Talk:Fermi paradox/Archive 4

Non encyclopedic info and the Fermi Paradox
The sections about god loving humanity and placing planets has no place in the wikipedia let alone the Fermi Paradox page. It is not encyclopedic at all and should not be in this article. There were also other sections about mind wipes. They should not be in the wikipedia at all. There is a diffrence between wild sepculation (Fantasy/Sci-Fi in this case.) and a well thought out hypothetical situation. Miskatonic 15:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This article is about speculation. It inevitably includes speculation that isn't based on tested--or at times, even testable--scientific theories. It would be artificial and arbitrary to disallow extending this speculation, at least briefly, into the fields of religion and UFO theories. Personally, I don't find your opinion as to where the "line" should be drawn as to what forms of speculation are included particularly compelling, and you don't present any logical argument to support your position. RedSpruce 16:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a huge difference between hypothetical and wild speculation. If you don't know what that line is perhaps you should go back to high school or speak to somebody that does real science. Theories about UFOs and religion do not belong on this page. The info that was presented about UFOs isn't compelling, it is at odds with the rest of the article and has no basis in reality or fact. The UFO and religion information on this page is not encyclopedic and does not fit into the wikipedia guidelines. It therefore should and will be removed. Miskatonic 18:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to think that a combination of childish insults and imperious, unsupported pronouncements about what "belongs" in the article constitutes a rational argument. I'm afraid you're mistaken in that belief.
 * As you can see here, the article went through a recent Featured Article review with the material you object to in it. During this review the article was carefully examined by quite a few editors, and no one raised an objection to this material. That doesn't prove your opinion is invalid, but it certainly demonstrates that your position isn't as axiomatic as you seem to think. With that in mind, perhaps you would care to present some rational argument to support your edits. RedSpruce 13:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So you got offended because you were asked to speak to somebody that does real science about this article? Why on earth would gaining more knowledge and understanding about a subject offend you? It is not a personal attack but a suggestion. In science if something does not fit the facts you discard it.

There is nothing remotely plausible about the assertion in this section of the article. There are no references or scientific papers on it. I have never seen any scientist or doctor speak about it. There are no news paper articles on it. It actually sounds crack pot and lacks any kind of credibility.

Human civilization has been around for about 20,000 years. There is not an oral record mind wipes or of the earth being a prison planet. The record of this ever happening is not carved in stone on a temple anywhere. So how do you know it is going on? Who postulated this particular answer to the Fermi Paradox?

The section that was removed was from a set of potential answers to the Fermi Paradox. There is not a single scientific reference other then pop culture/sci-fi that the earth is a prison planet and we humans are all having our minds wiped. Nothing about that section of the article fits into any facts or plausibility. Science Fiction is not a valid answer to the Fermi Paradox. It therefore does not belong and should be removed every single time it comes back. 69.106.44.180 15:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, 69.106.44.180; judging from the fact that, like Miskatonic, you don't know how to indent your comments and your writing is on a 5th grade level, can I assume you are Miskatonic? Pretending that an insult was not an insult is certainly also in keeping with Miskatonic's inability to engage in rational discourse. (And if you disagree with that, may I politely and non-insultingly suggest that you go back to 5th grade?)
 * As I've already pointed out, the whole of the Fermi Paradox is based on speculation. The question/paradox itself ("where are they?") is based on the speculative notion that there "ought" to be aliens. All of the proposed answers to this question are pure speculation. Your only argument (ignoring some nonsensical ramblings above that don't even warrant repeating) is that you disapprove of some sorts of speculation, but not others. RedSpruce 17:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like they needed to dumb down their writing for the audience to understand what they were saying. RedSpruce I don't find your part of the discussion rational or relevant. Miskatonic made some extremely valid points. I would like to hear a relevant counter argument. 65.57.245.11 17:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it looks like:


 * Someone has mistaken their personal opinions on what "is" and "is not" a reasonable explanation, objective facts, and what is exhaustive exploration of proposed (and propose-able) ideas that attempt to address the apparent paradox (exploring all possible elements of the "concept space", without attempting to evaluate their probability - in fact some proposed suggestions are not evaluate-able as they are not testable scientific hypotheses).
 * That someone take great offense that everyone does not axiomatically accept their own opinions and world-view as "obvious facts".
 * That someone has stumbled across the idea that "I can support my own arguments to make it seem like I have lots of popular support, by logging in anonymously from multiple IP addresses!", and have not yet realized that a) It's an old tactic, and b) No one who has been reading and editing Wikipedia for any reasonable length of time would fall for it.
 * That someone has the rational debating ability, and the temperament of, a five-year-old child.


 * All that said, I personally find the proposal "they are here and running around wiping our memories of their activities" somewhat trivial for inclusion (and probably cribbed from Men in Black). Still, it is difficult to arbitrarily exclude a non-probable idea and not others.


 * The religious arguments for Humanity being the only created intelligent species is not testable. Nor can it be excluded, as it is an opinion that has been widely held, not only among some brands of Christian fundamentalists (possibly in other religions, I am less familiar with the finer points of most other world religions), but historically in Medieval and Renaissance Europe. Therefore it has widespread and historical significance as an explanation.


 * Perhaps some sort of "belief level" can determine whether something is significant? While some ideas here are not even theoretically testable, all ideas are are practically untestable - all we have are theoretical frameworks, speculation, and a few proposed avenues of exploration and investigation. Drake's equation, for example, may be rational, but we don't have any objective means for determining the values of the factors, so we can't really test anything yet. Since nothing is testable in practical terms, everything proposed here is speculation and "religious" (assumed true without proof) belief - even the most "scientific" theories about Biology v.s. Cosmology. However, where to draw the "cognitively significant line" for this article is a tricky one. Who decides?


 * Vedexent (talk) - 03:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow what a paper tiger response. I hate to undo this crap yet again. My co authors and I will keep undoing crap and adding hard facts it for as long as it takes to bring this article up to an acceptable standard. God and Men in Black do not belong in this article. Belief about god does not belong in this article at all. This article is not a place to pose crack pot ideas. All the changes made were valid edits and not vandalisim. Very uncool to keep chaning them back because you believe in god and men in black. Put that stuff in another article all together. They are not valid answers to the Fermi Paradox.


 * Has anybody that has edited this article except me been around real science? If not perhaps you should ask somebody that does real science what their opinion is before reverting valid changes to the way that this article was. Miskatonic 05:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * God is not unencylcopedic. In fact, we have an entire pages devoted to Him (cf. God, Allah, and Deity). We've been down this road. A creator deity is mentioned by reliable sources in relation to this topic (even if only to refute the idea); it's a variant of the anthropic principle. It belongs on the page. Marskell 08:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Wow what a paper tiger response" -- Um... did you perhaps mean "straw man argument"? Not that that applies much better. You might want to look up your terms when you don't know what they mean. While you're at it, look up the other logical fallacies "proof by assertion" and "appeal to authority", though I'm not sure saying you've "been around real science" (hopefully with adult supervision) is even worthy of being categorized as a logical fallacy. RedSpruce 13:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure logical argument is going to be effective against someone who won't even read what is being said to them; at no time did I say that I believe either in God or "Men in Black". I said that historically people have believed in God and that a percentage of today's population believes in God, and a portion of both have had a particular religious/cosmological view that explained the lack of other obvious intelligences as "God's plan". Thus, if for no other reason, such a view is worthy of inclusion as part of the "history of ideas". However, it would be convenient for Miskatonic to think I was claiming belief in God and "Men in Black": that way my views may be classed as "obviously ludicrous" and Miskatonic is relieved of any responsibility to actually listen to be arguments. Ironically it is Miskatonic who is behaving as if they were a religious zealot - "I know what is acceptable and I will fanatically defend my position and not even listen to rational discourse!".


 * I must concur with the skepticism about Miskatonic having been "around science" (although I must object to the insulting tone taken against them - the phrase "never argue with a fool, they'll drag them down to their level and beat you with superior experience at arguing at it" comes to mind). Miskatonic, perhaps you might tell us you mean by "being around science"? It is extremely vague - does that mean you are a professional philosopher/cosmologist (degrees and list of published papers please), you have a BSc or your cultural equivalent (year, specialty, and university please), you took a science course once, or you read Scientific American and thus consider yourself "having been around science"?


 * I was going to comment on your "appeal to authority" argument earlier, but until your last utterance, it could have read that you were urging people to be "around science" to find some sort of source/support for their ideas (a valid request) rather than attempting to claim some sort of authority status for yourself for having been "around science" (which is laughable - an "Appeal to authority" is ludicrous when the authority is supposed to be oneself, especially if one presents no supporting credentials - "I'm smart because I say so!"). However "has anybody that has edited this article except me been around real science?" is hard to misread.


 * I do not change the article back because I believe in "God and Men in Black", I change the article back because I believe the article is attempting to be semi-rigorous exploration of all current, historical, and speculative reasons that we currently lack any evidence for other intelligent species - and the contrasts and disagreements between those ideas. You, Miskatonic, seem to want to censor certain viewpoints because you seem to find them personally "intellectually offensive", and wish to impose your view of reality on everyone else. The article does not say that we don't see alien species because of God's plan; it says that some people believe that we don't see alien species because of God's plan. Do you understand the basic distinction here between description and assertion?


 * Practically, if this issue/tug of way won't go away, we might consider a one week "straw poll" and submission of the results to an arbitration body (who knows, Miskatonic's POV might win that poll, although I doubt it - negative assertions need as much proof as positive ones), and perhaps requesting edit protection for the page. Sad, but sometimes required.


 * Vedexent (talk) - 16:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see any references or sources for MIB as to why we don't see alien civilizations through our current means of astronomy. It is not in any science book or high school text book I have ever read. If anybody could list some so that we could follow up on that would be great. Basically as it stands removing the paragraph is not censorship. It is an edit that actually makes sense because the paragraph is not supported by any facts. The MIB portion of the article as writen does not hold water and degrades the credibility of the authors, article, and wikipedia in particular. Miskatonic is correct in saying that it should not be there unless you can at least make a valid argument and case as to why it should be in this article.


 * I also have to agree that the part about god is just plain silly. I happen to believe that we are on the backs of elephants that are on the back of a turtle. The turtle is swimming through the cosmos creating a radio wave shift. That is why we are not seeing any other civilization. In fact I believe it should be a valid part of the Fermi Paradox as the Turtle is my god. So I am going to edit the article to reflect the great turtle god. When I put this up it had better not be removed or I will say it is censorship. 65.57.245.11 17:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * *sighs* Forget to log in again Miskatonic? Tell you what, you explain to me what the difference is between describing someone's proposed beliefs as part of a recounting the history of thought on an issue, and asserting that those ideas are the truth, and explain to me which you think the article is doing, and why - that way I'll know you finally grasp the concept, because at the moment, it seems to totally escape you.


 * If you can't address this basic cognitive difference, I'm going to more-or-less abandon the debate since you seem incapable/unwilling to address it rationally.


 * BTW - I fail to see how a film maker and artist (according to your profile) can style themselves as being a "scientific expert" or even a philosophical one. Not saying you cannot have such interests or inclinations, but it fails to make you a professional in either field, and you have advanced yourself as an authority as you have been "around science". I've been around science too - I work in a technical field professionally, but I'm not about to run off and proclaim I know the "objective truth of the universe" and attempt to cram it down other people's throats. Why are you?


