Didn't followed the reasoning. What is "one colony"? some genetically homogeneous expedition? Unless you get a more or less continuous flow of colonizers from the home world, to be viable it needs hundreds of diverse individuals to kickstart. And setting, viability, being self-sufficient, becoming widespread enough within the planet to survive climate/tectonic/etc events should be in the picture unless it is an elaborate and very expensive way to get rid of some troublesome individuals. Establishing one colony nearby in Mars is still far from being feasible with today's knowledge and technology, and probably not so close technology too.

Even generational ships are a challenge, but more important, if we are able to make long term self-sustaining generational ships maybe we won't need to land, or change the equation between traveling and settling.

In any case, we didn't reach any outer solar system planet yet, not even with probes. We might not be fully aware of many of the practical problems of reaching and settling on another solar system planet. We might be like ancient mesopothamians asking ourselves why we shouldn't be able to build a tower to the moon.

each leg takes hundreds of years to establish, increased "Diversity" is free on these time scales.

This is a kinda silly argument. Interstellar colonies would have the opposite problem: they'd cease to be the same species due to genetic drift.

If you look at the (im)practicalities of interstellar travel, it's going to take centuries. That means a generational ship of some kind. That means having a sufficient population to get there, which really means tens of thousands of people. Plus, the kind of ship that would make that would likely host up to millions. That's just not going to create a genetic bottleneck.

Also, you could even mitigate that by bringing frozen genetic material.

This is an interesting article, but I think most of it does not seem applicable to a reasonable civilization attempting colonization, that is aware of these problems.

  1. The population size in the colony will be very small. Maybe? It should be at least MVP (minimum viable population, not product) that is a relatively well researched concept. I'd argue that it won't be a colony below that. More of an outpost. And when talking about aliens and Fermi paradox, we don't even know what their MVP might be. It may not be even close to MVP of vertebrates on Earth.
  2. That selecting the colonists by some criteria is not useful. It is, it's just not selecting by the "best genes". It's selecting for more diversity in the first place. Lack of diversity in the colony is much less of a problem, if more of it is introduced in the first place. 
  3. That colonization is an isolated thing and people won't arrive/leave over time. Why wouldn't there be more than one colony ship, if sending them becomes viable overall? 
  4. The population does not grow and remains at the original diversity levels. Combined with 2 and 3, it may not even matter that much. Unless it experiences a series of catastrophes, it should keep growing and becoming more diverse over time again. This is of course the most questionable case. Will it? I think considering how humanity has spread like a plague on Earth, it won't be a problem.

What I think is that the table might look very different with the above taken into account. Maybe 99% of diversity in the first colony and none of it will necessarily remain static or diminishing.

You can absolutely select founding population to be maximally genetically diverse and of large enough number to avoid inbreeding.

Speciation is a likely outcome for interplanetary and interstellar colonies, yes.

The assumption that biological life will be doing galactic colonization seems myopic in the extreme. Let's just consider the progression here. Life on Earth appears around 4.5 billion years ago. Humans start evolving around 2.8 million years ago. Use of language appears around 100,000 years ago. Writing is invented around 5500 years ago.

Inventions of language and writing are the landmark moment here. Before language was invented the only way information could be passed down from ancestors to offspring was via mutations in our DNA. If an individual learned some new idea it would be lost with them when they died. Language allowed humans to communicate ideas to future generations and start accumulating knowledge beyond what a single individual could hold in their head. Writing made this process even more efficient.

So, after millions of years of life on Earth no technological development happened. Then when language was invented humans started creating technology, and in a blink of an eye on cosmological scale we went from living in caves to visiting space in our rocket ships. It’s worth taking a moment to really appreciate just how fast our technology evolved once we were able to start accumulating knowledge using language and writing.

Now let’s take a look at how technology itself has been evolving. Once we discovered radio communication we went through a noisy period where we were leaking a lot of our broadcasts into space, and within a span of a 100 years we started using more efficient communication, and encryption. If somebody intercepted our broadcasts today they would look like noise because they’re designed to look like noise. Our society today is utterly and completely unrecognizable to somebody from even a 100 years ago. If we don’t go extinct, I imagine that in another thousand years future humans will be completely alien to us as well.

