Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Say The Aliens Are Silent Because They Are Extinct (theconversation.com)
HughPickens.com writes: The Conversation reports that according to research by Dr. Charles Lineweaver and Dr. Aditya Chopra, a plausible solution to Fermi's paradox is near universal early extinction of life on exoplanets, which they have named the Gaian Bottleneck. "The universe is probably filled with habitable planets, so many scientists think it should be teeming with aliens," says Chopra. "The mystery of why we haven't yet found signs of aliens may have less to do with the likelihood of the origin of life or intelligence and have more to do with the rarity of the rapid emergence of biological regulation of feedback cycles on planetary surfaces." According to the researchers, most early planetary environments are unstable. To produce a habitable planet, life forms need to regulate greenhouse gases such as water and carbon dioxide to keep surface temperatures stable. About four billion years ago, Earth, Venus and Mars may have all been habitable. However, a billion years or so after formation, Venus turned into a hothouse and Mars froze into an icebox. Even if wet rocky Earth-like planets are in the "Goldilocks Zone" of their host stars, it seems that runaway freezing or heating may be their default fate. Large impactors and huge variation in the amounts of water and greenhouse gases can also induce positive feedback cycles that push planets away from habitable conditions. The difference on Earth may be that as soon as life became widespread on our planet, the earliest metabolisms began to modulate the greenhouse gas composition of the atmosphere. "The emergence of life's ability to regulate initially non-biological feedback mechanisms could be the most significant factor responsible for life's persistence on Earth, conclude Lineweaver and Chopra. "Even if life does emerge on a planet, it rarely evolves quickly enough to regulate greenhouse gases, and thereby keep surface temperatures compatible with liquid water and habitability."
'Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.'
A good theory I read about somewhere is that the reason we can not find evidence is simply to do with technology either other alien cultures at the point in time we are witnessing there systems have not developed the technology that we can detect or they have moved beyond the need to blast everything in the entire em spectrum out to space.
How many years have we been detectable by other races and how many years left until our technology gets efficient enough that any trace of our race gets hidden by been simply cleaner with our em pollution.
Will we cease to exist to other races out there when we become undetectable?
Just some of the things that had to happen for us to be where we are now:
1) Life had to evolve
2) Multicelluar life had to evolve (this took a billion years after life itself arose so is probably not a forgone conclusion)
3) Life had to climb out of the oceans (dolphins might be smart but they won't be building any rockets with their flippers anytime soon)
4) Suitable intelligence had to evolve. Had it not been for the asteroid the dinosaurs would still be in charge.
5) Humans had to survive numerous climate changes and if the genetics is to be believed we almost died out and everyone today comes from a very small population who made it.
6) Farming had to be created to allow people to do something other than hunting and gathering.
7) For the industrial revolution plenty of freely available energy had to be lying around near the surface - ie coal. You can't melt iron with wood fires.
8) Someone had to invent radio.
I'm sure there are dozens of other things that could fit inbetween those points but my basic point is that a technological civilisation than can broadcast information out from his own planey is very VERY unlikely. IMO we could well be the only one surrounded by planets full of the equivalents of bacteria and jellyfish but little more.
I think there are two other points to consider: First, life and even intelligent life does not necessarily mean technology, or technology at an industrial scale. Maybe just THIS is very, very rare, with civilisations going this way separated by enormous gulfs of time and space. And maybe the universe is full of planets with aliens that have some sophisticated culture, but not at an technological scale that would lead to us being able to detect them.
Then there's the bottleneck of how long a species can sustain a lifestyle of full-scale industrial technology. Without forking out into space as soon as they can resources will be depleted very soon and then it's too late. Either that culture will end then or will (have to) become much more efficient and low-key, which again lowers the chances of us detecting anything.
I mean, one very useful aspect of thinking about this is thinking about what is going on here, not there. How long can we sustain this and what do we have to do to sustain it? Maybe we will learn how things tend to go with industrial-scale technological civilisations very quickly, even if too late...
We don't even have the Concorde anymore, or the SR-71, in some ways we've gone backwards.
The only way in which the Concorde and SR-71 were not primitive is that they were fast. But the mindset of burning up that much fuel so that Rod Stewart can get a haircut in another country and still wind up looking like an aged lesbian or so that we can spy on another country so that we can more effectively wage a cold war against them is seriously fucking backwards.
