Really? The advances in how the human brain works and makes decisions is growing exponentially. Ditto for how the human body works and the mysteries of how DNA does what it does. You can look at most fields that rely on scientific discovery and say the same thing.

You can say that, after we've built a train, we're just building a better train, but that's not an expansive enough view. We went from trails to cobblestone roads to rails to asphalt to maglev, from horses to wagons to trains and trucks to rocketships.

Yes, innovative jumps are slowing down in some areas (there are only so many ways to move people) but is expanding in others, like AI and computing in general allowing Big Data to become a big thing. Expect a lot of innovation in Big Data as train innovation slows down.
Expect a lot of innovation in medicine. People are building and testing star-trek style scanners. Nanotech is still ramping up.

Light-based computing is being researched, as it has been for some time, to replace electricity. Quantum-based computing has started, which replaces the creaking transistor, and is also a disruptive technology.

What has changed, except in social media, is how the discoveries are one-person disruptive jumps. Facebook etc. were one-person disruptive jumps. But in technological fields a dozen companies and profs and grad students in a dozen countries are researching similar things, so major advances in RO water purification systems, for example, are spread out among different groups so one company only has a momentary advantage.

As for travelling to other stars, the pre-seeded Bussard Ramjet is close to being possible as long as the journey is planned generations ahead.

Fasces - when you say that there are so many planets that we can't be alone (based on a misunderstanding of probabilities) consider this...suppose you only know two things, your name and the fact there are 7bn people in the world. How can you determine the probability of someone else having the same name?

The answer is of course, you can't. If your name is Robert Nixon you can look at how naming people developed and have a guess that someone else is called Robert Nixon. But what if you are called Fifi-Trixabell Eugene Moonpig Geldof? The same naming conventions apply but the chances are you are the only person with that name.

I said earlier in the thread that believing in aliens because of the number of planets is not correct.

"My society is collapsing, a neighbouring society is healthy. Given that I'm likely to be more technologically advanced then my neighbour (as explained earlier), give me one good reason why I wont invade them."
This is how empires form (just like in real life 5000 years ago).

Each tribe (or star system in the future) starts off independent, but eventually due to an economic crisis (usually a doubt in ancient times, some form of energy crisis in the future) my society is collapsing so I pick on the weaker, richer tribe right next door.

As military strength starts becoming more important then economic power, eventually some tribes will merge for mutual protection, and weaker tribes will start paying tribute to stronger ones.

You mention human settlers traveling from Africa to Europe and Asia tens of thousands of years ago, but the natural form of history is that will eventually lead to empires that rise and eventually fall when they can no longer support themselves.

By the 1800s the costs of a colonial empire were larger then the profits gained from having colonies, and as those costs increased eventually independence was the natural course. But eventually new empires will rise. The main reason empires don't rise and fall very much now days is because of institutions such as the UN and world super powers intervening in all major conflicts.

In our future world America (cluster superpower) would be unable to intervene in wars such as the Korean and Vietnam simply because they're too far away to make said intervention impossible.

"give me one good reason why I wont invade them."

Because, even with near FTL speeds, an invasion can be detected and eliminated while in-flight. It's not like the invaded people don't have years to detect what is coming. And you need to move enough people, supplies, and weapons to invade a whole world, which would likely hit that energy barrier you mentioned, and then control the people you sent invading, since direct control is not possible.

"Basic economics here: investment returns aren't possible in 0-sum economies. Sure I can still make money, but in order to do so someone would have to lose money, in the long run it will balance out, so that neither profit nor loss becomes possible."

People will still make, buy, and sell stuff, so profit is still possible. There have been lots of 0-sum economies in the past. Isolated towns and regions with low growth rates.

What will be missing is the portion of the profit that comes from opening a hundred new stores. You can open five stores, someone else will close four, and one of your stores closes a while later. Both companies can still make a profit, just not double-digit returns.

Good discussion, though, Fasces.

@Fasces
I agree with you that local empires would potentially exist, from economic, technological, military, cultural, or other reasons.

