Subject:      Re: Fermi Paradox -- yes, again!
From:         Erik Max Francis <max@alcyone.com>
Date:         1996/10/10
Message-Id:   <325D1812.68F061E1@alcyone.com>
References:   <26SEP96.19080956@cc5.crl.aecl.ca> <3259836F.CF@ccv.com> <01bbb509$fbd82440$d26506c4@shalom.vironix.co.za> <325dbdf4.1701203@news.wco.com> <53hjrb$60p@ultra.exodus.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-Ascii
Organization: Alcyone Systems
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups:   rec.arts.sf.science
X-Mailer:     Mozilla 2.01 (X11; I; Linux 2.0.0 i686)

Bill Vaughan wrote: > Not to cast cold water on anyone's favorite fantasies but -- it always > seemed to me that the so-called Fermi Paradox is actually a proof by > _reductio ad absurdum_ (ie, if X iimplies falsity then X must itself > be false). Yes. The lack of aliens whizzing about our heads implies that some of the factors in the Drake equation are wrong. It may be that life, particularly intelligence life capable of colonization, may be much less likely than we think, or it may be that the average lifetime of a technological civilization is very short -- either because of eventual self-destruction or some oppressive force that obliterates any civilization before it can start to colonize, or it may be other things. You have hit upon the most important point, though: The Fermi paradox implies that something about our understanding of the situation is missing. (This should be surprising, since we know practically nothing about it as it is.) -- Erik Max Francis | max@alcyone.com Alcyone Systems | http://www.alcyone.com/max/ San Jose, California | 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W &tSftDotIotE | R^4: the 4th R is respect