(Solaris Forum archive - topic created by Leostaris 22 September, 2002)
I'd like to resume discussion about the vision problems current with the real-life space program as a new topic so as to split it off from the discussion of Soderbergh's film that was begun in the topic about Lem's story with elements of Tarkovsky's film.
This is a worthwhile and large subject that merits its own thread yet is fully relevant to Lem's ideas about space exploration as expressed in Solaris and his other novels. I don't have anything specific to add at the moment but I would invite anyone else to take up the baton if they so desire and I will jump in later. Any takers?
- posted 22 September 2002 04:30 AM by Leostaris
LeoStaris, you must have known this topic would be too much for me to resist. : )
In the interest, however, of keeping it somewhat Solaris-related, I will quote from my favorite Lem novel Fiasco:
A more realistic appraisal of the prospects for interstellar spaceflight than usually encountered in science fiction. Factions and infighting, out-of-control costs and corruption, and yet the miracle occurs and the voyage is made. Which leads to the next quote from just a few pages later:
Perhaps we humans will sally forth again from Earth in the future, as we did decades ago in the politically driven race to the Moon. And maybe not. But even if we do, how long might the era of human space exploration last? (One might also ask: And how long might humans remain, strictly speaking, 'human'?)
In Fiasco Lem offers a picture for SETI in which civilizations follow more or less similar technological roads forward, until autoevolution takes hold. After that point, there is a brief interval in which a civilization possesses enormous technological potential to go in any of several directinos but has not yet done so. That moment, according to Lem, is the moment in which contact has its greatest opportunity for success. But it is very fleeting. And for contact to happen, both civilizations must occupy that window of opportunity more or less at the same time.
What else might motivate humans to build awesome vehicles for crossing the vast interstellar gulf? Lem does not offer much in the way of alternatives. His focus is on the motivation to make contact. Might there be other motivations that could impel humans to make other great voyages? Perhaps, but none that Lem cares to offer.
It does seem to be true that not so well hidden at the heart of NASA lies the quest to find other life. That other worlds in which we can live, and/or in which other organisms already live, are what we are really looking for. If true, then Lem's suggestion that an interstellar voyage of contact might occur but once in human history - when Earth and some other civilization still occupy that window - does not lead to optimism about star-travel.
Looking at the ISS mess, Lem's portrayal of the Eurydice project may actually be somewhat generous. The prospects for such a project's success might be more grim than Lem suggests.
I suspect our emergence into space and our solar system will be much slower than was believed in the heyday of the Apollo missions. And when we finally do have descendants traveling from world to world, just how human will they be?
-posted 22 September 2002 07:37 PM
Posted by: Baloyne | Oct 01, 2003 at 11:17 PM
Thank you for your contribution, Baloyne. I knew I could depend on you. By the way you can just address me as Leo or leo, which is easier than typing Leostaris.
I have to read Fiasco, one of the few Lem works I haven't read yet. Also, I've got to get my others out of garage storage. I did find my Pirx and Cyberiad copies. I've got to find Eden and The Invincible.
Regarding other motives to make interstellar trips, I think a major one will occur, provided humanity is still around, in half-a-billion to one billion years when the sun heats up and makes life on Earth unbearable, threatening it with extinction. We will either have to migrate to an outer space habitat in orbit farther out from the sun, or find another star system to colonize, or move the Earth, or alter the sun itself so that it does not engulf the Earth. The easiest solution seems to be building habitats farther out but even that is only a stopgap as the sun will die in four or so billion years (a LONG stopgap). If we do this then we will have no motive to go to another star, unless we make contact.
Another possibility is some technological/physics breakthrough that will enable us to travel vast interstellar distances quickly and easily (maybe also cheaply?). I'm not too optimistic on this possibility. The universe may be constructed so that faster-than-light travel is simply impossible by any means.
Yet another possibility to avoid incineration by the sun would be if humanity reconstructed itself into some form of matter/energy complex that preserved our sentience that would withstand such a catastrophe. A material version of transmutation into pure "spirit" perhaps? But this may be as impossible as FLT. Such a transformation, combined with potential extension of lifespan accompanying it, may enable us as sentient beings to cross interstellar space directly, provided that even then we are motivated to do so. Even if limited to sub-light speeds, such beings, with millenial lifespans and according slowdown in perception (metabolism slowing down so that, for example, a year is equivalent to a second that we perceive in our present form) may be motivated to journey to other stars simply out of curiosity, abetted by ease of traveling such fantastic distances. Hopefully, we will maintain our curiosity should we achieve such godlike capabilities and intellect. Curiosity, even more than economic exploitation, is the greatest motivation for exploration. By that time humanity may no longer need to be motivated by economics or escape from oppression or political rivalries to find the stimulus to explore and settle on other worlds.
-posted 22 September 2002 08:45 PM
Posted by: Leostaris | Oct 01, 2003 at 11:19 PM
Thank you for picking up this topic!
There is definitely no shortage of issues here and each one could be interesting to go into.
Since Leo has already looked into the future (I think you're off by a few billion years as far as the sun becoming a red giant is concerned, but what's a few billion here and there, let's hope humanity gets to survive that long :), so let's look into the past. Why did we suddenly lose vision...
I think we can all agree that the human space program was never really about exploration to begin with. Because while the engineers and scientists were interested in probing the unknown, their superiors only cared about military advantages and political propaganda. It will probably stay that way until scientists become a more prominent voice in the government, which for now is pretty unlikely.
The other problem is that many scientists themselves view human space flight as pretty limited in scientific potential. After all, we can send probes to the outer planets and gather lots of data, while a human could not make that trip. We can gather more soil samples from the moon then the astronauts brought back, and so on. The advantages to human space exploration are ultimately more philosophical. We should explore because it's in our nature, because we desire progress, and because space is our destiny.
This is where we run into problems. Namely, human space flight is giving the appearance of being routine! We know it isn't, but the space agencies have shot themselves in the foot by making it look that way. Every single launch is a collosal effort, and yet no one reminds the public that it has been barely 40 years since we have made the first flight. But when something looks routine, people lose interest.
There is nothing to challenge their imagination. As we know even by the 3rd lunar flight people were already starting to ignore them! People have short attention spans. You have to motivate them by feeding them discoveries. And there's no shortage of discoveries either. I mean did you know that we managed to land a craft on an asterroid? This is quite a feat, yet many people aren't even aware that it happened.
The other problem is the "yeah space is nice but we need to solve our problems here first" attitude. What these people don't realize is that they are plain wrong. The Apollo program died because of such thinking. And trillions of dollars were poured into fighting poverty, and fighting a hopeless war. And look where we are now... we still have poverty, and there are still plenty of wars. Until by some miracle such thinking subsides, it's going to be difficult to promote space exploration.
-posted 22 September 2002 09:59 PM
Posted by: maven | Oct 01, 2003 at 11:21 PM
(Very long post follows. No surprise, of course. It runs too long and is a bit on the boring side. I recommend skipping to the links included in this post - which are much more interesting - and reading the italicized Lem quotes.)
All right, Leo. : ) We seem to have begun another good discussion. Again, because of where we are, Lem as usual provides an excellent springboard.
The more things change, the more they stay the same...
