Abstract
Initially, this chapter was motivated by questions raised in the SETI project (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence). If intelligent life is a normal phenomenon in the Galaxy, and if its rate of technological evolution is at least as advanced as on Earth, then the Galaxy must be full of highly developed technological civilizations, and we should be able to see them in all directions or they should even be here. So why do we not see them? This question is well known and referred to as the “Fermi paradox” or the “astrosociological paradox” (ASP). Panov’s focus is on the following form of that question: “Taking intelligent life to be a usual phenomenon in the Galaxy, then what would their technological civilizations look like, such that they are ‘invisible’ to us now?” This question has great practical importance. If we would like to find extraterrestrial civilizations, then we should try to understand what we are looking for. The method should depend on the aims. And we need to understand civilizations’ potential for technological evolution. It is a difficult problem, but not impossible. The idea is to look at technological development in light of the general laws of evolution. The question then turns out to have significance for our own possible future as a “post-singular” civilization and could assist us in overcoming the challenges of a transitional singularity crisis, which our societies on Earth are just now entering.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Life events were chosen from the literature on bacterial and classical paleontology discussed later in this chapter, while those about human history correspond to the eight phase transitions suggested by historian Igor Diakonov (1994) and the sequences derived by the interdisciplinary scientist Kapitza (1996). Much of my periodization for human social revolution is derived from Diakonov and social psychologist Akop Nazaretyan. Dates are approximate, since they vary from scholar to scholar, and the phase transitions often had no exact beginning or end. This does not present a problem, because my analysis does not demand high precision. Our basic conclusions will not change if a moment is shifted up to about 30% of its absolute value.
- 2.
The calculation for the distance to the nearest civilization against the number of communicative civilizations in the Galaxy was derived from computational algorithms of the Monte Carlo method, along with a model for the distribution of stars and the location of the Sun in the Galaxy (8.5 kpc from the center).
- 3.
According to the Drake formula, NC does not depend on time. Meanwhile, it is evident that formerly there were no CCs in the Galaxy at all. Then, there was a transition period, when its number was increasing. In fact, the Drake formula describes only the stable situation, which can be very remote from the truth. Also, the Drake formula is essentially linear in the sense that it ignores possible influences of CCs on each other or on the galactic media, as well as related feedbacks.
- 4.
In the following discussion, we suppose that ECCs exist and consider only the dynamics of the subpopulation of the extrovert civilizations.
- 5.
The decreasing of the civilization formation rate F may actually relate the decreasing of start formation rate R that actually take place at present time and will hold in the future.
- 6.
Note, the galactic community in principle will be able to prevent such a disastrous fall by resorting to the directed panspermia or by other ways that may look fantastic now. But all such possibilities are not considered in our model.
- 7.
As far as the question is about the distant future, a special caution should be observed, since then some peculiarities of evolution are extrapolated from the scale-invariant pre-singular stage of evolution to the post-singular stage, where the evolutionary character can turn out to be different. One important remark should be made about the use of evolutionary reasons when estimating the future of science. Such an approach is an obvious usage of induction. It should be understood clearly that induction can be a method of constructing hypotheses, but it cannot be used as a proof of anything.
- 8.
Note that it would not be so under the conditions of the extensive growth of a civilization at the expense of the cosmic expansion.
- 9.
Actually, I deal with a qualitatively higher level of the organization of matter following the social one. As such, the galactic cultural field has many interesting properties that have been discussed in detail in one of my earlier works (Panov 2003).
- 10.
I do not agree with this reasoning vice versa, the knowledge in mathematics, physics, chemistry and astronomy (cosmology) is common to all and should be easy to decrypt.
- 11.
This scenario of cosmic expansion is assumed by astrophysicist Nikolai Kardashev and astronomer Samuil Kaplan (1981).
