I think this post would be substantially improved by adding a one-to-four-sentence abstract at the beginning.
Substantively, I think your proposal is already part of the standard Drake Equation and dicing the sequence of steps a little differently doesn’t affect the result. There’s also some recent research which many people on LessWrong think explains away the paradox: Dissolving the Fermi Paradox makes the case that we’re simply very rare, and Grabby Aliens says that we’re instead early. Between them, we have fairly precise quantitative bounds, and I’d suggest familiarizing yourself with the papers and follow-up research.
I agree that the structure of the post is underwhelming. I’ve already done significant rewrites to the overall presentation that I plan to finish and post soon. This was more of an early draft that I felt was at least polished enough to share.
As far as the standard Drake Equation goes, I can see how it might be tempting to say this entire hypothesis is simply covered by fi. However, I think that there is a significant level of nuance and detail that is glossed over by such a generalization. It might be fair to say that I have merely attempted to provide a sub-component or a refinement of the Drake Equation, but I believe there is great value to be found in a more detailed proposal.
Regarding both Dissolving the Fermi Paradox and Grabby Aliens, I think there might have been an issue with how I presented this post, much to your earlier point. The Human Phase Hypothesis doesn’t conflict with either of those perspectives, instead it provides a framework for understanding precisely why we might be rare or early. While it’s certainly useful to make observations about our current place in the universe, I think coming to an understanding as to how we got here in the first place (and the relative difficulty through which such a process is realized) is equally important.
I appreciate you reading through the post, in any case.
It’s explained in the “A Tale of Two Phases” section. Life on Earth-like planets evolves through two major phases: a “Dinosaur Phase” focused on physical prowess and a “Human Phase” centered on intellectual capabilities. Transitions between these phases are considered to be rare and may require cataclysmic events like meteor impacts. Due to these constraints, intelligent life capable of technological communication is exceedingly rare in the galaxy.
The equation lays it all out rather succinctly, giving N=8.25 as the number of planets in our galaxy that have reached the “Human Phase”. Although the numbers used were extremely forgiving, with other estimates bringing the number down to only 2 or 3 planets.
I think this post would be substantially improved by adding a one-to-four-sentence abstract at the beginning.
Substantively, I think your proposal is already part of the standard Drake Equation and dicing the sequence of steps a little differently doesn’t affect the result. There’s also some recent research which many people on LessWrong think explains away the paradox: Dissolving the Fermi Paradox makes the case that we’re simply very rare, and Grabby Aliens says that we’re instead early. Between them, we have fairly precise quantitative bounds, and I’d suggest familiarizing yourself with the papers and follow-up research.
I agree that the structure of the post is underwhelming. I’ve already done significant rewrites to the overall presentation that I plan to finish and post soon. This was more of an early draft that I felt was at least polished enough to share.
As far as the standard Drake Equation goes, I can see how it might be tempting to say this entire hypothesis is simply covered by fi. However, I think that there is a significant level of nuance and detail that is glossed over by such a generalization. It might be fair to say that I have merely attempted to provide a sub-component or a refinement of the Drake Equation, but I believe there is great value to be found in a more detailed proposal.
Regarding both Dissolving the Fermi Paradox and Grabby Aliens, I think there might have been an issue with how I presented this post, much to your earlier point. The Human Phase Hypothesis doesn’t conflict with either of those perspectives, instead it provides a framework for understanding precisely why we might be rare or early. While it’s certainly useful to make observations about our current place in the universe, I think coming to an understanding as to how we got here in the first place (and the relative difficulty through which such a process is realized) is equally important.
I appreciate you reading through the post, in any case.
What is the human-phase hypothesis? Your whole post doesn’t actually say!
It’s explained in the “A Tale of Two Phases” section. Life on Earth-like planets evolves through two major phases: a “Dinosaur Phase” focused on physical prowess and a “Human Phase” centered on intellectual capabilities. Transitions between these phases are considered to be rare and may require cataclysmic events like meteor impacts. Due to these constraints, intelligent life capable of technological communication is exceedingly rare in the galaxy.
The equation lays it all out rather succinctly, giving N=8.25 as the number of planets in our galaxy that have reached the “Human Phase”. Although the numbers used were extremely forgiving, with other estimates bringing the number down to only 2 or 3 planets.