10 unsettling answers to the fermi paradox

[Sour Masher]

If the visible universe were the world's oceans, we have looked at the equivalent of a hot tub of water in the last 50 years looking for life. And that is in the very narrow way we are looking for it, which could miss lots of information. So we have a long way to go before we have to really wonder what is going on. Combine that with the fact that we currently know of no way to travel faster than light, and even if we do find something out there, the chances of ever coming in contact with intelligent life is very slim. It would require a huge commitment to travel the vast distances of time and space to get to a destination that may be devoid of life by the time you get there. I'm hoping there are ways to jump between the stars and that one day we can do that. I also hope that we get some kind of signal suggesting intelligent life within my lifetime, but that would amount to just another hot tub of looking at our current pace, so the chances seem slim.

[Sour Masher]

Here is a good video where I got the hot tub stat from:

[Ken]

I'm hoping there are ways to jump between the stars and that one day we can do that.

This is where I get stuck. I think we hand wave the "fast travel" concept when we discuss this, and based on everything I'm aware of it's just not practical. Even if worm holes existed, the idea that whatever comes out on the other side is still in the same form that it entered seems irrational.

[Sour Masher]

This is where I get stuck. I think we hand wave the "fast travel" concept when we discuss this, and based on everything I'm aware of it's just not practical. Even if worm holes existed, the idea that whatever comes out on the other side is still in the same form that it entered seems irrational.

Yeah, until we discover a way for much faster travel, if it is possible, the best we can hope for is sending a probe or having one sent to us that indicates our existence or theirs, maybe includes some data, like a message in a bottle that won't get to where it is sent to for thousands or millions of years. By that time, the sender could be gone, but the receiver would know they were there...if the receiver is still there.

Until we find evidence of other intelligent life, there remains the possibility that intelligence that leads to technological advancements is an evolutionary dead end. Does anyone really see our species surviving as long as the dinosaurs did as a technologically advanced species? Would it shock anyone if we ended up blowing ourselves back to the stone age at some point, or exhausting our resources to the point where we are forced back to a much more minimalistic life? The idea that we will be around for long enough to get noticed is suspect.

[The Feral Slasher]

Yeah, until we discover a way for much faster travel, if it is possible, the best we can hope for is sending a probe or having one sent to us that indicates our existence or theirs, maybe includes some data, like a message in a bottle that won't get to where it is sent to for thousands or millions of years. By that time, the sender could be gone, but the receiver would know they were there...if the receiver is still there.

Until we find evidence of other intelligent life, there remains the possibility that intelligence that leads to technological advancements is an evolutionary dead end. Does anyone really see our species surviving as long as the dinosaurs did as a technologically advanced species? Would it shock anyone if we ended up blowing ourselves back to the stone age at some point, or exhausting our resources to the point where we are forced back to a much more minimalistic life? The idea that we will be around for long enough to get noticed is suspect.

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
'My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

[Sour Masher]

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
'My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

It is a great poem, and accurate....the only thing we have made in the US that would survive us for more than a blip on the cosmic clock is Mt Rushmore.

[Ken]

Until we find evidence of other intelligent life, there remains the possibility that intelligence that leads to technological advancements is an evolutionary dead end. Does anyone really see our species surviving as long as the dinosaurs did as a technologically advanced species? Would it shock anyone if we ended up blowing ourselves back to the stone age at some point, or exhausting our resources to the point where we are forced back to a much more minimalistic life? The idea that we will be around for long enough to get noticed is suspect.

I'm on the opposite side of the spectrum on this one. We have the technology now to survive on this planet or another one for a very long time. I don't think technology creates stupidity. The fact that we are destroying our planet isn't because of the technology we have IMO, it is because of a general *lack* of intelligence and because of our morality (i.e. an intelligent but immoral species could easily solve the "stupidity" problem).

I don't see the QED relationship between technology and intelligence/morality such that a dead-end is inevitable. Quite the opposite, I see lots of ways out.

Will we follow those outs? Doubtful. But that doesn't suggest that other species would not.

[Sour Masher]

I'm on the opposite side of the spectrum on this one. We have the technology now to survive on this planet or others for a very long time. I don't think technology creates stupidity. The fact that we are destroying our planet isn't because of the technology we have IMO, it is because of a general *lack* of intelligence and because of our morality (i.e. in an intelligent but immoral species could easily solve the "stupidity" problem).

I don't see the QED relationship between technology and intelligence/morality such that a dead-end is inevitable. Quite the opposite, I see lots of ways out.

Will we follow those outs? Doubtful. But that doesn't suggest that other species would not.

I get that perspective, but to me its a numbers game. Our population continues to grow and so does our tech. I think it is possible we get to a point where the tech is advanced enough to destroy us all and all it would take is one of the billions of people who should not have such tech to have it. Already we have had nuclear weapons in the hands of very bad people. We came close to nuclear war with Russia....who may be about to invade the Ukraine. So, while I don't think tech creates stupidity, I don't think it cures it either, and when you give stupid a tool of destruction, destruction is inevitable. Collectively, we continue to build higher, but someone along the way could send it all crashing down. Dirty bombs, viruses....it won't be the tech that does us in, but how it gets misused by someone. One can argue it won't have to be a big bang that does it. We are slowing frying ourselves with climate change.

