The Fermi Paradox Narrative?
Contact with intelligent life from another star system (or elsewhere) would be one of the most profound moments in human history. It would have deep impacts on our social-cultural, political-economic, scientific-technological, religious-philosophical perspectives. It would be both a source of joy and excitement, but also concern about what it may imply for our place in the grand scheme of the Cosmos, as well as species-species interactions.
This has been well recognised for some time. For example in the 1960s the Brookings Institution published a report where they recommended: “Certain potential products or consequences of space activities imply such a degree of change in world conditions that it would be unprofitable within the purview of this report to propose research on them. Examples include a controlled thermonuclear fusion rocket power source and face to face meetings with extraterrestrials” [D. N. Michael, “Proposed Studies on the Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs”, A Report Prepared for the Committee on Long-Range Studies of the NASA, by the Brookings Institution, December 1960.]
The Fermi Paradox has emerged as a dominant framing device for discussions surrounding the potential existence of Extraterrestrial Intelligence (ETI) in the Universe. History tells us that a famous lunch took place circa 1950 at Los Alamos in New Mexico in which the brilliant physicist Enrico Fermi asked the question ‘Where are they?’. This was an apparent reference to the theoretical prediction that they should be here by now yet our observations do not detect them, giving rise to a contraction between our expectations and our experiments - otherwise referred to here as a Paradox.
We can look at the problem by examining two extremes, and then everything else in between. These two extremes are that we are the only intelligent life in the galaxy, or that we live in a crowded galaxy. The idea that we are the only intelligent life in the galaxy, and therefore the first intelligent life to arise in the galaxy, has been argued by many. This includes Viewing [“Directly Interacting Extraterrestrial Technological Communities”, JBIS, 28, 735, 1975] as well as Hart [“An Explanation for the Absence of Extraterrestrials on Earth”, QJRAS, 16, 128, 1975] and Tipler [“Extraterrestrial Intelligent Beings Do Not Exist”, QJRAS, 21, 267, 1980]. We might refer to this as Hart-Viewing Chauvinism.
The idea that we live in a crowded galaxy, has been argued by authors such as Shklovskii and Sagan [“Intelligent Life in the Universe”, Holden Day, 1966] and also Sagan and Drake [“The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence”, Sci.Am., 232, 80, May 1975]. Bond and Martin examine these two extremes succinctly in their paper [“Is Mankind Unique? – The Lack of Evidence for Extraterrestrial Intelligence”, JBIS, 36, pp.223-225, 1983]. We might refer to this as Drake-Sagan Chauvinism.
Enrico Fermi died in 1954, and I am not aware of him talking about the topic in any of his published writings. So all we have to go on that this discussion took place was the word of the witnesses who were apparently present at the meeting and recounted it later. This includes the nuclear physicists Edward Teller, Emil Konopinski and Herbert York. It also includes a retelling by Hans Mark, although he was not present during the original meeting and only heard the story whilst at Los Alamos and it is unclear why such an apparently light hearted discussion would attain the status of a generational mythological story.
Indeed, our only evidence that the conversation ever happened comes from those that wrote about it years later such as by Eric Jones in his 1985 article [E. M. Jones, “Where is Everybody? An Account of Fermi’s Question”, LANL, 1985], and his correspondence with those that attended. In fact, the term ‘Fermi Paradox’ did not enter into widescale usage until around 1975 onwards. [A. R. Martin, “The Origin of the ‘Fermi Paradox’, JBIS, 71(6), 200-206, June 2018.]
Enrico Fermi
The conversation is interesting, because it is strange that in the 1980s these physicists remember it so well. When according to Teller “there was a conversation which I believe to have been quite brief and superficial on a subject only vaguely connected with space travel”. So why then did Teller seem to remember it if it was not an important conversation, so many decades later? Teller continued “We then talked about other things which I do not remember and maybe approximately eight of us sat down together for lunch”. Apparently Konopinski and York were quite certain that there were only four of them. Teller also states “We then talked about other things which I do not remember….I think it was some down-to-earth topic”. So why did Teller (and others) remember this conversation with Fermi but none of the other conversations? Especially when he himself down plays the importance of the conversation. I find this an inconsistent accounting of the meeting.
Teller further states “I do not believe that much came of this conversation, except perhaps a statement that the distances to the next location of living beings may be very great”. In his reply to Jones, Konopinski says “More amusing was Fermi’s comment, that it was a very reasonable theory since it accounted for two separate phenomena: the reports of flying saucers as well as the disappearance of the trash cans”. The main cartoon from the New York newspaper that discussed this matter is shown at the top of this article and is one of the ways that the discussion was dated to the summer 1950.
Although a comment that others may interpret to be intended in jest, this perspective was backed up by Fermi’s answer to the probability that within the next ten years we shall have clear evidence of a material object moving faster than light: Teller said “I remember that my answer was 10 to the minus 6, Fermi said ‘This is much too low. The probability is more like 10 percent”. This is actually a consistent picture of Fermi’s view. On the one hand his theoretical prediction was ‘they’ should be here. On the other, he appeared to assign a 10% probability to an observation of them by circa 1960. Yet this is not how history seems to reflect this discussion. History instead has recorded the Fermi question as ‘Where are they?’
The matter is seen through the lens of jovial comedy and that in some way an underlying premise of Fermi’s position was that they are not here now. But if one reads the account of Fermi’s words by Teller it is clear this is not what he said. Fermi said it was a very reasonable theory. Also according to York, Fermi had concluded that on the basis of such a calculation that we ought to have been visited long ago and many times over. Contrary to how the event is remembered, by these accounts, Fermi was not saying ‘Where are they?’ he was saying that the ideas they are here is reasonable.
Although the term Fermi Paradox has its origins in 1950, it did not enter into common use until the mid 1970s onwards. Although one can find discussions of the same idea without reference to Fermi, such as by the astronomer Carl Sagan in the 1960s [I. S. Shklovskii and C. Sagan, “Intelligent Life in the Universe”, First Published 1966].
Then in a paper published in 1975 by Viewing the two term’s ‘Fermi’ and ‘Paradox’ were used in the same sentence which is arguably from here that the term then became codified into popular culture. [D. Viewing, “Directly Interacting Extra-Terrestrial Technological Communities”, JBIS, 28, 735-744, 1975].
From this we can conclude the following facts:
Fermi had apparently expressed the view that the idea of ETI being here now (circa 1950) was a reasonable theory.
Fermi had expressed the opinion that by circa 1960 there was a 10% chance we would observe an object in the sky moving at ftl speeds; although he also suggested that such a value would constitute the equivalent of a ‘miracle’.
The Fermi Paradox as a phrase did not enter into use in popular culture until at least 1975 but more widespread later.
Since Fermi died in 1954 we have no testimonial from him about this 1950 conversation or what his actual views on the question were.
We are reliant on the memory (circa 1984) and testimonials of Teller, Konopinski and York and then the efforts by Jones to pull all this together.
Following these events, the SETI Institute was arguably formed around the phrasing of this paradox as a starting premise and was founded some years later in 1984 by Jill Tarter and Thomas Pierson. It was also built on the work of pioneers like Frank Drake who first wrote down the Drake equation in 1961 and served as the President of the board of trustees for the SETI Institute when it was first founded after he moved to the University of California at Santa Cruz. Historically this author has had a lot of respect for SETI researchers and has attended some of their meetings at the International Astronautical Congress for example. Indeed I have had the pleasure of meeting both Frank Drake and Jill Tarter, two of the pioneers of the subject, having been inspired by the subject matter.
Although, as a researcher into the related subject of interstellar studies, where I mostly look at the possibility of robotic interstellar probe design, I always found them to be somewhat distant from me and I would not describe the interactions as over friendly. I felt very much an outsider, and I could never quite work out why. For example, I sat in on one of their meetings at the Breakthrough Listen project in San Francisco and raised what I think were reasonable view points about alternative detection strategies, only to be answered by silence, or an unwillingness to engage with me and this has been my consistent experience. Having considered this at the time, my assumption was this was a funding issue, perhaps seeing the interstellar studies movement as a competitor to SETI funding, in a tight fiscal climate. Particularly since there is strong competition for instrument time and so any ideas which are far out of the existing orthodoxy are less likely to be selected.
