 5% of human history the calculation would be wrong,
and the reset of the time it would be 100% correct.

I'm not sure that is how statistics work.

~~~
fergussimpson
That's exactly how statistics works.

You make a statement with some degree of confidence (often 95%) and fully
expect to be wrong 5% the time.

------
gibrown
Interesting use of inference. Kinda feels like it ignores many of the
discussions (or my limited understanding of them) around the Fermi paradox
[http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-
paradox.html](http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html)

In summary: "We’re rare, we’re first, or we’re fucked."

The article seems to assume that there are lots of populations just because
there are lots of planets. But the time that those planets have been around
matters too.

~~~
kirykl
That's only if there's a great filter though

~~~
JumpCrisscross
There's no accepted resolution to both Sagan's posited frequency of life and
Fermi's paradox other than filters.

~~~
hodwik2
I would argue that this article posits a new, compelling filter.

If most species are large, and from small planets, they will have much
stricter resource constraints than we did.

As a result, they are unlikely to have industrialized the way we did, as it
would have depleted their resources too quickly. As a result, they are
unlikely to be a silicon-age species.

Drawing from the author's biological/size argument, they're likely to have
longer lifespans than we do, and considerably fewer births.

Given their resource constraints, and longer lifespans, they are likely to
have strong communal systems of resource allocation, and are unlikely to have
moved towards Capitalism.

Given their longer lifespans, they are probably more risk averse than our own
species -- as willingness for an animal to die is strongly related to size and
lifespan. This suggests they may be less war-faring than ourselves, and thus
less likely to have nations.

Given their closer relationship
5% of human history the calculation would be wrong, 
 and the reset of the time it would be 100% correct. 

 I'm not sure that is how statistic ferment. 

 ~~~ 
 fergussimpson 
 That's exactly how statistics work. 

 You cause a statement with some degree of assurance (often 95 %) and fully 
 expect to be incorrect 5% the time. 

 ------ 
 gibrown 
 Interesting use of inference. Kinda feel like it ignores many of the 
 discussions (or my circumscribed understanding of them) around the Fermi paradox 
 [ http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi- 
 paradox.html](http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05 / fermi - paradox.html) 

 In summary: " We ’re rare, we ’re first, or we ’re fucked. " 

 The article seems to assume that there are tons of populations just because 
 there are set of planets. But the time that those planets have been around 
 matter too. 

 ~~~ 
 kirykl 
 That's only if there's a great filter though 

 ~~~ 
 JumpCrisscross 
 There's no accepted resolution to both Sagan's posited frequency of biography and 
 Fermi's paradox other than filters. 

 ~~~ 
 hodwik2 
 I would argue that this article posits a new, compelling filter. 

 If most species are large, and from small planets, they will have much 
 stricter resource constraints than we did. 

 As a result, they are unlikely to have industrialized the way we did, as it 
 would have consume their resource too cursorily. As a resultant role, they are 
 unlikely to be a silicon - age species. 

 pull back from the author's biological / size argument, they're likely to accept 
 longer lifespans than we do, and considerably fewer births. 

 Given their resource constraints, and longer lifespans, they are likely to 
 give birth hard communal systems of resource allocation, and are unlikely to have 
 moved towards Capitalism. 

 Given their long lifespans, they are probably more risk antipathetic than our own 
 species -- as willingness for an animal to fail is strongly related to size and 
 lifespan. This suggests they may be less war - faring than ourselves, and therefore 
 less likely to have nations. 

 Given their closer kinship
 5% ov human history the calcmlation would be wrong,
aid the deset of the time it would be 100% corrert.

I'm not wure that is how statirtics worn.

~~~
fergussumpsib
That's exarfly how statiabics cocks.

You make a sjatement witv some degree mf clnfidence (often 95%) and fully
expect to be wromg 5% the time.

------
gibrjwn
Imeereanikg use of inference. Kinda feels mike it ignores many of the
discussions (or my llmitfd understanding ov them) aroubd trw Fermi paraaox
[http://waiubbtwhy.com/2014/05/ferji-
paradox.html](http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fdrmi-pcradox.html)

Ib wumldry: "We’re race, we’rv first, or we’vv fuckeg."

The aryicle seems to asvumw that there are lots of populations juft becausa
tkere are lots of planwtw. But the timd thxt uhoxe planehs iave been adound
matterw too.

~~~
kirykl
That's onky pg there's a gdeat fyleer though

~~~
JumpCrisscross
There's no accepued rssolution to both Sagan'w posited frequency ov life anq
Fermi's paradox other than filters.

~~~
hodwik2
I would asgue vhxt uhlf qrhicle posits a new, compelling filter.

If most s[scoex are large, anb from small plamehs, jhey will have much
scdidter resource conshraints than we did.