Because interstellar space, and the galaxy that claims it, is awesomely vast so also are the time-scales involved. Such expanses of time are geologic and even cosmic. It therefore seems impossible to avoid this basic fact: At some stage as humans begin to chart a future in space homo sapiens will be evolving and undergoing noticeable changes.
Whether humans, or their successors, manage to live beyond Earth or not, it seems likely many sentients will remain on Earth in any future in which we primates still have a role. Africa was not abandoned after the great migrations that pushed hominids to the limits of the continents. Europe did not become deserted in the process of colonizing the globe. So if technological beings are still in the solar system billions of years from now when Sol matures into a red giant, that means Earth will probably be moved.
(See Scientific American's Delaying Our Planet's Ultimate Demise—By Shifting Its Orbit by Mark A. Garlick for a look at how such astroengineering could be achieved.)
Extra-planetary path
Once a technological species has moved beyond the planetary phase of its evolution, does it feel as keenly the need to occupy as many habitats as possible in order to ensure its survival? It may be that at that level a species is designing its own habitats from raw materials found in space. The colonial imperative may no longer be so urgent, or even still exist.
One possibility is that such entities might build highly self-contained worlds requiring only a modest infusion of energy and materials from outside. If such a world were to undergo essentially continuous acceleration as it is being renewed and replenished by space resources, once beyond the home system's Oort cloud it would essentially become a nomadic starship, a cosmic gypsy. As such a world/vehicle evolved, it might ultimately seek out the most plentiful sources of free energy in the universe: black holes.
Interstellar colonization (per Star Trek)
If star-travel becomes easier (i.e., cheaper) than world-building, then free-flying worlds probably give way to an 'Earths rush' in which the heirs of human civilization seek out and settle the galaxy's habitable planets. There are a limited number of such planets. The use of terraforming techniques might increase this number, but in a surprisingly short interval all available worlds will be claimed.
Interstellar world-ship construction then commences, or a post-colonial era is ushered in and the expansionistic phase of spaceflight ends.
Trans-human future beyond 'the Singularity'
If humanity merges with and/or is replaced by some version of AI, then travel may become redundant. Why travel when all 'you' really are is highly intelligent self-programming software? Transmit yourself to worlds occupied by your AI brethren, where you are downloaded and incorporated into an increasingly complex and nigh-omnicient galactic AI network. Space operations are still an activity in which this AI engages, in order to harnass the resources required to expand the database. That is, assuming knowledge/power is a driver of AI evolution.
(See Vernor Vinge on the Singularity.)
What of the humans left behind?
In spite of the possibilities outlined above, Lem uses Fiasco to define two ends of the spectrum. At one end of the continuum of civilizations 'above the window' lies what Lem calls 'sociolysis:'
Could Solaris have begun as an intelligent biosphere embodying a civilization rooted in 'sociolysis'? It is possible, though I suspect Lem amused himself by presenting the development of Solaris-like worlds at the conclusion of His Master's Voice, his novel of SETI-style contact. Entities which eventually harnass star-like energies as their planetary metabolisms find increasingly effective ways to exploit their resources.
Yet a world like Solaris might result from sociolysis. If the species which once remade the planet departs or fades away or merges with its creation, an intelligent and mightily resourceful celestial body remains.
What of the humans (or trans-humans) who have gone as far as they need to go?
The other end is occupied by the cosmological hypothesis. Here Lem refuses to speculate, other than to point out: 'Astronomy, astrophysics, space travel - these were but the small, modest beginnings.' He does reject space colonization, however:
And this is where he opines 'the probability of future expeditions with the same goal was miniscule' and mentions for the second time the Argo. The first:
Lem seems to be saying that space-travel is a stage of development some civilizations may pass through on their way to something else. Whether he is actually saying this or not, it is what I myself believe. What that something else may be is difficult to imagine. And it may be that space-travel will define the peak of mammoth technological marvels and stand as mankind's final expression of the need to build Great Pyramids.
Which leads to Maven's incisive post. A civilization possessing the order of power required for star-travel is also going to be capable of a great many other things, many of which we cannot even guess. Space-travel may be just one item on the shopping-list. Other items will loom just as signifigantly, if not more so, especially once the major goals of spaceflight have been achieved. Attention will turn elsewhere. But toward what?
-posted 23 September 2002 10:37 AM
Posted by: Baloyne | Oct 01, 2003 at 11:23 PM
Actually maven, I got my information about the Earth's death by the sun from a Scientific American article I read last year. The sun will grow into a red giant large enough to swallow the Earth in about 4 billion years but long before that it will have gotten hot enough to cook the Earth, killing all life left on it. This, according to current data and theories about the sun's lifespan, will take place in a half to one billion years. Then over the next three to three-and-a-half billion years it will swell into a red giant, first swallowing the already lifeless Earth, then Mars (and there may be life to kill on it long before then too), then, within a few million years after that it will quickly exhaust its fuel and shrink into a nearly burnt-out white dwarf, but not a neutron star much less a black hole since it is not massive enough.
-posted 26 September 2002 05:31 AM
Posted by: Leostaris | Oct 01, 2003 at 11:26 PM
Hello to all you posters – your thoughtful, articulate, polite, well-informed offerings are a great pleasure to read. Perhaps this is not so unusual as I imagine, but then I don’t get around on the web that much. I have gained considerable insight into Lem from you. Those of you who created this site and participate in the forums have done a Very Good Thing… for which I am most appreciative!
Very brief intro - it was the early 70’s, when a new friend did me the great service of initiating me into the wonders of Stanislaw Lem (as well as Cordwainer Smith). I would say my favorites are Solaris, The Cyberiad, Fiasco, & A Perfect Vacuum. Many others demand rereading, and your comments have pointed me towards some likely candidates, such as His Master’s Voice, The Invincible, and Return from the Stars. Coincidentally, like Leo, most of my books are in storage as we slowly remodel. It’s also clear that I need to locate and read Eden. I’ll confess to having bogged down both times I started Tichy books. I’ve been recommending (to little effect) Tarkovsky’s Solaris to people for years, and was most apprehensive when I learned of the impending Soderburgh/Cameron/Clooney film. Though Lem-lovers may find much to be lacking, to the extent it successfully captures any of Lem’s philosophical concerns and literary nuances it should be an eye-and-mind opener for the general public - as with Jackson’s first LOTR movie, I’ll try to focus on the positive.
The slow pace of our space exploration efforts has been perhaps the most bitter disappointment of my adult life. The general contours of Kubrick’s 2001 seemed so attainable back then. Of course, the Pan-Am moon shuttles reinforce the accuracy of Lem’s comment (quoted by one of you elsewhere, sorry I don’t remember who) that we’re not really exploring space, but merely extending Earth. Still, I like to think the philosophically minded will be able to climb on the shoulders of the commercial/military interests as (or if) they ever start pushing us further out there. Maven accurately points out that those whose interests are scientific and/or philosophical do not make the budgeting decisions, and I suppose we should count ourselves fortunate that the High Frontier has not been more heavily militarized than it has (I generously assume we’re even aware of the full extent.)