[Ken]

I get that perspective, but to me its a numbers game. Our population continues to grow and so does our tech. I think it is possible we get to a point where the tech is advanced enough to destroy us all and all it would take is one of the billions of people who should not have such tech to have it. Already we have had nuclear weapons in the hands of very bad people. We came close to nuclear war with Russia....who may be about to invade the Ukraine. So, while I don't think there is a connection between tech creates stupidity, I don't think it cures it either. Collectively, we continue to build higher, but someone along the way could send it all crashing down. Dirty bombs, viruses....it won't be the tech that does us in, but how it gets misused by someone.

Ah, but in the vast expanses of space, among the uncountable civilizations that *should* exist, you don't think there is technology and intelligence to put controls in place to prevent self destruction? Surely an advanced technology set can potentially be created with built in controls, I don't think by definition tech is impossible to self govern.

[Bene Futuis]

Let's all hope for technology advances that will enable us to undermine or otherwise render impotent our other technological advances.

[Ken]

Let's all hope for technology advances that will enable us to undermine or otherwise render impotent our other technological advances.

We may be talking about different things.

*Will humanity be able to control our own technology*

vs

*Given the vast number of planets that should have life, should one of them be able to govern it's own tech, or is technology by definition a dead end*

[Sour Masher]

We may be talking about different things.

*Will humanity be able to control our own technology*

vs

*Given the vast number of planets that should have life, should one of them be able to govern it's own tech, or is technology by definition a dead end*

I think our understanding is too limited to ever make conclusions about the totality of existence. With potentially millions of civilizations having developed at some point in the last few billion years, I'm not suggesting that none could have ever evolve into a stable highly advanced space-faring species spanning millions of years and scores of solar systems. I'm just not sure that would be the norm, judging by how we evolved. A lot of what makes us great also makes us dangerous to ourselves and all life on our planet. I'm merely suggesting that based on our own species, one answer to the paradox might be that somewhere along the line of development, many (maybe most; maybe nearly all) intelligent species develop their tech faster than their morality and emotional intelligence resulting in just another way that it can all come crashing down, like cosmic bursts, exploding stars, massive space rocks, etc. Over a period of millions of years, a lot can go wrong that wipes us out or at least brings us back a lot of steps, including all the dangerous stuff we develop leading to disaster. We are in a dangerous time in our development when our ability to harm ourselves is massive.

[Bene Futuis]

We may be talking about different things.

*Will humanity be able to control our own technology*

vs

*Given the vast number of planets that should have life, should one of them be able to govern it's own tech, or is technology by definition a dead end*

Ah, I see. Very interesting!


The concept surrounding the negative viewpoint regarding the former is the "vulnerable world hypothesis" which sort of says what SM is saying --- beings that get advanced enough in their technology will inevitably destroy themselves. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2...strophic-risks


As for the latter, in an infinite universe, there must, by definition, be those that either do not advance their technology at all or those who can control their own tech.

[rhd]

in an infinite universe, there must, by definition, be those that either do not advance their technology at all or those who can control their own tech.

Or those that learn to control their violent and self-destructive tendencies!

[rhd]

Re: the so-called Fermi Paradox, there are several possible explanations that seem very plausible to me but I havent heard much of anyone mention them. I dont recall hearing Godier mention them.

There could be countless examples of life that developed below the surface of planets, perhaps some in our own solar system, and some of this life could have evolved to be intelligent. Enceladus, Europa and Titan are often mentioned (as well as others) as candidates for this, as they are believed to have vast underground liquid oceans. But such life would have no way to communicate with anything outside of their own planet/moon, and likely couldnt even survive on their own surface. So, we'd have no way of knowing they existed other than going there and drilling deep into their planet.

Also, there could be intelligent life on water worlds where there are habitable conditions on surface oceans but little or no land. Such creatures may be similar to dolphins and whales on Earth, very intelligent but completely lacking the physical equipment to build tools and generate a technology that would enable them to communicate outside their planet. Indeed, they may not have a way to survive outside their ocean even if they could somehow build a sufficient spacecraft, and thus be unable to travel beyond their planet. They would be stuck in their own ocean.

Also, we've discovered thousands of exoplanets but virtually all of these have larger masses than Earth. This may be partially because smaller planets are harder to detect but it also could be that planets our size may be relatively rare. Then again, if a planet is too much smaller than Earth, it likely will have much less chance of maintaining its atmosphere, meaning life on the surface may be impossible. For more massive planets, it may be much more difficult to explore outer space since it would take much more energy to escape their planet's gravity

These things, along w the incredibly vast distances between solar systems, may be the reasons we've havent detected intelligent life, even if it's abundant in the universe.