billytetrud
How much is enough? A von neumann machine shouldn't need to be that big. You can send a single one to a solar system and let it replicate itself indefinitely. A single seed can sprout an entire civilization.
> If an intelligent species directed such an object to our galaxy, how close would is need to be for us to detect it?
We could probably detect it for many hundreds of lightyears if not orders of magnitude further. Why? Because an intelligent species capable of sending a von neumann machine to another solar system would probably be intelligent enough to make large scale infrastructure projects like dyson swarms. Such structures would basically be visible from any distance we could see the individual star from, which we can do from at least 50 million light years.
And not only that, but we could see evidence of a von neumann machine coming through in the distant past as well, even if for some reason its no longer active, because it would have left an enormous amount of artifacts behind.
> When it is part of the question, how is it irrelevant?
Fair enough. But what I mean is that if life isn't "rare" (for any definition of rare really), one would expect to see a massive amount of evidence of life and civilizations etc. Since we don't see that evidence, we should assume either that life is rare, or we're not the "average" planet that the copernican principle assumes.
> If it was on the other side of the galaxy, how would they know to send someone to our solar system
They wouldn't have to know. They would simply send spaceships everywhere and would happen across us by random chance within a million years.
I don't think we should be subsidizing power (or most things) but it seems disingenuous for an article to claim that nuclear power isn't viable because it gets subsidies, even tho fossil fuel gets at least as much subsidies per mwh as nuclear.
> you eont get to have multiple roads or power lines to your home
Why the fuck not? You are asserting things that you clearly haven't thought much about. But I don't have time to try and change your mind. Your biases are clearly too ingrained.
Yes. Granting anyone a monopoly (a corporation or a government) is always a terrible idea. Let's stop doing that.
The idea that existing nuclear power plants are losing money because they aren't operationally competitive with oil and gas does not square with the facts. The total cost of running a nuclear plant is 30% less than oil and gas per kilowatt-hour. And if all our nuclear plants weren't 50 years old and saddled with massive overregulation, the operation and maintenance of a nuclear plant would probably be equivalent to running a fossil fueled power plant, which would cut ANOTHER 30% off the cost of nuclear because fuel costs of fossil fueled power plants are 4 times the cost of nuclear fuel per kwh.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html
And as for construction costs, you can see that the massive increase in construction costs in the early 60s and 70s was because regulation required enormous increases in staffing, which ballooned labor costs.
https://ifp.org/nuclear-power-plant-construction-costs/
And even so a nuclear plant should be expected to be profitable as long as you can manage to operate it for long enough without the government shutting you down (one of the major regulatory risks I mentioned).
Nuclear power plants in the past generally took 7 years to build and pay off in 16-24 years. While a natural gas plant can be built in 2 years and pay off in 8 years. Nuclear power plants are so cost effective tho, that if you can manage to run it for 17 years, you'll make more money than running a natural gas plant.
> a previous conservative Goverment saddling it with 16 billion of extra costs due to grift
Oh really? A government run monopoly being involved in grift? How surprising. Guess what? That's what happens with government run companies. You can't simply wish away the opposing party. And I bet the party you like best also does awful crap you conveniently ignore.
For every great nationalized business you can point out, I could point out 100 that are awful wastes of money.
Except we have excellent knowledge about lower bounds on how easy and fast space travel can be. And its plenty fast enough to explore the entire galaxy on geological timescales. Voyager 1 is traveling at 17 km/s which would take it 1 light year every 17,700 years. Given that the galaxy is 100,000 light years across, that means that Voyager 1 could travel across the galaxy in 1.7 billion years. A spaceship built for that purpose would take vastly less time.
Voyager weighed less than 800 kg. Using the [rocket equation](https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/ideal-rocket-equation) and a realistic exhaust velocity for methane/oxygen of 3280 m/s, you can see that you could accelerate a voyager 1 sized craft to 3000 m/s with about 1200 kg of fuel, which is less than $1 of fuel, no joke (https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2022/02/spacex-reusable-rocket...). Of course it takes a lot of money to just get that fuel into orbit: $1500/kg with a falcon heavy. But that means you could send a voyager-1-sized craft to space with the fuel it needs to achieve 3000 km/s for a mere $3 million (not including the cost of the craft itself). And harvesting methane and oxygen on smaller planets would bring down that cost by a lot.
At that speed, the craft could cross the entire galaxy in 9.6 million years. A blink of an eye on geological timescales. And if we really cared enough to spend more than a couple million dollars on this thing, we could get it there orders of magnitude faster using propulsion systems way less shitty than a methane-oxygen rocket.
With just 1% of the energy the sun outputs in a single second, you could accelerate 100 voyager 1s to 1% the speed of light.
In short, if you think space travel is a barrier, you're plainly very wrong. Even with today's technology we could send machines throughout the galaxy in a pretty short period of time. In the near future, that time will drastically reduce.
> we can send and receive signals much easier than we can send and receive space crafts
And yet there are vastly larger motivations for sending a spacecraft than sending a signal. You might not be aware that nearly all radio signals that escape the earth are not powerful enough to be detectable above noise further than 1/2 a light year out. https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/33939/when-do-...
There's no reason to believe we should be able to detect alien radio signals unless they are intentionally aimed at us and meant for us. Also, you can't see a radio signal that passed by 1 million years ago. Whereas you certainly would be able to see evidence of a von neumann swarm having done that.
> Say only 2 or 3 planets in a given galaxy end up developing intelligent life, is that rare?
Whether anyone would consider that "rare" or not is irrelevant. The puzzle would be: if even ONE intelligent speicies existed out there more than several million years ago, why haven't we seen evidence of their space craft?
> maybe intelligent life is common enough but it tends to rarely progress past a certain point of development due to wiping itself out
Yes, this is of course the premise of usual solutions to the fermi paradox. However, those solutions are often either "maybe nukes will destroy us" or "maybe something we don't know about yet will". Neither are super satisfactory as answers.
The belief that intelligent life isn't inevitable is not inconsistent with the belief that intelligent life usually will happen from any life given enough time. Why are you positioning those things as opposed? They are not.