Listen to a reading of "Fermi's Other Paradox": In the summer of 1950, four nuclear physicists were walking to lunch from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. Their names were Emil Konopinski, Herbert York, Edward Teller, and Enrico Fermi.
Reading this drove home that every moment of every day each of us is targeted by thousands of nuclear weapons. The casual insanity of this is profound, and the pathologies behind it, inhuman.
Life is very probable, really inevitable, but development of eukaryotes is extremely improbable. Hence -- in cosmos only prokaryotes (bacteria and archaea like organisms)
Wonderful. Really enjoyed listening to this. Twice.
You seemingly give most of your writing time to exposing the control narrative of the powers-that-be. Maybe - if you are so inclined - you could create a novel or screenplay that conjures an alternate, more resonant, narrative. I'd like to read/watch it.
I see too much criticism of the scientists and engineers for the technologies they develop, and that criticism is terribly misplaced. If it were only scientists and engineers who made the decisions about how their creations were to be used then there would be no threat of nuclear war, or any war, for that matter. The problem of misuse of technology arises because the decisions about its use are made by those who majored in law, business, marketing, journalism, humanities, grievance studies, or perhaps nothing at all.
"We have to cancel Putin because the Bezos Post said he is a homophobe!"
Trust me on this one, it ain't physicists, mathematicians, or engineers saying this!
This is a beautiful story. And it has quite some similarities with what is actually happening in our home universe. Fortunately, the average evolutionary path for planets bringing forth life, which sooner or later reaches the state of intelligent creatures with a conscious consciousness, does not lead to self-destruction. And still, even in our own tiny solar system such a catastrophe has actually occured on a no longer existing planet (Phaeton/Malona), with two groups fighting such a fierce war that the planet exploded and ended up as asteroids still floating around.
The evolutionary path for growth of tech and science knowhow may or may not happen nicely in sync with growth of ethics and humaneness. While most space travelling civilizations will respect the universal law of non-interference, there are also those whom you do not want to meet.
We on Earth are currently fortunate, as a federation of truly civilized planets is observing our corner of home galaxy. Due to our poor maturity regarding the ethical part, the normal course of action would be to leave us alone for another about 800 years before making open contact with then decently developed Earthlings, who are ready to receive then justified development aid. However, our current trajectory of behaviour has all the ingredient for bringing one or two further world wars, with the first one already erasing more than half of the planet’s life, including such a percentage of its human beings. The subsequent circumstances for survivors being miserable.
And then an important comment regarding the story’s assumption about the motivation for civilisations showing care for primitive ones. This relates to the foundational laws of this universe’s existence. The energetic mechanisms at play strive towards steady development, growth, gain. We can all see that when watching what evolution does. All what exists and evolves in the universe is not really doing that in isolation, rather all the material and non-material purely energetic parts are interconnected. So for example what one living being, in the case of humans, thinks positively or suffers from radiates and affects fellow living beings. Bottom line, it is in the natural interest to help other humans and creatures to reap the full development and learning potential from their present life.
Well, that was my answer to Fermi’s paradox too. Radio civilizations last too short and distances are too great, so they rarely overlap and can never communicate.
Philosopher Anthony Flew, one of the foremost advocates of atheism, abandoned it at the age of 81 after a study of DNA declaring that he now believed intelligence must have been at work in creation (yes, creation). When asked if his new line of thought might prove unpopular among scientists he said: 'That's too bad. My whole life has been guided by the principle...to follow the evidence, wherever it leads'. (Associated Press Newswires. "Famous Atheist Now Believes in God". by Richard Ostling. December 9 2004)
Francis Crick (Nobel scientist who helped discover DNA's double-helix structure)decided that this molecule is far too organised to have come about through undirected events. He proposed that intelligent extraterrestrials may have sent DNA to help get life started on Earth.
Richard Feynman (Theoretical Physicist) left this note on a blackboard shortly before his death: "What I cannot create, I do not understand". We cannot begin to recreate DNA with all its replication and transcription machinery, nor can we fully understand it. And yet many so called informed people assert that they KNOW that it all came about by undirected chance and accidents. Despite the evidence. Maybe to take that journey is troubling for us but we would be fools to dismiss stuff just because it is ridiculed or unpopular or not cool.
Ignaz Semmelweis was ridiculed and pretty much pilloried for his views on hand washing in obstetrics but he bravely followed the evidence and saved countless mothers and babies from needless death and then he was described as the 'Saviour of mothers'. (of course that was after they had driven him mad with their very wrong but prevailing establishment views ridicule and approbation).
For all of our agreements and disagreements, Caitlin, I must say that this is my favorite article of yours. Basically, beyond the global political economy--which is controlled by a very small number of people, giving them control over advanced technologies, much of which are hidden from the 99.99999% for decades, and only then made public in a watered-down version--there are spiritual and evolutionary questions to be answered, and humanity is certainly at its crossroads as far as these defining issues are concerned. In terms of these overriding issues, and given the current state of our understanding of Singularity, Relativity, and Uncertainty (beyond the current accepted models), there are a growing number of people on our planet who have come to grips with the implications that we are light conscious of itself, and that it is our nature to continually evolve to greater levels of consciousness and being, Humanity 3.0, if you will. http://coloradopublicbanking.blogspot.com/2015/01/taking-humanitys-next-evolutionary-step.html
Certainly there are millions of planets with intelligent life. But to consider travel or two way communication between any of them as possible is denying the basic physics that enable us to realize those different worlds exist. We are simply too far apart and getting further apart at an increasing rate.
Reading this drove home that every moment of every day each of us is targeted by thousands of nuclear weapons. The casual insanity of this is profound, and the pathologies behind it, inhuman.
Thanks.
Nick Lane (famous biochemist) says:
Life is very probable, really inevitable, but development of eukaryotes is extremely improbable. Hence -- in cosmos only prokaryotes (bacteria and archaea like organisms)
Best regards, Boris
So if I read your public domain declaration right I can just go ahead and start writing this into a screenplay?
I've been learning about making compost for my garden and I see many parallels here.
Wonderful. Really enjoyed listening to this. Twice.
You seemingly give most of your writing time to exposing the control narrative of the powers-that-be. Maybe - if you are so inclined - you could create a novel or screenplay that conjures an alternate, more resonant, narrative. I'd like to read/watch it.
I see too much criticism of the scientists and engineers for the technologies they develop, and that criticism is terribly misplaced. If it were only scientists and engineers who made the decisions about how their creations were to be used then there would be no threat of nuclear war, or any war, for that matter. The problem of misuse of technology arises because the decisions about its use are made by those who majored in law, business, marketing, journalism, humanities, grievance studies, or perhaps nothing at all.
"We have to cancel Putin because the Bezos Post said he is a homophobe!"
Trust me on this one, it ain't physicists, mathematicians, or engineers saying this!
Very nicely written. Human defense is more "active" -- here is about some of American heroes, not long ago ( the link is worth reading !! ):
A bit of history about US War party – by Dave Lindorff - Aug 4, 2020 ( ThisCantBeHappening.net )
Unsung Heroes of Los Alamos: Rethinking Manhattan Project Spies and the Cold War
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/08/04/unsung-heroes-of-los-alamos-rethinking-manhattan-project-spies-and-the-cold-war/
• Plans for 300 nuclear bombs on USSR, with minimum 15-20M dead (these estimates were before “nuclear winter” effect was identified)
• US spies are unsung heroes that prevented another US crime of our millennia
This is a beautiful story. And it has quite some similarities with what is actually happening in our home universe. Fortunately, the average evolutionary path for planets bringing forth life, which sooner or later reaches the state of intelligent creatures with a conscious consciousness, does not lead to self-destruction. And still, even in our own tiny solar system such a catastrophe has actually occured on a no longer existing planet (Phaeton/Malona), with two groups fighting such a fierce war that the planet exploded and ended up as asteroids still floating around.
