Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ames.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!nsc!ames!barry
From: barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Where are they?
Message-ID: <937@ames.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Apr-85 14:22:53 EST
Article-I.D.: ames.937
Posted: Mon Apr 15 14:22:53 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Apr-85 04:33:30 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 76


     While the majority of scientists are willing to agree that
life elsewhere in the universe is quite likely, most estimates of
the number of advanced technological civilizations that might
presently exist in our galaxy are quite low. Even the most
optimistic estimates seem to predict only the tiniest percent of the
stars in our galaxy warm the homes of civilized beings.
     Since we have *no* direct evidence on the subject at all, either way,
why should this be? I know of one main argument: The Sagan/Shklovsky
(sp?) Equation reasons that only some stars will have planets, only
some planets will be suitable, only some of those will actually spawn
life, etc., thru about 10 iterations. Any reasonable figures plugged
in to all the variables will yield only a few technological
civilizations, obviously.
     I wish to suggest a more optimistic estimate. The reasoning
which follows is my own, but I'm sure I'm not the first to think of
it, and would appreciate any pointers to books or articles dealing
with this idea.
     Let us suppose that, as per Sagan and Shklovsky, only a few
stars spawn high-tech civilizations that survive to at least a few
centuries past our present level of technology. My question is, what
is to prevent at least one of these civilizations from sending colonies out
to neighboring star systems? We are no more likely to be the only expansionist
culture than we are to be the only technological one. And what is to keep
those colonies from spawning further colonies, etc., etc., out to the edges
of the galaxy? What if this is, in fact, the present state of our galaxy?
Galactic overpopulation?
     This is not unreasonable. There is no reason to believe that we
humans won't start doing it in a century or two, and someone may have
beaten us to it. We might kill ourselves off before that, of course, but the
statistical argument still applies: some hi-tech civilization somewhere
will manage colonization, or may have done so, already.
	Faster-than light propulsion is not required; many means (suspended
animation, generation ships, near-light speeds) have been proposed whereby
we could colonize nearby stars without FTL. Given O'Neil-type colonies,
even stars without suitable planets could become the home stars of future
colonies.
     How long would it take us to fill up the galaxy? Not as long as
you think. Let's say that each human colony only spawns a new colony
every 500 years. The number of human-settled star systems would then
double every 500 years. At this rate, we populate the galaxy in *less*
than the ~90,000 years it takes to *cross* the galaxy at the speed of
light!
     Note also that, once the process is fairly under way, there
seems to be no stopping it. If disaster strikes some settlements,
others will still survive, sending out yet more colonies. Only a
disaster reaching across light years could stop it.
     So, if it's possible for us, it would be possible for any
civilization who had the technology and the inclination. Even if we
conservatively assume it would take a couple of million years to
populate an entire galaxy, that's a mere eyeblink in cosmic time;
so, where are they?
	I should probably point out that I am *not* a believer in "flying
saucers", because we haven't a shred of decent evidence that our planet
has ever been visited by Others. But I think this only makes my question
more intriguing. Must we believe that we are, indeed, the first hi-tech
civilization in our galaxy? This seems statistically unlikely, though
I suppose one could invoke the anthropic principle to explain away the
unlikelihood. Or is it, perhaps, possible, that technology is inevitably
fatal to the society that spawns it, at a point before colonization can
begin? Or perhaps they have simply overlooked us? Or they are hiding? To
me, all these possibilities seem unlikely, but I can't think of any other
explanations for the lack of visitors.

	I hope all will understand that the above is meant as no more than
speculation. Comments are welcome.

	PS - This is posted to sf-lovers because it seemed too speculative
for net.space or net.astro; frankly, I wasn't quite sure *where* to post
it.

-  From the Crow's Nest  -                      Kenn Barry
                                                NASA-Ames Research Center
                                                Moffett Field, CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 	USENET:		 {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry