Fermi's Paradox & The Great Filter -- A thought comes to me

[Loren Pechtel]

Yellowstone?

Sure, it wouldn't take out mankind but could the disruption be enough to take out civilization because of how interconnected everything has become? Take out a bunch of the food and people fighting over what's left would be extremely damaging.

 

[aupmanyav]

We will survive. We have come a long way.

Plesiadapis is one of the oldest known primate-like mammal genera which existed about 55–58 million years ago in North America and Europe.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Yellowstone?

Sure, it wouldn't take out mankind but could the disruption be enough to take out civilization because of how interconnected everything has become? Take out a bunch of the food and people fighting over what's left would be extremely damaging.

It would be devastating for America, and a serious blow in all countries - but to very different degrees. Some countries would keep going, more or less. And of course, research in computers and AI would continue, even if at a slower pace. I don't think that that would stop human civilization, even if it happened this century.

The main factor against that possibility however is that it is almost certainly not going to happen before human (or post-human) civilization is well above that sort of risk. I mean, look at how rare those eruptions are. If one does not happen in the next, say (conservatively) 300 years, it won't affect people or AI that live elsewhere in the Solar System, or even AI on Earth (which will be ready just for that).

So, no, I don't think this is related to the Fermi Paradox, at least not if civilizations reach the level we have. I mean, if civilizations at our level are more or less common (even if separated by hundreds of millions of years at least), the explanation for the Fermi Paradox is not any kind of natural disaster.

 

[skepticalbip]

Yellowstone?

Sure, it wouldn't take out mankind but could the disruption be enough to take out civilization because of how interconnected everything has become? Take out a bunch of the food and people fighting over what's left would be extremely damaging.

I don't think it explains the Fermi paradox but, for Earth, such a natural disaster could certainly be a major setback for civilization. As interdependent the world's nations are now for almost everything, a major disruption could be disastrous. As an example, during the late Bronze Age (~1200 BC) there were several flourishing civilizations that had extensive trade relationships with each other. Something major happened (no one knows exactly what) that caused the "Bronze Age Collapse". All the advanced civilizations vanished within less than a hundred years except Egypt which was significantly reduced in its power and influence. Some of the guesses as to what happened are 'the sea people' raided them, climate change, a major eruption of an Icelandic volcano, etc.

 

[bilby]

Fermi's paradox is simply resolved by the rarity of life, and the VAST distances between stars.

The assumption that life is very common tends to rest on very optimistic assumptions about how easy it is for life to get started. If it was as easy and commonplace as many seem to think, we would expect Venus to host life - it's in the right range of distance from a suitable star, the right size, the right composition; But it's about as inimical to life as you could want.

It's fairly obvious that life is rare. It's also very obvious that interstellar communications are very difficult indeed.

If there was another Earth a hundred light years away, identical to ours in every respect, we would struggle to detect it.

It's a serious stretch to suggest that it would be easier to detect in the future - Earth reached 'peak alien detectability' during the Cold War, when powerful primary radar arrays were broadcasting into space. Today our radio transmissions are weaker and more directed at our own planet. Not because our technology has declined, but because it has advanced - brute power has been replaced by efficient directionality, and space-based communications such as geostationary satellites have largely been superseded by optical fibre surface based comms, which are faster (because they are shorter), and more efficient (because the signal only goes to the recipient, rather than being broadcast omni-directionally).

We may never be able to broadcast over interstellar distances at sufficient power to be detected; We almost certainly will never be able to travel them.

You're left with assuming that someone will make a von Newman probe at some point. That's a pretty big assumption, IMO.

There's no paradox. Other intelligent life is out there - but like ours, it's not able to find or talk to anyone but itself.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yellowstone?

Sure, it wouldn't take out mankind but could the disruption be enough to take out civilization because of how interconnected everything has become? Take out a bunch of the food and people fighting over what's left would be extremely damaging.

It would be devastating for America, and a serious blow in all countries - but to very different degrees. Some countries would keep going, more or less. And of course, research in computers and AI would continue, even if at a slower pace. I don't think that that would stop human civilization, even if it happened this century.

Directly, no--but what will the ash cloud do to food production? And how much damage would there be from the fighting over what food there was?

The main factor against that possibility however is that it is almost certainly not going to happen before human (or post-human) civilization is well above that sort of risk. I mean, look at how rare those eruptions are. If one does not happen in the next, say (conservatively) 300 years, it won't affect people or AI that live elsewhere in the Solar System, or even AI on Earth (which will be ready just for that).

Good point. It can't be a general answer.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Fermi's paradox is simply resolved by the rarity of life, and the VAST distances between stars.

The assumption that life is very common tends to rest on very optimistic assumptions about how easy it is for life to get started. If it was as easy and commonplace as many seem to think, we would expect Venus to host life - it's in the right range of distance from a suitable star, the right size, the right composition; But it's about as inimical to life as you could want.

It's fairly obvious that life is rare. It's also very obvious that interstellar communications are very difficult indeed.

I disagree here.

Look at Earth--life appears to have arisen about as soon as it was possible for it to arise. That says if conditions are right that life is nearly certain. Venus very well might have had life at one point--but primitive life can't stop a thermal runaway.

If there was another Earth a hundred light years away, identical to ours in every respect, we would struggle to detect it.

That is more of an issue but technology almost certainly eventually permit interstellar travel. All it takes is one race that looks outward and that ET isn't 100ly away. They may choose to avoid life-bearing systems but there are still plenty of other worlds.

It's a serious stretch to suggest that it would be easier to detect in the future - Earth reached 'peak alien detectability' during the Cold War, when powerful primary radar arrays were broadcasting into space. Today our radio transmissions are weaker and more directed at our own planet.

The DEW line radars still exist.

 

[rousseau]

Fermi's paradox is simply resolved by the rarity of life, and the VAST distances between stars.

The assumption that life is very common tends to rest on very optimistic assumptions about how easy it is for life to get started. If it was as easy and commonplace as many seem to think, we would expect Venus to host life - it's in the right range of distance from a suitable star, the right size, the right composition; But it's about as inimical to life as you could want.

It's fairly obvious that life is rare. It's also very obvious that interstellar communications are very difficult indeed.

If there was another Earth a hundred light years away, identical to ours in every respect, we would struggle to detect it.

It's a serious stretch to suggest that it would be easier to detect in the future - Earth reached 'peak alien detectability' during the Cold War, when powerful primary radar arrays were broadcasting into space. Today our radio transmissions are weaker and more directed at our own planet. Not because our technology has declined, but because it has advanced - brute power has been replaced by efficient directionality, and space-based communications such as geostationary satellites have largely been superseded by optical fibre surface based comms, which are faster (because they are shorter), and more efficient (because the signal only goes to the recipient, rather than being broadcast omni-directionally).

We may never be able to broadcast over interstellar distances at sufficient power to be detected; We almost certainly will never be able to travel them.

You're left with assuming that someone will make a von Newman probe at some point. That's a pretty big assumption, IMO.

There's no paradox. Other intelligent life is out there - but like ours, it's not able to find or talk to anyone but itself.

Add on top of all that, that we've only had advanced technology for a miniscule fraction of life and human's existence, and that will likely always be the case.

There is a certain anthropocentrism and arrogance in some of our ideas about space. But we collectively have so much money we can afford to let astronomists tinker anyway.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

 

[skepticalbip]

I disagree here.

Look at Earth--life appears to have arisen about as soon as it was possible for it to arise. That says if conditions are right that life is nearly certain. Venus very well might have had life at one point--but primitive life can't stop a thermal runaway.

It is true that life seems to have sprung up on Earth pretty much as soon (on the geologic time scale) as the surface cooled enough to allow it. However, it was simple, single celled life. Multi-celled life didn't show up until over two billion years later quickly followed by the Cambrian explosion. It looks like the step to multi-cellular life is likely a rare fluke considering how long it took to happen on Earth.