Lem’s “window” would certainly account for our failure to meet, or even detect, “others”. I prefer that explanation to the pessimistic one, which I often hold, which says that technological advancement always outstrips ethical advancement, and that civilizations suffer catastrophic war, or ecological collapse, which puts a permanent halt to any possible spaceward movement. Worlds may only contain sufficient natural resources to enable a single shot at creating a sustainable technosphere. Or, intelligent life may be so rare in the universe that distance alone renders any others unknowable, and impossibly long odds are created that two species, interested and capable of meeting and communicating, will exist simultaneously. Along with Leostaris, I suspect that FTL travel will ultimately prove impossible. I wonder – if there is a Designer, then that feature of reality is deliberate, perhaps implying that we were not meant to be distracted by interaction with other sentient beings – or at least not until we evolve (accidently or deliberately) beyond our temporal, mechanical limitations. Leo echoes Clarke when he suggests true interstellar travel will require remaking ourselves rather than pursuing what may be the blind alley of technological advancement. I don’t personally believe in a Designer, but I’m not arrogant enough to dismiss the possibility (as I was in my flamingly atheistic youth!) Earth is certainly detectable by advanced species, we’re surrounded by a sphere of electromagnetic babble over a hundred light years in diameter. As pointed out, others may be present in ways we can neither detect nor even comprehend. Or, there is Lem’s singular notion (from A Perfect Vacuum) that we cannot communicate because the observed laws of physics are local…
If sentient life is impossibly rare, or even unique, and in the absence of any demonstrable afterlife, it becomes more wrong (if that’s possible) for ANY SENTIENT BEING TO KILL ANOTHER BEING (pardon the shouting), except possibly in the defense of a greater number of beings. Not that I wish to spark a debate about utilitarian calculus!
A book-locating resource of which you may be unaware is http://www.alibris.com - punch in (unfortunately) obscure authors like Lem and the results will pleasantly surprise you…
Keep it up. Not sure I have that much to offer, being neither a Lem expert, scientist, nor professional philosopher, but I’ll be watching and enjoying, and might chime in from time to time. I expect things will liven up as the premiere approaches.
-posted 27 September 2002 11:18 AM
Posted by: Glimmung | Oct 01, 2003 at 11:30 PM
Thank you for the post Glimmung and welcome. This place does seem to attract some very interesting minds.
I don't have much to add in regard to the scientific materialist position that many voices here are very versed in (and where Lem's own ideas grow).
From the philosophic viewpoint, which is, strictly speaking, no concern of the pure scientist, who is engaged in the investigation of phenomena, not its implications, I found what you mentioned about "sentient life being impossibly rare" to be very pointed. Evidence of this being the case seems to be overwhelming, This is for me, the key.
To view the picture-our human future's picture-in its completeness, a mind is required that is not itself involved in the phenomenal process, a transcendental mind that is outside the realm of causality and the subject-object relationship. (I don't want to disappear in a puff of metaphysical smoke or New Age-y anti-thinking.) It must know some things other than physics. I believe that our route to the stars has to consider Lem's notion (from A Perfect Vacuum-thanks Glimmung) that the observed laws of physics are relatively local. It is my conclusion that that is the way we are meant to explore space-time.
This is a great thread and I just had to throw in my two cents. I enjoy reading all of the posts about space travel and futurology and I apologize if this clips the conversation.
-posted 27 September 2002 01:45 PM
Posted by: mondrian5 | Oct 01, 2003 at 11:30 PM
Glimmung delivers an excellent and substantial post, to conclude with 'Not sure I have that much to offer....' : )
Two explanations for our 'silent universe' from Glimmung's post: debilitating global warfare or eco-collapse. Both deserve some serious consideration, and may lead directly to the next scenario offered: 'Worlds may only contain sufficient natural resources to enable a single shot at creating a sustainable technosphere.' And Lem indicates he considers this to be one of the possibilities:
The quote derives from what I regard to be Lem's crowning statement on SETI. Due largely to my own interest in SETI, it is this book - Fiasco - which is my favorite of Lem's works. The conflict between technology and environment is a recurring theme, and the manner of its resolution is central to his speculations about ETI.
The possibility that a civilization is allowed a single opportunity to establish a toehold in space is too important to ignore. Some have theorized humanity is currently enjoying the boon of an 'energy bubble,' defined in this case as our recent access to fossil fuels. Prospects for our permanent presence on territory somewhere beyond Earth may ultimately be determined by what we do with an era where energy and other resources are cheap and plentiful. But that era is not indefinite and, in fact, we may be fast approaching a critical threshold even now. If it is not already past.
(See Scientific American: The Bottleneck and Blue Planet: The end is near for the current status of humanity's relationship with its resources. The 'end' mentioned in the title concerns Earth's supply of fossil fuel energy.)
There are some popular misconceptions regarding Earth's sphere of manmade signals. Sagan himself, unfortunately, helped popularize the idea that our radio and television broadcasts alone will be enough to alert other civilizations to our existence. But there is a phenomenon known as scintillation which dictates these broadcasts will become increasingly jumbled and distorted as they traverse great distances until they are no longer recognizable as artificial in origin.
Another part of that misconception is the idea that we ourselves possess instruments that can detect alien broadcasts, if they are very close by. But this is also untrue.
From Radio Leakage: Is anybody listening?:
I have not read A Perfect Vacuum and am frankly very surprised to read Lem advocates the notion that 'the observed laws of physics are local.' This flies in the face of all science, and astrophysics and cosmology in particular. No matter where we look in the universe, we observe the same laws of physics operating on Earth to be in effect. Perhaps Lem pursued this line of thinking, not for scientific purposes, but rather to explore certain philosophical questions concerning the nature of the mysterious in our universe?
There has recently been a minor tremor in the world of physics over claims made by scientists in Australia that the speed of light may not have been the same in the early universe. Some physicists have already addressed these claims, however:
Comment on time-variation of fundamental constants
Fundamental constants in effective theory
(All somewhat technical. Has the number of centimeters per meter changed since the universe was born? Or the number of inches per foot? That rhetorical question stands near the heart of the argument against varying c. Again, c and certain other constants are 'merely human constructs whose number and values differ from one choice of units to the next.' When we ask how such constants vary over time, the question ultimately 'has no operational meaning.')
I believe Glimmung is correct that we are detectable. Our atmosphere will give us away to astronomers elsewhere in the galaxy. Our telecom broadcasts may be scrambled by particles and radiation scattered through interstellar space. But some military radar pulses, though they do not carry any coded messages, might be detectable to ultrasensitive interferometers and recognized as artificial. There is a small chance that alien space-based observatories might also pick up the flashes of nuclear devices when they are detonated.
Mostly, however, our atmosphere will give us away. Its composition will point to the presence of life. It may further hint at industrial activity on our world. We likewise may detect other beings using the same methods, as early as this century.
But will we be out among the planets by this century's end? That is the question. And the answer could be more crucial than anyone may realize.
Glimmung, I find your point that civilizations may not get more than one chance at space-travel to be very signifigant.
-posted 27 September 2002 08:27 PM
Posted by: Baloyne | Oct 01, 2003 at 11:32 PM
Hi, everyone! It's a great theme, you are discussing on this topic, thanks to you all! Sorry, I could not contribute before because of having not enough time. My post following is too long, so please stop reading it if you decide it is boring.