Assuming that it is very expensive and takes years to travel, I just don't see empires being able to hold it together for long past a handful or two of systems at most. I don't see them collapsing catastrophically. It would just be unmanageable to create in the first place with a high degree of autonomy from years between communications.

That's why I said commonwealth instead of empire earlier on in this discussion. Over a large area, formalized associations are more practical when direct control is impossible.

"Fasces - when you say that there are so many planets that we can't be alone (based on a misunderstanding of probabilities) consider this...suppose you only know two things, your name and the fact there are 7bn people in the world. How can you determine the probability of someone else having the same name? "
7 billion is an insignificant number compared to the numbers I used. If 1 in 7 billion planets in our observable universe contain life then there are ~1,000,000,000,000,000 planets in our observable universe that contain life. If 1 in 7 billion^2 planets contain life, we have 100 planets that contain life.

Now read observable, the common belief in physics today is that the universe is infinite in size and contains an infinite number of planets. If you asked me the same question but replaced the number 7 billion with infinity I think we would both agree that not only are there more than 1 person with my name, but there are in fact an infinite amount of people with my name.

Now someone sharing a name with me is far less likely then a planet containing life, as remember life isn't a quality that has a hard answer of yes or no, over time the answer can change (1 billion years ago earth didn't contain life).

If a planet meets all the conditions for life (we know of 43 exoplanets that have a high probability of meeting said conditions, of the 1811 exoplanets we know of), given sufficient time, life will eventually form (the average time for a probable chance of life being formed in unknown, but we know that its not infinity), and given sufficient time intelligent life will evolve (again there is a chance).

Given the sheer size of the numbers I'm using its statistically impossible that that the number of alien life forms are 0.

If the odds of a planet being capable of sustaining life is 1 to 1 billion, you are 5000 times more likely to win the lottery then for us to be alone in the observable universe.

Now given that 43 of the 1811 exoplanets we know of have a probably chance of containing life, I think the odds of only 1 in 1 billion planets contain life is minuscule.

"Because, even with near FTL speeds, an invasion can be detected and eliminated while in-flight. It's not like the invaded people don't have years to detect what is coming. And you need to move enough people, supplies, and weapons to invade a whole world, which would likely hit that energy barrier you mentioned, and then control the people you sent invading, since direct control is not possible."
When I'm given the choice between certain death by staying here and probable death by invading a nearby settlement, I'm choosing the latter.

"People will still make, buy, and sell stuff, so profit is still possible"
This is literally one of the most basic concepts in economics, 90% of the time people use the phrase "this is Econ 101" they are lying, however I am not joking when I say you are taught why you are wrong in Econ 101. For a corporation to remain competitive in the long run their profit will approach 0.

Say I'm selling widgets and make $2 of profit for each widget I sell. Assuming there is no law preventing competition and no cartel using the threat of violence to maintain their oligopoly then John Smith, seeing that I am making a full $2 of profit can start an identical corporation selling widgets for a profit of $1.90, I'll have to lower my prices or go out of business, thus I'm going to start selling widgets for $1.85 profit, John will now sell them for $1.75, etc. etc.

Now keep in mind in a zero sum economy competition becomes more vicious (as its guaranteed that if someone doesn't compete they starve, as if we include a welfare state it will no longer be a zero sum economy but a negative growth economy. As if someone doesn't work, he doens't lose out but someone else does, eventually nobody works cause if you work someone else will profit from said work so why bother) so the long run happens more quickly.

It is 100% impossible to make any profit in a zero sum game without the use of violence to achieve your end.

"Assuming that it is very expensive and takes years to travel, I just don't see empires being able to hold it together for long past a handful or two of systems at most. I don't see them collapsing catastrophically. It would just be unmanageable to create in the first place with a high degree of autonomy from years between communications."
Keep in mind it took months to travel from one end of the Roman Empire to the other, and the same goes with Britain and the British East Indies.

its slightly smaller in scale (months vs decades) but my point is that its possible.

"Both companies can still make a profit, just not double-digit returns."
How can both companies make a profit if its zero sum? Someone has to lose out, otherwise growth is positive, and the person losing out has every incentive to undercut your prices so that you become the one who is losing. Long run profit is always 0. Econ 101.

Actually, it's been shown that very competitive companies do less well than ones that build on cooperation and collaboration along with competitiveness. There are ways to compete that don't just involve a lower price. And in a zero-population growth economy, that's where the competition will have to happen. Service. Convenience. A good corporate culture to drive down costs.

In any case, I was originally arguing about zero population growth, not zero economic growth, and that economic growth would be less, but not zero.

Villagers on a remote isolated island with a stable population can still derive profit from each other. Having the same with a whole world is just a matter of scale.

I agree that it is possible to have an empire with decades between communication instead of, using your example, months for the Roman Empire.

I also think that it is very unlikely because there is a big difference between months and decades. With decades, you are no longer the person you were when you left and you are unlikely to come back or have real consequences for your actions from the home world. The ties that bind an empire together will not exist. Punishments from the home world will be on your kids, not on you, and the human race is pretty bad at doing that sort of calculation.

For a very large empire, a governor from a central government goes on a trip to take over the leadership of a planet and her kid will actually be the one doing the taking over since she will have passed away during the trip. Her kid will have never seen the empire's home world and will have no ties.


This is all hypothetical depending on the technology available. If quantum technology takes off, it may be possible to communicate real-time or near real-time across the stars. That would favour empires. If travel is much slower than near-FTL and ridiculously expensive, then there may only be one ship between planets every few generations, transferring new technology, news, and culture. An empire? Not so much.

I missed some your posts, Fasces, sorry.

"NASA no longer has any ships capable of transporting men into space but still manages to steal 20 billion a year from taxpayers."
I don't know what the figures are now, but in the '80s, NASA was still overall a money-maker from the patents from developing space flight. However, the money from the patents went to government general coffers and not back to NASA. NASA will always show a loss because of this type of accounting.

And why would we go to other stars if life is comfortable here? Because that's what dumbass humans do. Like I said, people are volunteering to go to Mars for a publicity stunt and their fifteen minutes of fame, living the rest of their life in plastic bubbles, scratching out a subsistence living, never to return. People leave their comfortable lives to climb Mount Everest with a slight chance of dying. People travel to the North Pole and the South Pole. Some don't return. We're just dumb that way. If we can do it, it will be done and there will be online porn about it. That's just the way we are.

lol I love your last paragraph Theo.

Especially the last clause of the second to last sentence. :-)

Theo, go take Econ 101, I'm done trying to teach you one of the most basic principles of microeconomics. In a zero growth economy, it is 100% impossible for any company to make profit in the long run.

Also if a mutually beneficial exchange happens, then by definition that creates growth and there are fundamental differences between a no growth and low growth society.

I'm also not entirely sure you know what the definition of zero sum is based on your arguments.

"Punishments from the home world will be on your kids, not on you, and the human race is pretty bad at doing that sort of calculation."
I'd be very surprised if a interstellar country didn't have the far more basic biotech requirements for near immortality.

Once we have a cure for most diseases, and some basic genetic engineering, life expectancy could be in the tens of thousands of years. And I think said technologies are far closer to us then interstellar travel.

"it may be possible to communicate real-time or near real-time across the stars."
Since when does any property in quantum mechanics allow for faster than light communication?

"If travel is much slower than near-FTL and ridiculously expensive, then there may only be one ship between planets every few generations, transferring new technology, news, and culture. An empire? Not so much."
Pay us tribute or we'll invade you. Pay us tribute and we'll defend you from others who attempt to invade you.
I've just formed an empire.

"And why would we go to other stars if life is comfortable here? Because that's what dumbass humans do. Like I said, people are volunteering to go to Mars for a publicity stunt and their fifteen minutes of fame, living the rest of their life in plastic bubbles, scratching out a subsistence living, never to return. People leave their comfortable lives to climb Mount Everest with a slight chance of dying. People travel to the North Pole and the South Pole. Some don't return. We're just dumb that way. If we can do it, it will be done and there will be online porn about it. That's just the way we are."
Yeah theres a difference between vacationing on Mars for fun, and volunteering to live there when it guarantees a lower quality of life.

