What do you think is the most likely explanation for the Fermi paradox?

[Colin Robinson]

Alternatively, perhaps small closed ecosystems are simply too unstable to make long range colonization efforts worth while.* You'd need a whole world to replenish your habitat from. A permanent link to the home planet or a terraformed one, would definitely hobble the rapid expansion of one's progeny throughout space.

* I hate this idea with a passion, of course. But I have to acknowledge it as at least a realistic possibility.

To me this seems simpler than other resolutions of the Fermi paradox, and the most realistic of the possibilities.

I don't blame you for hating the idea that our species won't be able to expand rapidly throughout space.

On the other hand, the more difficult long range colonisation is, the less danger that humans on Earth will some day be troubled by ETs coming here to colonise.

Perhaps humans in space will need an umbilical cord to the old mudball for centuries, until we establish enough variety of ecologies and methods of survival offworld that stations can support each other entirely.

It could be much more than centuries...

Since we humans developed ways of leaving Earth's atmosphere and flying through space, it is easy to suppose that we can be independent of "the old mudball", and very soon will be.

But maybe that is an illusion.

Flying fish can leave the ocean and glide through the air for almost a minute, but this doesn't make them independent of the ocean.

[Noclevername]

It could be much more than centuries...

Since we humans developed ways of leaving Earth's atmosphere and flying through space, it is easy to suppose that we can be independent of "the old mudball", and very soon will be.

But maybe that is an illusion.

Flying fish can leave the ocean and glide through the air for almost a minute, but this doesn't make them independent of the ocean.

I believe it's a solvable problem. The development of environmental science will continue to advance just as all our sciences do, as we gain and incorporate new knowledge. IOW science knowledge is cumulative. It may take longer than I'd like but we will someday leave the nest and build metastable artificial worlds.

And certainly we have plenty of good reasons here on Earth to actively improve human skill at managing ecosystems! If we can't, the size and scope of Earth's biosphere will only buffer and protect us from our own destructive nature temporarily. Remember, Earth is a spaceship too.

[cosmocrazy]

I believe it's a solvable problem. The development of environmental science will continue to advance just as all our sciences do, as we gain and incorporate new knowledge. IOW science knowledge is cumulative. It may take longer than I'd like but we will someday leave the nest and build metastable artificial worlds.

And certainly we have plenty of good reasons here on Earth to actively improve human skill at managing ecosystems! If we can't, the size and scope of Earth's biosphere will only buffer and protect us from our own destructive nature temporarily. Remember, Earth is a spaceship too.

Provided there is not a limit to advancement (my bold)

It may turn out that it's just not practically feasible to venture beyond our own solar system, and maybe there are advanced technologies out there that have reached a road block. I really can't imagine how a biological species (based on life here on Earth) could sustain interstellar travel. Unless we somehow managed to actually develop some sort of warp drive and avoid collisions and radiation and all the other obstacles then the only way I can imagine interstellar travel is by machine, robots or A.I. etc... at which point the likely hood is that A.I capable of interstellar colonization would become the dominant "life form"

I recently watched a documentary talking about the scale of the observable universe. Its uncomprehend-ably large, even our own Milkyway galaxy is so massive its hard to imagine humans ever being able to visit any of it. My favourite answer to the Fermi paradox is that there is no paradox. Its just that space and time are so vast, the odds of any technological life existing simultaneously at a relatively close distance, and able to contact each other is going to be extremely low.

[Noclevername]

Provided there is not a limit to advancement (my bold)

I've often heard people say this, but we have never yet found such a limit to any scientific discipline, theoretical or applied. I seriously doubt we'll ever run out of things to discover or invent.

It may turn out that it's just not practically feasible to venture beyond our own solar system, and maybe there are advanced technologies out there that have reached a road block. I really can't imagine how a biological species (based on life here on Earth) could sustain interstellar travel. Unless we somehow managed to actually develop some sort of warp drive and avoid collisions and radiation and all the other obstacles then the only way I can imagine interstellar travel is by machine, robots or A.I. etc... at which point the likely hood is that A.I capable of interstellar colonization would become the dominant "life form"

I think in-person star travel is extremely hard, but possible and do-able. We can already conceive of plausible methods for existing humans to reach at least relatively close stars, without "warp drives" or other fantastic alterations of known physics. Colonization would take far longer to achieve. But a long time and never are two different things.