Stanislaw Lem gave us exellent concepts of Contact. You discuss here possibilities of Contact, as present scientists consider it on SETI program. Lem theorized the problem perfectly, especially in "His Masters Voice" and "Fiasco". I would like to share with you what I read in Lem's article "Are we alone in the Universe?", written in 1977 as a polemization with Prof. Joseph Shklovsky, prominent soviet astrophisycist, one of founders of SETI (together with Francis Drake or Carl Sagan, I guess?). You know the SETI experts' speculations were based mostly on the method of probability estimation - remember that Drake's formula with its numerous coefficients. Failure of radio signals receiving attempts, carried out in 60-70s, implied a pessimistic estimaton of Contact possibility, suggested an idea of the UNIVERSE SILENCE and the intelligent life uniqueness. In the article mentioned, Lem tries to argue this point of view, not suggesting a reverse one, but with analizing the most common aspects of the problem, letting us to understand, the solution is simply beyond the present level of our knowlege and all speculations are waste yet. His arguments are following:
Besides, trying to discover signals, we presume by that, the Others philantropize towards the less advanced civilizations. This conclusion goes directly from the fact, that absence of an extraterrestrial civilization near the Sun is almost unarguable and existence of that within 100 lightyears is very unlikely. Any communication at distanses of hundreds or thousands of LY is senseless, so a Sender would broadcast a signal during millions of years not expecting to receive an answer. Such an activity would be philantropic because of being usless for the Sender. There is an opinion, suggesting such a civilization may be rich in energy resources enough to afford that (energy of a star is required to provide necessary power for an isotropic broadcast, noticible at thousands of LYs distance). Well, the energy power of the present humanity is thousands of times more than that of 18th century. Yet we have no much excess of energy now and have much of energy hunger, that is much stronger, than some 150 years before. There is no reason to think we will achieve a stage of energy paradise ever, when power abilities would be unlimited. A powerful civilization should have the energy expenses equal to its energy power. Thus it is difficult to imagine a civilization, that would resolve to make such a broadcast - during millions of years (using energy compared with that of a star) and being CLEARLY recognizable as an artifitial signal (minimum use of informational capacity of communication channel therefore).
Prof.Shklovsky, pessimistic about a possibility of ET-signal receiving, offered another way of finding ETI. The activity of a highly advanced civilization may be observed by us as a sort of SPACE MIRACLE - phenomenon that could not be explained as a natural one. But are we able to recognize such a miracle indeed? Simple logic suggests we can only discover what a civilization does for its own purpose, not for someone's amusement. Nobody would turn a star into a nova just to enjoy it.
The second difficulty is that we don't know how such an activity would look and whether it could be observed astronomicaly. The general principle is this: the more effectively THEY use their energy resources the more difficult their activity is to discover. For example - scarcely someone would heat a lake by means of a nuclear explosion (noticible at a big distance), he/she would rather use a nuclear reactor with a less waste of energy.
The third difficulty of discovering SPACE MIRACLES is that we may not notice what we don't search. Pulse-zars remained not discovered for a long time, while devices for their observing already existed -nobody just expected existence of such quickly changing objects.
The fourth difficulty is that a SPACE MIRACLE should offer the only explanation of itself as a manifestation of intelligent activity. Suppose we use a nuclear explosion to remove a mountain. A distant observer could count this an eruption of a volcano. The present astrophysics knows many phenomenona, unexplainable yet, but not considered as SPACE MIRACLES. Our impatience and hunger of cognition are unsufficient for explaining of OTHERS activity reasons.
The four difficulties, mentioned before suggest an idea of existing a kind of cognitive horizon for each moment of a civilization evolution. Everything, the civilization has not known yet and does not guess about is beyond this horizon. What would say any physicist 100 years ago about a nuclear explosion? He would consider it as a natural phenomenon, not an artificial one - completely in accordance with the common scientifical method of Occam's blade. BTW, it was just 100 ago, that physicists believed there is nothing fundamental to discover.
Thus the ability to distinguish an artificial phenomenon from a natural one is function to observer's knowlege. Nowadays we can only wastely discuss a possibility of ETI existence. In future we'll be able to understand where THEY could be found for sure. But that future will not be the end of cognition. Having conquered a peak, we find new ones beyond it, not yet conquered. Perhaps, having climbed one of such peaks we get to see the Contact is possible or not. But today we still have to hope...
P.S. I hope I have not bored you with my long post. To me Lem's speculation is great. Forgive my poor expression please.
-posted 30 September 2002 09:03 AM
Posted by: dimarec | Oct 01, 2003 at 11:36 PM
Dimarec, your post was fantastic! And anything but boring. I completely agree with your comments about His Master's Voice and Fiasco. Thanks especially for sharing Lem's and Shklovsky's 'Are We Alone in the Universe.'
In Fiasco Lem comments that 'those "above the window" occupy themselves...with activities beyond our conception.' Immediately after this, he writes 'this view of civilizations beyond the interval of contact [was described] as "knowledge by unknowledge."' This seems to reflect the view you describe: 'the solution is simply beyond the present level of our knowlege....'
The list you present of what we don't know is telling. The scope of our ignorance is awesome. In just a few millennia we have learned so much, only to learn how little we truly know.
The point about an extreme case of philanthropy being required for SETI to succeed is also well-taken.
George W. Swenson's article 'Intragalactically Speaking,' which appeared in Scientific American Volume 283, Number 1, July, 2000, is difficult to locate on the Web. But Unidentified Flying Interstellar Nonsense by Sid Deutsch captures some of its key points:
Intragalactically Speaking is an html version of the pdf file. The following quote can be found there:
This is Swenson's conclusion:
Or, as Snaut puts it in Solaris, SETI success may require nothing less than generations of tireless and devoted service by 'the Knights of the Holy Contact.'
The arguments concerning the 'space miracle' as a means of establishing contact are very interesting. Lem and Shklovsky have applied far more clear thinking to these questions than almost anyone else I can think of. And it does not seem to me that it is an accident that religious language inevitably works its way into the discussion. SETI as a religion, contact as a miracle, Solaris itself as a kind of imperfect infant godling.
Does that say more about the nature of SETI's challenge, or more about the nature of those who pursue SETI?
-posted 30 September 2002 07:50 PM
Posted by: Baloyne | Oct 01, 2003 at 11:40 PM
Thanks for answering and links, Baloyne! The theme of SETI is of big interest to me, as it has been since my childhood. Pity, there's not much on the subject in russian popular science periodicals at present day. So I'm going to examine the articles links to wich you've posted. Thanks.
-posted 01 October 2002 08:57 AM
Posted by: dimarec | Oct 01, 2003 at 11:42 PM
Mondrian5 and Baloyne, thanks for the kind words! The depth of the posts by Baloyne and Dimarec reinforce my belief in my relative ignorance, I continue to learn from you… fascinating stuff.
