Not sure I agree with their argument.
They basically stated that that the existence of large amounts of intelligent [I]interstellar space-faring[/I] life would be terrifying because it indicates the filter is in front of us. But it could also mean the filter is not as great as we thought, or that there are multiple less-great filters instead of one.
Even if the filter is a great filter, the existence of lots of space faring races might still not mean it's in front of us. The galaxy is huge, and having one-hundred space-faring civilisations in it still means only one in a million potentially life-bearing planets actually made it.
Well that's easy, there's already been a species that's dominated the galaxy and left behind watchers at every solar system, if life tries to escape the system it sterilizes everything in it, what better way to ensure your species dominance by making sure no others compete?
[QUOTE=Jake Nukem;53099755]Well that's easy, there's already been a species that's dominated the galaxy and left behind watchers at every solar system, if life tries to escape the system it sterilizes everything in it, what better way to ensure your species dominance by making sure no others compete?[/QUOTE]
I was actually hoping they'd mention Berserker probes as a possible great filter. The idea actually scares the shit out of me.
Is it not also possible that there is NO great filter?
But that begs the question of why we don't see other civilizations, there's been more than enough time for a species to spread across a fair chunk of the galaxy.
[QUOTE=_Maverick_;53099768]Is it not also possible that there is NO great filter?[/QUOTE]
I’m kinda sick of the whole ferni paradox thing because it’s largely based on “well I’ve never seen it so it’s not there”. “What about radio signals?” Ah yes the things that degrade easily, and do indeed travel st the speed of light yes. But the galaxy is an incredibly massive place...
[QUOTE=_Maverick_;53099768]Is it not also possible that there is NO great filter?[/QUOTE]
The great filter is a solution to the Fermi Paradox which postulate that is life is common, then we should have have counted some by now. And, if they're not there, why not?
Seems somewhat of a sensationalist conclusion to draw from very little information.
I don't really understand how would finding bacteria on Mars or fish on Europa mean that we're heading for destruction. We're more advanced than bacteria or fish, so that would prove that the great filter is already behind us, right?
I don't really buy the premise of this video.
For instance, I don't get the jump from 'we can't observe any advanced life near us' to 'they don't exist'. So far the only thing we can do regarding exoplanets is detect them if we're lucky enough to 'see' them go in front of their star and infer several of their characteristics based on the 'shadow' they cast. We have no way of knowing whether they harbor life yet. Same thing for knowing whether they are home to a civilization at least as advanced as we are. Even a civilization that uses EM waves for communication wouldn't be detectable, our own signals aren't even strong enough to be detected outside of our solar system, and that's not even going into the fact a smart civilization wouldn't want to be visible to potentially hostile aliens. A more advanced, multi-star space faring civilization would probably want to keep that stealthy aspect going and only keep their communications strictly directional and low-power enough not to be visible by the systems behind the target.
That would explain why we haven't been visited either, by the way. Other civilizations most probably don't even know we exist or are simply too far away. I think it's pretty safe to wager that interstellar colonization is a pretty tough undertaking and that no existing civilization partakes in it in such an excessive manner that they would happen to try and colonize our own planet out of all possible candidates.
As for the 'if we encounter life on other planets [I]of our own solar system[/i] we're [i]doomed[/I]' point, that doesn't seem very plausible either. We're pretty sure we're not sharing our solar system with another civilization already, and finding life within it that couldn't evolve further due to being outside of the Goldilocks zone or simply developing in a very harsh environment doesn't say anything at all about whether our civilization is on a path to destruction. If anything, it just suggests the so-called 'great filter' is behind rather than ahead of us.
[QUOTE=Jake Nukem;53099774]But that begs the question of why we don't see other civilizations, there's been more than enough time for a species to spread across a fair chunk of the galaxy.[/QUOTE]
This assumes interstellar colonization is an easy undertaking, which it most probably isn't.
[QUOTE=download;53099779]The great filter is a solution to the Fermi Paradox which postulate that is life is common, then we should have have counted some by now. And, if they're not there, why not?[/QUOTE]
We actually have close to no means of detecting whether an exoplanet is populated by a civilization, let alone life. Our technique for detecting exoplanets relies on luck and good timing in the first place. The only way we'd know another civilization exists in the milky way is if they came directly to our solar system.
So currently the most plausible solution to the "Fermi Paradox" is "we're basically blind".
