Different responses to Fermi Paradox

[baric]

No. It may be very common, but also infinitely rare to encounter. Imagine a crowd of hundred thousand people throwing in the air ping pong balls, how many of these balls will touch each other? Now imagine they do not throw the ping pong balls at the same time, but at an interval of a year or so, how many will smash together? Most probably none. Time is a very strong element.

 

That's a great analogy, and one describing what I also feel is the most likely solution the paradox.

 

Also, everyone gets only three balls to toss.

[Widdekind]

Moore's Law is not a law. It's an observation about the exponential rate of growth in the early stages of a new technology.

 

We don't live in an environment that can sustain unlimited exponential growth.

No, not so. Humans live in a vast space environment, that can sustain exponential growth, far into the future. However, humans lack the space-mobility; and, fusion technology; to exploit the vast reservoir of deep-space gases, i.e. H & He -- which could be collected, e.g. with a 'Bussard scoop' fusion ramjet.

 

The limitations that you are referring to, i.e. "our asteroid" earth; and, "our knapped flint" pre-space-faring technologies; are our own, in no way reflecting any intrinsic limitations imposed, by either physical laws; or, available space resources.

[questionposter]

Ok, the universe could easily be infinitely huge and the chances of life forming in any specific planet in the universe are very very slim, possibly even 1/∞ if the universe actually is infinitely huge.

Edited November 6, 2011 by questionposter

[Widdekind]

No. It may be very common, but also infinitely rare to encounter. Imagine a crowd of hundred thousand people throwing in the air ping pong balls, how many of these balls will touch each other? Now imagine they do not throw the ping pong balls at the same time, but at an interval of a year or so, how many will smash together? Most probably none. Time is a very strong element.

By definition, "Life" exists, persists, grows, & expands. Many species may have come & gone; but, others may have avoided extinction, and continued to exist & expand. 'Of course', most "life" in our universe is probably primitive, i.e. the proverbial 'thousand thousand slimy things'. And, as you have observed, the probability, of earth bacteria encountering 'alien microbes' is nearly zero, even if both evolve, grow, & expand, to completely cover their native worlds.

 

But, equally 'of course', as Wisdom warns, 'there is always a Bigger Fish'. Restricting our attention, to our universe's Apex Aliens, i.e. 'the Big Fish', then, 'They' would push past planetary boundaries, into space, where within available, consumable, i.e. 'bio-incorporable' mass-energy resources, are un-human-imaginably vast; and, readily available, with sufficient space-capable technology.

 

This analysis makes no assumptions, on-or-about presumed aliens, other than attributing to them the basic definition of bio-logical living organisms.

[Airbrush]

Geoff Marcy of the Kepler Mission made an interesting point about intelligent life on Earth. Of all the millions of species that have come and gone on Earth, humans are the only intelligent (technological) species. Dinosaurs did not grow in intelligence, and they survived just fine. Cockroaches, sharks, jelly fish, and millions of other species have other survival abilities than intelligence.

 

Intelligence is only one of thousands of survival mechanisms, and may well be a very rare one.

Edited November 7, 2011 by Airbrush

[baric]

No, not so. Humans live in a vast space environment,

 

Not really. The space environment is out there, but it's a stretch to say that we live in it. The density of energy sources available to us drops off dramatically as soon as you leave the Earth's surface.

 

For example, there are no fossil fuels outside of Earth. There are no hydroelectric sources of power. There is no surface to establish wind power that does not melt the underlying structure. There are no ready sources of uranium to refine for nuclear power.

 

We still have solar power, of course.

 

There would need to be a huge technological jump to find new sources of energy that would provide even slow growth beyond the confines of Earth, much less exponential growth.

[IM Egdall]

Intelligence is only one of thousands of survival mechanisms, and may well be a very rare one.

