The Billion-Year Technology Gap: Could One Exist? (A Galaxy Classic)

Are we the lone sentient life in the universe? So far, we have no evidence to the contrary, and yet the odds that not one single other planet has evolved intelligent life would appear, from a statistical standpoint, to be quite small. There are an estimated 250 billion (2.5 x 10¹¹ ) stars in the Milky Way alone, and over 70 sextillion (7 x 10²² ) in the visible universe, and many of them are surrounded by multiple planets. 

Meanwhile, our 4.5 billion-year old Solar System exits in a universe that is estimated to be between 13.5 and 14 billion years old. Experts believe that there could be advanced civilizations out there that have existed for 1.8 gigayears (one gigayear = one billion years). 

The odds of there being only one single planet that evolved life among all that unfathomable vastness seems so incredible that it is all but completely irrational to believe. But then "where are they?" asked physicist Enrico Fermi while having lunch with his colleagues in 1950.

Fermi reasoned, if there are other advanced extraterrestrial civilizations, then why is there no evidence of such, like spacecraft or probes floating around the Milky Way. His question became famously known as the Fermi Paradox. The paradox is the contradiction between the high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations and yet the lack of evidence for, or contact with, any such civilizations.

Given the extreme age of the universe, and its vast number of stars, if planets like Earth are at all typical, then there should be many advanced extraterrestrial civilizations out there, and at least a few in our own Milky Way. Another closely related question is the Great Silence, which poses the question: Even if space travel is too difficult, if life is out there, why don't we at least detect some sign of civilization like radio transmissions?

Milan Cirkovic of the Astronomical Observatory in Belgrade, points out that the median age of terrestrial planets in the Milky Way is about 1.8 gigayears greater than the age of the Earth and the Solar System, which means that the median age of technological civilizations should be greater than the age of human civilization by the same amount. The vastness of this interval indicates that one or more processes must suppress observability of extraterrestrial communities.

Mike Treder of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies suggests that since there is, at this point, no direct and/or widely apparent evidence that extraterrestrial life exists, it likely means one of the following:

We are (A) the first intelligent beings ever to become capable of making our presence known, and leaving our planet. At this point, there are no other life forms out there as advanced as us. Or perhaps extraterrestrial life does exists, but for some reason extraterrestrial life is so very rare and so very far away we’ll never make contact anyway—making extraterrestrial life nonexistent in a practical sense at least.

Or is it (B) that many advanced civilizations have existed before us, but without exception, they have for some unknown reason, existed and/or expanded in such a way that they are completely undetectable by our instruments.

Or is it (C) There have been others, but they have all run into some sort of “cosmic roadblock” that eventually destroys them, or at least prevents their expansion beyond a small area.

Then ancients once believed that Earth was the center of the universe. We now know that Earth isn’t even at the center of the Solar System. The Solar System is not at the center of our galaxy, and our galaxy is not in any special position in contrast to the rest of the known universe. From a scientific viewpoint, there is no apparent reason to believe that Earth enjoys some privileged status.

Since Earth’s placement in space and time appears to be unremarkably random, proposition “A” seems fairly unlikely. Assuming humans evolved like other forms of life into our present state due to natural selection, then there's really nothing all that mystical, special or remarkable about our development as a species either. Due to the shear numbers, there are almost certainly other planets capable of supporting at least some form of life. If that is so, then for Earthlings to be the very first species ever to make a noticeable mark on the universe, from a statistical perspective, is incredibly unlikely.

For proposition “B” to be correct would defy all logic. If potentially thousands, or even millions of advanced extraterrestrial civilizations exist in the known universe, then why would all of them, without exception, choose to expand or exist in such a way that they are completely undetectable? It’s conceivable that some might, or perhaps even the majority, but for all of them to be completely undetectable civilizations does not seem likely either.

> Proposition C, according to Treder, appears to be more likely than A or B. If “survival of the fittest” follows similar pathways on other worlds, then our own “civilized” nature could be somewhat typical of extraterrestrial civilizations that have, or do, exist. Somehow, we all get to the point where we end up killing ourselves in a natural course of technological development and thereby self-inflict our own “cosmic roadblock”.

“Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the Fermi Paradox is what it suggests for the future of our human civilization. Namely, that we have no future beyond earthly confinement and, quite possibly, extinction. Could advanced nanotechnology play a role in preventing that extinction? Or, more darkly, is it destined to be instrumental in carrying out humanity's unavoidable death sentence?” wonders Mike Treder, executive director of the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (CRN).

