What do you think the Great Filter is?
What do you think the Great Filter is?
The Great Filter is the idea that, in the development of life from the earliest stages of abiogenesis to reaching the highest levels of development on the Kardashev scale, there is a barrier to development that makes detectable extraterrestrial life exceedingly rare. The Great Filter is one possible resolution of the Fermi paradox.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter
The Fermi paradox is the discrepancy between the lack of conclusive evidence of advanced extraterrestrial life and the apparently high likelihood of its existence. As a 2015 article put it, "If life is so easy, someone from somewhere must have come calling by now."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
Personally I think it's photosynthesis. Life itself developed and spread but photosynthesis started an inevitable chain of ever-greater and more-efficient life. I think a random chain of mutations that turns carbon-based proto-life into something that can harvest light energy is wildly unlikely, even after the wildly unlikely event of life beginning in the first place.
I have no data to back that up, just a guess.
Sadly it may be the speed of light.
All these intelligent species are simply trapped in their own solar systems for all eternity by an unbreakable natural law.
But surely generational ships would get us over that?
Not really, no. Generational ships might make colonizing the nearest star systems possible, but even colonizing our own galaxy would require some kind of suspended animation. The milky way is between 100,000-200,000 light years in diameter so even at the speed of light, you're looking at a travel time that is ~33-66% of the time that humanity has even existed(homo sapiens are currently estimated to have become a distinct species 200,000-300,000 years ago)... just to go to ONE star system out of the hundreds of BILLIONS that exist in our galaxy. You're gonna need generational ships so self-sustaining and capable that the generation that actually arrives at the destination will have long forgotten the point of the trip and might not want to leave the comfort of the ship.
Still, colonizing our own galaxy is at least theoretically possible, given enough time. The real filter is just how unimaginably large the universe is. The vast, VAST majority of the observable universe is FOREVER out of our reach, as it is expanding away from us faster than the speed of light. Then there's the unobservable universe, which could literally be infinitely bigger than the observable universe for all we actually know.
Until we figure out how that is possible outside of theory, it is just that. We have no plans that address actually keeping a spaceship working on such a timescale, and keeping the crew alive on top of it.
Considering we haven't seen any generational alien ships visit, it seems like nobody else has figured it out yet, either.
No. At best maybe a few reach the nearest inhabitable solar system.
That is very sad.
Information can travel at light speed. So, I think there's more to it personally
There doesn't need to be more to it than that. The observable universe is over 93 billion light years in diameter. That means even at the speed of light, it would take over 6.5x longer than the universe has even existed for anything to cross that distance... except the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light, so actually you need to go significantly faster than light to make it across. FTL is, sadly, still firmly in the realm of science fiction, so to the best of our current knowledge most of the universe is permanently inaccessible.
Light speed is very slow
I think that the great filter/fermi paradox is a combination of two facts,
- Our entire radio output (the only example we have to go by) is pitiful compared to the sun, like a candle in front of a flood light, you'll only be able to see it so far before it's completely drowned out. After a few dozen light years our radio output is less than the margin of error of a stars detectable radio output.
- As a civilization advances it must reduce radio leakage. As data gets more important, it gets more important that you're not wasting energy moving it around. Narrow beamed radio transmission becomes the norm and even less radio signals escape the system than when radio was messy and overpowered.
They're not missing or gone, they've just moved beyond messy radio signals. Even we tightened up our radio emissions in a little over a century. Most of what we watch or listen to comes to us via fiber, cable, or short range transmissions like cell phone towers and Wi-Fi.
My favorite filter is the amount of phosphorous in the universe. Earth has an unusually high amount, and it's vital for life. I like this one, because as more stars die, the amount of phosphorous goes up, implying we won't be alone forever.
Anyway, look up "Issac Arthur" on YouTube for HOURS of content about the Fermi paradox and potential great filters.
I'm gonna add to this by saying phosphorus may be my favorite, but I think the most likely filter is just time, twice.
Do you know how unlikely it is that earth has been habitable for so long? Do you know how long life was single-celled? One of the theories for how advanced (eukaryotic) cells formed was the combination of at least three different branches of life into the same cell! Archaea (cell wall), bacteria (mitochondria/chloroplasts), and viruses (nucleus). Do you know how unlikely that sounds? Do you know how long it would take for that to happen randomly? Most planets probably aren't even habitable for that long. Once we became eukaryotic, we started progressing much faster.
Then, keep in mind, the life has to continue to exist for billions of more years while it waits for the advanced life to happen again within the same section of the galaxy. So, time is two filters - both behind us and in front of us.
Thanks, I'll check it out!
Throwing in another similar YouTube suggestion of John Michael Godier
An alternative is we are among the first. Third generation stars are the ones that have planets with enough heavy elements to allow for complex chemistry. Sol (our star) is thought to be among the first batch of third generation stars in our gallexy.
Light speed does seem to be the upper speed limit for the universe. Talking that into account we probably haven't had a chance to see other early life as it would likely be spread pretty thin right now.
Yeah, I have a gut feeling that a lot of the variables in the Fermi equation are a little too generous.
This is my favorite, mainly because it's been well argued by some respectable scientists.
Another is that we're in a simulation, and aliens aren't part of it. There are also some very good statistics pointing to the simulation theory, from just sheer scale.
I do agree that in the grand scale of things we're actually very early. That alone would explain a lot.
Honesty, I don't think that there is a Great Filter. The Fermi Paradox strikes me as not very well-reasoned. A whole hell of a lot of things would have to go exactly right for civilizations to make contact, rather than it being the default assumption. There are lots of filters, not just one Great one.
But the closest to a Great Filter is that space is really, really. stupendously big. The chances of even detecting each other across such distances is vanishingly small, much less traversing them. Add in the difficulty of jumping the metabolic energy gap to become complex life, and that could reduce the density of civilizations down to a level that they're just not close enough to each other in spacetime to admit even the possibility of contact. And we're hanging our hat on some highly-speculative concepts like alien mega-structures harnessing whole solar systems to allow detection.
I think a lot of persnickety, smaller filters combine to make interstellar contact between civilizations against long odds. Perhaps the best we'll get is spectral signatures from distant planets that are almost-conclusive proof of some sort of life.
I think at some point, almost certainly not in our lifetimes, we'll detect the spectroscopic signatures of a planet that has an atmospheric makeup that HAS to be from life, but with no detectable signs of any civilization. Just nonsentient life. And we may never be able to get there.
I think you're probably closest. There aren't "filters" so much as we live in a universe that can only support life on a highly contingent basis, entirely by accident, at random intervals. It's filters all the way down, really. None of us are getting out alive, might as well enjoy it while it lasts.
