The Carter catastrophe (attn. astronomy buffs)
Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2014 10:15 pm
Reading about the Carter catastrophe, aka the Doomsday Argument:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument
I hadn't realized this was a thing before Stephen Baxter wrote "Manifold Time." It's a statistical analysis of some sort, but I don't see how it can possibly work, given the data we have to reason with?
1. It assumes we can get a reasonable ceiling estimate for the total number of humans who will ever exist. How?
2. There's an inherent assumption that a "conscious observer" must be a member of the species Homo sapiens. I think we're pretty clear on that not being the case.
3. Likewise there seem to be assumptions about the continuity of a "species" that are false.
4. The most damning thing IMO is that it looks like, given the same population size and growth rate, it will give the same answer of "90% extinction possibility within 200 years" regardless of any external factors.
I'm thinking this is a case of "garbage in, garbage out" - applying statistical methods in the absence of needed data. But the consensus of scientists and mathematicians seems to be overwhelmingly that it is solid.
I'm confused, and admittedly more than a bit disturbed. I can buy that humanity may vanish within 200 years due to <climate change | nuclear war | natural disaster | plague | overpopulation | etc.> with so and so probability, but how can one arrive at an estimate of the likelihood just by looking at population and growth rate, utterly independent of any external factors?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument
I hadn't realized this was a thing before Stephen Baxter wrote "Manifold Time." It's a statistical analysis of some sort, but I don't see how it can possibly work, given the data we have to reason with?
1. It assumes we can get a reasonable ceiling estimate for the total number of humans who will ever exist. How?
2. There's an inherent assumption that a "conscious observer" must be a member of the species Homo sapiens. I think we're pretty clear on that not being the case.
3. Likewise there seem to be assumptions about the continuity of a "species" that are false.
4. The most damning thing IMO is that it looks like, given the same population size and growth rate, it will give the same answer of "90% extinction possibility within 200 years" regardless of any external factors.
I'm thinking this is a case of "garbage in, garbage out" - applying statistical methods in the absence of needed data. But the consensus of scientists and mathematicians seems to be overwhelmingly that it is solid.
I'm confused, and admittedly more than a bit disturbed. I can buy that humanity may vanish within 200 years due to <climate change | nuclear war | natural disaster | plague | overpopulation | etc.> with so and so probability, but how can one arrive at an estimate of the likelihood just by looking at population and growth rate, utterly independent of any external factors?