The Fermi Paradox Is Not Fermi's, and It Is Not a Paradox

Scientific American ^ | 1/29/16 | Robert H. Gray

[Vision Thing]

So Fermi, who died in ‘54, was not here to defend his name when someone misappropriated it in to make the Fermi Paradox in ‘75.

At least the guy who wrote this article is setting the records straight.

[dp0622]

i would give me opinion on the mathematical odds that there is life on other planets and a percentage of those life forms can travel through the universe.

But I still dont know how to work the @#$@#$ing remote.

good luck.

[Vision Thing]

Sorry, that should have been: “when someone misappropriated it to make the Fermi Paradox in ‘75.”

[FroggyTheGremlim]

Defund Planned Parenthood - fund SETI!

[Dad was my hero]

I will quote from Michael Crichton on the Drake equation, “The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known and most cannot even be estimated. The only to work the equation is to fill it in with guesses. And guesses - just so we’re clear - are merely expressions of prejudice.”

[sten]

the question isn’t whether or not there is life elsewhere in the universe. since the universe is so vast, there MUST be life elsewhere.

stepping passed that, we get to the question of how -rare- life really is out there. well... since we’ve found evidence of microbial life on mars... MARS!! ... literally right next door... life goes from epicly rare to slightly above common.

that alone is stunning.

now the real question: how much life is out there that could make the trip to see us.

you see, for that to happen, not only would life have to evolve, it would have to be intelligent enough and lucky enough to make it to space travel. from there, it would have to have the motivation to look around. this significantly cuts down on the number of possibly lifeforms that could stop by...

now the big one: are any of these lifeforms close enough to stop by... and do they exist NOW.

you see, time in the universe is VAST. our existence on the universal timeline is a blip ... and our ability to travel to the stars or even comprehend beings from another planet... is the barest glow on the leading edge of that blip.

to have that sliver of time intersect with the sliver of time from another local, advanced race is VERY low on the probability scale.

BUT... that doesn’t mean we can’t be visited by something generated by their society, thousands or millions of years after that race died out.

and what would that be? would could exist beyond the race that created it?

artificial intelligence.

once a race creates an AI and that AI gets off planet, the odds of it dying drop radically ... since its existence isn’t nearly as fragile as our own.

and such an intelligence, wandering the universe for millions of years, could get lonely, if it has such a concept. it might enjoy passing itself off as human just to interact, as it could definitely assume any form it wishes.

and yes... to us, it would be almost god like

hey, Art Bell’s off the air again... someone has to don the cap-of-tin in the wee hours ;)

[Pontiac]

I'd like to explain why the so-called Fermi paradox is mistaken, based on my deep-dive research on the topic, because this mistake had inhibited the search for E.T., which I think is worthwhile. It was cited by Sen. William Proxmire (D-WI) as a reason for killing NASA's SETI program in 1981; the program was restarted at the urging of Carl Sagan, but was killed dead in 1993 by Senator Richard Bryan (D-NV).

I wonder if this the last time a Democrat actually worked to cut a government program.

[grania]

Would an alien species developed enough to travel through space have the intelligence and skill to create a portrayal that would blend in with a native environment? Since the space travelers have superior intelligence, one suspects so.

Another thought to ponder: are the germs of self destruction imbedded in the existence of all intelligent life? If humans are any indication, once a species reaches a certain level of development, it will self destruct.

(whew....time for that AM cup of coffee)

[SunkenCiv]

From the 1970s -- Thomas J Gold: "But I am not really willing to accept your premise, because it may well be that the means of communications they have are of a kind that we do not know how to receive, and that they would not have the means of communicating with sufficiently powerful radio or optical signals. That is something which, technologically, is too difficult for them but they would have some other means we would not recognize." and "What we can conclude from this is that we must think very widely as to what it takes to develop intelligence and not take us so much as a model of what is necessary." [Communication with Extraterrestial Intelligence, p 123; Sagan editor -- CETI was the old acronym]

[beebuster2000]

has anyone noticed that if the Fermi Paradox was not postulated by Fermi, this, in itself, is a paradox, and that this may in fact be the true “Fermi Paradox’, a second order derivative paradox, which is somewhat rare in science.

[ifinnegan]

“Fermi’s skepticism about interstellar travel is not surprising, because in 1950 rockets had not yet reached orbit, much less another planet or star.”

I don’t think Enrico Fermi was that stupid, quite the contrary.

[ifinnegan]

“since we’ve found evidence of microbial life on mars... “

Completely untrue.

[Sirius Lee]

I've always thought the idea of trying to communicate with aliens via radio was rather stupid. My guess is that radio is a short lived technology and that advanced civilizations will come up with some kind of communication based on quantum entanglement around the same time they start producing interstellar probes guided by AI robotics that can survive the thousand year trips.

Our radio transmissions might appear to aliens as some indian smoke signals would appear to an F-16 pilot passing overhead.

[trenton1776]

I’m a writer of science fiction stories, but I don’t believe there’s any other life out there. The universe is just too big, too hostile; the speed limits too low.

And it’s flying apart as I write this.

[ShadowAce]

...since the universe is so vast, there MUST be life elsewhere.

The second clause does not logically follow the first.

[UCANSEE2]

If there is no life elsewhere in the Universe, then it’s just a big waste of real estate.

[Vaquero]

If we find life on Mars or Europa etc, it will be DNA, carbon based life moved via transpermia by asteroid strikes. Only interstellar life will prove life will form everywhere.

[ShadowAce]

That is your opinion, and you have every right to it.

In terms, of logic rules, though, I am correct.

[muir_redwoods]

there’s a difference between evidence and proof. Anything hat reasonable suggests microbial life is evidence. Undeniably evidence is proof. Big difference. There is evidence the Eastern bunny is real but no proof.