A Theory Says We Can't Find Advanced Aliens Because They're Not Trying to Be Found
A possible reason, called the 'Sustainability Solution,' argues that the search for technosignatures necessitates a particular human bias, suggesting that rapid growth is the only means of society expansion.
A new paper reexamining this solution suggests that many societies may face collapse due to the unsustainable aspect of an ever-expanding species, and so many of its technologies could be indistinguishable from nature itself.
For more than 40 years, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) organization has turned its gaze toward the cosmos in search for an answer to one of humanity's greatest questions: Are we alone? Often taking the form of the 'Fermi paradox'—a 75-year-old thought experiment that explores why there are so many worlds, yet seemingly no alien civilizations—this grand question has inspired a lot of possible solutions. Maybe life is much rarer than we imagine? Maybe it's incredibly difficult to evolve into a modern civilization like ours? Or maybe aliens are speaking in a language we simply don't understand.
However, there's one possible solution that eerily speaks to our current moment. Known as the 'Sustainability Solution,' this idea posits that endless economic growth may simply be impossible to sustain, so alien societies either adapt by creating sustainable civilization in harmony with their host planet, or they simply die out. First proposed by Pennsylvania State University scientists Jacob Haqq-Misra and Seth Baum in 2009, the 'Sustainability Solution' suggests that if aliens do exist, they likely wouldn't create the technosignatures we often attribute to advanced civilizations, such as Dyson Spheres or interstellar spacecraft. Instead, these structures (part of the 'technosphere') would blend with the natural world, making them difficult to distinguish.
In a new study uploaded to the preprint server arXiv, New York University researcher and philosopher Lukáš Likavčan revitalizes this solution to the Fermi paradox as a lens through which to view humanity's own development. The paper re-conceptualizes technology, history, and sustainability on a planetary scale.
'The ecological limits constrain the topology of viable planetary histories to those evolutionary trajectories where the technosphere successfully folds back into the biosphere,' Likavčan wrote. 'The major result of this reconceptualization is the problematization of the analytical import of technosphere as a category denoting some new geological layer—it seems to be more of a transitory armature of the biosphere's evolution and less of an emerging permanent layer.'
Humans play a strange, transitory role in this conceptualization. Of course, being primates, we are of the biosphere. But our creations—at least, as argued by this theory—become part of the theoretically detectable technosphere (whether this region is a permanent fixture or a temporary arm of the biosphere is up for debate). Drawing on a sample size of one (i.e. human civilization), it's easy to think that progress will continue unabated until we become masters of our own Solar System and beyond. However, as Haqq-Mistra and Baum originally stated in 2009, this 'Sustainability Solution' questions the assumption of the unimpeded exponential growth of such civilizations.
'It is still possible that slower-growth ETI civilizations exist but have not expanded rapidly enough to be easily detectable by the searches humans have yet made,' the original authors wrote. 'It is also possible that faster-growth ETI civilizations previously expanded throughout the galaxy but could not sustain this state, collapsing in a way that whatever artifacts they might have left have also remained undetected.'
Additionally, Likavčan's idea of 'folding back into the biosphere,' means that advanced civilizations might instead create technologies that are essentially biological in nature in order to remain in balance with their finite resources. To support this point, Likavčan quotes Canadian sci-fi author Karl Schroeder, who wrote that 'any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from nature,' itself a reformulation of sci-fi Arthur C. Clarke's famous words that compared technology to magic. This could also explain why we haven't found civilizations while looking for technosignatures alone.
Magic or no, the nature of the Fermi paradox makes it a 'we won't know until we know' kind of question. But the exploration of possible solutions can also provide a valuable lens through which to value our own society, its future perils, and how we might—against all odds—survive long enough to one day solve this perplexing question.
