N = R* x Fp x Ne x Fe x Fi x Fc x L

This is my second post on topics of science (granted, the last post on Star Trek was more about science fiction than science). Above is the Drake Equation, which is the equation proposed to determine the number of intelligent, advanced civilizations in the Milky Way Galaxy.

N = the number of civilizations capable of surviving long enough to transmit intelligible radio signals into space that our civilization would detect (radio waves being among the widest length'd signals in the universe, and therefore the easiest - in terms of clarity - to transmit across stellar distances)

R* = the rate of star creation in our galaxy.
Fp = Fraction of stars with planets
Ne = Number of planets (and planets w/large enough satellites, like Titan) that can support life (i.e. are within the so-called "Goldilocks" zone of stellar heating/stellar windiness - because if the surface is always too hot/cold or the atmosphere is blown off by stellar wind, there is little chance of life)
Fe = Fraction of those planets that go on to develop life
Fi = Fraction of those planets that go on to develop intelligent life
Fc = Fraction of those planets that go on to develop intelligent life who develop civilizations like our own
L = Fraction of those civilizations that survive long enough to transmit the signals of their civilization into space

Carl Sagan postulated that the first six variables are relatively high. We have almost 400 billion stars in our galaxy, of which 1/4 will have planets. Based upon the estimates of the Solar system, of a stellar system with 10 planets (counting the major satellites, like Titan again), at least 2 will be able to support life. That leaves us with 200 billion life-capable planets. Because life developed 3.8 billion years ago (or 0.4 billion years after the formation of the Earth (4.2 billion years ago, because the impact of a proto-planet that created the moon occurred at that time, reliquefying the core and the crust)) the possible percentage of life-bearing planets becomes 1/2 (i.e., just the Earth - though life may have arisen on Mars, Titan, Venus or even the Moon, at some point in time). This gives us 100 billion planets. However, intelligence occurs in only a handful of species - metazoa, or animals. We (and our closest relatives) would account for only 1% of life. Still, that leaves 1 billion planets. Of those species, only Homo sapiens have developed communicable intelligence (as far as we know), but suppose we say that that translates into 1% again. We are left with 10 million planets on which intelligent life occurs which can communicate their intelligence into space. However, we then arrive at the great factor of time. Human civilization has only existed for ~12,000 years. In that time, we've only been able to project signs of our existence into the greater galaxy for at most, a century, and more likely, just for the past 50-40 years. Of all of Earth's history, this is a blip. Factoring that into the 10 million planets possibly able to communicate intelligence into space, that number reduces to anywhere from 50,000 to 10. 10 civilizations in a galaxy full of possibility.

Carl Sagan, who optimistically proposed our galaxy experienced the latter extrapolation of the formula, said that other civilizations would likely have overcome the challenges that we now face. Environmental collapse, poverty, disease, war; these are problems that kill not just countries but species. Should we not be shocked into action that we have not found life elsewhere? Our species is not made of Italians, Thais, Mexicans, Argentines or Cameroonians. We are all humans, and we share a single, fragile space. Sagan supposed that any civilization, whether it was one of 50,000 or one of 10 (the optimistic and pessimistic ranges), would have to be thousands and thousands of years old, and would have had to had endured the hardships of existing that long. Our civilization must learn to become a 10,000 year civilization.

The problems we face today are often thought of in human terms. We have a hard time understanding that the Earth is 138 billion human generations old. Humans have existed as Homo sapiens for only about 3,300 of those generations, or .0000024% of the history of the Earth. And that is still 100,000 years. If, in my lifetime, humanity destroys the ecosystem beyond repair, it will have occurred in a geological blink of an eye. Less than a blink even.

The current dominant mode of existence in human culture is capitalism. It is based on the principal of creative destruction, as theorized by Joseph Schumpeter. That means that in order for new innovations to arise, the old system must be removed, in a multitude of ways. Does this destruction damage our chances or survival, or increase it? I don't know. Capitalism has only existed for between 3,000 and 250 years, depending on who you talk to. Again, just a blink. Regardless, we've already seen our natural world begin to fundamentally change in just the last century. What challenges will we face next, and can we overcome them? I would like to think that something comes after capitalism, just as it succeeded mercantalism, and mercantalism succeeded tributary systems of economics. Maybe it will be something less destructive than our current way of life.

Robert Heinlein so eloquently summarized that "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch". TANSTAAFL might well be applied to the risk we take in continuing our current way of life. Every day we live - and by extension everything we do - takes its toll on the planet. Human science has been good at fixing the problems we create for ourselves - the Green Revolution is a good example of this, solving issues of hunger in the developing world in the 1960s. However, it is risky to bank on technological fixes. What if Norman Borlaug had never hybridized dwarf wheat, and ensured its distribution throughout the developing world? Maybe the task would have been taken up by someone else, but maybe it would never have occurred.

In order to avoid betting on the risk of a technological fix, our entire civilization has to undertake drastic measures of reduction. How do we balance the desire to develop with the need to protect our common ecosystem? If we cannot achieve a technological fix, or if we cannot expend the necessary time to enact a technological fix, then I think what we need is not scare tactics but a popularization of the hard choice. In World War II, in Great Britain, much of the arable land was converted into "victory gardens" (this is hearsay, as I have not studied the issue to any extent, so I might well be wrong) which were gardens for food so Britain would not have to rely so heavily on dangerous-to-acquire foreign imports. I do not know what mentality possessed the British to set aside what had been done for what needed to be done, but perhaps a similar mentality is needed today.

I would like to travel to the stars before I die. I'd also like to live multiple centuries, so the feasibility of that desire might increase. In any case, I am curious to know how we might become a 10,000 year civilization. What, if anything, shall come after capitalism? What shall be the technological fixes to sustain our civilization until then? If no technological fix can be achieved in time, how shall we mitigate the collapse of our environment? Who shall popularize the necessary steps? I would rather think about these things, than the possibility of our failure. Between the optimistic and pessimistic ranges of galactic civilizations are 49,990 civilizations that won't survive, or 99.98%. I'd rather we not be among them.