> [KSR on the Fermi Paradox] My feeling is, the universe is too big, and life too planet-specific for intelligent life forms to communicate with each other, except for by accident and very rarely.
What does the possible variation in life forms have to do with the nature of communications mediums or techniques? Encoding might be different but the mediums used will depend on level of technological advancement and not the specifics of how the life forms communicate face to face. (That's speciesist. I meant lifeform-to-lifeform.)
I love that KSR mentions Banks' Culture novels.
While I'd agree that biosphere sustainability is critical, I don't think it's the only critical problem, or even the most short-term problem, we may have. I may be paranoid, but I'm very worried that there is a Great Filter[1], and that it is some sort of abuse/misuse/weaponization of biotech at, or just beyond, our current level of technology. Just past that would be concern about unfriendly AI.
There are also some existential threats to modern advanced civilization due to low-probability but unmanageable-if-they-occur problems. Other than an asteroid we can't detect in time, there are also supervolcano eruptions that decimate world food supplies (volcanic winter).[2]
> I'm very worried that there is a Great Filter[1], and that it is some sort of abuse/misuse/weaponization of biotech at, or just beyond, our current level of technology.
So you are very worried, that the Great Filter is in the somewhat near future of humankind.
But in the link you gave [1], the author personally thinks [2] that the Great Filter is probably in our past, in the evolution of higher life forms and intelligence.
[2] "I personally think that most of the Great Filter is most likely to be explained by the steps I think we understand the least about: the steps in the biological evolution of life and intelligence"
While I agree with what you say, I think your tone is a bit hyperbolic. Your last sentence is Polonious-level "advice" that is as cliched as it is obvious. The real trick is to not over- or under-estimate AGW.
Bad things could happen if we over-estimate significant events, just as much as if we under-estimate.
But the point of the article was, that there is some reasonable evidence that the Great Filter is in our past, so there is no particular need to postulate a necessity of more Filters into out future. Sure there can be more in the future, but they are not needed to explain the Fermi Paradox.
What does the possible variation in life forms have to do with the nature of communications mediums or techniques? Encoding might be different but the mediums used will depend on level of technological advancement and not the specifics of how the life forms communicate face to face. (That's speciesist. I meant lifeform-to-lifeform.)
I love that KSR mentions Banks' Culture novels.
While I'd agree that biosphere sustainability is critical, I don't think it's the only critical problem, or even the most short-term problem, we may have. I may be paranoid, but I'm very worried that there is a Great Filter[1], and that it is some sort of abuse/misuse/weaponization of biotech at, or just beyond, our current level of technology. Just past that would be concern about unfriendly AI.
There are also some existential threats to modern advanced civilization due to low-probability but unmanageable-if-they-occur problems. Other than an asteroid we can't detect in time, there are also supervolcano eruptions that decimate world food supplies (volcanic winter).[2]
[1] http://hanson.gmu.edu/greatfilter.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervolcano