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.

  • Chainweasel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 days ago

    I think that the great filter/fermi paradox is a combination of two facts,

    1. Our entire radio output (the only example we have to go by) is pitiful compared to the sun, like a candle in front of a flood light, you’ll only be able to see it so far before it’s completely drowned out. After a few dozen light years our radio output is less than the margin of error of a stars detectable radio output.
    2. As a civilization advances it must reduce radio leakage. As data gets more important, it gets more important that you’re not wasting energy moving it around. Narrow beamed radio transmission becomes the norm and even less radio signals escape the system than when radio was messy and overpowered.

    They’re not missing or gone, they’ve just moved beyond messy radio signals. Even we tightened up our radio emissions in a little over a century. Most of what we watch or listen to comes to us via fiber, cable, or short range transmissions like cell phone towers and Wi-Fi.

  • janNatan@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    10 days ago

    My favorite filter is the amount of phosphorous in the universe. Earth has an unusually high amount, and it’s vital for life. I like this one, because as more stars die, the amount of phosphorous goes up, implying we won’t be alone forever.

    Anyway, look up “Issac Arthur” on YouTube for HOURS of content about the Fermi paradox and potential great filters.

    • janNatan@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      10 days ago

      I’m gonna add to this by saying phosphorus may be my favorite, but I think the most likely filter is just time, twice.

      Do you know how unlikely it is that earth has been habitable for so long? Do you know how long life was single-celled? One of the theories for how advanced (eukaryotic) cells formed was the combination of at least three different branches of life into the same cell! Archaea (cell wall), bacteria (mitochondria/chloroplasts), and viruses (nucleus). Do you know how unlikely that sounds? Do you know how long it would take for that to happen randomly? Most planets probably aren’t even habitable for that long. Once we became eukaryotic, we started progressing much faster.

      Then, keep in mind, the life has to continue to exist for billions of more years while it waits for the advanced life to happen again within the same section of the galaxy. So, time is two filters - both behind us and in front of us.

  • Hugin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    10 days ago

    An alternative is we are among the first. Third generation stars are the ones that have planets with enough heavy elements to allow for complex chemistry. Sol (our star) is thought to be among the first batch of third generation stars in our gallexy.

    Light speed does seem to be the upper speed limit for the universe. Talking that into account we probably haven’t had a chance to see other early life as it would likely be spread pretty thin right now.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 days ago

      Yeah, I have a gut feeling that a lot of the variables in the Fermi equation are a little too generous.

    • This is my favorite, mainly because it’s been well argued by some respectable scientists.

      Another is that we’re in a simulation, and aliens aren’t part of it. There are also some very good statistics pointing to the simulation theory, from just sheer scale.

  • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    10 days ago

    Honesty, I don’t think that there is a Great Filter. The Fermi Paradox strikes me as not very well-reasoned. A whole hell of a lot of things would have to go exactly right for civilizations to make contact, rather than it being the default assumption. There are lots of filters, not just one Great one.

    But the closest to a Great Filter is that space is really, really. stupendously big. The chances of even detecting each other across such distances is vanishingly small, much less traversing them. Add in the difficulty of jumping the metabolic energy gap to become complex life, and that could reduce the density of civilizations down to a level that they’re just not close enough to each other in spacetime to admit even the possibility of contact. And we’re hanging our hat on some highly-speculative concepts like alien mega-structures harnessing whole solar systems to allow detection.

    I think a lot of persnickety, smaller filters combine to make interstellar contact between civilizations against long odds. Perhaps the best we’ll get is spectral signatures from distant planets that are almost-conclusive proof of some sort of life.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 days ago

      I think at some point, almost certainly not in our lifetimes, we’ll detect the spectroscopic signatures of a planet that has an atmospheric makeup that HAS to be from life, but with no detectable signs of any civilization. Just nonsentient life. And we may never be able to get there.

    • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 days ago

      I think you’re probably closest. There aren’t “filters” so much as we live in a universe that can only support life on a highly contingent basis, entirely by accident, at random intervals. It’s filters all the way down, really. None of us are getting out alive, might as well enjoy it while it lasts.

  • Unlimited@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    11 days ago

    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@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 days ago

      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.

  • squirrelwithnut@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 days ago

    We’re currently in it. Failing to create a clean, renewable, and scalable energy source powerful enough to run a society that is ever increasing in both population and technology without destroying their only inhabited planet has got to be the most common great filter.

    Asteroids strikes, super volcanoes, solar CMEs, and other planetary or cosmetic phenomena that exactly line up in both severity and timing are too rare IMO.

    Every society that attempts to progress from Type 1 to Type 2 has to deal with energy production. Most will fail and they will either regress/stagnate or destroy themselves. Very few will successfully solve the energy problem before it is too late.

    • Tudsamfa@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 days ago

      A filter for sure, but not a great one. Call me optimistic, but I don’t think that will set us back more than 10.000 years. If humanity can survive, society will re-emerge, and we are back here 2-3000 years into the future.

      Is +5°C Earth a good place to be? No. Will the majority of humans die? Absolutely. Will the descendants get to try this society thing again? I believe so.

      On a cosmic scale 10.000 years is just a setback, and cannot be considered a great filter.

  • sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    10 days ago

    Howabout a reasonably advanced civilization destroying itself and its homeworld after exploiting and then running out of petroleum?