I think it is likely that life isn't that rare under proper conditions but that multi-cellular life is another story. There seems to be good evidence that life evolved on Mars because of the amount of iron oxide that gives it the red hue. While iron is common in a planet's accretion, free oxygen to combine with it isn't. The free oxygen that combined with Earth's iron came from that early single celled life that arose.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Directly, no--but what will the ash cloud do to food production? And how much damage would there be from the fighting over what food there was?

What sort of fight do you have in mind?
International warfare?
Countries with nukes may well actually use them against those without, in case of war. Not against each other because that'd be unnecessary.

Civil war?
At least some governments (e.g., Russia, China) would be as brutal as they think they need to be to secure a quick win, and that's more than brutal enough to actually win. They have the guns, and they have the food reserves.

 

[skepticalbip]

Directly, no--but what will the ash cloud do to food production? And how much damage would there be from the fighting over what food there was?

What sort of fight do you have in mind?
International warfare?
Countries with nukes may well actually use them against those without, in case of war. Not against each other because that'd be unnecessary.

Civil war?
At least some governments (e.g., Russia, China) would be as brutal as they think they need to be to secure a quick win, and that's more than brutal enough to actually win. They have the guns, and they have the food reserves.

I think he was more suggesting something like anarchy... everyone for themselves trying to obtain food by whatever means necessary. Consider what the millions of those in our world's major cities would do to survive if the supply line of thousands of tons of food being shipped in suddenly no longer brought food in. I doubt that any major city has even a week's supply of food for the population. What then happens after two weeks or a month?

 

[DBT]

I disagree here.

Look at Earth--life appears to have arisen about as soon as it was possible for it to arise. That says if conditions are right that life is nearly certain. Venus very well might have had life at one point--but primitive life can't stop a thermal runaway.

It is true that life seems to have sprung up on Earth pretty much as soon (on the geologic time scale) as the surface cooled enough to allow it. However, it was simple, single celled life. Multi-celled life didn't show up until over two billion years later quickly followed by the Cambrian explosion. It looks like the step to multi-cellular life is likely a rare fluke considering how long it took to happen on Earth.

I think it is likely that life isn't that rare under proper conditions but that multi-cellular life is another story. There seems to be good evidence that life evolved on Mars because of the amount of iron oxide that gives it the red hue. While iron is common in a planet's accretion, free oxygen to combine with it isn't. The free oxygen that combined with Earth's iron came from that early single celled life that arose.

There may be life in the atmosphere of Venus;

A Venusian Oddity
''The dense clouds that cover all of Venus appear almost featureless in visible light. In the UV range, however, Venus’s atmosphere looks decorated in dark patches and streaks. In those darker areas, which were first documented in 1927, an unknown substance absorbs up to 40% more UV light than surrounding areas.

Venus’s UV patterns “evolve completely differently than anything else seen on Jupiter, on Saturn, on Neptune,” Limaye said. “These dark patches are just bizarre.”

Could Microbes Be the Answer?

Venus’s UV dark patches, Limaye noted, grow and shrink in extent, move around the globe, and become lighter or darker over time. In fact, the evolving UV patterns evoke images of bacteria growing in petri dishes or algae blooming in lakes and oceans, he added.

One researcher recently suggested that 1.4 billion tons, or about the biomass of Earth’s oceans, could survive in Venus’s atmosphere, given the pressures and temperatures known to exist at various altitudes. The estimate, Limaye said, is consistent with his team’s work.''

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Directly, no--but what will the ash cloud do to food production? And how much damage would there be from the fighting over what food there was?

What sort of fight do you have in mind?
International warfare?
Countries with nukes may well actually use them against those without, in case of war. Not against each other because that'd be unnecessary.

Civil war?
At least some governments (e.g., Russia, China) would be as brutal as they think they need to be to secure a quick win, and that's more than brutal enough to actually win. They have the guns, and they have the food reserves.

I think he was more suggesting something like anarchy... everyone for themselves trying to obtain food by whatever means necessary. Consider what the millions of those in our world's major cities would do to survive if the supply line of thousands of tons of food being shipped in suddenly no longer brought food in. I doubt that any major city has even a week's supply of food for the population. What then happens after two weeks or a month?