 

I''ve trying to read John Barrow's The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. It's pretty dense, but I am struggling through it. On page 133 he makes the same point as Airbrush. He says "the evolution of cognition . . . is the result of highly specific specific evolutionary events." With two large super-kingdoms, the prokaryote (no cell nucleus) with thousands of lines, eukarytokes (plants, animals, fungi, and protists) with tens of thousands of lines -- only one species, human, has the "kind of intellegence that would permit the development of advanced technology."

 

He says the general concensus of evolutionists is that "the evolution of intellegent life (on par with humans) is so improbable that it is unlikely to have occurred on any other planet in the entire visible universe." Ouch!

 

So most likely we are alone in all we can see -- no ET's, no aliens, no other beings with our information-processing abilities anywhere in the part of the universe where its light has had enough time to reach Earth.

 

If true, it's kind of sad. It also says the fact that we exist is nothing short of extraordinary.

Edited November 8, 2011 by IM Egdall

[baric]

He says the general concensus of evolutionists is that "the evolution of intellegent life (on par with humans) is so improbable that it is unlikely to have occurred on any other planet in the entire visible universe." Ouch!

 

John Barrow is wrong.

 

The evidence on Earth suggests that primitive intelligence is inevitable once you have evolved larger life forms as we have observed a wide variety of species that have complex social interactions and language. It is tool use that seems to spark the rise of technological intelligence.

 

That level of intelligence, however, is a lot like the movie 'Highlander' -- there can be only one. This is because technological species expand so rapidly that they effectively stunt the advancement of others.

 

So the real question is "how common is tool use?". There are several examples of this among Earth species, so I suspect it is also very common in the universe. If humans magically disappeared tomorrow, we'd likely have technological chimpanzees in another two million years.

 

Pierre Boulle was right.

[Airbrush]

So the real question is "how common is tool use?". There are several examples of this among Earth species, so I suspect it is also very common in the universe. If humans magically disappeared tomorrow, we'd likely have technological chimpanzees in another two million years.

 

The ability to finely manipulate objects is only a human ability. Birds and chimps may use a twig or branch, but there is no evidence for any other primates to develop human digital dexterity and real tool making. If we split off from a common ancestor with the chimpanzee about 5 Million years ago, why haven't any other chimp groups become more human-like and digitally skilled within the last 5 Million years? The answer is life evolves to be only as intelligent as it needs to be. A jelly fish doesn't even have a brain.

 

Marcy believes that technological ETs may be more rare than we think, and he seems consistent with the Rare Earth Hypothesis, but there are probably a number of them in our galaxy. Maybe a thousand light years between them.

Edited November 8, 2011 by Airbrush

[baric]

The ability to finely manipulate objects is only a human ability. Birds and chimps may use a twig or branch, but there is no evidence for any other primates to develop human digital dexterity and real tool making. If we split off from a common ancestor with the chimpanzee about 5 Million years ago, why haven't any other chimp groups become more human-like and digitally skilled within the last 5 Million years?

 

The fossil record shows multiple tool-making hominid species living concurrently as our ancestors were on their way to world dominance. We wiped them out through competition.

 

If given time, chimps would develop increasing dexterity as their tool use became more complex. The fact that they are already so close is a strong indication of how unexceptional it is. They are intelligent, self-aware, and can manipulate primitive tools with their hands.

 

If tool use provides a selective advantage, the species will become increasingly proficient with it.

 

The answer is life evolves to be only as intelligent as it needs to be. A jelly fish doesn't even have a brain.

 

Intelligence evolves where it provides a selective advantage, not as it is needed. A modern jelly fish does not have a brain, but some of their ancestors evolved them.

 

Marcy believes that technological ETs may be more rare than we think, and he seems consistent with the Rare Earth Hypothesis, but there are probably a number of them in our galaxy. Maybe a thousand light years between them.

 

Technological intelligence can be very common yet technological ETs remain very rare. It's the last variable in the Drake Equation.

[Widdekind]

there are no fossil fuels outside of Earth. There are no hydro-electric sources of power. There is no surface to establish wind power that does not melt the underlying structure. There are no ready sources of uranium to refine for nuclear power.

 

We still have solar power, of course.

 

There would need to be a huge technological jump to find new sources of energy that would provide even slow growth beyond the confines of Earth, much less exponential growth.

'Biblically-advanced', i.e. 'God-like', Super-Aliens would not rely on mechanical (e.g. water, wind); or, on chemical (e.g. oil, gas) power sources. Moreover, 'They' would be 'Supra-Natural', i.e. Superior-to-Nature. Er go, 'They' would not need to rely, on the light-energy, emitted by natural fusion power sources, i.e. stars. For, stars are inefficient, in converting mass to energy (since stars fuse only in their cores, representing ~10% of the star's mass, requiring the overlying envelope layers to provide pressure confinement to their cores, without which fusion ceases, e.g. WDs); and, stars are non-controlled, representing an autonomous 'runaway' fusion reaction, that always results, eventually, in some sort of 'meltdown', e.g. PNe, SNe.

 

Therefore, Super-Aliens would 'live off the land', sweeping up space gases, and converting those 'raw materials', directly into fusion energy, more efficiently, than happens in nature, e.g. non-intelligent, non-controlled, non-guided, gravitational coalescence & collapse, of GMCs, in our galaxy ISM -- i.e., 'They' would "do 'Their' own fusion", which would be "superior to simple stars".

 

 

 

That level of intelligence, however, is a lot like the movie 'Highlander' -- there can be only one. This is because technological species expand so rapidly that they effectively stunt the advancement of others.

Er go, if there really are 'bigger fish', in our universe; then, there is only one 'Bigger Fish', i.e. only 'One True God', i.e. 'Them'.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Widdekind

[baric]

'Biblically-advanced', i.e. 'God-like', Super-Aliens would not rely on mechanical (e.g. water, wind); or, on chemical (e.g. oil, gas) power sources.

 

I agree, which is why I said there would need to be a "huge technological jump to find new sources of energy" in order to continue advancement beyond the limits of Earth.

 

 

So the questions become, by precedence:

 

1) Is this jump even possible? (i.e. does the nature of the universe allow for it)

 

2) Is this jump practical? (i.e. is attaining this level within the scope of a planet-based civilization?)

 

3) Will this jump occur? (i.e. is human civilization capable of making this jump before killing themselves or running out of time?)

[Airbrush]

If given time, chimps would develop increasing dexterity as their tool use became more complex. The fact that they are already so close is a strong indication of how unexceptional it is. They are intelligent, self-aware, and can manipulate primitive tools with their hands.

 

This is debatable. Would chimps necessarily develop increasing dexterity? Since we split off from chimps about 5 Million years ago, is there any evidence that chimp tool making and usage is any more advanced than it was 5 Million years ago? Chimps haven't even learned to walk upright yet. Our human ancestors were fully bipedal several Million years ago. Chimps can briefly walk upright, but are more naturally quadrupedal knuckle-walkers. Chimps do not make weapons, but merely manipulate an object, such as a branch. They do not carry weapon branches with them into battle with other Chimps. Maybe speech and other abilities are also necessary for a species to get very sophisticated technologically. Technology may need digital dexterity, speech, bipedalism, and maybe other intelligence that chimps may never develop.

 

What other animals have demonstrated an increasing level of intelligence? That would be hard to prove. Animals seem to level off at a degree of intelligence which does not increase much over time. The only thing that will increase is adaptation through a new, useful, selective advantage, of which intelligence is only one of thousands. It could be for most other animals that intelligence could actually interfere with their survival. A certain level of intelligence in Chimps could possibly interfere with their reproduction, for example, or their social structure. Humans thrive on intelligence for now, but our intelligence could conceivably destroy us by nuclear or bio weapons.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Airbrush

[Arch2008]

The Sun produces a million times humanity’s annual energy needs every second. A ten-mile diameter asteroid would have more ore on it than humanity has mined on Earth in all of history. Orbital solar-powered lasers can energize the hull of a spherical shuttle on the ground so that the atmosphere under it explodes and drives the ship to orbit. Dyson calculated that an orbital colony in Bernal spheres would grow exponentially and produce enough living space in new space habitats to house the population of the Earth in less than 60 years. We have the technology to do all of these things right now.