Why is the best case scenario a dead universe? I'd think the best case scenario is a thriving intergalactic community of all kinds of aliens...
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53099775]I’m kinda sick of the whole ferni paradox thing because it’s largely based on “well I’ve never seen it so it’s not there”. “What about radio signals?” Ah yes the things that degrade easily, and do indeed travel st the speed of light yes. But the galaxy is an incredibly massive place...[/QUOTE]
I never got why people use the fermi paradox all the time. It's an equation where all the numbers are entirely arbitrary and untested but everyone acts as though it's an iron-clad refutation of the possibility of advanced alien life.
It makes FAR too many assumptions about how life would look, how long life takes to develop, how long civilisation takes to develop, how quickly a species could travel between worlds, how quickly species would propagate to new worlds after newly settling.
When I saw a video explaining the fermi paradox many years ago I was struck by how much it assumed things would happen instantly. Like assuming that the ability to leave one planet and safely inhabit another means it's inevitable that you can immediately move on to another, and another. Which is just preposterous. Once Humans make it to Mars, if it's ever a viable option, we won't suddenly have the technology to fuck off to Alpha Centauri and establish a new world over there.
[editline]1st February 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=_Axel;53099824]This assumes interstellar colonization is an easy undertaking, which it most probably isn't.
We actually have close to no means of detecting whether an exoplanet is populated by a civilization, let alone life. Our technique for detecting exoplanets relies on luck and good timing in the first place. The only way we'd know another civilization exists in the milky way is if they came directly to our solar system.
So currently the most plausible solution to the "Fermi Paradox" is "we're basically blind".[/QUOTE]
It's always funny to me how people say "If it exist how come we haven't seen it yet?" When we have difficulty finding shit inside our own solar system.
Space is really, really big and the things in it are all really small in comparison. Trying to find anything is a nightmare, never mind looking for specific signs of life.
It is quite possible that development of big brains and hands with fingers are needed for technology to develop. That alone would be a cosmic coincidence needing same sort of events that took place on Earth. Had history been a bit different there would still be dinosaurs here instead of us.
I think life itself is not that rare, but rather a species that can think and build is.
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;53099812]I don't really understand how would finding bacteria on Mars or fish on Europa mean that we're heading for destruction. We're more advanced than bacteria or fish, so that would prove that the great filter is already behind us, right?[/QUOTE]
I feel like if there is a great filter [I]behind[/I] us, it would be the actual first creation of life rather than the evolution from bacteria to complex life. So if we find bacteria on other planets, it seems like there should also be complex life on just as many planets. And since we haven't seen any advanced civilizations, it would seem that something keeps them from getting advanced. Right now, we can attribute that to life either being incredibly rare, or that there's a "Great Filter" [I](or that we just actually haven't been able to find the advanced civilizations even though they are there)[/I]. If we find proof that life is not incredibly rare, that would be further evidence of the Great Filter existing.
what is this human supremacy propaganda
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;53099812]I don't really understand how would finding bacteria on Mars or fish on Europa mean that we're heading for destruction. We're more advanced than bacteria or fish, so that would prove that the great filter is already behind us, right?[/QUOTE]
The argument is that:
1. We don't see any sign of a galactic civilisation despite some planets being much older than our own.
2. Therefore there must be something (great filter) that prevented other species from reaching that stage of development.
3. If bacterial life is common then this means that the great filter isn't the emergence of life itself, therefore the great filter lies ahead of bacterial life and possibly ahead of us as well. On the other hand if the great filter is the emergence of life then it's behind us.
Like if we somehow detected a ton of other species on par with us this would be scary, because this would suggest that there's something that destroyed species that got further.
The Great Filter is always such trash, it's based in so much misinformation and bad assumptions. Its basically just bad science fiction, a plot device for the story that doesn't work except for the fact the author is explicitly telling us this is how it is.
"We haven't observed life visiting earth." Well no shit, we're a single, small rock around a mid-sized star in an arm of one galaxy. If I blindfolded myself and threw a dart at a map of the world, I'd first of all be very lucky to hit the map, and second be incredibly lucky to hit my hometown on that map. If life is common, then we are not even remotely special and there is no reason in the universe for other life to be explicitly aware of us, let alone drawn to us.
