[/quote]
Unfortunately that's unlikely. One strong argument that current science is correct in saying the problem is fundamentally hard is the question "Where are the tourists?"[/quote]

Are we a tourist attraction? We think we are the Yosemite/Yellowstone of the universe, but we may be just another midwestern cornfield waiting for the harvest....

I posted a quote about the long term not being a good guide to current behaviour.
We get an astoundingly high return on the space race.
There is not one part of our technology that has not benefited from it.
We have better metals for our knives and other trinkets, and we bounce signals off satellites to call for help when we get lost.

I don't think we will ever discover signs of ET, and even if we did it would take so long for the signals to get here from there that they would already be extinct, or we would if it was going the other way.
But still the return in technologies is so high that we should continue trying to get off the planet.
"Mars today, Tomorrow THE UNIVERSE!!!"

Besides, if the universe really is undeveloped we might be the first to be able to capitalize on it...

Given the many random chances that seem to be necessary for sentient life to develop -- a star that's not too hot or too cold, small enough to be stable for long periods, far enough from galactic center that its planets aren't regularly sterilized by radiation from supernovae and gamma ray bursts, that has enough heavy elements to form metal-rich planets, has other, larger planets to sweep up "debris" left over from the system formation, has a planet that's not too close to or too far from the star, too large or too small, with a relatively large moon to stabilize its rotation and catch even more of the cosmic "debris" -- I think intelligent life is going to be very, very rare.

So there may be others out there. But they are simply so far away, we'll never even know they're there.

Edit: Heh. Got caught up in the writing and forgot to say that I also agree that our only hope for long-term survival is to get out of this system completely. And the benefits of just trying would far outweigh the costs.

I'm still looking for it here.

I am a pretty big space buff. The tech, wonder, and inspiration we get back for the investment is IMO repaid many times over. Just on the survival side, that is what the forum is about, mostly, what price the many saved by EPIRBs.

How many trillion dollars have been saved over the years because we could track hurricanes. People are told days in advance so they can flee or prepare. The world knows who gets hit and can have help standing by ready to go in as soon as the winds die down.
Into WW2 many people got little or no warning. And assuming you survived the event the odds are people might not hear about it for days.

How many plane crashes and maritime disasters have been avoided because people could look to a GPS receiver that tells them where they are. If you know where you are you can fly around the mountain instead of into it. Ships can steer around reefs and shoals. Rescue after disaster is good. Avoiding the hazard is even better.

Space exploration is expensive but it gives back and the technology continues to pay dividends ever after.

I also need to point out that when I say 'we have to learn to get along' it isn't a sweet, sing Kumbaya, sort of admonition to avoid all conflict. There are bad situations and there are bad people. The proper response to a rabid dog is to shoot it. You take care to do make sure the end is swift, sure and as painless as possible. But the dog has to be put down to protect the community. No amount of loving and positive attitude will make the dog less rabid. When it is the only practical option remaining violence, without hate and malice, is justified to protect the community and prevent harm.

How true! The deadliest disaster in US history is considered to be the Galveston hurricane of 1900, which killed somewhere between six and eight thousand people. It came ashore as roughly a cat 4 with virtually no warning.

The more recent Galveston event was far less deadly, and those that remained on the island and perished at least had a choice.

In the 1970s, my brother lived briefly in Galveston. The walls of his living room still retained the high water mark from the 1900 storm.

The Drake Equation may be of interest - it turns out that "very, very rare" is still a significant number in a galaxy of a few hundred billion stars. And the Fermi Paradox is about the problem that since they _should_ be out there but aren't, why not?

Some possible answers to the Fermi Paradox are scary considering that our present technology is very close to being able to leave considerable evidence of us (robotic probes to distant stars) in a way that B.E.M.s have not.

(Just to be clear, I am a fanatic space buff. Just discouraged by current events and things I've learned over the years.)

The primary sign that SETI has been looking for is radio/tv/other Electromagnetic (EM) radiation from other civilizations at the same approximate development as ours.

But a year or so ago there was an article published that found that our own EM radiation fades into the cosmic background within about two lightyears. Beyond that it's completely undetectable against the emissions of everything "behind" us.

So there could be a thriving civilization at the same level as us in the Centauri system, 4 lightyears away, and they'd have no idea we were here.


Also, the scale of space is mind boggling. If the Sun were a ball 3 feet across, then the Centauri system would be 25,000,000 miles away. (On that scale, Earth is about a third of an inch.) Our own galaxy is approximately 100,000ly across, or, on this scale, about 7,000,000,000,000 miles.

While stars in the core are close together, often less than a lightyear apart, the radiation levels there would prevent advanced life from developing. Probably even any life at all.

Out on the rim, where we are, 5-10ly apart is normal for stars that aren't in a cluster. Stars in clusters like the Pleides or the Orion Nebula can be fractions of a lightyear apart.

Our galaxy is big. Very, very big. Even our nearest intelligent neighbor (if there are any) is most likely hundreds of lightyears away.

I've often wondered why it is that we discover a particular technology when we're just barely sensible enough to use it, but before we've got the sense not to use it at all.

For instance, imagine how the 19th century would have gone if somebody had the A-bomb. The civil war would've left North America a smoking ruin. But if electricy or the internal combustion engine were new science today, we would be to scared of them to use either. (This isn't an original idea. Bob Newhart did a skit on what would happen if the airplane or smoking were invented in the 1960's.)

So my theory is that we'll figure out how to move to another planet right around time we've just about destroyed this one, but also figured out how not to destroy the next one. If we moved right now, we'd just destroy the new one, so what good would that do us?

When new technology comes out, what is one of the first uses? Some kind of way to kill as many people as possible with it.

You can bet there are many hundreds of people relishing the thought of detonating nuclear bombs in dozens of major cities. Just human nature.

Think that other great advances in technology will be any different?

My point is that for the next many thousands of years our greatest threat is from ourselves.