5 ms·

The more unlikely it gets that we would be the only intelligent life, the more dire our future outlook, due to the lack of signs of intelligent civilization in

The more unlikely it gets that we would be the only intelligent life, the more dire our future outlook, due to the lack of signs of intelligent civilization in the stars. If they must have existed, then there must also be a reason they don't anymore.

ShamelessC 6y ago
There's also the Dark Forest theory which suggests any space faring civilization which broadcasts signals too loudly is "quickly" eliminated/threatened by a more advanced civilization. All that remain are the civilizations smart enough to remain silent.
misja111 6y ago
It can simply be that civilisations, no matter how intelligent, do not send out any signals that are strong enough for us to detect from our distance.
- kazagistar 6y ago
  Its not signals. They should already be here if interstellar colonization is at all possible.
  - drcongo 6y ago
    Couldn't they just be at a similar evolutionary level to us, looking at the first photo of our solar system taken from theirs?
    - defnotashton2 6y ago
      I think the earth is considered relatively young and so are humans compared to the universe so there should be others. Hence the Fermi paradox.
  - pharke 6y ago
    I don't think there is sufficient evidence to say that an automated probe has not already visited our solar system. Let's consider two probe types Von Neumann and Bracewell Von Neumann: 1) They arrived too early for us to have a chance of detecting them and they left little trace 2) One or more have arrived recently but they are discrete e.g. no active propulsion, passive sensors, tight beam communication, they only harvest a small amount of material for self-replication etc. 3) We just aren't looking hard enough, space is big and we have limited resources devoted to this pursuit 4) We've observed the activity of a probe but we mistook it for an anomaly or a natural occurrence Bracewell: 1) Non-self replicating and arrived and left too early 2) Present but not fully autonomous and awaiting confirmation to begin contact (could be a long time waiting depending on distance from home) 3) Present, fully autonomous but we haven't met the criteria to begin contact 4) Present, fully autonomous, has attempted to contact us but we lack the ability to detect and understand their method of communication 5) Present, fully autonomous, has successfully contacted us but whoever was in contact has successfully convinced the probe to not make itself more widely known and has managed to keep their own communication with it a secret (probably the most unlikely scenario but still possible if the probe has protocols for dealing with local geopolitics) If we're talking about colonization by the alien species itself there are still further explanations for silence: 1) All civilizations capable of reaching us have some equivalent of the "Prime Directive" where they do not forcibly colonize or contact primitive civilizations 2) No civilizations attempt to colonize the entire galaxy, perhaps they all focus on fully utilizing each solar system as they need it, maybe they eventually run out of needs that require expansion. The human population is trending towards replacement level birthrate within the next 100 years, if that is a common trend for all intelligent life then their population may simply stop expanding at some point and after a limited number of systems are colonized they may not have enough population to support further expansion. Maybe birthrates actually trend to 0 and lifespan approaches immortality. 3) Maybe colonizing planets is a dumb idea. Gravity wells are hard to get out of so once your civilization moves to space maybe it just stays in space. We are proposing generation ships as a main method of colonization but if the ship is good enough to live on for generations then why disembark? Why not just continue to live in space habitats and travel the galaxy continuously? Planets are dangerous and unpredictable with uncontrolled weather, volcanism, asteroid impacts, solar flares, etc. If you build a synthetic world you don't need to worry about that. 4) There might be other alternatives, upload to VR, conversion to another form of matter, time travel, alternate universes. These are pretty unlikely but so is the probability that we are the only life to have emerged in such a vast galaxy.
credit_guy 6y ago
> the lack of signs of intelligent civilization in the stars And what would such sings look like? The only conceivable sign that we could observe with our current technology is Dyson spheres. It's however entirely reasonable that intelligent civilizations can advance to quite highly technological levels and not develop Dyson spheres. If a civilization like ours were to inhabit the nearest star system, Proxima Centauri, and zip happily in rockets from one planet to another (of which there are at least 2 confirmed), and beam radio messages back and forth among themselves, would we be able to tell?
- guerrilla 6y ago
  Not to mention that there may be alternatives to Dyson swarms that anyone capable of building one learns about on the way to gaining that capability. I'll start listening to people telling me about missing signs after we have a unified theory of physics that includes an interpretation of QM, quantum gravity with proper explanations for galactic rotation and inflation among other things.
defnotashton2 6y ago
Nah we are just out in the sticks.
ChuckMcM 6y ago
There are other, albeit more far fetched, ideas about the situation. One I find interesting is that we are like a chick pecking away at our egg shell. As we get closer to being multi-planetary do we get to be more or less warlike? Do we settle on one ruling class and everyone else in bonds, or do we settle on a shared bounty? Do we destroy the world that birthed us, or do we come to grips with our own needs and develop what we need to live in perpetuity on the world we started on? On a much larger scale it doesn't seem all that much different than the growth of a person from child, to teen, to young adult, and adult. And in those stages of growth the perception of the world and one's place in it changes. Some learn self restraint, others do not, Etc. Even before young people start to drive they get to point where doing stupid things can kill them. The theory I find interesting is that civilizations are out there watching and the history is that some civilizations "grow up" and survive, and others don't. Some do something stupid in their "teen years" and kill themselves off, some develop a personality that results in them doing something that kills them. Some make it through that and become adults with a reasonable understanding and nominal "acceptance" of the things one has to do to stay alive and be civil. Maybe when we're "old enough" as a civilization, and we certainly will have enough science to understand that other civilizations could exist and how. They will introduce themselves.

