5 ms·

I believe that the earth centric and human centric view is the problem with the Fermi paradox. Why do we assume that a civilization more advanced than us would

I believe that the earth centric and human centric view is the problem with the Fermi paradox. Why do we assume that a civilization more advanced than us would have desires towards colonization and contact with lesser lifeforms? It would be like an ant colony assuming there are no more advanced lifeforms because a more advanced lifeform would have destroyed their colony or contacted them via pheromones

bayesian_horse 4y ago
With the "grabby aliens" there is only the assumption that a portion of civilizations become grabby. We don't have good reasons to believe that portion to be zero. But even a very small chance leads to all the other predictions, like that we are early and so on. It's also not so much about active contact than that you could observe technological signatures from a certain distance.
- gitfan86 4y ago
  Our definition of "technological signatures" is an ant colony's pheromones. Because we don't have a solution to quantum gravity we cannot rule out the possibility that other civilizations can control space/time without emitting photons.
  - bayesian_horse 4y ago
    Our civilization is already putting out photons into the neighborhood. Hard to imagine other civilizations being able to master that technology in a blink of an eye when it's not even possible with all the physics we know.
kypro 4y ago
I don't like ant colony analogies because I think there is a meaningful difference between a life-form entirely unable to communicate high-level abstract thoughts and those that are - even if it's relatively simple. For example we view apes as "lesser lifeforms" to ourselves but we still try to communicate with them, and they communicate back to some degree. Or a more extreme example would be dogs - we communicate with them all the time even if they don't have anything that interesting to say back to us. I'd also argue we still take significant interest in ants despite the fact they're unaware of us. And if we thought we could say hi to ants via pheromones we almost certainly would. The mere fact we keep records of all the species we find on Earth and try to understand them in great detail despite them being much less intelligent then ourselves I think suggests aliens would probably at least have some interest in us, even if we're not that interesting. And even with ants it's clear we have a lot to learn from them. Ant colony optimisation algorithms wouldn't exist if we didn't take an interest in ants, for example.
- gitfan86 4y ago
  Those are valid points. My point is that the percentage of ant colonies that we have interacted with is very close to zero.
  - kypro 4y ago
    I see, very fair point.
colinmhayes 4y ago
I don't think the fermi paradox assumes that. Aliens don't have to want to be seen for us to see them. All it takes is one civilization failing to hide for us to see aliens, so the question then is "why has every single intelligent life form dedicated so many resources toward effectively hiding" or "if they're not doing that why haven't we seen them"
- gitfan86 4y ago
  From Wikipedia: "Even at the slow pace of currently envisioned interstellar travel, the Milky Way galaxy could be completely traversed in a few million years.[12]" The assumption is that they would be expanding to larger areas of the galaxy that they have not been to before. I'm asking why we would assume that they would want to expand to billions of solar systems. Obviously we can assume that humans would want to expand since we have a long history of that. But there is no reason to assume they would think like humans, especially given that we have not achieved interstellar travel ourselves.
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    The beautiful thing about grabby aliens is that it only takes one grabby civilization for the theory to be true. It’s not assuming that there are tons of civilizations that act like that, it’s saying that if there is even one then we won’t see them until they conquer us.
    - gitfan86 4y ago
      Unless that grabby civilization encounters a much more advanced passive civilization. And that passive civilization decides that the grabby one is a virus that needs to be eradicated.

bayesian_horse 4y ago

With the "grabby aliens" there is only the assumption that a portion of civilizations become grabby. We don't have good reasons to believe that portion to be zero. But even a very small chance leads to all the other predictions, like that we are early and so on. It's also not so much about active contact than that you could observe technological signatures from a certain distance.

gitfan86 4y ago
Our definition of "technological signatures" is an ant colony's pheromones. Because we don't have a solution to quantum gravity we cannot rule out the possibility that other civilizations can control space/time without emitting photons.
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  Our civilization is already putting out photons into the neighborhood. Hard to imagine other civilizations being able to master that technology in a blink of an eye when it's not even possible with all the physics we know.

kypro 4y ago

I don't like ant colony analogies because I think there is a meaningful difference between a life-form entirely unable to communicate high-level abstract thoughts and those that are - even if it's relatively simple. For example we view apes as "lesser lifeforms" to ourselves but we still try to communicate with them, and they communicate back to some degree. Or a more extreme example would be dogs - we communicate with them all the time even if they don't have anything that interesting to say back to us. I'd also argue we still take significant interest in ants despite the fact they're unaware of us. And if we thought we could say hi to ants via pheromones we almost certainly would. The mere fact we keep records of all the species we find on Earth and try to understand them in great detail despite them being much less intelligent then ourselves I think suggests aliens would probably at least have some interest in us, even if we're not that interesting. And even with ants it's clear we have a lot to learn from them. Ant colony optimisation algorithms wouldn't exist if we didn't take an interest in ants, for example.

gitfan86 4y ago
Those are valid points. My point is that the percentage of ant colonies that we have interacted with is very close to zero.
- kypro 4y ago
  I see, very fair point.

colinmhayes 4y ago

I don't think the fermi paradox assumes that. Aliens don't have to want to be seen for us to see them. All it takes is one civilization failing to hide for us to see aliens, so the question then is "why has every single intelligent life form dedicated so many resources toward effectively hiding" or "if they're not doing that why haven't we seen them"

gitfan86 4y ago
From Wikipedia: "Even at the slow pace of currently envisioned interstellar travel, the Milky Way galaxy could be completely traversed in a few million years.[12]" The assumption is that they would be expanding to larger areas of the galaxy that they have not been to before. I'm asking why we would assume that they would want to expand to billions of solar systems. Obviously we can assume that humans would want to expand since we have a long history of that. But there is no reason to assume they would think like humans, especially given that we have not achieved interstellar travel ourselves.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  The beautiful thing about grabby aliens is that it only takes one grabby civilization for the theory to be true. It’s not assuming that there are tons of civilizations that act like that, it’s saying that if there is even one then we won’t see them until they conquer us.
  - gitfan86 4y ago
    Unless that grabby civilization encounters a much more advanced passive civilization. And that passive civilization decides that the grabby one is a virus that needs to be eradicated.