Fully immersive Virtual reality is the great filter. Biological progress results in fully immersive virtual reality quicker. Technological progress results in fully immersive virtual reality quicker.
I’m right, lol. Just kidding. But would love to hear arguments.
I’ve been talking up VR for years on the Dope, usually sounding like a crazy person. I think science fiction does a terrible job of imagining the full possibilities for VR (though in fairness, anything beyond “poor facsimile of the real world” would be hard to film and write compelling stories for).
However, behavioural solutions to the Fermi paradox tend not to be very convincing. Because, to work, they need every single individual, in *every *civilization, to play ball, over *billions *of years. Because as soon as one individual decides to launch a self-replicating probe, evidence of her species will be spread around the galaxy within mere millions of years.
And since the tech to make a self-replicating probe might be within humans’ grasp within a century or two, it seems likely to be something an individual or at most a small team would be capable of doing in an advanced species.
Perhaps there are millions of civilizations in the universe capable of sending out self-replicating probes. But, what if those civilizations average only ~1 per galactic supercluster? In the accelerating expanding universe in which we find ourselves, in order for any of those probes to reach us, they would need to replicate at a rate approaching infinity and travel significantly faster than the speed of light.
No, because even if it is relatively easy for abiogenesis to occur under the right conditions, it is even easier for life to reproduce. Imagine that you take a bunch of primordial soup full of life’s basic building blocks and add some energy so that life arises. It would then proceed to do what life does, assimilating and digesting nearby organic molecules in order to grow, gain energy, and reproduce. That first life form would then be able to outcompete any other form of life.
We don’t know how many times abiogenesis happened, but it could have happened many times with many different forms of life but our distant ancestor and its descendants ate all the other lineages.
Also one of the theories for the origin of viruses suggests that they come from abiotic yet self replicating proto-life that learned to attack and reproduce using living cells. As viruses can’t reproduce on their own it does make sense that they could only evolve after our branch of cellular life had developed.
Red Dwarfs live for 100 billion years, potentially even up to a trillion by some models. This means that no red dwarf in the universe has ever run through its entire life cycle – not even close. We have some ideas about what old red dwarfs become but obviously it will be a very long time before we can test those models 
but some of the theorized star remnants will last for many trillions of years.
I just realized I was responding to a 4 year old post. I blame light lag!
Yes that’s a possibility.
But look at it this way: For the purpose of the Fermi paradox, when we ask the question “Are we alone?”, we’re practically just talking about our local cluster of galaxies. Because if FTL is impossible, we’ll never be able to explore beyond this. And if FTL is possible then that makes the paradox much worse since there would be no bounds on how far, or how quickly, a single advanced species could spread.
So the proposition that the local cluster only contains a single sentient species is akin to asserting we’re alone…OK, but the question would be why? There are trillions of planets within that volume.
Why? Maybe because life is a pretty rare and precious thing, not to be taken for granted. Oh sure, life is pretty abundant on this planet, but by no means does this mean life must exist somewhere else. Maybe it exists billions of years in the past or billions in the future. There’s no logical reason to assume that life elsewhere in the universe must exist at the same time we do.
Well, there are some reasons to expect this. The metalicity of stars in the early universe was generally low, and that means planets were fewer, less dense, and contained fewer metals to incorporate into molecules such as haemoglobin and chlorophyll.
Conversely, the metallicity of stars in the far future may be too high to support small planets like Earth in stable orbits; planets in the future may be too massive and disruptive to allow the development of long-lived terrestrial worlds in the habitable zone.
Neither of these factors pose an absolute limit, but it is possible that the current era is the peak time for the development of Earth-similar life-bearing worlds.
The cats won’t answer because they keep knocking over their own radio telescopes.
Seriously, I have never understood the Fermi Paradox. Space is very very big. Interstellar travel is likely impossible. Humans are a very sophisticated species, and we’ve sent a whopping two spaceships into interstellar space, where all they’ll do is travel for a tiny distance and die.
As for self-replicating probes, why? Why would any intelligence want to do that. Do any of you have an interest in sending out a self-replicating probe which won’t benefit you or humanity in the slightest?
No one is assuming anything.
The point is that, even assuming that life is rare, that would only be a partial answer to the Fermi paradox because we would still want to discover why it’s rare.
Clearly it’s not impossible for sentient life to develop, so which part(s) are so unlikely to not happen again in a radius of 100 trillion planets.
Sent from my Redmi Note 8 using Tapatalk
And i don’t get why people don’t get it.
Maybe it’s because the word “paradox” is misleading here; all it’s really about is pointing out a fascinating known unknown.
It’s fine to throw out suppositions like “maybe insteller travel is impossible”, indeed that’s the whole point, but we don’t know that (we have no reason to suppose it’s impossible at this time), so the paradox is still valid.
As for humans being a very sophisticated species, that’s also important as it shows what a sentient species can do in a short amount of time.
A couple centuries ago (I think) we thought the Earth was everything and the Stars were just dots or holes on the celestial sphere. We did not even know space travel was a thing because we didn’t know space was a thing.
If we can come so far in mere hundreds of years, then what about thousands or millions or billions?
Lastly on the “why would anyone?” thing, again the question should really be why wouldn’t anyone. Because, to be a solution to the paradox, you need every individual, in every civilization, for the entire lifetimes of those civilizations, to never want to send interstellar vehicles. That’s seems quite a stretch. But again, no one is claiming to know.
Sent from my Redmi Note 8 using Tapatalk
Exactly. I don’t think it’s a paradox at all, and only perceived to be due to our natural human biases. We like working with numbers and probabilities we can comprehend. We value life and intelligence. We like to pay attention to areas of the universe we can observe and possibly reach. Due to all of this, we think of discovering another intelligent life form as some sort of inevitable outcome. The universe has no such biases. It gives us no preference over anything else in it. It wouldn’t bat an eyelash if a gamma ray burst, super volcano or meteor wiped us out tomorrow. It has no interest in helping us connect with another intelligent civilization. And this would be the case even we literally were THE most advanced civilization in the history of the universe.
We already know that our planet is very rare, and the result of the confluence of multiple extremely improbable events. Off the top of my head: large single moon, almost circular orbit around our star, hard surface far enough away from the sun (possibly due to the positioning of both Jupiter and Saturn interacting in exactly the right way), our metallic core and resulting magnetic field, water on surface, ozone layer, plate tectonics, and so many more. Perhaps there are other planets in our galaxy of 250 billion stars that can accommodate life. Or maybe the probability of a star having such a planet is 1 in a trillion. Or 1 in quadrillion.
By the way, we know of literally 5 billion different species of life to have ever existed in our universe. It just so happens that they were all on the same planet. And out of all of them, we only know of exactly 1 that has ever even wondered about the purpose of its own existence or the reasons why there are lights shining in the dark sky. Even if we were to discover 5 billion different species outside of earth, there’s no reason to think that any of them will be more intelligent than a chimp or elephant.
I suppose that an infinite universe guarantees that there are other intelligent species. But that’s where that pesky universal speed limit becomes a problem, not to mention the expanding universe.
My take on the Fermi paradox differs from many. I think life is abundant in the universe, but I’d be surprised if we ever make contact with any advanced civilization.
Many assume a nearly limitless trajectory of technology. A pervasive “yeah, our tech is primitive now…but, someday we’ll be able to do anything” attitude abounds. Hmm…maybe not.
Yes, we’ve come a long way in a short period. From horse and buggy to sending satellites beyond our solar system in less than a century is quite impressive. Makes us think anything is possible given enough time. What’s the next hurdle, interstellar travel? No problem, we’ll master that in short shrift. But, will we? Will we ever? Maybe not. Interstellar travel is an order of magnitude more difficult than intra-solar system travel. Maybe no civilization has mastered it in any practical way because it’s an insurmountable obstacle for any life-form. Or, if some have mastered it in theory, they’ve found it too costly to attempt (aliens don’t like paying taxes for frivolous things any more than we do).
Maybe no civilization can travel between stars, but surely they can launch self-replicating probes to do the traveling. Can they? Would they? It may be impossible for probes to travel and replicate in the vast imperfect vacuum of interstellar space, but let’s say they can. Why would they? If they themselves cannot travel between stars, what is their payoff in sending something on a one-way trip to far reaches? The probes will eventually travel beyond even signals getting back to them with information. Send them for our benefit? Give us something to play with? Let us know we’re not alone? I doubt any civilization would be than benevolent.
Ok, maybe a civilization or two within our Milky Way galaxy can travel between stars. Why would they visit us? What do we have here that they don’t have or couldn’t build back in their neck of the woods? Do they need more space to put their stuff? Doubtful, there’s plenty of open space in our galaxy, more than even Montana. Harness the energy of alien stars? They probably have plenty of stars closer to home with which to energize their bunnies. Some sort of material abundant on our planets but not theirs? There’s only so many elements, whatever they don’t have on their planet they can surely find closer to home, or they can fuse into existence. If they’re smart enough to travel between stars, they’ve no doubt mastered alchemy. Do they want to understand alien high tech? Surely ours wouldn’t impress them. That would be like us traveling a thousand light years to learn how ants built anthills. Do they want to socialize with us? Perhaps socializing is more of a hairless monkey thing and anti-social is the alien norm, at least with inferior species.
There’s ~250 billion stars in our galaxy. That’s a big number, I’d be happy with 250 billion pennies, but it’s not such a big number to assure more than a civilization or three advanced enough to master interstellar travel. Maybe one took a wrong turn at Betelgeuse, another left depressed after visiting us during the Dark ages and the third is paranoid and currently on it’s way toward us in stealth mode with ill-fitting anal probes.
Inter-galactic travel is an order of magnitude more difficult than inter-stellar travel. I’m willing to bet no civilization has or ever will master inter-galactic travel in person, by probe or even signal. No matter how advanced a civilization’s technology gets, matter still has to obey the physical laws of the universe and magic isn’t in the formulary. Not everything is possible even in an infinite universe. Maybe it’s lackluster turtles all the way down.
And, I think we all agree anything beyond that, anything expanding away from us faster than light is forever dead to us. I bet that’s where all the cool civilizations reside.
By listing numerous answers to the Fermi ‘Paradox’, Tibby has highlighted its proper utility. The fact that there are many different possible answers to the Paradox is the important part. We can’t currently tie down the observed facts of the Paradox to any one single answer, or even a complex of answers.
But the Paradox does have a role to play in our projections for the future. Does the Paradox imply that interstellar travel cannot be done, or is not worthwhile? Then we are wasting our time trying to achieve that. Does it imply that all civilisations are limited in duration, so cannot live long enough to take control of a galaxy? Then we are doomed. Conversely does the Paradox suggest that life is rare, so our attempts to colonise the galaxy will go unopposed? That would be interesting and maybe encouraging. Or does it imply that we are surrounded by invisible aliens watching us in some kind of zoo? That also has implications for our future.
I collect solutions to the Fermi Paradox, but at present we really can’t distinguish between them adequately. More data is needed.
There’s actually one idea that answers two puzzles—the Fermi paradox, and the question why we’re alive right now. The latter is usually not thought to be much of a puzzle, but it becomes quite strange when you mull it over a bit.
Think, for one, that the achievement of interstellar travel ought to mean that most of humanity has yet to be born. If we ever spread to the stars, we ought to expect that humanity endures into the far future, as we’ll be safe from any localized catastrophe—maybe loose a few billion in a supernova, but that won’t make much of a dent to an interstellar population. So, us being born right now, assuming that each of us is just a random human being—even a random conscious entity—ought to be a relatively unlikely thing—one ought to expect being born as one of the multitudes of beings that have mastered the jump to the stars, as these will vastly outnumber the planet-locked entities that have yet to migrate beyond their ancestral home.
Furthermore, we exist right at the cusp of having technology that might make leaving our planet possible. We’ve made our first steps, gone to the moon, sent probes beyond the solar system—we’ve just opened out back door and stuck our noses out, so to speak. We’ve also been looking out, been listening for anything that might make noise, and made a bit of noise ourselves. That’s a very special time to live—a time, if there ever is to be a significant human presence beyond our planet, where this is just about coming to pass, give or take a few centuries. Being born right into this transitional phase again is quite an unlikely event.
That is, of course, if there ever is human presence beyond Earth. Odds go up substantially if we’re confined here, but even then—in principle, we should expect that our planet can sustain a population of ~10 billion people for quite some time to come. Yet, we’re once more born right at the cusp of reaching that saturation point, when a naively probabilistic reasoning ought to predict that each individual should find themselves within the long period of population stasis.
And even if humans on Earth extinguish themselves in the near term, one ought to expect that there’s countless other civilizations that aren’t quite as much like angry and confused monkeys playing with fire on a hill of dynamite, that will endure. One should thus expect being born in some such saturation period.
In fact, one can place bounds on the expected total number of humans to ever live given the fact that we’re among those born right now. This is known as the Doomsday Argument: essentially, the probability we’re within the first, say, 50% of humans to ever be born, is 50%. Hence, after us, with a likelihood of 50%, there’ll be about as many humans as have lived up to now.
The point is, for both a population stabilization, and a population explosion by going to the stars, it ought to be vastly more likely to be born during a period of maximum population, than during this transitional period of rapid population and technological growth.
So the conclusion from this would be that we do, in fact, live during the period of maximum population, or close to it. In that case, we ought to expect that this period is quite short—that is, that the typical trajectory of a species follows a population boom at some point, with a rapid drop-off thereafter. In this case, the majority of individuals would find themselves existing within the boom-time, or at the cusp of maximum population, and likely, technology. Thus, the conclusion would be that we’re headed for an extinction event some time in the not too distant future—perhaps centuries—and that this is typical, i. e. that this is the course for most species.
Hence, no jump to the stars, no population explosion, not even a prolonged period of population stability on a single planet. A short period of boom, followed by a collapse. Consequently, no large numbers of alien civilizations among the stars.
The question remains: what is it that leads to most civilizations ending right on the cusp of making the jump to the stars? One solution that suggests itself is the Dark Forest hypothesis, popularized in Cixin Liu’s Remembrance of Earth’s Past-trilogy. Most civilizations die out at the point where they’ve just reached, or are about to reach, interstellar capacities, because that’s when they become a potential threat to the few civilizations out there, and must be extinguished. This is essentially an evolutionary process: only those civilizations who manage to remain quiet, while at the same time ruthlessly exterminating potential competitors, actually reach the stars, and establish a presence—albeit, likely, a subdued one (otherwise, we should expect to be born a member of these hegemon species).
It might even be that what’s out there exterminating blossoming interstellar species isn’t really a multitude of individuals, but perhaps just one, or a few—maybe something like a collective, a distributed, galaxy-spanning mind, come out as the sole survivor of a ruthless galactic selection.
So that’s the reason we’re born right here, right now, and have no evidence of alien civilizations: most individuals to be born in the galaxy are born at the point where their civilization is just about to make the jump to the stars, at which point, they’ll be extinguished by whatever invisible interstellar predator lurks out there.
I’ll readily admit that this somewhat stretches what one can extrapolate from a single data point. But everything we can say about this is ultimately rooted in speculation; this one at least has the advantage of potentially solving two puzzles for the price of one.
Interstellar travel should be quite doable for any technological civilization capable of space flight. If their biological forms cannot tolerate very long journeys, they can send artificial life. As for WHY they would bother — why not for the same reason that humans climb Mount Everest? It seems sad and pessimistic to assume that any civilization that invents high-performance ‘Virtual Reality’ will lose other desires.
[off-topic]
What is special about the biochemistry of Earth’s life? What other life chemistries are possible? If these questions intrigue you, the pdf (“Is there a common chemical model for life in the universe?”) is a must-read. If anyone knows an on-line paper that covers the topic even half as well as this one, please link to it!
Schrödinger’s What is Life? may also be worth a read. He implicitly argues that a complicated molecule like DNA is essential for life — though DNA hadn’t yet been discovered when he wrote 78 years ago.
The argument against this is the same one as the the argument against the Brandon Carter Catastrophe;
We can only ask this question now, before we become a galactic species, because we * don’t know the answer*. If we were to expand into the galaxy, and meet other civilisations (or fail to do so), we would know the answer. Every advanced alien civilisation has had a brief period in its history, just before it starts to expand into the universe, when they didn’t know the answer to the Fermi Paradox, and when the Carter Catastrophe loomed large and close in the future. We are at a privileged point in our history, due to our ignorance. Later in our history, when we have colonised a hundred billion worlds, both the Carter Catastrophe and the Fermi Paradox will seem like the distant follies of youth. We may even solve these conundrums just by success with SETI, without ever leaving our system.
(alternately Carter and the Fermi pessimists may be correct, and we will have disappeared long before that point).
I don’t believe that’s a given for any rational species.
Emperor Fin of Perseus I: Though there will be no tangible benefit for us, I’m going to green-light a massive satellite launch to Milky Way!
Personian Population: Why?
Emperor Fin: Because…it’s there!
Personian Population: [a sea of flippers rise in approval] right on, brother, let’s do it!
Emperor Fin: Of course I must tax each and all of you a million squid-burgers to finance this 2.5-mly trek…
Personian Population: [sea of flippers curl into fists] Screw you mackerel-face!
IOW, if inter-stellar, or inter-galactic travel is even doable, we must assume it would be a very costly endeavor for any civilization. On a cost/benefit ledger, a good will journey of significant cost with little benefit makes no sense.
The thing is, interstellar travel isn’t impossible. We know how to do it. Maybe it’s a once in a thousand years event that a civilization develops the political will to spend the resources to do it. Maybe it takes a thousand years to reach the next star, and millions of years to fill a galaxy. That might seem like a very long time… but really, it isn’t at all. It took billions of years for us to evolve to this point. Even without warp drive or wormholes or teleportation or whatever, it’s orders of magnitude quicker for an intelligent species to fill a galaxy than it is for an intelligent species to evolve. Are we the only (or at least, the first) intelligent species ever to arise in our entire Galaxy? Maybe, and that would certainly resolve the paradox, but it seems unlikely. Maybe species tend to wipe themselves out in nuclear wars as soon as they’re capable of it, before they can spread to the stars (are we safe from that yet?). Maybe they’re out there, but deliberately avoiding us for some reason (why?). Maybe there’s some reason why, despite having the capability, most species never develop an interest in interstellar travel. We just don’t know.
There are some very good and interesting analyses in this thread. My only problem with the Fermi “paradox” is calling it a paradox at all; as someone already noted upthread, it’s more of an interesting question than a paradox. Why does there appear to be no life out there in our observable universe? There are myriad possible explanations.
We’ve only been using radio waves for communication for about a century, which is the tiniest blink of an eye in the history of mankind, and it may turn out to be merely a transitional technology. Combine that with the distance limits of detectability and the speed of light, and lack of detection becomes much more explainable. I’m certainly not saying anything new here, just re-iterating the point.
The idea that we are the only intelligent life in this galaxy alone is absurdly unlikely. It’s like picking up a seashell on the beach and asking, I wonder if this is the only one in the world, the only one that has ever existed or ever will? Not bloody likely. Other civilizations will be in different stages of development than ours, some much more primitive, others – more intriguingly – much more advanced. For all we know, the more advanced ones, older and wiser, may have made tentative efforts to visit relatively local stellar systems with habitable planets and, finding the results generally counterproductive, engaged in satisfying their scientific and exploratory curiosities through other avenues that we can barely grasp, like parallel universes, or that we cannot even imagine at all. To them, a visit to earth might be like an exceedingly costly and time-consuming visit to a child’s ant farm.