Different responses to Fermi Paradox

[IM Egdall]

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.

 

Yes intelligence can be observed in a number of life forms. And some even make tools. But the point is that, with all the myriad species on this planet, and some 5 billion years of its existence, one and only one species has the intelligence-level to create and comment in this forum. This is an emperical fact. Your extrapolation of chimps to becoming technological is a supposition. Right now, I have to say I am more inclined to believe Barrow and the evolution experts.

[Airbrush]

Although tool use is seen in other animals, including birds and octopi, let's use chimpanzees as an example, since they are closest to humans.

 

"Chimpanzees split from the human branch of the family about 4 to 6 million years ago. The two chimpanzee species are the closest living relatives to humans, all being members of the Hominini tribe (along with extinct species of Hominina subtribe)."

 

If chimpanzees have been using stone tools for at least 4,300 years, they have not made much progress. They use sticks to dig into termite mounds and a small twig to "fish" out termites. Why do they not carry a spear or club around with them at all times? They live in a dangerous area and yet a simple club or spear is not something they ever thought about carrying around for defense, even though the Senegal chimp knows how to hunt Bushbabies with a spear they sharpen with their teeth.

 

"One of the most significant discoveries was in October 1960 when Jane Goodall observed the use of tools among chimpanzees. Recent research indicates that chimpanzee stone tool use dates to at least 4,300 years ago.[16] Chimpanzee tool usage includes digging into termite mounds with a large stick tool, and then using a small stick that has been altered to "fish" the termites out.[17] A recent study revealed the use of such advanced tools as spears, with which Common Chimpanzees in Senegal sharpen with their teeth and use to spear Senegal Bushbabies out of small holes in trees.[18][19] Before the discovery of tool use in chimps, it was believed that humans were the only species to make and use tools, but several other tool-using species are now known."

 

How much longer will it take for the chimpanzee to make more sophisticated tools? Probably never. There is no pressure for them to make better tools. Their crude tools are good enough for them indefinitely. We are alone as a technological intelligence on this planet.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee#Tool_use

Edited November 16, 2011 by Airbrush

[baric]

Yes intelligence can be observed in a number of life forms. And some even make tools. But the point is that, with all the myriad species on this planet, and some 5 billion years of its existence, one and only one species has the intelligence-level to create and comment in this forum.

 

There were indeed more than one tool-using species of hominid living concurrently. Our particular species won the war of competition long before the first pages of history were written.

 

If another hominid species had won out, they might very well indeed be here, in some alternate timeline, posing the same questions.

 

If chimpanzees have been using stone tools for at least 4,300 years, they have not made much progress. They use sticks to dig into termite mounds and a small twig to "fish" out termites. Why do they not carry a spear or club around with them at all times? They live in a dangerous area and yet a simple club or spear is not something they ever thought about carrying around for defense, even though the Senegal chimp will hunt Bushbabies with a spear.

 

Are you suggesting that humans made that same step in less than 4300 years? I'm not exactly sure you understand how glacial technological development was for our species until the very recent past.

 

How much longer will it take for the chimpanzee to make more sophisticated tools? Probably never. We are very much alone as a technological intelligence.

 

Probably never? In the tremendously long chain of evolutionary adaptations that have led to our tool use and technology, chimps have undoubtedly traveled over 99% of the way with us. To assume that they could not take that last step if we suddenly disappeared seems very presumptuous.

[Airbrush]

[John Barrow] 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.

 

Stephen Hawking would not say "ouch!" but would be glad, as we all should be, that we may not be in danger of being overwhelmed by ETIs who like our planet, and could easily take it from us.

 

This is an excellent video clip of Geoff Marcy of the Kepler Mission. Skip forward to about minute 45 in his lecture where he gets into the probabilities of technological ETs. This is cutting edge thinking on this subject.

