Why we must increase Space Weapons research - a proof from the Drake equation.

Here is the Equation:

N = R_* × f_p × n_e × f_l × f_i × f_c × L

Let us run through the values one by one.

N= The number of communicative civilisations. This is the thing we are trying to work out, and it equals the multiple of all those funny symbols on the right hand side of the equals sign (again, for those of you who don't know any mathematics, I mean that when you multiply all the things on the right, you get the thing on the left. The symbols represent numbers, the numbers we are putting values on).

R_* = The rate of formation of suitable stars. In other words, the rate of formation of stars with a large enough habitable zone (the bit Earth is in, not too hot and not too cold for life) and a long enough lifetime for life to develop.

This one is measured in star systems per year. Now, our galaxy is about 5 billion years old, and has about 5 billion stars. So the rate of formation is obviously 1 per year. The number of suitable stars is smaller though. It is obvious that all stars have a habitable zone - even the coolest of brown dwarves will have a region close enough to be inhabitable. So the only determinant we need worry about is lifespan. The only stars that don't live very long are giant stars, and they are very rare - only one star in a thousand is short lived. So we can safely say that R_* = 0.999. This is established fact, there really isn't any other plausible value.

f_p= The percentage of those stars which have planets. Well, here around the sun we have a mighty 9 planets, which suggests that planets are jolly common right off the bat.

There is more evidence - only recently have we had the technology to examine other stars for the existence of planets. And yet already, after just 5 years, we have found 67 planets not of Earthly origin. Given that we can only see the biggest planets as yet, this would suggest that these bodies are phenomenally common, and I feel no hesitation in giving f_p a value of 95%.

N_e=The number of 'Earths' per planetary system. In other words, how many of these planets are in the habitable zone? This is very easy to calculate. In terms of temperature, the habitable zone is from -50 Celsius (The South Pole) to +50 Celsius (Sub Saharan Africa). The temperatures in the solar system range from 200 (Mercury, the hottest) to -200 (Pluto, the coldest). This is a range of 400 degrees, of which habitable is 100. So the habitable zone is 25% of the range out from any star, so therefore, by a process of simple logic, N_e = 25%.

f_l = Percentage of those planets where life develops. This is where we leave uncertainty behind and start to have more of an idea of the figures. Life develops very easily indeed - for it is a simple process of complex forms replicating themselves. Salt, for example, is a form of life, for each layer of a salt crystal creates the next when in solution. It is thought that it is by this process that life first developed. As clays and salt solutions are extremely common on all planets, it is fair to say that this figure is extremely high. But I shall still be prudent and conservative, and pin the figure at 90%.

f_i = Percentage of those planets which develop intelligent life. Given that you have life on a planet, how likely is it that intelligent life will develop? Well, again. I would say that this figure is very high indeed. As life develops by a evolutionary, Darwinian process, and as only the fittest survive, it is clear that any life form more intelligent than another will persevere. There is an inevitable, unstoppable pressure on creatures to become more intelligent. Therefore f_i=90%, or thereabouts.

f_c = Fraction of above where technology develops.This one is easy. All intelligent civilisations develop technology, otherwise they wouldn't be very intelligent now, would they? f_c=100%.

L = Lifetime of these civilisations (years). This one is more difficult. The only thing that can destroy a civilisation is another civilisation. Otherwise, they are immortal. Given that conflict is extremely common, but that total annihilation is not, we can safely estimate that L = 1 Billion or so, if not more.

Multiplying all these numbers together, we see that N = 1,921,826 civilisations active now in our galaxy.

And there is more: Our galaxy is only 120,000 light years across. So the nearest civilisation to us will be in the nearest star to us, or possibly even in our own solar system - such as Jupiter or Venus.

This is the greatest threat Mankind has ever faced.

What happens when one civilisation meets another? Well, if one of the civilisations is more advanced that the other, then the inferior is completely subsumed. This is a law of nature. It is happening now - USian culture is flooding the world, not through force of arms, but through sheer superiority. The effects of even meeting a more advanced alien civilisation, even a supposedly friendly one, would be unthinkable. It is that end that certain far sighted organisations are already working to defend us against.

It is clear to me that the USA must increase hugely its space weapons programme, in order to defend the Human Race from the impending alien cultural imperialism. They will start insidiously, with simple prime numbers bleeped through space from far off stars, and then progress to music and plays, novels and TV programs - these hallmarks of what it is to be human will be supplanted by alien ideas.

I hope that with this revelation the USA does the right thing. When we hear those prime numbers being broadcast, we must switch our radio off and ignore the impure transmissions from far away. China succeeded in this aim when it turned away the Europeans, and retained their culture, where the Japanese did not (something we must be wary of). We should learn from these old, noble civilisations and do the same ourselves.

Curiosity can result in the death of identity - it is this we must fight to avoid.

