Re: Why the Fermi Assumption matters

On 3/8/25 10:47 PM, JTEM wrote:

 Going back quite a long time ago -- way back when there were
real people posting to this group, not just the symptoms to
various crippling disorders -- I remember arguing that folks
should NOT be so dogmatic in defense of the "Humans are apes!"
trope. For a couple of reasons.
 First and foremost was the fact that the whole point of the
internet, usenet & this group is COMMUNICATION. And if saying
"Humans are apes" is a barrier to communications, it was raising
defenses in the other side, closing down minds, then you have
no choice but to drop it. Else, admit that you don't give a
damn about actually reaching people, informing them... changing
a mind.

But that's the purpose of the "humans are apes" idea: to emphasize our relationships to other animals. It's handy shorthand, and it leads to a conversation on the subject. The other side, if it's at all clear what you mean by the term, doesn't like the idea that they're related to other species, and it doesn't matter what you call whatever group we're in.

Secondly, it's not a "Truth" but a "Convention." It's a way that
we order things... our relationship to other animals. It's how
we put things together in our minds to aid on our understanding.

It's not real. Logically, it makes just as much sense to go the
other way:  "If we are humans than our ancestors were humans and
the LCA was a human and so on & so forth..."

Taken to its logical conclusion, then, you would like to declare that all of life be considered human. That doesn't seem useful. Nor doesn't it seem useful to rename any clade as human, even the one that includes only our closest living relatives. It seems much less fitting the purpose of communication to say that chimps are human. You would certainly confuse a lot of people that way.
Then again, let's face it: your purpose is not to communicate, it's to demonstrate how smart you are and how stupid everyone else is. Right?

That's actually logic. You really need to summon a healthy dose
of idiocy to not be able to see this. Just because we have
selected to group things a certain way does not mean that there
aren't other ways to group them. So why get all dogmatic in the
first place? I mean, in addition to the communications issue..

You aren't actually talking about grouping here; you're talking about what names to give groups. Names are of course arbitrary, but the groups are not.

Also, it's inaccurate. The LCA was bipedal and all in but absolute
certainty used tools for real, not some idiot "I'm using hammer
as a noun, instead of 'bang' or 'whack', so that manifests the
noun into existence!"

What LCA? Are you talking about the LCA of Hominini? Of Homininae? Hominidae? Hominoidea?

Finally, words do matter. Saying "Humans as ape" has destroyed
GENERATIONS of minds, causing them to think in overly simplistic
linear terms that simply are wrong. (See the LCA, above).

There seems to be no connection between the name we apply to a clade and the characteristics of the clade ancestor. I don't think you can justify any such claim.

So, choosing the wrong words stunts communications even as it
poisons thinking. And, pretending there is a "Fermi Paradox" is
one such case.
 There is no paradox. None. If you assume that aliens should be
here, take a look around & don't see any, that means your
assumption was wrong.
 That's it.
 I think we all assume that there are aliens, I never met anyone
educated past the sixth grade who didn't believe so, but do we
really have any reason to assume that they can much less should
be here?
 We're not THERE, why should they be HERE?
 We can't even get our technology THERE, for Christ's sake! Shouldn't
we at least make one serious attempt before throwing up our hands
and collectively shouting, "Where are they?!?!?!"

You seem to be assuming that technology will stay at its current state forever. Why? Or perhaps you're assuming that any alien civilization must not be significantly older than ours. Again, why?