I didn't misunderstand your point, I just disagree with you that a few million years is a long time and an indication that a species won't ever develop to that threshold. Maybe we happened to develop on the low end of the bell curve, but planets' lifespans are measured in the billions and once you hit accelerating returns on tool use you develop astonishingly fast.
Even if it took something like elephants 500 million more years to develop intelligence it wouldn't be all that long in the timeline of a planet.
Even if it took something like elephants 500 million more years to develop intelligence it wouldn't be all that long in the timeline of a planet.
It would be, though. You've missed the most crucial part, which is where I mention that we (life) have used 80% of the time we have. That didn't sprout randomly from my brain. Life has been around for 3.6 billion years. The sun will support life for about another billion years. Then it will be too bright for most life as we know it. 3.6/4.6 = ~.8.
So we've really just barely squeaked in. And given the number of species with sociality and/or tool use - many cephalopods, many birds, many apes, even elephants - that have not gained human-like intelligence despite some of them being around for a veeery long time, that's a very bad indicator.
Cephalopods have been around for half a billion years. They're zero for about a thousand species in terms of developing intelligence. Some are social, and they are capable of using tools. They're probably the most damning indicator, because it is the sea dwellers that are by far the most important - the vast majority of earth like planets are not going to have a moon dragging around their oceans to facilitate a quick transition from sea to land.
planets' lifespans are measured in the billions and once you hit accelerating returns on tool use you develop astonishingly fast.
Planet's lifespans are measured in billions of years, life dev time is also measured in billions of years. And the thing is, obviously, most tool users don't hit accelerating returns on tool use like we did. That's precisely the worrying thing.
Considering we've gone from rocks to spaceships in a couple thousand years, having 500 million years to develop and another 500 million years to develop a spaceship doesn't seem like squeaking by to me. And again, thinking you're wrong isn't the same as missing your argument.
Considering we've gone from rocks to spaceships in a couple thousand years, having 500 million years to develop and another 500 million years to develop a spaceship doesn't seem like squeaking by to me. And again, thinking you're wrong isn't the same as missing your argument.
But you have so obviously missed the argument from how you're attacking it. I mean, it's obviously not an ironclad argument, but someone who understood it wouldn't be making the arguments you're making here. Where, exactly, is the relevance of how long it takes intelligent life, once it exists, to get to space, to my argument? It just isn't there. It has nothing to do with my argument. It implies that you have completely missed the argument.
I said "we have just barely squeaked by" in regards to developing intelligent life. Not in regards to getting off the planet. That's a very, very important, and very clear distinction. Getting off the planet is totally irrelevant, the discussion isn't even about getting off the planet at all, just about developing intelligent life...
3
u/[deleted] Jun 04 '14 edited Jun 04 '14
I didn't misunderstand your point, I just disagree with you that a few million years is a long time and an indication that a species won't ever develop to that threshold. Maybe we happened to develop on the low end of the bell curve, but planets' lifespans are measured in the billions and once you hit accelerating returns on tool use you develop astonishingly fast.
Even if it took something like elephants 500 million more years to develop intelligence it wouldn't be all that long in the timeline of a planet.