Showing posts with label Fermi Paradox. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fermi Paradox. Show all posts

Friday, August 23, 2024

An Ecologist Reflects on the Fermi Paradox

 

Via ChatGPT

To begin, consider an analogy drawn from economics:

"Economists differentiate between the short run and the long run. In the short run, a firm responds to a demand shock by adjusting its variable inputs to manage costs. In the long run, however, the firm can adjust its fixed inputs, such as capital and infrastructure, allowing for changes in its production capacity and potentially altering its overall business strategy."

This economic insight provides a useful framework for understanding both the evolution of life on Earth and the broader context of the Fermi Paradox.

Species, much like firms, operate within the constraints of their environment. Through natural selection, species evolve to optimise their fitness within these environments, allowing them to thrive over millennia, often with little genetic change. The vast complexity and diversity of life on our planet can be attributed to the dynamic interplay between species and their environments, where environmental shifts—whether gradual or catastrophic—create new niches and opportunities for biological innovation.

However, human beings represent a significant departure from this pattern. Unlike other species, which are largely at the mercy of their environments, humans have developed the unprecedented ability to reshape their surroundings through knowledge, planning, and engineering. This capability allowed us to transcend our evolutionary origins, exemplified by our landing on the moon. Despite being physically adapted to life on the African savannah, we constructed complex technologies—a kind of artificial phenotype—that enabled us to survive in the vacuum of space.

But why did we go to the moon? The answer lies not in pure rationality or intelligence but in our sub-rational biological drives. Humans, like all other organisms, are motivated by a suite of evolutionary imperatives: the need to eat, drink, and seek shelter, as well as more complex social drives such as the desire for group acceptance, prestige, security and dominance. The so-called "Space Race" was a manifestation of these drives, played out on a global scale.

This brings us to the Fermi Paradox—the apparent contradiction between the high probability of extraterrestrial civilizations and the lack of evidence for, or contact with, such civilizations. Many assume that the drives that propelled us to the moon will inevitably lead us to the stars, and that similar drives would motivate other intelligent species to do the same. So, where are the aliens?

The answer may lie in the long-term trajectory of civilization. Just as firms in the long run can fundamentally alter their strategies, intelligent species may evolve beyond their initial biological imperatives. For humans, the ability to engineer our environment may eventually extend to our own psyches. Once we recognize that our current drives serve primarily to optimise genetic persistence—a goal that, from a philosophical perspective, may seem shallow and unsatisfying—we might choose to re-engineer these drives.

One radical option is what we might call the "collective-suicide" scenario, where a civilization, recognizing the futility of mere biological self-reproduction, simply opts out. This echoes Albert Camus's observation in 'The Myth of Sisyphus': "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide."

Yet, if we find value in subjective experiences, we might instead cultivate entirely new aesthetic drives, building environments that allow us to explore and indulge these new motivations. This brings us into the realm of speculative fiction, where authors like Iain M. Banks and Greg Egan have envisioned civilizations that have transcended their biological origins to live in virtual realities of their own making.

However, this isn’t the end of the story. A crucial drive that we may need to retain is the urge to research, engineer, and explore. Even in a future where we have transcended our biological origins, the desire for security would likely remain. A civilization that values its existence would still be concerned about external threats, whether from other species or natural cosmic events. As such, advanced civilizations might invest in powerful, discreet defences to protect themselves—defences that could be so effective as to be undetectable to us.

So, what might be out there? Perhaps, rather than sprawling interstellar empires, the galaxy is filled with highly advanced, self-contained civilizations that have chosen to retreat into their own virtual realities, leaving behind only subtle, imperceptible traces of their existence. And perhaps, just as we search the skies for signs of life, they are out there, quietly observing us, ensuring that their own carefully constructed worlds remain undisturbed.


Note: Thanks to ChatGPT for taking my extended draft and polishing it to the text you see above.