You Might Also Like
The Do's and Don'ts of Using Painter's Tape
The Best Portable BBQ Grills for Cooking Anywhere
Can a Smart Watch Prolong Your Life?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scientific American
2 days ago
- Scientific American
180 Years of Standing Up for Science
I have been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old. I think if I could ask that kid if he expected to see his name in the magazine one day, he'd say yes, but he would be surprised to find it on this particular page and not in one of the stories of great discoveries that follow. He wanted to grow up to be an astrobiologist and was certain the SETI program would discover an extraterrestrial radio signal soon; the only doubt he would have had was whether he'd be lead scientist in the subsequent SciAm article or only a junior member of the team. Of course, SETI is still searching, and my name is on this page, not among the world's great scientists. But I could not be more thrilled and honored to introduce myself as Scientific American 's new editor in chief. I was lucky to grow up in a time when science was celebrated and great communicators told American children that science was not only a worthy career but also exciting and cool. I could turn the television to PBS and watch Carl Sagan in Cosmos or Alan Alda in Scientific American Frontiers; flip it to the news, and I'd see space shuttle liftoffs, high-temperature superconductors and the launch of the Human Genome Project. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Unfortunately, the world of today is increasingly hostile to science. Our leaders deny the existence of human-driven climate change and vilify vaccines that have saved hundreds of millions of lives. Schools lack funding for STEM courses, and budgets are slashed at leading research institutions such as the NIH, NASA and NOAA. Earlier this year I spoke to a top-of-the-class postdoc who'd given up on the idea of securing a position at their U.S. alma mater and instead was weighing offers to relocate to Europe or China. That makes Scientific American more important than ever. In our very first issue, dated August 28, 1845, editor Rufus Porter offered the publication as an advocate of science and industry and promised it would 'instruct while it diverts or amuses.' My goal as editor in chief is to uphold those values, to stand up for science, to promote its application in industry, and to help educate and inspire new generations of young scientists. I hope to ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery and that it supports working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized. Given this context, I'm particularly excited that my first issue as editor in chief marks the 180th anniversary of Scientific American. Our celebration begins with an outstanding collection of stories about times when science itself has made 180-degree turns, including by abandoning ideas such as that light is a wave traveling through 'aether,' that nerves don't regenerate, and that the expansion of the universe is slowing. The anniversary party continues online, so don't forget to check out our website at over the course of the coming months, too. In our cover story, journalist Maryn McKenna looks at the perplexing world of peanut allergies. Food reactions are probably as old as time, and researchers now estimate that they affect one out of 10 Americans overall and two kids in every classroom. But peanut allergies didn't become widespread until the 1990s. Thankfully, remarkable new treatments might free millions of people from the deadly threat of anaphylaxis or even end food sensitivities once and for all. It's an extraordinary example of the way that science can make the world a better place. And that's the perfect way to kick off our next 180 years. I'm glad that I have this soapbox to stand on at a time when our nation hungers for meaningful discovery and the scientific community needs everyone's support. I hope you'll stand with me. Scientific American helped shape the way I look at the world. It has always educated and delighted me, and I suspect it's done the same for you, too. I'm looking forward to exploring the future together.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
A Nuclear Winter Could Destroy Much of The World's Food Supply
It's easy to assume nuclear war only affects those close enough to see that most terrifying of clouds. In reality, the devastation could stretch around the world. A new study shows just how badly global food production would fare under different nuclear winter scenarios. Nuclear winter is a devastating climate effect theorized to follow large-scale nuclear conflict where blasts of nuclear weapons and the resulting firestorms inject huge amounts of soot and dust into the atmosphere. This would reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the surface for years at a time, in turn killing off many plants and animals – including those we rely on for food. Related: A new study, led by scientists at Pennsylvania State University in the US, simulated the effects that nuclear winter would have on global food production. Being the widest-grown grain in the world, corn (Zea maize) was used as a 'sentinel' crop, allowing the team to estimate what would happen to agriculture as a whole. "We simulated corn production in 38,572 locations under the six nuclear war scenarios of increasing severity – with soot injections ranging from 5 million to 165 million tons," says Yuning Shi, plant scientist and meteorologist at Penn State. Unsurprisingly, the outcomes weren't great. The team found that a localized nuclear war, which injected 'only' 5.5 million tons of soot into the atmosphere, would still reduce global corn production by 7 percent. However, a global-scale conflict that unleashed 165 million tons could cut crop production by 80 percent. That worst-case scenario also has a damage multiplier added: dissolving the planet's protective ozone layer. "The blast and fireball of atomic explosions produce nitrogen oxides in the stratosphere," says Shi. "The presence of both nitrogen oxides and heating from absorptive soot could rapidly destroy ozone, increasing UV-B radiation levels at the Earth's surface. This would damage plant tissue and further limit global food production." The team estimates that UV-B would peak between six and eight years after a nuclear war, reducing corn production by an extra 7 percent. That's an alarming 87 percent total drop in crop production, which would amount to a global food crisis. The simulations suggest that it could take between 7 and 12 years for global