Star Trek's Prime Directive and the Fermi Paradox

Rhykker

Level 16 Scallywag
Feb 28, 2010
814
0
0
Star Trek's Prime Directive and the Fermi Paradox

From the Drake Equation to the Fermi Paradox, we look at some reasons why we may not have been contacted by some of the intelligent life forms that supposedly exist in the universe.

Read Full Article
 

Kieve

New member
Jan 4, 2011
128
0
0
The biggest problem with trying to analyze the question of "Why haven't they contacted us?" is trying to ascribe human logic, perspective, and rationality to an entity or collective that may not conform to any of those things.
Just to pose one example - suppose they're of a cold-blooded or insect-like nature and regard us with the same mindset we might look upon a termite mound? "Sure they can build, but that doesn't make them sentient."

Ultimately, I don't think we'll ever know for certain unless we can make contact and establish clear lines of communication. Given that our species has a few thousand languages and dialects on this mud-ball alone, getting a straight answer may prove the more challenging obstacle.
 

Anachronism

New member
Apr 9, 2009
1,842
0
0
Interesting stuff. Although, I would counter that Kirk, Picard et al tended to treat the Prime Directive as a guideline at best, not the first and most important rule of Starfleet. I'm relatively certain that if you went through Star Trek and worked out a ratio of times the Prime Directive was ignored versus times the Prime Directive was obeyed, the former would massively outweigh the latter.

Now, aliens might well be rather more professional than the various captains of the Enterprise, but if they're out exploring space they're bound to be at least a little curious.
 

RA92

New member
Jan 1, 2011
3,079
0
0
Maybe a sentient pulsating star has been trying to communicate with us for years...

Maybe a few black holes or any other massive bodies that emits no radiation (dark matter?) are actual stars covered in a Dyson Spheres...
 

Keith K

New member
Oct 29, 2009
274
0
0
'The zoo hypothesis' is a standing theorized resolution to the Fermi Paradox and is included in the Wikipedia article on the Fermi Paradox, specifically referencing the Prime Directive from Star Trek as an example. It even has its own separate wikipedia page.
 

Tohron

New member
Apr 3, 2010
90
0
0
Charles Stross gave another interesting answer to the Fermi Paradox in Accelerando: moving is too inconvenient. In that book, the successors to humanity were converting matter in the Solar System into a giant, solar-powered Dyson Sphere/supercomputer, on which all of their intelligences were running.

However, inside the supercomputer, communication is extremely fast, and lots of power is readily available. Yet, any attempt to send out a colonization mission elsewhere would involve outside communication slowing down by several orders of magnitude - and at that point, the AIs had become adapted to the high-bandwidth environment. Thus, advanced civilizations were predisposed to remain in their own solar system.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,760
0
0
Weird timing, since this just came up in conversation yesterday.

Maybe other civilizations exist, but there are technological or economical hurdles to galaxy-wide expansion that cannot be overcome.
This is usually my first thought on the matter. We don't even know that interstellar travel is reliably possible, let alone feasible. And space is big. Really big.

Kieve said:
The biggest problem with trying to analyze the question of "Why haven't they contacted us?" is trying to ascribe human logic, perspective, and rationality to an entity or collective that may not conform to any of those things.
And that's another bit. Hell, even the Prime Directive is based on our own historical and anthropological studies. A culture without that baggage might view things differently, for better or worse. On top of your termite example, a species might simply not have compunctions with interfering, but might choose to hinder us. If so, they might not be overt. Or they may not care about other civilisations, which isn't entirely divorced from humanity as we do have isolationist groups. Maybe there are cultural or even religious taboos. Maybe they're just too alien for us to understand them. Hell, maybe that goes both ways. Wouldn't that be funny?

Anachronism said:
Now, aliens might well be rather more professional than the various captains of the Enterprise, but if they're out exploring space they're bound to be at least a little curious.
Or they might lack the compassion that leads to most of Kirk and Picard's interference. Even on the shows, these are labeled as very "human" elements.

Or they just don't care what happens to a bunch of naked apes. We spent hundreds of years dehumanising people simply because of our varied skin pigments, so imagine what you could do with a species that was more significantly different, like a bunch of fleshy monkeys who still think mobile phones are a pretty neat idea.
 

