Thursday, June 04, 2009
Sustainability: The Clue That Could Solve Fermi's Paradox
If civilizations can't grow exponentially, that might explain why we don't see any signs of ET.
While lunching with colleagues at the Los Alamos National Labs in 1950, Enrico Fermi began a discussion about the likelihood of intelligent life existing elsewhere in the universe. The size and age of the universe makes it seem probable that many advanced societies ought to exist. But if they did, where are they? he asked.
This problem has since become known as the Fermi Paradox, and many a canteen lunch has been spent discussing its resolution (we discussed one possible solution a few months back).
Today, Jacob Haqq-Misra and Seth Baum at Pennsylvania State University put forward another idea. They point out that the Fermi Paradox assumes an exponential spread of civilizations across galaxies. Such an expansion must be closely linked with expansion in population, environmental impact, and the consumption of resources.
The problem is that this kind of growth may not be possible, and they look at Earth as an example. For any expansion to be sustainable, the growth in resource consumption cannot exceed the growth in resource production. And since Earth's resources are finite, and it has a finite mass and receives solar radiation at a constant rate, human civilization cannot sustain an indefinite, exponential growth.
So we'll have trouble colonizing the galaxy, if we ever decide that's necessary. At the very least, the spread of our civilization will not be exponential, if it is possible at all.
Haqq-Misra and Baum say that this argument means that any extraterrestrial civilization must be similarly constrained.
The Fermi Paradox often leads to the conclusion that other advanced civilizations do not exist. Haqq-Misra and Baum say that this is unduly pessimistic. What the Fermi Paradox implies is that intelligent civilizations capable of exponential expansion do not exist.
And that's a very different proposition.
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0906.0568: The Sustainability Solution to the Fermi Paradox
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Comments
I don't think this is the argument in the paper. Earth's resources are finite, but a multi-planetary civilization has by definition access to more than one Earth, so as long as they don't consume more resources per planet than there are available, there is no constraint to the total size of the civilization.
The paper's argument is a bit subtler (although possibly made more confusing than necessary by the references to our single-planet civilization, which doesn't translate well to the more unconstrained general case). It simply states that the Fermi Paradox assumes exponential growth in a civilization, and thus failure to observe extraterrestrial intelligences is only an argument against exponential growth civilizations. While it is true that an Earth-bound civilization might find exponential growth unsustainable because of resource constraints, they don't claim that such resource constraints will make the exponential growth of other civilizations unsustainable, only that some mechanism might be impeding exponential growth, and thus make current observations consistent with the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence.
marcelo.rine...
06/04/2009
Posts:1
lasertekk
06/04/2009
Posts:78
gabrielg01
06/04/2009
Posts:405
colinnwn
06/04/2009
Posts:43
"Now I'd believe this story if you are talking about a business major that took Micro and Macro 101."
Every little bit I'm afraid...multiple occurrences in fact.
"Economics IS "the study of allocating scarce resources to satisfy unlimited desires".
Excellent and completely contradictary textbook definition. I get the feeling I stepped on some professional toes here. I will make you a deal. Let's meet here again in say, 100 years, and tell me how your religion is going for you. Be prepared, I do intend to gloat.
lasertekk
06/06/2009
Posts:78
Economics has been around several hundred years already. It has done as well or better than any social science I believe to become a more rigorous and practical discipline.
I believe the real disconnect between perceived economics effectiveness and reality is twofold. The first issue is there are frequent misunderstandings, misapplications, or misquotings of economics principles by political or business leaders who think they understand economics but do not. The other issue is the general populace frequently hears these pontifications or sees policy failures and doesn't understand the plan was half-baked or statement was nonsensical, and the source was not a qualified and mainstream economics student. Thereby the normal person conflates these failures with real economics study instead of the kooky idea it was.
colinnwn
06/17/2009
Posts:43
The framework for debate is provided by the Drake equation...depending on what numbers you plug into this equation you can get very different results...hence the debate...
Anyway, if we haven't even settled the first part of the story, then what is the point of rushing to the civilization stage?
gabrielg01
06/04/2009
Posts:405
I think the real issue with Fermi's Paradox is the assumption that the universe is infinite. Probalisticly, if the Universe is infinite, then yes, there is another culture out there. But then, there is also giant birds with the face of Paul Giomatti walking on some planet out there someplace, as well. In an infinite universe, everything that can exist does exist someplace, which means every probability is expressed and exhausted- not only is there a chance to pull an elephant out of the 'bag of marbles', it does happen someplace, and we stand just as much chance of it happening here as on another planet, which we have no evidence of.
Before we can solve Fermi's Paradox, we need to define the ambit of the Universe. In the mean time, I would not worry about our own expansion, let our natural tech growth handle it!
Danieleveld
06/04/2009
Posts:17
thaworldhasw...
06/04/2009
Posts:2
Danieleveld
06/04/2009
Posts:17
Something bothers me about this. The universe, even if its infinite, can only have a countably infinite number of worlds. On each world there is some collection of "feature possibilities" which is some subset of an infinite number of possibilities, and therefore there are an uncountably many possible scenarios. If that's true then it seems that (fortunately) there's no guarantee of a giant bird impersonating Paul Giamatti.
snedunuri
06/05/2009
Posts:30
menexis
06/04/2009
Posts:2
cloudmaster1...
06/04/2009
Posts:3
Even if you could garner enough energy to create matter, there is little to no way of knowing what you are making. Assuming mankind exists long enough to figure it out, it will likely be one of the last technological developments to which we can aspire. By the time any culture developes the technique, it will likely have already gone through its resources or had to arrive at another solution. Not to meantion, if such a culture exists close enough for us to care, they would likely be so large and so advanced, we would know about them already.
Danieleveld
06/04/2009
Posts:17
heprv
06/05/2009
Posts:2
kwester5
06/05/2009
Posts:1
One can already see our civilization drawing into itself with our Ipods, cellphones, e-mail; all of our information funneled to us for our convenience. The video game industry comes closer every year to stunningly convincing virtual reality. Give Xbox 360's Project Natal another 20 years. Hell, sensation itself is just electric impulses...
thaworldhasw...
06/05/2009
Posts:2
brublr
06/06/2009
Posts:1
rizotto
06/24/2009
Posts:1