Aliens are extinct

And they are back.
Moulder and Skully are getting it back together.
www.imdb.com/title/tt4370492/

There are as many problems with the Fermi Paradox and the "Where is everybody?" question as there are with the Drake Equation, but at least the Drake Equation doesn't make arrogant assumptions. It's perfectly honest about the factors that are unknown to us. The Fermi Paradox isn't.

First off, the observable universe is believed to be 93 billion light years across. Much of what we can see at the outer reaches is 13 billion year old light from infant galaxies with infant stars in them. Many of those galaxies aren't even there anymore and it'll be another 13 billion years before we're able to see them die, and that's assuming the expansion of the universe isn't so rapid that we actually won't be able to see them 13 billion years from now.

Could life have begun, evolved to become intelligent and then go extinct in those 13 billion years we haven't even been able to observe yet? Unlikely? Maybe. Impossible? By no means. But impossible for us to detect in the roughly hundred years we've had the ability to do so? Maybe not completely, but it's certainly exceedingly improbable.

Just because there might not be intelligent life anywhere else in our local neighborhood (the Milky Way galaxy), assuming that there is and never has been anywhere else in the universe could very well be a mistake.

Then there's Fermi's belief that any intelligent species worth their salt would be so much like us that they couldn't possibly help but create similar technologies and start to colonize their galactic neighborhoods, which should bring them into contact with us in some way. To me, that's an incredibly arrogant assumption to make.

For one thing, the Earth has been around for roughly a third of the time the universe has existed, but humans (as far as splitting from other species of primates) have only been around for the past 6-7 million years. In the form of Homo Sapiens, specifically - the modern human being - we've only been here for 200,000 years. It was only roughly 12,000 years ago that we stopped being wandering bands of hunter/gatherers and began farming and making permanent settlements. 11,900 years would then pass before we sent our first electromagnetic signals out into space. Roughly another 50 would pass before we actively started looking for signals from others, which we've now been doing for about 50-60 years.

If that's a good indicator for how long it takes an intelligent species to evolve to the point of our technological achievements, then there's a pretty damn good chance other intelligent life forms in our galaxy (or others) either aren't quite there yet, or got past that stage long ago and are no longer emitting signals we can detect. We've only been emitting RF signals for a hundred years and we're already advancing to the point that we might not be doing that anymore 200 years from now, so the window for detecting a civilization like ours through RF emmisions might just be somwhere between 100 and 500 years.

Our galaxy alone is 100,000 light years across. Let's say there's a planet 10,000 light years away from us where intelligent life has evolved. In order for us to detect them now, they'd have to have been at more or less the exact same level of technological advancement we are now - give or take 500 years - exactly 10,000 years ago. If, 10,000 years ago, they were at the same level as we were in the 11th century, it'll be another thousand years before we'd be able to detect them. If they were a thousand years ahead of us, chances are we never will.

Assuming that "if they were out there, we should have detected them by now" is like saying, "I've bought a lottery ticket, now where's my million dollars?" Playing doesn't guarantee winning. Nor does looking guarantee seeing.

Secondly, automatically assuming that any intelligent lifeform must not only discover and invent the same things we have, but have the same ambitions and abilities we strive for in terms of space travel and colonization is as ugly a form of human hubris as I've ever heard. Who says you can't be intelligent and not discover radio communications? Who says they aren't smarter than us and skipped a few of the steps we've taken? Or not as bright as us and haven't gotten there yet? Or just don't have the same resources as us and will either never be able to get to where we are, or have taken a dramatically different route that we've never thought of?

Assuming they'll be more or less exactly like us is exceedingly arrogant and it blinds us to the possibilities of looking for intelligent life that has evolved in radically different ways.

A third thing. Why are we even assuming intelligent, space-faring life on other planets in our galaxy (not to mention other galaxies) would have automatically made it past Earth at some point and that they would have made their presence known?

We're halfway between the edge and the center of the Milky Way ourselves (about 25,000 light years in each direction). Assuming we never figure out faster-than-light (FTL) travel, just getting to other planets in the Milky Way will take a LOOONG time! Even if we were to reach half the speed of light, just getting to the nearest star that we know for a fact doesn't have an Earth-like planet will take us 8 years. Getting to the nearest one with a rocky planet the size of Earth - which we right now don't know if even has an atmosphere - at that speed would, if memory serves me, take 200 years.

My point? Our galaxy is HUGE. 100,000 light years across. That's 10 BILLION square light years! So, let's say there's a planet opposite us in the Milky Way with intelligent life on it. Pull a 50,000 light year straight line through the center of our galaxy and there they are. What are the odds that they'll have made it all the way across our galaxy to our neck of the woods in the past 12,000 years? If they haven't figured out FTL travel either, isn't it very likely they would have stayed on "their own side of the galaxy"? What would compel them to come here if there are other planets nearer to them that they could use? Who says they haven't traveled outward to the edge of the galaxy that's nearest to them? Or perpendicular to the center? If they're there and even if they're sending out RF signals while doing all of this, it's 50,000 light years away from us. If they're doing all of it as we speak, it'll be another 50,000 years before those signals reach us and we can detect them. And 49,900 years before they can detect ours.

Assuming that just because they haven't come by for a cup of coffee at the White House, they don't exist at all...? Arrogant!

As for the claim that we're not finding them because they're all extinct...?

True as it is that the universe is a hostile place, the estimate right now for the number of Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of stars in our own galaxy stands at 40 billion. That's a 40 billion to 1 chance that our planet is the only one in our galaxy where intelligent life ever has evolved or ever will.

There are an estimated 100 billion galaxies in the universe with an average of 40 billion stars in each. If our own galaxy is anything to go by, that means we can make a careful estimate of roughly 10-16 billion Earth-like planets in the habitable zones of their stars in each galaxy. Going with 10 billion to be careful, then unless my math is off, that comes to a 1,000 QUINTILLION* to 1 chance that our planet is the only one in the universe that has ever harbored intelligent life and ever will.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the universe has ever made only one of anything. There isn't just one galaxy. There isn't just one star. There isn't just one planet, or even just one rocky planet. Even on the one rocky planet we know of with life on it, there isn't just one lifeform, or even just one intelligent lifeform. There are varying degrees of intelligence, but there isn't just one.

I'm sorry, but the odds against us being the only advanced species of life, or even just our planet being the only one ever in the entire history - past or future - of the universe to sustain complex lifeforms are just too staggering.

As Einstein was once credited with saying: "Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."


*In case you were wondering, 1,000 quintillion in plain numbers is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Those are the odds against us being alone in the universe. 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Not only that, but if the Fermi Paradox is our way of thinking, then we're arrogantly assuming that any letter sent by anyone, anywhere at any time is for us and should have landed in our mailbox by now.

There are 7 billion people on Earth. If just one of them is posting a letter right now, what are the odds that it's for you? How many letters are sent each and every day that you don't know about and never will? How many of those 7 billion people will you never cross paths with in any way, even though we all live on the same planet?

It's not the Paradox that's the problem, it's the original "Equation".

Take a look at the Wikipedia entry at the link I posted.

The last variable is "the fraction of these civilizations that have developed communications, fc, i.e., technologies that release detectable signs into space". It starts with this assumption that we could detect them.

The Equation is the kind of thing that Carl Sagan used to use to talk about, to promote the concept of alien life. Go over to the SETI site, and you'll find this page.

The way it's normally used it to point out the likelihood of finding detectable signals (such as the famous Wow! Signal).

That's the whole point of the equation.

The Paradox merely points out the flaw that those who assume there must be high numbers of civilizations generating detectable signals are wrong--hence "Where are they?"

And, more importantly, the article that spurred me to post points out that a stable environment is probably rare, especially given the rather remarkable history of our planet. How do you even calculate the odds of an impact that created the Moon in such a way that it ended up in a stable orbit, at the right distance, to both help sweep our orbit of debris and provides tidal forces? Why did Earth get the right combination of elements to provide a growth medium for life?

