What do you think the Great Filter is?

The Great Filter is the idea that, in the development of life from the earliest stages of abiogenesis to reaching the highest levels of development on the Kardashev scale, there is a barrier to development that makes detectable extraterrestrial life exceedingly rare. The Great Filter is one possible resolution of the Fermi paradox.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter

The Fermi paradox is the discrepancy between the lack of conclusive evidence of advanced extraterrestrial life and the apparently high likelihood of its existence. As a 2015 article put it, "If life is so easy, someone from somewhere must have come calling by now."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

Personally I think it's photosynthesis. Life itself developed and spread but photosynthesis started an inevitable chain of ever-greater and more-efficient life. I think a random chain of mutations that turns carbon-based proto-life into something that can harvest light energy is wildly unlikely, even after the wildly unlikely event of life beginning in the first place.

I have no data to back that up, just a guess.

Contramuffin ,

My thought is the evolution of intelligent life itself. If you think about it, intelligence is contrary to most of the principles of evolution. You spend a shit ton of energy to think, and you don't really get much back for that investment until you start building a civilization.

As far as we can tell, sufficient intelligence to build technological civilizations has only evolved once in the entire history of the Earth, and even then humans almost went extinct

LodeMike ,

It's very very obviously the speed of light.

Melvin_Ferd , (edited )

Resources often get squandered on trivial vanity and novelty products instead of being channeled into advancing science and medicine. Imagine if we had a cosmic ledger tracking every resource used to develop simple items, like a pencil. It would show countless fires burned and animals consumed just to fuel the human ingenuity required for lumber, materials, and mining. Now, think about how many more resources are required for rockets, heat shields, and life support systems. Extend that to space stations, energy capture, and escaping Earth’s gravity.The resources on a planet are abundant, and nothing is ever truly destroyed. However, we’ve often allocated too much to building flat-screen TVs, leaving little for constructing even a modest space station in orbit, let alone an interstellar spaceship. It's as if the planet offers a finite amount of resources, challenging its inhabitants to focus on space travel. Only a species wise enough to stay on track can unlock the universe's resources. Otherwise, we risk ending up like Australian pines, choking ourselves out in our isolated star systems, having wasted our potential.

Imagine it like interstellar travelling having a single path to achieve it while the path to self destruction is limitless.

theywilleatthestars ,

Either multicellular life or that societies that are bent on expansion at any cost tend to destroy their planet's ecosystem before they can establish themselves outside of it.
Not making a definitive claim on either, obvs. We have an extremely low sample size after all.

weeeeum ,

I think it would be nuclear warfare. Nuclear fission is a universal development for any advanced civilization. It would be easy to construct a nuclear bomb in an advanced civilization. Once a few rogue/pariah states start making them, everyone's screwed.

Making nukes is easy, the only reason we don't see more nuclear states on earth is because of the international backlash. With a couple more Iran and North Korea's we'll likely meet the filter ourselves.

Cryophilia OP ,

Honorable mention: we haven't detected alien probes, because intelligent alien societies haven't begun consuming the galaxy with exponential numbers of self-replicating robotic probes, because that's just a really bad idea:

Simple workarounds exist to avoid the over-replication scenario. Radio transmitters, or other means of wireless communication, could be used by probes programmed not to replicate beyond a certain density (such as five probes per cubic parsec) or arbitrary limit (such as ten million within one century), analogous to the Hayflick limit in cell reproduction. One problem with this defence against uncontrolled replication is that it would only require a single probe to malfunction and begin unrestricted reproduction for the entire approach to fail – essentially a technological cancer – unless each probe also has the ability to detect such malfunction in its neighbours and implements a seek and destroy protocol (which in turn could lead to probe-on-probe space wars if faulty probes first managed to multiply to high numbers before they were found by sound ones, which could then well have programming to replicate to matching numbers so as to manage the infestation).

grrgyle ,
@grrgyle@slrpnk.net avatar

Oh my god, that's such a stupid and simple way to kill a galaxy, but also what a great plot twist that would make in a story. Like the big reveal over why the galaxy has always been at war with itself. Exactly the kind of nihilism I'd expect from an Altered Carbon or its ilk.

Thanks for sharing!

Cryophilia OP ,

You might like the paperclip maximizer thought experiment

Also an excellent clicker style game called Universal Paperclips

grrgyle ,
@grrgyle@slrpnk.net avatar

Thanks I have heard of this kind of problem before, just not in an adversarial space war context, with like opposing forces

notabot ,

There's an easier and more reliable way to limit replication; don't hive them the means to create a small but essential part, and instead load the first probe woth many copies of it and have each replica take a set percentage.

For instance, have the probe able to replicate everything but its CPU, and just load up a rack of them on probe 0. Every time it replicates itself it passes half of its remaining stock to the replica and they both carry on from there.

Unlimited ,

Probably too optimistic and unhinged, but maybe a species advanced enough for interstellar travel, building mega structures etc. are advanced enough to ascend to a higher plane of existence or alternate dimensions or whatever. Maybe there's some alternative to this reality that will be unlocked by advanced technology that made all advanced life prefer that, to here.

Cryophilia OP ,

That's a really neat idea I've never heard before. Like, maybe our entire universe is analogous to the ocean floor sea-vents that life arose out of. Cold, and dead, and boring, and difficult. And one day we'll discover how to ascend.

