4 ms·
We suffer from hubris when we label it the "Fermi paradox": It implies that somehow we are interesting, worth visiting. If we are, it may well be as a cautionar
by PeterWhittaker 12y ago
We suffer from hubris when we label it the "Fermi paradox": It implies that somehow we are interesting, worth visiting. If we are, it may well be as a cautionary tale or for tourism.
Consider the energy and material engineering necessary to achieve long-distance space transport of any sizable amount of people, equipment, and supplies. Regardless of whether the transport is subluminal or FTL, the energy requirements are tremendous and the engineering requirements for a durable vessel astounding.
My guess is that by the time our materials science and our energy production are up to the task, our interests may well have changed - because (and here I speculate wildly) science at engineering at that level will reveal so much about the fundamental nature of the universe and give us so much interesting practical technology that biochemical life clinging desperately to lucky rocks in the lucky zone won't be near so interesting anymore.
No one comes near because we have nothing to offer those able to come near and get home again to report what they found.
As to simply detecting signals, we have to consider how lucky we are to have so much ore so close to the surface: Metallurgy and eventually radiated communications were a natural for us.
Other civilizations may well start with fantastically engineered wood and eventually plastics, and go all-fibre, all line-of-sight, and have very, very different communications systems, systems undetectable at any remove.
- golergka 12y agoObligatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tScAyNaRdQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tScAyNaRdQ
- elorant 12y agoYour argument is kind of contradictory. It assumes that we are not worthy of visiting but an argument like that suggests that they’ve already found us and interstellar travel is feasible. They’ve also solved all the logistic problems you’re referring to. Whether they like to make contact or not is somewhat irrelevant to this context. For the sake of argument let’s linger on that assumption for a while. How for example did they found us when our civilization achieved radio signals transmission in the last couple of centuries? That means that they’re close by, unless FTL travel is feasible in which case we can safely assume the whole galaxy should be teeming with life. But if they’re close by shouldn’t we be able to spot them? And if they’re far away that means they should already have colonized half the galaxy before they decide to launch an expedition to a planet thousands of light years away. The worrying factor relating to the “Fermi Paradox” is that it suggests that maybe life is extremely rare. We could very well be the only living souls in this part of the Universe and that’s kind of heart breaking considering the sheer size of the whole thing. By the way, your assumption is called the "Zoo Hypothesis" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoo_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoo_hypothesis Oh, and while we're in this scenario I'd urge everyone to read the following SF short. http://www.terrybisson.com/page6/page6.html http://www.terrybisson.com/page6/page6.html
- slowmovintarget 12y agoOr for a longer read, David Brin gives it an excellent and lengthy treatment in Existence [1]. He even works in an exhaustive analysis of the possible answers to the Fermi Paradox, as well as possible events constituting The Great Filter. I won't give spoilers but it's definitely worth reading. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Existence-David-Brin/dp/0765342626/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1428283635&sr=8-3&keywords=existence
- thesteamboat 12y ago"No one wants to talk to us" is not a sufficient explanation. We need to be able to explain why we don't observe any stellar engineering. Assuming alien civilizations they either 1) can't make use of the most prominent energy sources around, 2) choose not to for some reason, or 3) we can't detect what they're doing. 1 and 2 don't make sense if you assume that there are many alien civilizations older and more advanced than us. 3 implies that we're fundamentally misunderstanding a lot about (astro)physics.
- exratione 12y agoAstrophysics is as solid as particle physics and plasma physics; it's the other laboratory used to confirm fundamental theory. The models are very good. There is a natural explanation for every well observed phenomenon that fits all known physics, and wherein the models match up to the observations. Astrophysics really isn't the place to be looking first for issues, I'd say.
- thesteamboat 12y agoI don't really know enough about physics to be able to judge, but what you say is nicely in accordance with my priors. I think we're in agreement here. I wouldn't argue that 3 was the place the argument most likely fails, merely that there is something here that we don't fully understand and which may be rather important -- hence it's reasonable to call it a paradox.
- radicalbyte 12y agoWhat if "dark matter" is actually stars enclosed in dyson spheres? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere
- Retra 12y agoDark matter is 26.8% of the mass and visible matter is 4.9%. Think about what has to happen for that assumption to pan out...