SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Bytram
A University of Arkansas mathematician argues that species, such as ours, go extinct soon after attaining high levels of technology.
"I taught astronomy for 37 years," said Whitmire. "I used to tell my students that by statistics, we have to be the dumbest guys in the galaxy. After all we have only been technological for about 100 years while other civilizations could be more technologically advanced than us by millions or billions of years."
Recently, however, he's changed his mind. By applying a statistical concept called the principle of mediocrity – the idea that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary we should consider ourselves typical, rather than atypical – Whitmire has concluded that instead of lagging behind, our species may be average. That's not good news.
[...] The argument is based on two observations: We are the first technological species to evolve on Earth, and we are early in our technological development.
[...] By Whitmire's definition we became "technological" after the industrial revolution and the invention of radio, or roughly 100 years ago. According to the principle of mediocrity, a bell curve of the ages of all extant technological civilizations in the universe would put us in the middle 95 percent. In other words, technological civilizations that last millions of years, or longer, would be highly atypical. Since we are first, other typical technological civilizations should also be first. The principle of mediocrity allows no second acts. The implication is that once species become technological, they flame out and take the biosphere with them.
Source: The Implications of Cosmic Silence
For background, see: Fermi's Paradox and the Drake equation.
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Monday August 14 2017, @03:55AM (1 child)
Thank you for reply.
Thinking linearly is a mistake. Yes, Mayan and Aztec societies did not know how to work copper, bronze and much less steel, but that point of view is derived from European development, not an absolute yardstick.
As I mentioned, the Mayan developed on their own, the concept of zero and their observations of Venus and Mars allowed them to develop a calendar much more accurate than Europeans had at the time. Of course a good calendar does not allow you to murder your neighbors easily, so the Europeans won.
Also, the Mayans had extensive trade routes with the Caribs [wikipedia.org] (after whom the Caribbean Sea is named) from Cuba and as far south as present-day Colombia.
And while the Aztec were blood-thirsty and savage, their capital city, Tenochtitlan now Mexico City, was compared favorably with Seville or Cordoba by Cortés [livescience.com] before he destroyed the magnificent city.
It has been argued that the greater technological development of the Spaniards allowed them to conquer America, but the truth is that disease (for example, smallpox [wikipedia.org] played a more significant role) so the linearity of the story as told, I believe, is wrong.
In modern times, the defeat of the U.S. Army at the hands of the Sioux [ted.com] is an example of technological disparity that did not benefit the more technologically advanced. (Of course, in the end the Sioux were defeated and confined to a reservation; but the defeat still stands.)
A similar example is the fall of Rome to barbarians. Nomadic people defeating and sacking the capital of the largest empire the world had known is something to make you pause and reflect: are all the marbles on the hands of the civilized?
Again, development is not a linear affair, it wanders and meanders like a river; depending upon particular circumstances an inferior people can defeat a more advanced culture. Yes, the odds are with the more advanced, but what is important and what is not? Even though China invented gunpowder it was invaded repeatedly and defeated by Japan and Russia, simply because China did not use gunpowder to power cannons but for festive crackers.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Monday August 14 2017, @11:17AM
Sure, but to be fair, the Aztecs were no slouches at murder. Their obsidian knives were easily as sharp as anything the Spanish had, the only drawback being that they were so easily damages, and these guys not only conducted human sacrifices, they did it in bulk. I honestly think you're underestimating the Aztecs if you think the Spanish were any better at murder. The Spanish beat them by a combination of incredibly good timing/luck, astute politics in playing the Mayans and others to their favor, and last but not least the effect of the pox should not be discounted.
The US defeat at little big horn can be laid quite solidly on the head of the commander involved, a man about whom nothing good may be said in earnest.
"A similar example is the fall of Rome to barbarians. Nomadic people defeating and sacking the capital of the largest empire the world had known is something to make you pause and reflect: are all the marbles on the hands of the civilized?"
Rome fell due to internal decay, not external pressure. But yes, 'civilization' has never been half as cool as it imagines itself to be. When it becomes decadent and fails to perform its core duties it receives an Alaric.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?