

Where are they? Why I hope the search for extraterrestrial life finds nothing. - as
http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/20569/page1/

======
ericb
I have a sci-fi inspired theory that as a civilization advances, it modifies
itself such that it's mental processing speed and speed of communication
become faster. At a certain point, species at other speeds have less to offer
and communicating would be impractical as emitting a signal at our speed would
involve what would seem like eons of effort to them. Due to the speed
discrepancies, they'd mainly prefer talking to themselves.

One way or another, the "sends radio waves into space hoping for contact"
phase is probably very short. The possibilities for what phases come next are
not all bad, but whatever the "usual" is, it probably doesn't involve sending
radio waves out anymore. It's possible the next step is to evolve into
something that wouldn't like talking to us very much. Maybe that's not bad.

~~~
ph0rque
Charles Stross explores a very similar thesis in _Accelerando_
(<http://www.accelerando.org>): the civilization needs such intensive
bandwidth to continue functioning "normally" that the distance between
galaxies is too large to support both the bandwidth required and
intergalaxical expansion (it's been awhile since I read it, so correct me if
the details are fuzzy).

------
stcredzero
Charles Pellegrino/George Zebrowski covers this in _The Killing Star_ (1995).
They reason as follows:

    
    
      1. Any species will place its own survival before that of a different species.
      2. Any species that has made it to the top on its planet of origin will be 
         intelligent, alert, aggressive, and ruthless when necessary.
      3. They will assume that the first two rules apply to us.
    

So any starfaring species might well destroy another starfaring species --
immediately. In _The Killing Star_ the aliens do so at the first opportunity
with high-powered relativistic bombardment. The power that they use dwarfs
that generated by asteroid impacts and past mass extictions. They blanket the
entire hemisphere of planets with relativistic projectiles! The earth is taken
out entirely in just two shots.

<http://sites.inka.de/mips/reviews/TheKillingStar.html>

~~~
ericb
It's an interesting theory, but advanced civilization is built on
collaboration, not defection (aggression). Most things that lead to advances
in civilization are based on collaboration: science, openness, sharing
knowledge, rule of law, free trade, contracts.

I would argue the exact opposite--any species that makes it to the top of the
food chain will likely have collaboration ingrained in their nature, and the
more advanced, the greater their collaborative nature will be.

~~~
stcredzero
Yes, but we tend to collaborate with members of our own species and
enslave/butcher/experiment on other species. Even our relationships with dogs
and other family pets can be highly unequal and sometimes downright
disturbing. (Treating them as chattel, "putting them to sleep" when it's more
convenient to do so.) So this counts against your position in two ways: 1) our
only data point indicates that interspecies collaboration is likely to be less
than cozy 2) others might observe our treatment of other species and use that
to evaluate our potential for hostility.

Also, our record with regards to polluting our own environment doesn't
recommend us highly as "good citizens of the galaxy." (This was brought up as
a possibility in David Brin's Sundiver series.)

And this isn't even considering the vast differences in culture and even basic
mental models there will likely be. It's far from a sure bet that this
openness will extend to us.

Also, one can readily imagine how a "innocuous" act from the point of view of
one species might be considered a greivous crime by another. (The Ender's Game
books are one example.)

~~~
ericb
I don't think we're highly advanced, so we have 0 data points from a highly
advanced species.

Collaboration leads to advancement and that trend applies to higher levels of
advancement than we are at. For example, imagine there was no war. Trillions
of dollars of economic activity could instead be directed toward, say, curing
cancer. The more collaborative a society, the farther and faster it can
advance. Learning from another species (thanks for the cool warp drive tips,
Xarcon!) is a type of collaboration that offers benefits that a species
doesn't get following the approach in the parent post. So, as a matter of
policy, extending the openness to other species can be sound strategy.

