

That must be a very inconvenient limitation.

Move #1: define life without reproduction.

Why?

Move#2: what is the reason to believe that poultion dynamics will not change in time? Past couple of decades vs millions of years
of evolution of life on Earth.

What the hell is "poultion"?

Move#3: even if it will be "zero" what is the reason to believe in no need nor desire to expand?

It was only a suggestion of one possibility. That's how I understood it. Besides, desire has an implied "cost" component. The "cost" of a few trees to build ships to sail across the ocean is one cost, the cost of building a spacecraft capable of transporting a sustainable gene pool to another star system, extremely great by comparison even IF possible. The latter case, the cost may very likely exceed desire.

We actually might get to move #5 this way, but as you can see, for me its not very productive.

Huh? Coherent, please?

Don't be mad bro. Its not my fault I play chess at depth 5 while you at 0 ;)

---
On topic side note: Fermi paradox is not paradox at all and Great Filter is, being generous, just a hypothesis or sophisticated opinion. Those we have only on this board in Philosophy section for more than one life time.