As my UserName hints, my esteem for Lem is perhaps only matched by my love of Philip K Dick. Elsewhere, someone asked who else had read Olaf Stapledon – Star Maker was awe-inspiring, and Sirius broke my heart…
Baloyne, thanks for the info on the detectability problem. Unsurprising on reflection, and somewhat depressing, but good to know! Perhaps detection solutions have been found elsewhere that we have not considered yet, though I expect the odds of that occurring locally enough to result in contact are small. And if so, where are they? The ramifications and implications of the silent universe are troubling, and perhaps awesome.
Not sure I want Others judging us from Amos & Andy or Beverly Hills 90210 in any case!
I was struck by Lem’s remark that you quoted: “The conservatives...would be silent: that was obvious... “ At the risk of overgeneralizing, I find that the SETI impulse dovetails with a general liberal or humanistic bent, though “liberals” are often at the forefront of those who find NASA funding to be wasteful. I seem to recall reading that the data from weather/geophysical satellites alone has more than repaid our investment. Though my politics are libertarian/progressive, my original post made clear the deep emotional importance I attach to space exploration. I can well imagine those such as Pres Bush’s NeoCons being scornful of the SETI impulse, and, if they reflected, arriving at the opinion that we shouldn’t speak too loudly to the universe, there’s no telling what might hear us and respond – perhaps a technologically superior version of themselves, which could be catastrophic! Many see our presence in space as a tool, the means to purely terrestrial ends. Like the Quintans…?
It’s exhilarating to be in communication with those, like yourselves, who do not share this intellectually narrow and spiritually barren outlook. I agree with the observations that there is a strong (for lack of a better word) religious element to the whole SETI phenomenon – we are looking for the ultimate meaning and context of our existence, individually and as a sentient island in space, though without recourse to the supernatural.
I would hope that the possibility of advanced visitors would improve our behavior - how might we be judged? Clarke also suggested this, most explicitly in The Deep Range, and libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick offered, in defense of animal rights, a variation on the Golden Rule for species, with the reminder that we may not always be at the top of the technological food chain.
As Dimarec astutely points out, we optimistically assume that any beings capable of detecting and reaching us will be benevolent, or at worst, generally benign, any such beings having successfully navigated the technical, psychological, environmental, and ethical challenges we currently face. And, as Lem has suggested, such beings may lose interest in seeking contact. After all, we anthropomorphize our machines, and other animal species – naturally we would do the same to Others.
As Baloyne reminds us, we must use the available “energy bubble” as a stepping stone to more powerful, environmentally friendly, renewable and maintainable power sources, and wisely but sadly observes that the window may already be closing. If we are not wise enough, as a species, to solve these conundrums, then the wider cosmos will perhaps be fortunate to be spared our intrusions.
Dimarec, great speculations on energy usage and “Space Miracles”. Does seem that the SM would likely never result in direct communication, but would only be a vast variation on “Kilroy was here”… though some argue that there is no such thing as altruism/philanthropy, but only more subtle notions of self-interest. I’m out of date on such topics, but I recall the discussions that Dyson Spheres were such an obvious solution to the dual problems of living space and efficient energy usage (especially in a non-FTL universe) that space could be dotted with them and how could we tell? They wouldn’t radiate noticeably.
Baloyne, the last chapter in A Perfect Vacuum contains the “local physics” concept, in the form of (as I recall) a Nobel Prize acceptance speech. I would need to re-read it to comment much further, but even though the presentation was “factual”, this does not rule out the possibility that Lem was being much less than literal in offering the concept – it certainly is a bit out of sync with the tone of the rest of the book, which is rife with self-referential tricks and allows Lem to offer indirect yet scathing critiques of many of the practices of modern literature (e.g., Robinson Crusoe redone as French anti-novel, a jibe at Joyce/Eco-style encoding and impenetrability). I’m not sure to what extent my own intuitive or analytical shortcomings may have led me to miss some of the deeper meanings behind the literary hi-jinks. I recommend it highly, only The Cyberiad is more playful among Lem’s works that I have read.
Thanks to you all. I still hope to find time to join the Solaris-as-Art discussion… our long-overdue but soon-to-arrive home computer will make such things all too easy, and will no doubt prove to be the attractive nuisance I’ve always feared! I will make that e-mail address available to the forum.
-posted 01 October 2002 02:23 PM
Posted by: Glimmung | Oct 01, 2003 at 11:43 PM
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Baloyne:
Does that say more about the nature of SETI's challenge, or more about the nature of those who pursue SETI?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMHO, SETI is waste of money, and we should concentrate on solar system exploration instead of trying to listen to others in vain.
I really like "Contact" [even though it really promotes SETI] because it shows a dream never come true. (That is why I like science fiction - it gives me the pleasure to escape, to be on 'another world' [I really love "Tumannost Andromedy", because it deals with an age that will never come...])
First of all, it seems that life on Earth occured by mere coincidence (our galaxy is stable and also rich in iron; the gas and dust in the solar nebula had the right composition [thanks to a star that had exploded the right time and at the right distance]; the Solar System has the right central star [single and stable]; the Earth has the right orbit [not too excentric, as well as being neither too far nor too close to the Sun]; amongs the planets there is one [but not more] Jupiter-sized body which protects the Earth from asteroid impacts BUT also lets some escape and hit our planet [like 65 million years ago, making room for us]; we have one [but not more] moon with the right mass and orbit [to make the axis of earth stable, as well as producing tides], etc. etc. etc. All in all, assuming that there is a similar live form nearby is like reading the very same book [to the last word] written by two people having worked independently from each other. Perhaps there is life in the Universe, but it seems, our Galaxy, albeit vast in human scale, is too small for hosting two life forms. (Just a note: in "Conatct" Ms. Arroway, when looking up the sky, uses bad math, as she multiplies the number of stars in our Galaxy by a factor of million once too many...)
The other thing is that life might be a common thing, but INTELLIGENT life could be rather scarce. For example, on Earth there had existed primitive life for 3 billion years, yet it evolved [by another chance, perhaps] into a more complex stage just a couple of hundred thousand years ago [and the so-called intelligent life started here a mere 15 thousand years ago + we have been an adequate technology level to be able receive signals from 'the others' just a hundred or so years ago]. However, this leads to another problem...
For example, there are two cats looking into the very same tube yet they can not see each other. Why? - is the tube curved? is it nighttime? does something block the view? Nope - one cat looks into the tube on Wednesday, and the other one on Thursday. So, 100 years is a very-very-very-very-very narrow window considering the age of the Universe [15 billion years]. We can not see the ones who will evolve into a similar form in a mere 50 million years from now, nor can we make a contact with those, who has just distroyed themsleves recently - say, 250 thousand years ago... (This "time factor" is oftern overlooked by the promoter of SETI.)
The third component is the form of life. Could we make contact with the Ocean on Solaris from here? - no way (as a crow can not communicate with a jellyfish). Besides, we have no right to assume that we reached the highest technical level possible. What about if we are like ants [who are rather intelligent creatures - and perhaps, as a society, they might even surpasses us] compared to humans. Did those seagallas attracted by the launch of the mighty Saturn V rocket in Florida realize that humans were going to the Moon? Certainly not. (And it questions the looking-for-miracle point; we may never realize a "miracle" due to our limited sense.)