 * Vedexent (talk) - 18:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My user page is a bit out of date. I do have some qualifications to speak about Astronomy and to edit articles. You might notice that I have pictures of people that actually appear in this article. Notibly you will see that I uploaded Raymond Kurzweil and Larry Niven. I actually spoke to them face to face about some of the concepts presented in this article. Unfortunately I did not have a camera when Jill Tarter was discussing using the Terrestrial Planet Finder to search for life in the universe. Have you (or anybody else for that matter) actually spoken to anybody cited in this article? I am a worried both about the credibility (or lack of) of some of the editors of this article if you have not at least read of good portion of the books listed here? There are some major holes in the proposed theories. I would like to see some discussion in a meaningful way. Miskatonic 03:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am NOT Miskatonic. Nor do I know him but I am sure he is somewhere on campus. Let's just get this straight. He is not nor am I cramming things down people throats. You are. In fact we removed the material that was presented as it was off topic and did not fit into the article. By having it come back on to the page it is being presented in a non positive light. In reality it need to go away or be presented in a way that does not sound so crack pot. Also you are off topic here and focusing on somebody that has presented valid statements. Not only that you are ignoring my questions that are presented in EXACTLY the same way yours are. Me being somebody else that is not Miskatonic.  May I suggest that you calm down and look at the article again in an objective light. If you really feel strongly that the material there is valid then present a valid citation as to WHY it is valid. So far the only person that has presented anything is Miskatonic. He gave extremely good points as to why it does not belong here. I have not seen those kinds of statements from anybody else. All anybody else has presented is stuff from pop culture and religious beliefs. All anybody sees is just see a group of near zealots attacking in a non civil way those that do pose valid removal arguments.  So pull it together and give a valid citation like you need to. 65.57.245.11 18:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So? If that is the case (and I'm poisonously cynical about point-of-view support that seems to come solely from anonymous guests or user accounts created after a debate starts), then I guess there are two of you that fail to grasp that basic distinction. - Vedexent (talk) - 19:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahem Verifiability —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.57.245.11 (talk • contribs)


 * It's unclear to what you are specifically referring. I think it is perfectly reasonable if what you are asking for is some evidence that people have advanced these concepts as explanations. The article doesn't state that any of these "proposed explanations" is true - so that type of evidence isn't required here. - Vedexent (talk) - 19:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

.. and they are here unobserved
This paragraph bugs me. It needs to be changed so that it sounds less like a UFO nut wrote it and more like it has a basis in reality.

This sentence is extremely arrogant. "While it seems unlikely that alien observers could move amongst the general population undetected for any great length of time" It needs to be either removed or changed. How does the author know what a hypothetical alien device is capable of? Why would one think that humans would be able to detect such an observer?

What really bugs me about this article as a whole is that anybody watching the Earth that has even 100 years on us would not need to come here. Any alien civilization with reasonably more advanced technology could just sit back in their home system and observe the Earth from afar with a reasonable observatory.

This article and humans in general need to get over the fact that humans and Earth are special in the universe. We aren't and this article as a whole should accept a harder basis in science and reflect that. Miskatonic 00:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Anon protection?
Given the spate of blanking edits by anon user(s) of late, at what point is it worth asking for anon edit protection, and/or some neutral 3rd party arbitration of the article? I have a feeling that this may devolve into an "edit war" as the "anonymous editor" seems unwilling to discuss/compromise. Thoughts from (non-suspiciously newly created) registered users please? - Vedexent (talk) - 19:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You can request protection at: WP:RPP. I'd do it, but I'm not neutral and the vandalism isn't so severe. Marskell 08:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not neutral either - and it seems like there has been a shift to actual constructive collaborative edits now, so the need seems to have abated for now. I thought it likely that the thing was likely to shift into an "edit war" which it doesn't seem to have done. - Vedexent (talk) - 14:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're not neutral you shouldn't be editing this article or even have any say in it. And what's so wrong about new registered users writing here. They probably make more sense!

I think most of the disagreements are good faith differences in opinion over how the article should read. (That's what Vedexent means above by not being neutral - he has an opinion about how it should read). There is a big difference between being neutral about the expression and neutral about the contents. At any rate, the changes seem to have converges, so I also see no need for protection at this point. LouScheffer 01:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The planetarium hypothesis
I've removed this section because I don't feel that, from the point of view of the Fermi paradox, it's at all distinct from the "God created humans alone" hypothesis. Whether the creation of our universe was analogous to a planetarium simulation or analogous to "And God said Let there be light, and there was light" doesn't have any effect upon the underlying hypothesis: For some unknown reason, the universe was created (by some universe-creating entity) with only humans in it. RedSpruce 11:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to talk about. I am actually very interested in this possible solution.

On reviewing the info, I don't mind saying that God could be the creator of the simulation but then he is not an Abrahamic God.

However

The other issue is that planetarium hypothesis and possibly God it could also be in other sections like so it could go into

In these solutions there are ETIs but not in our shadow of the universe falls into
 * 4.2.3.1 Earth is purposely isolated (The zoo hypothesis)

God or the creator of the simulation could be in
 * 4.2.3 ... and they choose not to communicate

and possibly
 * 4.2.4 ... and they are here unobserved

The other point I did not like is that God is not a variant of the strong anthropic principle. What it is, is the universe is designed to be this way, for some express purpose!

BernardZ 01:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This article falls squarely under astronomy. Astronomy equates to science not religion. I have a serious problem with mentioning your god(s) in the article at all. Just the mention of it takes the entire article out of realms of both neutrality and the basis in science.


 * I could buy into a simulated reality section for this article. It could read something like “the all mighty programmer/creators have not gotten around to installing alien civilizations yet.” The mention of god(s) as a point of fact is just not acceptable for this particular article. Miskatonic 04:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Every second or third "Are We Alone?" book begins with Giordano Bruno and the Catholic Church. As a cultural and anthropological observation, there is absolutely nothing wrong with mentioning God and ETs at once. The Extraterrestrial life does so, as does Cosmic pluralism. During the Scientific Revolution, aliens and God were often mentioned in the same breath—read our own material on the topic. And let's not forget the 3+ billion people who continue to believe in the God of Abraham. The section is 0.5k out of 40k readable prose. There's nothing wrong with it.