Treder believes that some of the little understood new technologies now being developed such as nanotech, and others, could well be either our salvation or just as likely end up causing our ultimate destruction.

“Whatever civilizations have come before us have been unable to surpass the cosmic roadblock. They are either destroyed or limited in such a way that absolutely precludes their expansion into the visible universe. If that is indeed the case—and it would seem to be the most logical explanation for Fermi's Paradox—then there is some immutable law that we too must expect to encounter at some point. We are, effectively, sentenced to death or, at best, life in the prison of a near-space bubble,” suggests Treder. “Atomically-precise exponential manufacturing could enable such concentrations of unprecedented power as to result in either terminal warfare or permanent enslavement of the human race. Of course, that sounds terribly apocalyptic, but it is worth considering that the warnings we heard at the start of the nuclear arms race, and the very real risks we faced in the height of the Cold War, were but precursors to a much greater threat posed by an arms race involving nano-built weaponry and its accompanying tools of surveillance and control.”

When we consider the chronological history of life on Earth, humans have only existed for a small fragment of time and our existence has always been precarious. The entire time we’ve existed, we been banding into various groups and attempting to kill each other—or at least are constantly in the process of developing more effective ways of killing each other—just in case. The US government, for example, spends on “Defense” (including “preemptive” warfare) and Homeland Security, 8 times what it spends on educating the next generation. There is enough nuclear weaponry in storage around the world to kill every living creature on the planet several times over. Clearly, we’re a species with poor odds of surviving indefinitely.

Our self-destructive natures aside, curiosity may end up killing more than the cats. The faster technology is advancing, the more our “leap now, look later” nature appears to grow as well. If evolution on Earth serves as a somewhat typical template for evolution of other life forms, then becoming a truly advanced civilization must be a very daunting task indeed and a very rare, if not impossible, achievement.

In fact, Sir Martin Rees, Great Britain's Astronomer Royal and respected professor of astrophysics at Cambridge University has estimated that humans have only a 50-50 shot of making it through the 21st century. If Rees is right, and our standing on the planet is as precarious as he and others believe it is, then we may be alone due to a built-in evolutionary self-destruct button. Others have come before and others will exist after, but the cosmic roadblock may be an innate, finite nature, which only allows sentient life forms to exist for a very small window of time—windows of life which may be too small for our civilization to match up with the small windows of other civilizations that have been before or will come after.

In a contrary point of view, Milan Cirkovic believes that highly efficient city-state type of advanced technological civilizations could easily pass unnoticed even by much more advanced SETI equipment, especially if located near the Milky Way rim or other remote locations.

Posted by Rebecca Sato with Casey Kazan.

Source: Mike Treder executive director of the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (CRN): original article.

NASA Hubble Image is the Helix Nebula, also known as The Helix or NGC 7293, a large planetary nebula located in the constellation of Aquarius

Recommended Galaxy post:

Stephen Hawking: Why Isn't the Milky Way "Crawling With Self-Designing Mechanical or Biological Life?"

Links:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/07/sir-martin-rees.html
http://www.nanotech-now.com/columns/?article=149
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

Comments

[Farrukh Majid]

Proposition-D....to me there may be any extraterrestrial life in Universe but not like us as we generally measure the existence of life based on water, oxygen and other prerequisites nessary for life...God knows as He has power to create...the Uncreated Creator of Universe>>>>>>>afterall science draws conclusions from non-science assumptions...

[Shakatany]

It always amused me that on scifi shows like Star Trek how many alien civilizations were at the same level of technology as Earth as if Someone had a starting gun - get ready, get set, evolve.

If we ever get out there we may find superior civilizations which will put us on our best behavior. What I worry about is, in our arrogance, we behave like the the humans in "Avatar" as any planet with a breathable atmosphere will have a native ecology that may be put at risk by our presence.

[bumpy]

Under Proposition B, one should consider the possibility that civilizations much more advanced than we are communicate by means we know nothing of. We have had radio scarcely a century; before that, any civilization communicating by radio would have been invisible to us. Perhaps typically civilizations typically remain in this interim, between radio and whatever follows, for only a very short time, perhaps a century or two. Anything that lasts only that long would be extremely rare.