Probably too optimistic and unhinged, but maybe a species advanced enough for interstellar travel, building mega structures etc. are advanced enough to ascend to a higher plane of existence or alternate dimensions or whatever. Maybe there's some alternative to this reality that will be unlocked by advanced technology that made all advanced life prefer that, to here.
That's a really neat idea I've never heard before. Like, maybe our entire universe is analogous to the ocean floor sea-vents that life arose out of. Cold, and dead, and boring, and difficult. And one day we'll discover how to ascend.
I also like this theory. In the Ian Banks Culture series civilizations that get advanced enough head off into the “sublime” they call it. Basically a higher level of existence. In my own more simple version, I’d figure VR and the biological/cyborg mix get so good the powerful can start living kind of forever, so they head for that substrate and don’t need big megastructures for anything, they just need computing power.
Yeah, it seems very possible that at one point, civilization will turn inward instead of outward. Why go through the time and effort to colonize the stars when you can just create a cyber-utopia? If you're advanced enough, you could make it feel like an eternity while almost no time passes on the outside.
Sure, your planet might get destroyed by a cataclysmic event in the far future, but if you can make that feel like billions or trillions of years, who really cares?
I don't think there is a single filter. My personal gut feeling however is that the jump to "specialised generalists" would be a major hurdle.
Early human civilizations are very prone to collapsing. A few bad years of rain, or an unexpected change of temperature would effectively destroy them. Making the jump from nomadic tribal to a civilisation capable of supporting the specialists needed for technology is apparently extremely fragile.
Earth also has an interesting curiosity. Our moon is extremely large, compared to earth. It also acts as a gyroscopic stabiliser. This keeps the earth from wobbling on its axis. Such a wobble would be devastating for a civilisation making the jump to technological. Even on earth, we are in a period of abnormal stability.
I suspect a good number of civilizations bottleneck at this jump. They might be capable of making the shift, but get knocked back down each time it starts to happen.
Speaking of our moon, the fact that it's roughly the same size as the sun as seen from earth and the fact that this is a complete coincidence blows my mind. Like there's no reason for that to be the case. Total eclipses like ours (where you can see the corona) are very rare.
Even more so, the moon is slowly moving away from the earth. A couple of million years ago, it would have completely covered the sun. In a couple of million years, it will not fully cover the disc.
A million years is a long time for humanity, but a blink on the timescale of moons and stars. We didn't just luck out with the moon's large size, but also with the timing of our evolution.
Earth also has an interesting curiosity. Our moon is extremely large, compared to earth. It also acts as a gyroscopic stabiliser. This keeps the earth from wobbling on its axis. Such a wobble would be devastating for a civilisation making the jump to technological. Even on earth, we are in a period of abnormal stability.
There seem to be so many coincidences that make our solar system unique that it's really upsetting lol It's like we are so perfect for stability because of things like Jupiter keeping the inner system "clean" of large impactors, our part of the galaxy being more "quiet" than typical as far as supernovae, stuff like that which makes it seem even less likely for life to exist anywhere else. :(
Life will almost certainly be fairly common, given the right conditions. On earth, it seems to have appeared not long after conditions made it possible. We either won the lottery on the first week, or the odds aren't actually that bad.
The problem is, we can't detect life right now. We can only see potential communicating civilisations. These are a lot rarer. We currently know of 1, humanity. That will change in the next few years. We have telescopes being designed/built capable of detecting the gasses in the atmosphere of an earth sized planet. While we won't recognise all life types this way, a lot will show up in abnormal gasses, e.g. free oxygen. This should help bound the possibilities a lot.
We're currently in it. Failing to create a clean, renewable, and scalable energy source powerful enough to run a society that is ever increasing in both population and technology without destroying their only inhabited planet has got to be the most common great filter.
Asteroids strikes, super volcanoes, solar CMEs, and other planetary or cosmetic phenomena that exactly line up in both severity and timing are too rare IMO.
Every society that attempts to progress from Type 1 to Type 2 has to deal with energy production. Most will fail and they will either regress/stagnate or destroy themselves. Very few will successfully solve the energy problem before it is too late.
A filter for sure, but not a great one. Call me optimistic, but I don't think that will set us back more than 10.000 years. If humanity can survive, society will re-emerge, and we are back here 2-3000 years into the future.
Is +5°C Earth a good place to be? No. Will the majority of humans die? Absolutely. Will the descendants get to try this society thing again? I believe so.
On a cosmic scale 10.000 years is just a setback, and cannot be considered a great filter.
Unfortunately we've pretty much used up all easily available resources. Anyone 'starting over' would have a much harder time getting the things they need to really get the ball rolling again.
When humans first discovered gold they practically only had to scoop it out of rivers. You'll be hard pressed to find any streams with such appreciable production anywhere in the world today.
Everyone is talking about society or physiology stuff. That is just things that might get humans.
Stars going super-nova is the real great filter. Our sun is 4.6 billion years old. Life started 4 billion years ago. In 4 billion years, the sun goes supernova. We are halfway to the end of the earth.
Smaller stars last longer, but have smaller ranges that life can exist in - and planets tend to move in or out in their orbits. Bigger stars have giant habitable zones - but some large stars born when humans took their first steps are in their last decades of life. You couldn't get from the pyramids to NASA in that time, never mind the 4 billion years it took to get to humans.
I think it's supposed to actually less than that, the sun's luminescence will increase over the next 1 billion years to the point that it will boil off the earth's oceans. No life will be able to exist past that, and earth will just be a barren rock in orbit for the next 3 billion years.
While that is true I would counter point that humans have a bit of a handicap as earth got hit by a big astroid that killed just about everything on it making terran life have to start all over again but at the other hand I saw someone else on here mentioned that oil has given us a head start at space ferrang advancement and oil is made from dead life so granted I haven't done much reacerch on how oil forms naturally but I do wonder if we would have oil if earth never got blown up but on top of all that there are theorys that mars used to have life so if astroids haven't interfered with our solar system intelligent life may have formed faster and maybe twice also there used to be multiple species of humans in the past so maybe 4 or five times in the same solar system
That is an interesting idea that is not typically considered in the drake equation as far as I know. That could significantly reduce the chance of finding intelligent life elsewhere.
I think it is in the drake equation effectively, it factors into the length of time that the civilization might send and receive detectable signals - It doesn't say why the Civilisation might collapse, but the planet becoming uninhabitable is surely one reason. On wikipedia for Drake Equation the Carl Sagan specification of L is in terms of the "fraction of planetary lifetime".
I think a missing factor might be how directional transmission and receiving is, if we can't broadcast to and listen to the whole sky equally then we might have a 1/r-cubed type issue with the chances of both listening and transmitting with enough strength/energy at the same time.