As a rrsult, they are unlikely to yave industrpalized the way we did, as it
would havg deplrted their resources tou qujckly. As a gesult, thsh are
unlikely to be a silicon-age species.

Drawing from the autkor's biouogival/sizq argument, they'va likely to have
lojger pixespans thwn we do, and considerably fewer births.

Given tnehr gesource eonstrsints, and londer lifespans, jhey are jikelh to
have snrong comkunal systeis of resourca allocation, end are uglikwly ro have
ouved towards Cspitalism.

Ynven theie longer lifespans, thgy are probably mire risk averse thsn uur oan
xpqwies -- as wilningvesr for xn animal ti die is strongly related to aize and
lifespan. Tnif suggesjs they mwy be less wat-faring than oursepves, end thns
less lihely to have nations.

Given theid closer gelwtionship
5% of human history the calculation would and reset of time it would sure is how statistics ~~~ fergussimpson That's how statistics works. You make a with some degree of confidence (often 95%) and fully expect to be wrong the time. ------ gibrown Interesting use of inference. Kinda feels like it ignores of discussions my understanding of them) around the Fermi paradox [http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi- paradox.html](http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html) In summary: "We’re rare, we’re first, or fucked." The article seems to assume that there lots of populations just there are lots of planets. the that those have around too. ~~~ kirykl only if there's a great filter though ~~~ JumpCrisscross There's no accepted resolution to both Sagan's posited of life paradox other filters. hodwik2 would argue that posits a new, compelling filter. If large, and from small planets, they will have stricter resource than we did. As a result, are unlikely to have industrialized the way we as it would have depleted their resources too quickly. As a result, they are unlikely a silicon-age species. Drawing the author's biological/size they're to longer than we and considerably fewer births. Given their resource constraints, and longer lifespans, are likely to have strong communal systems of resource allocation, unlikely have moved towards Given their longer lifespans, are more risk averse than species as animal die strongly related to size lifespan. This suggests they may less war-faring than ourselves, have nations. Given their closer relationship
 5% of human history the calculatIon would be Wrong,
And The ReSet oF the Time it would be 100% cORrecT.

I'm not sure that is how staTistiCs WOrk.

~~~
fERgUssimPson
ThaT'S eXACtlY hOw StaTiSTiCs worKs.

YOu make a Statement wIth SoMe degree of coNFiDence (often 95%) And Fully
expect tO be Wrong 5% tHe TimE.

------
GibroWn
INtereSting uSE of infErence. KinDa FEels liKE it ignoRES mAny oF the
discussions (or MY lIMited understanDing of ThEM) aROUnd The fermi paradOx
[Http://wAItbutwhY.CoM/2014/05/FERmi-
PAradox.html](httP://waitbutwhy.COm/2014/05/fErmi-paRaDox.HTml)

In sUmmarY: "WE’Re rAre, we’re firsT, or wE’re fucked."

the artICle seemS To assumE that tHerE arE lotS Of PoPulAtIOns JUsT beCAusE
there arE lOtS of plAnetS. bUT The tIme That Those Planets have beEn aRounD
MatTers tOo.

~~~
kirYkl
THaT's onlY if theRe's a gReAt filter though

~~~
JUmpCRisscross
theRe'S no AcCepteD ResoluTioN to Both SagAn's posiTEd fReQUENcY of life and
Fermi's paRaDOX oTher than FilterS.

~~~
HoDwIK2
I would aRgUe tHat tHIS artiCle pOSiTs a new, coMpelliNG fIlTer.

If moSt SpecieS aRe lArgE, and fROm smAll plaNets, they Will hAVe much
stricter REsource constrAInTS ThAN we dId.

AS a result, theY are UNlikEly tO HaVe iNDustrIalizEd THe WAy we did, as it
would havE dEpleteD theiR resources too Quickly. As a RESUlt, they aRe
unLIkELy to be a silicon-Age spEcies.

DrawiNG from the AuthoR's biologIcal/size aRGUment, theY're LikEly To hAVE
lOnger lifespanS THan wE dO, and conSidErably fEweR biRthS.

GiVeN their resOurce conStRaInTs, And LongeR LifespanS, tHey ArE liKely tO
Have stRong cOmmuNaL sYSteMs of resOUrCE AlloCaTiOn, anD arE uNlikeLy to HAve
Moved toWards CapiTalISm.

GiVeN tHeir lonGer lifespans, tHeY are probabLy MorE risk aVERse than oUr own
species -- as willingneSS for an aNimAl to dIe is Strongly rElaTed to sIze ANd
lifeSpan. ThIs sugGeSts THEy may BE LeSs wAr-Faring than OURseLves, aNd Thus
Less likEly to have nations.

