Famous argument against alien life

  • #26
The Fermi paradox argument makes way too many assumptions. Besides the ones others have mentioned, there's the assumption that interstellar travel is feasible, which we don't know for sure.... .
Interstellar travel has been feasible since the first rocket was lit by the Chinese. You must be mistaking interstellar travel with faster than light travel. There is no need to travel faster than light to get to another star or colonize the galaxy. There are at least 2 ways to get to another star, you can send people or something that will become people. The first is tough, the second should be fairly simple and neither requires travelling faster than light (although in the first the original crew will not be the ones that reach their destination). In fact if there is any terrestrial life attached to the Voyagers we may have already done the second.
 
  • #27
99
0
how would you choose between them,
 
  • #28
how would you choose between them,

Technology would govern the choice. Also how long a view people have which is typically just a few days ahead. If people took the long view and realize that life that evolves on another planet from Earth DNA is still us, we could start colonizing right now. Just load bacteria cultures on small cheap probes and start launching them.

Of course that is oversimplified but it is essentially within our technology now. This method would rely on evolution and the probes randomly hitting a suitable planet (not quite random, there would have to be some AI involved to land on a planet once the ship reaches a solar system). The drawback to this method is that while we would spread terrestrial life throughout the galaxy, it could take millions of years to arrive, it would take millions of years to evolve, who knows what the odds are of intelligent life evolving, it would almost certainly not be human if it did and we would never have any real contact with them but we would share a genetic ancestry.

The technology to send actual people to other systems without FTL is still a bit off. It would require suspended animation. Either an artificial womb with suspended embryos or actual suspended adults. Should be possible eventually.

Of course FTL changes all of the above and that may or may not be possible.
 
  • #29
99
0
Thanks for your response.
 
  • #30
83
0
Hmm, I theorized the exact same thing and told it to a few friends who thought it was really clever, but an hour later I thought to myself "would other intelligent life, firstly, have any incentive whatsoever to visit us, and secondly, would they be noticed even if they came? (granted that they have the technology to get to earth, one could assume they would have the ability to be unnoticed).

"Or there is a possibility that intelligence is inherently unstable and always tends to destroy itself before it has time to get out of its solar system. (we dont care about simple life incapable of leaving its host). Or we are in the center of the universe (as recently suggested to explain the redshifts) and the first intelligent beings, which i dont find that implausible."

Considering that Fermi's argument is based on the plethora possibilities for evolution of intelligent life, I really doubt that EVERY SINGLE such life would have destroyed itself.
 
  • #31
.....
Considering that Fermi's argument is based on the plethora possibilities for evolution of intelligent life, I really doubt that EVERY SINGLE such life would have destroyed itself.
Of course not, but what kind of civilization would they be if they don't? Intelligent life doesn't necessarily have to have a technological civilization. They don't even have to have a social order like ours. I would think that a social system like ants or bees would be more likely to survive but would they be technological?

Going back to my theorized ways of colonizing it's possible earth was colonized like that by another civilization. Probably not because we haven't heard from them. There wouldn't be much point in doing that and not broadcasting EM like we do.

We evolved from predators which has a large effect on our social systems. If a civilization evolved from prey their social system would be different. They would probably be much more timid and paranoid and might not advertise their presence for fear of attracting predators. It is possible that type of civilization is more likely not to destroy themselves too. They might have been herd types which we aren't. A herd heritage might be better suited to survive. We weren't meant to be crowded and our society is suffering because of it. (and yes I've read Niven)
 
  • #32
42
0
Chicken and the egg question. :)
 
  • #33
DaveC426913
Gold Member
19,099
2,613
There are good reasons for something like a "Prime Directive". For one thing, perhaps the aliens are conducting a scientific mission and don't want to disturb the civilization they're studying. For another, maybe introducing advanced technology too soon has proven disastrous in the past. It's also possible that intelligent life is extremely common in the galaxy, and that Earth is uninteresting compared to the other worlds.

Why would god-like beings bother to conceal their existence?
No argument that involves the motives of alien creatures can be used to in an attempt to refute their existence or visitation.
 

Related Threads on Famous argument against alien life

  • Last Post
6
Replies
142
Views
22K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
67
Views
8K
Replies
87
Views
12K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
67
Views
25K
Replies
24
Views
4K
Replies
13
Views
5K
Top