What If Humanity Is Among The First Spacefaring Civilizations?

[JayWee]

...
And even if a species develops intelligence, it may not have the capability or resources to produce technology. A human-intelligent dolphin could never smelt metals and build a radio, for example. Or their planet may not have a crust rich in workable metals, or they don't have any animals suitable for domestication, or crop plants that can be grown en mass with storable seeds for food during lean seasons / years. Humanity really hit the jackpot with a large amount of exploitable resources on our planet.
...

And don't forget availability of cheap energy - fossil fuels. You can't really build industrial civilization without them (going straight from burning wood to renewable/nuclear is next to impossible). So yet another small factor to multiply the already small probabilities...

[Robotbeat]

...
And even if a species develops intelligence, it may not have the capability or resources to produce technology. A human-intelligent dolphin could never smelt metals and build a radio, for example. Or their planet may not have a crust rich in workable metals, or they don't have any animals suitable for domestication, or crop plants that can be grown en mass with storable seeds for food during lean seasons / years. Humanity really hit the jackpot with a large amount of exploitable resources on our planet.
...

And don't forget availability of cheap energy - fossil fuels. You can't really build industrial civilization without them (going straight from burning wood to renewable/nuclear is next to impossible). So yet another small factor to multiply the already small probabilities...

Sure you can. Early in the industrial Revolution, motive power was primarily provided by water power, and the US tended to rely mostly on wood for power (even for making steel) until around the second industrial Revolution. It would’ve taken longer, but could’ve happened anyway. IMHO, it was actually the development of gunpowder (with iron, almost exclusively made with charcoal early on) that fundamentally led to the Industrial Revolution (stored chemical power used as motive power… and optimization of that eventually led to the science that enabled steam power). And that used sulfur, charcoal, and saltpeter.

Could’ve bootstrapped from the first industrial Revolution to hydro power, wind, eventually nuclear and solar, etc, using wood instead of fossil fuels. Would’ve taken longer and probably would’ve meant longer periods of human misery, but it could’ve still happened.

[daedalus1]

Gunpowder was invented in ancient China and resulted in no industrial revolution.
Wood has been around a long time.
The use of the dense power of fossil fuel was crucial to the industrial revolution and still society is finding it difficult to replace them.

[Robotbeat]

Gunpowder was invented in ancient China and resulted in no industrial revolution.
…

It did once spread all over the old world. It took centuries for all the pieces to fit together, but again, gunpowder driven machines predated the steam powered versions by a few decades (a century or two in the case of Leonardo DiVinci writing down an idea).

[daedalus1]

Gunpowder was invented in ancient China and resulted in no industrial revolution.
…

It did once spread all over the old world. It took centuries for all the pieces to fit together, but again, gunpowder driven machines predated the steam powered versions by a few decades (a century or two in the case of Leonardo DiVinci writing down an idea).

What gunpowder driven machines?

[whitelancer64]

Gunpowder was invented in ancient China and resulted in no industrial revolution.
…

It did once spread all over the old world. It took centuries for all the pieces to fit together, but again, gunpowder driven machines predated the steam powered versions by a few decades (a century or two in the case of Leonardo DiVinci writing down an idea).

What gunpowder driven machines?

An idea that was experimented on in the late 1600s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_engine

Fire driven steam engines were considerably easier to work with and took off shortly thereafter.

[whitelancer64]

Gunpowder was invented in ancient China and resulted in no industrial revolution.
Wood has been around a long time.
The use of the dense power of fossil fuel was crucial to the industrial revolution and still society is finding it difficult to replace them.

We could transition to 100% sustainable power (especially nuclear) over the course of a few decades, if we, as a whole, made it a priority to do so. The main difficulty is, as it has been for decades, the political power of the fossil fuel industry blocking any such efforts.

[Barley]

Gunpowder was invented in ancient China and resulted in no industrial revolution.
Wood has been around a long time.

Coal has been around a long time.

Coal was used in ancient China, perhaps before the invention of writing.   It was certainly mined in Roman Britain, not only burned but used for metallurgy.  If coal caused an industrial revolution it took a while, and causation would be hard to prove.

Nobody quite knows what caused the industrial revolution.  It could even be that it's just noisy exponential growth and there is no industrial revolution.  Which fits nicely with the Copernican principle.

[daedalus1]

Gunpowder was invented in ancient China and resulted in no industrial revolution.
Wood has been around a long time.
The use of the dense power of fossil fuel was crucial to the industrial revolution and still society is finding it difficult to replace them.

