Posted by
TOTA on Friday, July 18, 2008 6:20:06 PM
Some scientists are pretty sure that the universe is teeming with intelligent life. Others are not so sure. One of the reasons they are doubtful relates directly to energy. Here's how the argument goes:
- All species colonize and spread to the extent of their ability, filling every ecological niche they can. For an extremely advanced intelligent species, we can also expect that they will have an insatiable appetite for mass and energy,
if only to build and run faster and better computers.
- The evidence of such colonization and expansion will be obvious from very far away because these advanced societies will be involved with stellar engineering. This would include relatively simple projects such as "
Dyson Spheres", where a massive number of solar energy satellites are built close around a star in order to tap all of its power. More advanced projects would conceivably tap the gravitational energy of star clusters or galaxies. Because of their effects upon stellar emissions and gravity, these projects would produce anomalies which would be evident from very far away. In fact, SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) is
presently looking for such anomolies.
- The fact that we see no evidence of such projects supports the idea that intelligent life is probably fairly scarce.
It's an interesting theory, and my hunch is that it's true - we don't see evidence of advanced life because it's not there.
Pessimists would say that we don't see this evidence because intelligent life is short lived, or destroys itself. But intelligent beings with hands or the equivalent have an enormous advantage over all other life forms - they are not hostage to the natural environment. As long as we have access to ice and energy, we can survive in almost
any environment, and we're likely to spread into space just as we've
spread across the globe. Many humans would survive even the worst conceivable disasters: all out nuclear (and chemical and biological) world war, or an astronomical event such as a gamma ray burster or a nearby super nova. And once we colonize other star systems, it's likely that only a superior intelligence - either The Creator or a more advanced species - could actually exterminate mankind.
So what does all of this have to do with our current situation?
This is the first time since the 1970s that energy has become a significant issue. And this time around, people are considering it in totality. One of the most basic facts that should underlie the entire debate is that our appetite for energy as a species will grow as we advance technologically. And it's likely that the growth will far outstrip our current expectations.
If you'd made the argument about the fundamental importance of energy for advanced technological civilizations several years ago, few people would have objected, they'd have thought it obvious. Now, some resist because the obviousness of the point has been driven home with a ball-peen hammer, and the implications (more drilling, nuclear, coal) upset the world-view of some people. But we're going to need energy if we plan to continue to advance, and that means using what we have. We are not running out of any of the non-renewable sources of energy at present. We simply aren't exploiting them.
In a million years, are we going to be holding up the construction of new Dyson spheres because of lawsuits by radical environmentalists, or stonewalling by radical legislators? One has to think not. If these folks survive as a potent political force, we probably won't be building much of anything in the future, so it would be a moot question.
TOTA