7 ms·

On the Great Filter, existential threats, and griefers

80 points by cstross 12y ago

dash2 12y ago
Here's an alternative resolution to the Fermi paradox: we haven't heard from aliens, because they are communicating in ways that we are insufficiently advanced to listen for. Analogy: in 1500, even if we'd thought to listen for aliens, we would not have been able to build radio telescopes. Perhaps any sensible alien civilization communicates using, say, quantum entanglement. The moment we develop this technology and start listening, a cheery message will come from Alpha Centauri: "what took you guys so long?"
- mmastrac 12y ago
  I like this argument. We only had the ability to communicate at range slowly in the visible light spectrum until a few hundred years ago. Would we consider that a worthwhile contact today? An alien race might not consider it worth communicating with someone who can't control gravitational waves. In theory an alien race would probably have gone through similar stages, though. If they really wanted to communicate with other races at any stage, they would hopefully understand that your best bet is to use repeating bursts in a multitude of frequencies, likely using fundamental constants as a starting point -- Carl-Sagan style.
- rational-future 12y ago
  Not much of a resolution. If our progress continues to accelerate with same rate as of the last 10K years, in 100K years we'll have the capability to change completely the structure of our galaxy. Why can't we see any such grand-scale projects from other civs?
  - marktangotango 12y ago
    One explanation is that the extrapolation of 'progress' to 'change completely the structure of our galaxy' is false. Just because we've gone from point A to point B in 10k years doesn't mean we'll ever get to point C, no matter however many years. Ie either altering the structure of the galaxy is impossible (as lack of evidence would suggest) or progressing to that level would take even longer, such that no civilization has reached it yet. Just playing devils advocate here.
    - randallsquared 12y ago
      The impossibility of changing the structure of the galaxy implies some exciting new physics that would explain why.
  - nodata 12y ago
    Who says we're not that?
- 6d0debc071 12y ago
  Or means of communication that are more energy efficient than radio, which dramatically limits the range from which something can be distinguished from background noise. No-one finds anyone because they all moved to Netflix.
marcosdumay 12y ago
So, if sterilizers are common, why don't we see them? A Matrioshka Brain has a perfectly recognizable emission spectrum, we'd have recognized a few already if they were common. If they use plain style Von Neumann probes, why aren't they here, and why don't we see their reproduction remains?
- venomsnake 12y ago
  Space is big ...
  - rational-future 12y ago
    Not that big. Advanced technology, like replicators and a few million years are enough to reach galaxies far-far away.
    - venomsnake 12y ago
      Everything that is reliable for a couple of million of years will be heavy. If it is heavy - it will be slow. And we have that joyous dark energy lurking in the intergalactic space - traversing it may not be the easiest thing in the world.
      - kamaal 12y ago
        I thought dark energy is something that doesn't interact with ordinary matter.
        ajuc 12y ago
        Except through gravity
    - emiliobumachar 12y ago
      Big relative to our tech. How long ago was it that we thought Earth-like planets were extremely rare? 20 years? 10?
- 12y ago
jacquesm 12y ago
One very simple anti-great-filter theory is that we're simply the first. Someone has to be by definition, it's a small chance but it definitely is a possibility.
- venomsnake 12y ago
  Depending on how the universe works we only need to be the first in the galaxy (the chance for which is not that low). Also we can just be in the galactic backwater. there are places on earth we know nothing about. So the idea that we are in a part of the galaxy equivalent of the deep amazonian jungle is also not far fetched. And the galaxy may be brimming with life - just so alien that we cannot recognize each other.
  - marktangotango 12y ago
    I always think of dogs, dolphins, and whales when people mention this. Elephants fit in there too. Is there sentience, but just not tool use in our backyard?
  - WildUtah 12y ago
    "Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-two million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think Apple watches are a pretty neat idea."
  - Sapient 12y ago
    I'm partial to the Great Filter being behind us as the evolution of sentience combined with tool use. There has been ample time and opportunity for 'us' to evolve on this planet, yet it took until now. The Dinosaurs were around for nearly 200 million years and got nowhere, and if that rock hadn't hit the Earth 65my ago, we wouldn't be here, and there are many other events which could also have put an end to our line. So my guess is human level intelligence is very, VERY rare, which would be very sad and I hope its not the case.
- 12y ago
weeksie 12y ago
Here's my answer to the Fermi paradox: simulation. And not because we're in one (all respect to Nick Bostrom) but because when a civ reaches singularity, there's no point in expanding because the reality that it/they can live in from within a small efficient simulation machine is safer and cheaper than the prospect of interstellar expansion.
- Sapient 12y ago
  This has been my favourite explanation since I read Stross' book, Accelerando. The common argument I get against it is along the lines of "humans being too curious to abandon the real universe". Of course simulation in this case doesn't answer the problem of Von Neuman probes and the like, as its still perfectly reasonable to expect a simulated race to have some physical presence and desire to explore the universe, however since we recognize the risks of these kinds of things so long before we even have the capability of launching our own VN probes, perhaps the vanishingly unlikely scenario is an advanced civilization actually doing it themselves?
  - xenophonf 12y ago
    I tend to think that the simulation hypothesis put forward in Stross's "A Colder War" is a much greater likelihood. :-/
  - thisjepisje 12y ago
    >as its still perfectly reasonable to expect a simulated race to have some physical presence and desire to explore the universe Greg Egan's Diaspora is a nice sf novel exploring this theme.
    - Sapient 12y ago
      Yep, last time I made a comment about Accelerando, someone also pointed me to Diaspora. I finished it about 2 weeks ago, it was mind-blowing and I could not put it down. The reason I don't mention it though, is because its easier to relate our future to Accelerando than to the pure AI's in Diaspora.
macromaniac 12y ago
All of these HN alternate explanations are listed and explained by Tim Urban here: http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html
digi_owl 12y ago
"I don't rule out the possibility of building robust self-sufficient off-world habitats. The problem I see is that it's vastly more expensive than building an off-world outpost and shipping rations there, as we do with Antarctica -- and our economic cost/benefit framework wouldn't show any obvious return on investment for self-sufficiency." I think this is what eventually acts as the great filter. In that by the time it is cost benefit approved to do something, the resources have already been depleted on something that would rake in more tokens in the short run. and unless we manage to blow the atmosphere away, eventually nature moves in and covers everything up (what is uninhabitable for modern man don't seem the phase the rest of the animal kingdom much). As such, the blue spheres we spot may be places that has come and gone already. But the only way to know for sure is to go there, and that is highly unlikely to ever happen. Damn it, we keep finding new ruins in the Amazon constantly (never mind various deserts etc). It does not take long for nature to reclaim a region once civilization has gone bye bye.
platz 12y ago
Worried about griefer Von Neumann probes today
hellbanner 12y ago
Where's the website that has a list of existential threats listed?
ajuc 12y ago
Instead of one big filter there can be huge number of small filters. Take a few dozens independent 90% filters together and you got the expected success number in the "1 per observable universe" territory.

80 points by cstross 12y ago

dash2 12y ago

Here's an alternative resolution to the Fermi paradox: we haven't heard from aliens, because they are communicating in ways that we are insufficiently advanced to listen for. Analogy: in 1500, even if we'd thought to listen for aliens, we would not have been able to build radio telescopes. Perhaps any sensible alien civilization communicates using, say, quantum entanglement. The moment we develop this technology and start listening, a cheery message will come from Alpha Centauri: "what took you guys so long?"

mmastrac 12y ago
I like this argument. We only had the ability to communicate at range slowly in the visible light spectrum until a few hundred years ago. Would we consider that a worthwhile contact today? An alien race might not consider it worth communicating with someone who can't control gravitational waves. In theory an alien race would probably have gone through similar stages, though. If they really wanted to communicate with other races at any stage, they would hopefully understand that your best bet is to use repeating bursts in a multitude of frequencies, likely using fundamental constants as a starting point -- Carl-Sagan style.
rational-future 12y ago
Not much of a resolution. If our progress continues to accelerate with same rate as of the last 10K years, in 100K years we'll have the capability to change completely the structure of our galaxy. Why can't we see any such grand-scale projects from other civs?
- marktangotango 12y ago
  One explanation is that the extrapolation of 'progress' to 'change completely the structure of our galaxy' is false. Just because we've gone from point A to point B in 10k years doesn't mean we'll ever get to point C, no matter however many years. Ie either altering the structure of the galaxy is impossible (as lack of evidence would suggest) or progressing to that level would take even longer, such that no civilization has reached it yet. Just playing devils advocate here.
  - randallsquared 12y ago
    The impossibility of changing the structure of the galaxy implies some exciting new physics that would explain why.
- nodata 12y ago
  Who says we're not that?
6d0debc071 12y ago
Or means of communication that are more energy efficient than radio, which dramatically limits the range from which something can be distinguished from background noise. No-one finds anyone because they all moved to Netflix.

marcosdumay 12y ago

So, if sterilizers are common, why don't we see them? A Matrioshka Brain has a perfectly recognizable emission spectrum, we'd have recognized a few already if they were common. If they use plain style Von Neumann probes, why aren't they here, and why don't we see their reproduction remains?

venomsnake 12y ago
Space is big ...
- rational-future 12y ago
  Not that big. Advanced technology, like replicators and a few million years are enough to reach galaxies far-far away.
  - venomsnake 12y ago
    Everything that is reliable for a couple of million of years will be heavy. If it is heavy - it will be slow. And we have that joyous dark energy lurking in the intergalactic space - traversing it may not be the easiest thing in the world.
    - kamaal 12y ago
      I thought dark energy is something that doesn't interact with ordinary matter.
      - ajuc 12y ago
        Except through gravity
  - emiliobumachar 12y ago
    Big relative to our tech. How long ago was it that we thought Earth-like planets were extremely rare? 20 years? 10?
12y ago

jacquesm 12y ago

One very simple anti-great-filter theory is that we're simply the first. Someone has to be by definition, it's a small chance but it definitely is a possibility.

venomsnake 12y ago
Depending on how the universe works we only need to be the first in the galaxy (the chance for which is not that low). Also we can just be in the galactic backwater. there are places on earth we know nothing about. So the idea that we are in a part of the galaxy equivalent of the deep amazonian jungle is also not far fetched. And the galaxy may be brimming with life - just so alien that we cannot recognize each other.
- marktangotango 12y ago
  I always think of dogs, dolphins, and whales when people mention this. Elephants fit in there too. Is there sentience, but just not tool use in our backyard?
- WildUtah 12y ago
  "Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-two million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think Apple watches are a pretty neat idea."
- Sapient 12y ago
  I'm partial to the Great Filter being behind us as the evolution of sentience combined with tool use. There has been ample time and opportunity for 'us' to evolve on this planet, yet it took until now. The Dinosaurs were around for nearly 200 million years and got nowhere, and if that rock hadn't hit the Earth 65my ago, we wouldn't be here, and there are many other events which could also have put an end to our line. So my guess is human level intelligence is very, VERY rare, which would be very sad and I hope its not the case.
12y ago

weeksie 12y ago

Here's my answer to the Fermi paradox: simulation. And not because we're in one (all respect to Nick Bostrom) but because when a civ reaches singularity, there's no point in expanding because the reality that it/they can live in from within a small efficient simulation machine is safer and cheaper than the prospect of interstellar expansion.

Sapient 12y ago
This has been my favourite explanation since I read Stross' book, Accelerando. The common argument I get against it is along the lines of "humans being too curious to abandon the real universe". Of course simulation in this case doesn't answer the problem of Von Neuman probes and the like, as its still perfectly reasonable to expect a simulated race to have some physical presence and desire to explore the universe, however since we recognize the risks of these kinds of things so long before we even have the capability of launching our own VN probes, perhaps the vanishingly unlikely scenario is an advanced civilization actually doing it themselves?
- xenophonf 12y ago
  I tend to think that the simulation hypothesis put forward in Stross's "A Colder War" is a much greater likelihood. :-/
- thisjepisje 12y ago
  >as its still perfectly reasonable to expect a simulated race to have some physical presence and desire to explore the universe Greg Egan's Diaspora is a nice sf novel exploring this theme.
  - Sapient 12y ago
    Yep, last time I made a comment about Accelerando, someone also pointed me to Diaspora. I finished it about 2 weeks ago, it was mind-blowing and I could not put it down. The reason I don't mention it though, is because its easier to relate our future to Accelerando than to the pure AI's in Diaspora.

macromaniac 12y ago

All of these HN alternate explanations are listed and explained by Tim Urban here: http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html

digi_owl 12y ago

"I don't rule out the possibility of building robust self-sufficient off-world habitats. The problem I see is that it's vastly more expensive than building an off-world outpost and shipping rations there, as we do with Antarctica -- and our economic cost/benefit framework wouldn't show any obvious return on investment for self-sufficiency." I think this is what eventually acts as the great filter. In that by the time it is cost benefit approved to do something, the resources have already been depleted on something that would rake in more tokens in the short run. and unless we manage to blow the atmosphere away, eventually nature moves in and covers everything up (what is uninhabitable for modern man don't seem the phase the rest of the animal kingdom much). As such, the blue spheres we spot may be places that has come and gone already. But the only way to know for sure is to go there, and that is highly unlikely to ever happen. Damn it, we keep finding new ruins in the Amazon constantly (never mind various deserts etc). It does not take long for nature to reclaim a region once civilization has gone bye bye.

platz 12y ago

Worried about griefer Von Neumann probes today

hellbanner 12y ago

Where's the website that has a list of existential threats listed?

ajuc 12y ago

Instead of one big filter there can be huge number of small filters. Take a few dozens independent 90% filters together and you got the expected success number in the "1 per observable universe" territory.