 * I have just re-added God and the simulation argument, in brief, and re-titled the section. If the anons (or are you one of the anons, Bernard?) are happy with it, I'll unlock the page. Marskell 08:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it should have a link to the simulation theory website. It will give people an idea of what it meant.

Also could this part needs to be reworded slightly from here

While not necessarily an outcome of the Rare Earth hypothesis....

It is not that the strong anthropic principle (SAP) here becomes teleological as the page suggests but it is the 'teleological' version of the strong anthropic principle (SAP) check out the "The anthropic cosmological principle by Tipler p21-22"

but the other problem here is that this version of the SAP states (A) These exists one possible Universe 'designed' with the goal of generating and sustaining 'observers'.

This is clearly not what the simulation theory states. 220.237.136.68 10:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As mentioned before, putting God into this article just because 3 billion people believe in it does not make the article scientific. The only thing it does is detract from the credibility of the article and the wikipedia. It also just fans the fire. On top of that you re added something into a locked page without proper discussion! Just because you want to see something about God there does not mean you can just bypass the logical discussion process. That is not what your admin powers are for. 69.106.44.180 16:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

So let us break down the rationale for God being mentioned in the article.


 * 1) Humanity appears to be alone in the universe (so far).
 * 2) Some people - who do believe in God, have advanced an explanation for this: Humanity is God's special creation, and is therefore unique in the universe.
 * 3) The article is recounting many alternate, and historical, explanations.
 * 4) Therefore, as it has been put forward as an explanation, it deserves to be included as part of the history of the ideas surrounding the issue
 * 5) The article in no way endorses any of the possible and suggested explanations as true, or not - it simply presents the arguments of those that hold "explanation X" as the most likely.

Just because you seem to be rabidly and intolerantly atheist ("we can't even mention god, 'cause that isn't 'scientific'!"), doesn't mean that the idea needs to be scrapped, or worse, subjected to a form of censorship because a rabid and vocal minority wants to re-write the history of ideas to suit their current ideology (ever hear the maxim "two wrongs do not make a right"?).

You may argue that this is an article about a "scientific idea" and that "God" has no place in science, except that:


 * 1) As should be clear from the article, there isn't enough data to make a rigorous scientific analysis of the problem yet (even the mathematical/rational treatment of the Drake equation is too nebulous to be useful without better grasp of the contributing variables).
 * 2) God and Science are not logically incompatible - there isn't a whole lot of overlap between the two cognitive landscapes - or at least they can exist independently of each other. There are "theistic" scientists in the world, you know - quite good ones as well. Some of the possible philosophical implications of a framework of rational laws underlying the observable and measurable universe, rather than an arbitrary  "divine will" are seized upon and run off with by "anti-theists" with an ideological axe to grind, and a poor grasp of the limits of logical inference.

For the record, I am not a religious person - nor do I subscribe to a theistic view of the paradox. Neither am I particularly bent on expunging the concept of God from everything because it offends my sense of intellectual aesthetics.

I'm just amused by the irony that seems to have escaped those who want to expunge the concept of "god" as "obviously false nonsense" - that their view is a religious view (read "assumed true without unassailable proof the way that mathematical theorems are") - and that they seem to be embarked on a "crusade" to "convert" others and suppress "heresy".

Vedexent (talk) - 17:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, I edited because I felt it was a compromise. I am just going to unlock this completely—obviously that's not an invitation to revert war. If 220. wants to remove the anthropic principle comment, fine; if s/he wants to readd the simulation ref, it should be formatted properly.


 * However, if the section is simply removed again then it will have to be locked down again. 69. please read my comment in full. Contemporary believers was not my principle argument—that the idea has historical relevance and is mentioned in contemporary sources, which Vedexent has just unpacked more fully, is what's at issue. Marskell 17:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Very well put, Vedexent; I agree completely. RedSpruce 17:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I can't unlock the damn thing because I keep getting a syntax error. After the bar, perhaps. Marskell 17:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Scratch that, it's open. Marskell 17:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Claims about evidence are science. Claims about existence are not. Miskatonic 03:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Precisely, Miskatonic. And since there are essentially no claims about evidence anywhere in this article, I guess that establishes that--at least by that definition--this isn't an article about science. Thanks for clearing that up. RedSpruce 10:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to concur: Science has a great deal to say about the paradox and vice versa, but not all aspects and implications of the paradox are scientific. The paradox has implications for philosophy, religion, sociology, anthropology, etc. (even if some or all of those may have no personal implications for particular individuals and groups) - none of which would be considered "hard" sciences, or even sciences at all. Given that the implications that the knowledge (belief?) of the existence (or non-existence) of other intelligent species is likely to have on humanity's perception of the universe and itself, is it any wonder that the paradox has impact on the "humanities" as well as the sciences? To leave out the non-scientific implications and contributions to the body of thought about the paradox would be to create an incomplete article. - Vedexent (talk) - 14:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Take out all references to pop culture and what do you have? You get an article that can be read objectively 100 years from now. Not putting in stuff about Star Trek, MIB, or God actually lends a great deal to the article. Think about the article if it were littered with references to say Dickens or Poe for example. It would not read nearly as well because we would know that reference would be seriously outdated. Pop culture references change over time with what is believed. What remains constant in time is what can be proved or disproved.