I recently watched a documentary talking about the scale of the observable universe. Its uncomprehend-ably large, even our own Milkyway galaxy is so massive its hard to imagine humans ever being able to visit any of it. My favourite answer to the Fermi paradox is that there is no paradox. Its just that space and time are so vast, the odds of any technological life existing simultaneously at a relatively close distance, and able to contact each other is going to be extremely low.

Now that, I strongly agree with. The "paradox" is nothing but the human inability to understand large measurements in intuitive terms. Adding zeroes to a number does not convey the true scope of space or time.

[cosmocrazy]

I've often heard people say this, but we have never yet found such a limit to any scientific discipline, theoretical or applied. I seriously doubt we'll ever run out of things to discover or invent.



I think in-person star travel is extremely hard, but possible and do-able. We can already conceive of plausible methods for existing humans to reach at least relatively close stars, without "warp drives" or other fantastic alterations of known physics. Colonization would take far longer to achieve. But a long time and never are two different things.

I'm thinking more towards the limits of the known physical laws restricting technological advancement. So for example - warp drives, they may well be conceivable but not attainable. There are also many conceivable ideas that are currently sci -fi, plausible but unattainable; wormholes, time travel... etc

I agree, a long time and never are not the same thing, but in terms of the size of even a galaxy and the current life span of a human being they may as well be. Even to visit the nearest planetary systems we need to achieve extremely high speeds and able to manoeuvre/navigate at these speeds to make it practically possible. This is without dealing with all the expected physical & mental issues of long distance space travel. Even with an artificial gravity "generation" ship, going further afield than say 100 light years, is going to be very difficult and maybe not practically feasible.

I really can't see (maybe I'm too pessimistic) that unless we can achieve near on light speeds, or some sort of warping of space-time, or anti gravity system... then long distance space travel is a fanciful notion.

The sensible and most economical solution would be to send machines/A.I, far less romantic, but far more feasible I think.

[Noclevername]

I'm thinking more towards the limits of the known physical laws restricting technological advancement. So for example - warp drives, they may well be conceivable but not attainable. There are also many conceivable ideas that are currently sci -fi, plausible but unattainable; wormholes, time travel... etc

I agree, a long time and never are not the same thing, but in terms of the size of even a galaxy and the current life span of a human being they may as well be. Even to visit the nearest planetary systems we need to achieve extremely high speeds and able to manoeuvre/navigate at these speeds to make it practically possible. This is without dealing with all the expected physical & mental issues of long distance space travel. Even with an artificial gravity "generation" ship, going further afield than say 100 light years, is going to be very difficult and maybe not practically feasible.

I really can't see (maybe I'm too pessimistic) that unless we can achieve near on light speeds, or some sort of warping of space-time, or anti gravity system... then long distance space travel is a fanciful notion.

The sensible and most economical solution would be to send machines/A.I, far less romantic, but far more feasible I think.

Specific paths of technology may be dead ends, that's no bar to a problem with many potential solutions. Progress is not linear, it's open-ended webs. If one line of development stalls, go around it. We fly without anti-gravity, we build and manufacture without nano-technology, we can travel without warp drives.

It will be hard in the extreme to go in-person across interstellar distances, with massive problems to overcome that we probably cannot foresee today. But not out of our reach given a long enough time frame of offworld resource use and open-ended development of relevant engineering. It won't be a first step, either, but the culmination of long evolution of space-based industry and closed-cycle habitat management. Plus of course, the human factor: learning to live with each other in a small, stable society that lasts long enough to reach its destination and build a new home there.

Our current human lifespans are a current problem. I can see either biological life extension or suspended animation as achievable possibilities someday (research on both has already begun), and barring that there's always generation ships.

But you're right that we probably won't get to the whole Galaxy, nor would we want to. It's a Spherical Cow goal, an idealized logic argument that no practical actor would sink resources into. A Galaxy is far too big to set such goalposts. It's like saying you want to build a sandcastle out of all the beach sand in the world.

We may no longer be human when we get to another star. But that's not a requirement in my book. Post-humans are welcome to space too.