We could transition to 100% sustainable power (especially nuclear) over the course of a few decades, if we, as a whole, made it a priority to do so. The main difficulty is, as it has been for decades, the political power of the fossil fuel industry blocking any such efforts.

Not that simple. Renewables are unreliable and require large areas,  nuclear although neither of those things has to overcome the problem of nuclear waste , fear of radiation leaks and not in my back yard.

[aperh1988]

Gunpowder was invented in ancient China and resulted in no industrial revolution.
Wood has been around a long time.
The use of the dense power of fossil fuel was crucial to the industrial revolution and still society is finding it difficult to replace them.

We could transition to 100% sustainable power (especially nuclear) over the course of a few decades, if we, as a whole, made it a priority to do so. The main difficulty is, as it has been for decades, the political power of the fossil fuel industry blocking any such efforts.

Not that simple. Renewables are unreliable and require large areas,  nuclear although neither of those things has to overcome the problem of nuclear waste , fear of radiation leaks and not in my back yard.

The problem of nuclear waste was solved decades ago. You bury it. But uneducated NIMBYism and environmental groups, some of which are ultimately funded by fossil fuel interests, will not accept this.

[JohnFornaro]

Grabby aliens again. Don’t like that theory.

Dunno what "grabby" aliens are, but let me dust off my "3 Civilizations Conjecture".  [3CC]

There are three civilizations in the universe; the ones who achieved sentience the day before mankind did, us, and the ones who achieved sentience the day after we did.  We all have about the same tech, and cannot see each other because we're so widely dispersed.

[daedalus1]

Gunpowder was invented in ancient China and resulted in no industrial revolution.
…

It did once spread all over the old world. It took centuries for all the pieces to fit together, but again, gunpowder driven machines predated the steam powered versions by a few decades (a century or two in the case of Leonardo DiVinci writing down an idea).

What gunpowder driven machines?

An idea that was experimented on in the late 1600s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_engine

Fire driven steam engines were considerably easier to work with and took off shortly thereafter.

It wasn't a working useful machine. The earliest experimental steam engine was demonstrated 2000 years ago and I didn't count that either.  The point is fossil fuels are energy dense.  For the huge amount of power needed to industrialise the world, wood supplies would have run out very quickly.

[whitelancer64]

Gunpowder was invented in ancient China and resulted in no industrial revolution.
Wood has been around a long time.
The use of the dense power of fossil fuel was crucial to the industrial revolution and still society is finding it difficult to replace them.

We could transition to 100% sustainable power (especially nuclear) over the course of a few decades, if we, as a whole, made it a priority to do so. The main difficulty is, as it has been for decades, the political power of the fossil fuel industry blocking any such efforts.

Not that simple. Renewables are unreliable

That's patently untrue.

and require large areas, 

Not all of them.

nuclear although neither of those things has to overcome the problem of nuclear waste , fear of radiation leaks and not in my back yard.

Modern nuclear reactor designs are essentially meltdown-proof and there'd only be a radiation leak if there was a military attack on them to breach the core.

Every major nuclear reactor disaster resulting in radioactive materials released has happened in reactor designs from the 1950s and 60s.

[whitelancer64]

Gunpowder was invented in ancient China and resulted in no industrial revolution.
…

It did once spread all over the old world. It took centuries for all the pieces to fit together, but again, gunpowder driven machines predated the steam powered versions by a few decades (a century or two in the case of Leonardo DiVinci writing down an idea).

What gunpowder driven machines?

An idea that was experimented on in the late 1600s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_engine

Fire driven steam engines were considerably easier to work with and took off shortly thereafter.

It wasn't a working useful machine. The earliest experimental steam engine was demonstrated 2000 years ago and I didn't count that either.  The point is fossil fuels are energy dense.  For the huge amount of power needed to industrialise the world, wood supplies would have run out very quickly.

It says right in the Wikipedia article that experiments validated the concept was workable, with some small scale engines made. The development of steam engines, which were a lot easier to work with, superseded the gunpowder engine.

There was no reason to solve the engineering problems to make larger gunpowder engines work since steam engines became widespread, but there is no reason that could not have been done.

[daedalus1]

Gunpowder was invented in ancient China and resulted in no industrial revolution.
Wood has been around a long time.
The use of the dense power of fossil fuel was crucial to the industrial revolution and still society is finding it difficult to replace them.

We could transition to 100% sustainable power (especially nuclear) over the course of a few decades, if we, as a whole, made it a priority to do so. The main difficulty is, as it has been for decades, the political power of the fossil fuel industry blocking any such efforts.

Not that simple. Renewables are unreliable

That's patently untrue.

and require large areas, 

Not all of them.

nuclear although neither of those things has to overcome the problem of nuclear waste , fear of radiation leaks and not in my back yard.

Modern nuclear reactor designs are essentially meltdown-proof and there'd only be a radiation leak if there was a military attack on them to breach the core.

Every major nuclear reactor disaster resulting in radioactive materials released has happened in reactor designs from the 1950s and 60s.

You are welcome to state a compact renewable and a reliable one.
Fukushima. The designs being built now are hugely expensive and typically overrun the budget massively. Why aren't lots being built  and don't say fossil fuel industry, that's a cop-out. It's because of the concerns I outlined above.

[Timber Micka]

Considering the sheer size of the Universe (infinite), I think there must be several extraterrestrial civilizations, but it is very, very rare. I think faster-than-light travel is physically impossible and that's what prevents these civilizations from making contact.
I do hope mankind will find extraterrestrial life at some point in history, as I believe that life itself, especially microbial life, is not as rare as intelligent life.
I think the reason Earth is home to intelligent life is because it's a very specific place (ideal star, ideal solar system, ideal galaxy, ideal distance from dangerous objects like quasars and pulsars), and we should cherish it. I think terraforming is a fantasy and no physical body in the solar system can replace Earth.

[whitelancer64]

Gunpowder was invented in ancient China and resulted in no industrial revolution.
Wood has been around a long time.
The use of the dense power of fossil fuel was crucial to the industrial revolution and still society is finding it difficult to replace them.

We could transition to 100% sustainable power (especially nuclear) over the course of a few decades, if we, as a whole, made it a priority to do so. The main difficulty is, as it has been for decades, the political power of the fossil fuel industry blocking any such efforts.

Not that simple. Renewables are unreliable

That's patently untrue.

and require large areas, 

Not all of them.

nuclear although neither of those things has to overcome the problem of nuclear waste , fear of radiation leaks and not in my back yard.

Modern nuclear reactor designs are essentially meltdown-proof and there'd only be a radiation leak if there was a military attack on them to breach the core.

Every major nuclear reactor disaster resulting in radioactive materials released has happened in reactor designs from the 1950s and 60s.

You are welcome to state a compact renewable and a reliable one.
Fukushima. The designs being built now are hugely expensive and typically overrun the budget massively. Why aren't lots being built  and don't say fossil fuel industry, that's a cop-out. It's because of the concerns I outlined above.

Hydropower, solar, and wind are all very reliable. By the way, they currently generate about 30% of the global supply of electricity.

The reactors at the Fukushima power plant were designed in the 60s, the construction of the facility was started in 1971.

Cost overruns would be far less of an issue if they were being built en masse, instead of as one-off builds. This is also largely a US problem, other countries that build nuclear power plants on a more regular basis don't see such issues.

Why aren't lots being built is because lots of people are dumb and are scared of nuclear power. We should ignore them and just build lots of nuclear power plants.

[daedalus1]

Gunpowder was invented in ancient China and resulted in no industrial revolution.
Wood has been around a long time.
The use of the dense power of fossil fuel was crucial to the industrial revolution and still society is finding it difficult to replace them.

We could transition to 100% sustainable power (especially nuclear) over the course of a few decades, if we, as a whole, made it a priority to do so. The main difficulty is, as it has been for decades, the political power of the fossil fuel industry blocking any such efforts.

Not that simple. Renewables are unreliable

That's patently untrue.

and require large areas, 

Not all of them.

nuclear although neither of those things has to overcome the problem of nuclear waste , fear of radiation leaks and not in my back yard.

Modern nuclear reactor designs are essentially meltdown-proof and there'd only be a radiation leak if there was a military attack on them to breach the core.

Every major nuclear reactor disaster resulting in radioactive materials released has happened in reactor designs from the 1950s and 60s.

You are welcome to state a compact renewable and a reliable one.
Fukushima. The designs being built now are hugely expensive and typically overrun the budget massively. Why aren't lots being built  and don't say fossil fuel industry, that's a cop-out. It's because of the concerns I outlined above.

Hydropower, solar, and wind are all very reliable. By the way, they currently generate about 30% of the global supply of electricity.

The reactors at the Fukushima power plant were designed in the 60s, the construction of the facility was started in 1971.

Cost overruns would be far less of an issue if they were being built en masse, instead of as one-off builds. This is also largely a US problem, other countries that build nuclear power plants on a more regular basis don't see such issues.

Why aren't lots being built is because lots of people are dumb and are scared of nuclear power. We should ignore them and just build lots of nuclear power plants.

Hydropower doesn't work in a drought,  solar doesn't work at night, wind doesn't work when the wind stops.
All of them take up a large area compared to the wattage output.
By the way Germany just dug up a wind farm to get to the fossil fuel coal underneath it.

[sanman]

Statistical we wouldn't be first or last. There are  trillions of planets out there. Life on earth has existed for few 100million years and we've gone from ape to spacefaring in 100,000years.

My argument here is the same as it has been in the many other similar threads on this topic.

Evolution does not have a purpose or a goal, and it does not necessarily select for complexity or intelligence. Simple / Bacterial life forms ruled the Earth for ~4 billion years. There is no particular reason, that we know of anyway, that they could not have continued to be the dominant life form for tens of billions of years.

There may be trillions of planets out there with such simple life, but that does not guarantee they will eventually produce an intelligent species that creates a civilization. Even using Earth as an example, it is statistically very unlikely. We are the only one of many billions of the complex species on Earth that has developed the high level of intelligence we have.

Darwinism promotes dominance, because in the survival of the fittest, the dominant prevail. Clearly intelligence would be an eventual outcome of that, since intelligence helps dominance. We don't see bacteria actively seeking ways to become multiplanetary, like we humans are doing. It's just that it takes time for Darwinism to do its work, and evolve organisms up to our level.



 

And even if a species develops intelligence, it may not have the capability or resources to produce technology. A human-intelligent dolphin could never smelt metals and build a radio, for example. Or their planet may not have a crust rich in workable metals, or they don't have any animals suitable for domestication, or crop plants that can be grown en mass with storable seeds for food during lean seasons / years. Humanity really hit the jackpot with a large amount of exploitable resources on our planet.

Intelligence finds a way, because of what we like to call "the human condition", which may in fact just be "the intelligent condition". All human (read: intelligent) beings seek to have their cake and eat it too - that means trying to get more work done with less effort, and all that. Which means developing tools, instruments, and all the rest. Just like everything else in the universe, we living things seek conserve our energy.
 

It's also possible also that supernovae and gamma ray bursts extinguish life in large areas of the galaxy (one of the several possible Great Filters).

These are random uncorrelated random events which can indeed strike down the evolved through no fault of their own.
Although, just like humans striving to develop planetary defense against asteroids, one could imagine sufficiently advanced civilizations surveying for these even larger astrophysical phenomena to guard against them as well.

Anyway, when I plug in my personal estimates into the Drake equation, I get maybe 5 technological civilizations in our galaxy. I don't think we are alone, but I think it may be a very long time before we find another intelligent, technology-making civilization. It is entirely possible we are the first (at least in our galaxy or in our region of the galaxy) to be able to leave our home planet.

We are living in a very small timeslice of our overall evolutionary history, and if we succeed in becoming multiplanetary or even interstellar, then our evolutionary history could extend for a lot longer. If we continue on for long enough, we may eventually come upon signs of other technological civilizations, who could quickly pop up out of nowhere.

But is it more prudent for us to try to detect them before allowing them to detect us first?

[sanman]

Grabby aliens again. Don’t like that theory.

Dunno what "grabby" aliens are, but let me dust off my "3 Civilizations Conjecture".  [3CC]

There are three civilizations in the universe; the ones who achieved sentience the day before mankind did, us, and the ones who achieved sentience the day after we did.  We all have about the same tech, and cannot see each other because we're so widely dispersed.

But are you taking into account the idea that there are those who achieve sentience and civilization after we do, but whose pace of advancement was fast enough to overtake us? Likewise, there could be those who achieved sentience and civilization before we did, and their pace of advancement was slow enough for us to overtake them.

Maybe there's some other Earth out there that didn't have an asteroid impact like the one that killed off our dinosaurs. So they got to evolve farther much sooner, without suffering as many setbacks. Or is it maybe because we suffered an asteroid extinction event, that we got to evolve to higher levels of intelligence sooner?