N=Upvote

Carlsaganexplains + anything = N

I think that sometimes Carl is a bit desirous about the idea of life on other planets. I think the estimated values he gave reflect that.

Which equation explains that haircut?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'carl sagan, cosmos, drake equation, seti, billions' to 'carl sagan, cosmos, drake equation, seti, billions, 70s' - edited by swampgirl

*vintage

Adding video to channels (Vintage) - requested by swampgirl.

"Which equation explains that haircut?"

I'm not sure, but "cool" would be one of the variables and 1970 would be one of the constants.

Why are we assuming that technological civilizations evolve only once on each suitable planet?

Because, if they act like us, then in the space of a few thousand years that technological civilization may have robbed the entire planet of all of its cheaply obtainable energy. If that civilization then destroys itself... the inheritors don't have terribly much to work with, at least for the millions of years it will take for it to accumulate again.

the 'f'-sub-lower-case-'l' and the 'f'-sub-upper-case-'L' seriously threw me off... had to rewind to make sure I caught that right.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Great post.

@ grinter; keep in mind that the goal was really to see the variables and play with the odds of our current civilization hearing another advanced civilization out there somewhere. So, if time isn't being manipulated, the signal from some other civilization couldn't be from two sets of civilizations that occupied the same world millions of years apart... unless its bouncing around or one signal is much slower than the other or something...

Anyhow, the last thing I was going to mention was how much a downer this was to me, because my own odds are far to low for me to give SETI much of a chance. Of course, we have no way of knowing, except to keep listening. Who knows, maybe advanced civilizations can and do hang on for millions of years.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

My own personal belief is that at some point technological civilizations "ascend" to something higher and unknowable by our monkey minds.

dag: Are you talking about the singularity by any chance?

The best critique of Drake is that f-sub-L implies that unless a civilization is destroyed it will use radio wave tech at high enough levels to outperform background noise. But as RF tech becomes more developed the tendency is to use less and less transmit power, or to target it at the earth or small orbiting targets (to/from satellites).

It is reasonably likely that if we manage to maintain technological advancement for 20 more years that we will not be using any high-gain RF at all, and then we become just as invisible as if we had destroyed ourselves by Drakes equation.

I have my own equation, called the Carl Sagan equation:

1970's + mind-altering substances + Carl Sagan - common sense = this vid

Lol, it goes off the rails right at the fsub p...the second number. The number of planets in the galaxy. Where did he get 1/4 from? Just kind of pulled it out of his ass? A wild-assed guess? But ok, let's let that one go.

Next is the number of worlds suitable for life. Again, pulled number out of his ass. Actually, most of these numbers are pulled out of his ass. What they don't seem to go into is what if it's all zero? One zero in the equation will screw everything else up. I mean, there IS a chance that we are the only ones in the galaxy (I doubt it), but it kind of shows how silly the Drake Equation is. It's all speculation. The equation means nothing. Easier to just say "yes, there are probably other intelligent civilizations out there in the galaxy". We don't know how many since we haven't had any evidence of a single one other than our own.

This equation doesn't help or enlighten us but I guess it does kind of wow the uninitiated.

Goofball Jones: As I understand it, the fact that we exist means that all of the parameters are greater than zero. One or more of them might be very, very close to zero, but you can't round it down. In my opinion, you'd actually need to subtract 1 (us) from the result of the multiplication.

Haven't actually watched the video as my connection's being screwy. But, I'm gonna upvote anyway based on the fact it's Sagan.

I thought it was very enlightening to determine simplified variables for the odds of detecting an advanced civilization.

The reasoning for SETI really seemed to be, "If we find something, it could be the most extraordinary achievement of mankind since we came down from trees. If we don't, well, you've gotta be in it to win it."

Sounds like dag's been reading Childhood's End

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I don't think the Drake equation is silly. As science advances- we are able to fill in more bits of the equation. We're now able to see planets around stars using the wobble method- eventually we'll have a better idea how many stars have planets- and with a powerful enough telescope we may even be able someday to determine those planets suitable for life.

And yes - I guess I'm talking about the singularity. Something like that is definitely coming down the pipe.

The point about radio-wave power decreasing as technology advances ignores the idea that advanced civilizations may deliberately create powerful radio beacons to signal with - as described in Sagan's Contact.

It's been years since I've read Childhood's End - but I'm sure it fed into my belief system. I also like Vernor Vinge's take on the Singularity. Didn't he invent the term?

If you like this stuff, and good far-future, thinking peron's space opera- Check out Vinge's A Fire Upon the Deep.

Awesome, it's the Dead Agent Smith blathering mind-numbing drivel that has no impact in daily life. No Neo, you must kill him....no, again...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

^ How dare you denigrate my lord Sagan.

what's your issues with Carl Sagan, CaptainPlanet? Did daddy not take you to the science museum enough?

The fatal flaw of Drake's equation is that if any of the numbers is zero, the whole thing is zero+1. "Guns, Germs and Steel" shows how any number of factors not accounted for by Drake's Equation could very easily be zero.

That's an interesting question regarding "Guns, Germs, and Steel," whether civilizations with less geographic advantages like the Australian Aborigines might have never developed modern civilization. Strange, but not impossible. (There's evidence Tasmanian populations experienced reduction, rather than progress, in technology since the time when they migrated to the island.)

At any rate though, any of the factors discussed in Guns Germs and Steel are accounted for in Fc, the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space.

Whoa wait at the start he says solar systems with 10 planets like our own...now correct me if im wrong but I thought we had only 9 (8 since they dissed Pluto)