[Forgey Hugjer]

or, also from the new film nSpace,
the Dovin Melhee sci-fi book

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAcirnrdGhw

[Triffid]

I have a germ of an idea for a rousing good science fiction novel based on this idea. I won't say what it is but ya'll can read it if I can sell it.

[Sara Victoria]

There is more than ample evidence of life and contact from off planet beings. Interactions of many sorts with other worlds - many different worlds - is so established that to be genuinely ignorant of this seems impossible, seeing as your site is devoted to galactic awareness. The issue is not whether or not there is evidence, but why and HOW is evidence denied? Regardless, over the next several years the public attention on this question and increasing 'evidence' will begin to manifest with expanding abundance.

[wayno]

Energy is the limiting factor for all civilization, alien or not. No energy, no trips to other stars. Paradox solved.

[bill]

where they be

[Franc]

We do not really have a concept of how far the stars are from each other. To accelerate any physical object to speeds which are still a fraction of the speed of light consumes so much energy that nuclear energy will utterly fail to produce relativistic speeds. Aliens face the same hurdles. Let us stop assuming that aliens have some magic technology - we may be on the home run of what can be discovered in nature.

Another reason why aliens are not on our doorstep is that every couple of 100 million years, a supernova or hypernova destroys everything in that corner of the galaxy. Even aliens cannot fight that and they cannot escape either because of the distances. Thus forget about billion year old intelligences. They do not exist.

[Dzugavili]

"Another reason why aliens are not on our doorstep is that every couple of 100 million years, a supernova or hypernova destroys everything in that corner of the galaxy. Even aliens cannot fight that and they cannot escape either because of the distances. Thus forget about billion year old intelligences. They do not exist."
This is irrational. Just as in our civilization a tidal wave can destroy a culture, one can make an ark and survive. Technology provides potential to escape any problem; a billion year old culture would likely span many stars, perhaps to the point of being able to escape almost irrationally large destructive forces.
Regardless of this, other cultures would rise and a 50m year society would probably be as technically advanced as a billion year old society from our limited viewpoint. Our recorded history is less than 10,000 years. Our current civilization has been around for about 3000 years (our society is mostly Greek/Roman inspired).

But perhaps evolution holds the solution once again. If for any reason the civilization becomes stagnant, the populations not shuffling, then the species will fall apart at its seams at a genetic level. In the procession of a billion years, how many times will a single species split? At what point will the species no longer cooperate as one?

It's more likely that we are surrounded by life that we are simply unable to comprehend, through language and technological barriers, than we are surrounded by a biologically static universe. I can't even hook my analog TV up to the grid and get a signal I can understand, and that technology became obsolete a year ago. Radio signals being limited to the speed of light (and let us suppose that if vast ancient alien empires exist, they'd require faster than speed of light communication at the least), then we're not even in right model of physics to describe the evidence.

Just wait for it. It's out there somewhere. But do you think we'd be considered notable to billion year old society? They might recognize our potential, but they might also recognize the potential of our house pets. It's possible that we just don't have anything to offer, so even if they knew of us, they might not care.

There's a whole ton of theories for why we haven't found them. And most of them are just that we're too small. We're one planet.

[William Fripp, III]

Or...

...there are extraterrestrials, they have made contact, and the evidence has been covered up in order to cash in on the technological advances...

[D S McPherson]

A civilization more advanced than ours by a billion years is beyond our conception. Thirty years ago, most of us couldn't even conceive of an iPod or Netflix. We are incredibly bad at predicting our own future technological level, even a few years out, much less a thousand million years out.

Would we be able to detect a highly advanced civilization's observation of our planet? Would we even know they are there? Already, we're developing crude invisibility cloaks ... and we're still fairly primitive. A culture "only" a thousand years more advanced than ours would probably be able to observe us undetected.

The Fermi "paradox" presumes a lot, from a stance that stinks of arrogance. It is a product of the mindset that humanity is some sort of pinnacle of creation, simply because we happen to be domesticated apes that have, nigh-miraculously, figured out both how to make some useful tools and how to discover a few interesting things about the world around us.

[D S McPherson]

The comment field didn't seem to appreciate my inclusion of HTML.

Here is the link to the aforementioned "invisibility cloak" technology, for those who are interested. (It's old news, really.)

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Weekend/scientists-step-closer-real-invisibility-cloak/story?id=10155543

[Sanyu]

Both Franc and William Fripp, III have made excellent points.

