I have a boring solution to the Fermi paradox. It is old, but really, really boring.<p>Start looking at things that are weird about our Solar System and the Earth. Figure out which ones are probably necessary for intelligence. Add those into the Fermi calculation. And see that it is likely that we're the first intelligent life in this galaxy.<p>What are some of those special things? It is not enough to have a planet that has the right ingredients to start life. It is necessary that it's progress not be constantly wiped out by major disasters over a very long time scale. What kinds of disasters?<p>You don't want a supernova going off too close. We have been lucky to avoid that. Our odds were greatly improved by the fact that we spend most of our time out of the galactic plane, away from other stars that could be about to go boom. This is an unusual orbit.<p>You don't want to be hit by too many comets. We've been hit by some, but far, far less than we would have without Jupiter acting like a sweeper to clean up dangerous stuff in our neighborhood. How rare is that? We have cataloged planets in hundreds of other solar systems. We see ones with only rocky planets. Ones with only gas giants. But we're the only one we know of with both gas giants and rocky planets. The only one where the rocky planets wind up protected from most of dinosaur killer kinds of impacts.<p>Oh, and get this one. Without the Moon, the tilt of the Earth's spin is unstable. Without it, in simulations we would wind up with one pole aimed at the Sun and the other not once every few tens of millions of years. Probably not good for the development of intelligent life. Again we don't know how rare this is, but we suspect that it is rather uncommon.<p>Suppose that each of these only happens to one star out of a thousand. Suppose further that there is one more, as yet unidentified, special factor about us that is also required. Again make that a 1/1000 coincidence. That would make the odds good that of the ~250 billion stars in our galaxy, we're the only ones with intelligent life.<p>Or if you do the back of the envelope just with the three that I named, and made them 1/10,000 coincidences, you get the same result.<p>As a sanity check, the fact that no other intelligent life has been observed is evidence that it is unlikely. And given Fermi's argument, it is probably unlikely at least on the scale of 100 billion to one against.
My favorite solution: The galaxy is teeming with life, but in the form of quasi-immortal software that lives at such vast timescales, they're as uninterested in talking to us as we would be in talking to a fruit fly. (Imagine Space Ents that say hello, and are perfectly content to wait 10,000 years for a reply.) It may well be that becoming such a life form is the only practical way to deal with the speed-of-light constraint, either in travel or communication.
I think that thinking around the Fermi Paradox has the fatal flaw that we think our current technological boom can be extrapolated. We have the feeling that the Kardashev scale, even type 1, is attainable. I'm more technological pessimistic and think it is not attainable. I think the technological boom will peter off, because of hard insolvable questions limited by nature and energy and money. We are enthusiastic now because of past progress and progress we see we can still make. But we will get in diminishing return time and slow stabilization before too long. And progress will become hard until impossible.<p>Humans will never colonize this galaxy. It's too hard, too expensive, and too pointless. And neither will other intelligent civilizations, of which I guess a small handful at most will exist in the lifetime of our galaxy. Maybe some galaxies do exist where a civilization lives that put everything of their energy on spreading within their galaxies. But even they will not be able to spread to other galaxies. The acceleration of the universe and the extreme distances and nothingness forbids that.
The Percolation Theory reasons that Earth might linger in an uninteresting part of the Milky Way: its galactic backwaters. See:<p>* [1998] <a href="http://www.geoffreylandis.com/percolation.htp" rel="nofollow">http://www.geoffreylandis.com/percolation.htp</a><p>* [2014] <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.0204" rel="nofollow">https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.0204</a>
The notion we'd settle on planetary surfaces makes assumptions on the anthropology of our offspring.<p>Moving between stars requires us to master living in enclosed habitats for generations. If we do that, why would we bother with planets? We could arrive at the periphery of a system or an accretion disk of a young star, get all the materials to build a couple hundred new habitats and launch them towards the next system.<p>Would we still want to settle on planetary surfaces?
My “boring” “explanation”: the number of alien intelligences is unknowable and irrelevant because interstellar travel and communication are both near as damnit impossible.
FTA: "Faster-growing, rapacious societies might peter out before they could touch all the stars."<p>I don't get this reasoning. The way I see it: every solar system that gets settled is a fresh roll of the dice. Every newly colonized system increases the odds that at least one of these settlements will not self-destruct.<p>Polynesia is a great analogy. While Easter Island is suffering, Hawaiʻi, Tahiti and hundreds of other islands might still be going strong.
Folks, the "Great Filter"[1] is looking us right in the face, in the form of catastrophic climate change[2].<p>It seems quite a likely hypothesis that any upcoming intelligent species would, like us, ride the horse of fossil fuels right into disaster.<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter</a><p>[2] <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans-annotated.html" rel="nofollow">http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-...</a>
I propose the Morris equation for the odds of alien life finding us:<p>N = ( R * fp * ne * fl * fi * fc * L ) / ( AI * VR * D * S * M )<p>Where the Drake equation:<p>N = The number of civilizations in the Milky Way Galaxy who detect our electromagnetic emmissions<p>R = Average rate of formation of suitable stars (stars/year) in the Milky Way galaxy<p>fp = Fraction of stars that form planets<p>ne = Average number of habitable planets per star<p>fl = Fraction of habitable planets (ne) where life emerges<p>fi = Fraction of habitable planets with life where intelligent evolves<p>fc = Fraction of planets with intelligent life capable of interstellar communication<p>L = Years a civilization remains detectable<p>Is divided by the karma equation:<p>AI = Whether or not aliens have merged with artificial intelligence, become their own God and are no longer interested in us (tends towards 1)<p>VR = Whether or not aliens have virtual reality akin to the movie The Matrix and live in a hedonistic paradise indefinitely (tends towards 1)<p>D = Number of psychedelic drugs available to aliens that are at least as compelling as actual reality (tends towards infinity)<p>S = Percentage of aliens that reproduce sexually or are able to spend a lifetime living in their parents' basement pondering aliens (let's just say 50%)<p>M = Whether or not aliens use money so contact with extraterrestrials is considered too great a risk (somewhere between 0 and 1)<p>So as with all things, first contact by extraterrestrials is likely dominated by the need to procreate and money.
On a related note, this recent article explores the idea that life may be inevitable. (An idea going back at least as far as Ilya Prigogine.)<p><a href="https://qz.com/1539551/is-the-universe-pro-life-the-fermi-paradox-can-help-explain/" rel="nofollow">https://qz.com/1539551/is-the-universe-pro-life-the-fermi-pa...</a><p>"According to the inevitable life theory, biological systems spontaneously emerge because they more efficiently disperse, or “dissipate” energy, thereby increasing the entropy of the surroundings. In other words, life is thermodynamically favorable."
Isaac Arthur has a whole series of podcasts that cover all the current ideas around the Fermi paradox, which ones are more or less likely and why. Really interesting stuff. Here's a link to his Fermi Paradox playlist on Youtube: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIIOUpOge0LulClL2dHXh8TTOnCgRkLdU" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIIOUpOge0LulClL2dHXh...</a><p>He's also got a Soundcloud for audio-only format and a Facebook group.
The problem with the Fermi paradox is that it requires you to assume the existence of spacefaring civilizations, with all the expected technology. The possibilities are just to many, and we only know relatively well our own solar system, we don't know how normal it is (recent observations suggests it could be at least kind of odd) or how normal Earth is. As it is quoted, Earth for us is all there is and it would seem completely normal to us even if for any well educated alien it could look obviously artificial.<p>The Black planet hypothesis: There are planets intentionally cut off the bigger society. Spacefaring civilizations are largely immortal, and would be kept in an evolutionary stasis, so there are planets that are intentionally kept isolated and prisoners are kept on them in a pre galactic stage as a way to keep evolving.<p>Impending doom hypothesis: An immense catastrophe is expected to happen in the general area, and all the surrounding space has been evacuated.<p>Presumed recluse hypothesis: Our solar system is recognized as obviously artificial, yet attempts to communicate are met with no response. We are perceived as unwilling to communicate and intentionally left alone.<p>Planets are primitive hypothesis: More advanced civilizations have no interest in settling planets, planets are seen as primitive as living in a rainforest is to us, while advanced civilizations normally live in artificial habitats.<p>Unpleasant star hypothesis: The solar wind, neutrino flow or other forms of radiation may be disruptive to highly advanced technology, so the sources are avoided unless necessary.
tl;dr it shouldn't take as long as previously thought to colonize the galaxy based on a simulation.<p>That's largely an irrelevant finding that adds nothing to the Fermi Paradox because the time it would take to colonize the galaxy is so small in cosmological terms that shortening it is irrelevant.<p>What's more the authors decided to modeled the suitability of star systems impeding colonization when this seems like it would be largely irrelevant because starfaring civilizations seem highly unlikely to be planet-bound as this is a pretty inefficient use of mass. The Dyson Sphere (Swarm) seems much more likely at which point the only thing of value is the star. The planets are just piles of raw materials ultimately.<p>Obligatory plug for Isaac Arthur who has a series of videos on the Fermi Paradox. Here's an early one [1]. There are 10-20 others that go into particular aspects.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDPj5zI66LA" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDPj5zI66LA</a>
i dont know why people think there is a paradox. the way that life springs from barren rock is not known. if we dont know how that works, then we cant assign a probability to it happening on a given planet. people just assume that the probability is very high. it could be next to nothing for all we know, small enough so that even the entire universe only produces one. the paradox is all based on huge assumptions. there is no paradox until we prove that the probability is high.<p>well thats not true, because you need life but you also need intelligence. and again, everyone assumes that if you have life it will eventually become intelligent. and people assume that if life is intelligent it will eventually build space shuttles. its all a huge, huge assumption. look at all the animals that qualify as intelligent. some birds and monkeys are hugely intelligent, but they dont build space shuttles. this shows that intelligence doesnt equal space shuttles and that even when life springs up, and even when it becomes intelligent, it still could be super unlikely that it will build space shuttles.<p>hell, there are even humans that might have never built space shuttles. there are indigenous communities all over the planet that never developed technology and probably never would have. when you live in a warm climate and food is abundant, there may never be a reason to.<p>it is unproven that it is likely at all for space-shuttle level intelligence to spring up from bare earth. there is no paradox. its probably just really unlikely.
If we assume that most stars are in a sort of orbit around the core, wouldn't the stars stay in relatively the same place? And regardless, wouldn't they still require the ability and timing to take advantage of those moments the solar system's get close to each-other? That still requires a monstrous amount of technology and energy, doesn't it?
Do we have an estimate for likelihood of noticing earth as a life containing planet as a function of how far away we might imagine ourselves in the galaxy given current methods?
> <i>It’s possible that the Milky Way is partially settled, or intermittently so; maybe explorers visited us in the past, but we don’t remember, and they died out. The solar system may well be amid other settled systems; it’s just been unvisited for millions of years.</i><p>This, however, does not explain the complete lack of artifacts or observable technological signatures.
The obvious, but hard to swallow solution to the Fermi paradox: aliens are a product of science-fiction, and don't exist. Not everything we can come up with in thought experiments has a real life counterpart.
There are lots of aliens. Heck, there were aliens attending certain underground raves in Seattle in the 90's.<p>The Fermi Paradox is about the psychology of humans, not the external universe.<p>As soon as you can psychologically handle communication with other folks it becomes easy to meet and greet them. There are "outreach coordinators" who volunteer to take humans on jaunts within the local neighborhood (nearby star systems, etc.)<p>Our planet experienced a disaster ("dis": separation; "aster": stars; "disaster" is a separation from the stars) a few thousand years ago (Younger Dryas comet) and we've been recovering ever since. Our neighbors have been helping us for all that time. Psychologically our species is an accident victim and we have been recovering from the trauma, which is why our history is so messed up and violent. Normal sentient beings are mensches. We'll get there.