The rest of what you're saying is not really related to my argument, which was
focused solely on the "personality" of highly advanced species.

~~~
stcredzero
How many data points do you have for saying we're not "highly advanced?" I
should not have said "highly advanced" and should just have said "sentient
interstellar" instead. My discussion is about the future of humanity, not the
present day. We are not quite even space-faring yet.

Learning from another species' technology is likely to be a largely one-way
transaction. Instead of trading warp drive tips, it's much more likely that
the "Xarcon" will have warp drive and we will not. (Or vice-versa.) In any
case, if the other side has things like antimatter fueled starships, they may
still have the potential to wipe out the other civilization, or at least
preemptively cause huge damage to it. Why would another intelligent species
give up a potential technological advantage without first assuring the safety
of their own species? Of course, there are many ways of assuring such safety.
In the case of practical warp drive, one way of doing this would be to
withhold warp technology and use the intervening time to propagate your own
species. Another option might be to absorb the less advanced species into some
sort of confederation. Actually, a really savvy species would do both!

------
Tichy
I think I just found a possible alternative explanation, which given the odds
might actually be very probable: there is one situation in which aliens might
not want to show themselves to us. That is, if we are an experiment that their
interference would mess up. Perhaps they are just studying some sociology and
evolution theory with earth. We already are the result of the "von Neumann
probe".

We are not seeing any other aliens because our creators (not god, but some
aliens) are so powerful that they destroyed them or kept them away.

Well, just a random thought I had after reading the article.

~~~
r7000
Maybe the idea of messing with anything interesting is unthinkable. If you
were very advanced the only thing interesting would be stuff that originated
elsewhere (and mathematics). The thought of "contaminating" it would be
immoral. Even terraforming a lifeless planet or moon would seem like a waste
as you would be destroying information.

------
cousin_it
They became smaller. Found a galaxy in every atom and started colonizing them.
Life on the micro-level is fun because the speed of light is relatively huge.

They became faster. Foreseeing the heat depth of the universe, they invented a
way to squeeze an eternity of subjective time into a second of real time, and
stayed there. Or turned around in time. Or started oscillating back and forth
in the same time interval.

They invented wish control, eliminated the survival instinct and went extinct.

They contacted God and ascended.

~~~
jcl
They became dumber, could no longer understand the technology that was keeping
them alive, and died out.

Really, the only reason we are as intelligent as we are is because
intelligence turned out to be helpful for survival. But that same intelligence
lets us defeat our own survival instincts (which is why we have obesity, drug
addiction, and porn). This suggests that for continued survival, either our
instincts must become stronger than our intellects or our intellects must
become weaker than our instincts -- both of which lead to the same place:
exhaustion of resources before we actually accomplish anything.

(Disclaimer: I recently rented "Idiocracy".)

------
mynameishere
Possible filters:

1\. The singularity. (Though that begs the question: Why wouldn't robots be
observable? Perhaps they exist at a largely "virtual" level, as code, even as
they replace life.)

2\. Dysgenics, aka, Idiocracy. At some point, it may be evolutionarily
advantageous to _not_ become more advanced. This is certainly true at present,
on average, though the distribution of intelligence is becoming bimodal. The
actual filter might ultimately involve a great genocide by Morlock-esque
creatures.

3\. Gamma ray bursts. Could wipe out millions of civilizations all at once.

4\. Ice nine. This is the author's suggestion, basically. Some sudden
discovery that wipes out humanity too quickly for us to recover.

....certainly, the author is correct in observing that there are no
intelligent aliens, nor could they hide themselves unless they purposefully
disabled every radio transmitter for the duration of their hiding.

ED: The wiki article is actually pretty good:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox>

------
dangoldin
I've thought about this issue in the past and have a similar view to the
author's, forgive me if it's a little bit childish:

I believe that in order to develop space technology a species(let's call it
that) has to be technologically advanced but in order to be technologically
advanced the specieshas to be innovative and competitive.

But competition is the trait that can cause conflict and wars so any species
that has the capability to colonize foreign worlds also has the ability to
annihilate itself.

Thus I have this idea that every species that has been able to get this
technology has killed itself off. It's a morbid view but just an idea that I
have.

What I like to think is that we are getting more and more in line with nature
and less and less pugnacious so at one point maybe we'll get along with the
world - hopefully these advanced aliens have reached that point.

~~~
mdakin
Surely the path towards becoming technologically advanced also requires
cooperation in addition to competition. These two processes tend to hold one
another in balance nicely and yield results. I don't see any clear evidence
that suggests one or the other of those two processes will "win out" long
term. But if anything it seems humans have become more cooperative over time
in step with our technological advancement.

Assuming "competition" and ONLY the negative consequences of the competitive
process somehow trump all else, in particular cooperation, is depressing,
counterproductive and inconsistent with what I've seen in my own life.

------
sdurkin
If we are the only ones, I find that incredibly scary. We are incredibly more
precious than we thought. The fate of all intelligent life rests on this one
tiny speck.

I, for one, hope that we aren't the only ones, because if we fail, then its
all over. If there are more, intelligence will be able to carry on.

