> Well, we have reaches a level of life exactly equal to our own, and we
> haven't colonized anything beyond our planet. The tehnology is
> probably there, but the costs are high and the benefits are unclear.
> The same maybe true 200 years from now.
(Gee, I hope this is on topic!) Anyway, a phys
> At 04:47 PM 8/18/2003 -0600, Chris Auld wrote:
> > > I've finished a fantastic book that Robin lent me, *Where Is Everybody*?
> > > The author explores the paradox that (a) It seems like the galaxy
> > > should be full of intelligent life but (b) There is little evidence of
> > > its existence.
--- Wei Dai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Technological progress that allow more efficient use of resources in the
> future will not cause prices to drop on average, because the progress
> should already be expected and taken into account in current market
> prices.
Please explain further.
It seems
> Robert A. Book wrote:
> > Everyone seems to assume that if there is life elsewhere, it must
> > be so much more advanced and more perfect than we are -- but there
> > is absolutely no evidence to support that belief. I think it's
> > just romantic wishful thinking . . . .
Anton Sherwood res
Robert A. Book wrote:
> Everyone seems to assume that if there is life elsewhere, it must
> be so much more advanced and more perfect than we are -- but there
> is absolutely no evidence to support that belief. I think it's
> just romantic wishful thinking . . . .
If life is *common* Elsewhere, it
> Why must costs always drop? When drilling for oil, for instance, as the
> most easily-recoverable oil gets used up, drilling for oil gets more
> costly.
> David
Better technology reduces costs. For example, technological progress makes
it possible to extract more oil from the same field, getti
Why must costs always drop? When drilling for oil, for instance, as the most
easily-recoverable oil gets used up, drilling for oil gets more costly.
David
In a message dated 8/22/03 2:07:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>It is also the cost of processing. The resource a car manufacturer wants
Robert Book wrote:
> The usual argument is that once life reaches a level not that much further
> than our own, it should expand out to colonize the universe at a relatively
> rapid pace. Either this is wrong, or the nearest life at anything like
> our level must be very very far away.
Well, we ha
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 10:50:35AM -0700, Fred Foldvary wrote:
> However, the earth is not a closed system, as we continually get energy
> from the sun, so even if we use up some resources, solar radiation will
> supply energy, and technologicalp progress will make ever more efficient
> use of it.
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 12:18:26AM -0700, Anton Sherwood wrote:
> And industry gets cleverer about using less.
> I heard once* that there is practically no market for tin anymore.
Suppose the cost of mining resources is already zero. If the owners of a
resource predict that industries using that r
(Like my last message, I sent this in yesterday morning, but somehow
it didn't make it through -- sorry if some of this seems to be
overtaken by subsequent discussion, and sorry if I'm wrong and you're
getting this twice. --Robert)
> At 04:47 PM 8/18/2003 -0600, Chris Auld wrote:
> > > I've fini
Right. It's another reason why I think there isn't any basis for it.
> Selection comes to mind. On uninhabited planets, sentient beings don't ponder
> this question.
>
> Quoting "Robert A. Book" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Bryan Caplan wrote:
> > >
> > > > That seems to wat
--- Wei Dai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Given that the amount of natural resources in the solar system is finite,
> I don't see how resources could continue to get cheaper forever. The
> reason natural resources are getting cheaper is that the cost of mining
> resources is droping, right?
It is a
> Please explain how it is possible to use up resources at all. You can
> degrade resources, but with a intake of energy and technology you can
> recycle all resources for certain uses. So the limit is technological
> progress, strictly speaking human creativity. Or am I wrong?
> Steffen
The phys
Selection comes to mind. On uninhabited planets, sentient beings don't ponder
this question.
Quoting "Robert A. Book" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Bryan Caplan wrote:
> >
> > > That seems to water down the Principle to complete irrelevance, doesn't
> > > it?
> >
> > Well, the no
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Bryan Caplan wrote:
>
> > That seems to water down the Principle to complete irrelevance, doesn't
> > it?
>
> Well, the notion that life is very unlikely, but happened on earth
> through sheer chance, does not require that earth is "special" in
> any fundamental physical sens
Message-
From: Wei Dai [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 8:57 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Economics and E.T.s
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 05:28:34PM -0400, Bryan Caplan wrote:
> One idea he did not explore: Maybe there is no inter-stellar travel
> becau
Wei Dai wrote:
> . . . The reason natural resources are getting cheaper
> is that the cost of mining resources is droping, right? . . .
And industry gets cleverer about using less.
I heard once* that there is practically no market for tin anymore.
(*conversation with Eric Hughes and others, morning
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 05:28:34PM -0400, Bryan Caplan wrote:
> One idea he did not explore: Maybe there is no inter-stellar travel
> because the benefits almost never exceed the costs. It takes years to
> get anywhere, and at best you find some unused natural resources. If
> Julian Simon's obser
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Bryan Caplan wrote:
> That seems to water down the Principle to complete irrelevance, doesn't
> it?