corn production to recover from nuclear winter, depending on the severity of the war. Generally, the Southern Hemisphere would recover faster than the Northern, and regions closer to the equator faster than those closer to the poles. There are things humans could do to speed up recovery, though. Switching to varieties of corn that can grow better under cooler conditions and in shorter growing seasons could reduce the loss of crop productivity by up to 10 percent. That could help, but it would of course still be better to just not have a nuclear winter at all. If we simply must, however – and the current state of global politics makes the scenario more likely than it has been since the Cold War – then the team proposes preparing "agricultural resilience kits." These would be made up of crop seeds chosen to be the best fit for each region for proposed climate possibilities. "These kits would help sustain food production during the unstable years following a nuclear war, while supply chains and infrastructure recover," says Armen Kemanian, lead developer of the simulations. "The agricultural resilience kits concept can be expanded to other disasters – when catastrophes of these magnitude strike, resilience is of the essence." And before you ask: no, nuclear winter would not cancel out global warming. The study was published in the journal Environmental Research Letters. Related News 'Bad Omen': An Ancient Pyramid in Mexico Collapsed Into A Pile of Rubble Incredible Ice Core Captures 12,000 Years Of European Climate History Yellowstone's Aspen Forests Are Already Responding to The Return of Wolves
The Hill
11-08-2025
- The Hill
As COVID babies go to school, educators look for pandemic's impact
Babies born during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic are heading to preschool and kindergarten, and experts are waiting anxiously to see its impact on the young learners. Concerns about cognitive and social delays, such as difficulties sharing or following directions, have arisen, as conflicting studies and educators' anecdotes emerge about 4- and 5-year-olds. While devastating consequences were immediately noticeable for older students during the pandemic, it is too early to get a definitive answer on how it affected those born during the chaos, making vigilance from educators a necessary factor in the upcoming school year, experts stress. One study published recently in Infancy looked at data from 330 infants born from October 2016 to August 2021 and found there was little difference between negative effects on infants before and after pandemic onset, rather higher negative effects on infants were more closely associated with factors such as maternal stress. And stress on caregivers during the pandemic rose significantly with jobs losses and decreases in socialization, but those effects were different based on family income level. 'Kids with families with high socioeconomic backgrounds, they're actually seeing improvement in these kids' development, because caregivers might have been home more often than they were before, they might have had more time and attention and support and family meals and reading together, and all those things we know were really important,' said Rahil Briggs, national director of Zero to Three's HealthySteps program. Another study found that the lower the socioeconomic background, 'the more that decrease in kindergarten readiness showed up,' she added. But other studies showed more differences between the youngest learners before and after COVID-19, including a higher risk for social, cognitive, communication, motor and social delays among those born during the height of the pandemic. A study released in 2024 that examined a cohort of 3.5- to 5.5-year-olds found after the pandemic this age group tested 'significantly worse on several measures of false-belief understanding.' 'So for things to be affecting the kids now, it really has to be something that made a fundamental shift in their development those first couple of years and that can happen. We do know that the first three years of life are super important. What we haven't had is something that hits us over the head yet beyond anecdotal,' said Koraly Pérez-Edgar, a professor of psychology at the Pennsylvania State University. Pérez-Edgar cited a New York Times story from July 2024 that indicated 'the kids going into kindergarten last year were really messed up, or, like, really had a lot of trouble.' But she said such behavior hasn't been borne out in studies yet. 'It's not showing up in the data quite as strongly or quite as forcefully as some of the anecdotal reports say,' adding the concerns experts are worried about likely won't emerge or be discovered until they are in school. Older kids had immediate effects that were easy to see when the pandemic closed schools in 2020 and created restrictions in classrooms in 2021. Behavioral problems in classrooms, chronic absenteeism and anxiety went up, while academic performance went down in older students, with some of those effects still lingering today. But infants had time to live in a world without masks and restrictions for years before heading to kindergarten. 'So, the pandemic was 2020, five years ago, and things really the last three years, they would have had the opportunity to have a pretty normal socialization for most kids,' said Eileen Kennedy-Moore, a psychologist and podcast host of 'Kids Ask Dr. Friendtastic.' 'So, I don't think we have to assume that because of COVID these kids are warped. I think we deal with the child in front of us.' Experts and advocates caution vigilance and advise planning for a situation where these children begin to struggle in school, such as smaller class sizes and collaboration with families. 'We think a lower group size or maybe additional adult support in the classroom, like a teacher's aide, could be helpful for kindergarten programs. I do think significant family engagement is going to be really helpful to support these young children and families,' said Ginger Sandweg, senior director early learning at First Things First. But experts also note it is important to recognize children are able to bounce back from adversity well, even if some struggles occurred after the pandemic with socialization. 'I think if schools are aware of these particular areas, they can do more programming in terms of teaching kids like asserting yourself and talking, having conversations,' said Mary Alvord, psychologist and founder of Alvord, Baker & Associates. 'But my area is resilience, and I just feel like we also need to acknowledge the resilience of most kids,' she added.