Yet, upon reflecting on this I feel the issue may be much deeper and this gives me some pause for concern. A factor that has guided this thinking is the way in which the SETI community seems to have responded to Professor Avi Loeb in his attempts to seek out evidence for life and intelligence nearer to home (Avi Loeb, “Extraterrestrial, The First Sign of Intelligent Life Beyond Earth”, John Murray, 2022). I also have a lot of respect for Avi and all he has achieved, although I have also had my differences with him, and I worked with him closely on the Breakthrough Initiatives Project Starshot. In particular, I don’t feel that his representation of the scientific community on podcasts and to the media at large as being closed minded as entirely fair and I have expressed this to him personally. What he might see as closed minds, I feel others would argue is a higher standard of objective rigour. That said, I am starting to come around to seeing his perspective based on how the SETI community seems to have responded to his efforts with the Galileo project. I would also note that Avi does at least write up his research and seek to publish in peer reviewed journals, so he is following the scientific method, putting his work out their in an open and transparent way for others to scrutinise and/or criticise if they so wish [Avi Loeb et al., “Chemical Classification of Spherules Recovered from the Pacific Ocean Site of the CNEOS 2014-01-08 (1M1) Bolide”, Chemical Geology, 670, 20, 122415, 2024].
My main research has been in interstellar studies. I have produced many papers, books, and participated in several television documentaries around this subject. I have also been involved in the founding or co-founding of several companies in the UK and US in relation to this subject. This includes Icarus Interstellar, Initiative for Interstellar Studies, Institute for Interstellar Studies to name some. I have also worked with other interstellar organisations quite activity, such as the Tau Zero Foundation, The British Interplanetary Society, Tennessee Valley Interstellar Workshop (which now calls itself the Interstellar Research Group). I was also a prominent member of the winning team for the NASA/DARPA 100 Year Starship competition only to find myself not enjoying any of the spoils of the win, with devastating consequences to myself and my colleagues at the time.
I have also participated in many cool projects, including serving on the Breakthrough Initiatives Project Starshot advisory panel to send a gram-scale probe to the nearest stars using laser sails. This includes a Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory effort to design a 1,000 AU probe for a Decadal study. This includes an International Academy of Astronautics Commission 3 study into a 200 AU probe. This includes instigating the British Interplanetary Society Project Icarus, a design into a advanced fusion propelled rendezvous interstellar probe as a redesign of the historical Project Daedalus.
The SETI community has historically been mostly focussed around the idea of long distance messaging, such as picking up radio signals from a distant civilisation in deep space. It has consistently showed no interest in the possibility that life may have been here or is here today; although I will offer the caveat that recently some members participated in a NASA workshop on technosignatures which might indicate a change of perspective with a new generation [Jason Wright, “NASA and the Search for Technosignatures”, A Report from the NASA Technosignatures Workshop September 2018].
In terms of the idea that intelligent life may be here already, its members actively ridicule the possibility. If anyone claims an observation that might indicate some level of contact, they are immediately labelled with the tin foil hat brigade and by definition not welcome into the SETI club. This is effectively an unscientific culture that is not much different from religious dogmatism. It is therefore constructive to examine the narrative that studies in SETI are founded on; although I acknowledge this may be somewhat of a generalisation.
The field of SETI is largely based around two themes. The first theme is that life may exist close by to include on some of the celestial objects of our solar system (on Mars or one of the Moons of the gas giants for example) but if it does exist it is likely microbial in form. This is the domain of astrobiology, an important discipline of scientific knowledge but for which the potential for dialogue with another lifeform is not possible, since we cannot communicate to bacteria. This is not to understate the importance of a discovery of microbial life on another world from a scientific perspective, but its consequences to our society are limited. Arguably, a lot of NASA’s work in the search for life is focussed on the field of astrobiology.
