• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Why Haven't Aliens Contacted Us Yet? (Fermi Paradox)

...And given the very brief period our civilisation has lasted and the high probability we will one way or another destroy it, other intelligent life may simply not overlap with us...

But the worrying thing is that we can plainly see where most of the problems that will eventually cause our demise are coming from.

And yet the people who could do something about it are also the ones who benefit the most from the status quo and thus have no incentive to change it.

INT21
 
If alien civilisations exist, they are mathematically likely to be far in advance of us, for reasons that have been discussed many times on this forum

Not necessarily. There could be a scenario where slaves were held on a planet, usurped their alien captors, hijacked their fleet to escape and have generally been fucking about in space Red Dwarf style maintaining the vending machines.
 
Another possibility is that an advanced civilisation has perfected automation to such a sophisticated level that the occupants of the saucers don't ever have to make any difficult choices; they might simply press a button to make it go, and sit back and watch the pretty lights. The George Jetson model of advanced civilisations.

After a few million years the aliens could lose all semblance of intelligence, and revert to the mean of whatever class of animals they evolved from. Such a situation might be stable for an arbitrary time, assuming self-maintaining and self-repairing technology.
 
Yet another possibility is that the advanced civilisation creates artificially intelligent entities that can operate the saucers, but they don't actually have the capacity to innovate; such AIs might appear perfectly user-friendly, but they would simply continue to carry out the last set of instructions given to them by their creators. Without the capacity for innovation or evolution, such entities might explore or even colonise the entire galaxy, but they would never advance or develop. They would also be very boring to talk to, unless you like chatbots.
 
Yet another possibility is that the advanced civilisation creates artificially intelligent entities that can operate the saucers, but they don't actually have the capacity to innovate; such AIs might appear perfectly user-friendly, but they would simply continue to carry out the last set of instructions given to them by their creators. Without the capacity for innovation or evolution, such entities might explore or even colonise the entire galaxy, but they would never advance or develop. They would also be very boring to talk to, unless you like chatbots.
Another Liu Cixin piece, a short story called 'Taking Care Of God' has something like this. The aliens who created humanity by seeding the earth in the first place return in their (societal) old age. They have perfect, automated ships, and no idea how they actually work.
 
Anyone here read 'The Dark Forest' by Liu Cixin? (helps if you've read 'The Three Body Problem' first). That gives an explanation for why we haven't heard from aliens that's become known as the dark forest theory.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-D...smos-which-is-a-response-to-the-Fermi-Paradox

To paraphrase, the dark forest theory is that because of the distance between planets and the low possibility of communication between them, any civilization must assume that any other civilization is hostile, and act hostilely themselves. Therefore the universe may be full of civilizations keeping their own profile low, while being forced to immediately to destroy any other civilization that makes itself visible.
 
The 'Dark Forest' scenario has been around for a long time, and was referred to in almost exactly those terms by Greg Bear in his excellent The Forge of God.

A scenario which is pretty much the opposite of this is the 'Interstellar Internet'; civilisations never leave their home systems (too expensive) but they stay at home, communicating in great detail over high-bandwidth channels. I think that is what SETI are hoping for.

Of course this scenario opens the door to scams, liars and interstellar trolls.
 
A scenario which is pretty much the opposite of this is the 'Interstellar Internet'; civilisations never leave their home systems (too expensive) but they stay at home, communicating in great detail over high-bandwidth channels. I think that is what SETI are hoping for.

I'm reading Vernor Vinge's 'Fire Upon The Deep', in which the 'interstellar internet' suspiciously resembles BBS systems of the early 90s.
 
The universe could be teeming with life that might never come across us. As Adams said, space is big. Really big.
 
The 20th century saw astonishing developments in technology, which would seem like magic to our ancestors from even just a few centuries ago. The 20th century was also the bloodiest in humankind's history.
Technological advancement does not necessarily go hand in hand with moral enlightenment.
Well, my air conditioning has certainly put me in a better mood.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim
Yet another possibility is that the advanced civilisation creates artificially intelligent entities that can operate the saucers, but they don't actually have the capacity to innovate; such AIs might appear perfectly user-friendly, but they would simply continue to carry out the last set of instructions given to them by their creators. Without the capacity for innovation or evolution, such entities might explore or even colonise the entire galaxy, but they would never advance or develop. They would also be very boring to talk to, unless you like chatbots.
Reminds me of alien greys. They seem to be robotic and have no distinct personalities.
 
My personal thoughts (which I've probably voiced here before at some point) are that life is probably rare in any given area of the Universe, and multicellular life, let alone intelligent life, far more rare. However, what there is can probably cope with most of its civilization's expansion into space using the vast space and resources within its own star system. Seriously, if all we're looking for is space to expand and energy and materials to do so, how long will it be before the solar system no longer supplies our needs, and extrasolar exploration is even worthwhile? There's probably little point looking for another habitable world to settle, as one that would support us without modification is highly unlikely to be found, and if a world needs terraforming, such an act would destroy its life and anything making it unique. We may more easily terraform a world nearer that's already lifeless.

I can conceive of a universe full of life, but mostly unicellular, and separated by vast, practically unmanageable distances. Here and there, perhaps some more complicated beings have arisen, and some of the more intelligent have expanded into the own star systems, dotting the space between planets with artificial habitats and farms, perhaps growing food, mining materials and water from asteroids and comets, powering their space stations directly or indirectly from their stars, their machines working relentlessly to maintain them. Humanity could probably sustain itself for millennia in this way.
 
Dark forest doesn' answer the paradox, it just says "why havnt they killed us yet and taken over the planet yet?"
 
James-H,

..I think that is what SETI are hoping for...

You have to admire their optimism.

INT21
 
Reminds me of alien greys. They seem to be robotic and have no distinct personalities.

And that is basically the theme of the book 'Song Of The Greys' by Nigel Kerner.
He believes that the so-called 'greys' are lab created clones/androids who were sent out by some 'Prime Race' to explore on behalf of this Prime Race. They were supposed to report in every now and then but Kerner postulates that the 'greys' developed a personality of sorts and decided that they wanted to be in charge so they abandoned their overlords and are now roaming the galaxy and found us some years ago. Apparently according to Kerner they have an interest in humans because we believe in 'souls' and they want to also have souls but since they were created and not procreated in a natural way they must take ours. And that's what they have been doing for decades says Kerner.
Well....it makes for fun reading at any rate.
;)
 
More on the Dark Forest Theory.

... The above thought experiment was written years before the Dark Forest theory, appearing first in the hard science fiction novel The Killing Star by Charles R. Pellegrino and George Zebrowski. It’s a very similar premise to the Dark Forest theory in which the authors ask the reader to agree to two things. The first is that a species’ own survival is more important than the survival of another species. That is, to us humans the survival of humanity will always come before the survival of an alien race if it comes down to choosing. The second is that a species which has come together to ascertain themselves on their own planet and become capable of spaceflight and technological innovations, will have some level of aggression and alertness. It’s certainly something which has proven true on Earth. In order to survive, humans have imposed upon other tribes, other animals, and upon the planet itself. If these two conditions are true and we assume them to be true of the other species, then they will assume it to be true of us as well. This can be a problematic manner of thinking. It leaves always on the horizon this potential for conflict.

But this scenario is a bit different in the Dark Forest theory which arises from Liu Cixin’s novel The Dark Forest, a sequel to the award-winning Three Body Problem. In the novel, the theory becomes an attempt to answer the question of the Fermi Paradox, a problem in science named after physicist Enrico Fermi. It is, in short, an exploration of why we’ve so far seen no signs of alien life when we should statistically be able to see at least 10,000 of them in the universe with 20 of those alien civilizations existing somewhere nearby (on a cosmic scale). These numbers come from the Drake equation, conceived by astronomer Frank Drake in 1961. The equation is an estimate of how many civilizations should exist in our galaxy by examining the many factors that might play a role in their development. ...

https://medium.com/futuresin/the-dark-forest-theory-of-the-universe-a52012529e0f
 
In the Dark Forest, a civilization would want to expand beyond the original planet, if nothing else for defensive purposes so another civilization doesn't send a large enough giant rock on a collision course with the home world.
 
I read an interesting sci-fi novel a couple of years ago but sadly can't recall the name.....but the plot involved aliens who had come to our outer planets for mining...Saturn I think...and earth sent out a mission to meet and greet them. But the aliens were a hive mind species and it took a little while for them and us to communicate....a week or so. During the process the aliens decided that we were not a 'logical' race and a threat to the galaxy and decided to head to earth to wipe us out. That was the end of the novel.
 
It ranks among the most enduring mysteries of the cosmos. Physicists call it the Fermi paradox after the Italian Nobel laureate Enrico Fermi, who, in 1950, pointed out the glaring conflict between predictions that life was elsewhere in the universe - and the conspicuous lack of aliens who have come to visit.

Now a Danish researcher believes he may have solved the paradox. Extra-terrestrials have yet to find us because they haven't had enough time to look.

Article continues Using a computer simulation of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, Rasmus Bjork, a physicist at the Niels Bohr institute in Copenhagen, proposed that a single civilisation might build eight intergalactic probes and launch them on missions to search for life. Once on their way each probe would send out eight more mini-probes, which would head for the nearest stars and look for habitable planets.

Mr Bjork confined the probes to search only solar systems in what is called the 'galactic habitable zone' of the Milky Way, where solar systems are close enough to the centre to have the right elements necessary to form rocky, life-sustaining planets, but are far enough out to avoid being struck by asteroids, seared by stars or frazzled by bursts of radiation.

He found that even if the alien ships could hurtle through space at a tenth of the speed of light, or 30,000km a second, - Nasa's current Cassini mission to Saturn is plodding along at 32km a second - it would take 10bn years, roughly half the age of the universe, to explore just 4% of the galaxy. His study is reported in New Scientist today.

Like humans, alien civilisations could shorten the time to find extra-terrestrials by picking up television and radio broadcasts that might leak from colonised planets. 'Even then, unless they can develop an exotic form of transport that gets them across the galaxy in two weeks it's still going to take millions of years to find us,' said Mr Bjork. 'There are so many stars in the galaxy that probably life could exist elsewhere, but will we ever get in contact with them? Not in our lifetime,' he added.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/space/article ... 05,00.html

Well fortunately the aliens aren't that stupid. They may be watching me as I type this reply.

I have a good relationship with them. This Danish guy ought to go back in his box and do his research better.

Ever thought of the speed of thought? Obviously he did not.
What is life?

Having two legs, two arms and being created in the image of God. As nothing can be greater than God so whatever exists must inhabit subhuman form because we cannot envisage anything better than ourselves as we are the prime inhabitants of the universe.

Has it ever occurred to him that the true aliens are spirit?

What saddens me the most is that it takes an idiot like myself who is not intelligent as these scientists who had gained more knowledge than they can........ or ever will have.

What a waste.

George
 
Well fortunately the aliens aren't that stupid. They may be watching me as I type this reply.

I have a good relationship with them. ...........
What saddens me the most is that it takes an idiot like myself who is not intelligent as these scientists who had gained more knowledge than they can........ or ever will have.

What a waste.

George

Well....it's certainly special for you that the 'aliens' wish to contact you of all the people on earth that they could 'talk to'.
What a waste indeed.

:)
 
Well....it's certainly special for you that the 'aliens' wish to contact you of all the people on earth that they could 'talk to'.
What a waste indeed.

:)

Or perhaps you and maybe all the scientists in the world who are going to debumk the subject.

I was taught at a young age so I have not grown cynical with the subject. It means that I can write and be trained by them.

When I was young, I had nothing. No education, money, home or life. It meant that I was 'easy fry' and a 'has been'

Now I have money, education 4 houses and the drive in me to fight all the oppression as to change lives. Who else can do what I do?

I have now have power in my finger tips and create waves both hypothetically and physically.

Where are these failed scientists who have nothing, but instead search for life under rocks on Mars??
What has SETI done???

Let them be counted against me to what I have done. I have pictures of them, their craft and even areal photographs better than NASA's

We started our UFO group back in 1966 together with Frank **** a famous author and a psychic.

I had learnt a great deal from Frank over the years especially when I was younger and he could do what I could not. I asked him why a super race of aliens should want to bother with a load of kids like us.?

His answer was because we were/are young and our minds have not been brainwashed. I was told that they we had exceptional learning ability and would be trained further. Frank and Pete have children and their children are also being driven by their parents, Frank is a famous writer and can influence the world plenty . If I was an alien, I too would choose someone like myself. I too have provided publications and my work has been broadcast on prime TV.

Look at the drive in me....the resilience and the strive.
How many members are there here? Most will be forgotten as time goes on. I will not be.

I will always be that crazy so and so who is going to make people think.

Now tell me what science has done apart from destroying the phenomena?

Show me the great minds that have succeeded where I have failed, as the 'wheel is still in spin' ?

If I were them....I would say:- "Behold...we have chosen wisely"
 
There is no intelligent life anywhere.
Good luck in your endeavours as you have set an excellent example of the narrowness of the human race.

As be free to believe what you want as hence why some are chosen and others are not.
 
Ever thought of the speed of thought? Obviously he did not.

I've measured the speed of thought in a First Year Psychology practical using a tachistoscope and a timer. You stop the timer after you recognise the word (of various length) that's been flashed up. Plot the average response time against the length/number of letters in the word and extrapolate back to the Y axis, that gives you a reponse time for no letters ie your reaction time. Deduct that from your response times and divide by the number of letters in the word. Average speed of thought across the class was 10 ms (milliseconds) per letter. Fast but not pan-Galactically fast.
 
I've measured the speed of thought in a First Year Psychology practical using a tachistoscope and a timer. You stop the timer after you recognise the word (of various length) that's been flashed up. Plot the average response time against the length/number of letters in the word and extrapolate back to the Y axis, that gives you a reponse time for no letters ie your reaction time. Deduct that from your response times and divide by the number of letters in the word. Average speed of thought across the class was 10 ms (milliseconds) per letter. Fast but not pan-Galactically fast.
No this is our brain kicking into action and not the actual transmission of the message. The brain is NOT the mind as messages are sent instantaneously . How they are received depends on who or what is receiving them. The 10 ms that you quoted would be the same if the distance was 10 feet away or a million miles away.
 
Good luck in your endeavours as you have set an excellent example of the narrowness of the human race.

As be free to believe what you want as hence why some are chosen and others are not.

Including Earth.
 
Back
Top