Solutions to the Fermi Paradox

[excreationist]

It's not about individual humans, it's about human culture. When we get bombed back into the 18th century. we cease to send detectable electromagnetic waves. It is as if we were not there.

When Polymath257 said "How much longer do we really think that the human species will survive?" they seemed to talk about whether any humans would survive. I thought there would be mirrors of Wikipedia or GPT4 or something and if necessary people could reinvent things. If we invent "universal constructors" then it would be a lot easier for small numbers of human survivors to recreate advanced technology....

Nonsense. Why would anyone descend into a new gravity well right after having escaped from Earth's. There is nothing on Mars that's interesting for a living human except resources. And they are cheaper on the Moon and the asteroids.

I think living on Mars is more similar to being on Earth than the Moon or an asteroid is. And it would be even more similar if it was terraformed. Elon Musk wants a million people on Mars by 2050 but maybe it could happen within a few centuries.

Space habitats are the way to go. The rotation gives you all the (artificial) gravity you want and being in space gives you access to the Sun's energy 24/7. The building costs won't exceed those of planetary habitats by much as you have to have sealed, pressurized, radiation shielded space anyway. And if you detect a big meteoroid in time, you can simply move to the side.

Well the point is you could survive the annihilation of the Earth....

It all depends on whether we can make the step into space before climate change (or an other, unforeseen catastrophe) gets us so hard that we no longer have the free resources to do so.

But would climate change kill every single human on the Earth? Couldn't people just live underground or something?

 

[Heyo]

When Polymath257 said "How much longer do we really think that the human species will survive?" they seemed to talk about whether any humans would survive. I thought there would be mirrors of Wikipedia or GPT4 or something and if necessary people could reinvent things. If we invent "universal constructors" then it would be a lot easier for small numbers of human survivors to recreate advanced technology....
[...]

But would climate change kill every single human on the Earth? Couldn't people just live underground or something?

Again, regard the context. We are talking about the Fermi paradox, i.e. the question where everybody is.
There may be millions of inhabited planets out there but there is none that carries life that will talk to us.
We are the only ones in a bubble of a few light years who could be detected by neighbors on our tech level - and we may become quiet again soon.
Fighting climate change and the results of it may cost us so many resources that we can no longer maintain the technology that makes us detectable. And if it can happen to us, it can or could have happened to other civilizations. Maybe there was a civilization a hundred light years away who were on our tech level a thousand years ago. Then they descended into a pre-industrial society because of climate change and resource problems. We had and have no chance to detect them.

 

[Polymath257]

Again, regard the context. We are talking about the Fermi paradox, i.e. the question where everybody is.
There may be millions of inhabited planets out there but there is none that carries life that will talk to us.
We are the only ones in a bubble of a few light years who could be detected by neighbors on our tech level - and we may become quiet again soon.
Fighting climate change and the results of it may cost us so many resources that we can no longer maintain the technology that makes us detectable. And if it can happen to us, it can or could have happened to other civilizations. Maybe there was a civilization a hundred light years away who were on our tech level a thousand years ago. Then they descended into a pre-industrial society because of climate change and resource problems. We had and have no chance to detect them.

And, once again, time intervals as short as 1000 years are nothing. There may have been such a civilization 3 million years ago, and another 10 million years ago, etc.

 

[excreationist]

Maybe there was a civilization a hundred light years away who were on our tech level a thousand years ago. Then they descended into a pre-industrial society because of climate change and resource problems. We had and have no chance to detect them.

So you're saying that the climate changing a degree or two a century (in our case) caused most of their existing machinery and electronics to stop working? And they still hadn't got to using radio waves about a thousand years later? Note in our case there would be lots of university libraries with books about science and technology....
As far as resources go they wouldn't suddenly run out - they'd get more expensive - and this would motivate them to mine the Moon and asteroids, etc, for resources.
It's easy to say what you're saying about climate change and resources but I think when you think about it those reasons wouldn't stop an intelligent society in some form from continuing to exist for a very long time.
What I'm talking about isn't about whether they could be detected but how likely it is that an intelligent species could survive for more than 10,000 years.