	Computer program for the Drake Equation! (5.00 / 1) (#5)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 11th, 2001 at 04:56:35 AM PST

	To assist other readers with the Drake equation, I've written some C code to do the calcultations for you. It is ANSI C, so it should compile with any C compiler (typos excepted). This code is released under the GNU General Public License. `#include <stdio.h> // Change the values below if you want to put your own values into the Drake Equation! #define R 0.999 #define FP 0.95 #define NE 0.25 #define FL 0.9 #define FI 0.9 #define FC 1 #define L 1E12 void main(void) { printf("There are %f intelligent civilisations!",RFPNEFLFIFCL); }`

	No, it's not ANSI C (none / 0) (#6)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 11th, 2001 at 05:52:27 AM PST

	main() returns an int. If you dont declare the int return value, ANSI cannot guarantee that your program will not break the internet down and cause the collapse of stock exchanges from New York to Tokyo. This code is released under the GNU General Public License. No wonder you're trying to collapse the organs capitalism.

	Really? (none / 0) (#11)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 11th, 2001 at 07:07:59 AM PST

	ANSI can never guarantee that "your program will not break the internet down". ANSI C is simply a standard for defining the syntax of the C language and can never guarantee that the code is bug free. It is perfectly simply to write a piece of ANSI compliant C that is full of buffer overflows and other bugs that will make the software completely unstable. Standards compliance != reliability

	Then the standard is broken (none / 0) (#12)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 11th, 2001 at 07:15:59 AM PST

	Any standard that gives no assurances about the quality of the code is inherently flawed. The reason for a standard's existence is that is a guarantee of a certain level of quality: "my code fulfills these minimum standards." But defining the syntax and stopping before you get to the semantics is a hole big enough to drive a truck through! It's no guarantee at all, and hence a worthless standard. If "ANSI C" doesn't mean "bug-free C", what good is it?

	You are correct. (none / 0) (#13)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 11th, 2001 at 07:29:19 AM PST

	A proper language standard should guarantee the quality of code. In fact, a proper standard should be so comprehensive that it actually defines how to write the code to achieve any given task. In a correctly standardized language, there should only ever be one way in which the code can be implemented to achieve any particular task. Such a standard would prevent obfuscation of the code, allow a greater level of code re-use, simplify debugging, have a shallower learning curve and be perfectly portable.

	Dead wrong (none / 0) (#18)
	by seventypercent on Wed Jul 11th, 2001 at 10:06:40 AM PST

	It is perfectly simply to write a piece of ANSI compliant C that is full of buffer overflows and other bugs that will make the software completely unstable. You might want to at least study the standard before you attempt to speak so authoritatively about it. The ANSI/ISO C standard is very clear on this: Writing past the end of an object or region of allocated memory invokes undefined behavior. "Undefined behavior" means (from the standard): 3.18 [#1] undefined behavior behavior, upon use of a nonportable or erroneous program construct, of erroneous data, or of indeterminately valued objects, for which this International Standard imposes no requirements Furthermore: [#5] A strictly conforming program shall use only those features of the language and library specified in this International Standard.2) It shall not produce output dependent on any unspecified, undefined, or implementation- defined behavior, and shall not exceed any minimum implementation limit. (emphasis mine) Therefore, your assertion that "ANSI-compliant" code can contain "buffer-overruns" have been dealt with and dispatched. HTH -- Red-blooded patriots do not use Linux.

	Unrealistic values (none / 0) (#9)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 11th, 2001 at 07:03:02 AM PST

	If that were true, we would expect a communicative civilization on the moon! Hint: the real answer is less than 1.

	What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#10)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 11th, 2001 at 07:07:47 AM PST

	His numbers imply a civilization on a nearby star (his speculations about Jupiter and Saturn are far-fetched at best). How in the world do you see this as implying a civilization on the moon?

	Do you mean N is less than 1? (none / 0) (#14)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 11th, 2001 at 08:00:58 AM PST

	If so, why do we exist? Surely the fact of our existance shows that N>=1? And there is a good chance that life has been discovered on a certain Martian meteorites, which if true would show that some of the numbers are reasonable and give us hope for optomism (speaking as one who would welcome alien contact). The author does have a point regarding them being superior to us however. Stumbling across a civilisation at the same technological level of us would be like randomly selecting a human being to find that he is also a newborn, having his first suckle on the teat. Issues of cultural superiority and contamination would be a great burden to them and us, morally speaking. Any contact with us and exchange of culture could contaminate and overpower our own, just like when men with pointy metal sticks that went bang embarked on the shores of the Incas. Even if not agressive problems of this sort would still be there. Perhaps then we are whistling in the dark. If an alien species is space faring, it is of course relatively non-violent, because it will have survived many thousands/millions of years of having the technological capability to destroy itself. Therefore it might not be a stretch to imagine that any space faring civilisation would also be moral enough to leave us alone and not tamper. All speculation of course, but interesting to think about.

