David Blenkinsop <blenl@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>ET's being such an open field for speculation, I suppose that we ought to
>appreciate anything that sets out some evolutionary hypothesis as to why none
>seem to be near. However, I can't help but think that that this is fairly
>"nebulous" (excuse the pun), if there isn't yet much of a glimpse of what the
>initial "bottleneck" resource might be (let alone a good idea as to why
>succeeding settlement waves would be so slow or inefficient as to apparently
>miss our solar system altogether).
A footnote: I think in my last paper draft I overemphasized the prospect of a few systems being left untouched in the mad rush to move along. I'd rather focus attention on the prospect that aliens did come to our system, but left in a hurry after using up some resource we don't see around us. They would have had no particular reason to hide any signs of their presense, but also would have wanted to recycle any trash they created.
Robin Hanson
hanson@econ.berkeley.edu http://hanson.berkeley.edu/ RWJF Health Policy Scholar FAX: 510-643-8614140 Warren Hall, UC Berkeley, CA 94720-7360 510-643-1884 after 8/99: Assist. Prof. Economics, George Mason Univ.