 

[Bird123]

The Fermi Paradox is the thought that there is a high likelihood of extraterrestrial existence, yet there is no evidence for any.

What are your solutions to this paradox? I have this in Science and Religion because I'm interested in religious takes as well as scientific ones.

The idea that trips me out the most is that we are perhaps the first advanced species in the universe. The first. Well, some species has to be the first. Maybe it's actually us. What a grand and most unique opportunity this offers humanity.

Another theory I heard was that advanced alien civilizations know to stay in the dark, for fear of being wiped out by other civilizations.

What do you think?

God has placed great distances in the universe for good reason. By the time one acquires the knowledge to span these great distances, one has acquired the knowledge not to mess with the learning and growing that is taking place in the worlds one finds .Scientists on Earth do the same thing when they study the creatures of this world.

How did the people of this world act when they started exploring the people of this world? Conquer and control of all the planets and worlds one could discover in space will never be a good choice. Mankind is surely not ready!!!

Why has no one discovered aliens? This world is so very lacking in advanced thinking. We search and search for radio waves, yet too blind to realize that aliens would never be using radio waves. Why not? Communication by radio waves is way too slow.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[gnostic]

A Christian might say that it makes our tiny little planet a lot more special. Also the earth-like planets could be colonised by future beings originating from earth...

The Milky Way is only about 100,000 light years across.... but there could be 11 billion potentially habitable Earth-sized planets

voyager 1 is the most distant man made spacecraft we have created, and 45 years later, it has only traveled a fraction of light year.

at the current speed voyager 1 is travelling, it would take some thousands of years to reach one light-year.

to travel to the nearest star, like Proxima Centaurus, which is 4.2 light-year (not that voyager 1 is going in that direction, so I am say hypothetically), it would take thousands of years. But voyager 1 will lose all power to their instruments, by next year or 2.

space travel is simply too impossible to be viable for humans, as we have no technology to build vessel to even reach the light speed. Certainly not to colonise another planet from another star system.

 

[Polymath257]

voyager 1 is the most distant man made spacecraft we have created, and 45 years later, it has only traveled a fraction of light year.

at the current speed voyager 1 is travelling, it would take some thousands of years to reach one light-year.

to travel to the nearest star, like Proxima Centaurus, which is 4.2 light-year (not that voyager 1 is going in that direction, so I am say hypothetically), it would take thousands of years. But voyager 1 will lose all power to their instruments, by next year or 2.

space travel is simply too impossible to be viable for humans, as we have no technology to build vessel to even reach the light speed. Certainly not to colonise another planet from another star system.

I can go one step further. The fastest probe humans have made is the Parker Solar Probe. It has achieved a speed of .064% of the speed of light. This required a gravity assist from Jupiter. At this speed, if it was directed to the nearest star other than the sun (as opposed to the nearest star--the sun), it would take over 6000 years to get to its destination.

And this probe has nowhere close to the mass that would be required for a colonization of another star system.

Sure, if we could manage fusion technology (um, we've been working at it for several decades and can just barely make break-even), we could increase these speeds a bit *if* we devote the resources to the issue. But we would *still* have to lug the fuel with us for most of the flight and that increases the energy required.

And another aspect that nobody seems to be discussing. We have already put humans on the moon. This was done over 50 years ago. But we haven't been back. Why not?

Ultimately, it is because it isn't economic. We are at the bottom of a gravity well and getting out of that takes a certain amount of energy no matter what. Even if we can make advances with disposable rockets, the price to put a significant number of people on a space station is immense and people will (rightly) question the use of resources. While asteroid mining can help, I will bet that it won't be nearly as profitable as the scifi stories make it out to be.

And that only gets us about our solar system. The distances and times to other stars systems are several orders of magnitude larger with corresponding costs and risks. Meanwhile, the problems on Earth continue.

Maybe I am just pessimistic, but I really doubt we will mange to get to another star system. We certainly won't be able to in a way that maintains communication, let alone a coherent organization. And this isn't going to be an issue just for those from Earth. Any other civilization faces the same distances and the same questions of resources.

