arXiv blog

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.

kfc 06/04/2009

  • 19 Comments

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

TRSF: Read the Best New Science Fiction inspired by today’s emerging technologies.

Print

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

marcelo.rinesi

1 Comment

  • 982 Days Ago
  • 06/04/2009

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, it has a finite mass and receives solar radiation at a constant rate, human civilization cannot sustain an indefinite, exponential growth.

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.

Reply

lasertekk

146 Comments

  • 982 Days Ago
  • 06/04/2009

To an economist...

Related side thought:  Now try explaining this concept to an economist (or business major), someone who believes growth is required for a healthy 'economy'.  I too have spent many hours over a sandwich and soda  explaining this.  They don't seem to readily embrace the idea that ultimately, the number of customers (humans) to sell new products and services to will stagnate, as will the supply of raw material (consumerist based system).  Of course this scenario assumes no exoplanetary activity, something many of them have a difficult time grasping.   I end the lunch break by telling them the human-contrived theories of economics are dog meat and possess more contradictions and holes in them than Swiss cheese.  I've had great success in them leaving in a fluster.  Score Engineering Group 1, Finance 0.

Reply

gabrielg01

450 Comments

  • 982 Days Ago
  • 06/04/2009

Re: To an economist...

Some people would say that MBA stands for "moron in business administration"...and I tend to agree...

Reply

colinnwn

88 Comments

  • 982 Days Ago
  • 06/04/2009

Re: To an economist...

Now I'd believe this story if you are talking about a business major that took Micro and Macro 101. But I have a hard time believing the person you debated with was a degreed economist. Economics IS "the study of allocating scarce resources to satisfy unlimited desires".

Reply

lasertekk

146 Comments

  • 980 Days Ago
  • 06/06/2009

Re: To an economist...

@ Colinnwn

"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.

Reply

colinnwn

88 Comments

  • 969 Days Ago
  • 06/17/2009

Re: To an economist...

While not a practicing economist, that is what my degree is in. I know I won't be alive in 100 years, but I don't think the delay to debate is necessary.

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.

Reply

gabrielg01

450 Comments

  • 982 Days Ago
  • 06/04/2009

Jumping to conclusions, before answering a more basic  question.

My 2 cents is that the entire Fermi conjecture is really rushing ahead of itself. Before talking about multiplanetary civilizations, we should perhaps settle a more basic debate - whether there is life on other planets, and what that would look like. There are strong arguments for saying that even if life exists in many places, it is just some form of primitive bacterial type of life. This is very far from a civilization.
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?

Reply

Advertisement

Danieleveld

28 Comments

  • 982 Days Ago
  • 06/04/2009

Tech Growth

Outgrowing your resources would be an issue, but I believe that the human population has a growth trend that is mirrored with technological growth. Technology may yet (or most likely will) find an alternative to home-grown sustanance before we have no more food left on the planet. Don't ask me how.
   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!

Reply

thaworldhaswarpedme

2 Comments

  • 982 Days Ago
  • 06/04/2009

Re: Tech Growth

Perhaps it is just a problem of distance. If life has evolved elsewhere said life would still have to overcome the relatively ridiculous amount of time it would take to reach another inhabitable planet. Of course that is assuming that  that life is similar to ours and faces similar biological restraints. Maybe no one species can figure out how to live for hundreds of years, perhaps thousands so that they could travel the light years between inhabitable bodies. Assuming the universe is infinite, maybe we are just being overlooked.

Reply

Danieleveld

28 Comments

  • 982 Days Ago
  • 06/04/2009

Re: Tech Growth

Interesting thought; maybe we are the biggest gig in town, after all. Hard to think that the odds of creating a human race where ever realised, let alone that a second race of similar quality would exist. It may also be that the natural genetic degredation of any species we come accross may have already taken its tole. These arguments, of course, from a finite universe perspective.

Reply

snedunuri

67 Comments

  • 981 Days Ago
  • 06/05/2009

Re: Tech Growth

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.
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.

Reply

menexis

2 Comments

  • 982 Days Ago
  • 06/04/2009

great post

This is a very interesting thread on sustainability. I love how it reads.

Reply

cloudmaster101

5 Comments

  • 982 Days Ago
  • 06/04/2009

Science or Sci-Fi?

If societies are truly advance... can't they materialize matter without having to be limited to finite resources? I'm just saying this even thought it's a dull thought, but i learned that from somewhere in my school that the universe was born from "pure energy".

Reply

Danieleveld

28 Comments

  • 982 Days Ago
  • 06/04/2009

Re: Science or Sci-Fi?

E=MC2 can be viewed as a cook book for matter. The given energy (E) is equal to a measure of matter (M) times the speed of light square. If you had a calculator powerful enough to compute that, you'd realise that it requires a LOT of energy to create just a little bit of matter. For instance, the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima only released 40% of a single atom's energy.
    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.

Reply

Advertisement

Guest (heprv)

  • 981 Days Ago
  • 06/05/2009

hold breath till blue.

As long as we insist on burning through earth's finite resources with our primary goal being perpetual homicidal war, we aren't going anywhere.


Reply

kwester5

3 Comments

  • 981 Days Ago
  • 06/05/2009

Insularity

While I am sure that this is not an original idea, it is one that I've never encountered in discussions of SETI & Fermi's paradox: What if any advanced civilizations that survive long enough to develop the technology were prone to withdraw into virtual reality? Think about it. If one accepts that creation of a virtual reality indistinguishable from external reality is possible, (and that it would also be possible to upload an individual conciousness into this reality) then the concepts of "virtual" & "external" reality could themselves become something of an abstraction. As a matter of simple economics why spend massive amounts of resources to for instance build an actual starship to send a handful of people to a nearby star, when for a tiny fraction of those resources you could create any sort of reality you desired capable of supporting any number of individuals over a very long time span. I can see both obvious objections to the idea, and responses to those objections, so there is no need to go down that path in this forum. I'm simply putting the idea out there that perhaps the reason that we do not see evidence of other civilzations is this - That shortly after reaching the oft mentioned "Singularity" most civilaztions come to a point of "Insularity" wherein the creation of a new reality(Universe?)seems a great deal more convenient, less expensive and less risky than the exploration of this one.

Reply

thaworldhaswarpedme

2 Comments

  • 981 Days Ago
  • 06/05/2009

Re: Insularity

Ooohh..I like that.
   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... 

Reply

brublr

1 Comment

  • 980 Days Ago
  • 06/06/2009

Sustainability as virtual

Then the simplest explanation for the non-appearance of advanced civilizations is as the result of their subliming off their planets. But only boring people are bored; don't sublime and the galaxy is ours!

Reply

rizotto

1 Comment

  • 962 Days Ago
  • 06/24/2009

genes

We all know that the chimpanzees and humans share 99% of the genes. Now imagine how we will look in the eyes of intelligent beings that are 1%,2%,3%,... genetically superior than us. I doubt that the chimps, as a group, are aware of the humans out there even though we have come into contact with them a lot. Similarly, it is likely that more advanced beings can very easily hide from us, and moreover, do not feel that they should spend time to communicate with us. Have you ever had the desire to explain to a chimp or to a dolphin how electricity works? Similarly, an advanced beings may be interested to find out how we are organized socially and biologically, but will most likely not have the slightest desire to come into a meaningful contact with us.

Reply

Bio

The Physics arXiv Blog produces daily coverage of the best new ideas from an online forum called the Physics arXiv on which scientists post early versions of their latest ideas. Contact me at KentuckyFC @ arxivblog.com

Follow The Physics arXiv Blog on Twitter

Subscribe to the arXiv blog RSS Feed

Advertisement
Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement