# The Straight Dope on Fermi's Paradox... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 9, 2009, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-fermis-paradox/520647 "2009-12-09T22:20:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Tibby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tibby/32/17030_2.png) [@Tibby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tibby)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2009, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-fermis-paradox/520647/81 "2009-12-26T14:48:54Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > And why bar that? It seems to me (as I said in my original post in this thread) that our current civilization is quite likely to end in either nuclear war of global ecological catastrophe (or both) before very long. Alien civilizations that get to our sort of level would probably face the same dangers. I see no reason to assume that an overwhelming percentage of alien civilizations would face the same dangers that we do (i.e. acts of aggression resulting in global catastrophe). I think we humans tend to see the universe through red-colored glasses (key: red=aggressive). Our particular evolutionary tree of life here on Earth may have been geared toward aggression, particularly the sapient branch, but other world’s life-tree may not have been similarly tract bound. Intelligent life on Earth has to fight for limited resources and has to compete against members of its own species, as well as other (often similarly cunning) species, in order to survive—aggression is innate because it is beneficial and essential. Granted, the environmental and physiological conditions constraining this sapient branch are, in large order, what primed and pumped the course of its evolutionary journey toward the highest hierarchy of intelligence (i.e. carnivores and omnivores tend to be more intelligent than herbivores), but I see no reason to presuppose this need be the case on other worlds, whose lifeforms sprung from an entirely “alien” tree-of-life seedling and whose planetary environment is simply out-of-this-world compared to our own. Surely, there are other potential evolutionary pathways toward higher intelligence that don’t require aggressive competition—maybe not here on Earth, but out there, somewhere, or even everywhere. Imagine a world with virtually unlimited resources and space to sustain its higher life forms. Perhaps their evolutionary pathway, early on, selected for self limiting populations that never populate beyond the sustenance of each specie’s niche. For example, I can envision a civilization of ambulatory flower-people with dexterous petals and high I.Q’s, all getting along with one another, creating technology geared toward niceness as opposed to thermonuclear war. With no need to eat each other, due to their metabolic needs being met by photosynthesis, perhaps their evolutionary drive toward cleverness was stoked not by aggressive competition, but rather by an entirely passive mode of competition, like striving for unique ways to pollinate one another in kinky ways. They’d rather make love than war, but they can still beat you in a game of Chess. ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2009, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-fermis-paradox/520647/82 "2009-12-26T17:47:29Z")
> [@Tibbytoes](#): > > I see no reason to assume that an overwhelming percentage of alien civilizations would face the same dangers that we do (i.e. acts of aggression resulting in global catastrophe). I think we humans tend to see the universe through red-colored glasses (key: red=aggressive). Our particular evolutionary tree of life here on Earth may have been geared toward aggression, particularly the sapient branch, but other world’s life-tree may not have been similarly tract bound. Intelligent life on Earth has to fight for limited resources and has to compete against members of its own species, as well as other (often similarly cunning) species, in order to survive—aggression is innate because it is beneficial and essential. Granted, the environmental and physiological conditions constraining this sapient branch are, in large order, what primed and pumped the course of its evolutionary journey toward the highest hierarchy of intelligence (i.e. carnivores and omnivores tend to be more intelligent than herbivores), but I see no reason to presuppose this need be the case on other worlds, whose lifeforms sprung from an entirely “alien” tree-of-life seedling and whose planetary environment is simply out-of-this-world compared to our own. Surely, there are other potential evolutionary pathways toward higher intelligence that don’t require aggressive competition—maybe not here on Earth, but out there, somewhere, or even everywhere. > > Imagine a world with virtually unlimited resources and space to sustain its higher life forms. Perhaps their evolutionary pathway, early on, selected for self limiting populations that never populate beyond the sustenance of each specie’s niche. For example, I can envision a civilization of ambulatory flower-people with dexterous petals and high I.Q’s, all getting along with one another, creating technology geared toward niceness as opposed to thermonuclear war. With no need to eat each other, due to their metabolic needs being met by photosynthesis, perhaps their evolutionary drive toward cleverness was stoked not by aggressive competition, but rather by an entirely passive mode of competition, like striving for unique ways to pollinate one another in kinky ways. They’d rather make love than war, but they can still beat you in a game of Chess. It’s hard to imagine many evolutionary pathways that progress in the way you suggest. Species grow at an exponential rate when there are no resource constraints so any resource abundant world very rapidly becomes a resource limiting one. Group selection happens in so rare a circumstances so that any civilisation in which it makes evolutionary sense to defect isn’t stable. ---
