6 ms·

Is this why we have not yet found signs of intelligent life in the universe? Every time a civilization is advanced enough to really screw up (their) planet, ine

by whyenot 10y ago

Is this why we have not yet found signs of intelligent life in the universe? Every time a civilization is advanced enough to really screw up (their) planet, inevitably, they do? Fermi Paradox redux.

M_Grey 10y ago
I think it's a good possible resolution, yeah, generally referred to as 'The Great Filter Hypothesis'.
- antisthenes 10y ago
  It is necessary to note, however, that the great filter does not necessarily occur when a civilization achieves some arbitrary technological level. In fact, it could be at the point of single cell --> multi-cellular organisms or at the point of sexual dimorphism or developing general intelligence and ability to use tools, etc. I guess it's also possible there are multiple Great Filters...
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    That's a good point, and you're right of course. In fact I take some hopeful comfort in the notion that while the leap from organic molecules to single-cells might not have been too big, there are some indication that going to multicellular life was a leap that took quite some time. We still have reasons to hope, but we're doing almost all that we can to extinguish that hope.
mattmanser 10y ago
It's not a particularly good candidate I would think. For example we know what's happening and could theoretically have stopped it but didn't/don't have the will. The Fermi paradox requires it to be extremely unlikely to survive, but you could imagine scenarios on other worlds where the right kind of political situation was around to stop it.
- louthy 10y ago
  > but you could imagine scenarios on other worlds where the right kind of political situation was around to stop it. I can't imagine that. The only evidence I have to date (from a sample size of 1 planet) is that there is next to zero real political will, even if the politicians of the world create additional heat saying they have in fact found the political will.
  - deathhand 10y ago
    Because we are not unified and working towards the same goal. Tribalism is our roots and they will be our ends. That is the problem with too many sentient beings-everyone believes they deserve something. Thus no intilligent life unless they are a single entity.
    - jnicholasp 10y ago
      Competition is not the only response to being one entity among many, and it is not even necessarily the most reasonable response. Cooperation is also possible, and it is one of the necessary elements in every human organization, from the family to global cultures. We have civilization because we are to some degree able to cooperate, and if you simply turn up the dial on that trait, it is easy to imagine that other creatures could exist who were even better cooperators - and who would be collectively even more successful because of it.
      - TeMPOraL 10y ago
        Sure. The point here, we're not coordinated enough. Not by a long shot.
        jnicholasp 10y ago
        I'm not arguing here that we are. I'm arguing that it is conceivable that intelligent creatures could exist that were.
codecamper 10y ago
Yes I think this is the reason. At least for our class of life: organic. Organic life naturally evolved & so all intelligent organic life lives on top of a pile of stored chemical energy (oil / coal / methane gas) Organic life evolves through competition and so when chemical energy is discovered it is rapidly used, most often faster than such intelligent life can figure out what a truly bad idea that is. Once they realize, it's too late. Runaway climate change is occurring. And this ends the intelligent life.
rimliu 10y ago
No. We did not find any signs, because Universe is very very very very very big, live is very very rare and signal speed is finite. Just look up some visualisation how far our own radio signals have spread since the first were transmitted — they cover just a tiny volume of space.
jug 10y ago
Also, another problem that you easily put yourself into and that we did as well, besides the climate change, is that our world is built on non-renewable resources. Easy, abundant access to oil was essential to kickstart the current society as this only demands low tech solutions for success. Could humanity do the same with the current resources if we were forced to start over?
NoGravitas 10y ago
Yes, that's the [Toolmaker Koan][0]. [0]: https://www.amazon.com/Toolmaker-Koan-John-McLoughlin/dp/067169779X https://www.amazon.com/Toolmaker-Koan-John-McLoughlin/dp/067...
good_vibes 10y ago
I agree. This is where the bottleneck is. What really hurts for me is knowing just how close we are but how many are willfully choosing to stay in the dark. We really could make the planet habitable for humans for at least a few more centuries while we become multiplanetary but inertia is our biggest obstacle right now, not lack of technology or information.

by whyenot 10y ago

Is this why we have not yet found signs of intelligent life in the universe? Every time a civilization is advanced enough to really screw up (their) planet, inevitably, they do? Fermi Paradox redux.

M_Grey 10y ago

I think it's a good possible resolution, yeah, generally referred to as 'The Great Filter Hypothesis'.

antisthenes 10y ago
It is necessary to note, however, that the great filter does not necessarily occur when a civilization achieves some arbitrary technological level. In fact, it could be at the point of single cell --> multi-cellular organisms or at the point of sexual dimorphism or developing general intelligence and ability to use tools, etc. I guess it's also possible there are multiple Great Filters...
- M_Grey 10y ago
  That's a good point, and you're right of course. In fact I take some hopeful comfort in the notion that while the leap from organic molecules to single-cells might not have been too big, there are some indication that going to multicellular life was a leap that took quite some time. We still have reasons to hope, but we're doing almost all that we can to extinguish that hope.

mattmanser 10y ago

It's not a particularly good candidate I would think. For example we know what's happening and could theoretically have stopped it but didn't/don't have the will. The Fermi paradox requires it to be extremely unlikely to survive, but you could imagine scenarios on other worlds where the right kind of political situation was around to stop it.

louthy 10y ago
> but you could imagine scenarios on other worlds where the right kind of political situation was around to stop it. I can't imagine that. The only evidence I have to date (from a sample size of 1 planet) is that there is next to zero real political will, even if the politicians of the world create additional heat saying they have in fact found the political will.
- deathhand 10y ago
  Because we are not unified and working towards the same goal. Tribalism is our roots and they will be our ends. That is the problem with too many sentient beings-everyone believes they deserve something. Thus no intilligent life unless they are a single entity.
  - jnicholasp 10y ago
    Competition is not the only response to being one entity among many, and it is not even necessarily the most reasonable response. Cooperation is also possible, and it is one of the necessary elements in every human organization, from the family to global cultures. We have civilization because we are to some degree able to cooperate, and if you simply turn up the dial on that trait, it is easy to imagine that other creatures could exist who were even better cooperators - and who would be collectively even more successful because of it.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      Sure. The point here, we're not coordinated enough. Not by a long shot.
      - jnicholasp 10y ago
        I'm not arguing here that we are. I'm arguing that it is conceivable that intelligent creatures could exist that were.

codecamper 10y ago

Yes I think this is the reason. At least for our class of life: organic. Organic life naturally evolved & so all intelligent organic life lives on top of a pile of stored chemical energy (oil / coal / methane gas) Organic life evolves through competition and so when chemical energy is discovered it is rapidly used, most often faster than such intelligent life can figure out what a truly bad idea that is. Once they realize, it's too late. Runaway climate change is occurring. And this ends the intelligent life.

rimliu 10y ago

No. We did not find any signs, because Universe is very very very very very big, live is very very rare and signal speed is finite. Just look up some visualisation how far our own radio signals have spread since the first were transmitted — they cover just a tiny volume of space.

jug 10y ago

Also, another problem that you easily put yourself into and that we did as well, besides the climate change, is that our world is built on non-renewable resources. Easy, abundant access to oil was essential to kickstart the current society as this only demands low tech solutions for success. Could humanity do the same with the current resources if we were forced to start over?

NoGravitas 10y ago

Yes, that's the [Toolmaker Koan][0]. [0]: https://www.amazon.com/Toolmaker-Koan-John-McLoughlin/dp/067169779X https://www.amazon.com/Toolmaker-Koan-John-McLoughlin/dp/067...

good_vibes 10y ago

I agree. This is where the bottleneck is. What really hurts for me is knowing just how close we are but how many are willfully choosing to stay in the dark. We really could make the planet habitable for humans for at least a few more centuries while we become multiplanetary but inertia is our biggest obstacle right now, not lack of technology or information.