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 meustrus on Monday August 14 2017, @05:11PM (2 children)
What is this "academia" you speak of that seems to ignore all of the (archaeological) history that you somehow have gathered all by yourself? I guess it was people on vacation without any college education who discovered ancient foundations to supposedly medieval works? I sense a straw man.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @08:44PM (1 child)
It's quite ridiculous to think I've gathered this by myself, clearly there are many others recounting such evidence, you need only click a few links to discover this.
Academia government funded education and research.
If you doubt that governments suppress information, then I have no time to discuss reality with one so detached from it.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday August 15 2017, @04:49PM
Academic papers provide citations to credible works, making them easy to access. They are admittedly a bit behind the times, tailored to a difficult and archaic library system rather than an easier system of universal resource identifiers (URI) that allow for immediate retrieval. But they, unlike you, have not left verification of their claims as an exercise to the reader.
It's a lot easier to infiltrate and manipulate Google search results than the decentralized academic system of intellectuals (who are generally less conforming and less trusting of authority than the rest of the population). One might even say that conspiracy theories like yours are the more likely CIA plot. And as we've learned from the tactics of the Heartland Institute (who surely learned a thing or two from 1984), simply discrediting objective evidence and facts is incredibly effective at preventing people from taking action to save themselves from the machinations of the rich and powerful.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?