4 ms·

We can't detect life at our stage of development from afar, or from earlier stages, but things that extremely advanced civilizations build like dyson spheres ca

by est31 6y ago

We can't detect life at our stage of development from afar, or from earlier stages, but things that extremely advanced civilizations build like dyson spheres can't be hidden really. The issue is that the universe is extremely old compared to how long it took for earth to develop life. It's ample time for civilizations to develop technologies extremely far more advanced than ours. So why isn't there a single civilization that's so advanced that it builds these things? So there must be some "filter" that prevents civilizations from doing that, whether they are alive or dead. Maybe they just don't want to, but then ALL of them have to not want to do it, which would be weird. If we detect life close to us, it makes it more likely that there is tons of life around the galaxy, which makes it more likely that the filter is ahead of us. If we detect no life close to us, it makes it more likely that the filter is past us. See this Kurzgesagt video about the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjtOGPJ0URM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjtOGPJ0URM

TremendousJudge 6y ago
I don't like that theory, it's completely limited by our current understanding of how a "more advanced" civilization would look like. If we haven't seen signs of what we think more advanced civilizations would look like, the simplest explanation is that what we think advanced civilizations are like is wrong
- oska 6y ago
  I agree. Saying that a Dyson Sphere is something that an 'extremely advanced civilization would build' presumes that we can project the course of civilization. Seems presumptuous and short sighted to me.
  - Gibbon1 6y ago
    Yeah a Dyson Sphere contains the presumption that an advanced alien civilization's population would grow exponentially like earths population did in the 20th century. I don't know how you square a utterly stupid idea like exponential population growth with the word advanced in advanced civilization. Instead this sounds like blinkered mid twentieth century thinking. Or the old science fiction trope of seeing the future as like the present but more of it.
olmideso 6y ago
> If we detect life close to us, it makes it more likely that there is tons of life around the galaxy, which makes it more likely that the filter is ahead of us. Isn't is the other way around? I though that the main argument for the filter ahead of us is that we haven't found any civilization, which means civilizations cannot develop past some level at which they can be detected by us. But if we'll have found one, this means that such level of civilization can be passed, and therefore reduces the chances that there is a filter.
- bdamm 6y ago
  I think by "life" the parent was talking about microbes on Mars or waterbears on comets or something. Technology developing life is a different thing entirely. If we find primitive life nearby, then there probably is primitive life everywhere, and very little technology developing life (because of the "filter").
rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y ago
I've always thought it made more sense that microbial life with took billions of years to develop, and originated someplace other than earth. The reason we don't see hyper-advanced civilizations is because intelligent life is only just starting to pop up alongside us, right now, and perhaps we're one of the earlier manifestations. It's not my domain, but there are apparently some markers of genetic complexity that give some weight to this theory: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1304/1304.3381.pdf https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1304/1304.3381.pdf
- vkou 6y ago
  > I've always thought it made more sense that microbial life with took billions of years to develop, and originated someplace other than earth. The reason we don't see hyper-advanced civilizations is because intelligent life is only just starting to pop up alongside us, right now, and perhaps we're one of the earlier manifestations. This explanation does not work, because of the timescales. Five thousand years ago, we built the Pyramids. Fifty years ago, we landed on the Moon. In contrast, it took four billion years to go from single-celled life, to the pyramids. The odds of us being first by happenstance are astonishingly small. It's much more likely that either we are unique, or that civilizations don't leave much of a trace outside of their solar systems, regardless of whether or not they die out in the blink of a cosmic eye.
  - baggy_trough 6y ago
    We simply haven't developed enough yet. It wouldn't be good game design to encounter other civs at this stage.
    - Roboprog 6y ago
      Tutorial level civilization. You must complete energy collection on current planet for XP to advance to level 2.
- est31 6y ago
  Personally I think life originated on earth. We shouldn't look at contemporary prokaryotes to determine how complex prokaryotes were at the start of life. They had billions of years to develop as well and if the more complex ones are fitter than the less complex ones, they will win. E.g. you think rotting plants is a normal thing but there was a time when plants wouldn't and just form giant heaps, forming the coal reservoirs of today. Anyways, let's assume life originated at some other planet and it has started life at half of the galaxy at the time it reached earth (so we weren't lucky to be "close" to the origin). Earth is 4500 million years old, and life is assumed to have existed here since 4400 million years. So intelligent life took 4400 million years to "develop" here on earth. Light speed allows you to colonize the milky way comfortably within a million years. What if it takes 100 million years less on some other planet? Or it took just 10 million years less? Either earth is very close to the real origin (or has been at the start of life), or the filter is in the past, or some other explanation.
vkou 6y ago
My preferred solution to the great filter is to assume that things like Dyson spheres can't feasibly be built, at any level of technological development. So there may be millions of civilizations that can get into orbit with chemical or nuclear rockets, but not a single one that can carry out a megaproject that could be seen from Earth.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
baja_blast 6y ago
> The issue is that the universe is extremely old compared to how long it took for earth to develop life I wouldn't call the universe very old. It's only like 13.x billion years old. If you take into account the amount of time it takes for heavier elements to be created, the time for the universe to settle down I'd say we are in the first cohort. It took us 4.5 billion years to evolve and if humanity got wiped out life on Earth would most likely continue on as it has for millions of years before with megafauna. Looking at how life appeared immediately after the planet cooled down and had liquid oceans most likely indicates abiogenesis is common, multicellular may be much more rare and intelligence probably is exceedingly rare given how expensive big brains are. I just don't think there was enough time in the early universe for intelligent civilizations to have evolved.