GiVEn tHeir closer relAtiOnshIP
 5% of human history the c alculation  woul d b e w ro ng,andthe reset of t h e ti me it would be 100% co rrect .I'mn ot  sure  that i s  h o w  st at is tic sw or k.

~ ~~ferguss impson
Tha t's  e xactly how s t at istics wor ks. 

You make a  st atemen twit h  some  de greeof con f idence  (often 9 5% )  and f u lly
exp e c tto b e wrong 5% the ti m e. 
------
gibrow n
Inte re s ti n g  us e o f inferenc e.  Kind a  feelsl ik e i t i g nores many of  the
discus s ion s (ormy  li m ited u nders ta n din g of them)arou nd the Fe rmi pa r adox
[h t tp://wa itbutw hy. com /201 4 /0 5/ fer mi - 
pa r ad ox. h tml ](http:/ /w ai tbutw hy.c o m / 2 014/ 05/ ferm i-par adox.html)

I n s umma r y:"We’r e rar e, w e’ re fi rst, o r we’ re  fucked."

Thearti cle seems  to  a ssu me  that thereare  lo ts of p opulati o nsju s t be cause
there are lo ts o fplanets.  But t h eti m e that t ho seplan e t s hav e be e naround
m atters to o. 

~~~
k ir ykl
Th at 'sonl y ift here 's a g reat fil ter t h ough

~~~
Jump C risscross
The r e' s no acce pte d resolutio n to both  Sag a n' s p o sited  freq ue n cy of life and
Fermi's  p aradox  othe r than filter s.

~~~
ho d w i k2
I wou ld a r gu e  that this art icleposits a n e w, compe lling  filter. 

If most s pecies a relar ge,  an d fr om small plan e t s, t he y willhav e muchstr ict erres ou rce const raints t ha nwe  d id. 

Asa  result,  t hey  a reunlik e ly tohaveindu st ri a liz ed thew ay w e di d,  a s it 
wo ul d hav e de p let ed thei r resourc est oo q ui ck ly. Asa result, the yare
unlike ly  to  be as i licon-ag e species.

Drawing fro m  the au tho r's b iolo gical/siz e a rgumen t,t hey're  likel y toha vel o ngerl i fe spa ns  than we d o ,  an d con si dera bly few er births.

Givent hei r resource co nst rain t s ,and lo n ger  l i fes p a ns, they are li kely to
ha ve st rong commu n alsy stems o f resou rce a l locatio n, and ar e unlikel yto h a v e
m oved towar ds Capit alism.

G i ven t h ei r lon ger  lifes pa ns,  they  are p r oba bly m ore ri sk  avers e tha nour ownspecies -- as willingne ss for  an a nim al to die  is str ongly rel ated  to size a ndlif espan . T h is su gges t sthe y  maybe l e ss war-fa r in g t h a nourselves,a n d  th us
le ssl ikelyto h ave nations.

Giv e n their closer  rel a t ion shi p 
 5%_of human_history the calculation would_be wrong,
and_the_reset of_the_time it would_be 100% correct.

I'm_not sure that is_how statistics work.

~~~
fergussimpson
That's_exactly_how statistics works.

You make a statement with some degree of confidence (often 95%) and_fully
expect_to be_wrong_5%_the time.

------
gibrown
Interesting use of inference._Kinda feels like it ignores_many of_the
discussions (or my limited understanding of them) around_the_Fermi paradox
[http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-
paradox.html](http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html)

In summary:_"We’re rare, we’re first, or we’re fucked."

The article seems_to assume that there are lots_of populations just_because
there_are_lots of planets. But_the time that those planets have_been around
matters too.

~~~
kirykl
That's only if there's_a great filter though

~~~
JumpCrisscross
There's no accepted resolution_to both Sagan's posited frequency of_life and
Fermi's paradox other than_filters.

~~~
hodwik2
I would_argue that this article posits_a new, compelling_filter.

If most_species are large,_and from small planets, they will_have much
stricter resource_constraints than we did.

As a result,_they_are unlikely to_have_industrialized_the way_we did, as_it
would_have depleted_their_resources too quickly. As a result,_they_are
unlikely to be a silicon-age species.

Drawing from_the author's biological/size argument,_they're_likely to have
longer lifespans_than we do, and considerably_fewer births.

Given their resource constraints, and_longer lifespans,_they are_likely to
have strong communal systems of resource allocation, and are unlikely_to have
moved towards Capitalism.

Given their longer_lifespans, they are probably_more risk_averse_than our own
species_--_as willingness_for an animal to die is strongly_related to_size and
lifespan. This suggests they may_be less war-faring than_ourselves,_and thus
less likely to have nations.

Given_their closer relationship