Just a couple of centuries ago people communicated with one another by the means of flipping mirrors and hence flashing lights. However, nowadays people carry cell phones in their pocket, but not mirrors. The ancient Greeks, for example, could not receive any radio signals (although they had rather advanced science). Similarily, there might be aliens broadcasting, but not by signaling radio waves, as it might be as obsolete to them, as flipping mirrors or waving flags are outdated to us now. How about if they have never invented a radio trasmission device in the first place (if bats use radar, it does not mean every other living creature use the same.)
All in all, in my opinion, it is not only looking for a needle in a haystack, and the needle is much smaller and the haystack is much bigger than we had previously thought, but we might look for a needle which has turned into dust long time ago, or has not been produced yet. That is why science fiction is so great to me - it shows a universe that does not - and can not - exist (it is like having a dream about flying. However, these dreams will never come true [only in Bradbury's story: "Here There Be Tigers"], and we should not mix a dream with reality and jump from the roof...)
-posted 01 October 2002 03:06 PM
Posted by: viragpali | Oct 01, 2003 at 11:47 PM
Viragpali lays out the obstacles to Contact very succinctly, and my head tells me this is almost certainly the way it is. But, my heart says, keep looking, in spite of the slim chance of success, and in spite of the possible dangers of success. The money isn't all that much in relative terms, and all such efforts involve basic research which may pay unexpected dividends.
[ascends soapbox] Phooey to those, by the way, who exclusively trumpet goal-directed private sector R&D. Too many of our most important discoveries have been flukes, unexpected byproducts of basic research. [stumbles and falls off soapbox while gazing hopefully skyward] :)
But YES - on with the exploring!!!
And on the subject of communication, I have always been haunted by Bradbury's The Foghorn...
-posted 01 October 2002 04:27 PM
Posted by: Glimmung | Oct 01, 2003 at 11:50 PM
Question:
What does 'contact' offer?
I have no agenda, just a curiosity to hear your opinions.
-posted 01 October 2002 06:02 PM
Posted by: mondrian5 | Oct 01, 2003 at 11:50 PM
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by mondrian5:
What does 'contact' offer?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a thing, it definitely would offer: the knowlege of OTHERS existence fact, awareness of not being ALONE IN THE UNIVERSE. That is what we people want mostly now, it seems. But what then, after we have known that? Stanislaw Lem examined this subject better than anyone else, I guess.
Thus, that is my and Lem's point of view. To your information: there was a soviet SF writer Ivan Efremov, the author of "Nebula of Andromeda" mentioned on this topic by Viragpali. He believed that life should necessarily evolve into human-like forms with similar ethical norms anywhere in the Universe , so Contact between different races would happen friendly and easily. His concept does not look materialistic and scientifical to me.
-posted 02 October 2002 12:06 PM
Posted by: dimarec | Oct 01, 2003 at 11:57 PM
--Space Miracles, part one--
Glimmung, you are very welcome. Your thoughtful post deserved an equally thoughtful response. But I think when it comes to SETI we are all of us ignorant. As Dimarec has reminded us, one of Lem's primary statements on the subject of SETI is: We know nothing.
At this time I should let you know you have met a fellow admirer of Philip K. Dick. Though I have read only a small fraction of his work, Dick has impressed me with his insights. And, thanks to Dick, there exists a science fiction movie that is among my all-time favorites: Bladerunner.
You make an excellent point that there may exist detection solutions unguessed by us. I mentioned the so-called Earthshine method in my last post as just one possibility, but who knows what other possibilities there may be?
Because we know almost nothing about life elsewhere in the universe, the questions posed by such life are not so far removed from those posed about other unknowables. Such as God. I think this is why the religious aspect of SETI is inevitable. It is a quest to reach out to the Other, and it is a given that the Other is at this time a complete unknown. Into that hole in our knowledge we pour our own beliefs and biases. There is no avoiding this. This, to me, means how we regard SETI says far more about us than it does about other civilizations. Perhaps Lem shares that view?
There, as you can see, can be found reference to Lem's and Shklovsky's 'space miracles' which Dimarec mentioned. Lem does a fine job of not only capturing the debate, but also the seesaw of opinion on the subject.
The section quoted above comes just before Lem's comments about those he terms the 'conservatives' on the techno-biological road of evolution. The question is whether the fruits of a species' biological evolution, along with the natural environment at large, will be conserved, or whether a technological species will instead choose to embark upon autoevolution. This becomes, for Lem, the crossroads from which civilizations diverge unpredictably. He sees this crossroads being reached just before a civilization acquires the capability to signal, and detect, other civilizations. Lem's explanation for the 'silent universe.'
--Space Miracles, part two: the politics of space and science--
Glimmung, MSNBC has since discontinued its BBS bulletin boards. Noises were made about the cost of maintaining these boards (negligible) and September 11th. Be that as it may, one of those forums was the MSNBC Space News Bulletin Board. There a poll was run more than once that correlated politics with views on SETI. On each occasion the results indicated a liberal perspective favored a 'diverse' galaxy populated by other technological species. Further, those species were expected to have 'outgrown' the aggression characterizing technologically-driven civilizations. The conservative perspective favored a human expansion into the cosmos at all costs, as a matter of the ultimate survival of our species. This perspective tended to find the existence of other civilizations to be highly unlikely. If other civilizations do exist, however, the conservative view was that we may expect them to be hostile and we should exercise extreme caution when engaging in any attempts at contact.
A year or so later, the following material appeared on the Space.com site:
Will ET Be Hostile? Alienated People Are More Likely to Say 'Yes'
How Our View Of Ourselves Affects Beliefs About E.T.
How Social Science Deciphers Our Thoughts on Alien Life
The SETI Institute's survey produced results matching those from the much less formal surveys conducted on the MSNBC Space News Bulletin Board. Anyone can test themselves against these results. A useful on-line political barometer is the World's Smallest Political Quiz.
By that candle, Starship Troopers (or its successor Independence Day) offers a conservative vision of ETI. Sagan's Contact, not surprisingly, offers a liberal vision. Star Trek and Star Wars strike something of a balance, with a universe populated by aliens both friendly and hostile.
That your libertarian point-of-view is accompanied by a pro-space attitude may not be as unexpected as it might at first seem. Robert Zubrin (see Headquarters for the Mars Direct Manned Mars Mission), also a libertarian, is the author of The Case for Mars: The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must. The imperative to colonize space is not inconsistent with conservative politics. A secular conservatism may not be as likely to be offended by space colonization and the possibilities of alien life?
By the way, I couldn't help being amused by your remark:
In my opinion, you have captured, with humor, what the SETI Institute dispassionately revealed in its survey. : )
Perhaps there is some justification for the hostility with which fundamentalists regard science? Science is, on the surface, a secular pursuit. But the urge to know the secrets of the universe, to conquer it through understanding - this seems to me to have much in common with Christianity. That mankind has been given 'dominion' over the world, that mankind should 'go forth and multiply - this seems to go hand in hand with the insecurity that mandates 'Manifest Destiny' and similar imperatives.
I would describe myself as a political moderate in many respects. It seems to me that a civilization cannot become very technologically advanced without the driver of aggression/conflict. At the same time, interstellar warfare strikes me as ridiculous. Where is the political or economic payoff? Starflight is outrageously expensive, regardless of the technology used to achieve it, and the costs and risks of interstellar warfare prohibitive. On the other hand, there is the question suggested by Mondrian5: What is to be gained from contact?
