It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The Fermi paradox (or Fermi's paradox) is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilization and humanity's lack of contact with, or evidence for, such civilizations. The basic points of the argument, made by physicists Enrico Fermi and Michael H. Hart, are:
- The Sun is a typical star, and relatively young. There are billions of stars in the galaxy that are billions of years older.
- With high probability, some of these stars will have Earth-like planets. Assuming the Earth is typical, some of these planets may develop intelligent life.
- Some of these civilizations may develop interstellar travel, a technology Earth is investigating even now (such as the 100 Year Starship).
Even at the slow pace of currently envisioned interstellar travel, the galaxy can be completely colonized in a few tens of millions of years.
Wiki
originally posted by: Shorteststraw
Oh come on, we do too know what causes gravity. They likely aren't here bc they destroy themselves like we will
originally posted by: pheonix358
Well yes ... but.
We are a woeful race really. I would not want us out there. The first chance we got, we would be at war and building Star Ships and would get wiped out in short order.
Every one seems to assume that Aliens will be like us and have the same desires and needs in space. They may not.
I imagine it would be fairly obvious why a couple of billion creatures stuck on a single rock are fighting all the time to most space travellers. To them it may look like a knife fight in a phone box when all of space is their playground.
originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: Gemwolf
Well, one might see the absence of a signal as a signal on its own.
An idea I've recently heard was to consider energy and resource requirements of technological advancement, especially interstellar travel. So while there might be plenty of life out there, most of them might have exhausted the resources available, didn't manage their energy budgets well enough.
The same might actually happen to us too.
Call it natural selection...
originally posted by: pheonix358
If we do not get off this planet in the next five hundred or so years, our civilization is likely to collapse when the next ice age hits.
We are a woeful race really. I would not want us out there. The first chance we got, we would be at war and building Star Ships and would get wiped out in short order.
originally posted by: The Vagabond
If we assume that the galaxy is teeming with life it seems like a huge problem that we don't run into any. There should be such a variety of stuff going on and the odds of it ALL just happening to be undetectable are negligible.
But there are quite a few explanations.
1. It's being hidden from us: maybe some incredibly advanced species is manipulating all energy approaching our planet to filter out absolutely every indication that we are not alone- maybe to protect us, or to protect others, it because they have claimed every bit of energy in the galaxy that isn't being used by indigenous species and don't want anyone expanding their habitat into their cosmic power plants- who knows.
2. There's no rational motive. Maybe it's absolutely impossible to successfully travel and communicate between stars without also gaining abilities that make such behaviour obsolete. Perhaps you crack the theory of everything on that road and become capable of knowing and obtaining everything in existence from the comfort of a nano computer where you exist without physical form as an immortal all knowing consciousness, impossible to recognize as anything but a spirit to anyone who had not attained the same level of evolution.
3. Maybe you always die before you become detectable. Maybe the most advanced technology in the galaxy- the one that finds and reaches every new civilization first- is Grey Goo.
4. Maybe we are missing a fact of time and space that explains it. I doubt it's exactly this, but let's just suppose that the means of travel causes you to arrive before you leave, therefore you can't possibly have a motive to travel in that way because it can only take you to places where you already are.