My thought is the evolution of intelligent life itself. If you think about it, intelligence is contrary to most of the principles of evolution. You spend a shit ton of energy to think, and you don't really get much back for that investment until you start building a civilization.
As far as we can tell, sufficient intelligence to build technological civilizations has only evolved once in the entire history of the Earth, and even then humans almost went extinct
Howabout a reasonably advanced civilization destroying itself and its homeworld after exploiting and then running out of petroleum?
I think it's a fair thought that any form of life doesn't perfectly recycle their resources and all forms of life give off waste for other life to utilize. That said, a reasonably advanced civilization might just inevitably grow to the size where the waste they put off makes their planet unlivable for them before they can take action to control it.
For us, it's carbon dioxide.
Don't forget plastics and pesticides! Those get everywhere, and many are bioavailable by design.
Oil has a bad reputation but how lucky we are to have it. How does a civilization on a planet without hydrocarbons make the leap to a technological species?
It's not impossible, but it's got to be a lot harder.
Kelp farms? Domesticated bamboo? We need large areas of land to grow food anyway, we just skipped the charcoal agriculture step. Lathes and the three plate method are the real heroes of industry any way.
A slower ascension into the computing age could mean a more stable set of cultures and a more uniform global situation to avoid anthropogenic filters. Bright candles and all that.
I like the “Dark Forest” theory I learned from the Three Body Problem books. Basically it’s dumb for civilizations to make a big footprint and reveal themselves because other civilizations won’t know how powerful and dangerous you might become, and so out of precaution they might just zap you. Ironic and over dramatic, but just because that’s a possibility it might be wise to keep a low profile and not invite trouble.
The "Dark Forest" is fine for a scary sci-fi series, but it has many flaws that make it unrealistic as a real solution to the Fermi paradox.
- Earth has been quite obviously life-bearing for at least 2 billion years. We should have been wiped out long ago.
- The book series made up fantasy magic tech for how exactly a civilization can be destroyed by another without giving away their own location. I've yet to see an explanation for how that would be done in reality that doesn't give away the attacker's location.
- It doesn't explain why nobody has colonized the galaxy.
I think others wouldn’t bother with us until we started demonstrating likelihood of using dangerous tech or crazy exponential expansion.
I don’t remember well, but I think civilizations stationed their defensive or offensive tech away from their own civilizations, just dispersed around.
I think its explanation for why no one or anything has colonized the galaxy though is that if anyone shows signs of becoming that strong, they get zapped. Nobody wants to see a neighbor rise up into a behemoth, you get that bold you’re a threat.
My real preferred theory of why we don’t see other civilizations though is that I think they choose more inward, VR, computer-based evolution that doesn’t result in big mega structures.
I've never read the three body problem (started it but just couldn't finish...it was very slow paced and there were moments when the Chinese...I don't want to call it propaganda but more like promotion...took me out of it, like the supposedly international coalition of scientists where the non Chinese ones were just cardboard cutouts) but I can speak to this:
The book series made up fantasy magic tech for how exactly a civilization can be destroyed by another without giving away their own location. I’ve yet to see an explanation for how that would be done in reality that doesn’t give away the attacker’s location.
Relativistic missiles. Nothing moves faster than the speed of light. So if you can get a big rock to go 95% of the speed of light, we'd only be able to detect that it's coming right as it hits. Sure, you can calculate the origin of the missile after it obliterates its target, but it's almost impossible to form a counterattack especially if the attacker just yoinked an asteroid from a different star system than their own and strapped an engine on it. And ESPECIALLY if your civilization is still mostly planetbound.
And a rock moving at some appreciable fraction of the speed of light could obliterate the Earth.
Earth has been quite obviously life-bearing for at least 2 billion years. We should have been wiped out long ago.
I believe the theory is that as civilizations broadcast a signal indicating life exists strong enough such that it is picked up by other civilizations, the dark forest theory applies. Essentially we haven't broadcasted a signal loud enough to be picked up
The galaxy is a bowl of M&Ms. One of every hundred M&Ms is poisoned and will immediately kill you. It’s only a 1% chance you’ll die. Well maybe pike 5% if you eat a handful.
Most of the civilizations might even be moral enough not to destroy us, but all it takes is one.
How do they do it, though? It's not really a valid solution unless you can explain how it works, otherwise it's just "maybe some magic happens that kills civilizations."
Once a civilization has begun spreading to hundreds of other solar systems I have yet to hear of any plausible way to reliably "kill" it.
Yep exactly. Who knows how murderous other civs might be, maybe they’re nice but maybe not.
Boy, Lemmy sucks donkey dick. For every one legitimate answer there are two or three edgelord answers like "capitalism" and "the internet".
Here's an answer that hasn't come up yet: cooperation among mono cellular organisms. I don't mean the development of polyp analogues or colonies of single celled organisms; I mean getting down to mitochondria. Brace for wild oversimplification.
Before mitochondria, life had a hard time creating enough energy to do much more than barely stay alive. The current line of thinking is that one organism ate another and didn't digest it. The two organisms worked symbiotically, one handled energy production and the other handled getting food and staying alive.
Just about every living thing utilizes mitochondria and if the current idea that mitochondria were actually symbiotic organisms is true, that means that what was likely a chance "sparing" of prey is the underpinning of all complex life.
The odds of that happening are ridiculously low. There could be simple life in tons of places even within our own star system, but if the mitochondria-like symbiotic capture never happens for those extraterrestrial organisms, then complex life is probably unlikely to develop.
Edgelord teenagers are a plague on lemmy
A - fucking - men
Still not as bad as reddit though
Good answer. This seemed relevant enough to share, it's certainly interesting. https://newatlas.com/biology/life-merger-evolution-symbiosis-organelle/
Maybe cooperation is hard wired just like competition. It might be less likely but hardly impossible.
I'd hardly describe it that way. It took untold trillions of predator/prey interactions over the hundreds of millions of years that single celled life existed for it to happen. That's more or less brute forcing the problem and it took geologic timescales to happen.
If you ask me to point at a hurdle stopping civilizations from developing that looks awfully reasonable.
your paragraphs complaining about it are a lot more annoying than the people who might not be being totally serious on the internet for a minute.
It may very well be republicans
There is a great video about the Great Filter by Kurzgesagt/In a Nut Shell. If I remember correctly, in it they say we can guess at which stage the filter is by how evolved extraterrestrial life forms are. So it's actually great if we find a lot of bacteria or other primitive life forms, that would mean we probably already have overcome the Geat Filter on Earth. On the other hand, if we find many alien ruins of several civilizations at or above our technological level... Well, our greatest challenge might be coming.
We have had Millions of years of (presumably) intelligent Dinosaurs on this planet, but only 200.000 years of mankind were enough to create Civilization IV, the best Strategy game and peak of life as we know it.
So clearly, Civilization™ is what sets us apart.
Jokes aside, the thing evolution on earth spend the most time on is getting from single celled life-forms to multicellular life (~2 billion years). If what earth life found difficult is difficult for all, multicellular collaboration is way harder than photosynthesis, which evolved roughly half a billion years after life formed.
Sort of fallacious to go from one case of time to happen and derive probability from it.
I'm no biologist but I don't think any of our models of super early stuff are sophisticated enough to speculate on what stages are the most or least likely.
You are correct, but that doesn't mean I can't speculate about it.
The ability to do photosynthesis is widely distributed throughout the bacterial domain in six different phyla, with no apparent pattern of evolution., according to this random paper I found on the internet (I'm not a biologist either).
What I can glance is that photosynthesis has (probably) evolved independently 6 time in Bacteria and 3 times in Eukaryotes.
Plants evolved to photosynthesise after photosynthesising bacteria already existed for billions of years.
(But then we have to also acknowledge that multicellular life evolved like 25 times in Eukaryotes, and the Eukaryote - aka Mitochondria-"Powerhouse of the cell"-haver- is the real big step as it only happened once to our knowledge).
I would say it's the size of the universe and the fact that it is still expanding at an accelerated rate.
If the speed of light is really the "top speed" of the universe, it is inadequate for interstellar travel. It is barely good enough for timely communication, and not really even that.
Life can be as likely as it wants to be, but it seems to me that we're all quite divided, to the point of not being able to communicate at all with other potential intelligent species.
Isn't the fermi paradox specifically dealing with detection tho? Not just travel or communication.
I suppose I was focusing on detecting some sort of communications. It still matters that when we see objects at great distance in space, it's the objects in the distant past
This universe being unfriendly to interstellar and especially intergalactic travel would seriously hamper a galactic civilization, and thus be less likely for us to notice them.
There might be hundreds of civilizations out there, each having only expanded to a few dozen stars, not caring to go further. Even the makeup of the interstellar medium might be incredibly dangerous, basically necessitating generation ships to cross. Large scale expansion might simply be too hard.
That expansion at an accelerated rate - that's just so eerie when you think about it. The furthest objects we can see right now will slip away out of reach forever for the next generation, and so on. It's crazy to think that as time goes on, there will be less and less universe to observe.
That's something really interesting, though. When we look at distant objects, we aren't limited by the distance they're at right now. We're limited by the distance they were at when they emitted the light.
So the observable universe is still growing because the edge of that bubble is such a long time ago that everything was still much closer together.
One of the weirdest facts. One that really makes you feel so small.
For a technological civilization like ours, I think it’s just that Earth/humans are weird and we’re past the main ones (like going from single-cell to multi-cellular organisms).
Having to overcome the physical obstacles on other planets rules out the type of spacefaring technological civilizations like ours. No matter how intelligent a civilization on a water world is, it’s not starting fires, much less building rockets. Just getting out of the water would be their space program. Even a totally Earth-like planet that’s a bit bigger and has an intelligent species wouldn’t be able to get to space with chemical rockets.
And also, humans are weird. It could be as basic as “we have hands for building complex tools.” We have a seemingly insatiable need to compete and explore, even beyond all logic—maybe no other intelligent species wants to strap someone to a rocket and send them to space because it sucks up there. We’re violent: without WWII and the Cold War, do we even have a space program?
So many things had to come together to create an intelligent, tool-building species with hands that lives on a planet with the right balance of land and water. As far as we know, it never even happened on Earth before and even then, we had thousands of years of civilizations before anyone was dumb enough to strap themselves to a rocket just to see what would happen.
I definitely subscribe to the "humans are insane" theory of galactic lifeforms
Time.
Is on my side
Yes it is
Honorable mention: we haven't detected alien probes, because intelligent alien societies haven't begun consuming the galaxy with exponential numbers of self-replicating robotic probes, because that's just a really bad idea:
Simple workarounds exist to avoid the over-replication scenario. Radio transmitters, or other means of wireless communication, could be used by probes programmed not to replicate beyond a certain density (such as five probes per cubic parsec) or arbitrary limit (such as ten million within one century), analogous to the Hayflick limit in cell reproduction. One problem with this defence against uncontrolled replication is that it would only require a single probe to malfunction and begin unrestricted reproduction for the entire approach to fail – essentially a technological cancer – unless each probe also has the ability to detect such malfunction in its neighbours and implements a seek and destroy protocol (which in turn could lead to probe-on-probe space wars if faulty probes first managed to multiply to high numbers before they were found by sound ones, which could then well have programming to replicate to matching numbers so as to manage the infestation).
Oh my god, that's such a stupid and simple way to kill a galaxy, but also what a great plot twist that would make in a story. Like the big reveal over why the galaxy has always been at war with itself. Exactly the kind of nihilism I'd expect from an Altered Carbon or its ilk.
Thanks for sharing!
You might like the paperclip maximizer thought experiment
Also an excellent clicker style game called Universal Paperclips
There's an easier and more reliable way to limit replication; don't hive them the means to create a small but essential part, and instead load the first probe woth many copies of it and have each replica take a set percentage.
For instance, have the probe able to replicate everything but its CPU, and just load up a rack of them on probe 0. Every time it replicates itself it passes half of its remaining stock to the replica and they both carry on from there.
It's gotta be the development of what we recognize as "intelligent". Our brains are not the goal of evolution, just a weird thing that happened.
My suspicion is that it's abiogenesis, but it's only a suspicion that I can't have any certainty of
Nah, I'm willing to bet there is actual physical life in our very own solar system (apart from all life on Earth, of course). Europa's oceans for example have a decently high probability of hosting microbial life.
Of course, discovering primitive life all around us would be a bad sign the great filter is still ahead of us instead of behind us...
Definitely the simplest answer and aligns so far with out observations.
The most boring one: most species off themselves before they fully get off their starting planet. We will go the same way. Take your pick from climate change, war, pandemic, ... or even a combination of several!
I agree. The threshold for becoming the "dominant species" of a planet is so low that the species still has its primal wiring for tribalism, competitiveness, etc. by the time it can build rockets. We humans should've had more time in the evolutionary oven to become more empathetic and cooperative for longer-term survival. Instead we have people willing (and able) to literally burn the world down to become richer or more powerful. And we have most of society cheering them on.
We've been on the verge of destroying ourselves for decades now, and humans have just barely started doing space stuff (a blink compared to the life of the universe). How in the world can anyone expect us to get to Dyson sphere levels of progress with how fragile our existence is?
Unfortunately, I think this is the most likely scenario. Going from our modern technology levels, which are more than capable of destroying the world, to Dyson spheres is a huge leap that will take who knows how long (decades? centuries? millennia?).
Before that happens, we have to live together on a planet without blowing ourselves up or making the planet uninhabitable. As technology continues to advance, walking that knife edge of survival seems more and more difficult. The pessimist inside of me says that no civilization has been able to accomplish it.
I disagree with your last point. I think we'll be at Dyson sphere levels in a thousand years, easily. Maybe two thousand if we an hero ourselves.
Even if you had a super intelligent species that can make Dyson spheres and travel at the speed of light the observable universe is beyond vast. I don't know much about cosmology or our ability to detect light but given humans have only been looking into the sky for a couple centuries, not being able to see a thimble in the ocean seems like a non issue. I think if you scale the observable universe down to the size of earth the speed of light becomes 0.05 mph.
I read an article about Fermi paradox (I cannot find the link) that stated the humans are one of the first intelligent beings in the universe. That's why we haven't encountered any green men so far. We just might came too soon to the party.
Definitely possible. I've read that the projected end of our sun is a "black dwarf", and that our sun's generation of stars is so young that there currently aren't any known black dwarf stars anywhere in the universe.
seriously though, I think life on other planets probably just usually evolves underground, so even if they develop some sort of intelligence they're not looking up at the sky so they have no motivation to explore beyond their atmosphere no matter how advanced they get.
there was a planet in The hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy universe that had thick cloud cover so that people never even conceived of an existence beyond their planet. when a spaceship crashed there, it never even occurred to them that it might have come from the sky
Energy needed to leave your planetary system vs energy available on your planet of origin.
We have not yet overcome it and I am not sure that we will achieve it.
Well, we've already sent a couple of probes out of the solar system, but they're not really going fast enough to have any meaningful interstellar impact.
Yes, but I mean leaving the planetary system not only with isolated elements, but with parts of our civilization.
We're still new to the game, and we have no idea what we're looking for.
I think it's incompetence.
Fermi, to aliens: "git gud"
I always thought of it as a series of tests or filters. Like a multistage filter. So like nukes is one, responsible environment management is another. Something like photosynthesis is more of a conditions for life to emerge thing to me really. If like can flourish to begin with then mutations are common enough that things like photosynthesis are inevitable.
Space itself. I believe there are other intelligent life forms out there and some of those happen to be close enough to communicate to each other/discover each other. We just hit the unlucky(or lucky) spot that we are simply too far away.
Man that would suck
Kind of like we don't have hive minds so they just think we are regular animals.
It's very very obviously the speed of light.
evidence of human existence has only gotten what, 150 lightyears out into space?
Eh. The amount of oxygen in out atmosphere is pretty much impossible by non-living processes alone iirc. Anyone who can do astro-spectroscopy can probably tell there's life here, from thousands of light years away.
I don't think there is a great filter. I think there's an easy solution to the fermi paradox that doesn't require great filters, we're just the first intelligence in this galaxy.
Here's my reasoning: intelligent species that manage to develop space travel probably do tend to expand out into their galaxy. When they achieve this level of technology they can settle most of all of their galaxy in a matter of 10,000 years or so. That time period is very brief on an evolutionary scale. It's estimated that life began on earth 3.7 billion years ago. That means it took about 3.7 billion years for earth to produce intelligent life, and then from that point it would take a mere 10,000 years to reach modern day, and 10,000 more years to settle the whole galaxy. That expansion happens so quickly compared to how long it took the planet to develop intelligent life, that the chance of two civilizations rising at the same time becomes very small.
It all boils down to this: there are no intelligent aliens out there in our galaxy, because we are the first intelligent species in our galaxy. We know we're the first because if we were second, then aliens would already have settled this star system.
Probably there are lots of alien civilizations out there in the universe, but they're in different galaxies.
and the ones finding apes on a planet just short ahead or into the beginning of those 10000 years might think "well lets teach them how to stack stones and let them call us gods for just showing some of our million years old and cheap replicated tech gadgets pewpew, how amusing! but now lets go on, this planet has water but way too much oxygen and also there is axial precession that would change weather over only few hundrets of thousands of years if not less, not the planet of choice for eternals like us, duh!"
Or we just don't know, because every possible indicator is gone after a few hundred million years or our star system was still a proto disk when they were around.
But why are we the first. That's the question. Given the age of the universe, statistically it should have already happened by now. Unless something was stopping it.
That's definitely the right question! And honestly we don't know, but it's evident that we are first.
Given the age of the universe, statistically it should have already happened by now.
I'm not sure that's true... I'm pretty sure that our sun is old for a main sequence yellow star in our galaxy. When you compare how long it takes for a star to get to the point ours is now, compared to the age of our galaxy, I believe it suggests that sol is part of a first wave of stars of its type. So if life really requires a star like this one to start up, then intelligent life starting just now could be right on time.
Now why is our start perfect for life? Again, we don't know, but evidently it is. Sadly we only have this one data point, this is the only star where we know there's life. So assuming that something about our type of star is perfect is about as sensible as assuming that life could start around any star. Is it that other kinds of stars produce too much radiation in the Goldilocks zone? Or is it that other kinds of stars are too variable in the amount of heat they produce? Or that other kinds of stars don't tend to have rocky planets? We don't know, but something about main sequence yellow stars could be special, and we have one of the first of those stars in this galaxy.
So declaring "we're the first" requires some assumptions, but they aren't crazy assumptions, and a lack of evidence of other older civilizations makes those assumptions stronger.
And to your point, the universe is much older than this our star, so I suspect intelligent life has developed many times before us, at least in older galaxies. But sadly I don't expect us to ever meet life from another galaxy. While I think stars within a galaxy are close enough for travel between them, galaxies are very, very far apart. I don't think life has much chance of traveling to other galaxies, at least not without some method of ftl travel (which I am also not optimistic about).
That assumes that interstellar travel is possible. Physically, economically, socially, there's a lot of boxes to check for near-light extrasolar expansion (let alone FTL, which probably is impossible)
I think the easy solution to the Fermi Paradox is that we're stuck in our fish bowl and so is everyone else.
That's true, it does assume interstellar travel is physically possible, but at this point there are forms of interstellar travel that we know are possible.
Solar sails for instance, we know those work, we've tried it. Now if you wanted to travel to another star system with a solar sail, it's just a matter of scaling that proven technology way up. We're not ready to do that today, and we won't be ready in the next 20 years, but to think that we wouldn't be ready in 500 years, I find that idea far fetched.