The second theme is that intelligent life may indeed exist among one of the many stars of our galaxy (or another galaxy) but it is likely very (very) far away. This possibility motivates the search for emission signatures from long-distance communication systems. Since it takes a long time for radio signals to travel over thousands of light years distance, the potential for dialogue with one of those advanced civilisations is again made not possible, since we are out of space and out of time. Indeed, they may not even exist anymore.
There is a third theme which we should mention and this is also a major theme for which NASA and the ESA is involved, although it has only emerged in recent decades. That is the possibility of discovering exoplanets which are habitable systems upon which life may emerge and thrive. Since we have discovered over 7,000 exoplanets to date, one might imagine that evidence for ETI may be forthcoming since it would be difficult to contain any emission data from well-motivated astronomical observers. As our astronomical observing programme picks up, provided it is conducted in an open and transparent way, the potential for discovering ETI is at least more probable.
Arguably, since SETI has largely been a pursuit of astronomers, they may not be the best choice of practitioners if one wanted to consider the possibility of ETI existing on Earth or in nearby space. Indeed, we might instead refer to their community as the Astronomical Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (ASETI) with its emphasis on optical and radio telescopes. Particularly if this promotes a culture of rigidity over orthodoxy.
The first and second themes discussed above are two extremes which provide for a set of boundary condition on the solutions space for what is possible. In the figure below everything to the left of the green line is considered permissible for mainstream scientific enquiry.
In both the above two main themes there is absolutely no possibility of dialogue with ETI. Life is either very close but too primitive, or it is advanced but very far away; and by implication far back in time so may not exist anymore anyway. This is an unacceptable narrative that constrains the potential solution space and certainly appears to set out to neglect the possibility of intelligence being here now - even the possibility of it is kicked into the long grass. Yet, the suggestion of an ETI presence within or nearby to our Solar System is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis upon which to form a scientific research programme. That is also the basis of Arthur C Clarke’s “2001: A Space Odyssey” and the discovery of a Sentinel probe. The physicist James Benford has proposed searching for co-orbiting probes for example [James Benford, “Looking for Lurkers: Co-orbiters as SETI Observables”, The Astronomical Journal, 158, 4, 2019].
In a recent paper this author has demonstrated that with the rise of our technological astronomical machines, in addition to the maturation of our advanced propulsion technology, if any ETI exists within 100 - 200 ly of Sol, then first contact would occur within the next 100 - 200 years. By implication if they existed within 10 - 20 ly then contact would occur within 10 - 20 years. This analysis neglected the possibility of them being here as a thought experiment. [K. F. Long, “The Temporal Contact Equation: An Estimate for the Time of First Contact with ETI”, JBIS, 76(11), 279-282, November 2023.]
In another recent paper by this author, a calculation was conducted using the diffusion equation to show that if any advanced ETI civilisation constructs von Neumann machines, self-replicating AI probes, that it is possible for them to cover the entire galaxy in a timespan as short as hundreds of thousands of years. [K. F. Long, “Galactic Crossing Times for Robotic Probes Driven by Inertial Confinement Fusion Propulsion”, JBIS, 75(9), 118-126, September 2022.]. This was limited to transport speeds of order 0.1-0.15c based on a fusion propulsion capability. If ETI had access to propulsion technology that was much faster, especially approaching (or even exceeding the speed of light as in ftl) then the galaxy could be covered in a much more rapid time frame.
In an online video the physicist Freeman Dyson tells a sweet story of when he went to visit Enrico Fermi in Chicago to discuss some pseudo scalar theory of pions and how well or not they matched to experiment [see: ‘Fermi’s rejection of our work’ on You Tube] . Fermi was not impressed and quoted the physicist John von Neumann who had said “with four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk” and on this basis Fermi did not find the numerical agreement with experiment profound. Seeing how von Neumann and Fermi think, one might borrow their reasoning and similarly articulate that with two parameters I can construct a narrative. Such a narrative is demonstrated in the figure of this post shown above.
