The Fermi Paradox and the "Prime Directive" (where are they?)

If there is nothing according to the laws of higher physics that would prohibit faster than light (instantaneous) interstellar travel, and intergalactic travel, since the space in between is somehow effectively removed, then this raises the question of the Fermi Paradox (why no colonization ie: where are the aliens?).

Fermi Paradox

Then, if interstellar travel IS possible according to some form of advanced technology, and the time-scales involved would produce it, eventually, whether from multiple locations in a particular galaxy, or in other galaxies, unless we are alone..

- they must have a Prime Directive, which disallows and prohibits colonization of inhabited worlds as well as excessive intervention,

if we are not alone, and if interstellar travel is possible, then why is it fair to assume that there is not a more predatory, malevolent alien species who might aggressively colonize the universe and thus would be prepared to invade Earth?

I purport that the only resolution to the Fermi Paradox is, quite evidentially, that any and all such technologically advanced civilizations capable of interstellar travel MUST for some strange or unknown reason, to a one, abide by a form of the Prime Directive, as if in obedience and to some higher law or purpose or maybe even simply because it's unnecessary for some reason.

That's the purpose of this discussion, to answer the question of where are they? and, why are we here and not some alien species?

There are any number of possibilities to consider, but only a limited number I suspect.

Here's one idea

- It's only necessary to conduct a hands-off survey of inhabited worlds, because there are so many worlds to inhabit that are not already inhabited by sentients.. in which case, one still might presume that, among all possible such species in the universe, a colonization space-race of sorts might ensue whereby the motivation would be to colonize first and establish digs on a world before the next guy comes along and does so.. which would or could produce aggressive colonization from world to world, yet still constrained from any form of invasion.. Why? Perhaps the thinking is that since no one wishes to be invaded and destroyed by high powers, that the higher powers still have already worked out that it would be wrong, and just in case there are still HIGHER powers who might feel that way, and who would be capable of enforcing the law if needed, say by altering the fabric of space-time, and imprisoning a spaceship or fleet of them, which might also form some type of gateway access point, or potential barrier ie: are there gates or portals that are "run" by guards or gatekeepers?

in other words, what constrains them? Is it something that just goes along with and is somehow imbedded in the technological and scientific advance, like some sort of corresponding moral code that naturally limits the conduct of any and all of them and any that might come into such a technological age?

In what case might colonization not even be necessary, while at the same time "farming"? DNA and gene pool diversity maybe? Maybe the tree of life of that world can be picked, even transplanted to another world, and as for potentially competing alien civilizations, maybe they just all get along, and in many cases work together, but would they all be on the same page (doubtful) in their deepest motivations?

They would have to be collaborating to a degree, at least to the degree that there is a shared agreement not to intervene or invade, because, after all - where are they?

It's a very interesting question. It also demonstrates that if they are moving around in the universe, then we are an observed world ie: they know about us, and where we are.

This then raises the spectre, in my mind, that there are a whole lot of very interesting things "going on", if we are not alone.

But what drives this Prime Directive, evidenced by the fact that we are here as we are, and they are not here, or not actively engaging with us?

In positing this speculation and hypothesis, we are assuming three fundamental presupositions

1) Insterstellar travel is possible.

2) We are not alone in the universe in terms of technologically advanced civilizations.

3) We were not colonized or invaded.

Maybe we are the seed and the crop itself, but if we were seeded, then who seeded the seeders?

When I look at our own Earth-Moon-Sun configuration, I see a by-design feat of astroengineering that was woven right into the accretion of the of galactic disk, which would include the whole cosmos by extension, so I exclude the notion that they created us, since we are perfectlty suited and adapted to that particular cosmological configuration.

But if you were to perceive the universe as a type of garden or farm, then could you not harvest where you did not sow? A cow tongue and a little bit of DNA skirts but doesn't appear to violate the Prime Directive, nor does playing games with our primitive aircraft for #s and giggles apparently, provided we are left guessing and the government and media cover it up.. that's a strange way of operating, you would think, unless actual contact were an aim, since visual and radar contact is definitely a form of contact.

I think we may be under quarantine and that if we ever do ship off to another earth-like planet, we'll definitely be escorted there and wherever else we may wish to go and see. Higher powers would haunt us, and if necessary step in to prevent an inappropriate invasion of an inhabited world or a world that we don't belong in, so we would be bound by the Prime Directive, right out of the gate, and maybe that's the way it always is, with use of technological power (likely non-violent) as a last resort.

Maybe many of them even learned the hard and embarrassing way when they might have gone a little off the rails.

To me it raises the prospect of some sort of intergalactic police force of sorts, but one who really upholds the motto of "to serve and protect" without say accidentially shooting dead the black sheep in the family, which in our case would be us I suppose.

So I am grateful for the Prime Directive, because it would really suck to be invaded, but someday, we'll make contact, and by then we'll know the rules, or learn the hard way.

What are your thoughts about this?

Best regards,

Ankh

-" they must have a Prime Directive, which disallows and prohibits colonization of inhabited worlds as well as excessive intervention"

This isn't true.
Even if you could instantaneously travel anywhere in the Universe it still wouldn't negate the amount of time it would take to visit each point in succession. Think counting from 1 to 100000000000000000. What if we are just number 100000000000000001 on the itinerary?

a reply to: In4ormant

Good point. It would be a function of the number of earth-like worlds, which I suspect are very very rare and one of the main reasons we have been and are being visited by multiple alien races. Then again, maybe the 60 or so races are just part of an ongoing stream of races, all abiding, to a one, by the Prime Directive (for reasons hard to fathom) everywhere they go.

Edit to add: By your account, a malevolent, predatory alien race could still be on the way.. and that the very process of colonization is already well under way.

There is one argument that counters that, however, and that is the age and timespan of such technological civilizations compared to the very short time span of modern human civilization. In other words, there have been plenty of opportunities and all the time in the world for them to have gotten here already, and if you believe many of the reports they have already, and for a long time (been around here in one form or another).

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
a reply to: In4ormant

Good point. It would be a function of the number of earth-like worlds, which I suspect are very very rare and one of the main reasons we have been and are being visited by multiple alien races. Then again, maybe the 60 or so races are just part of an ongoing stream of races, all abiding, to a one, by the Prime Directive (for reasons hard to fathom) everywhere they go.

I would like to hope that if we are being visited by different races there is a morality that governs them.

I don't necessarily think it's a requirement though.

Maybe they all want to subjugate us but can't agree on who gets to. They only thing keeping them civil is not wanting to start a fight between themselves.

There are more sinister theories, than a prime directive.

It is possible that when a species reaches a certain technological level, that observers activate agents of destruction to remove that civilization, an ET civ which wont accept any competition in the universe might behave in such a manner.

Which would explain the silence

originally posted by: In4ormant

Maybe they all want to subjugate us but can't agree on who gets to. They only thing keeping them civil is not wanting to start a fight between themselves.

My thought exactly, which would imply a hierarchy of governance, and self governance, but there could be a catch to make certain that the law of non-intervention isn't violated, or a thread of the use of power, all the way up unto who knows, angels, God? anything's possible.

originally posted by: CatandtheHatchet
There are more sinister theories, than a prime directive.

It is possible that when a species reaches a certain technological level, that observers activate agents of destruction to remove that civilization, an ET civ which wont accept any competition in the universe might behave in such a manner.

Which would explain the silence

Such a one though would have time to be observed and itself, destroyed.

Which might suspect that there's a simple rationale to it, like a chess match that you play and lose every time no matter how many moves ahead you try to make. Thwarted by your own poor intentions and ill will by the prospect that if anyone else behaved in that manner towards you, you would strike first having already detected them by being higher on the technological pyramid or hierarchy.

You'd betray yourself and leave yourself victim to just such an attack if you attempted to mount it in the first place, so you'd be outcome by your own reasoning when looking around the whole universe and recognizing that you're probably already hoodwinked by higher powers.

I'm thinking that maybe they all use the same interstellar and intergalactic "highways" along certain lines of light and matter wherein they may still be observed by higher powers still, making the trip, who command and control those pathways or access points.

I think the reason is because no matter how you think it through, you're hypothetically and probably screwed right from the get go all the way up, and if you choose wrong, you DO get destroyed, but maybe in the most inexplicable way as if God knew all along and so the black hole that just appeared out of nowhere when it came, was determined to have come right on time as if anticipated from the very formation of their galaxy, but of which they were meanwhile unaware (it was in a higher dimension) as they hatched their plans to take over the universe..

I think the question, when it's seriously posed to such a civilization by their newfound capability, that they quickly discover that they are absolutely and royally screwed if their intent is malevolent, and so very quickly adopt the Prime Directive, because it's the only rational and reasonable position to take, and that could have dire consequences where the conquerors are always conquered, one way or another, if the RULE is violated. They may even have their own mythology of a fall!

"I fought the law and the, law won!" lol

Prior experience and warnings and lessons learned might also serve to keep them in check.

Your idea assumes that the highest power is malevolent, and that that's how they got there, by being utterly ruthless.

Would that really serve their best interests though, and could they not unleash upon themselves the war they wield? What if everyone else is together, the higher power, or even if there really is a God as truth of life and light to which all are held to account, and with which/whom all are working with in some way or another, in alignment with a compassionate approach that such an understanding and relationship engenders.

Maybe there's a reason why the officials have stated that the UFO/Alien presence does not pose a threat..

Which only makes we want for us to make contact with them all the more, since their adherence to the Prime Directive suggests that they are compassionate, even playful in their style and approach and not to be feared, or we would have already seen their teeth or been already wiped out long ago.

All of this would suggest, rationally, that they have our best interests at heart and are not say, just waiting until we destroy ourselves so that they can move in without violating the prime directive.. er..

Do they protect and shield us from large ELE meteor impacts? Would they? Do they even need to if cosmic creative design principals are considered? Would that violate the Prime Directive?

This is part of the problem with disclosure, because of the socio-political implications of all these questions that only the aliens could answer but may be precluded from doing so, unless invited.., and wouldn't that lay low the power structures on earth?

Maybe disclosure and this prime directive issue are related, since they cannot impinge upon us against our will, but that when we are ready, the teacher will appear..

I think this whole idea raises some very interesting questions if we are being visited.

Contact would be just so momentous though, as it would radically alter our history and trajectory..

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
All of this would suggest, rationally, that they have our best interests at heart and are not say, just waiting until we destroy ourselves so that they can move in without violating the prime directive.. er..

Do they protect and shield us from large ELE meteor impacts? Would they? Do they even need to if cosmic creative design principals are considered? Would that violate the Prime Directive?

This is part of the problem with disclosure, because of the socio-political implications of all these questions that only the aliens could answer but may be precluded from doing so, unless invited.., and wouldn't that lay low the power structures on earth?

Maybe disclosure and this prime directive issue are related, since they cannot impinge upon us against our will, but that when we are ready, the teacher will appear..

I think this whole idea raises some very interesting questions if we are being visited.

Contact would be just so momentous though, as it would radically alter our history and trajectory..

I can see that. I subscribe to the notion that the levels expand outward in the same fashion. They don't interfere for X reason, those higher up the food chain do the same and so on. No telling how many levels it could go on for. Is it self preservation or something more benign?

Does the state of evolution dictate a more passive approach? Is the species more passive because that is the necessity to evolve/advance?

Interesting thread with some good thinking. However, it was Carl Sagan I think back in the 90s who said, Supercivilizations may not exist because it may be a universal law they destroy themselves". It's turning out we just might find out in the near future. My best,

They could be studying us out of scientific curiosity. Disclosing themselves would ruin their observations.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

You have raised some intelligent and interesting points. It could be that if the Universe is infinite, then it would give enough resources without the problem of invading another species, another species of intelligent life would probably have a totally different bio flora, which could be a big problem unless they were insulated from infection.
I think many of the answers might be found in asking "what is nature trying to achieve?" Its created a self aware intelligent species, which at the random flip of a switch, can destroy nature and all life on this planet. That's not the recipe for deciding on intelligent design. My take is that it is probably a simulation, where we might think we can destroy it all, but the truth of the matter, might be that what we consider real, is as real as a lucid dream. Because on the face of it with regards a personal basis, we all will exit this space at some point in the near future. Whether you left offspring and a great deal of wealth will not matter in the least, as far as you are concerned, as you will no longer exist in this space. I doubt that the point of nature, is to render the observer locked with this bleak outlook, if so their would be no point in life continuing as it is perpetually doomed.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

If we pay attention to what humanity has been taught; their prime directive is meant to be about respecting free will.

a reply to: riley

In other words, Liberty is a function of Justice, and as a principal of righteousness, it stretches as far as the heavens are long?

It could be too that what ye meet out is returned..

All of which would imply that they are quite nice "people" who's social and civilized organization would be something to be admired with much to learn from when contact is made and a new species enters the "league of worlds".

Civility: Consciously motivated organizational behavior that is ethical in submission to a higher power (or higher power principal).

So it would be out of alignment with that principal if a whole series of threats and swords are hanging over the neck of each species, moving up the chain, which would mean that it's a self governing principal that just goes with the territory, and perhaps any who subscribe to some other imperative destroy themselves or, are destroyed by their own rebellion against it, which would imply that it's still present (the threat of the sword), not as a mere principal or law of karma, but a governing dynamic that is also concerned with mutual security and well being.

Considering these ideas, has caused me to also wonder if the Earth might be protected by a shield of some kind somewhere, maybe out at the gateway access points.., that would prevent any malevolent alien invading force from getting through to us and would also trap them as if being caught with their hand in the cookie jar, and where to fire upon that shield would be not only useless, but an act that would place you at odds with THE highest power who the higher higher powers serve and honor, or in other words a top down affair whereby the higher always and forever protects the lower by any and every means necessary.

Maybe at the last move of a hypothetical, simulated chess game involving a choice between Prime Directive or colonization/invasion, would be seen as the very last move any such civilization would ever make and retain their dignity relative to every other advanced species, whereby part of the process is like proving to Daddy that you can be trusted with the car.. (with Daddy always watching closely in one way or another ie: word gets around) or lose the privilege altogether (but what would that mean or entail?).

Bottom line here is that we're still wrestling with the problem of what, if anything, constrains them and upholds this Prime Directive?

In other words, what's to prevent a species from colonizing that's a malevolent predator or like the alien in the movie, "Alien"?

If we're talking about a billion worlds total, or even a million, why are they all so nice?

The problem with humans is that we know that anything we can do, we invariably will do. Our ultimate problem is that we ourselves may not self govern in this area. Give us a means to get to another earth-like world and provided it's not already inhabited by a technologically advanced race that can protect themselves from us, we'd move in in a heartbeat, and even kill the natives and wipe out many species as history has shown.

Unless the space between stars just flat out prevents such travel and unless we are alone, then we have much to learn from the Fermi Paradox when considered in light of this notion of a Prime Directive as it's only resolution.

A hard policy of non-intervention and mutual respect would be a good starting point, so let's just say that the invasion of Iraq was a very bad idea in this context, and the worst possible precedent.

I'm not sure mankind is developing a very good resume in this department..

Let us hope there is no sword when the time comes, and if there's a shield maybe it's facing inwards..

Major flaw : There can be no FTL travel. At even close to light speed would mean close to an infinite mass. That means there would have to be an infinite amount of energy to move that infinite amount of mass @ only close to lightspeed

a reply to: Gothmog

Meaning there is a bar preventing the universe from being travelled? No way to get from here to there?

Something tells me that's not so. In other words, there's a loop hole or a new physics we have yet to discover, and we're not really talking about travel through the intervening distance to begin with, as if accelerating up to or over the speed of light within a relativistic framework.