So the period during which intelligent life would be recognizable to us during its course of evolution is infinitesimally small. The time between creating language and becoming an advanced technological society is measured in thousands of years, while evolution of life is measured in millions of years. The chance of two different intelligences finding each other at exact same stage of development where they might be able to communicate is incredibly unlikely.

Based on that, I would imagine that the biological phase for intelligent life is rather short. We’re likely to develop human style AIs within a century, and they will be the ones to go out and explore the universe. Meat did not evolve to live in space, we’re adapted to gravity wells. An artificial life form could be engineered to thrive in space without ever needing to visit planets. This is the kind of life that’s most likely to be prolific in space. Furthermore, post biological intelligences would likely be running at much faster speeds than our mental processes operate on. What we consider real-time would be might we consider to be geological scales. Such beings might consider what we view as real time akin to the way we look at continental drift. We’re aware that it’s happening, but it’s of little interest to use on day to day basis. It’s quite possible that advanced civilizations become solipsistic and care little for the outside universe.

For all we know the Universe may be teeming with intelligent life and we just don’t recognize it as such. We might be like an ant hill next to a highway looking to see if there are other ant hills around.

This is a weak argument. Genetic engineering and artificial repair of major genetic disorders and artificial ways to boost genetic diversity are all way way easier than building a starship.

> Cheetahs experienced diverse catastrophes (see what I did there?)

Almost stopped reading after that one (I groaned, it's still to early!) but feel that's when the article kind of lost its plot. Worth reading though some good nuggets here.

I am firmly convinced the observable universe is just too exceedingly vast for intelligent life to sustain contact. Maybe i'm wrong!

I wish there was more background on Percolation Theory because that's not something I'd been exposed to before. But after looking into it more it am happy I did: [0]

As a kid sitting in the backseat of the car (or adult driving looking through a windshield) I always noticed how raindrops would hit the glass, then continue to coalesce with other drops and form larger drops before flying off the pane. Is it the same thing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percolation_theory

This argument doesn't resonate with me.

Looking at the chart of "Each colony hop has 90% the "diversity" of its parent", we see that by the 10th we only have 34% diversity left.

It's not at all clear that 34% of diversity is too small. On earth right now, we had smaller groups of people arrive at some general location and tend to mostly reproduce within that group, creating what we now call "ethnic groups". Is 34% diversity more or less diversity than currently exists in, say, Ireland, or Norway?

Furthermore, the article completely ignores that over time spontaneous mutations contribute new genetic diversity. It doesn't give a time scale for the "send a ship, wait for the colony to grow large enough to colonize a new world" iteration but I would imagine that in the time it takes that to happen 10 times sequentially you will have more than enough new genetic diversity.

> Back of the envelope calculations suggest that even modest propulsion technology should be sufficient for a single technological species to spread throughout the galaxy in a geological instant

I think this is where it all went wrong. Overly optimistic assumptions from atomic age thinkers about how technology was going to overcome all obstacles in the near future based on their recent life experience. The thinkers seriously underestimated the amount of technological progress needed to produce an extremely complex machine that operates indefinitely with no outside support whatsoever in an environment where any error can be fatal and there is a constant stream of hazards to contend with.

You might be thinking: "So what, it just means it takes a few centuries longer to get started, in Geological terms that is nothing.", but the problem isn't that it is hard, it is that it makes the trip significantly harder than simply building orbital habitats in your home solar system. Once you have that, what is the point of spending vast amounts of resources in trying to colonize a mostly unknown star system tens or hundreds of light years away?

Sure there are always people who will want to climb Everest, but this problem is so big that it's unlikely that one person or even a small group will be able to undertake it. The resource investment is simply too colossal. It would be much harder to climb Everest if you had to convince the entire population of London to come with you.

My pet theory is that intelligence converges as it increases, and superintelligent beings inevitably reach the same conclusion, which is that they should not expand into the universe.

The reasons may or may not be something we could comprehend, but they could be simple ideas like

1. Not being motivated by novelty

2. Not wanting to interfere with other life

3. Being completely inward-focused

The discussions around that 1140b Super-Earth made me realize if most of life is on 10G planets, they aren't making it out of orbit, maybe not even into orbit

Even just 2G would require much more advanced technology than we have now to escape the planet