The ultimate test for a civilization.

[rtxoff]

IMHO

Travelling and or colonizing other star system is the ultimate test for any civilization.

Ultimate Questions:

What does need to happen to make it happen?

Will we have to fear other intelligent lifeforms?

Is the Milky Way the limit?

Some Thoughts:

Travelling and colonizing other star systems is sure no easy task, i think there will have to be some fundamental changes in the social/economic structure on earth to make this happen. This test is so difficult that only it can be done by devoting all the resources we have into this task. To make this work some every day problems right now happening will have to be solved. Ultimately this means a world without wars, money, hunger/thirst and without all other problems people on this planet have everyday. Such a society could devote all resources into one goal and that alone. The only thing of value in such a world is knowledge. Just because of this i also think we won't have to fear E.T.

Intelligent life that has not mastered this ultimate test will hardly pose a threat to one that had. Also every civilization that mastered this test will have no bad feelings toward other civilizations whether they travel already to other stars or not. Because the only thing that matters at last is knowledge. There is a high probability that there will be an cultural exchange between such inhabitants of the universe. At the end either we will change our lifes and start changing towards this goal or we continue to destroy our home planet and the inhabitants of it and fail the ultimate test which was assigned to us by the universe itself.

Is the Milky Way the limit we could explore as a race? Better make first steps first before even thinking about that.

[Mazon Del]

Strictly speaking world peace, an end to poverty and hunger, etc is not necessary to colonize another star system. Depending on the technology used it becomes a progressively 'easier' thing for smaller groups to do. Imagine for example, two technologies. One is clones that can be grown to near-adult in machine wombs, the other is the ability to copy and past one humans mind into anothers body. Should we get both of these technologies, then all one needs to do to colonize another star system is to build a ship whose electronics can survive the journey (a 'difficult' task, but primarily one that is solved with money. We currently have no need [or generally speaking, desire] for a computer that can last 10,000+ years and operate fine, therefor nobody bothers to research one.) loaded up with a bunch (or even just several) of mind copies, a load of different recorded genetic strands. Your probe gets there, spits out a few clones with pasted humans, they use some of the equipment on board to set up a base, more humans get made, eventually you end up having second generation, etc. If we had those techs, then it is something a billionaire could finance if they really wanted.

Yes I get that right now those techs slightly fall under magical levels, however the point was to show that a utopian society/world is not actually required for star system colonization. Would it help? Possibly, it debatedly could even hurt the chances of a colony. After all, if humans were in perfect lock-step with each other on decisions, then we likely would say "Hey! There will shortly be too many of us for the planet to support! Let's cut down the birth rate!" and suddenly you have population under control. If you no longer have an ever growing population, you no longer have a need to set up a self-sustaining colony. Sure, people and groups would ever want to go to Mars and beyond, but I doubt the rest of the world governing system would feel it was worth the investment, so again it comes down to citizens with the ability to just make it happen.

Additionally, depending on how space tech develops in the coming hundred+ years, it is entirely possible that reaching other stars is a trivial task. Given that we don't know everything about physics, what if (admittedly a bit of a strawman argument, but it makes a point) we find out that around the orbit of pluto there are wormholes linking the solar system to its nearest neighbors, and that all the stars are connected this way? Suddenly the task of getting to another star isn't so insurmountable, it's just a matter of reaching the edge of the solar system, no epic 10,000+ year voyages required.

tldr: It's a nice thought, but ultimately unnecessary.

For your actual questions though, mostly just money. Money for infrastructure, money for tech, etc.

Of course we will! Even if we become the utopian idea that you outline there, if we come across other alien civlizations, there is no guarentee that they are as developed. If, as you posit, the utopian idea is what is required to reach the point where you can colonize another solar system, then the fact that these people are still on their planet (assuming they are) should force you to treat contact with them carefully as they theoretically have not yet gone utopian.

And of course not! There are plenty of other places to go, after a certain point there might not be much reason beyond going to just go there, but it certainly is no limit.

Edited May 7, 2014 by Mazon Del

[vger]

Strictly speaking world peace, an end to poverty and hunger, etc is not necessary to colonize another star system.

This.

If we managed to throw away our differences and get rid of our predatory society, the colonization of space would become a cakewalk by comparison. All that is needed is to stop caring about how much it costs (because "cost" in a financial sense will probably not even be a factor anymore).

[shynung]

This.

If we managed to throw away our differences and get rid of our predatory society, the colonization of space would become a cakewalk by comparison. All that is needed is to stop caring about how much it costs (because "cost" in a financial sense will probably not even be a factor anymore).

I believe this is rather difficult to realize, seeing that we evolved from hunter-gatherers not too long ago (farming was discovered about 5000 years ago, I think). The mentality, and hence attitude, is clearly still there.

Only after the majority of humans realize that the world is so much more than simply caring about themselves, will the society become receptive to the idea of space colonization.

[SuperBigD60]

I don't know if we'll be all that constrained by having to keep humans alive long enough for the trip (or allowing them to reproduce or perhaps cloning them or whatever). My inclination, and I'm no expert (but I have done a little bit of research into futurism), is that due to increases in technology, a human who survives to the end of this century will be able to live until the end of the millenium and beyond. I also suspect that as we progress, we will end up merged with our technology (not in a freaky borg way, or even a starwars way, more like a cool way in some of those halo books that led up to halo 4, or Orson Scott Card's Homecoming series). If we don't need any resource but electricity to survive, and if we can gain that electricity simply from our movements, we don't have much in the way of life support to worry about.

As for a utopia, I don't think any sort of human utopia is tenable. Maybe once we are smarter (and therefore more logical and pragmatic) due to our technologcal merger, we might stop fighting because we realize cooperation is more beneficial. Perhaps we'll even end up as some sort ofinterdependent hive mind civilization (those come up quite a bit in scifi that I've read, actually--evidently fictional humans embrace that sort of thing), but then we run into the question of what makes us human, and is progress worth whatever steps we need to take to achieve it. Anyways, as we are now, there will always be war, stemming largely from our ability to dehumanize others who have what we want.

As for aliens, I'm torn between whether or not we'll be more or less advanced as whatever other civilizations we'll inevitably encounter. On the one hand, there's been 13.7 billion years for another civilization to develop and progress, and there's a lot of space for them to have developed. On the other hand, It took nearly 4.5 billion years for our planet to develop to the point it had an intelligent civilization (and I'm assuming that should we develop to the point where we're interstellar, it will only take a few thousand years or so), which is a sizeable portion of the history of the known universe. It depends on how likely it is for life to develop on any given planet, but thanks to kepler, we can extrapolate that there are several millions of earths out in our galaxy, so its possible there is a lot of life out there. I suspect we'd need to go through a few generations of star formation and supernovae before we had the right materials for complex life (at least as we know it) to form, so, even accounting for the decreased lifespan of super-massive stars, we could be in only the second or third (maybe even first) generation of stars that can support complex life.

All that to say, I believe that its very possible we could be the most advanced civilization we encounter in our galaxy, or at least top 5.

As for extragalactic colonization, due to the exponential nature of population growth, I suspect that by the time we are expanding enough to even think about travelling to other galaxies, it will go much faster to colonize than the milky way.

[Nibb31]

A test for who and by whom ? There is no test, and for all we know, interstellar travel might not even be possible. If at all, it won't be before several centuries.

If we ever travel to the stars, we will have our reasons, but it won't be to pass a test.

[Winter Man]

I think the greatest test will be advancing themselves to a point of ultra-intelligence and not realising their own irrelevance. From a purely logical standpoint, civilisation doesn't matter. Once a civilisation reaches that point, it would stagnate and eventually die off.

[Scotius]

Ultimate test? I think it would be finding a way to survive the end of the Universe. Either by migrating to neighbouring (and younger) alternative universe, or creating one in a lab.

[WestAir]

What's needed for interplanetary colonization?

Space ships.

Fuel.

Lots and lots of movies and video games... don't want to get bored on those 2,000 year journeys.

[ecat]

I would split this test into three segments: Technological, medical, social.

The easy one to talk about is technological and I'd measure this by the ability to produce and/or harness energy, as the various methods and levels of energy provision are mastered all other technological progress follows. There is a scale devised by someone whose name I cannot recall right now: The lowest level, level 3 on the scale is harnessing all the solar power that falls on the planet, level 2 is harnessing all the solar power within the planetary system and level 1 is harnessing all the energy in the system's galaxy. Or current technology puts us somewhere on the very lowest limits of level 3.

Medical: The treatment of disease and infection without resorting to butchery would be a worthwhile measure. Our knowledge of genetics appears to be making good progress.

Social: To say we are still stuck in the bronze age is perhaps being overly generous. We worship the supernatural, criticise the pursuit of the rational and place totally arbitrary and variable value on life - even, some would say especially, within the scope of our own species. There is so much work that needs to done and oh, so much resistance to change.

For those wondering about the big 'E' word, economics is, mostly a social issue and just one of the big problems which needs addressing for civilisation to progress.

[Accelerando]

I think the greatest test will be advancing themselves to a point of ultra-intelligence and not realising their own irrelevance. From a purely logical standpoint, civilisation doesn't matter. Once a civilisation reaches that point, it would stagnate and eventually die off.

if that were the case, why hasn't every nihilst killed themselves already?

[Winter Man]

if that were the case, why hasn't every nihilst killed themselves already?

Because not believing in purpose isn't the same as wanting to die? Kind of a stupid question.

[rkman]

Which aspect of a civilization would be tested by traveling to and/or colonizing other star systems?

If the civilization would pass the test, what would that mean?

[rtxoff]

Which aspect of a civilization would be tested by traveling to and/or colonizing other star systems?

If the civilization would pass the test, what would that mean?

Every aspect, and i am not talking about sending some bucket to an other star system that maybe have some inhabitable planet on a one way trip that will last centuries because this will most probably end in a disaster.

I am talking about a civilization that manages to travel to other star systems in rather short time always maintaining communications with earth because technology has evolved to that point.

Either we evolve or we extinct that is in my opinion the truth everybody does not want to see. Evolution can not happend on just one side, it needs to happen on all sides.

Somebody asked a test by whom, does there need to be anyone? America got discovered because man had the idea to build a boat and conquer the seas. Did anyone give them a test? No, the test was always there because there was this sea. And there is a universe. As far as we know mother earth won't support us forever, either we manage to burry our gruels and survive or at the end we nuke ourselves.

It is simple as that. Judging from some of the posts already in this thread we are not on the right track yet. It makes me sad how shortsighted some people are. Somehow i expected some more positive thinking in a forum devoted to a game about space travel. Instead in a thread about space war and weaponry people are getting the best ideas.

Whatever, i guess i can not fight human nature but i can tell you all that with a war setting there will be no travel to other stars, only death awaits us then.

[Accelerando]

Because not believing in purpose isn't the same as wanting to die? Kind of a stupid question.

well, sure, but it's a stupid question for at least an equally stupid proposition. why would civilization die off if everyone realized it was ultimately pointless? that's never stopped anyone from making their own purpose for doing something before, and civilization seems to work reasonably well at keeping things comfortable for people, better than total anarchy at any rate.

truth, it wouldn't be the same as people outright committing suicide, but considering how linked-in and dependent on society people can be, for a lot of people it might as well be tantamount to suicide to allow society to just slip away.

Edited May 8, 2014 by Accelerando

[Winter Man]

well, sure, but it's a stupid question for at least an equally stupid proposition. why would civilization die off if everyone realized it was ultimately pointless? that's never stopped anyone from making their own purpose for doing something before, and civilization seems to work reasonably well at keeping things comfortable for people, better than total anarchy at any rate.

truth, it wouldn't be the same as people outright committing suicide, but considering how linked-in and dependent on society people can be, for a lot of people it might as well be tantamount to suicide to allow society to just slip away.