[Colin Robinson]

I believe it's a solvable problem. The development of environmental science will continue to advance just as all our sciences do, as we gain and incorporate new knowledge. IOW science knowledge is cumulative. It may take longer than I'd like but we will someday leave the nest and build metastable artificial worlds.

And certainly we have plenty of good reasons here on Earth to actively improve human skill at managing ecosystems! If we can't, the size and scope of Earth's biosphere will only buffer and protect us from our own destructive nature temporarily. Remember, Earth is a spaceship too.

Certainly Earth is a spaceship too.

And that brings to mind another comparatively simple solution to the Fermi paradox — one more radical and pessimistic than mere non-feasibility of space colonisation...

Maybe, whenever a species comparable to ours — an extremely versatile tool-user — arises, it changes its home ecosystem in a way that throws the ecosystem out of balance.

In this way, the species dooms itself to a massive population crash.

When the crash comes, the species can no longer gain and incorporate new scientific knowledge. Instead it loses nearly all of the knowledge it once had...

Maybe a versatile tool-using species is a like a fire — the faster it develops, the sooner it burns itself out.

[Noclevername]

Certainly Earth is a spaceship too.

And that brings to mind another comparatively simple solution to the Fermi paradox — one more radical and pessimistic than mere non-feasibility of space colonisation...

Maybe, whenever a species comparable to ours — an extremely versatile tool-user — arises, it changes its home ecosystem in a way that throws the ecosystem out of balance.

In this way, the species dooms itself to a massive population crash.

When the crash comes, the species can no longer gain and incorporate new scientific knowledge. Instead it loses nearly all of the knowledge it once had...

Only total extinction would, in my opinion, end human potential for advancement on Earth. Human nature is to adapt and learn. We independently invented civilization (farming, cities, written records, mathematics, engineering) in many places and times throughout human history. If there are any humans left at all, I don't doubt we'd repopulate the world; new civilizations would again rise and grow, and potentially someday reinvent science and eventually return to space.

[Colin Robinson]

Only total extinction would, in my opinion, end human potential for advancement on Earth. Human nature is to adapt and learn. We independently invented civilization (farming, cities, written records, mathematics, engineering) in many places and times throughout human history. If there are any humans left at all, I don't doubt we'd repopulate the world; new civilizations would again rise and grow, and potentially someday reinvent science and eventually return to space.

You think every fall of a civilisation will be followed by rise of a new one? Maybe. But what I'm suggesting (as a hypothesis) is that every rise of a civilisation is followed by a fall. Also, that the more developed a civilisation is — in terms of expanding consumption — the more drastic its fall is going to be.

Please note... I'm not saying this is certainly true.

Just that it could be true, and that it's a possible resolution of the Fermi thing...

[Noclevername]

Just that it could be true, and that it's a possible resolution of the Fermi thing...

The Fermi thing doesn't need any resolution. No offense to Enrico Fermi, but the paradox is based on a flawed premise to begin with.

As we discover more about our own past and about exoplanets, we find that worlds that might plausibly support complex multicellular organisms are seemingly uncommon, requiring a multitude of "just right" factors. We won the cosmic lottery and yet think we are typical, when observations show that's not so.

And we have no way of knowing how often life happens, how often it evolves animal-analogs, or how often those types of life give rise to intelligence of the sort that builds starships or even imagines them. Even if life is common, there's an infinite number of pathways life might evolve, many will not produce brains or thoughts.

There's probably something out there that thinks. It's a big Universe, there's room for anything to happen. By the same token, it's a BIG Universe, anything out there is probably too far away to affect us or reach us.

[Colin Robinson]

The Fermi thing doesn't need any resolution.

For something that "doesn't need any resolution", Fermi's question has attracted a remarkable amount of discussion and debate...

Even if life is common, there's an infinite number of pathways life might evolve, many will not produce brains or thoughts.

You speak of "an infinite number of pathways" before brains and thoughts...

Yet, (judging by your previous messages) you think that after brains, thoughts, and technology emerge, this diversity of pathways get phase-changed into a single great path leading to space travel, space colonisation and expansion through the galaxy?

[cosmocrazy]

For something that "doesn't need any resolution", Fermi's question has attracted a remarkable amount of discussion and debate...