I would like to add a few of my own:

How can any scientist deny that there is MOST DEFINITELY intelligent life throughout the Universe? I mean, isn't it constantly expanding at an ever increasing rate? What could the Universe possibly be making more room for? Our ego's? Or Perhaps...////experience?/////

Additionally, and please correct me here where I'm mistaken or give scientific classification to what I'm about to describe; but random acts happening in the Universe...this is a fact, right? Okay (assuming it is), so if one random combustion takes place in this Universe, after it manifests, isn't it that much more likely to manifest again and again (as the Universe is an energetic force that is serious about practicing)? And if that's the case, and the Earth was formed 13 Billionish years into this Universe's existence....and the Earth produced life and conscious life...how many times before our Solar Systems existence was the Universe likely to have randomly combusted some slightly varied version of our own conscious existence? A lot, I would imagine.

I'd like to also point out that hominid obsession with eyes and sight as the most "effective" means of discerning the truth is quite ridiculous. The reason our species "hasn't" detected ET life is because the majority of people are only perceiving with their eyes, which is really not the most reliable sense we have.

As well, if I were an alien and looking down upon Earth via some superior means of technological configuration; I would look down and marvel at the beauty of the planet and the absolute retardation of the dominant species. Why should some alien come down here and try to communicate with a species that is so arrogant as to believe that everything it deduces must be the purpose of all Creation??? ("Man is superior, therefore God has phallic genitalia," or "I'm apathetic and depressed by my own squalid perception of existence, thus Creation must have no ultimate meaning"). I wouldn't put it past 79% of the Earth's populace to attempt killing an alien at first contact and THEN robbing it of its technology only to realize they probably should have asked a few questions first.

Homo Sapiens Sapiens must be one of the most ungrateful species in this entire OmniUnivesre! We don't even respect our planet enough to make sure it remains healthy for us even though it's our only means of survival. If I were an alien I would either calculate my entrance very carefully or I wouldn't even waste my time.

[Sanyu]

And by Franc and William Fripp, III I now realize I actually meant the comments of Dzugavili and D S McPherson...

My b.

[Andrew Scheuer]

Proposition "E":
A civilization sufficiently advanced enough would be comparable to humans looking at ants. We would be slightly interesting to watch if at all and they would be able to communicate in ways we ants could never conceive. A lifeform only one million years ahead of us could bend the laws of physics enough that they could stand next to you and you would never know it. There are definitely more advanced lifeforms that exist but probably very few we could communicate with without destroying our culture.

[Simon Tatt]

1. We have here on Earth an intelligent but non-technical lifeform called dolphins. We are only now making some headway into communicating with these creatures. What if, similarily, there are such non-technical intelligent lifeforms in the Universe? Perhaps super intelligent yet not able to escape their surroundings.
2. One has to be completely blind and ignorant not to accept that at least 1 UFO sighting since news reporting began on Earth is for real. With the progress of image-capturing technology we are able to view pictures and video clips that show extremely odd and unexplained phenomena that children, adults,farmers,politicians,men, women have seen and described.
I don`t disbelieve all of their evidence.
3. I read yesterday that the United Nations have elected a female physicist to be the first human to greet any alien visitors. If that is the case then even the UN is now accepting that alien contact is inevitable.
We are having to learn to live on this planet with increased volcanic and earthquake activity. Aircraft will more than likely have to be fitted with engines that can deal with volcanic ash and in New Zealand land is being rezoned so that parts of the population there can be moved from risky low-lying areas to safer regions due to flooding caused by the drop in ground-level brought on by the severe earthquakes that have recently occurred.
In other words, mankind needs to adapt, and it is. When contact is made with another intelligence we too will need to adapt and accept.
I feel that there will definitely be contact with another form of life within the next 5 to 10 years, if not sooner.
How we react to that contact will be the pivotal point in our existence.
If there is any truth, and I believe there is, to any of these sightings observed and recorded over the years then it would seem that if an alien craft wanted to damage Earth and its inhabitants, it would have done so years ago. There is nothing we could do to protect ourselves (much like ants). So the conclusion I draw from this is that they, (possibly many different lifeforms) are not showing up to destroy us or Earth.

[Ant]

Plan E other life form are intergalactic and know we're here. But they chose not to make contact because they know how terrible the human race is. That's why they visited in ancient times when he people were open to idea. But if there is intergalactic races they may just not be able to make it to us