Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (793681)	7/5/2014 1:52:56 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1587773

The number of planets was grossly under estimated. The ones with liquid water might have been over estimated because to avoid being a Venus might require having a large enough moon. The likelihood of life might be under estimated. It might be that to evolve big brains might be a function of unusual circumstances. In our case, an unstable climate at a critical point. And could be that intelligent life is not a given even when the planet is habitable. Evolution may be a hit or miss thing. And it very well be that those sophisticated enough to conquer the speed of light problems, the radiation problems and all of the other problems have the equivalent of the Prime Directive. We assume the speed of light problems can be overcome but maybe they can't. Maybe interstellar travel is just not feasible or just too expensive. I thought the Prime Directive was for more primitive planets? Now that our technology is more advanced, it seems to me a lot of effort has to be put into 'hiding' from us. I think given the state of our planet [see Iraq, Israel, Central America, Africa etc] what worries me is that maybe advanced civilizations are not sustainable over a very long period of time; the fact that we have not been contacted may be because no civilization survives long enough to develop reasonable interstellar travel.