Fermi's paradox is more of a question than a paradox, and probably one of, if not the most intriguing questions we want the answer to - where is everyone else? So its not so much the "paradox" but more so "are we alone" that gains interest and speculation.

My personal opinion - probably not,... but because of the vast distances and time, we are, and possibly will remain, lonely.

[Noclevername]

For something that "doesn't need any resolution", Fermi's question has attracted a remarkable amount of discussion and debate...

Which speaks more to the nature of human imagination and our penchant for logical fallacy than any innate merits of the paradox.

You speak of "an infinite number of pathways" before brains and thoughts...

Yet, (judging by your previous messages) you think that after brains, thoughts, and technology emerge, this diversity of pathways get phase-changed into a single great path leading to space travel, space colonisation and expansion through the galaxy?

Not at all. You have misjudged.

I meant only that such brainpower is a necessary ingredient for space travel and interstellar colonization. Remember, I said even we already-sentient humans potentially could return to space after being bombed back to the stone age. It happened once, it could happen again, but nothing is guaranteed, ever. There might be multiple technological paths that lead to space, even, we don't know.

Certainly empires like China and the Arab world historically developed technology, engineering, mathematics, etc faster than Western Europe, before imported Eastern knowledge led Europe to the Renaissance. I say this to point out that even here on Earth, things are not linear. Tech trees are like Banyan trees, with multiple roots, branches and trunks all blending into each other. How much more so would it be among lifeforms with different brains and environments?

Infinite diversity in infinite combinations.

[Jens]

Which speaks more to the nature of human imagination and our penchant for logical fallacy than any innate merits of the paradox.

That's an interesting point, about the logical fallacies that prompt us (meaning us, collectively, as in all people interested in this topic, not just on this board). to continue this discussion. I'm not sure what logical fallacies I made that encourage me to continue thinking about this. Do you have an idea of the logical fallacies you have that encourage you to participate in it?

[Noclevername]

That's an interesting point, about the logical fallacies that prompt us (meaning us, collectively, as in all people interested in this topic, not just on this board). to continue this discussion. I'm not sure what logical fallacies I made that encourage me to continue thinking about this. Do you have an idea of the logical fallacies you have that encourage you to participate in it?

I'm saying the paradox itself is a based on logical fallacy; I'm not ascribing personal motives to anyone.

[Jens]

I'm saying the paradox itself is a based on logical fallacy; I'm not ascribing personal motives to anyone.

Right, but I guess I meant to say, why are you and I and others continuing to discuss this if it is based on a logical fallacy? I guess "because we're all dumb" is one possible answer.

[Noclevername]

Right, but I guess I meant to say, why are you and I and others continuing to discuss this if it is based on a logical fallacy? I guess "because we're all dumb" is one possible answer.

I dunno. I'm not going to try to guess at what's going on in other people's heads.

[Jens]

I dunno. I'm not going to try to guess at what's going on in other people's heads.

But there's still what's going on in your own head.

In my case, I find it an interesting issue, and am personally interested in why we do seem to be alone. My own view (as I think I've said before) is that the enormous expanse of space and the difficulty of traveling across it is surely one of the factors. But I am interested in what others think.

I guess the question is more why you are interested in it if you think it's based on a logical fallacy.

[Noclevername]

But there's still what's going on in your own head.

In my case, I find it an interesting issue, and am personally interested in why we do seem to be alone. My own view (as I think I've said before) is that the enormous expanse of space and the difficulty of traveling across it is surely one of the factors. But I am interested in what others think.

I guess the question is more why you are interested in it if you think it's based on a logical fallacy.

I'm interested, that's all.

[Noclevername]

Fermi's paradox is more of a question than a paradox, and probably one of, if not the most intriguing questions we want the answer to - where is everyone else? So its not so much the "paradox" but more so "are we alone" that gains interest and speculation.

I agree. There's a lot to unpack under the umbrella of one seemingly simple question.

[cosmocrazy]

I agree. There's a lot to unpack under the umbrella of one seemingly simple question.

Yes, and its the content of possibilities that keeps me interested during these discussions. Its not that I'm looking for any particular answer, we just don't have all the information we need to make even an educated guess on one possibility over another. It's the uncountable factors that may determine an answer that keeps discussions like these alive.