 

Edited November 16, 2011 by Airbrush

[Widdekind]

To date, humans have only summarily surveyed earth's skies. For example, the HUDF covers only one-thirteen-millionth of our sky; and, would take nearly a million years to extend, to an "all-sky-HUDF", with the same sensitivity. And, the 2dFGS + 6dFGS + DSS + SDDS + 2MASS surveys cover, collectively, only half of our skies. Thus, our ignorance of our own galactic neighborhood, today, is comparable to Columbian-era European "medieval maps" of the Americas -- in theory, whole "Meso-American Empires" could exist, elsewhere in space, either in some direction we have yet to survey; or, too far-and-faint for our space telescopes to see.

 

Moreover, even if alleged Alien worlds were as bright as WDs -- i.e. earth-sized but star-surface-brightness, i.e. "Cybertron with every street-light on full" -- then even still whole galaxies' worth could reside, within our own galactic halo, and we would not yet be able to observe such an ultra-faint "ghost galaxy" equivalent.

 

"Absence of evidence is not evidence for absence" -- to date, there is neither proof for; nor disproof of; the existence of alleged Alien Super-Civilizations, logically predicted to be "dark", i.e. too low-surface-brightness to have yet been observed, by humans, from earth. All that can be stated with certainty, is that there is no reason to deny the possibility, of such Super-Civilizations; and, that there is "plenty of room out there" for 'Them' to exist.

[Widdekind]

'the Rule' -- more advanced organisms replace more primitive forms

 

There are always 'exceptions', but, as a 'rule', more advanced organisms, having competitive advantages over more primitive precursors, tend to replace those less advanced organisms, over evolutionary time. For example, more advanced humans dominate the earth, numbering in the billions (and growing); whereas, less advanced chimpanzees are restricted to marginal habitats, not yet exploited by humans, and number in the hundreds of thousands (and shrinking). That pattern has persisted, until the present epoch, from the dawn of multi-celled animals, upon this plant, in the pre-Cambrian epoch, c.600 Mya:

 

Sepkoski's (1990) Phanerozoic marine family-level diversity curve, with diversity patterns of Evolutionary faunas delineated, and representative members of the Paleozoic Fauna illustrated. The stippled area indicates diversity contributed by poorly preserved groups.

Cm

, Cambrian evolutionary fauna;

Pz

, Paleozoic Evolutionary Fauna;

Md

, Modern Evolutionary Fauna. After Sepkoski, 1990.

(

Oxford

)

 

Mammalian radiation & diversification, in Tertiary Period, after demise of the dinosaurs,

c.65 Mya

. More modern mammalian forms repeatedly replaced more primitive competitors.

(

Alroy 2004

)

As a result, earth animals have steadily, if un-evenly, increased in 'intelligence', i.e. sophistication of behavioral repertoires. Such increases have proved robust, even in the face of 'periodic' major mass extinction events:

 

Maximum encephalization levels through geologic time. The dotted line is drawn through the highest encephalization levels attained by modern shark (

cf

Crile and Quiring, 1940, Bauchot

et al.

, 1976) and of primitive jawed fishes at the time of their appearance.

(

NASA

)

On earth, at present epoch, humans are currently the most intelligent species. There is no known reason, excluding the hypothetical possibility, that elsewhere in space, older life has spawned even more advanced, more sophisticated, more evolved, more intelligent organisms.

[baric]

'the Rule' -- more advanced organisms replace more primitive forms

 

There are always 'exceptions', but, as a 'rule', more advanced organisms, having competitive advantages over more primitive precursors, tend to replace those less advanced organisms, over evolutionary time. For example, more advanced humans dominate the earth, numbering in the billions (and growing); whereas, less advanced chimpanzees are restricted to marginal habitats, not yet exploited by humans, and number in the hundreds of thousands (and shrinking).

 

So you are drawing conclusions governing evolution on the grand scale of eons from population trends in the last ten thousand years?

 

Also, your "rule" is incorrect. Better adapted organisms replace less adapted organisms.

 

Conditions could change on this planet (and have in the past), that could make single-celled organisms the most well-adapted forms on the planet. Are you aware that some scientists believe that the "more advanced" humans almost became extinct just 70,000 years ago when our population crashed to possibly under 10,000 due to catastrophic environmental changes?