ShamelessC 6y ago

There's also the Dark Forest theory which suggests any space faring civilization which broadcasts signals too loudly is "quickly" eliminated/threatened by a more advanced civilization. All that remain are the civilizations smart enough to remain silent.

misja111 6y ago

It can simply be that civilisations, no matter how intelligent, do not send out any signals that are strong enough for us to detect from our distance.

kazagistar 6y ago
Its not signals. They should already be here if interstellar colonization is at all possible.
- drcongo 6y ago
  Couldn't they just be at a similar evolutionary level to us, looking at the first photo of our solar system taken from theirs?
  - defnotashton2 6y ago
    I think the earth is considered relatively young and so are humans compared to the universe so there should be others. Hence the Fermi paradox.
- pharke 6y ago
  I don't think there is sufficient evidence to say that an automated probe has not already visited our solar system. Let's consider two probe types Von Neumann and Bracewell Von Neumann: 1) They arrived too early for us to have a chance of detecting them and they left little trace 2) One or more have arrived recently but they are discrete e.g. no active propulsion, passive sensors, tight beam communication, they only harvest a small amount of material for self-replication etc. 3) We just aren't looking hard enough, space is big and we have limited resources devoted to this pursuit 4) We've observed the activity of a probe but we mistook it for an anomaly or a natural occurrence Bracewell: 1) Non-self replicating and arrived and left too early 2) Present but not fully autonomous and awaiting confirmation to begin contact (could be a long time waiting depending on distance from home) 3) Present, fully autonomous but we haven't met the criteria to begin contact 4) Present, fully autonomous, has attempted to contact us but we lack the ability to detect and understand their method of communication 5) Present, fully autonomous, has successfully contacted us but whoever was in contact has successfully convinced the probe to not make itself more widely known and has managed to keep their own communication with it a secret (probably the most unlikely scenario but still possible if the probe has protocols for dealing with local geopolitics) If we're talking about colonization by the alien species itself there are still further explanations for silence: 1) All civilizations capable of reaching us have some equivalent of the "Prime Directive" where they do not forcibly colonize or contact primitive civilizations 2) No civilizations attempt to colonize the entire galaxy, perhaps they all focus on fully utilizing each solar system as they need it, maybe they eventually run out of needs that require expansion. The human population is trending towards replacement level birthrate within the next 100 years, if that is a common trend for all intelligent life then their population may simply stop expanding at some point and after a limited number of systems are colonized they may not have enough population to support further expansion. Maybe birthrates actually trend to 0 and lifespan approaches immortality. 3) Maybe colonizing planets is a dumb idea. Gravity wells are hard to get out of so once your civilization moves to space maybe it just stays in space. We are proposing generation ships as a main method of colonization but if the ship is good enough to live on for generations then why disembark? Why not just continue to live in space habitats and travel the galaxy continuously? Planets are dangerous and unpredictable with uncontrolled weather, volcanism, asteroid impacts, solar flares, etc. If you build a synthetic world you don't need to worry about that. 4) There might be other alternatives, upload to VR, conversion to another form of matter, time travel, alternate universes. These are pretty unlikely but so is the probability that we are the only life to have emerged in such a vast galaxy.

credit_guy 6y ago

> the lack of signs of intelligent civilization in the stars And what would such sings look like? The only conceivable sign that we could observe with our current technology is Dyson spheres. It's however entirely reasonable that intelligent civilizations can advance to quite highly technological levels and not develop Dyson spheres. If a civilization like ours were to inhabit the nearest star system, Proxima Centauri, and zip happily in rockets from one planet to another (of which there are at least 2 confirmed), and beam radio messages back and forth among themselves, would we be able to tell?

guerrilla 6y ago
Not to mention that there may be alternatives to Dyson swarms that anyone capable of building one learns about on the way to gaining that capability. I'll start listening to people telling me about missing signs after we have a unified theory of physics that includes an interpretation of QM, quantum gravity with proper explanations for galactic rotation and inflation among other things.

defnotashton2 6y ago

Nah we are just out in the sticks.

ChuckMcM 6y ago

There are other, albeit more far fetched, ideas about the situation. One I find interesting is that we are like a chick pecking away at our egg shell. As we get closer to being multi-planetary do we get to be more or less warlike? Do we settle on one ruling class and everyone else in bonds, or do we settle on a shared bounty? Do we destroy the world that birthed us, or do we come to grips with our own needs and develop what we need to live in perpetuity on the world we started on? On a much larger scale it doesn't seem all that much different than the growth of a person from child, to teen, to young adult, and adult. And in those stages of growth the perception of the world and one's place in it changes. Some learn self restraint, others do not, Etc. Even before young people start to drive they get to point where doing stupid things can kill them. The theory I find interesting is that civilizations are out there watching and the history is that some civilizations "grow up" and survive, and others don't. Some do something stupid in their "teen years" and kill themselves off, some develop a personality that results in them doing something that kills them. Some make it through that and become adults with a reasonable understanding and nominal "acceptance" of the things one has to do to stay alive and be civil. Maybe when we're "old enough" as a civilization, and we certainly will have enough science to understand that other civilizations could exist and how. They will introduce themselves.