	almost correct (none / 0) (#21)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Dec 3rd, 2001 at 09:24:16 PM PST

	while I agree with much of your calculated values there are a few things which bring N down considerably. You made a good argument that intelligent life appears quite easily. But none existed in the dinosaur ages even though there was plenty of time for it - if that asteroid never hit earth maybe we would have unintelligent dinosaurs ruling the earth for billions of years more. But I do agree that intelligent life must be quite common. What i mainly disagree on is the life-span of intelligent species. You assumed that intelligent life survives for 1 billion years on average until it is destroyed by another civilisation. But cant intelligent life destroy itself? surely that is the biggest threat. We've only been 'intelligent' for about 10,000 years. Only in the last 50 years have we gained the capacity to kill our entire species and planet (mainly nukes + genetically enhanced biological weapons). There are of course natural asteroid collisions and suchforth. Also we cant be sure if our natural resourse consumption and pollution will eventually kill us off anyway. If we trigger a chain reaction in the climate which raises or lowers global temperature by even 5 degrees we would be hard pressed to survive the turbulance. Maybe nearly all intelligent life kills itself within 1000 years of developing weapons of mass destruction and industry. If this is the case then each intelligent civilisation has only 1000 years to send out signals to other stars. So by the time another civilisation hears the signal - the senders are already dead. We have heard no signals so far from any civilisation..either they are all very quiet or as i suspect there are only about 10 civilisations like ourselves in the galaxy and we are so far apart that we will never meet or communicate. Anyway I could be wrong. Lets assume your billion year senario though - this would mean we would expect to contact low class civilisations which started up 1000 years ago to mighty civilisations which started up 1,000,000,000 years ago. On average any civilisation we contacted would be 500,000,000 years old. It would be a very small probability to come across a civilisation which started in the same 100 years as us. And therefore a very small probability of finding a civilisation within 100 years of our technology. Yes if we meet anyone it is almost definite they will be 100000's of years more advanced than us. So forget building defenses - i mean would cave men ever be able to build defences against our weaponary and technology today? and we are only 10,000 more advanced than cavemen. We could only hope a civilisation a million years ahead of us would be friendly. Actually ill add something else which some sci-fis have dealt with and is quite interesting to think about. Maybe all civilisations through science, eventually discover some truth. Something about the universe or life which they cant accept and the entire civilisation commits mass suicide.

	almost correct (none / 0) (#22)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Dec 3rd, 2001 at 09:25:38 PM PST

	while I agree with much of your calculated values there are a few things which bring N down considerably. You made a good argument that intelligent life appears quite easily. But none existed in the dinosaur ages even though there was plenty of time for it - if that asteroid never hit earth maybe we would have unintelligent dinosaurs ruling the earth for billions of years more. But I do agree that intelligent life must be quite common. What i mainly disagree on is the life-span of intelligent species. You assumed that intelligent life survives for 1 billion years on average until it is destroyed by another civilisation. But cant intelligent life destroy itself? surely that is the biggest threat. We've only been 'intelligent' for about 10,000 years. Only in the last 50 years have we gained the capacity to kill our entire species and planet (mainly nukes + genetically enhanced biological weapons). There are of course natural asteroid collisions and suchforth. Also we cant be sure if our natural resourse consumption and pollution will eventually kill us off anyway. If we trigger a chain reaction in the climate which raises or lowers global temperature by even 5 degrees we would be hard pressed to survive the turbulance. Maybe nearly all intelligent life kills itself within 1000 years of developing weapons of mass destruction and industry. If this is the case then each intelligent civilisation has only 1000 years to send out signals to other stars. So by the time another civilisation hears the signal - the senders are already dead. We have heard no signals so far from any civilisation..either they are all very quiet or as i suspect there are only about 10 civilisations like ourselves in the galaxy and we are so far apart that we will never meet or communicate. Anyway I could be wrong. Lets assume your billion year senario though - this would mean we would expect to contact low class civilisations which started up 1000 years ago to mighty civilisations which started up 1,000,000,000 years ago. On average any civilisation we contacted would be 500,000,000 years old. It would be a very small probability to come across a civilisation which started in the same 100 years as us. And therefore a very small probability of finding a civilisation within 100 years of our technology. Yes if we meet anyone it is almost definite they will be 100000's of years more advanced than us. So forget building defenses - i mean would cave men ever be able to build defences against our weaponary and technology today? and we are only 10,000 more advanced than cavemen. We could only hope a civilisation a million years ahead of us would be friendly. Actually ill add something else which some sci-fis have dealt with and is quite interesting to think about. Maybe all civilisations through science, eventually discover some truth. Something about the universe or life which they cant accept and the entire civilisation commits mass suicide.