This seems like an excellent example of "If I'm allowed to pick any numbers I like, and multiply them with eachothers, I can arrive at any answer I want"

Quite apart from the technological challenge of building a "probe" that will operate for 50 million years, what is the possible value of information that would be several million years out of date by the time ET got it back? And would the language (even mathematical) of such information be readable over such a time span, let alone relevant.

It's improbable, we could even notify the presence of civilization, which would be significantly more advanced, then that of ours...

In WWII the allies overwhelmed some remote Polynesian Islands and used them as cargo transport bases. Our effects on their culture were profound and devastating. See Wikipedia 'Cargo Cult'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

Many Sci-Fi stories have non-interference references. Presumably to leave vulnerable societies untouched. If these policies are in effect, we may never know who's observing us or if they say "Take me to your leader" we may never recover our self-identity.

Wonder how it would affect the math if these probes could reproduce themselves. Some kind of exponential rate of *coverage* but no difference in radial velocity I suppose.

Suppose that there are many technologically advanced civilizations. Suppose that they have set up some sort of political alliance. It is possible that they could have agreed that non-spacefaring civilizations are protected, and thus our solar system is banned from probes.

Perhaps a technologically advanced civilization could use some sort of astronomical technique to determine what solar systems can support life, and then distinguish which ones do already, or are about to. After all, our scientists are hard at work trying to do the same thing, and by all indications we are getting quite close to detecting earth-like planets (if they exist, and it seems statistically silly to me to think that they don't). Then why wouldn't an alien society do the same? I would hope by the time our technology propells us (or even our probes) out of the solar system to the magnitude this article talked about, we would also have the ethical structure in place to prevent us from interfering with existing civilizations that havn't yet started exploring the galaxy themselves.

I mean, it is the Star Trek, etc. solution, but while we are speculating on what *might* be, this possibility cannot be discounted without reason.

This only answers the obvious, but has anyone taken in consideration the train of thought of ETs?

Let's look at a what if:

If we travelled at the speed that we go now, it will take us forever to get to a destination such as the nearest star.  Our speed of traveling in space has increased vastly, but what about new technology that will allow us to bend space-time to actually get to a star at a faster speed than light.  Theoretically, this is possible, we wouldn't move ourselves, we would move space.  Anyone who visits websites such as this with a regular frequency must have read articles pointing to this possibility.

Second, suppose we can get to the nearest star with a planet  with life in about a month by bending space-time.  The planet may have life not as advanced as us, thus not needing to cloak our proves or spaceships.  If the civilization was as advanced as us, it would require us to cloak our proves and/or spaceships to minimize the panic that would cause to that civilization.  Here on Earth we have people talking about UFOs, ancient paintings have pointed this out too, and some theories suggest that our moon may be hold alien proves (some theories backed up by astronauts, you don't believe me?  Look it up, Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong are strong proponents.)

So again, the question is, why haven't we found any proves around here?  Well, it could be that ETs are very intelligent to cloak their proves and/or spaceships in order to minimize panic in our civilization, and what is seen by people is usually dismissed as illusions, hallucinations, delusions.  Most "evidence" are hoaxes, but some is true yet the people are already convinced that all are hoaxes.  Governments know the truth about this, most are open about the existence of UFOs, but everyone looks to the United States for the answer about that.  Which of course will deny.  Why?  Maybe because what they know about it has very very deep implications.  If people knew the truth, most likely people would panic big time, or life as we know it will change.

Why wouldn't ETs visit us?  Well, take it this way, why are we looking for life elsewhere?  Why are we sending proves around, men to the moon and soon mars, looking for stars with planets.  If we have the same curiosity then ETs might do the same.  Like I said, the UFO rumors are very very ancient and many prominent people attest to seeing something like that, are we going to dismiss all these arguments just because people still want to stick to seeing first before believing?  Just because people in control tell us that they don't exist?  Look up the information yourself and come up with your conclusion, but don't say that ETs haven't visited us if you haven't even made the research.

Interesting article. I can't help but noticing that everybody is making the same assumption about the mode of transportation used by ET civilizations. We all think that advanced species would be using a propulsion technology based on Newtonian physics. But what if this is not true? What if our concept of space is flawed? What if there is no space and that distance were a mere illusion of perception? What if it were possible to move from anywhere to anywhere instantly?

There are excellent reasons to suppose that space does not exist and that our concept of space is merely the result of the way particles interact and how the brain processes sensory signals. Assuming I am right, how would the idea of instant travel impact the Fermi Paradox?

Nasty Little Truth About Space:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm#Space

The big problem with all this speculation is the arrogant  and statistically invalid assumption that the one example of semi-intelligent life we know of, humans, is an accurate representation of the galaxy as a whole. There is no proof that sentience is a favored evolutionary outcome. The dinosaurs were around for 250 million years, much longer than us, with no development of civilization. Without a big rock taking them out mammals might never have gotten a chance. It took a billion years for multi-cellular life to develop. The most likely scenario is that the universe is ruled by bacteria and that development of civilization is neither inevitable nor favored. Combine inferior physiology,  the physics of a light speed barrier, with the vast distances of interstellar space and the most likely scenario would be robotic not biological space travelers, if anything. We are rapidly approaching the technological point where a single determined lunatic or group of lunatics could devastate life on this planet. I would not count on millions of years of space travel. The value of space travel restricted by sub light speed is debatable given the expense and resources involved, something that any other advanced civilization may have already decided is frivolous.

If you were building a probe to last millions of years and to spread throughout space. What better device than a soluable three dimensional molecule that can self replicate from native common elements throughout the media?

And if you were going to leave a message, what better message than "intelligence" of the type familar to them.

Of course begs the question, could our drive to explore and continue onwards and outwards (even animals beyond humans have this..) be natural or artificial?

And perhaps our desire for contact with civilizations like our own is the "reporting" feature in our program?

Kinda reminds me of nanobots and the grey goo bomb.. if you include all the microorganisms in our community down to the smallest microbe.. and send them on a mission to build a new civilization in another star system and then both continue on and report back.. how would you do it differently?

The "extra" dimension of emergent properties is also interesting.. for now we observe emergent properties.. and estimate if they can be reproduced in the right environment.. but suppose a more advanced civilization had a whole catalog of quantum statistical methods for "constructing" a molecule or a molecules that would lead to an entire civilization in a certain time frame.. almost like a "seed" that doesn't need to carry all its material with it.. its real payload would be in its emergent properties.. a shadow cargo that unfolds based on the environment at the destination.. pretty efficient delivery system I think.. and how much energey would it take to accelerate a couple molecules to 1/10th light speed versus an entire spaceship?

Or how big and sophisticated need a spaceship be if the payload can remain frozen in ice for millions of years and launched star ward? A big icey comet might be just the ticket to protect a complex molecule from gamma radiation.

I especially like the new concept of syncopated quantum entanglement and pair production of particles.. almost makes the idea of a transporter seem feesible.. such is the entertainment of our day.

One possible explanation is that their idea of investigation is to scan solar system with probe. Send information back and leave investigating next solar system, leaving no evidence. If they do it this way, our chance to spot them is reduced dramatically.

First, define 'advanced.' Second, the title of this post is a bit misleading. It should read: 'Fermi Paradox Points to Fewer Than 10 Extraterrestrial Civilizations Capable of Space Exploration.' For all we know, there may be 100s of thousands of 'nearby' civilizations just not yet capable of long distance space exploration or long distance telecommunications.

Seriously, if there is anyone capable of finding such probes, it would be the governments or big private corporations, which of course is as obvious as the light of day, work in cooperation with governments.  Such findings are very valuable, thus the need to keep this information secret.  And, why are we assuming that ETs travel at a speed slower than light?  Propulsion is quite honestly a very primitive technology for traveling in space, just like horses were used for traveling land and ships used for traveling across oceans.

It's curious that a major unspoken assumption of this kind of theorizing is that _not one_ of the thousands upon thousands of UFO sightings over the past century have represented any form of alien probe whatsoever. It's entriely possible that sample-collecting, surveying, etc, did in fact occur right in front of our eyes, but has been carefully disregarded by science because of the insurmountable "ridicule factor" that surrounds the UFO subject because people immediately flash to a mental picture of grey aliens, abductions, and other sci-fi stuff. Is it completely inconceivable that a wave of probes visited the Earth last century and that much of the stuff we associate with "flying saucers" is a cultural concoction precisely like the Cargo Cults referenced above? After all, the existence of false Cargo Cult beliefs does not prove the _non-existence_ of the WWII US invasions that helped generate them!

I think the construction of theories about "lack of alien visitation" that completely disregards the evidence that we have been visited is kind of pointless and empty.

Until another civilization is found - don't hold your breath - I will go with what CAN be observed, and that is that there is only ONE sentient form of life in our Universe. Our own.  Everything else is speculation and in the case of some commenters I've read here, a desire to live out some sort of Star Trek fantasy. Also, to those commenters who claim that our technology is primitive, what is your evidence to reach that conclusion? The SciFi channel? We don't know of any other technology but our own so as far as we KNOW the most advanced technology in the Universe is our own.