 * The reference to current deities proves that point. If this article were written 2000 years ago you would see references to Zeus or Prometheus. If it were written 100 years ago there would be references to Jules Verne. Just because pop culture is important to you does not mean that they belong in this article. Just for the record I would even have some trouble with the simulated universe reference. If it is going to be there at all then make it very brief. 65.57.245.11 18:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, putting in comments about explanations concerning "God" makes the article more historically accurate and rounded, and the "pop culture" reference make the article currently accessible to casual readers - they are not included because they are "important to someone" (like, they are a fan of the show). If there are arguments and theories advanced by followers of Zeus or Prometheus, then bring them to the table as part of the evolution of ideas concerning non-human intelligences. If Verne and Welles have meaningful contribution, or aspects of their fiction add illustrations which add to the articles accessibility, by all means add them. Your comments about changes in religious thought, or current fictional reference do not "prove[s] the point". What it proves is there is a wide, and contradictory history of thought regarding the issue. What you appear to be doing is attempting to re-write, or censor, that history so current depictions of the issue closely match your personal view of the world, rather than trying to present a broader history of all associated ideas and thoughts around the issue and let the reader make up their own mind.

Your implicit thesis that the article should be written so that it stands "the test of time" is laughable; the article isn't stable for more than a few hours, and is presented completely in a fluid electronic medium. I'm quite sure you need not worry about copies of the article surviving for 300 years, being read by a casual reader, and having them go "I don't get all these cultural referents!".

As for your comments about the simulationist argument, what makes you think you having "some trouble" with a idea bears any weight on whether it should, or should not, be included, or the amount of space that should be devoted to it? If you have objective reasons for it, based on particular criteria, by all means, state them, and we're much more likely to listen to that than "I don't like it, so it should go!". Explicitly stating your criteria for evaluation would also be nice.

Vedexent (talk) - 20:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it should go in the zoo section. We could then get rid of the line that ETI exists but we cannot talk to them. 220.237.136.68 08:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I was scanning the article (a little tired albeit) and i was thinking "well, we could be the aliens ourselves". now this may sound like the Rare Earth part, but we could be the first life forms evolving in the universe, and other life will follow, but they need more time to develop. on the meteorite ALH8400 which is thought to have come from Mars, it has bacteria like structures on it. and that could be the stage where other life in the galaxy is. The article to me seems to be based on the fact that life is at a advanced stage (advanced being a loose term). We could be the aliens that are supposed to be there.

As i said im pretty tired so this idea may or may not be out there already. Just thought i'd put my two cents out there.

In which case the Fermi paradox might be, why cannot we see more life in our neighborhood. SoniaZ 06:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hunters not hiding
Hunters or pest exterminators often don't hid and often they put noticeable traps for their intended victims. BernardZ 01:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Does a rabbit shooter hid from the rabbits? SoniaZ 06:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This discussion of whether hunters or exterminators "hide" misses the point. The point to much of the "because it is the nature of intelligent life to destroy others" discussion is that there may be little intelligent life around because it has been destroyed by other intelligent life. There could be only one "exterminating species," and in any case the net effect (for the purposes of this section of the article) is that there is far less intelligent life in the galaxy than there otherwise would be. There isn't any requirement that the exterminating species be "hiding"; they could simply be inconspicuous by virtue of their small numbers and/or by the lack of diversity in communication methods. Also, one can speculate that such a species is driven by a fear that some other species might be dangerous to them. In this case they would be inclined to hide. RedSpruce 10:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly the lack of diversity in communication methods is a different scenario.
 * Now you need to look at it from our point of view - the rabbit in this scenario.
 * Once these exterminators achieve galaxy wide domination say in 100 million years max, then they have no reason to hid they because of fear. Nor would their smaller numbers make any difference as by them they would be everywhere.
 * 203.34.248.95 01:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but each sentence above is either based on an unsupported assumption about how aliens would behave, and/or is completely unclear. RedSpruce 10:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Which line? Let me write each line and please say why you think so? My notes start with a >


 * Once these exterminators achieve galaxy wide domination say in 100 million years max,
 * > This is the point of the fermi paradox
 * then they have no reason to hid they because of fear.
 * > They are everywhere why hid?
 * Nor would their smaller numbers make any difference as by them they would be everywhere.
 * > As they are everywhere every system
 * BernardZ 04:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * BernardZ: First, learn to indent your comments. Second, I can't decipher your comments any more than 203.34.248.95's. Is that you, and you forgot to log in? Are your ">" comments meant to clarify 203.34.248.95's statements or are they questions addressed to 203.34.248.95? Regardless, I'm completely in the dark about what either of you are trying to say. Between the confusion about who's saying what to whom, and your and 203.34.248.95's limited command of English, I'm afraid there's no argument that I can respond to. RedSpruce 10:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Drake equations
Why repeat another section in here?

Also I think that some contributors here forget that the Fermi paradox refers to the universe or observable universe is speed of light is the limiting speed whereas the Drake equations calculations are generally done for only the galaxy. 210.49.177.230 12:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Repeating the Drake equation section would be unreasonable; but a summary of a useful topic is helpful. Also, it helps to concentrate attention on which factors are felt to be unlikely. Also, historically, different factors are being determined experimentally.

Finally, the original Fermi paradox was only about the galaxy, since travel times within the galaxy are short compared to galaxy lifetimes. For far away galaxies, it is entirely possible that any civilization there has not had time to travel here. LouScheffer 16:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

In the original formulation galaxies were not even mentioned. Probably they slipped in somewhere for the reasons that you mentioned but it is clear that they would have to be pretty far away these galaxies for them not to affect the conclusions of the Fermi paradox. 210.49.177.230 02:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

... because it is the nature of intelligent life to destroy others
Our existence does not by the anthropic principle mean anything. Does the existence of a rabbit, mean that there are no hunters of rabbits? It may explain why the Drake equation gives such a high answer but it does not answer the Fermi paradox as if the universe had ETI, then why do they hid from us?