Rhykker

Level 16 Scallywag
Feb 28, 2010
814
0
0
Reasons why we haven't been visited: Basically my theory is that faster than light travel simply doesn't exist. Subspace bubbles/waves, wormholes and tachyon replacement technology is probably so far out there that it remains a theory at best.
Besides that, it's a vast universe and we simply might not have been encountered yet.

Reasons why we're not worth visiting: Assuming someone has actually taken a glance at our planet and species, they'd probably note that we are an incredibly divided species that prioritizes material wealth and power at the cost of our environment and by far most of our population. We also base our economy on a flawed premise and trust it blindly instead of coming up with something better for everyone.
We are currently in so great a state of unrest that any visit now and probably for hundreds of years, would upset the whole planet, making it severely awkward for anyone to attempt it.
As someone else stated - we might just not be interesting because we're too different or too primitive.

Reasons why others aren't visiting anywhere: Because they probably can't and are living far more harmoniously on their own planets, not giving two shits about anyone or anything else out there. Considering that we still have cultures that are close to being "primitive" tribes, it's not unimaginable that there are entire civilizations out there that haven't bothered evolving technologically.

Personally I just don't think anyone out there is capable of travelling very far and if their technology is vastly superior to ours, it's probably not based on the same conditions and environments that we're used to. Consider the elements on the periodic table.. we're making new elements that can't exist for more than a nano-second.
I doubt there's dilithium crystal out there that magically has the ability to reach through the 4th dimension if you apply a 9 volt battery.

Okay, so here's a different question, what if someone made a colony/generational ship?
Something as simple as a lack of gravity would likely kill that idea.

It's a bleak view and while I realistically think it's a hopeless dream, I do hope there's a lot more out there. I'm just sad that I'll die long, long, long before seeing any of it.
 
Jan 12, 2012
2,114
0
0
Anachronism said:
Interesting stuff. Although, I would counter that Kirk, Picard et al tended to treat the Prime Directive as a guideline at best, not the first and most important rule of Starfleet. I'm relatively certain that if you went through Star Trek and worked out a ratio of times the Prime Directive was ignored versus times the Prime Directive was obeyed, the former would massively outweigh the latter.

Now, aliens might well be rather more professional than the various captains of the Enterprise, but if they're out exploring space they're bound to be at least a little curious.
That might because of the rule of good TV: Having the Enterprise passively watch events unfold on the planets below would be a very different show (although I'd love to see a Kirk\Spock version of MST3K riffing on developing civilizations). If you went through all the canon of Star Trek and tracked every time that any ship followed the Prime Directive, the numbers would be a little more representative of the original idea.
 

Rhykker

Level 16 Scallywag
Feb 28, 2010
814
0
0
I wonder, where did you get that figure, that 5-50 mil years should be enough to colonize the galaxy?
 

Skunktrain

New member
Nov 19, 2009
29
0
0
One thing I've never heard anyone say in these discussions before (although I doubt I'm the first to think of it) is biological/habitat based barriers. For instance: imagine a nearby planet with hyper-intelligent dolphins. Space travel, radio, and electronics would all be very difficult technologies to develop. Living, as we do, in an oxygen-rich environment made detecting electrical charges easy; we can be sure the ancient Greeks had and they may not have been the first. Considering that it took us more than 2000 years to understand and use these forces, how much longer would our theoretical dolphin-people take to notice in an environment that would ground out most tests to confirm the existence of such things? Radio waves don't travel well underwater so they would be unlikely to detect them, let alone consider them a technology worth pursuing. Add that radio transmission and visible light are the only things we can detect at this rage and we could look right at them and not notice. Forget space travel, the bodies of aquatic creatures would be insanely hard to accelerate to escape velocity without destroying and imagine if the Apollo program had to be launched from underwater and carry enough water to house three dolphins for two weeks. I'm sure it would take us decades to adapt such a thing from our functioning technology.

However, all of this falls to one important fact: humans are incredibly adapted to using tools. Even infants can grasp the concept of tool use. A species without hands, no matter how intelligent, will fall behind in abstract tool use. Not to suggest that they couldn't or wouldn't have tools but rather that any tools they might have would likely be highly specialized.

Just a thought anyway.
 

medv4380

The Crazy One
Feb 26, 2010
669
0
21
Sgt. Sykes said:
I wonder, where did you get that figure, that 5-50 mil years should be enough to colonize the galaxy?
It comes from Fermi [http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/cosmo/lectures/lec28.html] himself, see the linked lecture. Based on reasonable limits like that the Speed of Light cannot be beaten you should be able to explore with a Von Neumann Probe every single star in our solar system in about 4 million years. From there it's just selecting the best places to go first. At a minimum our galaxy should be cluttered with Von Neumann probes from other intelligent species like ours.

However, we don't see these in our own system. You'd think that the earth would actually be flagged as interesting if these probes existed. This removes the argument that Space is just TOO BIG. Anyone who uses the TOO BIG argument is failing to grasp what the paradox presents.

The basis of the fermi paradox is that one of our base assumptions is completely wrong which presents one of our assumptions is actually a great filter. The assumption which is most likely wrong is that something is Ordinary about the condition of life.

This could be that ...
1) Life might be extremely rare to the point were it boarders unique.
2) Multicellular life might be extremely rare bordering on unique.
3) Intelligent life like ours might be extremely rare bordering on unique.
4) Interstellar travel may have a barrier yet undiscovered making travel impossible.

If we ever find life in our solar system that evolved separately away from the Earth like on Titan and Europa then we can conclude that 1 and 2 are false. If 1 and 2 are false it's easy to see that 3 should also be false, but that would still be an assumption.

Some people are desperate to prove 1 - 3 are false because one of the valid hypothesis solutions to the Fermi Paradox is the God Hypothesis. But even that falls to the simple logic of why make a universe so big and only put one planet with life in it.

4 is the most likely the be the actual issue, but if it's not that then we fall into the Zoo hypothesis which falls pray to other failings.

An off shoot of the Zoo Hypothesis is the Petri Dish experiment. Ether done by God, or by Alien Life. Alien's, or God would be interested in the Earth as an experiment to observe the evolution of life in general. Evidence for this is in the Nemesis Hypothesis. We have a scheduled Mass Extinction event every 26 Million Years. It's part of what Mass Effect was based on but they shrunk the time scale down to thousands of years. Initially it was thought to be a Star but a few years ago it was proven that the periodic nature of the extinctions exceed known limits that would be on a near by star. Even if the star existed it should have had its orbit in the galaxy altered slightly over the last 700 million years.

Yet others claim the extinction events are a miss read of the data, but it's clearly still debatable ether way.
 

Imperioratorex Caprae

Henchgoat Emperor
May 15, 2010
5,499
0
0
Perhaps we have made contact at the level of MiB status, wherein "The person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it!" - Agent K
Considering how we handle gender relations, sexual orientation, race relations, even culture relations, alien contact would probably be an absolute shitstorm the moment someone from the radical religions decided to insult the extra-terrestrials. So if thats the reason, I support it. We hardly get along with next door neighbors and classmates, roomates, etc. How the hell could we manage not to insult another race of beings?

*-----*

We're 1 planet in a galaxy, a drop in the bucket of water dumped into the ocean. I also read something about our TV/radio signals end up degenerating bad enough not to be heard outside our own system or at least come out garbled. Older transmissions, maybe but we've done a lot of changes in narrowing our broadcast focus so signals don't extend as far as they would have in the fledgling years.

Basically there are innumerable reasons we haven't made contact, and just as many reasons why they may not have, and just as many against us ever making contact. *shrug*
 

DrOswald

New member
Apr 22, 2011
1,443
0
0
medv4380 said:
Some people are desperate to prove 1 - 3 are false because one of the valid hypothesis solutions to the Fermi Paradox is the God Hypothesis. But even that falls to the simple logic of why make a universe so big and only put one planet with life in it.
To be fair, the god hypothesis does not necessarily require that only 1 planet have life. Many religions believe that there will be an end of the world scenario and very soon (within hundreds of years.) If this is the case we could have intelligent life in many many systems without any of them ever able to communicate with us. Basically, god made many systems many instances of intelligent life and the rest of the systems are buffer systems meant specifically to prevent interaction between civilizations. All civilizations are scheduled to end before they can really get going on space travel.