The evolutionary path for growth of tech and science knowhow may or may not happen nicely in sync with growth of ethics and humaneness. While most space travelling civilizations will respect the universal law of non-interference, there are also those whom you do not want to meet.
We on Earth are currently fortunate, as a federation of truly civilized planets is observing our corner of home galaxy. Due to our poor maturity regarding the ethical part, the normal course of action would be to leave us alone for another about 800 years before making open contact with then decently developed Earthlings, who are ready to receive then justified development aid. However, our current trajectory of behaviour has all the ingredient for bringing one or two further world wars, with the first one already erasing more than half of the planet’s life, including such a percentage of its human beings. The subsequent circumstances for survivors being miserable.
And then an important comment regarding the story’s assumption about the motivation for civilisations showing care for primitive ones. This relates to the foundational laws of this universe’s existence. The energetic mechanisms at play strive towards steady development, growth, gain. We can all see that when watching what evolution does. All what exists and evolves in the universe is not really doing that in isolation, rather all the material and non-material purely energetic parts are interconnected. So for example what one living being, in the case of humans, thinks positively or suffers from radiates and affects fellow living beings. Bottom line, it is in the natural interest to help other humans and creatures to reap the full development and learning potential from their present life.
One thing for sure: Adesso non siamo sicuri. La sicurezza è soltanto un'illusione perche l'umanità è pazza.
Nice recit.
Well, that was my answer to Fermi’s paradox too. Radio civilizations last too short and distances are too great, so they rarely overlap and can never communicate.
Philosopher Anthony Flew, one of the foremost advocates of atheism, abandoned it at the age of 81 after a study of DNA declaring that he now believed intelligence must have been at work in creation (yes, creation). When asked if his new line of thought might prove unpopular among scientists he said: 'That's too bad. My whole life has been guided by the principle...to follow the evidence, wherever it leads'. (Associated Press Newswires. "Famous Atheist Now Believes in God". by Richard Ostling. December 9 2004)
Francis Crick (Nobel scientist who helped discover DNA's double-helix structure)decided that this molecule is far too organised to have come about through undirected events. He proposed that intelligent extraterrestrials may have sent DNA to help get life started on Earth.
Richard Feynman (Theoretical Physicist) left this note on a blackboard shortly before his death: "What I cannot create, I do not understand". We cannot begin to recreate DNA with all its replication and transcription machinery, nor can we fully understand it. And yet many so called informed people assert that they KNOW that it all came about by undirected chance and accidents. Despite the evidence. Maybe to take that journey is troubling for us but we would be fools to dismiss stuff just because it is ridiculed or unpopular or not cool.
Ignaz Semmelweis was ridiculed and pretty much pilloried for his views on hand washing in obstetrics but he bravely followed the evidence and saved countless mothers and babies from needless death and then he was described as the 'Saviour of mothers'. (of course that was after they had driven him mad with their very wrong but prevailing establishment views ridicule and approbation).
Cheers. A wonderful story that rings true.
For all of our agreements and disagreements, Caitlin, I must say that this is my favorite article of yours. Basically, beyond the global political economy--which is controlled by a very small number of people, giving them control over advanced technologies, much of which are hidden from the 99.99999% for decades, and only then made public in a watered-down version--there are spiritual and evolutionary questions to be answered, and humanity is certainly at its crossroads as far as these defining issues are concerned. In terms of these overriding issues, and given the current state of our understanding of Singularity, Relativity, and Uncertainty (beyond the current accepted models), there are a growing number of people on our planet who have come to grips with the implications that we are light conscious of itself, and that it is our nature to continually evolve to greater levels of consciousness and being, Humanity 3.0, if you will. http://coloradopublicbanking.blogspot.com/2015/01/taking-humanitys-next-evolutionary-step.html
Beautiful
Certainly there are millions of planets with intelligent life. But to consider travel or two way communication between any of them as possible is denying the basic physics that enable us to realize those different worlds exist. We are simply too far apart and getting further apart at an increasing rate.