**Author:** ![Tibby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tibby/32/17030_2.png) [@Tibby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tibby)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2009, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-fermis-paradox/520647/83 "2009-12-26T22:22:34Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > It’s hard to imagine many evolutionary pathways that progress in the way you suggest. Species grow at an exponential rate when there are no resource constraints so any resource abundant world very rapidly becomes a resource limiting one. Group selection happens in so rare a circumstances so that any civilisation in which it makes evolutionary sense to defect isn’t stable. How about a planet that harbors only one or very few species, that have their metabolic needs met through a combination of star-shine and chemicals readily available on each square foot of planetary surface, who have evolved the simple but effective means of homeostatic population stability via some type of density sensor that reduces the number of offspring when it senses crowding. Better still, make this a bi-species planet whose two species are in a completely symmetrical symbiotic relationship—like the oxygen/carbon dioxide relationship between plants and animals, only better. What one species defecates, the other eats. No competition; no need for aggression. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2009, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-fermis-paradox/520647/84 "2009-12-26T23:55:20Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > And why bar that? It seems to me (as I said in my original post in this thread) that our current civilization is quite likely to end in either nuclear war of global ecological catastrophe (or both) before very long. Alien civilizations that get to our sort of level would probably face the same dangers. You misunderstand me. I was saying that I would count before and after a war as two civilizations, since the loss of information would be far bigger than we’ve ever seen. > [@](#): > > Useful interstellar travel, or effective interstellar communication, calls for a _lot_ more progress. Indeed, our current best science strongly suggests that they are impossible. That might not really be the case, but finding otherwise call for a major scientific revolution, which is not visible on the horizon. A lot more development, yes. Impossible no, unless you consider the only effective travel that which could be accomplished in a few days. Automatic systems that can survive tens or even hundreds of years are hardly impossible, and neither are much better propulsion methods than we have now. ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2009, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-fermis-paradox/520647/85 "2009-12-27T01:48:27Z")
> [@Tibbytoes](#): > > How about a planet that harbors only one or very few species, that have their metabolic needs met through a combination of star-shine and chemicals readily available on each square foot of planetary surface, who have evolved the simple but effective means of homeostatic population stability via some type of density sensor that reduces the number of offspring when it senses crowding. Better still, make this a bi-species planet whose two species are in a completely symmetrical symbiotic relationship—like the oxygen/carbon dioxide relationship between plants and animals, only better. What one species defecates, the other eats. No competition; no need for aggression. Then the first creature with a defective density sensor will overbreed, dominate the rest and take over. ---
**Author:** ![Tibby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tibby/32/17030_2.png) [@Tibby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tibby)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2009, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-fermis-paradox/520647/86 "2009-12-27T05:30:18Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > Then the first creature with a defective density sensor will overbreed, dominate the rest and take over. No, just the opposite. The density sensor is protective not only of the species, but also the individual. It’s assumed in this scenario, that the entire habitable area of the planet would be covered by the species in question at an early stage, at ideal population density thanks to the specie’s finely tuned sensor apparati. Any localized increase in density due to a faulty sensor in an individual and its immediate progeny would indeed overstress resources, stress those affected, killing them before reaching breeding age—homeostasis maintained. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2009, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-fermis-paradox/520647/87 "2009-12-28T18:15:17Z")
> [@Jim\_B](#): > > This is something I have wondered for some time. What is the solution to Fermi’s Paradox? In case you don’t know, this is the seeming paradox that there are probably other advanced alien extraterrestrial races. But none of them have tried to contact us thus far. I think they have been here before. And I think that our solar system is surrounded by space warning signs telling others that the third planet has been all eat up with Teh Crazy and to stay well away from it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-fermis-paradox/520647.md?page=4)