"I don't know what the figures are now, but in the '80s, NASA was still overall a money-maker from the patents from developing space flight. However, the money from the patents went to government general coffers and not back to NASA. NASA will always show a loss because of this type of accounting."
I didn't know that, nor I am sure the figures, my point isn't about whether NASA is a waste (I support cutting its budget but not eliminating it), its about how NASA is less capable of interstellar travel today then it was 15 years ago. We've regressed not progressed.

Today NASA mostly just studies the high atmosphere and sends satellites into low orbit. A far cry from the Apollo program of the 60s and 70s.

@ Theo - "..people are volunteering to go to Mars for a publicity stunt and their fifteen minutes of fame" It begs the question, do we really want people like that representing us in the event alien life is encountered?

@Fasces - you completely misunderstand probability. 'Your argue boils down to the universe is infinite therefore everything that exists must exist more than once.' Many people used to believe in the infinite monkeys re-producing shakespeare theory. They were wrong then, and you're wrong now.

I don't recall the infinite monkey idea being binned. What was wrong with it?

Octavious the latest maths says that if every proton in the universe was a monkey and they typed from the Big Bang up until the end of the universe that there is a 1 in a trillion chance that they would produce a meaning document 79 characters long.

I know that some people will interpret this as meaning a monkey producing Hamlet as still being 'possible'.

Actually, Fasces, I've taken Econ. I have said a few times that I'm talking about no population growth after a certain point and that will have an effect on slowing down the part of the economy that relies on population growth. That is not the same thing as zero economic growth.

As long as there is a healthy amount of investment, a zero population growth society can have economic growth.
http://www.colorado.edu/economics/courses/econ2020/section14/section14-main.html

and

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/doclib/20080527_197303206populationgrowthandeconomicgrowthstephenenke.pdf
which states that "but what counts is improvement in GNP per head,.... Perhaps two thirds of this improvement has been due to compounded technological advances. The other one third is probably due to the rapid increase in investment per head." No mention of population growth required.

and

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article42773.html
On both extremes, the natalist or populationist paradigm fails. Neither extreme high populations and-or extreme high rates of population growth favour economic growth, nor low populations and zero or negative population growth favour a growing economy. In other words very large and very small countries can be like any other - that is rich, poor or neither, ie. “middle income”.

That ain't an infinite number of monkeys though. That's a finite number of monkeys in a finite amount of time (although quite what time means at the start and end of the universe is something I never quite got my head round).

It was the best of times, it was the *blurst* of times?!

@Maniac
"do we really want people like that representing us in the event alien life is encountered?"

Mental image...somber alien Spock meets valley girl who is trying to pick him up...

Probably not, but the changes of meeting alien life that is even slightly at the same technological and societal level as us are pretty remote, so it probably doesn't matter too much. We will be gods or they will.

As first mentioned by Fasces, people who settle elsewhere are traditionally fleeing something - poverty, war, or oppression. And they won't care about representing life back home. They'll be representing themselves.

I agree that NASA has regressed. It needs a strong Presidential push like it did for the moon mission. That means that there needs to be mission that will pull in votes. Given the cost, real or spin-doctored, of a mission and the other things happening in the world, that it is unlikely to get there sometime soon.

A country like China would have a lot more to gain politically from a moon colony or some such.

@Fasces
"Since when does any property in quantum mechanics allow for faster than light communication? "

It's called quantum entanglement.
Here is a brief article that presents it nicely as well as its challenges.

http://web.ncsu.edu/abstract/science/wms-quantum-communication/

ILN mentioned earlier about genetic drifting of our species as it goes to new planets and meets new challenges, like higher gravity.

I'm surprised at how quickly that can happen, relatively speaking. Apparently the Tibetan high-altitude adaption happened in less than 3,000 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_adaptation_in_humans