So, how likely is it that we will be still 'visible' in another 10,000 years? I am guessing very unlikely. And, I suspect that is the case elsewhere as well. So the chances of *overlap in time* with another species is probably quite low. Even if there is other life out there, the chances of technological life existing at the same time as us doesn't seem to be very high.

So, we don't see other civilizations because they max out at a stage where they aren't visible, just like we will.

 

[Jimmy]

Aliens? Absolutely not. I know for certain. Common sense. Love me some Star Wars, Star Trek, marvel and DC though.

 

[excreationist]

Unfortunately, I find this the most likely resolution of the Fermi paradox: species such as ours tend to destroy themselves 'quickly' after gaining technology that could do so.

How would humans completely destroy every single human? Maybe it would take a device that can destroy an entire planet... Who would be developing that and wouldn't some people suspect that it could be used to destroy the Earth? Note just destroying 99.99% of humans is not enough.

 

[Heyo]

How would humans completely destroy every single human? Maybe it would take a device that can destroy an entire planet... Who would be developing that and wouldn't some people suspect that it could be used to destroy the Earth? Note just destroying 99.99% of humans is not enough.

Have you watched how humans have reacted to the Covid pandemic? Imagine a virus with a much higher mortality rate.
Do you see how humans react to climate change? Just wait a hundred years and watch 50% of humanity being made homeless by rising sea levels.
Do you know what consequences the war in Ukraine has on the global economy? Now imagine a slightly bigger conflict ...

 

[Polymath257]

How would humans completely destroy every single human? Maybe it would take a device that can destroy an entire planet... Who would be developing that and wouldn't some people suspect that it could be used to destroy the Earth? Note just destroying 99.99% of humans is not enough.

We don't need to kill off every single human. Nor do other civilizations need to kill off every member. All that is required is that the technology never get to the point that they become detectable elsewhere. That is enough to resolve the Fermi paradox.

The vast majority of humans have NO idea how the technology they use works. If a collapse occurred, it might well take generations to get back to the level of radio (after old equipment decays away).

Once again, the question is why we don't see many alien civilizations in the cosmos. One possible answer is that no civilization gets to the place it would be detectable and stays that way for very long.

Another aspect: our initial radio signals were very wasteful. Now, we tend to use more focused signals and only have the radial spread for low power signals. This reduces detectability quite a lot. it is possible that advanced civilizations, for economic reasons, use communication methods that are more focused and thereby not detectable from other places. We could be listening and they could be communicating with each other, but we simply never see the signals. This is even more true if there is some sort of quantum communication going on, which looks like static on interception.

 

[excreationist]

We don't need to kill off every single human. Nor do other civilizations need to kill off every member.

You basically do if humans or other intelligent species are to destroy themselves...

....I find this the most likely resolution of the Fermi paradox: species such as ours tend to destroy themselves 'quickly' after gaining technology that could do so.

 

[gnostic]

Why has no one discovered aliens? This world is so very lacking in advanced thinking. We search and search for radio waves, yet too blind to realize that aliens would never be using radio waves. Why not? Communication by radio waves is way too slow.

space travel is even slower.

radio waves are still faster than any manned or unmanned vessels built by every space agencies.

Plus, radio waves tend to degrade over distance & time, weakening to the point of not being detectable.

 

[Bird123]

space travel is even slower.

radio waves are still faster than any manned or unmanned vessels built by every space agencies.

Plus, radio waves tend to degrade over distance & time, weakening to the point of not being detectable.

Mankind's primitive travel capabilities prove they are not ready for contact. There are ways to span the distance without all the time it takes to travel. On the other hand, local travel will be much easier. Of course, has mankind really mastered that? Not nearly enough.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Polymath257]

space travel is even slower.

radio waves are still faster than any manned or unmanned vessels built by every space agencies.

And, according to current physics, faster than they will *ever* be.

Plus, radio waves tend to degrade over distance & time, weakening to the point of not being detectable.

And, it should be pointed out that if we *direct* our radio beams, they are less detectable away from the direction they are beamed. So a distant civilization would have to be *very* lucky to spot them. Sending out radio is a spherical wave is wasteful enough that it isn't done so much any more. There is also the Earth's ionosphere to contend with. It tends to filter emissions except in fairly specific directions.