Friday, July 21, 2017

More about METI



From Centauri Dreams today:
"I want to commend Johnson’s piece, which is titled “Greetings, E.T. (Please Don’t Murder Us).” As you can fathom from the title, the author is looking at our possible encounter with alien civilizations in terms not of detection but of contact, and that means we’re talking METI — Messaging Extraterrestrial Intelligence. "
The thing to worry about is not so much 'messaging' as 'meeting'. It's forever interesting to watch liberal propensities overwhelm scientific understanding wherever a warm, glowing chink can be found. Assuming Frank Drake was not misquoted in Johnson’s piece, this is what he said:
"Drake leaned forward, nodding. ‘‘It raises a very interesting, nonscientific question, which is: Are extraterrestrial civilizations altruistic? Do they recognize this problem and establish a beacon for the benefit of the other folks out there? My answer is: I think it’s actually Darwinian; I think evolution favors altruistic societies. So my guess is yes. ..."
The magic is in the word 'altruistic'. Social creatures are altruistic within the limits of kin and reciprocal altruism, and - when human - can sometimes be persuaded to interpersonal neutrality on larger scales, when their personal, family & friends' interests are not adversely affected (so nation states and empires).

But in general? If you're a bug and you annoy me, you'll get squashed.

How could an 'altruistic' approach to biological competitors ever be selected for?

One writer who really understands where Darwinian evolution actually leads you is Liu Cixin. You should read the extended excerpt here .. but this is a flavour:
"The universe is a dark forest. Every civilization is an armed hunter stalking through the trees like a ghost, gently pushing aside branches that block the path and trying to tread without sound. Even breathing is done with care.

"The hunter has to be careful, because everywhere in the forest are stealthy hunters like him. If he finds other life — another hunter, an angel or a demon, a delicate infant or a tottering old man, a fairy or a demigod — there's only one thing he can do: open fire and eliminate them.

"In this forest, hell is other people; an eternal threat that any life that exposes its own existence will be swiftly wiped out. This is the picture of cosmic civilization. It's the explanation for the Fermi Paradox."
Any sufficiently advanced alien society would care about humanity about as much as we care about a local wasp nest. Sometimes we let it survive, because it's in our interests that the wasps do their thing (pest control) - which benefits us.

Other times, not so much.

And in this, we are not being backward, or under-evolved, or lacking civilizational maturity which future generations will fix. We are simply being optimally rational.

If we do meet those aliens any time soon - and given our woeful interstellar capabilities we would be the technologically inferior party - we should hope that, like the wasps, our existence adds some value for them.

Meanwhile I would hold off on all that signallin' and hollerin'.

---

Update: I'm not the only one with concerns.


Thursday, July 06, 2017

What would amaze Newton? Not much

"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe: attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I've watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those... moments... will be lost... in time, like... tears... in rain." (ref).
Did I mention that I am already bored with the future?



As an experiment, I mentally bring Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) back to life as a fully-formed adult, and ask what surprises him about three hundred and fifty years of progress. I don't mean surprised in any obvious sense, I mean stuff he'd discover that he genuinely could not have anticipated.

Our present-day culture and technology? I think that was all imaginable in the 17th century. I hesitated a bit at computers - the whole concept of hardware-software seems to depend on a post-Newton paradigm - but then I remembered Leibnitz.

So I think the only things which would truly amaze the brought-forward Newton are:
  1. Relativity
  2. Quantum Theory
  3. The neurobiological basis of mind.
The first two violate his Galilean worldview; the third his strong religious beliefs.

---

Today we know the universe - spatially and temporally - pretty well: from 10-32 seconds at startup out to about 100 billion years ahead.

We also know what the universe is macroscopically made of: galaxies, black holes, stars, planets, space-boulders, dust & gas clouds. The known laws of physics apply to virtually all of the phenomenology of these objects - we can predict with high accuracy what it would be like to visit.

No real surprises there.

---

Life is bounded by physics, chemistry and thermodynamics. We have a reasonable theory of biogenesis ('The Vital Question') and the transition to eukaryotic and multicellular life.

I wouldn't be surprised to find we are the only technological society in this galaxy (evidence) and I think we have a reasonable idea about the kinds of aliens that might exist - once we peel off those rose-coloured spectacles.

If I were to achieve an unwanted immortality, I just don't see where future history could differ much surprise-wise from that space which science-fiction has already massively, redundantly charted.

I would be interested - but I don't see myself massively amazed.

---

Note: there really isn't that much room for reality to out-weird our imagination when a leading paradigm to understand the spacetime in which we live is described thus:
"The zeroth order phenomena [in quantum gravity] is locality itself. This must be the case if, as is sometimes hypothesized, locality is emergent in the classical or continuum limit of a fundamental quantum theory of gravity, whose states are networks living in no space, perhaps spin networks or records of entanglement.

The first order departures from locality are quantum phenomena, especially entanglement. Indeed one version of this proposal is that spatial relations are emergent from entanglement. ... "
From Lee Smolin's paper, "What are we missing in our search for quantum gravity?".