(Mondrian5, by the way, has interesting and informative things to say about Solaris and art.)
Perhaps there is a golden rule in effect, as you suggest. As other alien life can just as easily be more advanced as it can be more primitive, it may be unwise to implement what has come to known as Pellegrino's Prophylactic: Preemptive annihilation of potential rivals located light-years away. By the time your attack arrives at its destination, the civilization you threaten will have developed in ways you cannot predict. It may be in a position not only to defend itself, but to mount a devastating counter-attack that you are unable to anticipate. Pellegrino's Prophylactic is thereby defeated.
You have hit on a very critical point about contact, I think, with your mention of energy-efficiency and technological advancement. Primitive civilizations wantonly waste energy, but themselves need little. Advanced civilizations suffer from an ever-accelerating need for energy and consequently are driven to become more efficient. Whether Dyson spheres exist or not, we probably should not expect ETs to be advertizing themselves through emissions into interstellar space.
Lem agrees with Viragpali on the problem of timing in interstellar communication:
But is SETI a waste of money, as Viragpali alleges?
Is there Intelligent Life in Washington?: Congress holds hearings on 'Life in the Universe' and especially Testimony of Christopher F. Chyba: "Life in the Universe" suggest otherwise:
[Christopher Chyba to the House Committee on Science Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, on the the Allen Telescope Array:]
The SETI effort, though privately funded by donations, is not merely philanthropy. It is also science.
But, besides science, what else does SETI offer?
If, as I've suggested, SETI - and science itself - arises, like religion, out of the very deep human need to confront the mysterious, there is the answer.
-posted 02 October 2002 04:52 PM
Posted by: Baloyne | Oct 02, 2003 at 12:06 AM
Whew!
Baloyne, I take your thoughtful and informative replies as a great compliment. I can't take the time a proper reply deserves just now, and I need time to explore the links you provided.
Instead, I will report back to you briefly on "The New Cosmogony" from A Perfect Vacuum which I reread last night (this was fortunately not in storage.)
I don't want to say too much, because I think you need to read this one for yourself and I don't want to spoil it for you. It bears directly on some of the issues under discussion here. My memory of it was incomplete, unsurprising given the 10 + years since I read it last.
I will tempt you by reporting that Lem evolves a theory (placed in the words of a fictional philosopher and physicist) which has this outline:
There will be other chapters of A Perfect Vacuum which will be of interest to you as well, especially if you take interest (as I suspect you do) in Lem's concerns with the possibility of, nature of, and rights adhering to, artificial life - if, e.g., you appreciated "How Trurl's Own Perfection Led to No Good." A similar concern illuminates Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep (aka Blade Runner); if you like the movie the novel is essential reading, as it dwells less on the action and more on the ethics. I'm also very fond of the movie!
-posted 02 October 2002 06:28 PM
Posted by: Glimmung | Oct 02, 2003 at 12:11 AM
Excellent response, dimarec! Thank you.
Alone as a species or alone as an individual may ultimately be the same anxiety. It is cold and bare outside, says the mother; but one day the child goes out. This age is still our first day out, and we feel ourselves alone; more free and more alone.
And Baylone, your mentioning the 'mystery' is in sympathy with my feelings about 'contact'.
Mystery, or unknowing, is energy. As soon as a mystery is explained, it ceases to be a source of energy.
-posted 02 October 2002 06:43 PM
Posted by: mondrian5 | Oct 02, 2003 at 12:12 AM
Glimmung, it has been my pleasure to return the compliment. It is good to be in a discussion of SETI with others who have so much to add. And thank you for steering me toward A Perfect Vacuum, which I will now seek out for my next serious read. From your posts, I suspect you have a more literary bent than I do. It's been many years since I've read Bradbury, but now perhaps you'll also have me hunting down The Foghorn. : )
Dimarec, I'm glad to be of some small service with the links cited. Looking back over my own posts, I see that all I've done for the most part is quote material from Fiasco, a book many in this forum have already read. You have done far more by sharing Lem's and Shklovsky's 'Are we alone in the Universe?' And you have also given us Lem's statement on what we can expect from the Others. As a result, I think we are all very much in your debt. And all the more so, given that you are required to do the added work of putting your words here into another language - and have beautifully expressed some remarkable ideas.
If you're looking for links, I saw Astronomer Speaks Up For ET just today and thought it might apply here. An interview with Russia's Professor Alexander Zaitsev. I found his comments illuminating. Here is just one quote:
More links:
Realistic article on SETI:
Where They Could Hide by Andrew LePage
Pessimistic article on SETI:
Why ET Hasn't Called by Michael Shermer
Humanistic book on SETI (synopsis):
Life Everywhere: The Maverick Science of Astrobiology by David Darling
Fatalistic article on SETI:
Intelligence in the Cosmos: Flesh or Machine? by Erik Baard
I would now like to add something to what I've written previously. Looking back, I see my writing has not been as clear as I would have liked. When writing of the conflict between religion and science, what I was getting at is that both are staking out the same territory; i.e., the mysterious. Conflict between the two paradigms is therefore a given. Science, ostensibly built on empiricism, seeks to avoid looking hypocritical by disavowing any religious or spiritual aspects which might undermine its discipline. But in my opinion the quest for knowledge has with science simply taken a different road from that walked by religion. Both are ultimately after the same thing. What Dimarec has conveyed about Lem's views on the Others goes to the point here. There are two languages being used to talk about the same thing. Religion is using the language of Culture, while science is relying on that of Mathematics.
Because we all take part in human culture, none of us can be free of bias. We project onto the self-reflecting mirror of the unknown what lies within us - something Lem was trying to get across in Solaris. The unknown universe, however, is under no obligation to provide our reflection if and when we ever manage to step behind the mirror.
Religious conservatives may distrust human nature, and therefore sentient nature in general, believing divine salvation alone can rescue us from our own innate evil. They will tend to prefer a universe in which humans are alone, and will see alien intelligence as extremely unlikely, even impossible. They will be very dismayed indeed if it is ever proven to exist. For the most part, idealistic liberal humanists will take the opposite view. They will in general not only believe in the existence of advanced alien civilizations, but will incline toward the view that the more advanced they are the more altruistic and pacifistic they are. They believe in the power of human-created institutions to solve terrestrial problems, so why not exobiological institutions that will solve extraterrestrial problems? Civilized beings prefer peace to war, do they not? So argue the liberal humanists, but the most powerful and advanced civilization on Earth is about to invade a weaker nation in a world of tightening oil supplies. Food for thought at least.
My own opinion can therefore hardly have any more import than any of the others. If I believe there are indeed other civilizations (evolution produces greater complexity over time, not less - so I would argue), but that the more technological civilizations are at the same time the more aggressive (using Earth history as the only available guide), I stand just as great a chance of being proven wrong as anyone else.
Though, of course, I am completely convinced that I am right. : )
posted 03 October 2002 02:00 AM
Posted by: Baloyne | Oct 02, 2003 at 12:14 AM
I wanted to briefly acknowledge the great relevance of the basic question Mondrian5 posed to the forum, I hope to contribute something, though I'm not sure what is left to say.
Do we as humans require mystery? What is it about us which drives us to even pose these questions in the absence of any "facts" except our own sentience and a vast and silent universe? Curiosity is evidently a survival factor, perhaps evolved for its usefulness in relating to our immediate environment, and now employed to ask, and attempt to answer, such questions.
A universe in which we alone are self-aware is a scary thing. Do we yearn for "company" as a species, in the way that individuals also seek to not be alone?
Religious "conservatives" begin by accepting "revealed truth" as a postulate, and then try to make the universe conform; if science contradicts, then science must be in error. If they find comfort in this, they are welcome to it so long as they do not attempt to constrain other beings in the name of this surety. E.g., Creationism. I can easily imagine a synthesis in which a Designer created us by forming the cosmos in just the right way. Add water, stir, and bake for 15 billion years. If so, in the vastness of creation, how could we possibly be unique? All we can apparently say, given current technology and wisdom, is that we appear to be unique locally, at this time.
These musings and discussions serve to drive back, just a bit, the horror I feel at the prospect of ending. Having been raised in no particular religious tradition (I reached college before I realized how unusual this is), I have always pondered, as does this forum, the questions which "believers" think are already settled.
I would welcome such comfort, but believe it is false. Thus, my anger that my life, and individual personality and memory, will likely end with no more of an answer gained than I have now. Even our fledgling space program helps me hold the sense of possibility, hence my bitterness at its glacial pace.
There are those, perhaps including some of you, who successfully combine religious belief with intellectual open-mindedness. Sometimes I envy this, since you can participate in such discussions without the endless void peering greedily over your shoulder.
So, the SETI-as-religion hypothesis seems valid. The great telescopes and antennae are my remote ears and eyes, straining for the slightest hint that we are not alone. This is much more than a rational exercise in curiosity. I guess I'm agreeing that for me, the possibility of Contact serves to drive back the darkness, much as a belief in an afterlife does for many others. The more wonders our science reveals, the more likely that I can grasp the possibility that physical death is not the end. I'll never know if I'm right, afterlife believers will never know if they're wrong. A Buddhist-style merging, in which the individual is consumed, seem the best I can hope for.
I've never phrased these things to myself in quite that way before... Thanks, (I think) : (
To paraphrase what was said earlier in this thread, it is a sign of our maturity, both as individuals and as a species, that the more we know, the more we are aware we don't know...
Mondrian5, I didn't know how to respond meaningfully to your question without exposing the personal... I don't mean to breach any unwritten Forum boundaries, and I'm sorry if this was a downer : )
-posted 03 October 2002 05:30 PM
Posted by: Glimmung | Oct 02, 2003 at 12:18 AM
Actually, Glimmung, without having anything particular in mind, I find yours is the kind of considered thought I was hoping to hear about. I don't think of it as a downer at all. It's the existential questions we all face. Like you, I was raised without any particular religious exposure. One result is that I am very concerned with these things.
Here is a great quote from John Fowles:
Not overly warm, I know, but it has a resonance for me.
I'd like to speak to the things you've brought forward, but my time is short right now. And who knows where you will all be when I return : )
-posted 03 October 2002 10:12 PM
Posted by: mondrian5 | Oct 02, 2003 at 12:20 AM
Hi everyone. I am just overjoyed and astounded at the quality of writing and thinking you are all putting out in response to this topic. With my vision problem (no pun intended) I find it hard to read the posts on the computer screen so I have to print them out. I want to keep hard copies anyway because I love reading them over and over. I don't have time to contribute anything right now and I need to mull over what you've all written and see if I can come up with anything to enhance the discussion. So I hope to write a response in a few days.
By the way, have any of you bought the latest Scientific American special editions? One about Time and the other about the Cosmos. Might be some things in them that will add spice to our discussion.
I also have to reread Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time. And he has a new book out. I wonder if Lem reads his books, as well as those of other cosmologists and astronomers and physicists. I don't doubt much that he does.
Many thanks to all. Leo
-posted 04 October 2002 05:21 AM
Posted by: Leostaris | Oct 02, 2003 at 12:23 AM
This is from the Oct 14 issue of Business Week. I hoped to just post a link, but BW requires an online subscription to view this article. I cannot post the link to my source. Once you've seen it, I can delete it to save space.
Though other, better questions may occur to the forum, I use the article as a springboard to pose this question:
Is a space program dominated by military interests better than no space program, or worse?
-posted 04 October 2002 12:09 PM
Posted by: Glimmung | Oct 02, 2003 at 12:30 AM
Thank you for a most informative article Glimmung. One thing I find interesting is that you posted it on the 45th anniversary of Sputnik, which should give us even more to ponder.
It's a very sad state of affairs. Just today I was looking at some space program websites which lead me to less then optimistic conclusions.
Consider for example that the Cassini mission to Saturn might very well be the last of the "golden age" solar system exploration missions. One odd thing I find about the mission, is that they claim to have taken over 26,000 images of Jupiter during the "millenium" flyby. Judging by the images they released publically there is a wealth of public relations potential there, yet the imaging team at the university of Arizona has not even updated their website in 6 months. Never mind the fact that most people probably wouldn't even know where to look for it.
Consider also that the Russian space agency has a fully assembled energia booster along with a buran space shuttle sitting abandoned in a hangar due to lack of funds. This is a booster that can launch 100 tons into low earth orbit, more then enough for a mission to the moon, perhaps even mars, yet no one is willing to finance it. This is a project that cost billions of rubles and decades to develop, just waiting for someone to use the hardware!
The current issue of Air and Space magazine also has an interesting article on the Chinese space program, pointing out that China might become the 3rd country to put people in space as soon as next year. As the article points out, this is a country where the average salary is 700 dollars a year, yet they consider it a matter of national pride to develop a manned space program (and not surprisingly much of the technology is obviously based on Russian designs).
I saw another article where astronomers were begging congress to invest money in a search for near earth asterroids, saying that there's a tangible possibility one could hit us in the next few centuries. The total cost of the project was less then 150 million, which is from what I recall not much more then the price of a single airforce F22 fighter.
Reading up on the history of space exploration, I get the feeling that much of the thinking was "even if we don't have the technology yet, let's try it!" Now the sentiment is "we have the technology, why bother!".
It doesn't help that very little is being done to educate people about space. Worse yet, when someone has a spark of curiousity it's often extinguished thanks to the poor way astronomy is taught in schools. I can tell you that from personal experience as I'm currently taking an astronomy class at college. I see people that were genuinely interested in the subject falling asleep because the professor decided to spend more time on quantum physics and special relativity then the topic at hand. (keep in mind that this is an art school and that most students taking this class have not had a science class since highschool). He literally breezed through the inner solar system in a couple of minutes, and all of that was pretty much dry often outdated facts.
I walk out of this class frustrated almost to the point of anger because I simply can't imagine how you can take something so interesting and make it so boring! And from what I hear the situation is very similar elsewhere.
Yet as I've mentioned in the very begining it has only been 45 years since sputnik! Have we become bored that quickly?
-posted 06 October 2002 12:29 AM
Posted by: maven | Oct 02, 2003 at 12:33 AM