It seems like they're calculating the farthest distances where it would be theoretically possible for aliens with Earth level tech to detect us, for various different ways of detection. I'm curious about a related question: At what distance would we likely have been able to detect 'ourselves' with current technology? Ie. if there was another Earth 100 or 1000 light years away, would we have seen it by now? (Assume they are x years ahead so the signals have had time to propagate).
I think it may be a relatively short distance, which could have implications for resolving the Fermi paradox, but I haven't seen any definitive estimates & I'm curious to learn more.
My understanding based on their use of "technology similar to ours" is that this is exactly what they're doing:
>If an extraterrestrial civilization existed with technology similar to ours, would they be able to detect Earth and evidence of humanity? If so, what signals would they detect, and from how far away?
The caveat "with technology similar to ours" precludes that, I think.
We know how to do that, but we also know how to build an O'Neill cylinder, a phased array optical telescope covering the surface of the moon, or an orbital ring — but practical considerations mean we actually can't.
The "calories in" part is usually understood to mean "metabolically available calories from food (& drink) in a human or other animal's diet". Calories from heat, electricity, gasoline, etc., wouldn't count.
There can be some edge cases around water retention, foods an individual happens to metabolize more/less effectively than average, & practical considerations like negative-satiety foods (things like candy or beer that contain calories but end up making you more hungry after a short while). Metabolic & activity level changes are another confounding variable one might need to track. But overall the CICO model gives accurate predictions for weight change in most cases as far as I know. I pay attention to my diet & weight & it's been perfectly reliable for me (although maybe that makes me biased to think it's a better model than it really is -- sorry if that's the case)
Anyway, you'll need to provide some evidence other than a straw-man/non-sequitur about drinking gasoline if you want to convince me CICO is a "myth"
Of course everyone should be allowed to use as large a truck with as bright of lights as they want[1] on their own land. Likewise, excessively bright or high-mounted lights should be illegal to use on public roads. High beams are fine if (& only if) there's no other traffic close enough to be harmed by the bright lights. These rules are not an onerous burden on anyone & we need them to maintain safety & civility on the roads!
[1] within reason, not to the point that it blinds aircraft, neighbors, etc.
I expect housing & behavioral adaptations would carry the most weight. E.g. you'd want to dig a basement in a moderate weather season, so you'll have somewhere survivable in the hot season. And of course have redundant backup power for A/C if you can afford it.
Some of the adaptations camels use could theoretically be useful, like dropping temperature at night & letting it rise throughout the day, tolerating higher temps overall, etc. But I doubt there's time for humans to naturally evolve those abilities very far in the next several thousand years.
- no way to access it if we develop technology to get clean energy from material that's currently seen as waste
- the sun is one of the most expensive destinations in the solar system, in terms of energy budget
- underground, on the moon, even Pluto or interstellar space, would be cheaper
- very extensive & well engineered shielding would be needed to protect against release in case of a launch mishap, but once you've encapsulated it that thoroughly, it's actually safe to keep basically anywhere, & there's little point actually launching it
That almost seems counterintuitive about the sun, since I would think as a heavy thing, objects would want to fall into it... But I understand orbits are faster near it. Gotta read up on that
If you have the technological proficiency to synthesize mirror chemistry cells from scratch, I'm hoping that implies you also have the ability to engineer e.g. bacteria that feed on reverse chirality molecules & turn them back into standard form, or create other mitigations. Safer not to make them at all though.
The funny thing about this investigation is that I don't think you could actually recycle plastic cups with air tags stuck to them anyway. Plastic recycling is somewhat delicate & precise, so the electronics & non compatible plastics in air tags would probably foul things up.
I'm not convinced there's much benefit to trying to recycle single use plastic containers anyway. We should be reducing their use, but as long as they end up in landfills instead of waterways, it's not too bad - the carbon will remain sequestered there until either future generations reprocess it or the earth turns it into oil over millions of years. In theory you could recycle all types of plastic via pyrolysis (less so for PVC), but it's expensive & inefficient & you still end up losing material & likely releasing CO2. I did some reading on it a few months ago & came to the conclusion it's probably better to pyrolize organic material & just bury the waste plastic for now. (Pyrolysis of wood, organic waste, etc. can produce chemical feedstocks & fuels & still be carbon negative if it's run on solar/nuclear b/c of the bio char fraction).
The biggest harms around plastic pollution come from the fishing industry, mass dumping in 3rd world countries, & shady international "recyclers" who end up dumping the plastic or burning it in open air.
I don't think AGI is coming in 2025. I expect more incremental progress in AI/ML, but AGI is likely to remain vaporware & marketing hype for many years to come.
I'm not a geologist, but I do think earthquake prediction is going to get a lot better over the next century. However, this improvement will be mostly independent of AGI: The classic ML models & paradigms from a decade or 2 ago are probably adequate for the most part[1]. We just need more & better sensors & several decades to collect enough data.
[1] I'm not saying we won't develop better models & techniques that will help - I expect we will - but I predict the sensor suite & data collection period will end up carrying more weight
I think it may be a relatively short distance, which could have implications for resolving the Fermi paradox, but I haven't seen any definitive estimates & I'm curious to learn more.
reply