------
chmike
The only real paradox on this matter is that UFOs are systematically out ruled
as the expected manifestation of ETs.

There is apparently a prejudice on what an ET manifestation should or might
be. If there is no match, people mistakenly conclude that ET don't exist
instead of calling back into question their assumptions on what an ET
manifestation should be.

Most reasoning about ET naively project humans constrains or interests on them
as well as our rationale. This is quite naive.

The author suggest filters, I suggest barriers.

The most important barrier is interstellar travel which requires to be able to
collect energy somehow during the travel (i.e. from dark matter) or the be
able to completely freeze any activity and energy spending on board during the
travel (i.e. as do plant seed) and using the destination sun as energy source
to trigger to reactivation.

When a civilization has reached this stage, he most probably has become
independent of the need to be on firm ground like an earth or so. He will be
much more comfortable in a fully artificial, customized and big enough space
ship. What I mean to say is that their constrains may be totally different
than what we may expect based on our experience.

From this perspective I assume the real value (St Graal) is scientific and
engineering knowledge and mastering, and for this, if avoiding direct contact
and obvious manifestation can simplify the task, they'll do it.

We have no idea on their constrains, their knowledge and how humans are
positioned regarding it.

There are enough facts and data on UFOs however to learn and deduce things
about their technology. (i.e. electro magnetic propulsion, very intense
magnetic fields, supra conductive vehicle shell at room temperature and above,
protecting against magnetic field, etc...). These are not just speculations,
there are hard facts justifying them. (i.e light polarization due to intense
EM field around the UFO made visible on a photograph), etc.

Apparently very few people really take the time to investigate objectively and
in detail the data at hand and the hard facts.

~~~
ph0rque
> The most important barrier is interstellar travel which requires to be able
> to collect energy somehow during the travel (i.e. from dark matter) or the
> be able to completely freeze any activity and energy spending on board
> during the travel (i.e. as do plant seed) and using the destination sun as
> energy source to trigger to reactivation.

There is also the possibility of wormhole travel/other spacetime exotics...

~~~
chmike
Yes. But their existence, and validity as traveling technique, are still to be
proved.

The plant seed, or bacteria spore, analogy invalidates the claim that inter
stellar travel is impossible for living bodies. Inter stellar travel is thus
possible, even without energy source available on the way.

We also have to call back in question our assumptions on how a contact would
happen and how the ET would look like.

The abduction data is on this aspect very interesting because no one could
have predicted such a contact scenario. Note that I don't pretend it's true,
but the thing is that there is a striking piece of evidence on this subject
which out rules the theory of false memory. It is the Betty Hill star map that
Joachim Koch recognized as to be our solar system. This interpretation makes
much more sense than other interpretation for multiple reasons and the killing
detail in it is that Betty has drawn in 1962 a ring around Jupiter and the
ring was only discovered by Voyager 1 in 1979 !

------
hacklite
What difference would it make if there _were_ extraterrestrial life?

How would an advanced Alien intelligence view human beings, who exploit and
slaughter intelligent life around them on a daily basis, including other human
beings, and helpless animals who they raise under torturous conditions and
then dismember while conscious in order to consume them -- needlessly, as our
physiology does not require animal products.

Not to mention the warmongering, as the majority of the U.S. public supported
war -- as long as it seemed convenient. No anti-war stance on principle for
most U.S. citizens, bogglingly, especially after the lessons of Vietnam.

A lack of human rights or environmental laws in the most populous country on
Earth.

Widespread environmental destruction, wiping out forests and ecosystems all
over the globe.

I don't think Aliens would be too impressed with humanity in general,
including SETI researchers who retire to the cafeteria for a nice plate of
murdered intelligent being on a daily basis.

~~~
dfranke
The remarkable thing about humans is that we're even vaguely concerned about
environmental destruction. Out of millions of species, we're the only one that
is. So what makes you think that extraterrestrial species we encounter are
likely to care more than we do?

~~~
garbowza
It seems that most people aren't concerned with environmental description per
se, but rather how that destruction might affect their own lives. So really
it's just self preservation and self interest, which isn't much different from
other animals.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
right, but raising another sentient being in terrible conditions just to
slaughter and eat it might be considered a universal bad.

say an alien civilization comes along and is as far beyond us as we are beyond
cows. I think we'd raise some objections if they started eating us, even
though it is logically sound.

