From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Tue Nov 05 2002 - 13:09:33 MST
The Fermi Paradox -- why we don't see a universe bustling with
intelligent life even though it appears that life is likely and
intelligent life even if only remotely possible should, because of the
apparent size and age of the known universe be all over the place -- is
taken dead on in a recent story by Robert Reed, "Lying to Dogs."
(_Asimov's Science Fiction_, December 2002)
I don't want to spoil the story, but in many ways it harps on a similar
theme to that of the Strugatsky Brothers' novel _Definitely Maybe_ --
that what we do makes a difference to our fate because of some
fundamental physical reaction to our actions. Reed kicks it up a
notch -- what we do might make a difference to the fate of the universe.
This is, to some (transhumanists and Extropians), a familiar idea, but
the context he uses it in might explain the Fermi Paradox. What an
intelligent species does might change the universe so much that it wipes
itself out and other intelligent species by basically fundamentally
altering the universe. Eventually life might spring forth again, after
billions of years.
A civilization could rise up, reach a very sophisticated technological
level, and then accidentally (or even intentionally!) alter the universe
in such a way that leaves it sterile for many years to come. An even
less bold scenario would be that it need not sterilize the universe, but
cleanse it of intelligent life. Of course, life -- intelligent or no --
would probably rise again, but only after a long, long time. A silent
universe wouldn't be so paradoxical after all, though perhaps more
terrifying.
Okay, this is science fiction, but just maybe... definitely maybe...
Any thoughts on this?
Cheers!
Dan
See more of my writings at:
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
"You wanna get high?" -- Towelie from "South Park"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:57:57 MST