References
Cocconi G, Morrison P (1959) Searching for interstellar communications. Nature 184:844–845
Diakonov I (1994) Puti istorii. Ot drevneyshego cheloveka do nashikh dney. Vostochnaya literatura, Moscow
Diakonov I (1999) The paths of history. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Drake FD (1961) Project Ozma. Phys Today 14:40
Eco U (2002) Five moral pieces. In: Symposium, St. Petersburg
Foerster H, Mora PM, Amiot LW (1960) Doomsday: Friday, 13 November, AD 2026. Science 132(3436):1291–1295. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.132.3436.1291
Fomin A (2020) Hyperbolic evolution from biosphere to technosphere. In: Korotayev AV, LePoire D (eds) The 21st century Singularity and global futures. A Big History perspective. Springer, Cham, pp 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33730-8_5
Galimov EM (2001) Fenomen zhizni: mezhdu ravnovesiyem i nelineynost’yu. Proiskhozhdeniye i printsipy evolyutsii. Editorial URSS, Moscow
Gindilis L (2001) Vnezemnyye tsivilizatsii: vek dvadtsatyy. Obshchestvennyye nauki i sovremennost 1:138–147
Gindilis L (2003) Poiski vnezemnykh tsivilizatsiy – nuzhny li oni? Kul’tura i vremya 2:174–183
Grinin L, Markov A, Korotayev A (2013) On similarities between biological and social evolutionary mechanisms: Mathematical modeling. Cliodynamics 4(2):185–228. https://doi.org/10.21237/C7clio4221334
Grinin LE, Markov AV, Korotayev AV (2014) Mathematical modeling of biological and social evolutionary macrotrends. Hist Math 4:9–48
Grinin L, Grinin A, Korotayev AV (2020) Dynamics of technological growth rate and the 21st century singularity. In: Korotayev AV, LePoire D (eds) The 21st century Singularity and global futures. A Big History perspective. Springer, Cham, pp 287–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33730-8_14
Horgan J (1996) The end of science: facing the limits of science in the twilight of the scientific age. Broadway Books, New York
Idlis GM (1981) Zakonomernosti razvitiya kosmicheskikh tsivilizatsiy. In: Troitsky V, Kardashev N (eds) Problema poiska vnezemnykh tsivilizatsiy. Nauka, Moscow, pp 210–225
Kapitza SP (1996) The phenomenological theory of world population growth. Phys Uspekhi 39:57–71
Kaplan SA, Kardashev NS (1981) Astroinzhenernaya deyatel’nost’ i vozmozhnosti yeye obnaruzheniya. In: Troitsky V, Kardashev N (eds) Problema poiska vnezemnykh tsivilizatsiy. Nauka, Moscow, pp 45–55
Kolchinsky E (2002) Neocatastrophism i selectionism. Nauka, St. Petersburg
Korotayev AV (2020) The 21st century Singularity in the Big History perspective. A re-analysis. In: Korotayev AV, LePoire D (eds) The 21st century Singularity and global futures. A Big History perspective. Springer, Cham, pp 19–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33730-8_2
Krylov O (1999) Budet li konets nauki. Rossiisky khimichesky jurnal 46(6):96–106
Kurzweil R (2001) The law of accelerating returns. http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1
Kurzweil R (2005) The singularity is near: when humans transcend biology. Viking Penguin, New York
Lebedev V (2007) Tsivilizatsiya: ot kolybeli do mogily. Byulleten’ spetsial’noy astrofizicheskoy observatorii 60–61:128–129
Lefebvre V (1997) The cosmic subject. Institute of Psychology Press, Moscow, Russian Academy of Sciences
Lem S (2002) Summa Technologiae. Terra Fantastica, Moscow
LePoire DJ (2020) Exploring the singularity concept within Big History. In: Korotayev AV, LePoire D (eds) The 21st century Singularity and global futures. A Big History perspective. Springer, Cham, pp 77–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33730-8_3
Leskov L (1985) Kosmicheskiye tsivilizatsii: problemy evolyutsii. Znanie, Moscow
Levandovsky V (1976) Transportnye Cosmicheskie Systemy. Znanie, Moscow
Lipunov V (1997) On the problem of super reason in astrophysics. Astrophys Space Sci 252:78–81. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1000805914116
Morrison P (1975) Communication with extraterrestrial intelligence. In: Kaplan SA (ed) The CETI problem 311. Mir, Moscow
Nazaretyan A (2004) Tsivilizatsionnyye krizisy v kontekste Universal’noy istorii. Mir, Moscow
Nazaretyan A (2009) Technology, psychology and man-made crises: on the evolution of non-violence inhuman history. Soc Evol Hist 8(2):102–132
Nazaretyan A (2020) The 21st century’s “mysterious singularity” in the light of the Big History. In: Korotayev AV, LePoire D (eds) The 21st century Singularity and global futures. A Big History perspective. Springer, Cham, pp 345–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33730-8_15
Panov A (2003) Razum kak promezhutochnoye zveno evolyutsii materii i programma SETI. Filosofskie nauki 9:126–144
Panov A (2007) Dynamic generalizations of drake formula: linear and nonlinear theories. Byullyuten spetsialnoy astrofizicheskoy observatorii 60–61:111–127
Panov A (2009) Nauka kak yavleniye evolyutsii. Evolyutsiya 1:99–127
Panovkin B (1981) Informatsionnyy obmen mezhdu razlichnymi vysokoorganizovannymi sistemami. In: Troitsky V, Kardashev N (eds) Problema poiska vnezemnykh tsivilizatsiy. Nauka, Moscow, pp 186–196
Shklovskii I, Sagan C (1968) Intelligent life in the universe. Holden-Day, San Francisco
Shvartsman V (1986) Poisk vnezemnykh tsivilizatsiy – problema astrofiziki ili kul’tury v tselom? In: Muhin L, Suchkin G (eds) Problema poiska zhizni vo Vselennoy. Nauka, Moscow, pp 230–236
Snooks GD (1996) The dynamic society: exploring the sources of global change. Routledge, London
Tsiolkovsky K (1995) Dreams of earth and heaven. Khudogestvennaya Literatura, St. Petersburg. Originally published in 1895
Vinge V (1993) The coming technological singularity: how to survive in the post-human era. Interdisciplinary science and engineering in the era of cyberspace. Lewis Research Center, NASA, pp 11–22
Yefremov I (2004) Andromeda: a space-age tale. Fredonia Books, Amsterdam
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Panov, A. (2020). Singularity of Evolution and Post-singular Development in the Big History Perspective. In: Korotayev, A., LePoire, D. (eds) The 21st Century Singularity and Global Futures. World-Systems Evolution and Global Futures. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33730-8_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33730-8_20
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-33729-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-33730-8
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)