I don't know. But there are governments that surely have bunkers for nuclear wars and the like, food supplies for government officials and military personnel, etc. They would likely survive even if the rest go to war with each other.

 

[bilby]

I disagree here.

Look at Earth--life appears to have arisen about as soon as it was possible for it to arise. That says if conditions are right that life is nearly certain. Venus very well might have had life at one point--but primitive life can't stop a thermal runaway.

It is true that life seems to have sprung up on Earth pretty much as soon (on the geologic time scale) as the surface cooled enough to allow it. However, it was simple, single celled life. Multi-celled life didn't show up until over two billion years later quickly followed by the Cambrian explosion. It looks like the step to multi-cellular life is likely a rare fluke considering how long it took to happen on Earth.

I think it is likely that life isn't that rare under proper conditions but that multi-cellular life is another story. There seems to be good evidence that life evolved on Mars because of the amount of iron oxide that gives it the red hue. While iron is common in a planet's accretion, free oxygen to combine with it isn't. The free oxygen that combined with Earth's iron came from that early single celled life that arose.

And primitive life can stop a thermal runaway, by pulling carbon out of the air. What Venus needed (or needs) is some photosynthesis. It would be fairly easy to design a photosynthetic alga that used its waste oxygen as a lifting gas to drift around in Venus's atmosphere at an altitude where temperatures and pressures are similar to those at sea level on Earth.

Evidently it wasn't (and isn't) so easy for such an organism to evolve. But perhaps we will make one someday.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I disagree here.

Look at Earth--life appears to have arisen about as soon as it was possible for it to arise. That says if conditions are right that life is nearly certain. Venus very well might have had life at one point--but primitive life can't stop a thermal runaway.

It is true that life seems to have sprung up on Earth pretty much as soon (on the geologic time scale) as the surface cooled enough to allow it. However, it was simple, single celled life. Multi-celled life didn't show up until over two billion years later quickly followed by the Cambrian explosion. It looks like the step to multi-cellular life is likely a rare fluke considering how long it took to happen on Earth.

While I do not consider the development of life to be a potential filter the development of multi-cellular life is definitely a candidate.

I think it is likely that life isn't that rare under proper conditions but that multi-cellular life is another story. There seems to be good evidence that life evolved on Mars because of the amount of iron oxide that gives it the red hue. While iron is common in a planet's accretion, free oxygen to combine with it isn't. The free oxygen that combined with Earth's iron came from that early single celled life that arose.

Hadn't heard that but it makes sense.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Directly, no--but what will the ash cloud do to food production? And how much damage would there be from the fighting over what food there was?

What sort of fight do you have in mind?
International warfare?
Countries with nukes may well actually use them against those without, in case of war. Not against each other because that'd be unnecessary.

Civil war?
At least some governments (e.g., Russia, China) would be as brutal as they think they need to be to secure a quick win, and that's more than brutal enough to actually win. They have the guns, and they have the food reserves.

Even civil war is more formalized than what I'm picturing. Lose too much food and the starving masses will turn on anyplace they think there's food. The places harder hit would turn on the places that got off easier.

And I can easily picture someone like His Flatulence trying to extort food with our arsenal.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Directly, no--but what will the ash cloud do to food production? And how much damage would there be from the fighting over what food there was?

What sort of fight do you have in mind?
International warfare?
Countries with nukes may well actually use them against those without, in case of war. Not against each other because that'd be unnecessary.

Civil war?
At least some governments (e.g., Russia, China) would be as brutal as they think they need to be to secure a quick win, and that's more than brutal enough to actually win. They have the guns, and they have the food reserves.

Even civil war is more formalized than what I'm picturing. Lose too much food and the starving masses will turn on anyplace they think there's food. The places harder hit would turn on the places that got off easier.

And I can easily picture someone like His Flatulence trying to extort food with our arsenal.

And without Trump?

Anyway, the regime in NK survived the famine, even though that one was actually their fault. I think there is a good chance several regimes would survive through brutality, even if much of the population died.

 

[Elixir]

And I can easily picture someone like His Flatulence trying to extort food with our arsenal.

Yeah right - like they're going to HAVE fucking cheeseburgers!