In our own system, Venus and Mars are both proof that planets are unstable. Mars likely had more water in the past, and Venus was cooler. Now, unless we find something really unique, they're pretty much assumed to be sterile.

The gist of the article is that the Earth, even with multiple planetwide extinction events, is a remarkably stable environment, and may prove to be the exception rather than the rule.

To be fair, Fermi actually predated Drake by about a decade. And Tsiokovsky asked the same basic questions before then.

But the interesting point in this thread for me is to see how different people can look at the same information and take their "inspiration" in different ways.

To me, the Drake Equation is a secular equivalent of asking "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" You're already assuming the existence of angels before you already begin.

Given any sort of nonzero values in those variables, a large number will show up.

It proves nothing other than an overly optimistic view of the question that leads to confirmation bias. Because we have too small of a sample for most of the variables, it leads nowhere; it's a fait accompli--and a dead end.

I've seen too many ET enthusiasts use it as "proof" of aliens, even though it's basically GIGO--Garbage In, Garbage Out.

The Fermi Paradox, on the other hand (in my opinion), is more inspirational simply because it takes the same basic variables and points out that we obviously missed something--and therefore need to reexamine and research our assumptions until we can find what we're missing.

Here's another of my favorite quotes by a physicist that I think is along the same lines as the Paradox:



I find that pointing out that the approach to finding other life needs more work to be inspirational, rather than playing GIGO games.

To me, the Drake Equation is akin to saying "Of course there's a Higgs Boson" and then going off already assuming it exists, where the Fermi Paradox says "We haven't seen a Higgs. Let's build the LHC and find it--or find out what else we missed". The Drake Equation puts the cart before the horse.

In my eyes, the Equation (as used by most) is arrogant, while the Paradox is humble. I don't see "Where are they?" as a sneering statement ending the discussion; I see it as an honest question that must be answered.

As for my own bias, I suppose I should mention that the SETI Institute has offices in Mountain View, about 5-10 miles from my house. Every Wednesday, they have a talk during the lunch hour that's open to the public. Yes, I've been there, and am looking forward to their February 23 presentation.

Maybe my view is such because Enrico Fermi had an amazing, innovative mind that I've always found inspiring. His method of making accurate estimates from what is usually assumed to be little or no data was so remarkable people speak of "Fermi Problems" From estimating the yield of the first atomic bomb to finding out the number of piano tuners in Chicago, a "back of the envelope" estimate usually proves valuable.

One of the other paradoxes in this case is that in human history, (I think it is a reasonable assumpsion that an alien race will follow the same pattern.) there are several limiting factors.

1. The vast majority or communications signals generated from the planet are going to get lost very quickly. That inverse square law can be a real *****. Most radio signals from earth loose power to such an extent that they are indistinguishable from background noise byt he time you reach the orbit of Jupiter. There are some signals that can reach far out into the solar system, but they are on special low noise frequencies, high power and use very high gain antennas. Very few of these will be detectable once you get a light year or so away from the sun. SO the chances of any signal being able to reach another solar system are nearly impossible unless specifically designed to.

2. As a civilization gets more advanced, the more they want to communicate and the more valuable radio and other spectrum becomes. To compensate for this increase in value, communications evolve to be more selective, lower power (easier to control) and more directional. This create a paradox that the more advanced a civilization, the more likely that their communications will be such that they will not be detectable to outsiders.

One example: BOAR (Broadband Over Amateur Radio). This is a group experimenting with ways of setting up high speed data networks over large distances. They use high gain antennas and high frequency signals to make 100Mb data connects over distances of up to 50 miles or more. I ready about a network that included a 50 mile radio shot to a relay on the top of a mountain in Nevada. The actual power for something like that is suprising low. Only 20 Watts PEP using some very high gain antennas. They had high power rifle sights mounted to the antennas as part of the setup to get everything to line up. The thing is that this high speed data would be very difficult for someone who didn't know it existed to be able to detect. IIRC it was something like a 3GHz signal and relatively low power. Detecting it is made worse because of how unidirectional the signal was, you would have to basically be right in the middle of the signal path to hear it it at all.