------
1gor
<http://www.exitmundi.nl> is a great collection of the Great Filter
candidates.

------
JacobAldridge
Nick mentions Environment Disaster as a possible existential risk, but perhaps
the environment is a more mundane and yet still 'Great Filter' that befalls
expansionist civilisations.

What if the resources required to leave the home planet (including here the
resources required for generations of technological steps to reach that point)
are more than an Earth-like planet can sustain? In other words, of necessity
or as close to it as probability allows, intelligent life must destroy the
sustainability of its home planet before it achieves the technology capable of
leaving it.

Of course, by leaving it I'm talking on the scale required to explore and
interact with neighbouring solar systems, not just sending Voyager 1 out there
with a picture on its side.

------
michael_dorfman
If we're going to posit extraterrestrial life, I'd view the fact that they've
stayed hidden from us as a de facto sign of intelligence. "Smart enough to
stay the fuck away" sounds like a good start, to me.

~~~
as
That was Bill Watterson's theory.

------
vchakrav
I believe that the author makes one fundamental mistake: Assuming that there
is one great filter, and that its common across all civilizations. It seems to
me there are a large number of filters, some of which applied (to dinosaurs,
for example). Some filters may cause end of all life (on earth), some others
may simply eradicate all human life..

Either way, on a cosmic scale, all this is beyond our control (I'd worry about
the sun going nova some day, but I have more pressing things to do), so not
much point worrying about it.

------
ph0rque
I think there's another possibility: advanced civilizations exist, but since
they're not malevolent (if they were, we wouldn't exist by now), their ethics
prohibit "disturbing" us in the slightest bit, including via the knowledge
that there are others out there. So they take care to camouflage themselves
when they visit.

~~~
sdurkin
Why? What possible reason could a benevolent race have for not helping us?

~~~
rms
They are so far above us that they don't notice our existence.

~~~
sdurkin
That's absurd. We would notice any intelligent society, no matter how
primitive.

~~~
rms
I guess what I'm trying to say is that advanced civilizations aren't
necessarily intelligent or conscious, at least how we define it. Something
could be self-replicating on an energy level much beyond us without being
particularly observant.

~~~
sdurkin
Benevolence seems to be something our species is trending toward, and is in
someway required as part of the foundation for civilization. As such, I think
its reasonable to believe that conscious or any derivatives thereof would be
concerned with the welfare of less advanced beings.

~~~
rms
>Benevolence seems to be something our species is trending toward

Definitely

>and is in someway required as part of the foundation for civilization

I disagree. The foundation of a civilization is energy and how much energy a
civilization can use. See the Kardashev scale:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale>

I'm trying to say that something could exist that is so fundamentally
different from us that it really doesn't care about our existence. Right now,
the biggest organisms on earth are fungi. There are some truly enormous fungi.
Imagine a fungus or set of fungi that start converting radiation directly to
mass for itself to grow. It could expand to surround its local sun. In certain
ways, this fungus is more advanced than us, but it would eat us alive without
noticing it was doing anything wrong, because it isn't capable of having the
thought required to have morality.

------
jfoutz
I'm not sure if Marconi or Tesla could detect WiMax signals. Of course, that's
only 100 years, no telling what a thousand or a million years of tech could
hide in the EM spectrum.

Also, stuff like nanopond makes me want to think self replication is easier
than he's making it out to be.

------
argongas
I think that finding extraterrestrial life would challenge many of the worlds
popular religions. Take Christianity for example. How will Christians
interpret Genesis after the discovery of life on other planets? Was Christ
sent to other planets as well?

~~~
run4yourlives
Most Christians who've actually thought of their faith, (admittedly, that's
few and far between) have most certainly already reconciled their beliefs with
this subject. Off the top of my head, I'd imagine a reconciled Christian would
say:

1\. Aliens are not in the Bible, but nothing says they don't exist. 2\. The
Bible is God's message to man, and surely the Aliens will have their own
message from the same God. (Actually, considering the similarities of Earth's
religions, wouldn't that be something?) I digress.

Point being, the search for God will continue forever. It's part of human
nature, and is ultimately an unknowable equation. Even with a thousand known
species, people will ask why we are, and that can often lead to "because you
were made to be".

I think it's foolish to expect a mass awakening on the discovery of ET. It's
not going to happen. You'll have a few that will alter their beliefs, a few
that will go wacko (thinking crazy white haired dude from Contact here) and
everyone else will just ponder it for a while and carry on.