 

A star, and whatever orbits it, would provide all the energy and resources a civilization would need to continue exponential colonization. Even a white dwarf star would radiate heat energy from convection that could be used by a colony. So an entire galaxy would eventually be colonized by any space-faring species. I can’t tell you how a civilization with technology a million years more advance than we have would travel from star to star or galaxy to galaxy. I can only tell you that no scientific reason exists that they couldn’t.

 

This is the “they” that Fermi is talking about when he asked, “Where are they?”

[baric]

The Sun produces a million times humanity's annual energy needs every second.

 

Unfocused and at broad wavelengths! A solar collector can only be in one place at a time, so you have to measure the lumens per area. It's one thing to build a cost-effective solar collector on Earth to gather photons within a narrow spectrum, and entirely something else to build, launch and maintain millions of orbital collectors and efficiently transfer their energy (via laser, presumably) to some local users. That is engineering on an unspeakably grander scale that we have ever attempted.

 

A ten-mile diameter asteroid would have more ore on it than humanity has mined on Earth in all of history. Orbital solar-powered lasers can energize the hull of a spherical shuttle on the ground so that the atmosphere under it explodes and drives the ship to orbit. Dyson calculated that an orbital colony in Bernal spheres would grow exponentially and produce enough living space in new space habitats to house the population of the Earth in less than 60 years. We have the technology to do all of these things right now.

 

You're saying that, RIGHT NOW, we have the technology to:

Orbital solar-powered lasers can energize the hull of a spherical shuttle on the ground so that the atmosphere under it explodes and drives the ship to orbit

 

I dispute that.

 

A star, and whatever orbits it, would provide all the energy and resources a civilization would need to continue exponential colonization. Even a white dwarf star would radiate heat energy from convection that could be used by a colony. So an entire galaxy would eventually be colonized by any space-faring species.

 

Science fiction is really interesting, I understand that, but you use "would" far too extravagantly. You should be wary of speaking with certitude about futuristic and uncertain technologies.

 

I can't tell you how a civilization with technology a million years more advance than we have would travel from star to star or galaxy to galaxy. I can only tell you that no scientific reason exists that they couldn't.

 

Science does not prove negatives. It never has, and never will.

 

This is the "they" that Fermi is talking about when he asked, "Where are they?"

 

Two possibilities:

 

They are stuck on their planets, waiting for us to notice them?

They are dead?

 

The paradox is easily solved without invoking human exceptionalism or hiding aliens.

Edited November 9, 2011 by baric

[Widdekind]

modern mankind's "space maps" are medieval

 

To date, human space-surveys have scanned half of our skies. By analogy, modern human "astrography" is comparable to Columbian-era European "cartography", of the "New World", i.e. woefully incomplete, even inaccurate, with many glaring "gaps on the maps":

 

(

6dFGS

;

cp.

Wiki

)

 

 

... hiding aliens.

To date, humans have only 'blurry-eyed' space-detectors, cp. HST cannot resolve planets in our own star system, e.g. Pluto; or, stars in our own galaxy. Therefore, to be observable to humans, aliens would have to 'go out of their way' to be 'blazingly blatantly obvious' about their existence. By analogy, on earth, bears don't waste their time & energy, growling their way through their woods, alerting human hikers to their presence. Aliens would not need to actively conceal, or camouflage, their presence, to remain 'hidden' from humans.

[Arch2008]

Baric, if you had actually read the previous 5 pages or knew of Kardeshev or Freeman Dyson’s work, or even got the part where the orbital solar collectors are integral to the Bernal sphere and don’t need to “laser” their energy to an Earthbound user, then it might be a lot easier for you to understand statements that have been substantiated over the past few decades.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernal_sphere

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_colonization

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam-powered_propulsion

 

As you hopefully can see, this is not Gene Roddenberry stuff. Actual scientists have crunched the numbers and this is what our future holds. However, space is the final frontier and these are the best solutions to over-crowding and survival, so not just our species would figure this out.