Getting rid of the Concorde and the SR-71 might seem technologically backwards, but in fact, it is a huge step in the correct direction. Do you seriously suggest that advanced aliens would be flying around at supersonic speeds for no good reason? How inefficient.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Supersonic in interstellar/interplanetary terms would be like going cross country on a push bike
In space, no one can hear you trying to exceed the speed of sound.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Except that it ignores subsurface oceans, which seem to be quite stable over long timeperiods and quite likely to be very abundant in the universe.
Sure, a species evolved to an undersea environment faces challenges in getting to their surface and beyond... but if we can get out of this deep gravity well after such a (geologically) short period of time after our species' evolution, sentient species in subsurface oceans with hundreds of millions or billion years on their "hands" would surely deal with the technical difficulties.
And of course there's also the possibility of LNAWKI, but let's just stick with LAWKI for now.
My personal suspicion is that a wide variety of factors work together to keep complex life rather rare on a per-planet basis, great distances dilute any signals from any that do achieve sentience, and the speed of light and difficulty of propagating a civilization outward at near that limit keeps the vast majority far away. Basically, rarity + dilution. But that's just my suspicion.
Maybe, but I can barely make out what you're saying because your horse is too high.
For four billion years, life on Earth was microscopic blobs of goo.
Then 600 million years ago - BAM - complex life emerged pretty much in the blink of an eye.
We have no idea how likely that transition to complex life 600 million years ago was - we have a sample size of ONE.
Now go back an read my first sentence: For four billion years, life on Earth was microscopic blobs of goo.
That four billion years was about half the expected lifetime of the Earth. The probability that complex life evolves may very well be infinitesimally small. WE DON'T KNOW.
Believing the universe must be teeming with intelligence is based on nothing more than faith.
My personal theory is that the most likely thing for any intelligent and technologically capable alien race to be doing is exactly what *we* are doing. Listen, and with a small budget - so only listening to a very small part of the spectrum from a tiny part of the sky. That golden record on voyager 1 is about the last major attempt we made at sending anything and it wasn't a very sensible one.
But if that was what economics led to here, why would we assume it would have other outcomes elsewhere ? Literally the only experimental sample of a technologically capable space-faring race we have - did this one.
So it's perfectly likely that there dozens of alien races within easy communications range of us all making a half-hearted attempt at listening and waiting for one of the others to talk first. All of them, in fact, hoping the outsource the expense of sending high-powered signals into a void where you don't know if anybody is listening, don't know if anybody who was listening would be able to understand it and don't even know in which direction to aim - to one of the others.
Exactly because sending messages is so incredibly difficult technically, and expensive, they may all have opted to just listen instead and, like us, hope that one of the others will figure out transmission first so they can justify the budget to build a transmitter to reply with.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Even if we're not, look at our development. Even if another civilization was on par with us, they could not even communicate with us if they wanted.
Whenever the topic gets to alien life forms, everyone assumes that the aliens must be advanced compared to us and have mastered interstellar, maybe even intergalactic, travel. Says who? Who says it's even possible to do this akin to various SciFi movies? What if the aliens would have to use newtonian physics to get here? Even if they developed 20 LJ away their journey would take centuries.
Our development from "duh, me make fire" to "duh, remote control is broken, need new TV" took about 10,000 years. And we're still in no position whatsoever to fly to any other star than our own. Hell, even reaching the next planet is something we've been working on for half a century now. And every time we actually manage to get a non-manned robot there on a one way trip we celebrate it hugely. What makes us think that anyone else in this universe is actually so far ahead of us to be able to fly about between the stars AND have the hubris to assume that someone this advanced would actually want to have anything to do with us?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
One thing to bear in mind is that life here existed in the form of anaerobic bacteria for a staggeringly long time. Photosynthesis began as a way to split hydrogen sulphide into useful hydrogen ions and a useless waste product of elemental sulphur, which was also usefully inert. Early photosynthesis therefore didn't require much in the way of biochemical sophistication to operate; the waste sulphur is where some large sulphur deposits originated.
That changed with a mutation which let the photosynthesis split not hydrogen sulphide, but water into useful hydrogen and (to anaerobic bacteria) highly toxic and dangerous oxygen. That initially wasn't all that big a problem to early water-splitters; the oceans they were in were rich in iron-II salts which readily absorbed oxygen to become insoluble iron-III salts (this is where the banded iron rock formations come from).
Everything changed when most of the iron-II in solution in the early earth's oceans was used up. Oxygen levels slowly rose, and virtually all bacterial species either adapted or went extinct. Oxygen is toxic to most bacteria.
I would hypothesise that most alien worlds either never make the switch from anaerobic atmosphere to aerobic one, or fail to establish a homeostatic oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere quickly enough and effectively enough to become self-regulating.