Intelligent life and the Fermi Paradox

[Jupiter60]

TL;DR

Is it possible that most intelligent life never leaves the "hunter gather" lifestyle?

Is it possible that most intelligent life never leaves the "hunter gather" lifestyle? Could this explain the Fermi Paradox?

 

[Filip Larsen]

There are written entire books enumerating and discussing the many possible resolutions. The Fermi paradox Wikipedia page lists up some of those, include a few that relates reasons why any extraterrestrial life may not "advance" to a stage where we can detect it. In the context of the Drakes equation, arguments of this type address the estimates of the Drake equation factor $f_c$.

 

[sophiecentaur]

TL;DR: Is it possible that most intelligent life never leaves the "hunter gather" lifestyle?

Is it possible that most intelligent life never leaves the "hunter gather" lifestyle? Could this explain the Fermi Paradox?

The Fermi paradox emerged from a lunchtime chat and addresses a need that many of us have for an idea of just how important we are (as individuals and as a life form). The Drake Equation attempts to state the situation in terms of timescales and probabilities but how can it yield a solution - except to indicate that the 'numbers' indicate that it's pretty well unthinkable that we can expect to bump into any aliens with whom we could expect to 'have a chat.'
We are very (=over) optimistic about whether we will survive for long as a species but can we assume we will last significantly more than a millennium or two?

I think the 'hunter gatherer' criterion may not be the relevant one. surely Radio Communication would be needed (both ends) for us and aliens to be aware of each other. That implies a window of just a few millennia.

Studies of past and present DNA seem to suggest that 'we' - meaning all life on Earth - could be evolved from just one individual. That would have a huge consequence if we were to find any alien lifeform at all. Life as we know it (Jim ) would probably not pass even that simple test. It would probably be seriously incompatible as food or even as a predator. Would we even be able to recognise it?

 

[loop quantum gravity]

For me this is not a paradox. Since we don't really know what is the potential of intelligent races other than the human race. And even to know the true mechanism by which the universe works we don't know. It doesn't mean we cannot try to postulate in our theories some postulates or axioms for how the universe works. And you know what Hawking once said about contacting alien lifeforms, it might be dangerous just like what happend to the native americans before the invasion of Europeans to North America.

 

[sophiecentaur]

It would probably be seriously incompatible as food or even as a predator.

Even down to the handedness of their glucose molecules. There are no examples of Earth life forms with left-handedness, ifaik. They would have no food value at all (nor us for them).

 

[sophiecentaur]

For me this is not a paradox.

Precisely. You can only have a paradox when the 'numbers don't add up'. Drake etc. work on such a range of known unknowns and the quantities involved that it's bordering on foolishness to complain when the answer to our model doesn't make sense or, worse still doesn't produce the answer that so many people have been pining for since these questions first popped up.

Frankly, I'd rather be 'relieved' that the LGM haven't turned up yet, rather than disappointed about it.

 

[Filip Larsen]

Precisely. You can only have a paradox when the 'numbers don't add up'.

As long as there are no consensus about how to resolve the obvious discrepancy between observation and estimate, calling it a non-paradox is just playing with words.

To elaborate (assuming here you believe the estimate to be wrong), I have seen no convincing arguments that a Fermi estimate (like Drake's equation is) would be a structurally incorrect way to estimate the number of observable intelligent life in the universe . There are plenty of arguments for each of the factors, including arguments along the lines of "occurrence of intelligent life is so rare you can't meaningfully assign a likelihood to it", which are addressing each of the factors or perhaps group of factors, but (as far as I know) without providing any compelling independent evidence why those factors are way too high.

Or said differently, we do not yet know if our current non-observation of signs of intelligent life will change in the future with better observations. Considering how observation techniques currently are improving in regards to detect possible exoplanet bio-markers I would say we still have a fair bit of observational improvements ahead of us before we with high-sigma confidence can conclude that no intelligent life can be observed in, say, our galaxy.

 

[sophiecentaur]

calling it a non-paradox is just playing with words.

You're suggesting that there is a hard distinction between a paradox and a non-paradox. I'd say that there is a whole continuum of paradoxicality. People so want it to be a fact that LGM are only just around the corner. As with religions, it's more of a faith thing and using the term 'paradox' gives the idea greater approval than is appropriate or logical. Perhaps it's more of a 'Conjecture'.

assuming here you believe the estimate to be wrong)

Don't we have to believe that? Any possible conclusion has to be way outside the bounds of other normally accepted scientific conclusions.

Never say 'never' but you can waste a lot of time and energy waiting for extremely unlikely events. If and when more evidence emerges then things will change.

 

[Filip Larsen]

You're suggesting that there is a hard distinction between a paradox and a non-paradox

Not really, I am suggesting that, as I mentioned, that there is a discrepancy between model and observation with no clear consensus yet and that whether or not to call that discrepancy a paradox is just terminology which is far less interesting to argue about. The real science lies in resolving the discrepancy.

Don't we have to believe that? Any possible conclusion has to be way outside the bounds of other normally accepted scientific conclusions.

So, you are saying that based on the observations we have made so far you conclude that we with high confidence are the only intelligent life around in the universe that has left a detectable trace? That is not a conclusion I share and I do not see consensus for that conclusion either. In many other aspects of astronomy and cosmology we are constantly challenging our existing physical models with new "surprising" observations so I do not see why this should not also apply to models that, in addition to physics, also has to include "knowledge" about exobiology and similar which is not at all mature.

Note that I am agnostic on the issue. If we discovered compelling observational evidence that either indicate signs of intelligence or indicate a good reason why some of the "remaining" factors are virtually zero, I would not be surprised either way. I would however be surprised if we in the next many decades or centuries (or for as long as we can maintain continuously improved observational techniques, at least) do not get a steady stream of new surprising observations.