[baric]

Baric, if you had actually read the previous 5 pages or knew of Kardeshev or Freeman Dyson's work, or even got the part where the orbital solar collectors are integral to the Bernal sphere and don't need to "laser" their energy to an Earthbound user, then it might be a lot easier for you to understand statements that have been substantiated over the past few decades.

 

http://en.wikipedia....i/Bernal_sphere

 

http://en.wikipedia....Kardashev_scale

 

http://en.wikipedia....ce_colonization

 

http://en.wikipedia....ered_propulsion

 

As you hopefully can see, this is not Gene Roddenberry stuff. Actual scientists have crunched the numbers and this is what our future holds. However, space is the final frontier and these are the best solutions to over-crowding and survival, so not just our species would figure this out.

 

You did not provide any evidence of actual "crunched numbers". In fact, the Kardashev scale link was exhibit #1 that you are residing in credulous science fiction land.

 

I mean, your "Beam Power Propulsion" page actually compared launching an object weighing 1.8 ounces for 12 seconds to Goddard's first rocket test flights and then extrapolated that peashooter launch to placing a 1 kg probe into orbit for $20 worth of electricity! That is a prime example of irrational exuberance.

 

Here's are some example pages that is a bit more grounded in reality:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_specific_impulse_magnetoplasma_rocket

 

Now, what do you see on those pages that is missing from your references? Crunched numbers.

 

This does not mean that laser-powered launches will never happen, but it is far too early to look at them and predict planetary colonization.

[Widdekind]

This does not mean that laser-powered launches will never happen, but it is far too early to look at them and predict planetary colonization.

 

Planets need not, necessarily, ever be colonized. Rather, "superior-to-natural" space-habitats could be employed, with planets 'processed & harvested' like little more, than big asteroids, which is what they are.

 

 

 

"I can't see" does not imply that there is nothing to see

 

White Dwarves are planet-sized, yet star-hot, with stellar surface brightnesses. Yet, WDs are so faint, that they are barely visible, as faint foreground objects, even in the HDF. Thus, hypothetical Super-Aliens could currently reside, in planet-sized super-habitats -- "cybertron with every street-light on bright", i.e. an actual "NYC-in-the-sky" -- and still be human un-observed:

 

 

[baric]

Planets need not, necessarily, ever be colonized. Rather, "superior-to-natural" space-habitats could be employed, with planets 'processed & harvested' like little more, than big asteroids, which is what they are.

 

 

 

"I can't see" does not imply that there is nothing to see

 

White Dwarves are planet-sized, yet star-hot, with stellar surface brightnesses. Yet, WDs are so faint, that they are barely visible, as faint foreground objects, even in the HDF. Thus, hypothetical Super-Aliens could currently reside, in planet-sized super-habitats -- "cybertron with every street-light on bright", i.e. an actual "NYC-in-the-sky" -- and still be human un-observed:

 

 

Yes, hypothetical Super-Aliens could certainly live in planet-sized space habitats, orbiting around white dwarfs and harvesting planets for raw materials, making it impossible for us to observe and disprove their existence.

 

Are these "cybertron" habitats shaped like teapots, by any chance?

[Widdekind]

Yes, hypothetical Super-Aliens could certainly live in planet-sized space habitats, orbiting around white dwarfs and harvesting planets for raw materials, making it impossible for us to observe and disprove their existence.

 

Please read what I write, or else I cannot address your questions. I did not make the assertions, that you are attributing to me (apparently by simply & summarily scanning my post for its pictures).

 

All that I have said, is that "the absence of evidence, is not an evidence of absence"; and, that hypothetical Super-Alien space-habitats could be as big as worlds, and as bright as stars, and still be beyond our current capacities to detect.

[baric]

Please read what I write, or else I cannot address your questions. I did not make the assertions, that you are attributing to me (apparently by simply & summarily scanning my post for its pictures).