Also, the logic that god would not make an entire universe to put only one sentient species in it is problematic because it is ascribing human values of efficiency to a being that is supposed to be omnipotent. Human limits on something that has no limitations. Efficiency doesn't really come into play for an omnipotent individual. If there is a god and that god is truly omnipotent then it is entirely possible he created the vast universe just so we would be able to see something pretty when we look at the sky. For an omnipotent individual it would be no more difficult that not creating the universe.
 

zumbledum

New member
Nov 13, 2011
673
0
0
the huge sucking chest wound in the fermi paradox is assuming intelligent life could of existed for that long. it cant. you need to go through a lot of generations of stars to build up the more complex elements to make complex life. even though it took us 14bn years to get here we might be the first or among them.

the other big issue is "intelligent life" however much of a misnomer that is, is not usually a good evolutionary option. it took some pretty specific conditions to pay off in us.


i think we will find a galaxy with life all over it. i just dont think the odds on any intelligent life evolving is going to be high.
 

Scorpid

New member
Jul 24, 2011
814
0
0
To me the question isn't are we alone but is there life out there that is as sentient as humans. I mean in the entire history of Earth there has only been one humanity. Raptors didn't contemplate mathmatics, chimpanzees don't sit around communicating their philosophies back and forth, crabs and jellyfish don't make tools or hyper complex structures. Is there even another species in earths history that was ever so ungifted in physical advantages but rose to the very top of the food chain?
 

mirage202

New member
Mar 13, 2012
334
0
0
The idea that in everything 'out there' we may be alone terrifies me far more than the idea that we are not alone.

No matter what happens, whatever perceptions keep shifting or scientific discovers made/proven/disproved, my brain just can't accept that fact that in the entire universe we could be the only existing life.
 

medv4380

The Crazy One
Feb 26, 2010
669
0
21
DrOswald said:
medv4380 said:
Some people are desperate to prove 1 - 3 are false because one of the valid hypothesis solutions to the Fermi Paradox is the God Hypothesis. But even that falls to the simple logic of why make a universe so big and only put one planet with life in it.
To be fair, the god hypothesis does not necessarily require that only 1 planet have life.
You miss understand. It's not that the God Hypothesis has the requirement. If life is ordinary and the evolutionary process can occur without external intervention then the universe must have many planets with life. If the universe only has one then it is much more likely that the God Hypothesis is true no matter how unlikely it may seem. It would be strong evidence of God even though the opposite would not be strong evidence against God.
 

kurupt87

Fuhuhzucking hellcocks I'm good
Mar 17, 2010
1,438
0
0
I didn't end up posting in the Drake Equation thread but did anyone else oppose or at least mention the absurdly long estimated lifetime of civilisation the article gave? I remember it being in the millions, which caused me to spit out my tea at the time (considering the relatively grounded nature of the rest of the article).

But yeah, the first response couldn't say it better in my opinion. Aliens be aliens; we have enough trouble trying to predict or even understand what China is going to do, let alone an entirely different sentient/sapient/whateverthefuck-ient species.
 

DrOswald

New member
Apr 22, 2011
1,443
0
0
medv4380 said:
DrOswald said:
medv4380 said:
Some people are desperate to prove 1 - 3 are false because one of the valid hypothesis solutions to the Fermi Paradox is the God Hypothesis. But even that falls to the simple logic of why make a universe so big and only put one planet with life in it.
To be fair, the god hypothesis does not necessarily require that only 1 planet have life.
You miss understand. It's not that the God Hypothesis has the requirement. If life is ordinary and the evolutionary process can occur without external intervention then the universe must have many planets with life. If the universe only has one then it is much more likely that the God Hypothesis is true no matter how unlikely it may seem. It would be strong evidence of God even though the opposite would not be strong evidence against God.
So the theory is that extreme rareness of life indicates a god? Eh, seems suspect to me. Even if the conditions to form life were so unlikely that it only happened once in our galaxy that is no good indication of god. There are enough galaxies out there that it could still be a freak chance sort of thing.

Edit: to be clear, I am familiar with a different god hypothesis, maybe it is named something else, but it is basically that all civilizations are kept apart by god. If life is common but never interacts it would indicate that something is preventing interaction. The hypothesis is that something is a god.