So we can conclude that most likely a highly advanced civilization would be undetectable not due to any malicious or paranoid attempt, by just due to the evolution of their technology to a point that signals can't be heard.

3. We have no idea what an alien radio signal would sound like. Just look at the different type of radio signals used today. CW, FM, AM, SSB etc. If you are looking for a voice on FM and happen to hear psk31 on upper side band, you can easily miss a weak signal just be cause you don't know that there is something that you should be looking for there, let alone how to decode it.

4. Assuming that aliens even use radio is also a MAJOR assumption. Look at how parallel evolution can create wildly different animals using the same laws of nature. Some forms are similar, but would someone regonize a penguin or emu if all they had ever seen was a humingbird?

As mentioned earlier, it is human arrogance to say that they would have to be using radio. We say it because it is the only thing we know, but by no means is that the only way for a civilization to function. It is very possible that there are aliens even know sitting on their plant trying to figure out why no one hears their Subspace calls.

5. If there is a space fairing race that has set foot outside their home system, It is very possible to think that they figured out a way to keep in contact with people extreme distances away and something that is going to be convent for the, It may be Subspace, or tachyons, or wormholes, hyperspace, or FTL carrier pigeon. None of these we would even have the first idea of how to detect and decode then.

In the end, the more likely a civilization would be to be able to communicate with us, the less likely that we will be able to hear them.

There are also two assumptions that I don't think anyone noted;

We assume that they are broadcasting signals in the hope they will find other life. Why? Species may well have come to the conclusion this might not be a good idea, in case whatever picks up the signal turns out to be less than friendly. A reasoning that explains why we've only sent out one such signal of our own. Or they may have done their own calculations and decided there is no other life out there, or none capable of responding. In which case why bother?

Who says they haven't already picked up signals and investigated? Why would they automatically respond with a signal of their own? If they lack FTL technology sending a signal back might be pointless, its not like we'd be able to Skype each other. If they do have FTL technology they may feel that the better idea to to go over and have a more careful look before revealing their existence...and if they are that advanced they might not be all that interested in this planet as we have nothing to really offer them this far out. Or who knows, may be they have laws about messing with primitive species?

For all we know, there may be/have been so much activity out there that they made that decision based on first hand experience. "Our ancestors tried that and almost got wiped out," or, "Remember those lesser beings we stole this planet from? Yeah, we're pretty awesome, but what if someone else is even more awesome than us? Maybe attracting attention isn't the best idea..."



And maybe someone's already been here millions or even billions of years ago, taken whatever biological tests they wanted, decided life here was an interesting novelty at first, but ultimately too primitive for them to really care about long term and then left again. Wouldn't that essentially be what we would do?

Let's say that 30 years from now, we finally get probes out to Europa, Enceladus and Titan and we find microbial or even slightly more advanced life on one or more of those moons. Because it would be the first proof of life anywhere outside Earth, we'd be ecstatic at first and take as many samples as we could possibly get away with. We might even come back with more advanced equipment later on and try to find out more about these lifeforms, but at some point we would believe we'd learned enough and turn our attention elsewhere. It might take us a hundred or even a thousand years to come to that conclusion, but we will eventually and what's a hundred or a thousand years on the cosmic time scale? Nothing but a blip.

If advanced life was to evolve on, say Titan, in another 2 billion years from now, we might not even notice, because we would have already moved on by then. All evidence of our presence would be wiped from Titan's surface at that point and the intelligent life that arises won't know we were ever there to begin with.

Yeah, I'm not in the habit of listening to that "Ancient Aliens" crap.

Somehow I think that if aliens had been here and left something behind for us to find, it would be a little more high tech than circles of rocks in England and big stone faces on Easter Island. After all, what we've left behind on the Moon and Mars is made of metal, silicon and compound materials.

There's no real evidence that anyone has ever been here, which is why I suggested that if they had been, it would probably have been so long ago that we'd never know, much like any possible future inhabitants of Titan wouldn't know we'd been there a billion years earlier.