 

http://en.wikipedia....astrophe_theory

Edited November 17, 2011 by baric

[Widdekind]

"Adapted" is a more directly appropriate word. But, "better adapted", in theory, has amounted, in evolutionary practice, to ever-increasing "sophistication", of earth life systems, over the past 4 Gyr, generally; and, over the last 0.5 Gyr, specifically. For example, mammals today have 4-chambered hearts, an unambiguous increase in "sophistication", over comparatively "simple" evolutionary precursors, originally having only 1-chambered hearts, half-a-billion years ago.

Edited November 19, 2011 by Widdekind

[baric]

"Adapted" is a more directly appropriate word. But, "better adapted", in theory, has amounted, in evolutionary practice, to ever-increasing "sophistication", of earth life systems, over the past 4 Gyr, generally; and, over the last 0.5 Gyr, specifically. For example, mammals today have 4-chambered hearts, an unambiguous increase in "sophistication", over comparatively "simple" evolutionary precursors, originally having only 1-chambered hearts, half-a-billion years ago.

 

Your bias towards your own species clouds your judgment.

 

The most populous and durable organisms on this planet consist of just a single cell.

 

And are you really suggesting that we are more well-adapted than this species? http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8127000/8127519.stm

[Widdekind]

The evolutionary "base", of earth's biosphere, i.e. bacteria, has remained robust, throughout earth's 5 Gyr history (cp. "snowball earth" periods). However, the evolutionary "peak", of earth's then-most-advanced "apex" (predator) organisms, has inexorably complexified, over evolutionary geo-biological time.

 

The evolutionary history, of peak / apex organisms, on earth, is the most relevant knowledge, with which to speculate about hypothetical Super-Aliens, Who would be the Apex Predators, of our cosmological environment.

 

..."better adapted", in theory, has amounted, in evolutionary practice, to ever-increasing "sophistication", of earth's complex life-forms, over the past 4 Gyr, generally; and, over the last 0.5 Gyr, specifically...

Edited November 20, 2011 by Widdekind

[IM Egdall]

Stephen Hawking would not say "ouch!" but would be glad, as we all should be, that we may not be in danger of being overwhelmed by ETIs who like our planet, and could easily take it from us.

 

This is an excellent video clip of Geoff Marcy of the Kepler Mission. Skip forward to about minute 45 in his lecture where he gets into the probabilities of technological ETs. This is cutting edge thinking on this subject.

 

!

 

 

Nice video. But Marcy basically said he has no idea what the probability of human-like intellegence is on other planets in our galaxy. He throws up a number "a million to one" with no justification. Maybe its a billion to one. Or some other number. He admits earlier that this is all pure speculation. So I remain speptical on the existence of "technological ET's" in our galactic neighborhood. (But I hope I am wrong.)

[Widdekind]

Our universe is homogenous, on 'large' size scales, >100 Mpc (e.g. Maoz. Astrophysics in a Nutshell). Strict application, of the Cosmological Principle, then implies, that intelligent aliens, comparable to or more intelligent than humans, 'ought' to exist, at present epoch, no less frequently, than 1 per 'homogenous volume', i.e. 1 per 100 Mpc cubed, i.e. 1 per million spiral galaxies.

 

Alternatively, our universe is order-of-magnitude ~10 Gyr old. Thus, hypothetical Super-Aliens might plausibly be as much as order-of-magnitude ~1 Gyr older than, i.e. more advanced than, humans. Hyper-skeptical insistence, that Super-Aliens "just couldn't" Exist, in or amongst, any 'nearby' galactic structures -- i.e. if 'They' aren't "neon obvious", in the 4% of our universe which we can observe, then 'They' "just couldn't" Exist -- would thusly demand, that the nearest Super-Aliens, reside no closer, than ~1 Glyr to earth (lest 'Their' Super-Civilization already be 'Neon Obvious' in our skies).

 

These speculations point to size scales of "separation" of order-of-magnitude hundreds of millions, to billions, of light-years. Hyper-acceptance, that Super-Aliens "must" Exist, nearer to earth, could therefore require, an explanation for 'Their' non-observable 'Darkness', e.g. 'They' camouflage & conceal 'Their' Presence; or, 'They' "don't glow", i.e. 'They' are energy efficient w/o wasting energy on broadcasted emissions.

Edited November 20, 2011 by Widdekind

[baric]

These speculations point to size scales of "separation" of order-of-magnitude hundreds of millions, to billions, of light-years. Hyper-acceptance, that Super-Aliens "must" Exist, nearer to earth, could therefore require, an explanation for 'Their' non-observable 'Darkness', e.g. 'They' camouflage & conceal 'Their' Presence; or, 'They' "don't glow", i.e. 'They' are energy efficient w/o wasting energy on broadcasted emissions.

 

We all understand the timescales involved, but the reality is galactic colonization (or even noticeable super-advanced civilizations in a single star system) are contingent upon futuristic technologies that remain undiscovered.

 

To suggest colonization for example, requires either the possibility of relativistic speeds or the ability for organisms to survive eons in deep space (in transit).

 

There are significant technological hurdles to both of those options and clearing those hurdles may simply not be possible for biological civilizations constrained to the resources a single planet. Even terraforming nearby Mars is projected to take THOUSANDS (>10K) of years. While that may seem like a blip in galactic time, that planet is a very close analogue for our own (lucky us!) and yet the timescale is still much longer than our written history.

 

It's just as possible that interstellar travel is so impractical that it makes far more sense for civilizations to simply terraform their local system to suit their needs.

[Widdekind]

Terra-forming Mars would be "difficult", e.g. time-consuming & expensive. Conversely, the interior crew compartments, of currently constructable space-craft, already carry "terra-formed" atmospheric conditions, clement to human crews. There is no logical need, to terra-form Mars; or, any other planet; or, any other asteroid or comet. Instead, economic & engineering feasibility imply "skipping straight to space habitats", which would best be built with some sort of mobility capacity, e.g. "station-keeping propulsion". Such "mobile space-habitats" seem much more economical, feasible, practical, plausible, probable.

 

If so, then the future is more likely to be "Battlestar Galacticas", over "living on super-sized spinning space stones". Humans already spend months at sea, inside submarines, or on aircraft carriers. Please ponder my point -- in an ultimate sense, what is the difference, between living in space, on the surface of a natural "super-sized space stone", i.e. planetoid; and, living in space, in an artificial space habitat ? Present-day humans prefer artificial houses, over natural caves. Er go, future humans would prefer artificial space-habitats, over natural worlds.

 

Your conclusion seems sound, that -- re-phrased in my words -- "lugging around land-lubbing preferences for planets" would profoundly impede inter-stellar migration.

[Widdekind]

Evolution of Biological Intelligence mirrors that of Machine Intelligence

 

(

source

:

mocom 2020

)

[Islandman59]

I have a very basic theory:

 

Perhaps the genesis of life needed (or took) a certain amount of time to evolve or transpire, so that would explain why there may not be civilizations that are far more advanced than ours. Maybe we are slightly ahead of most. Maybe the building blocks of life have always existed throughout the universe in old galaxies and asteroids all along, and the final ingredient (time) needed to be added before it could begin the process. Then this “fertile” state was spread by asteroids to newer planets.

 

 

 

[G Anthony]

No mention of variations on the anthropic principle. Like, we ARE the extraterrestrials. Trivial, it's true. But, there is another thing, we have been seriously looking for only a few decades. Why is it surprising that we have not yet found what we are looking for? Give us another few hundred years and then come back to me and say there is a true paradox here.

[Widdekind]

Hypothesized "Dyson spheres", wrapping around then-hidden central stars, would plausibly re-radiate at ~300K. Such "stars in bags" would plausibly resemble ultra-cool, ultra-large red-giant stars, e.g. RGB, AGB.