"Why have we not detected life elsewhere in the universe?" Probably because we basically can't see the rest of the universe except in vague, broad strokes. We can barely get a decent look at our stellar neighbors, let alone our interstellar ones, and intergalactic is a pipe dream. Detecting any signals is a complete shitshow, it requires that we be lucky enough to be in the right position at the right time listening in the right way, and that it has not been degraded to the point of being unrecognizable. Further, the universe is absolutely fucking massive. Even if we could get a close up look at other worlds, we're looking back in time. What we see elsewhere in the universe has already happened well in the past. If we look at our nearest neighbor, Alpha Centauri (more specifically Proxima Centauri), is over 4 light years away. So if we look at Proxima Centauri, we are looking at it as it was four years ago, roughly. If we look further out, those time frames get far more massive than that.
So the solution to the Fermi Paradox isn't likely some "Great Filter" but instead "We are tiny and insignificant in an incomprehensibly vast universe."
I think this channel is deliberating giving us false information.
All the Fermi Paradox says is that it's statistically improbable that we're the only life in the universe. I don't think the 'Great Filter' theory is really a good answer to it either. Why do we have to assume that we're unique, or if we're not unique then we're doomed. Can't we just say space is big, and navigating it is hard.
I just assume we're just not likely to encounter alien life for another billion years or something. We're far too arrogant as a species and we still have a long way to go (If we don't kill ourselves first).
Another thing that you have to realize is that life hasn't had an infinite amount of time to develop. We can't know for certain how long the phenomena of life has existed within the universe but even the universe as we know it itself has only existed for a finite amount of time, and every phenomena that exists within it has only existed for a subset of that time, life included.
We can't say how ordinary the time-frame of life on Earth is with nothing to compare it to, but just considering our planet alone, think about how many countless permutations of life have existed on Earth, over the entire history of life on our planet. Now consider the fact that to the best of our knowledge, out of [i]every single life form[/i] that has [i]ever existed on earth[/i], we are the only one [i]ever[/i] that has had the ability to develop technologically, and comparatively speaking our species has barely existed longer than a fart in the wind.
It may genuinely be that the universe literally has not existed long enough for life much more advanced than ours to occur, or at least that life as a phenomena hasn't.
Funfact; they over look, most of these planets that are earth like we can see are filtering millions of years behind because of light speed. Additionally, because our use of light for microscopes, our resolution is too small to see any details other than water and dirt.
I think their conclusion that the great filter ahead of us is flawed because of the lack of data.
There are no solutions (right now) for the Fermi Paradox because lack of evidence. We cannot conclude anything other than treat the Great Filter as a thought experiment (which I think that's what the first half of the video meant to be).
One planet with one intelligent species is such a small sample size its silly to draw conclusions either way. We [U]may[/U] be the only intelligent lifeforms and its just as probable that we [U]may[/U] just haven't discovered the other intelligent life out in the universe.
We just keep searching is the only logical conclusion.
I too think their theory is a bit rubbish, even though I love this channel and their content.
Also, early phagocytosis leading to complex life happened at least [B]twice[/B], did it not? We see mitochondria, but the photosystems of plant life also resembles that of algae. I'm pretty sure I learned that in one of my genetics courses at least.
I like the theory of the Great Filter, but I agree with many in this thread that the human race does not have the capacity to conclude for certain that there is no other intelligent life (or remnants of it) in the galaxy. We cannot determine if the theory is applicable for a long time. Of course there is a sizable possibility that humankind may die out well before then.
Also, assuming that no advanced civilization exist in our universe, why does that necessarily mean that all civilizations have been destroyed before that point? That's yet another baseless assumption. Why can't it simply be that reaching the technological advancement required for interstellar colonization is extremely hard, or that it is simply impossible?
People always assume that technology always evolves exponentially, essentially meaning that we'll become invincible living gods in a couple of centuries, when that's not how the real world works at all. There are certain things that are simply [i]impossible[/I] to do, no matter how advanced your technology is.
The Great Filter and Fermi Paradox feel like great excuses to stop exploring space and completely shuttering evolutionary studies, tbh.
“We’re the only ones that exist, we’re the only ones that matter, nobody else is there and there’s no point in looking because we’re special” sounds pretty bible thumpy to me
[QUOTE=tomatmann;53100061]I think this channel is deliberating giving us false information.[/QUOTE]
Nah but it does seem like it's material for a wankfest for "smart" people
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