Confusing sentence about Kardashev scale and size of Universe
"The Soviet astronomer Nikolai Kardashev has stated that an alien civilization on Kardashev scale of 3 could send signals up to 10 billion years approximately the radius of the observable universe. [6]" What does that mean? Even if "10 billion years" is replaced by "10 billion lightyears", it still doesn't make sense. Can someone rewrite that? Thanks. --Rajah 17:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, fixed this. LouScheffer 18:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I still don't think it's right. (I don't have access to the primary source though.) I think that people are confusing lookback time distance with comoving (proper) distance. See Comoving distance, and most importantly: Size_of_the_universe. The Earth to any "edge" of the universe is 47 billion light years, not 10 as this article suggests. I believe that the size of the observable universe is hugely important for an article on Fermi's paradox. I'm going to add a caveat to that sentence. --Rajah 15:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, if we got by the 46 billion light year estimate for radius, then this Kardashev level 3 Civilization can only signal about 1% of the universe. (Assuming spherical universe) Am I right? If so, this renders the universal Fermi paradox not a paradox after all. It's simply too big. The galactic Fermi paradox is the much more compelling one, in my opinion. --Rajah 15:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I think it's a much bigger fraction. If a signal came from 10G light years away, it was emitted 10G years ago, when the universe was much smaller.  As a very rough guess, the visible universe was about 20G light years in radius at that time, so the fraction is closer to 1/8.  LouScheffer 16:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

When Kardashev stated 10 billion light years the universe was thought to be smaller then what it is thought today. 203.34.248.95 04:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Rare Earth hypothesis
Why is this alone surely it should be either in they don't exist or they do exit or a variant say they are rare. We could then move a few other sections into thsi variant. 203.34.248.95 04:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I did this. LouScheffer 06:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent life need not be technological
Your addition Intelligent life need not be technological is also touched on in the section They are too alien. Perhaps you might look at merging these? - Vedexent (talk) - 05:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

A reasonable question, but I think of them as very different. A non-technical civilization might be very recognizable and understandable, and not alien at all. We might immediately understand, or at least recognize, their language, arts, history, literature, etc., and be able to understand their motivations and society, *if* we could ever meet or contact them. The big problem in this case is that intelligence alone produces no signs visible from far away. The 'too alien' argument, on the other hand, implies we cannot communicate because they are too different - that their goals, or means of communication, etc. are unrecognizable to us. Even if we could meet or contact them directly, we could not communicate.

So to me these seem like they should be separate sections. What do others think?? LouScheffer 06:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * They can be different, but they should not duplicate points. At the very least the "non-technological" comments should be taken out of the "too alien" section - Vedexent (talk) - 06:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Very reasonable, but I could not find this in the 'too alien' section. Did someone already delete this, though I see nothing in the history? LouScheffer 06:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Fermi_paradox - Vedexent (talk) - 06:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's the section, all right. I saw only one reference to technology, and it did not seem too redundant, but I took it out anyway. LouScheffer 07:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Having both sections doesn't make sense, though you can fill out the "too alien" sect. a touch. But please, this page already has enough unsourced paras! Marskell 16:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

WTF has happened to this page?
? And what's the rationale? Marskell 16:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Care to be more specific? Someone, (not me) has a strong aversion to including info about the Drake equation in any but the most general terms.  'Rare Earth' stood alone at the top, which was odd since it's just one explanation among many, so I moved it to the list of explanations.  There was lots of discussion over whether the paradox applies to the galaxy or the universe, so this was expanded.  Fermi's lunch conversation now has some first-person references, and so on.....

LouScheffer 16:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The removal at the top did throw me. The Drake Equation is the most common "in" to the topic of ET speculation. There's some other things: don't know if I like the new wording in religion (a perenially difficult section) and we certainly don't need new sections without sources.


 * I'm open to collapsing some of the sections into one another, however. We need to go over it on talk first. Marskell 16:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with re-instating the Drake equation. (In fact I have tried to elaborate it several times, but at least one other editor prefers to re-direct readers to the full article rather than provide a summary here.)


 * On the other hand, I see no reason for "Rare Earth" to appear at the top. There's no reason for this special treatment - it's not a particularly popular explanation, or a common entry to the topic.  So I'll remerge it, but it's certainly open to discussion. LouScheffer 17:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "it's not a particularly popular explanation..." Rare Earth has got to be the best known popular book on this topic since Sagan was writing. It had a very great impact, AFAIK. Marskell 17:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Rare Earth" is just slightly more popular (Amazon rank 99K) compared to the much more inclusive "If the Universe Is Teeming with Aliens... Where Is Everybody? Fifty Solutions to Fermi's Paradox and the Problem of Extraterrestrial Life" (Amazon sales rank 122K), despite the fact that it's a newer book. So if it's the best known, it's not by much. LouScheffer 18:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If the Universe Is Teeming with Aliens... is extensively cited on this page, so we aren't ignoring that source. You haven't convinced me. Why should this argument—central, recent, well-known—be shuffled down? I think it helps the reader to introduce it first. Marskell 20:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and 99k is decent on a science topic. Evolving the Alien is 300k; Life Everywhere is at nearly 900k. Both of these books are, in part, responses to Rare Earth. Interestingly, Privileged Planet, a religious extension of Rare Earth (that I don't think Ward and Brownlee would avow), is at 24k. So again, tell me why Rare Earth is not a "popular" take on this topic? I claim no special knowledge, but I've been reading this stuff since I started editing Wiki, and I'd suggest that post-2000, the most important popular "alien" book is Rare Earth. I see nothing wrong with introducing it off the top, because it gives the reader perspective on the later information. Marskell 20:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * To me, putting *any* particular explanation at the top seems like a violation of NPOV. There are many possible explanations on this topic, and it is not at all clear which one is right.  (And it's a crucial property of the topic that even the experts have no idea which one is right - that's a fascinating part of this paradox.)  Putting one explanation at the top, and the rest in the main body, might imply to a casual reader that this explanation is the accepted or favored one.  That's my take anyway - it would be great if others could chime in. LouScheffer 21:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Privileging an argument early is a concern, but so is having the reader go through half the article before arriving at a central concept. Rare Earth is not a specific answer to the paradox; in fact, I don't think they mention Fermi (I can check). It's a broad argument that underscores the entire topic of ET theorizing, just like Drake, which is why it was placed on top. I don't think it serves the article well to move it.


 * By the same logic, does it make sense to elaborate on the Kardashev scale in Basis of section? Seems over-specific for the section to me. Marskell 18:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree that details of Kardashev are too prominent for their importance. Perhaps relegate to a footnote?  Disagree that "not very useful for resolving the paradox" is a POV.  This is just a plain language way of saying "wildly varying conclusions".  Why make readers, particularly those whose English or academics may not be so strong, draw this inference?   Just be bold and state it!  About 'rare earth', I think we see this differently.  My opinion, and it's exactly that, is that if you asked a hundred scientifically literate folks about the Fermi paradox, you'd get many more 'arguments from scale' than you'd get 'rare earth's.  Is there any way to get, from Wikipedia or elsewhere, some measure of the visits to 'Fermi paradox' and 'rare earth'?


 * The Drake equation is methodologically useful for describing the paradox. The "not useful" phrase was a dismissive judgement that turned the section into a strawman. It's very easy, on the level of phrase, to introduce judgements into this article; after a year-and-a-half of editing, I've done it many times. But we have to avoid it and remove it where it occurs. Marskell 18:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree that Drake is useful for describing, but the text said explicitly "not useful for resolving", which is exactly the point of "varying conclusions". If anything, I'd leave that in and add a phrase about "useful for making explicit underlying assumptions, and categorizing possible solutions".   LouScheffer 18:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Drake Equations
Looks like everyone wants it so I will leave it. However I think it should be reduced to a min.

This issue did throw me. I have read much of Frank Tripler's works and he never quotes the Drake Equations. I find that strange. Can someone supply the quote where he does.

I can put something here from his theories as to why he believes there is only one ETI in the universe but it is not Drake. 210.49.178.159 09:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I notice the Tippler paper was actually removed. Can we not reinsert, better qualified (e.g., it provides an estimate of 1 even if it wasn't meant as a response to Drake). Marskell 18:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

More context for the paradox?
Basicallly, what caused Enrico Fermi to think of this? What was the situation and the circumstances? And even though we do fine with the short version, I think adding a longer version would add some good texture to our article and make it even more informative for our readers. FriendlyRiverOtter 00:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The cartoon is by Alan Dunn and appeared in the May 20, 1950, issue of The New Yorker. It shows happy-looking extraterrestrials carrying trash cans off a flying saucer, and there are more saucers behind this one coming in to land. The caption reads, "For reasons that make sense only to them, aliens are returning to their home planet with trash cans that are the property of New York’s Department of Sanitation."

Webb references Eric Jones
Stephen Webb (p. 17) writes, “Thanks to detective work by the Los Alamos physicist Eric Jones, whose report I draw heavily upon in this section, we know the genesis of the Fermi paradox.”

Webb refers to an entry in his “Notes and Further Reading” (p. 245) which states that Jones “contacted Emil John Konopinski (1911-1990), Edward Teller (1908- ) and Herbert Frank York (1921- ), Fermi’s lunchtime companions on the day he asked his famous question, and requested them to record their recollections of the incident.”

And Webb then refers us to an entry in his “References” (p. 275) which includes the following: “[11] Jones E M (1985)  Where is everybody? An account of Fermi’s Question. Preprint LA-10311-MS. (Los Alamos, NM: Los Alamos National Laboratory). A more easily located version of this reference appeared in the August 1985 issue of Physics Today pp 11-3.)” And, yes, Stephen did include the dangling parenthesis at the end.  We humans are not perfect.  Nor I suspect are aliens if we ever meet any!   FriendlyRiverOtter 00:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[Jones' account in Physics Today is in the "letters" section, which in skimming a few issues seems to be a rather scholarly letters-to-the-editor section. Physics Today is published monthly by the American Institute of Physics.]

This is now available on the web. See reference [2] for a .pdf scan of the Los Alamos Technical Report. LouScheffer 20:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A three hour movie is better than a two hour movie
Provided, of course, that it’s a good movie! The movie would legitimately need to have enough content. Now, in our case, for our nonfiction topic, we have loads of content! The only limitation might be for people who have slow download speed. Okay, so they will get the text all at once and then picture by picture, and as long as it doesn’t stall out where they get the little x’s in the spaces for would-be pictures, it’s still okay. And with more and more people getting faster and faster downloads, maybe even this shouldn’t be that hard a limit. We will be criticized by other people on wikipedia for being too long (and too good!). I think we should withstand the criticism.

Eric Jones asked three people to recount a conversation from thirty-five years ago. There are going to be different versions. And just like we include two versions of Fermi’s specific question, let’s include several versions of this larger context. In addition, Stephen Webb presents the case (p. 22-23) that the paradox could be more fully termed the Tsiolkovsky-Fermi-Viewing-Hart Paradox, being independently discovered on at least these four occasions (Viewing and Hart both published in 1975, but that could still be independent discovery, in fact, it’s so close that it kind of hints that it was).

And I would like more pictures. We might even be able to illustrate the central idea of the paradox: one picture of a galaxy showing the large number of stars, and a second picture with blue lines showing how far a civilization could colonize given, say, travel at 10% the speed of light and 20 million years (and say 5,000 years to establish each individual colony).

We could also have a picture where we have searched within the electromagnetic spectrum, perhaps highlighting the “watering hole” between H+ and OH-. And we could have a star chart of where we have searched within the Milky Way, and another of where we have looked among other galaxies.

