3 ms·

But the whole point is that it does implicitly make that assumption. The fermi paradox is a paradox if and only if we would actually expect to see evidence of a

by jjk166 6y ago

But the whole point is that it does implicitly make that assumption. The fermi paradox is a paradox if and only if we would actually expect to see evidence of aliens. We would only expect to see evidence of aliens if they are actively trying to communicate with us. All other scenarios would require us to be extremely lucky (in which case there is no conflict with our lack of observation and thus no paradox). If we assume that humans are fascinating, the fermi paradox is valid, if there is no interest in interacting with humans than the fermi paradox is invalid. The discussion is not a non-sequitur, it is the crux of the issue.

karaterobot 6y ago
> All other scenarios would require us to be extremely lucky I think I understand your position now, but I don't agree with this part. The paradox is asking "if intelligent life is common, and intelligent species invented space travel billions of years ago, wouldn't we have seen some evidence of them?" It seems like you may disagree with the premise that it's likely we'd see evidence of them in any case. And that may be so. It's completely reasonable to say the Fermi paradox is invalid, for this or many other reasons. I don't think it was all that serious to begin with. My objection isn't to dismissing the question, it's to the author presenting it as though it was fundamentally about human or Earth exceptionalism. I see no reason to assume that's the case. As an illustration, does it change the nature of the question to remove Earth entirely and ask "given the age of the universe, etc., why haven't we seen evidence of alien civilizations visiting Mars? Or Titan? Or Kepler-16b?" I think it's the same paradox, it's just harder to make the point that way, since we've never been there ourselves. Asking it about Earth doesn't necessarily presume Earth is special, as the linked article suggests.
- jjk166 6y ago
  The problem is there is no way to remove earth and earth exceptionalism. The question "why haven't we seen aliens visiting mars" presupposes that we ourselves have observed mars so thoroughly that we should have expected to see such evidence. Given that we have only been closely observing mars for a few decades, either we'd have to get very lucky to see an alien visiting mars right when we just happen to be looking, or they would have to visit mars on an extremely regular basis. The fermi paradox is fundamentally about our specific lack of observation, for all we know the martians have already made contact and thus there is no paradox for them.

by jjk166 6y ago

karaterobot 6y ago

> All other scenarios would require us to be extremely lucky I think I understand your position now, but I don't agree with this part. The paradox is asking "if intelligent life is common, and intelligent species invented space travel billions of years ago, wouldn't we have seen some evidence of them?" It seems like you may disagree with the premise that it's likely we'd see evidence of them in any case. And that may be so. It's completely reasonable to say the Fermi paradox is invalid, for this or many other reasons. I don't think it was all that serious to begin with. My objection isn't to dismissing the question, it's to the author presenting it as though it was fundamentally about human or Earth exceptionalism. I see no reason to assume that's the case. As an illustration, does it change the nature of the question to remove Earth entirely and ask "given the age of the universe, etc., why haven't we seen evidence of alien civilizations visiting Mars? Or Titan? Or Kepler-16b?" I think it's the same paradox, it's just harder to make the point that way, since we've never been there ourselves. Asking it about Earth doesn't necessarily presume Earth is special, as the linked article suggests.

jjk166 6y ago
The problem is there is no way to remove earth and earth exceptionalism. The question "why haven't we seen aliens visiting mars" presupposes that we ourselves have observed mars so thoroughly that we should have expected to see such evidence. Given that we have only been closely observing mars for a few decades, either we'd have to get very lucky to see an alien visiting mars right when we just happen to be looking, or they would have to visit mars on an extremely regular basis. The fermi paradox is fundamentally about our specific lack of observation, for all we know the martians have already made contact and thus there is no paradox for them.