This presupposes that there's a new as yet undiscovered science which a species that's 1000's or even millions of years in advance to us, technologically, will have accessed at some point.

According to your view you must also maintain that no UFO's are intelligently controlled ET craft, unless they don't mind travelling for millennia in their mother ship while leaving their home world far behind in both space and time.

I think that when we reach a point of figuring out a way to get there, and chart the way to the next habitable world perhaps somewhere else in our galaxy or at the right coordinates in another that we will find that by the time we get there, that it will have already been made suitable for us in anticipation as if it was intended for us as the first of many stepping stones, but if we find something like sheep grazing there, as if they were never indigenous to our own planet, then well, it might make us really wonder about who's running the farm.

Here's a somewhat relevant post I made in another topic that warrants a place here I think, as the basic premise leads me to suspect that while we probably have been visited, they may not be coming from within our own galaxy.

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork

originally posted by: schuyler
Every time one of these threads comes up I wonder who has ever denied it. I have personally never met anyone who has denied there is life elsewhere. To me it's a Straw Man argument. Somebody decides there are "billions and billions" of stars, therefore....life! as if no one has ever thought of that before. Reveling in their new-found brilliance they decide there must be a whole lot of deniers out there, so they decide to show these unseen deniers a thing or two and "prove" it by showing overwhelming numbers. Now there may actually be a few curmudgeons in the woodwork who are deniers, but they certainly are not culturally significant any more than flat-earthers, of which there are probably many more.

The Bottom Line is that the argument is completely unnecessary. And when you get right down to it, it doesn't actually prove anything. You're just playing with statistics.

Agreed. They also assume that "life" means earth-like world, with animals walking and flying around etc.

No doubt the universe is teaming with life of some kind, but earth-like worlds are not just a matter of a statistic based on x number of rocky worlds in the Goldilocks Zone. That's a false assumption, that x number of them will automatically produce a certain number of earth-like worlds.

We must also consider the uniqueness and specialness of what makes life on earth what it is and extrapolate from there, in particular, taking a look at things like the earth-moon-sun configuration, relative position within the galaxy (as someone else pointed out, closer to the galactic center, you have detrimental super nova material being ejected all over the place amid more tightly packed stars), the location of Jupiter serving as a solar system vacuum cleaner to mitigate ELE's. Earth is also in the sights of a neutron star, galactic blazer (Cygnus X3) which has been bombarding us with cosmic radiation which helps to accelerate evolution via random mutation (there are only one or two such objects in our galaxy).

It's a little juvenile to just assume that earth-like worlds are all over the place within our own galaxy, when we fail to consider precisely what has produced this Earth-like world that we live on, where, because of our single, giant moon, the earth is able to retain it's axis on the elliptical to produce the seasons via the process of perihelion and solstice, and retain a relatively fast rotational period (without tidal locking to the sun), allow for liquid water to be present over 90% of the planet's surface, enjoy relatively stable weather patterns, all of which contribute to long-tern, sustainable evolutionary development.

What's needed is a true and thorough galactic survey using an instrument like the Square Kilometer Array (coming on-line in 2020) that's capable of picking of the bio-signature of the atmosphere of a rocky water world to prove that it's a living world that may be earth-like in some respects.

On a positive, more optimistic note, we do know that there is at least one such world in our own galaxy, which does appear to bode well for the probability of other such worlds in the cosmos if the lowest probability is somewhere between 0 and 1 for any given galaxy.

I think even when we are able to conduct a full galactic survey that we will be lucky to find another one in our own galaxy where the conditions suitable for another earth-like world have been met.

If, otoh, you subscribe, as I do, to the idea of a super-intelligent design that favors life and in particular, this life here on Earth, then that would presume that there was some sort of astroengineering at work in the galactic formation that produced our world by design and by anticipation - in which case what could be done once in a galaxy, would be done as often as possible ie: God surely has more such tricks up His sleeve and seems to have a penchant for variety.

deep thoughts..

