Talk:Fermi paradox

Sustainabity Solution

This is a proposal for adding and expanding Haqq-Misra & Baum's Sustainability Solution to the Fermi Paradox (2009). In other words, "exponential growth may not be a sustainable development pattern for long-lived civilations".[1] Viriditas (talk) 09:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I have not read source material on this, but I personally believe it helps resolve the paradox in the following sense: Just as we assume it plausible that truly advanced life will have ceased warring within its own species, we might assume that the biological imperative to reproduce will also be gotten rid of in pursuit of longevity. Procreation could ultimately be classed as non-productive and then counterproductive activity. If there are sources that link this perspective to the paradox, then I believe they should be attached/discussed.Julzes (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Explanation to Paradox

Could it also be possible, given the wide variety of other explanations, that we are part of a virtual world which is being run in the "real" world? Seems like this has been explored a lot in other works just wondering why it isn't mentioned here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.1.35 (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You pose an excellent question. It is already in the article under the section heading of "Earth is purposely isolated (The zoo hypothesis)". It's been discussed quite a bit in the literature and it is interesting to consider as a thought experiment. Look for "Nick Bostrom" and "simulation" and you'll find a lot of info. There's also other takes on the same theme, such as Programming the Universe. Good luck, and keep asking great questions! Viriditas (talk) 10:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It's probably not discussed because it's a crackpot idea. See WP:FRINGE. Assuming you find a source for this explanation from a prominent thinker, then we can go about determining if it's mainstream enough to include in this article. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Variations on brain in a vat thought experiments are neither crackpot nor fringe. They have a long and rich history and allow us to see problems from different angles and provide new perspectives in return. Viriditas (talk)

Discuss fully before editing, please, unsigned, Bakkster Man and Lou Scheffer. Use normal templating procedure. This responds to an edit. See history. Do not edit war.Julzes (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Earth is purposely isolated (The zoo hypothesis)

Whether or not the inserted/deleted text is sensible, it's certainly unreferenced. If a good source for this portion can be found, then feel free to add back this idea, with the reference. This is particularly important, IMO, for a topic such as this where there are many, many opinions. LouScheffer (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a continuation of the last section. Actually, there is some truth in the idea this is OR. It is mental experimental synthesis upon earlier paragraphs. This is actually the correct resolution of the problem, but it runs over the entire subject and the question of whether English wikipedia is overwritten relative to other languages (It is not, but only because there are so far not enough wikipedians). I need only revert one more time. Not terribly urgent.Julzes (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

By the by , long (very long) before the Zoo Hypothesis was even given a name, the concept had been common currency with modern science fiction prose since the 1930s. However I know of no systematic catalog of this idea from the literature, yet the concepts in fiction predates any given in non fiction. 99.17.8.8 (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The article on The Zoo Hypothesis is mostly a list of such, though I expect it is far from complete.Julzes (talk) 01:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

They aren't inclined to colonize

A solar system has vast resources. Only the end of the life of the star would force the species to leave. That wouldn't result in colonization of a whole galaxy, even if a species relocated a few times, they wouldn't cover more than tiny speck of the galaxy. To colonize the galaxy on the time scale the Fermi Paradox suggests would require that this species had an overwhelming compulsion to expand, with each colony preparing the next wave of expansion as soon as it was established. An advanced species might well be inclined to live within its means, and not seek to send out colonies across the entire galaxy.--RLent (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

New Idea?

I don't know that this has even been thought of as significant in regards to this problem (and am certain it does not accurately answer it, but only because of my particular knowledge); but if somebody knows of any reference dealing with how long it took humans to pass from the tool-using to recorded-language stage (relevant to this article), it might make for some improvement. The issue is how rare it is or is not or could be for a highly intelligent species to never go beyond high intelligence to reach high collective intelligence and a highly specialized labor force using constantly improving tools. Perhaps it is normal to reach a state of satisfaction with a lack of progress and rare to develop machinery. Of course, I would not stick this in the article with an absence of sourcing, but I might have thought this the answer myself if I did not think I had a better one (also currently unsourced).Julzes (talk) 06:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This is at least partially covered under Drake Equation, in the term that is the fraction of intelligent life that is willing and able to communicate. An example that has been used is a water world with herds of dolphins - very intelligent, but never forming a tool-using society that could communicate with other worlds. They might have wonderful history, philosophy, (spoken) literature, and so on, but would be almost invisible on a galactic scale. LouScheffer (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That occurred to me after I posted. Another thing that occurred to me is that some kind of self-purification ritual is a universal part of the transition (of transhuman and extraterrestrial advanced collective intelligence), such that unless there is an imminent astrophysical calamity in a world's near region (forcing migration upon it), a civilization having achieved a capacity to go to the stars would eschew it in favor of some kind of local perfection (temporarily, but perhaps for eons [not advocating this (at least not in the extreme), by the way]).Julzes (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

timeframe of the existence of "modern" Humans

in the section:Human beings have not been searching long enough in the paragraph: the Explaining the paradox theoretically, it first is (from all that we know)correctly stated, that The whole period of modern human existence to date (about 200,000 years) however later it is stated that: One million years ago there would have been no humans for any extraterrestrial emissaries to meet even though it should be phrased One million years ago there would have been no modern humans for any extraterrestrial emissaries to meet--46.142.18.32 (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Reference link #16 is broken

This link is broken (ref #16)

http://www.space.com/searchforlife/shostak_paradox_011024.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.219.70.254 (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)