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.

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.

Allero ,

I don't think there is a single universal Great filter, and living and then potentially sentient beings with various traits will face various obstacles.

First, life needs suitable materials for polymers and a lot of energy. Most places don't have both.

Next, basic blocks of life that would be self-replicating and adaptive should be randomly generated, which is extremely unlikely and literally took over a billion years on Earth, a planet with generally great conditions for such process.

Then, those blocks should be able to get together to form complex structures - ideally, many separate ones, so that one event wouldn't destroy the entire effort. Earth had it easy, with billions of super simple life forms.

Next, assuming life survived up to this point in a potentially unfriendly and ever-changing environment, bombarded by UV light and exposed to myriad of sources of damage, it should not destroy itself or environment too badly to never recover. Earth had periods when life generated too much carbon dioxide or too much oxygen (yes, that too was a thing), and those were critical points at which our story could very much end.

Then, life has to evolutionize and get into complex forms, either by forming multicellular organisms or by making a cell a powerhouse of everything.

Then, life has to get sentient, and some kind of response system should be available and get highly complex.

Then, most of the sentient creatures just won't be tribal, and civilization requires society and a common effort.

Then, many more won't be expansionist, and will die out in some small region.

Many also won't be competitive, which would slow down evolution.

For those species who are competitive, they shouldn't destroy each other while they're at it, and this is currently one of the risks of our own.

And after all that, they should develop space travel and either get as developed and decisive and resource-rich as to send a generational ship to some random planet named Earth populated by genocidal monkeys, or to somehow hyperdrive here. They can very much decide it's not worth it, and they may be so far away we couldn't see signs of their civilization.

LordGimp ,

Pushing Ice by Alastair Reynolds is one of my favorite scifi books and it deals with this question in an interesting way. It proposes that Time is the great filter. Life exists in this galaxy, but intelligent life is so fleeting when considering galactic distances that the probability of one sentient lifeform finding another during their "peaks" is vanishingly small. Extinction, societal collapse, evolution to a higher form, whatever you want to imagine, it all gets in the way of the fantasy of meeting a thinking being from another planet.

pelletbucket ,
@pelletbucket@lemm.ee avatar

sentience. I think it usually immediately leads to suicide

CaptainBlagbird ,
@CaptainBlagbird@lemmy.world avatar

Maybe it's wisdom.

Every species that might have grown advanced enough, would have gotten over the point of fighting themselves. So they would be wise enough to have something like the Prime Directive in Star Trek (not interfering with less advanced species' until they reach a certain milestone).

Nutteman ,
@Nutteman@lemmy.world avatar

I personally find the kardashev scale a pretty terrible way to measure the success of a civilization. Maybe the most successful life forms don't become technologically obsessed materialists determined to colonize everything habitable and drain the resources of everything else, yknow?

Melvin_Ferd ,

I mean then how did they become a life form

Nutteman ,
@Nutteman@lemmy.world avatar

I wasn't clear enough I don't think when I wrote that. I meant that as in the most successful intelligent life forms don't separate themselves from their ecosystems nor disrupt it in the way we do.

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.

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.

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.

JayTreeman ,

Capitalism
I can imagine how capitalism could be inevitable. I can't imagine enough controls on it to make it sustainable

theneverfox ,
@theneverfox@pawb.social avatar

I don't think life is rare, nor photosynthesis, but complex life might be. A planet needs to be really thriving with life for it to be worth it to go down the path to something like animals

But I think the bigger filter is much stranger.

Humans are a hive-like species. We're not just social - we're insanely interdependent, we don't function on our own and yet we've ended up in this place where we (often) try to individually succeed, even at the cost to our community

We're greedy enough to want the stars, yet interdependent enough we could only swarm over them in endless numbers

There's many problems with the fermi "paradox", but personally I think one of the largest is assuming all species would spread like a cancer blotting out the stars

A more individualistic and long lived species might instead be careful explorers, taking what they need and leaving little sign of their passage. A more communal species might be careful and control themselves to not destroy pointlessly. They might also feel no desire to contact other species

We're just the right mix to want everything a star could give, and to want to find others at great energy cost

Cryophilia OP ,

God help the universe if we ever discover FTL travel and escape the prison of lightspeed.

MintyFresh ,

I have a new religion!

Prometheus didn't gift us fire and cognition. Lies. We are Prometheus's curse on the universe. Nothing more than a plague on the gods creation, concocted for some slight we can never understand. The sum of us, brought into being, then tossed into the void and forgotten. To spread like an oil stain across creation.

Cryophilia OP ,

"And behold, I Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die." - Genesis 6:7

"If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you." - Genghis Khan

vxx ,

If there really is a cosmic web and information flows through it, the other solar system will know that we're coming to destroy another world, but it will have developed defensive techniques against a known disease, humans. The same our immune systems does to known viruses.

I went a bit creative with this one.

rsuri ,

There's a lot of possibilities.

My top contender would be a desire to explore, which probably requires consciousness. Given that we have pretty much no idea what leads to consciousness, it can be guessed (dubiously) that if it arose more easily then we'd have an explanation by now. It could be that it's an extremely rare phenomenon, and there may even be other planets with "intelligent" but mechanistic beings that act entirely for their own survival and don't build civilizations or explore much.

Second would be intergalactic and to a lesser degree interstellar travel. If we assume both 1) intelligent civilizations are extremely rare and 2) faster-than-light transportation is impossible, it could be that everyone is just too spread out to make contact.

Third, and the one I most feel is right but it requires pretending I understand quantum physics (which I don't) and probably offending many that do, is the notion that the concrete universe is not large but small and has no objective existence independent of our respective perceptions, and any part of the universe that's invisible is a mere wave function that will only have concrete reality upon our perceiving it. I make the further dubious assumption that conscious beings can't be part of the wave function. So there.

KevonLooney ,

conscious beings can't be part of the wave function

That's not how any of this works. Your brain is made out of regular matter, not special fancy matter.

rsuri ,

I don't know if the type of matter matters, rather I'm basing in on the idea that measurement collapses the wave function, and consciousness does measure things

KevonLooney ,

Your brain isn't what "collapses the wave function", it's the measuring device that you use. You can do a double slit experiment and watch it with your eyes the whole time. Light will still act as a wave until you interact with it experimentally.

You are reading too much Deepak Chopra. Your brain is just a computer made out of meat. It's not magic.

Cethin ,

For your final point, that's not what that means. It's not "observation" that collapses the wave function, at least as you're understanding the word. It's any interaction that requires the information to be known. That includes any particle interactions. It's not consciousness that matters. When we "make a measurement" it's only recording information of an interaction. It doesn't actually matter that we record it, only that there was an interaction. There is zero metaphysical consciousness mumbo-jumbo involved.

ammonium ,

That's what I thought too, but according to Sabine Hossenfelder there actually is, we just choose not to speak about it. I don't really know enough about quantum physics to make my own judgement.

Cethin ,

That video makes no argument for consciousness being required. Also, Sabine is not a reliable source of information. She is confident and convincing, but that doesn't make her accurate or correct.

For an example, not related to this topic: https://youtu.be/s7XAxiJGJdg?si=S0IkGdF_EV5If_wJ

Cryophilia OP ,

Second would be intergalactic and to a lesser degree interstellar travel. If we assume both 1) intelligent civilizations are extremely rare and 2) faster-than-light transportation is impossible, it could be that everyone is just too spread out to make contact.

Not just too spread out to make contact, too spread out to even detect each other's presence

DeanFogg ,

Fear. Right now we're on the edge of facing fear or succumbing to it

bradorsomething ,

The Dark Forest theory is a great answer to this paradox. Anyone more advanced has a rational choice to exterminate all competition. We haven’t found any other advanced life because it hasn’t shown up and killed us yet.

KevonLooney ,

Why would they eliminate the competition if it was way behind in technology? Do we eliminate uncontacted tribes because they might be "competition"?

If aliens exist they probably have rules against interfering with primitive species. We are more like a band of chimps than an uncontacted tribe.

bradorsomething ,

We don’t eliminate uncontacted groups any more because we’ve contacted everyone we want stuff from, and it didn’t work out well for them. Lower technology groups in the 1800’s submitted or were killed off. In a finite universe, any competition could one day try to take you out, so you take them out.

I don’t believe anyone can fathom another alien race, much less assign them ethical rules about interfering with other species. And apes are slowly being driven out of their habitat as we continue to expand.

weststadtgesicht ,

Who said that they eliminate competition that's way behind technologically? They haven't eliminated us, so apparently they don't.
But it seems plausible that they eliminate civilizations that are on the verge of becoming dangerous - still a great filter, but probably a bit further in the future.

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