HaleHirsute ,

I also like this theory. In the Ian Banks Culture series civilizations that get advanced enough head off into the “sublime” they call it. Basically a higher level of existence. In my own more simple version, I’d figure VR and the biological/cyborg mix get so good the powerful can start living kind of forever, so they head for that substrate and don’t need big megastructures for anything, they just need computing power.

jballs ,
@jballs@sh.itjust.works avatar

Yeah, it seems very possible that at one point, civilization will turn inward instead of outward. Why go through the time and effort to colonize the stars when you can just create a cyber-utopia? If you're advanced enough, you could make it feel like an eternity while almost no time passes on the outside.

Sure, your planet might get destroyed by a cataclysmic event in the far future, but if you can make that feel like billions or trillions of years, who really cares?

Bishma ,
@Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

The way the news has been going I wouldn't be surprised if plastic is a candidate. After a little less than a century of rapid development in petrol-plastics we're starting to figure out the long term effects. But the next 1000 generations may be dealing with the fallout.

invertedspear ,

Petroleum may be both an accelerator and a filter. Filter in the form of plastic, like you’re saying, but maybe it’s weird that crude oil even exists in the first place. An era where plants die, but don’t decompose may be a rarity in itself. Then the geologic activity that buried that dead plant matter, but not too deeply for us to get to, seems like it could also be a rarity. So then we get this energy source that’s pretty energy dense and allows massive technical acceleration, but then poisons us and salts the earth behind us. Look how shortly we went from the first fixed wing flight to rocketing to the moon, amazing how short that time was. Hydrocarbons, allowing us to touch the greatness we could achieve, before smacking us back down.

fart_pickle ,

I read an article about Fermi paradox (I cannot find the link) that stated the humans are one of the first intelligent beings in the universe. That's why we haven't encountered any green men so far. We just might came too soon to the party.

Cryophilia OP ,

Definitely possible. I've read that the projected end of our sun is a "black dwarf", and that our sun's generation of stars is so young that there currently aren't any known black dwarf stars anywhere in the universe.

SeikoAlpinist ,
@SeikoAlpinist@slrpnk.net avatar

We're still new to the game, and we have no idea what we're looking for.

Cryophilia OP ,

Same thing everyone is looking for.

Carrolade ,

My guess would be self-replicating biological organisms capable of significant rates of mutation.

But then my preferred solution to the paradox as a whole is basically the "nobody tries" idea.

I don't think there's tremendous reason to try to make ones-self detectable at long distances. It's an expenditure of non-trivial resources for an uncertain result. Since there isn't really any robustly sound logic for making the attempt outside of dramatized sci fi stories, I imagine a vanishingly small percentage of occurrences of intelligent life would make a serious, high-powered attempt at any point.

Cryophilia OP ,

I don't really subscribe to the theory, but I think the idea that alien races are all like "go to SPACE? Why the fuck would we do that?? It sucks up there!" is definitely the funniest solution to the Fermi paradox.

ShittyBeatlesFCPres ,

For a technological civilization like ours, I think it’s just that Earth/humans are weird and we’re past the main ones (like going from single-cell to multi-cellular organisms).

Having to overcome the physical obstacles on other planets rules out the type of spacefaring technological civilizations like ours. No matter how intelligent a civilization on a water world is, it’s not starting fires, much less building rockets. Just getting out of the water would be their space program. Even a totally Earth-like planet that’s a bit bigger and has an intelligent species wouldn’t be able to get to space with chemical rockets.

And also, humans are weird. It could be as basic as “we have hands for building complex tools.” We have a seemingly insatiable need to compete and explore, even beyond all logic—maybe no other intelligent species wants to strap someone to a rocket and send them to space because it sucks up there. We’re violent: without WWII and the Cold War, do we even have a space program?

So many things had to come together to create an intelligent, tool-building species with hands that lives on a planet with the right balance of land and water. As far as we know, it never even happened on Earth before and even then, we had thousands of years of civilizations before anyone was dumb enough to strap themselves to a rocket just to see what would happen.

Cryophilia OP ,

I definitely subscribe to the "humans are insane" theory of galactic lifeforms

bear ,

Life finds a way to end itself. There's an ongoing mass extinction event caused by humans. Completely preventable by the way. But we do not prevent it.

FaceDeer ,
@FaceDeer@fedia.io avatar

We actually spend a great deal of effort preventing it. Environmentalism is a really big thing these days.

But even if we didn't, it's not an extinction event for us. Humans are actually doing extremely well.

zout ,

I think that for a technological civilization to rise, you need some things to line up. First, life has to be evolved enough to have animals, beings with a brain. Then, a species has to evolve intellence to become a tool making species. This species also has to become the dominating species on the planet. Meanwhile, extinction events, ice ages, climate change and population bottlenecks are always influencing the evolution process.

This is for me the great filter, to have all these conditions line up perfectly for an intelligent, tool making species to evolve and thrive.

MrMobius ,
@MrMobius@sh.itjust.works avatar

There is a great video about the Great Filter by Kurzgesagt/In a Nut Shell. If I remember correctly, in it they say we can guess at which stage the filter is by how evolved extraterrestrial life forms are.
So it's actually great if we find a lot of bacteria or other primitive life forms, that would mean we probably already have overcome the Geat Filter on Earth.
On the other hand, if we find many alien ruins of several civilizations at or above our technological level... Well, our greatest challenge might be coming.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • kbinchat
  • All magazines
    •