> I also find it a plausible variation on [1] as an explanation of the Fermi paradox—natural intelligence learns to undermine its own environment before it real

> I also find it a plausible variation on [1] as an explanation of the Fermi paradox—natural intelligence learns to undermine its own environment before it realizes it (due to complexity), destroying itself. With that in mind, I feel as if it's almost a moral imperative for humanity to try its best not to succumb to destruction like that - out of principle, the determination to win a universal game that no species has ever won. Perhaps it might be even more poetic, albeit cruel, if it really is our destiny to destroy ourselves. To be cognizant of our biggest weakness as intelligent life, yet unable to deviate from the fatal course set out for us by nature would be the ultimate tragedy. I think the classical genre might be more hard-hitting without malevolent gods giving us an excuse for our failures. One step further is to ask how many people will have thought, as you and I have, these very thoughts before either humanity destroys itself or surmounts and escapes the fetters of its recklessness? Or will we just be perpetually lucky and get close to, but never quite reach destruction?