    • Subverb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 days ago

      Oil has a bad reputation but how lucky we are to have it. How does a civilization on a planet without hydrocarbons make the leap to a technological species?

      It’s not impossible, but it’s got to be a lot harder.

      • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        Kelp farms? Domesticated bamboo? We need large areas of land to grow food anyway, we just skipped the charcoal agriculture step. Lathes and the three plate method are the real heroes of industry any way.

        A slower ascension into the computing age could mean a more stable set of cultures and a more uniform global situation to avoid anthropogenic filters. Bright candles and all that.

    • Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 days ago

      I think it’s a fair thought that any form of life doesn’t perfectly recycle their resources and all forms of life give off waste for other life to utilize. That said, a reasonably advanced civilization might just inevitably grow to the size where the waste they put off makes their planet unlivable for them before they can take action to control it.

      For us, it’s carbon dioxide.

  • Contramuffin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    10 days ago

    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

  • MrMobius @sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    10 days ago

    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.

  • Cryophilia@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    11 days ago

    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).

    • notabot@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      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.

  • Tudsamfa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    10 days ago

    We have had Millions of years of (presumably) intelligent Dinosaurs on this planet, but only 200.000 years of mankind were enough to create Civilization IV, the best Strategy game and peak of life as we know it.

    So clearly, Civilization™ is what sets us apart.

    Jokes aside, the thing evolution on earth spend the most time on is getting from single celled life-forms to multicellular life (~2 billion years). If what earth life found difficult is difficult for all, multicellular collaboration is way harder than photosynthesis, which evolved roughly half a billion years after life formed.

    • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 days ago

      Sort of fallacious to go from one case of time to happen and derive probability from it.

      I’m no biologist but I don’t think any of our models of super early stuff are sophisticated enough to speculate on what stages are the most or least likely.

  • littlecolt@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 days ago

    I would say it’s the size of the universe and the fact that it is still expanding at an accelerated rate.

    If the speed of light is really the “top speed” of the universe, it is inadequate for interstellar travel. It is barely good enough for timely communication, and not really even that.

    Life can be as likely as it wants to be, but it seems to me that we’re all quite divided, to the point of not being able to communicate at all with other potential intelligent species.

      • littlecolt@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 days ago

        I suppose I was focusing on detecting some sort of communications. It still matters that when we see objects at great distance in space, it’s the objects in the distant past

      • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        This universe being unfriendly to interstellar and especially intergalactic travel would seriously hamper a galactic civilization, and thus be less likely for us to notice them.

        There might be hundreds of civilizations out there, each having only expanded to a few dozen stars, not caring to go further. Even the makeup of the interstellar medium might be incredibly dangerous, basically necessitating generation ships to cross. Large scale expansion might simply be too hard.

  • Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    Boy, Lemmy sucks donkey dick. For every one legitimate answer there are two or three edgelord answers like “capitalism” and “the internet”.

    Here’s an answer that hasn’t come up yet: cooperation among mono cellular organisms. I don’t mean the development of polyp analogues or colonies of single celled organisms; I mean getting down to mitochondria. Brace for wild oversimplification.

    Before mitochondria, life had a hard time creating enough energy to do much more than barely stay alive. The current line of thinking is that one organism ate another and didn’t digest it. The two organisms worked symbiotically, one handled energy production and the other handled getting food and staying alive.

    Just about every living thing utilizes mitochondria and if the current idea that mitochondria were actually symbiotic organisms is true, that means that what was likely a chance “sparing” of prey is the underpinning of all complex life.

    The odds of that happening are ridiculously low. There could be simple life in tons of places even within our own star system, but if the mitochondria-like symbiotic capture never happens for those extraterrestrial organisms, then complex life is probably unlikely to develop.

    • HurkieDrubman@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 days ago

      your paragraphs complaining about it are a lot more annoying than the people who might not be being totally serious on the internet for a minute.

      • Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        If by “paragraphs” you mean two sentences, sure.

        If you’d bothered to read past those two sentences you’d see that I was making an offhand comment before answering the question.

    • Gregonar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 days ago

      Maybe cooperation is hard wired just like competition. It might be less likely but hardly impossible.

      • Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        I’d hardly describe it that way. It took untold trillions of predator/prey interactions over the hundreds of millions of years that single celled life existed for it to happen. That’s more or less brute forcing the problem and it took geologic timescales to happen.

        If you ask me to point at a hurdle stopping civilizations from developing that looks awfully reasonable.

        • Gregonar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 days ago

          Ultimately we don’t know much about that era of time, but I suspect it was less like fumbling around for millions of years looking for a light switch, and more like the gradual warming of the planet with warmer and cooler seasons/years.

          Iirc at least one of the other things related to development of eukaryotes was that atmospheric oxygen had to first be generated by early cyanobacteria.

          So maybe that proverbial light switch was being flipped millions of times through random encounters but only became more viable after the voltage (atmospheric oxygen levels) became high enough. Maybe that’s the reason it took hundreds of millions of years, because transforming by bacteria just takes that long.

          We just don’t know unfortunately. However, we DO know about species getting wiped out by asteroids or human cultures getting wiped out by disease or conflict with superior cultures. Any of these filters seems more of a hurdle to me than the development of eukaryotes.