by est31 6y ago

TremendousJudge 6y ago

I don't like that theory, it's completely limited by our current understanding of how a "more advanced" civilization would look like. If we haven't seen signs of what we think more advanced civilizations would look like, the simplest explanation is that what we think advanced civilizations are like is wrong

oska 6y ago
I agree. Saying that a Dyson Sphere is something that an 'extremely advanced civilization would build' presumes that we can project the course of civilization. Seems presumptuous and short sighted to me.
- Gibbon1 6y ago
  Yeah a Dyson Sphere contains the presumption that an advanced alien civilization's population would grow exponentially like earths population did in the 20th century. I don't know how you square a utterly stupid idea like exponential population growth with the word advanced in advanced civilization. Instead this sounds like blinkered mid twentieth century thinking. Or the old science fiction trope of seeing the future as like the present but more of it.

olmideso 6y ago

> If we detect life close to us, it makes it more likely that there is tons of life around the galaxy, which makes it more likely that the filter is ahead of us. Isn't is the other way around? I though that the main argument for the filter ahead of us is that we haven't found any civilization, which means civilizations cannot develop past some level at which they can be detected by us. But if we'll have found one, this means that such level of civilization can be passed, and therefore reduces the chances that there is a filter.

bdamm 6y ago
I think by "life" the parent was talking about microbes on Mars or waterbears on comets or something. Technology developing life is a different thing entirely. If we find primitive life nearby, then there probably is primitive life everywhere, and very little technology developing life (because of the "filter").

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y ago

I've always thought it made more sense that microbial life with took billions of years to develop, and originated someplace other than earth. The reason we don't see hyper-advanced civilizations is because intelligent life is only just starting to pop up alongside us, right now, and perhaps we're one of the earlier manifestations. It's not my domain, but there are apparently some markers of genetic complexity that give some weight to this theory: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1304/1304.3381.pdf https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1304/1304.3381.pdf

vkou 6y ago
> I've always thought it made more sense that microbial life with took billions of years to develop, and originated someplace other than earth. The reason we don't see hyper-advanced civilizations is because intelligent life is only just starting to pop up alongside us, right now, and perhaps we're one of the earlier manifestations. This explanation does not work, because of the timescales. Five thousand years ago, we built the Pyramids. Fifty years ago, we landed on the Moon. In contrast, it took four billion years to go from single-celled life, to the pyramids. The odds of us being first by happenstance are astonishingly small. It's much more likely that either we are unique, or that civilizations don't leave much of a trace outside of their solar systems, regardless of whether or not they die out in the blink of a cosmic eye.
- baggy_trough 6y ago
  We simply haven't developed enough yet. It wouldn't be good game design to encounter other civs at this stage.
  - Roboprog 6y ago
    Tutorial level civilization. You must complete energy collection on current planet for XP to advance to level 2.
est31 6y ago
Personally I think life originated on earth. We shouldn't look at contemporary prokaryotes to determine how complex prokaryotes were at the start of life. They had billions of years to develop as well and if the more complex ones are fitter than the less complex ones, they will win. E.g. you think rotting plants is a normal thing but there was a time when plants wouldn't and just form giant heaps, forming the coal reservoirs of today. Anyways, let's assume life originated at some other planet and it has started life at half of the galaxy at the time it reached earth (so we weren't lucky to be "close" to the origin). Earth is 4500 million years old, and life is assumed to have existed here since 4400 million years. So intelligent life took 4400 million years to "develop" here on earth. Light speed allows you to colonize the milky way comfortably within a million years. What if it takes 100 million years less on some other planet? Or it took just 10 million years less? Either earth is very close to the real origin (or has been at the start of life), or the filter is in the past, or some other explanation.

vkou 6y ago

My preferred solution to the great filter is to assume that things like Dyson spheres can't feasibly be built, at any level of technological development. So there may be millions of civilizations that can get into orbit with chemical or nuclear rockets, but not a single one that can carry out a megaproject that could be seen from Earth.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

baja_blast 6y ago

> The issue is that the universe is extremely old compared to how long it took for earth to develop life I wouldn't call the universe very old. It's only like 13.x billion years old. If you take into account the amount of time it takes for heavier elements to be created, the time for the universe to settle down I'd say we are in the first cohort. It took us 4.5 billion years to evolve and if humanity got wiped out life on Earth would most likely continue on as it has for millions of years before with megafauna. Looking at how life appeared immediately after the planet cooled down and had liquid oceans most likely indicates abiogenesis is common, multicellular may be much more rare and intelligence probably is exceedingly rare given how expensive big brains are. I just don't think there was enough time in the early universe for intelligent civilizations to have evolved.