 

[Polymath257]

Mankind's primitive travel capabilities prove they are not ready for contact. There are ways to span the distance without all the time it takes to travel. On the other hand, local travel will be much easier. Of course, has mankind really mastered that? Not nearly enough.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

What ways are there for more distant travel? We know of *nothing* that travels faster than light. So communication with even the nearest star system takes over 8 years round trip. That severely reduces coordination and communication.

 

[gnostic]

Mankind's primitive travel capabilities prove they are not ready for contact. There are ways to span the distance without all the time it takes to travel. On the other hand, local travel will be much easier. Of course, has mankind really mastered that? Not nearly enough.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

The only “manned” missions are to space station and to the Moon.

All other missions within the Solar System have been “unmanned”.

There have only been 6 landing missions with crews on the Apollo crafts, the last was in 1972. Since then there have been manned missions to the Moon or elsewhere.

Even missions to Mars, where probes and rover-typed vehicles are all unmanned and controlled remotely from Earth are the best we can do, for landing missions.

sending people to Mars would be logistical nightmare, because then they would need much larger vessels than the Apollo crafts, large enough to carry fuel, for the trips back. Even though, Mars has surface gravity of 3.7 m/s^2, as compared to Earth’s 9.8 m/s^2, any Martian craft would still require more fuel than Apollo crafts, would still require a lot of fuel for liftoff and the craft propulsion to increase acceleration, to resist air drag and to resist atmospheric drag.

The point is that landing is easier than launching from Mars would be, because the size needed to carry that much more fuel, would mean much heavier crafts are needed. The are no way to refuel from Mars. The heavier the craft, the larger the rocket would have to be built for the initial launch from Earth.

This is why we don’t colonise the Moon, and even less so on Mars, because of the resources that would require for landing missions with crews.

 

[Bird123]

What ways are there for more distant travel? We know of *nothing* that travels faster than light. So communication with even the nearest star system takes over 8 years round trip. That severely reduces coordination and communication.

Must one travel fast in order to span great distances? The interface will be at the quantum level.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Bird123]

The only “manned” missions are to space station and to the Moon.

All other missions within the Solar System have been “unmanned”.

There have only been 6 landing missions with crews on the Apollo crafts, the last was in 1972. Since then there have been manned missions to the Moon or elsewhere.

Even missions to Mars, where probes and rover-typed vehicles are all unmanned and controlled remotely from Earth are the best we can do, for landing missions.

sending people to Mars would be logistical nightmare, because then they would need much larger vessels than the Apollo crafts, large enough to carry fuel, for the trips back. Even though, Mars has surface gravity of 3.7 m/s^2, as compared to Earth’s 9.8 m/s^2, any Martian craft would still require more fuel than Apollo crafts, would still require a lot of fuel for liftoff and the craft propulsion to increase acceleration, to resist air drag and to resist atmospheric drag.

The point is that landing is easier than launching from Mars would be, because the size needed to carry that much more fuel, would mean much heavier crafts are needed. The are no way to refuel from Mars. The heavier the craft, the larger the rocket would have to be built for the initial launch from Earth.

This is why we don’t colonise the Moon, and even less so on Mars, because of the resources that would require for landing missions with crews.

Yes, you have proven my point. Very good!!

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[We Never Know]

The Fermi Paradox is the thought that there is a high likelihood of extraterrestrial existence, yet there is no evidence for any.

What are your solutions to this paradox? I have this in Science and Religion because I'm interested in religious takes as well as scientific ones.

The idea that trips me out the most is that we are perhaps the first advanced species in the universe. The first. Well, some species has to be the first. Maybe it's actually us. What a grand and most unique opportunity this offers humanity.

Another theory I heard was that advanced alien civilizations know to stay in the dark, for fear of being wiped out by other civilizations.

What do you think?

It took us roughly 3.5+/- billion years to go from building blocks of life to today.

With the universe being 13.5+/- billion years old, that leaves a 10 billion year head start before life here was even a single cell. Roughly 97% of the universe is unknown to us. One thing we know for sure is that under the right conditions life can arise and unless earth is a very special one of a kind place, there is no telling what could be out there, if anything.