Posted by: graemebird | November 2, 2009

Fermi’s Paradox Again. The Picture Clears.

I’m serious about promoting this galactic shock-wave story. Because for one thing it will happen one day so lets get started now. And secondly it appears that there are people who need a doomsday scenario in their life to combat. Like someone has cut themselves slicing lemons. Its a little cut but they say it stings. You stomp on their toe, you say “Does it still hurt?” And if they claim it does really they are lying since their toe hurts more.

At least this galactic shockwave business isn’t proved wrong. Unlike the CO2-Emissions racket. So I see it as prudent and pragmatic to promote this other potential calamity. Since the CO2-Emissions calamity cannot happen.

I see the inevitability of culling via galactic shockwave, as an extension of the way planets grow. Ex-Moons like Mars will eventually grow to be like Earth. Earth-style planets will grow to be gas giants. A gas giant like Jupiter is destined to become a star. From what I can glean from how Neal Adams thinks about it, this works in smoothly with the expanding universe, accelerating in its expansion. I’m not really buying the smoothness of it, if this is indeed Neals view of the situation. Its doubtful to me that the universe is even accelerating in its expansion. Nothing in nature is ever quite that smooth.

If this growth all continued there would be a great deal of matter and not much space. So what we have with these shockwaves here is some pre-emptive pruning. The shockwave comes out and explodes a few planets and stars that are a little bit on the unstable side. Now we are getting an answer to Fermi’s paradox. Intelligent life will begin at the centre of small galaxies. But these guys will realise they cannot survive there. The movement has to be outward. Outward and to the fringes. Its in everyones interest to terraform to the outside of themselves, if they can do so in a set-and-forget way.

Hence we ought to expect that whilst evolution is part of the picture, we might be getting a little intermittant help from the outside as well. Not a great deal of help. The distances involved are way too large for that. But there can be little question that we would do the same if we were able. We would terraform the moons of Jupiter and Saturn with appropriate life for those conditions, if we could do so cheaply and in a set-and-forget manner. And if Jupiter or Saturn didn’t themselves get culled, they would eventually branch out and become their own solar systems. With their moons becoming planets.

To have everything expanding smoothly with the allegedly accelerating universe covering for all this growth, doesn’t sound like nature to me. Nature is a much more demonic and messy sort of thing.


  1. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “I’m not combing my hair”

    Don’t bullshit me man. When a wop isn’t grabbing himself he’s always combing his hair.

    “Bird, I took the productivity numbers at face value because the name of the stat is non-farm productivity. It’s good enough for me and almost everyone else.”

    Its not good enough for anyone who understands economics. Why gainsay me if you cannot justify the figures? Instead of simply negating stuff that you clearly don’t know a damn thing about, if you were even a little bit fair dinkum, you would have asked me why it is that these figures are bogus. Or why I thought they were bogus.

    Yet instead you charge in like the cashed-up know-nothing dope that you are, and you simply assume I’m wrong, which I am not. Yet when it comes down to it, you are incapable of analysing the figures to either prove they are legitimate or realise they are not.

    Productivity improvement would imply the application of a great deal more captial accumulation, leading to those people still in work, to be producing more per capita. There is simply no reason to believe that this has happened.

    To analyse these figures for their veracity, we would break down the fraction and look at the denominator and the numerator and suss out whether the way they go about calculating this will give us a valid indication of productivity during, GIVEN RECENT HISTORY.

    Clearly when we look at these figures we see that they do not. Nominal GDP is never a good quarter to quarter metric for comparison. I don’t know how many times I have gone over this.

    The Americans have reduced (I sez reduced!) employment via deficit spending. And the deficit spending has also artificially boosted profits and consumption.

    Since GDP = C+I+G+X-M we can see that three of these have been artificially increased due to deficit spending. This has been achieved completely independent of authentic productivity growth, based on capital accumulation. And as I said employment has been reduced by deficit spending. C has been increased via the “stimulus” package. G has been increased due to the splurging.

    (I) has been increased since Government spending is business revenue that doesn’t wind up as cost of goods sold. So profits are artificially increased. At the same time, during hard times, firms may pay less dividends. So there is two reasons right there why (I) is artificially stimulated, although long-term durable capital spending may be completely in the tank.

    So we can see that these productivity figures. Under the chain of events of the recent past. Are simply meaningless.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: