Hacker News Reader

Comment by Xion | Hacker News Reader

> #1 wouldn't be terribly interesting.

The scary implication of #1 is that it updates our probability for long-term survival and becoming a technologically advanced, space-faring species: by _lowering_ it. That's because it pushes the potential Great Filter [1] closer to our present condition and increasing the odds that it's actually somewhere in our future.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_filter

View on HN

Though, statistically, if you push the "the great filter" closer to our present condition, don't you actually push the bulk of the probable filter events to before our present condition, events which are evidently not true in our case, and actually _raise_ our probability of long-term survival?

Remember that you still need to explain the Fermi paradox [1]. If you apply the above logic to life & civilizations in general, you conclude that it's actually quite likely for them to survive long enough and become widespread. Yet, our experience contradicts that assertion, for we don't know any other race at even comparable level of technical development

Of course, this (i.e. civilization quickly become extinct) is just one possible resolution to the paradox, but the arguably simplest one. If the actual reason(s) we don't see advanced life are different, the Great filter hypothesis holds less water. We don't know that yet, though.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

I've always thought the fact that the vast open spaces in the universe is really quite sufficient to explain the fermi paradox

Reply on news.ycombinator.com