But a much better technology would be fusion propulsion. With fusion drives you could get your cruising speed up to a meaningful fraction of the speed of light (perhaps 5-10%). At that rate you can make it to the closest stars in less than 100 years. And that technology is not at all far fetched. We truly are approaching working fusion power plants, it's extremely likely that we can eventually develop fusion propulsion, or at the very least, fusion powered electrical propulsion (ion drive).
As for if it will ever be economically possible, I'm not at all worried about that. The fact is, there are a lot of resources and opportunities right here in our solar system, just waiting for people to utilize them. So people definitely will start mining and manufacturing in space eventually. And as we start to operate more in space, we will naturally continue to iterate and improve our methods of getting around. In short, over time it's going to get cheaper and cheaper to make space ships and we're going to get better and better at doing it. The economic factors are likely to fall into place eventually.
And finally, will interstellar travel ever be possible socially? Hey, your guess is as good as mine. I don't think we have any way to answer that...
The Milky Way is 100,000 light years across. It's physically impossible to settle that in 10,000 years
In my sci Fi that I've been working on has this theory being true but I also play with asking what is the point of colonization. In my story humans have colonized mars to study the fossils and what life used to be like on Mars. However the people there after a few generations separate from earth. Earth doesn't do anything about it because not only can mars use telescopes to see our ipbm years before it arrives and have that time to shoot our ipbm before it arrives but invasion will destroy the fossils we care about. And that's all assuming history won't just repeat itself. Eventually the mars colony expands until it breaks into different nations all fighting echother to become the first martin superpower. So everything that earth cares about gets destroyed by war anyway and earth is pointless to mars without life and water. Eventually the sun becomes so old that everyone feels the need to move their populations to another solar system. And only then de humans discover alien life. Only to discover that it's currently 900 billion years beyond 2024 and aliens are just now figuring out radio waves and rockets and are more concerned about developing eugenics than discovering humans.
Either multicellular life or that societies that are bent on expansion at any cost tend to destroy their planet's ecosystem before they can establish themselves outside of it. Not making a definitive claim on either, obvs. We have an extremely low sample size after all.
-
space
-
time
We've been producing noticeable radio waves for a matter of decades. We've been capable of detecting even super-powerful, super-deliberate, super-targeted broadcasts for even less time.
And on top of that, it doesn't look as though our civilisation is going to exist for more than a handful more decades, in any detectable-from-light-years-away form.
The chances of that onionskin-thin slice of lightcone intersecting with that of any other civilisation out there seems ludicrously remote.
-
I think it would be nuclear warfare. Nuclear fission is a universal development for any advanced civilization. It would be easy to construct a nuclear bomb in an advanced civilization. Once a few rogue/pariah states start making them, everyone's screwed.
Making nukes is easy, the only reason we don't see more nuclear states on earth is because of the international backlash. With a couple more Iran and North Korea's we'll likely meet the filter ourselves.
There's been at least 5 mass extinction events we are aware of where I think over 80% of all species become extinct. I'd probably guess one or more of those could do the trick.
I think we're the first. Or rather in the first wave of intelligent life. It could take a thousand years just for a message to reach us. On the theory that life has evolved to this point as fast as possible over the life of our Galaxy, there's no filter. There just hasn't been enough time for contact to occur.
Time itself is the filter. I don't think we are the first, but I don't think we will every find any other intelligent life. The universe is too big and our lives are far too short to make any sort of attempt to travel or communicate across those distances ourselves. I'm also not entirely confident our idea of what a society is will last in any meaningful way over the timespans required. Our longest lasting dynasties rarely make it more than a couple hundred years. Space is just too big for us to work with using our current understanding of physics.
Personally? Nationalism & nation states. The longer they stay around, the more likely everyone is to think they're more deserving of X, and pull the literal and metaphorical trigger that leads to hitting the filter.
I recognize that individuality is very much our thing, but that will literally only take you so far.
I'm sure simply continuing to live will show me more about possible great filters than most teachers could unfortunately.
For us it's conservatism and its synonyms.
Read like any history book.
Or just about any book, really.
I think that it's you who should read more.
Here:
We propose that the global environmental crises of the Anthropocene are the outcome of a ratcheting process in long-term human evolution which has favoured groups of increased size and greater environmental exploitation. To explore this hypothesis, we review the changes in the human ecological niche. Evidence indicates the growth of the human niche has been facilitated by group-level cultural traits for environmental control. Following this logic, sustaining the biosphere under intense human use will probably require global cultural traits, including legal and technical systems. We investigate the conditions for the evolution of global cultural traits. We estimate that our species does not exhibit adequate population structure to evolve these traits. Our analysis suggests that characteristic patterns of human group-level cultural evolution created the Anthropocene and will work against global collective solutions to the environmental challenges it poses. We illustrate the implications of this theory with alternative evolutionary paths for humanity. We conclude that our species must alter longstanding patterns of cultural evolution to avoid environmental disaster and escalating between-group competition. We propose an applied research and policy programme with the goal of avoiding these outcomes.
Figure 2. Dimensions of environmental management create an attractor landscape for long-term human evolution. Environmental sustainability challenges (curved frontiers) require a minimum level of cooperation in a society of a certain minimum spatial size. Alternative potential paths move humanity toward different long-term evolutionary outcomes. In path B, competition between societies over common environmental resources creates cultural selection between groups for increasingly direct competition and conflict. Path A, growing cooperation between societies facilitates the emergence of global cultural traits to preserve shared environmental benefits.
Resources often get squandered on trivial vanity and novelty products instead of being channeled into advancing science and medicine. Imagine if we had a cosmic ledger tracking every resource used to develop simple items, like a pencil. It would show countless fires burned and animals consumed just to fuel the human ingenuity required for lumber, materials, and mining. Now, think about how many more resources are required for rockets, heat shields, and life support systems. Extend that to space stations, energy capture, and escaping Earth’s gravity.The resources on a planet are abundant, and nothing is ever truly destroyed. However, we’ve often allocated too much to building flat-screen TVs, leaving little for constructing even a modest space station in orbit, let alone an interstellar spaceship. It's as if the planet offers a finite amount of resources, challenging its inhabitants to focus on space travel. Only a species wise enough to stay on track can unlock the universe's resources. Otherwise, we risk ending up like Australian pines, choking ourselves out in our isolated star systems, having wasted our potential.
Imagine it like interstellar travelling having a single path to achieve it while the path to self destruction is limitless.
I think there are many great filters, but I think one of those filters is fighting over limited resources and wars. Perhaps limited to humans/earth, but I doubt it. Nukes, dropping rocks from orbit, and theoretical (but possible) weapons like black hole bombs are all going to tempt irrational beings to take someone's stuff.
We have to be extremely careful that we don't accidentally trigger a weapon that is going to kill or dramatically cripple our civilization before we become a truly interstellar species. There is so much to learn out there, while so many people are currently focused on the wrong things such as minor conflicts or what children aren't allowed to learn.
We have to be extremely careful that we don’t accidentally trigger a weapon that is going to kill or dramatically cripple our civilization before we become a truly interstellar species.
Great filter confirmed to be oopsie-daisies
That's what everyone was thinking with the LHC. Really should put oopsie labs off world.
Life finds a way to end itself. There's an ongoing mass extinction event caused by humans. Completely preventable by the way. But we do not prevent it.
We actually spend a great deal of effort preventing it. Environmentalism is a really big thing these days.
But even if we didn't, it's not an extinction event for us. Humans are actually doing extremely well.
It's a society (or the whole humanity) becoming big enough to survive even when ignorant murderers are the elite and the majority of it, and civilized people - a smaller part and almost a property, similar to animals in a zoo.
When such a point is reached, the former will make the transition, and the latter will diminish over time. Then it just has no future.
A bit like with Ottoman empire and Qajar Iran, only on the scale of the whole humanity there won't be someone else to buy weapons and technologies from to keep going. Then some of the previously passable filters will kick in. Like hunger or resource scarcity.
the internet. or some other mass communication methodology. we have developed it before we're responsible enough to have it. there are too many bad actors ready to take advantage of our innate biological tribalism. we'll kill ourselves before we reach very far into space.
Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466-1536), Dutch Renaissance humanist:"To what corner of the world do they not fly, these swarms of new books?"
I think people were concerned about that kind of scenario since the invention of the printing press, if not the written word itself. Not trying to dismiss the destructive potential the Internet can and will have in the future, just pointing out, that this kind of fear is not new.
thanks, this actually makes me feel better.
also like an old man yelling at clouds. but better, nonetheless.
I think that for a technological civilization to rise, you need some things to line up. First, life has to be evolved enough to have animals, beings with a brain. Then, a species has to evolve intellence to become a tool making species. This species also has to become the dominating species on the planet. Meanwhile, extinction events, ice ages, climate change and population bottlenecks are always influencing the evolution process.
This is for me the great filter, to have all these conditions line up perfectly for an intelligent, tool making species to evolve and thrive.
My guess would be self-replicating biological organisms capable of significant rates of mutation.
But then my preferred solution to the paradox as a whole is basically the "nobody tries" idea.
I don't think there's tremendous reason to try to make ones-self detectable at long distances. It's an expenditure of non-trivial resources for an uncertain result. Since there isn't really any robustly sound logic for making the attempt outside of dramatized sci fi stories, I imagine a vanishingly small percentage of occurrences of intelligent life would make a serious, high-powered attempt at any point.
I don't really subscribe to the theory, but I think the idea that alien races are all like "go to SPACE? Why the fuck would we do that?? It sucks up there!" is definitely the funniest solution to the Fermi paradox.
I always thought my Pür was great. /s
Maybe it's wisdom.
Every species that might have grown advanced enough, would have gotten over the point of fighting themselves. So they would be wise enough to have something like the Prime Directive in Star Trek (not interfering with less advanced species' until they reach a certain milestone).
Pushing Ice by Alastair Reynolds is one of my favorite scifi books and it deals with this question in an interesting way. It proposes that Time is the great filter. Life exists in this galaxy, but intelligent life is so fleeting when considering galactic distances that the probability of one sentient lifeform finding another during their "peaks" is vanishingly small. Extinction, societal collapse, evolution to a higher form, whatever you want to imagine, it all gets in the way of the fantasy of meeting a thinking being from another planet.
The way the news has been going I wouldn't be surprised if plastic is a candidate. After a little less than a century of rapid development in petrol-plastics we're starting to figure out the long term effects. But the next 1000 generations may be dealing with the fallout.
Petroleum may be both an accelerator and a filter. Filter in the form of plastic, like you’re saying, but maybe it’s weird that crude oil even exists in the first place. An era where plants die, but don’t decompose may be a rarity in itself. Then the geologic activity that buried that dead plant matter, but not too deeply for us to get to, seems like it could also be a rarity. So then we get this energy source that’s pretty energy dense and allows massive technical acceleration, but then poisons us and salts the earth behind us. Look how shortly we went from the first fixed wing flight to rocketing to the moon, amazing how short that time was. Hydrocarbons, allowing us to touch the greatness we could achieve, before smacking us back down.
sentience. I think it usually immediately leads to suicide
I personally find the kardashev scale a pretty terrible way to measure the success of a civilization. Maybe the most successful life forms don't become technologically obsessed materialists determined to colonize everything habitable and drain the resources of everything else, yknow?
I mean then how did they become a life form
I wasn't clear enough I don't think when I wrote that. I meant that as in the most successful intelligent life forms don't separate themselves from their ecosystems nor disrupt it in the way we do.
I don't think there is a single universal Great filter, and living and then potentially sentient beings with various traits will face various obstacles.
First, life needs suitable materials for polymers and a lot of energy. Most places don't have both.
Next, basic blocks of life that would be self-replicating and adaptive should be randomly generated, which is extremely unlikely and literally took over a billion years on Earth, a planet with generally great conditions for such process.
Then, those blocks should be able to get together to form complex structures - ideally, many separate ones, so that one event wouldn't destroy the entire effort. Earth had it easy, with billions of super simple life forms.
Next, assuming life survived up to this point in a potentially unfriendly and ever-changing environment, bombarded by UV light and exposed to myriad of sources of damage, it should not destroy itself or environment too badly to never recover. Earth had periods when life generated too much carbon dioxide or too much oxygen (yes, that too was a thing), and those were critical points at which our story could very much end.
Then, life has to evolutionize and get into complex forms, either by forming multicellular organisms or by making a cell a powerhouse of everything.
Then, life has to get sentient, and some kind of response system should be available and get highly complex.
Then, most of the sentient creatures just won't be tribal, and civilization requires society and a common effort.
Then, many more won't be expansionist, and will die out in some small region.
Many also won't be competitive, which would slow down evolution.
For those species who are competitive, they shouldn't destroy each other while they're at it, and this is currently one of the risks of our own.
And after all that, they should develop space travel and either get as developed and decisive and resource-rich as to send a generational ship to some random planet named Earth populated by genocidal monkeys, or to somehow hyperdrive here. They can very much decide it's not worth it, and they may be so far away we couldn't see signs of their civilization.
There's a lot of possibilities.
