Tem42 comments on Fermi paradox of human past, and corresponding x-risks - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (18)
I don't believe that this follows. It is surprising that we are apparently the only civilization to so far appear on Earth, but if we accept that we are, we should not assume that we have accomplished this by destroying the future.
However, while I feel strongly that this is this case, I do not feel confidant that I can express it in a way that would be understood by someone who does not agree with me.
If someone could explain clearly why I am right, or alternatively, why I am wrong, I would greatly appreciate it.
(For context, here is what I would write given my currently semi-formed understanding: "while it makes sense to compare ourselves to a time-line independent view of the world to test the probability that our assumptions about the world are correct, it does not make sense to assume that our assumptions about the world will guide the future.")
I agree with you, I think that I have the same problem with the article. Probability theory can not be used in such a way.
Every planet with some civilizations have a first one. People of the first civilization always wonder why they are first.
It does not mean anything for the future. Especially, it does not imply whether there will be other civilizations afterward.