I've often pondered about the similarities and differences of what sentient, technologically advanced life, and life experience, might be like on another somewhat earth-like world. I think that their "reality" would be radically different in terms of how they would perceive the universe and their place in it, but at the same time, perhaps somewhat paradoxically, while their perceptual reality would be "out of this world", nevertheless, birds of some kind would still make noises and fly, and the breeze would blow through grasses and trees, and a bubbling brook would be heard to the sight of a beautiful sunset, the appreciation of which would not be lost on them and in that way we would both share something of the same vital life experience.

Are they in a sinless heaven maybe? Or are they so caught up in their social and technological pursuits that they simply fail to notice it, and carry on while taking it for granted? Do they laugh sometimes for no reason at all when caught up in the wonderment of it all? Do they too appreciate the nature of a good joke told by God (but without a punchline)? Do they possess mirth and charm, or might their purely logical hive mind, say, preclude that experience as intrinsic to the nature of things?

Would it be lonely at the end of science, able to see and know all things as they are, and go wherever you may go, and then come back again?

Do they believe in God, and what do they think about humanity's role in the cosmic drama?

I think they get the joke but that our own inability to do so perhaps might frighten them within the context of the prime directive.., but, that they are absolutely thrilled to be given something to examine, something to do, and to participate in again by simply observing, surveying and then on to the next place to see what's going on - but, back home, their breeze still blows, and their moon is a midnight sun mimicking the sun, just like it is here on earth (with only the smallest deviation from that vital configuration).

Our job is to make the aliens laugh, I think, but then to make darn sure that we come to fully understand that the joke's on us, and on them.

So I have this vision of all races of aliens someday returning to their home world, from the Earth and it's place in the grand cosmic drama and play of things, to the alien equivalent of ticker tape parades and hats in the air from here to kingdom come in a grand celebration, and not to anyone's chagrin where it may be said that "the last are first, and the first last, all with ears to hear (or their equivalent) let them hear!"

What, you don't think they read ATS?

a reply to: CatandtheHatchet

What species are you referring to?

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
If there is nothing according to the laws of higher physics that would prohibit faster than light (instantaneous) interstellar travel, and intergalactic travel, since the space in between is somehow effectively removed, then this raises the question of the Fermi Paradox (why no colonization ie: where are the aliens?).

Fermi Paradox

It doesn't look like you read the link you cited, which clearly says the Fermi Paradox doesn't presume faster than light travel:

Even at the slow pace of currently envisioned interstellar travel, the Milky Way galaxy could be completely traversed in about a million years.

According to this line of thinking, the Earth should have already been visited by extraterrestrial aliens. In an informal conversation, Fermi noted no convincing evidence of this, leading him to ask, "Where is everybody?

So I'm not sure why you're prefacing this with talk about faster than light; that's not what the Fermi paradox is based on. Also note that none of the hypothetical explanations are "maybe FTL isn't possible" because it isn't necessary for the paradox.

If the Milky Way is about 100,000 light years across, one only need travel at 10% the speed of light to travel across the entire galaxy in a million years.

Fermi was thinking primarily of our own galaxy. While physicists don't presume FTL is impossible because you can't prove a negative, they don't tend to presume it's possible either. It's not possible until it's possible and that may or may not ever come to pass, but it's not necessary. It's probably a much simpler task to build sub-light speed generational starships which is much closer to being within our grasp than FTL space ships.

If you take Carl Sagan's Cosmos estimates, he came up with an optimistic estimate of many civilizations in our galaxy, and a pessimistic estimate of only 10. If the lower estimate was correct, that would probably tend to put those 10 too far away from us to be detected by Seti.

Now, what if they are capable of building generational starships, but people don't want to commit to that? I think we could find volunteers because we have some curious risk takers in our species but maybe not every species has our curiosity and tolerance for risk, and the generational starship is a risky and costly venture.

If we sent one of those out we'd have to wonder if the crew will end up killing each other before they get there, or their descendants. They might get to feeling claustrophobic and mental health on long trips is a big concern even to Mars but for 40 years at 10% light speed to the nearest star is an even bigger concern.