I bet if they knew about Las Vegas they'd be visiting us by the busload.

Why would such advanced civilizations send out noticeable probes? Would they have to get inside our solar system to see what they want? If it were me, I would send out nano-selfreplicators to "terra" form planets in the local area, in the case that I needed to expand at some later date. However, being so advanced, I would have already figured out how to live in ecological balance with my solar system. What would drive a civilization to physically visit other places so far away? Adventure? Imperialism? Knowledge? If you can probe the stars to that degree, would you desire those things? Does the rabbit notice the cat, until the last seconds of it's life? Just some musings...

One can invent a lot of reasons why probes haven't gotten to us, why we haven't seen them, and so on.  To me the much stronger constraint on ETCs is that we don't see an abundance of stars radiating heavily in the infrared.  Here's the idea:

(1) the gulf between stellar systems is very large, so there will be a strong tendency for ETCs to maximize their use of resources within each given star system.
(2) the ultimate scarce resource is free energy, and an ETC would maximize its capture of free energy by intercepting (and extracting useful work from) all light emitted by the parent star (e.g., a Dyson sphere or similar)
(3) the signature of this would be a "star" that emits in the infrared, rather than optical (note the net outflux of energy is unchanged by the presence of the ETC, but the radiation temperature of the "waste heat" is lower)

The catch is, there isn't any observational evidence for infrared-emitting objects like these.  This would point to either few (or zero) very advanced ETCs, or a flaw in the above logic.

Are we ignoring the simplest explanation of all for why we see no alien life?  We might be all there is!  I don't understand why people are so bent on avoiding that simple conclusion.

Another explanation that requires only our local observations here on earth is the nature of evolution.  Evolution breeds competitive, energy-consuming, and eventually very intelligent and destructive creatures.  As an earlier poster pointed out, technology will soon enable one or two lunatics to take us all out.  Perhaps all civilizations end in this manner.

These seem to be the simplest answers that do not require multiplying hypotheses needlessly.

This is such a flawed logic by Cotta and Morales, I simply refuse to argue about it.

My assumptions, based on what happened here on earth, are that the default mode of every species that emerges as intelligent is to be anti-science and anti-reason, and that for a species to advance to the point where we are right now is extremely unlikely. Science and technology as we know it developed only in the West. No other culture developed it, although China and India might have given enough time. But the other cultures were going nowhere.

And even the development of science in the West was not even close to being a sure thing. If ancient Greece hadn't been saved by the 300 at Thermopylae, if the Romans hadn't liked Greek culture, if Europe hadn't emerged from the Dark Ages, if ancient learning hadn't been preserved by various people, if the Church had squelched Galileo, the list of potential catastrophes goes on and on.

And even here in the West we have plenty of people who are anti-science and anti-reason. Think of those who don't accept evolution or who don't believe we got to the moon.

I know this is depressing to think about, but the nearest technologically advanced species may be in the Andromeda Galaxy.

The problem is not the lack of probes, which with our current understanding of physics are impossible, but the lack of communication signals. The available evidence is that we are alone, at least in the galaxy.

Now that is a much more interesting idea than fantasies about extraterrestrial aliens.

I'm surprised that neither the article nor the commentors so far have mentioned the Rare Earth hypothesis (detailed in the eponymous book)--that microbes are probably common as dirt in the universe, but that advanced life like ours is so much pickier that very few planets exist that could host advanced life in the first place.

If this is true, then the average distance between advanced civilizations is probably so great that not only are visits unlikely/impossible--but so is communications.

The Rare Earth hypothesis points to the need for a large moon like ours to stabilize the planet on its polar axis--otherwise it could "roll over" and spin with one pole permanently facing the primary, with catastrophic results for all advanced life.

And our moon seems to be unusual. Add to that the fact that stars larger than G types don't have a life zone that stays put long enough, and smaller stars tend to burp now and then (which would affect a planet like putting in a big microwave for an hour), and multiple star systems--the rule out there--can produce unstable orbits in planets--and stars near giant stars that go supernova and also scrub all solar systems within 30LY or so, and stars near a galactic hub would be permanently boiling in a sea of hard radiation...and the planet needs to be not only in the liquid water life zone but also big enough to hold its atmosphere and have a molten iron core to generate a Van Allen belt...

And it becomes easy to understand why we seem alone in the universe.

That said, given the existence of hundreds of billions of stars in the average galaxy, and hundreds of billions of galaxies in this universe, and the possibility of other universes (depending on which TOE is true), it seems statistically 99.9999999999999999% likely that we're not alone in the universe. It just seems almost equally likely that we'll never find out for sure.