We're not dealing with people though, with human thought processes and emotions. We're dealing with creatures that have reached the point of utter domination over nature and would thus have a much wider perspective. They wouldn't be choosing to die on an individual level, they'd be recognising the futility in having descendants.

[Accelerando]

We're not dealing with people though, with human thought processes and emotions. We're dealing with creatures that have reached the point of utter domination over nature and would thus have a much wider perspective. They wouldn't be choosing to die on an individual level, they'd be recognising the futility in having descendants.

trues, letting go in that they wouldn't need anything beyond themselves...

though, why would this be the view of such an advanced nonhuman civilization? the idea that civilization will be pointless once we have dominated everything is a pretty human one. and even with an alien civilization i suspect that once they have reached the point of utter environment domination they will live so long and so well that having descendants will not be necessary to ensure the continuation of the culture outside of the few erratic ones who choose to have them anyway.

edit: and, to answer the OP, indeed we may explore outside the galaxy if we are someday able to build generation ships lasting centuries->millenia, and then relativistic torchships capable of arbitrary fractions of c

Edited May 8, 2014 by Accelerando

[NFUN]

I think the greatest test will be advancing themselves to a point of ultra-intelligence and not realising their own irrelevance. From a purely logical standpoint, civilisation doesn't matter. Once a civilisation reaches that point, it would stagnate and eventually die off.

That's an easy problem to solve. Just ban fairy cakes.

[xcorps]

The ultimate test has already been passed.

The ability to destroy ourselves, but not.

[jwenting]

This.

If we managed to throw away our differences and get rid of our predatory society, the colonization of space would become a cakewalk by comparison. All that is needed is to stop caring about how much it costs (because "cost" in a financial sense will probably not even be a factor anymore).

given that expansion has always been driven by competition, the moment there's no competition between human tribes (nations, religions, whatever) there's no more expansion and thus mankind stagnates and ultimately dies.

[SuperBigD60]

given that expansion has always been driven by competition, the moment there's no competition between human tribes (nations, religions, whatever) there's no more expansion and thus mankind stagnates and ultimately dies.

I don't know that this is possible as long as humans retain their logical fallacies. I suspect we'll be, at least in some way, very competitive for a long time to come.

And, I suspect that if we find some other form of life, especially another civilization, out there, I'd be very surprised if we ever stopped competing with them.

Also, it could be argued that our competitive drive is what has produced much of the innovation that has brought society to where it is. If we are going to change the way we think, would we want to remove such a useful (if dangerous) trait?

I do think, though, that we will always find competition among the stars, and hopefully we will try and rise to the challenge.

[Mazon Del]

Every aspect, and i am not talking about sending some bucket to an other star system that maybe have some inhabitable planet on a one way trip that will last centuries because this will most probably end in a disaster.

I am talking about a civilization that manages to travel to other star systems in rather short time always maintaining communications with earth because technology has evolved to that point.

From what you are saying, condensed down, you view the only true way of colonizing other stars is for FTL or light-hugging starships and for either FTL communications or just very long range communications. With the current exception of the FTL side of things these other two problems are simply a matter of scale really. Communications technology is easy. We already CAN talk with stars 10+ light years away if we want to. Technically we can talk a lot further, but the conversation is boring. Light hugging starships are admittedly a bit harder, but they really are not a challenge that requires all of humanity to join hands with.

Here is a wonderful example of how we could construct a light hugger that could get fairly close to light speed. Microwave laser assisted solar sail craft. Set up a few platforms (either nuclear powered on asteroids, the moon, etc. Or solar powered in close orbit around the sun.) that can beam out a microwave laser at the ship. The laser causes the ship to continuously accelerate at say 1G until it has effectively reached light speed. The ship either just flips over and lets the light from the target star slow them down, or they detach a mirror to bounce the laser back at themselves in order to slow down again. In this fashion you could easily send a ship to another solar system. Again, ideally you'd compact your crew into as light a mass as possible (stored existences and whatnot) but really all you need is about 10 people and a hell of a lot of stored sperm and eggs.

If you are referring to FTL systems, these certainly do not require all of humanity to acheive. With advances in quantum entanglement we could very well be 10-20 years away from instant communications devices, arguably this technology is advancing faster BECAUSE of conflict. The USA cannot allow someone like the Chinese to be the only ones with untappable instant communications devices, just as China cannot allow the USA to be the only one. Any time one announces an advance, the other gets more funding to catch up. FTL travel is an interesting gambling game. Either the warp drive works or it doesn't. Either wormholes work or they don't. But again, neither of these alone are actually insurmountable tasks.

Hell, the only reason the ISS wasn't entirely funded by the USA was simply because NASA didn't have the budget. It is one of those "everybody wants in, so everybody passes over a couple bucks, and then you've got enough to make it happen." but I guarentee you that if Harold "Sonny" White succesfully proves that warp drives work AND puts forth a possible design for one, DARPA would die of dehydration with all the cash-vomitting they would do all over him.

The short and sweet of it is that we have actually proven across history, time and time again, that humans work BETTER when they compete with each other than they do if they work together. Now of course this has a scaling factor to it, this doesn't mean that every task should have a competition to it, but most can. A great example is buildings. Often times if a building is being constructed that is actually made of two buildings right next to each other, in order to finish faster the financing party will contract two different companies, one for each building, and say "First to finish gets an extra million dollars.". Such situations tend to result in a pair of buildings completed in as much time as a single company would have taken to build a pair of substantial, but still smaller, buildings.

As an American I am well aware that the real reason the American continent was discovered was not the fantastic ideal people like to talk about when the topic comes up. We were discovered because of money and money alone. It was believed that traveling in our direction would be a shorter (and thus cheaper) route to India, thus why the Native Americans were called Indians. The same thing will apply to the first starships, but in a different sort of metric. Pre-FTL ships will be constructed not because of the idealistic view of exploring the universe (though it will likely be crewed by such idealists), but because of the prestige it brings the country in question. The USA would likely build it simply to try and have a historical stamp of "FIRST POST!" written on the idea (we are still annoyed about the whole 2nd man into orbit thing). You would then have competing starships constructed because "We cannot let the USA colonize all the things!".

The first FTL starship COULD actually be built for financial gains if for nothing else than as a freightor for people, messages, or certain luxury goods.

Perhaps you could explain WHY you feel it is impossible for humanity to cross the stars in competition with each other?

[Winter Man]

The ultimate test has already been passed.

The ability to destroy ourselves, but not.

Nah, that's an ongoing one. Not something that can be passed.

[Mazon Del]

Or rather, you are always passing it, until you fail.

[rtxoff]

The USA would likely build it simply to try and have a historical stamp of "FIRST POST!" written on the idea (we are still annoyed about the whole 2nd man into orbit thing). You would then have competing starships constructed because "We cannot let the USA colonize all the things!".

The first FTL starship COULD actually be built for financial gains if for nothing else than as a freightor for people, messages, or certain luxury goods.

Perhaps you could explain WHY you feel it is impossible for humanity to cross the stars in competition with each other?

Well i do not fear competition, competition can be good stuff motivating people but i fear how people play out competition. Right now it leads to death and destruction between countries/fractions/tribes call them whatever you want. Anyone calculated what does it take to build a generations ship? Anyone thought about how much money it would cost right now? I am pretty sure if we don't build up some sort of utopia it will never be realized. It's hard to explain but the only logical way how it is possible to do is as mankind as whole. NASA is struggling with it's budget to do the most primitive tasks compared to such a project and u are really asking me for an explaination why it is impossible in competition with each other? America accomplished some great things in it's short history but this is some levels above America or any other country in this world. I fear there is some cosmic law and that one makes sure that no civilization leaves it's homeworld before some very sophisticated society is formed. Even if we manage not to nuke our selves to extinction, what about the other dangers that await us on our planet ?

A short but for sure not complete list:

Asteroids

Gamma bursts

Rogue black holes

Volcanos

Tsunamis

Mankind should take all this stuff very serious and work together to prepare for the worst or we continue to behave like our litte primate ape buddys and brawl for bananas.