 

That's interesting, because I read your post in its entirety, restated your premise using your same choice of words, and then gave an indication of why I considered it fallacious.

 

All that I have said, is that "the absence of evidence, is not an evidence of absence"; and, that hypothetical Super-Alien space-habitats could be as big as worlds, and as bright as stars, and still be beyond our current capacities to detect.

 

This is also interesting. You accuse me of not reading your post and then reinterpret your words post-hoc. Despite your use of quote marks above, you in fact did not quote Sagan at all and, regardless of that, at no point did I claim that the lack of evidence represents a falsification. What you said was (in giant bold), and what I responded to, was:

 

"I can't see" does not imply that there is nothing to see"

 

If you can't see it, then you have no evidence to support it. Until such evidence is found, it is conjecture.

 

In fact, dismissing "I can't see" as a justification for believing those interstellar structures may exist is just another form of Russell's Teapot fallacy -- thus my teapot reference.

 

The Kardashev scale, in the first paragraph of the wiki link you provided, is described as "only theoretical" and such civilizations are "highly speculative". And since advanced alien structures are so speculative, no one really has any idea of how they could be detected or even if any anomalous detections are ever indications of such a civilization.

 

This is why they are science fiction. So while it may make an interesting addition to a Star Trek script, it really has little place in discussions about actual science.

Edited November 14, 2011 by baric

[Ophiolite]

If given time, chimps would develop increasing dexterity as their tool use became more complex. The fact that they are already so close is a strong indication of how unexceptional it is.

Really? Hundreds of thousands of species on the planet and a handful develop tool use. That's like, 0.0004% of animals have developed some form of tool use. That seems an exceptionally low percentage to me.

 

If tool use provides a selective advantage, the species will become increasingly proficient with it.

And clearly tool use is generally not a selective advantage or else it would be commonplace, like walking, swimming or flying, for example.

 

Intelligence evolves where it provides a selective advantage, not as it is needed. A modern jelly fish does not have a brain, but some of their ancestors evolved them.

Are you equating having a brain with intelligence? Even on this forum we have evidence that the two are not equivalent.

 

Airbrush raised some interesting points in his last reply to you. Will you be responding to them?

[CharonY]

If tool use provides a selective advantage, the species will become increasingly proficient with it.

 

That is a false premise. While tool use may spread within the population, it is not a certainty that proficiency will increase. Anatomic limitations are a simple counterexample. And of course tool use often spreads non-genetically within a population.

[baric]

Really? Hundreds of thousands of species on the planet and a handful develop tool use. That's like, 0.0004% of animals have developed some form of tool use. That seems an exceptionally low percentage to me.

 

An adaptation that allows generic tool use is a TREMENDOUS selection advantage because it removes the need for further morphological changes to adapt to new environments. Once this threshold is crossed, a species is rapidly able to move into many previously unsuitable habitats, effectively stunting the evolutionary progress of all other species.

 

And clearly tool use is generally not a selective advantage or else it would be commonplace, like walking, swimming or flying, for example.

 

It is ubiquitous. In fact, you will find tool-using animals in almost every corner of the Earth, driving out all other competitors for natural resources. Of course, these animals are all members of the same species. The competition for resources will prevent multiple tool-using species from co-existing for any amount of time.

 

Are you equating having a brain with intelligence? Even on this forum we have evidence that the two are not equivalent.

 

I was using the term 'brain' as a shorthand for intelligence, but obviously not every bundle of nerves fits that description. Nevertheless, some early invertebrates did indeed eventually evolve intelligent brains.

 

Airbrush raised some interesting points in his last reply to you. Will you be responding to them?

 

I missed it. I'll go look at it.

 

That is a false premise. While tool use may spread within the population, it is not a certainty that proficiency will increase. Anatomic limitations are a simple counterexample. And of course tool use often spreads non-genetically within a population.

 

Anatomic limitations are only a temporary constraint. If tool use provides a selective advantage, those individuals more anatomically suited to use the tools efficiently will disproportionately contribute to the gene pool of future generations.