Well, the notion that life is very unlikely, but happened on earth
through sheer chance, does not require that earth is "special" in
any fundamental physical sense.
> If it
Christopher Auld wrote:
Suppose all planets are identical in the sense that they each have
a one in 10^100 probability of developing intelligent life. None
are "special" in any way ex ante; earth simply experienced a very
low probability event. Isn't such an argument consistent with both
the Pri
At 04:47 PM 8/18/2003 -0600, Chris Auld wrote:
> I've finished a fantastic book that Robin lent me, *Where Is Everybody*?
> The author explores the paradox that (a) It seems like the galaxy
> should be full of intelligent life but (b) There is little evidence of
> its existence.
What sort of argu
>
> What is the explanation that life would usually evolve into intelligence?
none.
Life has been around for 3.9 billion years and if you define intelligence as
understanding the law of comparative advantage ( or schodinger's wave
equation)
we have had intelligent life for 80-200 years.
Just think
--- Bryan Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll admit that evolution has made some amazing leaps. But isn't it
> more reasonable to conclude that evolution is powerful, not that we got
> incredibly lucky?
I think it is more reasonble to admit we just don't know.
Fred
=
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fred Foldvary wrote:
Right, but first one needs a brain, and in a world of plants and
bacteria, there are no brains to evolve into smarter brains. I'm not
a botanist, but it seems to me unlikely that trees and ferns could
evolve brains. Worms can branch off and become apes, but not
mushrooms.
I'
> ... it looks like evolution encourages a
> mixed strategy equilibrium. When all other life is stupid, it pays to
> branch off and get a little smarter.
> Prof. Bryan Caplan
Right, but first one needs a brain, and in a world of plants and bacteria,
there are no brains to
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Bryan Caplan wrote:
> The simplest - but indirect - answer is just the Principle of
> Mediocrity. Astronomically, there doesn't appear to be any big way in
> which our planet is special. So why would we be special in this respect
> either?
Suppose all planets are identical
Fred Foldvary wrote:
What is the explanation that life would usually evolve into intelligence?
It seems to me that there could be plenty of planets with life like plants
or bacteria with little or no intelligence. Intelligent life on earth
could have been an unusual accident.
Could be. But at le
Christopher Auld wrote:
What sort of argument is offered in support of (a)? It seems to me to be
remarkable that there is life at all --- why should we believe that the
probability of intelligent life on a given planet is more than, say, one
in 10^100?
The simplest - but indirect - answer is just
--- Bryan Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've finished a fantastic book that Robin lent me, *Where Is Everybody*?
> The author explores the paradox that (a) It seems like the galaxy
> should be full of intelligent life but (b) There is little evidence of
> its existence.
What is the explana
In a message dated 8/19/03 3:53:25 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>I believe the #1 usage of content based bandwidth online is religious
>material, followed by ironically titled "adult" material (or at least was
>not too long ago), so perhaps the Thought Writer is already in existence,
>translating
I believe the #1 usage of content based bandwidth online is religious
material, followed by ironically titled "adult" material (or at least was
not too long ago), so perhaps the Thought Writer is already in existence,
translating the amount of thinking time spent by human subjects day to day
into a
two other reading suggestions along these lines
1- "Rare Earth" by brownlee and ward
2- "Are we alone" by paul davies
- Original Message -
From: "Bryan Caplan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 2:2
On 2003-08-19, Tigger uttered:
>Here's a cool idea I haven't heard anybody else articulate: computer
>assisted telepathy. [...] I expect it in my lifetime.
That seems more like a transhumanist idea than an armchair economist one.
>In the future, "thought speakers" will be likely -- so your Googl
I've actually seen this in operation. It's not up to much (beyond a
miracle!) right now but it does allow some quadrapelgics to move cursos
by thought alone.
Alex
--
Alexander Tabarrok
Department of Economics, MSN 1D3
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA, 22030
Tel. 703-993-2314
Web Page: http://m
Bryan Caplan wrote:
> I've finished a fantastic book that Robin lent me, *Where Is Everybody*?
> The author explores the paradox that (a) It seems like the galaxy
> should be full of intelligent life but (b) There is little evidence of
> its existence.
What sort of argument is offered in suppor
Thanks for a fine list Bryan!
Here's a cool idea I haven't heard anybody else articulate:
computer assisted telepathy.
I expect it in my lifetime.
Instead of voice recognition "voice writer", imagine a brainwave sensitive
headset (or imbedded sensors?) which allow, with individual man-machine
tr
I've finished a fantastic book that Robin lent me, *Where Is Everybody*?
The author explores the paradox that (a) It seems like the galaxy
should be full of intelligent life but (b) There is little evidence of
its existence.
One idea he did not explore: Maybe there is no inter-stellar travel
becau
38 matches
Mail list logo
