First in, last out
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1803/1803.08425.pdf
“First in, last out” solution to the Fermi Paradox
Berezin A.A.
National Research University of Electronic Technology (MIET)
Abstract
No present observations suggest a technologically
advanced extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) has
spread through the galaxy. However, under
commonplace assumptions about galactic civilization
formation and expansion, this absence of observation
is highly unlikely. This improbability constitutes the
Fermi Paradox. In this paper, I argue that the Paradox
has a trivial solution, requiring no controversial
assumptions, which is rarely suggested or discussed.
However, that solution would be hard to accept, as it
predicts a future for our own civilization that is even
worse than extinction.
1. Introduction
It is often said that the power of a scientific theory
can be calculated as the number of phenomena it
explains divided by the number of assumptions it
depends on [1]. In that sense, most proposed
solutions to the Fermi paradox suffer from severe
lack of power. To explain a single phenomenon – the
apparent absence of extraterrestrial life in the
observable Universe – they often invoke multiple
rather controversial assumptions, such as “The Great
filters”. I believe we can do better.
2. Definitions
The cornerstone of the problem is our model of life in
the general case. Many proposed solutions take the
narrowest definition of Earth-like life and still
struggle to come up with a sufficient explanation as
to why no life has arisen on any other Earth-like
planet, the existence of which seems no longer
debated.
However, such a narrow definition is clearly wrong.
Even those organisms descending from one common
ancestor with ourselves have proven time and time
again that we drastically underestimate to what
conditions life is able to adapt. And there is no
possible way of accounting for all lifeforms that may
arise independently throughout the Universe.
Because of that, we have to create a definition that is
substrate-invariant. The specific nature of
civilizations arising to interstellar level should not
matter. They might me biological organisms like
ourselves, rogue AIs that rebelled against their
creators or distributed planet-scale minds like those
described by Stanislaw Lem in “Solaris” [2].
We should, therefore, take a broader definition as the
starting point. It has been suggested in [3] to classify
as life any objects exhibiting the following traits:
homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth,
adaptation, responsiveness and reproduction. For our
immediate purposes, this list can be simplified even
further.
Homeostasis and internal organization are neither
substrate-invariant nor important at the cosmic scale.
Metabolism can be generalized as consumption of
energy, which is an obvious requirement for any selforganizing
system. Adaptation is a consequence of
evolution, and since evolution is the only reasonable
explanation for complex life regardless of substrate,
adaptation should be inherent to it. The same is true
for responsiveness to stimuli: even if it is not directly
present at the individual level, natural selection is by
itself responsive. Growth and reproduction, whic
consider our own civilization detectable, this
parameter is either zero or very close to it.
What if an alien civilization appears, but never
reaches the stage of space travel or interstellar
communication? First, it would be undetectable, and
therefore would not solve the paradox. Second, it
would have to halt its growth at some point, and no
longer fit the definition of life provided earlier. For
clarification, I do not suggest that a static civilization
is no longer alive, or that we shouldn’t treat its
individuals morally upon encounter. All I mean is
that they are irrelevant to the Fermi paradox. The
same reasoning goes for any life stuck on its original
planet, be it due to high gravity, unavailability of
materials or any other misfortune.
We should, therefore, expect all life in this context to
have strong incentives for growth. But to what
extent? Obviously, exponential growth cannot be
sustained indefinitely. As Isaac Asimov calculated in
[4], to continue reproduction at its current rate (at the
time), human civilization would have to populate the
entire observable universe in just 4200 years.
Accounting for the relativistic speed limit, the
minimal time limit is 100 thousand years for the
galaxy and 500 million for the supercluster [5]. 100
thousand is an insignificant number in evolutionary
timelines, considering that it took 3.5 billion years for
intelligent life to evolve on Earth. 500 million is
considerably more. But again, there’s only one
significant parameter: how likely it is that several
independently arising “lifes” meet in their cosmic
expansion phase? This would be parameter B.
We might not know what processes determine the
values of A and B, but it is rather obvious that those
two sets of processes are nearly identical. Barring the
existence of late-stage Great filters, B is just a
function of A, and these two variables have a similar
order of magnitude. The hypothesis below relies on
that assumption.
4. Previous explanations
A very similar set of arguments was suggested back
in 1981 by Frank Tipler [6]. His interpretation was
that extraterrestrial life does not exist, and, therefore,
the Fermi paradox is solved. Of course, this was not
deemed sufficient explanation by the community at
the time. A response [7] came from Carl Sagan and
William Newman, pointing out that any intelligent
race would make all the same conclusions, then
abstain from uncontrolled growth and attempt to
destroy any other life that does not impose the same
restrictions on itself.
Either idea required further explanation to be
considered a solution to the Fermi paradox. In this
paper, I am siding with Tipler by adding a crucial
detail to his hypothesis.
5. Proposal
“First in, last out” solution to the
Fermi Paradox: what if the first life
that reaches interstellar travel
capability necessarily eradicates all
competition to fuel its own
expansion?
I am not suggesting that a highly developed
civilization would consciously wipe out other
lifeforms. Most likely, they simply won’t notice, the
same way a construction crew demolishes an anthill
to build real estate because they lack incentive to
protect it. And even if the individuals themselves try
their best to be cautious, their von Neumann probes
[8] probably don’t.
This problem is similar to the infamous “Tragedy of
the commons”. The incentive to grab all available
resources is strong, and it only takes one bad actor to
ruin the equilibrium, with no possibility to prevent
them from appearing at interstellar scale. One rogue
AI can potentially populate the entire supercluster
with copies of itself, turning every solar system into a
supercomputer, and there is no use asking why it
would do that. All that matters is that it can.
6. Implications
But we are here, our planet and star are still relatively
intact, and we are already contemplating the first
interstellar probes. Assuming the hypothesis above is
correct, what does it mean for our future? The only
explanation is the invocation of the anthropic
principle. We are the first to arrive at the stage. And,
most likely, will be the last to leave. The important
difference between this proposal and “rare Earth”-
type solutions is that human primacy is explained by
the anthropic principle alone and not through
additional assumptions.
Another interesting implication concerns the
predictability of life at large scales. The hypothesis
above is invariant of any social, economic or moral
progress a civilization might achieve. This would
require the existence of forces far stronger than the
free will of individuals, which are fundamentally
inherent to societies, and inevitably lead it in a
direction no single individual would want to pursue.
Examples of such forces, such as free market
capitalism, are already well-known; however, this
hypothesis suggests that resisting them is not nearly
as easy as Carl Sagan [7] would like to believe.
But I certainly hope I am wrong. The only way to
find out is to continue exploring the Universe and
searching for alien life.
7. References
[1] R. Dawkins, "Why Darwin matters," The
Guardian, 2008.
[2] S. Lem, Solaris, MON, Walker, 1970.
[3] J. D. E. Koshland, "The seven pillars of life,"
Science, 295 (5563), 2002