We should try and include in our article the best of what is available on the Internet, and not only as a reference. Show the picture, and also, when it’s really good, show the text. For example, our section on percolation theory is quite good, but it’s still just a summary. So, if we can find something exceptionally well-written (with a voice, a la Carl Sagan, but not Carl’s voice, rather the author’s own unique voice!), let’s possibly include two whole paragraphs. As I understand it, that is usually within fair use, it would add good texture, and detail. I had a college speech coach who said what really makes a speech interesting is the details. So, in a five minute speech, have the necessary summary and structure, but get to the interesting details. And having much longer than five minutes, we can really include some really interesting details. And with our article divided into sections, people can read what they’re interested in, and not read what they’re not interested in (or come back to it later). We can set the two-paragraph excerpt off by a box or italics. And in another picture of possible colonization, we might add the assumption that each colony essentially becomes a new society and has, say, a 40% of continuing to colonize and moving on to the next suitable star system. And instead of just blue lines, we might assume three societies colonizing in this percolation fashion with blue, red, and green lines! If something like that is anywhere on the web, then by all means, let’s include it.

I even question whether we should push the envelope regarding the rule against original research, especially since our topic lends itself so well to original thought. I’ve kind of come up with this: a person can publish something somewhere on the web and talk it up here on our discussion page, and if someone else likes it, then that someone else can include it on the main page, and thusly we would have kind of peer review, or we might wait till we have two someone elses who like it. Or, perhaps something different altogether. In any case, a wiki article is not about being static and “perfect.” The article should always be in a process of becoming, and should be better in two years than it is now, and better still in five years, in large part because we are including more good stuff. FriendlyRiverOtter 00:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Is nontechnological life detectable from large distances?
Quoting from the text of this article: "Non-technological civilizations are very unlikely to be detectable from Earth in the near future." But isn't it possible to detect molecular oxygen spectroscopically on extra solar planets from Earth ? Significant concentrations of molecular oxygen in the atmospheres of extra solar planets would be pretty strong evidence for life and it seems that this kind of measurements are currently technically possible- for example, water vapor has been detected on extra solar planets (sorry don't have a source on this...) It seems to me this is an exception to the quotation.Dru007 01:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You're talking about the detection of life. Life does not equate to a non-technological civilization.


 * Even if molecular oxygen was only present where life was present (something I'm not willing to stipulate at this point) it could be a whole planet of fluffy green plants.


 * Your arguments are plausible, but the detection of life is a whole lot easier than the detection of intelligence unless they leave obvious signs of their existence by altering their environment through their technology (if they have any), and this is the point made in the article. - Vedexent (talk) - 03:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So, this might give us a good estimate of the first three or four terms of the Drake Equation. Now, not being an atmospheric chemist, I would like to know how strong this line of evidence is.  I mean, how much is oxygen a signature of life?   FriendlyRiverOtter 22:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Depends on what you find. I don't know of any geologic source of oxygen, but some theorist could doubtless conjure one up.  What's more solid evidence are some combinations of gases that cannot co-exist unless there is a source of one or more of them.  If you look at the Earth, for example, you find both methane and oxygen.  Since ambient temperature methane and oxygen react in just a few years or decades, something is holding the oxygen/methane ratio far from equilibrium.  Volcanos can make methane, but don't make oxygen.  Strong oxidizing reactions that might make oxygen don't make methane.  So clearly something odd is going on if both are present. LouScheffer 23:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Perfectly true. However, I'm not sure which conclusion you are attempting to apply this "detecting gases which are not in natural equilibrium" argument to :) If you are talking about life altering the balance of atmospheric gases then we are back to talking about detecting life alone, and this article is really concerned with the detection of intelligent life as opposed to a planet full of lichens. Whether such life is non-intelligent or intelligent but not altering the composition of their atmosphere, the atmospheric effects are the same and a non-technological intelligent species can't be detected. If you are talking about them altering their atmosphere in a detectable, non-natural way, then presumably they are doing so by technological means, and therefore we're back to "they are altering their environment so technological species are easier to detect". Of course, you may just be detailing the atmospheric effects that life has on the atmosphere, regardless of the presence or absence of intelligence :) - 03:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Lou, very good point, a combination of gases, such as oxygen and methane, would be even more signature of life. Now, taking it a step further, our current technical abilities in astronomy are very close to detecting rocky planets in Earth-like orbits and very close in getting spectroscopic readings of these atmospheres.


 * And so, if we look at the beginning terms of the Drake Equation: number of stars X number of planets per star X fraction of planets with conditions suitable for life X fraction where life actually does develop. This has always been an estimate.  But pretty soon, we will be able to directly see which planets have life!


 * Now, here on Earth, life has had of course various transitions, from prokaryotic cell to eukaryotic cell, from single-cell to multi-cell, and from animal-like intelligence to human-like, self-reflective, language-using intelligence. Life elsewhere might have similar (different?) transitions.


 * And Vedexent, very good point also, what we’re finally interested in is someone with whom we can communicate. And since intelligence evolves in all kinds of different directions, that may take some doing!  The jaguar has a jaguar-type of intelligence and is quite successful, as a jaguar.  The octopus has a very interesting type of non-vertebrae intelligence and is quite successful, as an octopus.  And bees, as far as processing data, a bee hive is a type of intelligence, and is also successful in terms of longevity.  It just doesn’t have the self-reflective aspect.


 * But, anyone who works with animals or has an animal as a pet, can tell you that they communicate with animals just fine. It’s just a more emotional type of communication.  So, for example, we might have a great story of a person sitting in a chair depressed, and the person’s dog coming over and laying its head in the person’s lap.  It’s a beautiful thing.  And furthermore, while we might read books on Zen and attend classes and attempt methods of meditation and “mindfulness,” the dog in its own way is already a Zen master.  However, the dog is unlikely to build a radio telescope (or optic laser).      FriendlyRiverOtter 02:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)