I disagree with your premise. It would be mighty convenient for us to see signs of strip mining in the asteroid belt... We can't rule out if the asteroid belt is the mine tailings from a successful operation.
You're looking for the simplest solution at a time when the available information is only getting better and more complex. It's likely to take a *lot* more work to rule out life on mars, and only slightly less work to confirm it.
Fermi's paradox only applies if you assume that if we'd been visited, you and I would know about it. I'm not talking government conspiracies, here, I'm talking about being so close to the the problem we can't even see ourselves in the middle.
The deeper we look into space, the more complex stuff we see. How much of that might have some sort of artificial origin that we don't understand? It's hard enough for us to tell if a terrestrial rock has been shaped into a tool, never mind what others might have shaped stars into.
Time was, we classified civilizations into categories based on the sheer volume of energy they consumed. More energy=more advanced civilizations. Except now that energy is more expensive than we had guessed, it might not be the best measure of advancement after all. Should we now start looking for more efficient ways of communication than radio?
I'm going to sound like a new age fruitcake if I advance any theories about it, but that's not my point. I just think it's premature to go making connections between the slime we find or don't find, and our own uncertain future. There's *plenty* to be worried about that we have a pretty good understanding- without also having to look to the stars to find ominous portents of danger.
I really liked Neuromancer's ending as it applied to this: Until something clever could emerge on earth, there's no other way to recognize the clear signal of other clever things.
It'd be like expecting an ant colony to appreciate the intelligence of a bee hive. There's no reason to expect them to interact at all, never mind establish diplomatic relations with each other.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: unclear on the whole good / bad thing...
You're looking for the simplest solution at a time when the available information is only getting better and more complex. It's likely to take a *lot* more work to rule out life on mars, and only slightly less work to confirm it.
Fermi's paradox only applies if you assume that if we'd been visited, you and I would know about it. I'm not talking government conspiracies, here, I'm talking about being so close to the the problem we can't even see ourselves in the middle.
The deeper we look into space, the more complex stuff we see. How much of that might have some sort of artificial origin that we don't understand? It's hard enough for us to tell if a terrestrial rock has been shaped into a tool, never mind what others might have shaped stars into.
Time was, we classified civilizations into categories based on the sheer volume of energy they consumed. More energy=more advanced civilizations. Except now that energy is more expensive than we had guessed, it might not be the best measure of advancement after all. Should we now start looking for more efficient ways of communication than radio?
I'm going to sound like a new age fruitcake if I advance any theories about it, but that's not my point. I just think it's premature to go making connections between the slime we find or don't find, and our own uncertain future. There's *plenty* to be worried about that we have a pretty good understanding- without also having to look to the stars to find ominous portents of danger.
I really liked Neuromancer's ending as it applied to this: Until something clever could emerge on earth, there's no other way to recognize the clear signal of other clever things.
It'd be like expecting an ant colony to appreciate the intelligence of a bee hive. There's no reason to expect them to interact at all, never mind establish diplomatic relations with each other.