My top contender would be a desire to explore, which probably requires consciousness. Given that we have pretty much no idea what leads to consciousness, it can be guessed (dubiously) that if it arose more easily then we'd have an explanation by now. It could be that it's an extremely rare phenomenon, and there may even be other planets with "intelligent" but mechanistic beings that act entirely for their own survival and don't build civilizations or explore much.
Second would be intergalactic and to a lesser degree interstellar travel. If we assume both 1) intelligent civilizations are extremely rare and 2) faster-than-light transportation is impossible, it could be that everyone is just too spread out to make contact.
Third, and the one I most feel is right but it requires pretending I understand quantum physics (which I don't) and probably offending many that do, is the notion that the concrete universe is not large but small and has no objective existence independent of our respective perceptions, and any part of the universe that's invisible is a mere wave function that will only have concrete reality upon our perceiving it. I make the further dubious assumption that conscious beings can't be part of the wave function. So there.
For your final point, that's not what that means. It's not "observation" that collapses the wave function, at least as you're understanding the word. It's any interaction that requires the information to be known. That includes any particle interactions. It's not consciousness that matters. When we "make a measurement" it's only recording information of an interaction. It doesn't actually matter that we record it, only that there was an interaction. There is zero metaphysical consciousness mumbo-jumbo involved.
That's what I thought too, but according to Sabine Hossenfelder there actually is, we just choose not to speak about it. I don't really know enough about quantum physics to make my own judgement.
conscious beings can't be part of the wave function
That's not how any of this works. Your brain is made out of regular matter, not special fancy matter.
Second would be intergalactic and to a lesser degree interstellar travel. If we assume both 1) intelligent civilizations are extremely rare and 2) faster-than-light transportation is impossible, it could be that everyone is just too spread out to make contact.
Not just too spread out to make contact, too spread out to even detect each other's presence
I don't think life is rare, nor photosynthesis, but complex life might be. A planet needs to be really thriving with life for it to be worth it to go down the path to something like animals
But I think the bigger filter is much stranger.
Humans are a hive-like species. We're not just social - we're insanely interdependent, we don't function on our own and yet we've ended up in this place where we (often) try to individually succeed, even at the cost to our community
We're greedy enough to want the stars, yet interdependent enough we could only swarm over them in endless numbers
There's many problems with the fermi "paradox", but personally I think one of the largest is assuming all species would spread like a cancer blotting out the stars
A more individualistic and long lived species might instead be careful explorers, taking what they need and leaving little sign of their passage. A more communal species might be careful and control themselves to not destroy pointlessly. They might also feel no desire to contact other species
We're just the right mix to want everything a star could give, and to want to find others at great energy cost
God help the universe if we ever discover FTL travel and escape the prison of lightspeed.
I have a new religion!
Prometheus didn't gift us fire and cognition. Lies. We are Prometheus's curse on the universe. Nothing more than a plague on the gods creation, concocted for some slight we can never understand. The sum of us, brought into being, then tossed into the void and forgotten. To spread like an oil stain across creation.
If there really is a cosmic web and information flows through it, the other solar system will know that we're coming to destroy another world, but it will have developed defensive techniques against a known disease, humans. The same our immune systems does to known viruses.
I went a bit creative with this one.
Hard to determine with what we know. We haven't met any other intelligent species which suggests we've passed the filter. Yet, making that conclusion before knowing there are no others to meet is too presumptuous. But, if I were to guess, I'd think the filter is adaptability.
We're superior to animals for being able to use tools, live in radically different climates, and shape every spot on earth into a livable climate. Even on Mars, the moon, and space. How else would a species venture through space if they can't adapt?
That might be too general a concept for the question though.
We haven't progressed far enough to be detectable by intelligent life in other star systems, even the closest ones. The filter can easily be in front of us. It could just simply be that interstellar space travel is too infeasible, so intelligent species never reach beyond their home system.
Fear. Right now we're on the edge of facing fear or succumbing to it
Capitalism I can imagine how capitalism could be inevitable. I can't imagine enough controls on it to make it sustainable
The Dark Forest theory is a great answer to this paradox. Anyone more advanced has a rational choice to exterminate all competition. We haven’t found any other advanced life because it hasn’t shown up and killed us yet.
Why would they eliminate the competition if it was way behind in technology? Do we eliminate uncontacted tribes because they might be "competition"?
If aliens exist they probably have rules against interfering with primitive species. We are more like a band of chimps than an uncontacted tribe.
We don’t eliminate uncontacted groups any more because we’ve contacted everyone we want stuff from, and it didn’t work out well for them. Lower technology groups in the 1800’s submitted or were killed off. In a finite universe, any competition could one day try to take you out, so you take them out.
I don’t believe anyone can fathom another alien race, much less assign them ethical rules about interfering with other species. And apes are slowly being driven out of their habitat as we continue to expand.
Who said that they eliminate competition that's way behind technologically? They haven't eliminated us, so apparently they don't. But it seems plausible that they eliminate civilizations that are on the verge of becoming dangerous - still a great filter, but probably a bit further in the future.
Your answer doesn't make sense.
"Photosynthesis" is a positive development for life. The great filter must be a negative development: it's a filter or a barrier that keeps life from achieving long term extra terrestrial survival.
So "climate change" would be an answer. Or "fuel depletion" (to which photosynthesis may be a solution). But the filter is the mechanism by which life forms are prevented from progressing.
I was suggesting that photosynthesis is a very unlikely mutation to occur and thus its unlikeliness means most life, if it emerges, won't progress to that stage.
The filter doesn't have to be ahead of us, it could be some stage of development that we've already passed. Like photosynthesis, or the development of consciousness. If, out of all life that develops, only a tiny fraction ever develops photosynthesis, the universe would be largely devoid of any life that we can presently detect. Despite us being the lucky lifeform that did develop photosynthesis in our past.
I'm starting to wonder if its LLMs. An AGI is something we would be incredibly cautious around and is really no more likely to be psychopathic than any other living thing, the vast majority of which are not. LLMs on the other hand are pushed into every role techbros can shove them into while having less understanding of what they do than a housefly, the potential for damage is immense if someone decides to put one in charge of something important like infastructure or weaponry.
One dope-ass 2 pole analogue ladder filter
Exponential functions. Seriously. You meet crisis after crisis, each having a risk of ending civilization, but that risk never goes away. It keeps multiplying and multiplying, until you realize the risk curve is approaching a vertical line
I think most lifeforms will have more pressing matters than wasting large amounts of time an energy blasting signals in to space for no reason, or listening to the sky.
Maybe those civilizations that waste more energy chasing aliens die off sooner due to wasting resources on sci-fi bullshit and ignoring their real problems at home.
I disagree. I think there is no more important thing we have ever done or will ever do as a civilization, than try to make contact with alien life.