Can we all please stop already with the "earth-is-the-one-intelligent-life-we-know-of-in-the-universe" nonsense.

Millions of people have seen evidence of beings from other dimensions/worlds. They include airline pilots, military personnel, police and thousands of other very credible witnesses. Govts have entire departments which track these reports-and unfortunatelhy hide them.

Why do most of the people posting here continue pretending that there has not been contact made yet. The fact is the contact has been going on for thousands of years and has never stopped! Not wanting to look at the enormous evidence of contact seems to me a profoundly unscientific attitude.

They may in fact be interdimensional entities

They may not necessarily live on planets

There are several important problem with the Fermi Paradox that lead me to conclude it is invalid.

First and foremost, is its failure to give appropriate weight to the tremendous time scales that would confront an expanding alien civilization. Assuming the light speed limit, an expanding civilization may take thousands of years to reach appreciable size. During that period, I think it is reasonable to assume that such a civilization would first explore by robotic probes. Our solar system could have been visited by hundreds of such robotic probes over millions of years -- certainly we would never know it unless they wanted to leave an unmistakeable sign of their visit. A follow-up with inhabited probes would occur only to those systems they believe are interesting or which have some potential value (scientific or otherwise) for them. Again, such visits could have occured hundreds of times over the lifespan of our solar system/planet and we would have no clue of it ever having occured. Systems that get follow-up visits may also not be colonized or, if they are, they may put in place purely automated facilities at locations we aren't even close to being able to reach. Bear in mind that human civilization has existed for no more than twenty thousand years and civilization with technology that might be of some interest to an alien civilzation barely more than a couple of hundred years -- barely a snap of the finger in a galactic time scale.

It is important for us not to fall into the "human-centered universe" trap. We are orbiting an average star on the far reaches of the galaxy. There is no reason to believe that our solar system/planet would be regarded as any more compelling than any of the hundreds of uninhabited islands that dot our own coastlines and oceans.

Second, there is no reason to believe that such civilizations would feel the need to colonize every solar system -- or even most of them. Further, as we are just beginning to appreciate, if an alien civilization chose to expand through colonies they may not choose to place those colonies on habitable planets (e.g. think of the O'Neill concept of space habitats or placing colonies on lifeless bodies to prevent the possibility of biological contamination) and/or what they define as habitable could be drastially different than what we regard as habitable.

Third, and this relates to my first point, we shouldn't underestimate the social/technological evolution that will envelop an expanding advanced civilization. As Dyson, Hawking and Kurzwell have predicted over hundreds or even thousands of years an advanced civilization is likely to evolve dramatically -- perhaps becoming almost unrecognizable to its former selves -- and emerge with radically different goals and objectives. Combine this with science and technology that could also be advancing at a rapidly expanding rate. The result could be a civilization that over time no longer wants or needs to expand in ways we would recognize or understand.

All of this leads me to conclude that Fermi's Paradox is a far too simple minded analysis of the very complex issue of the search for alien life in the universe

I agree with 2 cents. It seems a little comic to be among those of the "scientific community", with all of the talk of rationality and evidence. I'm not against the notion of ET life, but the FACT is that there is NO current EVIDENCE. Ditto with all the talk about our "primitive technology" - as opposed to what?! On the other hand, we can observe quite a bit of boundries being crossed from Star Trek and various sci-fi media outlets (including the dubiously named "History Channel") over to our little earthly reality.
Walker Percy had a great insight into this mentality in his book "Lost in the Cosmos", namely that there seems to be some strange (inverse) relationship between how much we know about "ourselves" and how much we (need to) know about the universe - that our "searching" may boil down to being primarily a symptom of our existential aloneness.
Wouldn't addressing THAT set of "problems" frame an interesting encounter with ET: something like, "how do you make sense of your creatureliness? how do you understand what you are? where you came from? where you are going? how do you understand mortality? do you believe in and/or have a relationship with something that transcends you? what makes you get out of bed in the morning?" Assuming of course that time/space bending viruses "get out of bed". But you get the point.

This whole thing assumes advanced extraterrestrial entities travel at the same speed of our 30 years old space shuttle, pretty ridiculous if you think they would be traveling for some million years by now while our very less advanced civilization has gone from the agricultural economy to the formulation of a theory for faster-than-light travels (Alcubierre's Warp Drive) in less of 300 years...

No way. I'd accept the idea that no other advanced civilization exist in this galaxy rather than thinking that a million-old civilization is hovering around the interstellar space on things resembling the Apollo 13....