In contrast to the left side of the green line, for the items in the bottom right corner of the green line in the figure appears to be considered out of bounds or the domain of the uninformed observer, the amateur, the uneducated, the ignorant, the fool or even the crazy. If anyone conducts research in this area or proposes search strategies along these lines, they can expect a barrage of ridicule to land at their door. This is especially the case for established scientists, where ostracization from the community awaits and so with it the possibility of research grant funding. This is an effective no-go area for scientists unless you want to have your work downgraded to science fiction.
To illustrate the level of fear, I myself was reluctant to post this article (and others and I am currently writing) because even now I am concerned it will lead to the rejection of research grants I am currently pursuing and desperately need since I am entirely unfunded and unsupported. This is my reality as a professional scientist, working in isolation. Yet as a scientist, our highest ethic must be the pursuit of truth despite the consequences this may bring.
Indeed, such a policy of ridicule would be consistent with the famous Robertson panel report in 1953 which due to fears over causing mass hysteria and panic over the possibility that the Russians might capitalise on any observed phenomena in the skies, after objects were reported by the general public. This report was published two years after the famous Fermi lunch and two years before his death. [H. P Robertson, “Report of Scientific Advisory Panel on Unidentified Flying Objects”, Convened by Office of Scientific Intelligence, CIA, 14 – 18 January 1953.]
It is certainly the case today that the SETI Institute, and the SETI community stays well clear of the bottom right corner of the figure above. ETI is never close if it is intelligent and neither should such a hypothesis be considered reasonable. Instead we see phrases in their articles like “in a distant galaxy far far away”. In discussions over aliens one will often see phrases from the media like ‘little green men’ as a term of derision. One only has to read a popular magazine article by a member of the SETI Institute or by the wider media to see this sort of language being used, often accompanied by laughing. Due to events in my personal life yet to be articulated, I feel it is necessary to call a spade a spade. To me, this feels like a propaganda campaign designed to promote a particular narrative that has acted to suppress original and creative scientific enquiry into the unknown.
Many years ago, circa 2013, Jill Tarter was quoted as saying at a San Francisco Science Fiction convention “The Starship is effectively impossible” by a reliable witness who was present at the meeting and informed this author who wrote the quote down. There is in fact hundreds of published peer reviewed technical journal papers by outstanding academics that shows the opposite is in fact the case going back as far as the 1950s [Les Shepherd, “Interstellar Flight”, JBIS, 11, 1952]; yet this research by highly qualified people is apparently ignored. This illustrates the mindset of an organisation that has historically focussed on a narrow solution space for the possibilities of intelligence in the Universe, but also actively controls the narrative. I personally find this behaviour, to effectively act as the Gate Keepers on any speculations about intelligent life, to be highly frustrating. Admittance of individuals into that community requires some degree of compliance to the narrative.
As a test, a proposal was also recently made to the SETI Institute by this author to pursue a research grant under this subject matter titled ‘Characterising Propulsion Emission Signatures from Advanced Technological Civilizations’. The grant was rejected without explanation or debrief. This is despite the fact that the subject proposal was reasonable, the amount of finance requested was small, and the author well qualified to undertake the research having published dozens of peer reviewed research papers relating to advanced propulsion. Even now, we still do not know who won the SETI Institute technosignature grants.
I simply wanted to propose a survey of the expected emission signatures from different types of propulsion engines and then on the basis of that make recommendations for astronomical surveys in terms of wavelengths, frequencies, energies, power. For example, if an advanced fusion engine or antimatter engine was operating within a light year of Sol, we had a chance of detecting it. It is also perplexing since the power spectrum associated with advanced propulsion systems is orders of magnitude higher than what we might expect from deep space communication systems [R. Zubrin, “Detection of Extraterrestrial Civilizations via the Spectral Signature of Advanced Interstellar Spacecraft”, Progress in the Search for Extraterrestrial Life ASP Conference Series, 74, 1995]. Therefore the rejection of such research is even more curious.
Although I will acknowledge that the window of using advanced propulsion systems may be limited, since any civilization that advanced to a high technological state may develop technologies way beyond these capabilities [N. S. Kardashev, “Transmission of Information by Extraterrestrial Civilizations”, Soviet Astronomy AJ, 8, 2, 1964].
To illustrate the dogma adopted by members of the SETI community, here is some content from a recent article published by Space.Com on 17th April 2024 where the SETI Institute Director Bill Diamond is quoted in reference to the UAP phenomena that is currently under discussions in US Congressional hearings: “The idea that the government is keeping something like this secret is just totally absurd. There’s no motivation to do so” and “We don’t have any evidence of any credible source that would indicate the presence of alien technology in our skies. And we never have”. Currently, there are active scientific studies to detect UAP phenomena under way [Wesley A Watters et al., “The Scientific Investigation of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) using Multimodal Ground-Based Observatories”, Journal of Astronomical Instrumentation, 12, 1, 2023].
I will state for the record, and without breaching any national security oath, as someone that has worked on highly classified government programmes within the UK and US, that governments absolutely can keep secrets and Bill Diamond does not know what he is talking about. This mantra is often also adopted by the influential astronomer Neil deGrass Tyson and is utterly wrong and is an opinion expressed by people that never appear to have worked in government programmes of this nature.
Diamond further states: “Statistically speaking, every single star in the sky has one or more planets around it….That implies the existence of tens of billions of potentially habitable worlds in our galaxy alone…So indeed, the statistical probability that we are alone in the Universe is zero. Surely there is life beyond Earth”.
He further states: “But the presence, both in space and time, as well as proximity, of advanced alien civilizations is another matter completely. There are innumerable variables, all of which in the sciences of astrobiology, planetary science, astronomy and astrophysics, we are trying to figure out”.
So even with the most conservative assumption of one planet per star, Diamond admits that statistically the possibility of intelligence in the galaxy or beyond is high. Yet, despite admitting this, in terms of ETI being here today, he just won’t go there, and note that the emphasis is always on “Beyond Earth”. It has to be either close but microbial or intelligent but extremely far away and out of reach. He appears to be trapped within an oxymoron of logic in his own reasoning.
This presents a dichotomy where an institution exists that professes to search for intelligent life but does not give moderate funding support to proposals that have some chance of detecting it. It is also an institution that won’t even consider the possibility that ETI may be here today. This is a mystery wrapped in an enigma, sufficient to garner one’s attention as a red flag.
For sure, as scientists we must hold our objectivity. We must withhold jumping to any conclusions until the evidence that presents itself becomes undeniable. As the astronomer Carl Sagan once said “extraordinary claims, requires extraordinary evidence”. When claims are made we have to dig deeper into our scepticism and it becomes a battle between the heart that wants it to be true and the mind that intellectualises the parameters.
Yet, I have a feeling that very soon the SETI Institute is going to be the outsiders in the discussions about ETI if they do not open up to the possibility that not only may ETI have been here in the past, but they could be here now today. It is as if they are in a room and people are trying to tell them there is a huge elephant standing behind them and they just can’t see it….or they won’t see it….because that is not the narrative to be followed.
In a recent fund raising post the SETI Institute declared: “The SETI Institute continues to lead the charge in exploring the cosmos, driven by our shared curiosity and determination to discover what—or who—may be out there..”. It also claims on its web site that it is “the only research organization solely devoted to searching for and studying life and intelligence beyond Earth”. I think it is time this claim for being the leader in exploring the cosmos and discovering what/who is out there should be challenged. No doubt I am going to get attacked for this statement and I have experienced this before from followers of the SETI community, who surrounded me like a pack of wolves for merely daring to raise a criticism of their thinking. That is after all, the conduct of a cult following. But okay, as a scientist making statements in a public domain I accept that others have a right to defend themselves.
Despite my criticism, this author wants to acknowledge the important research that has been done by the bread and butter members of the SETI community over the years and this post should not be seen as a criticism of individual research papers which contribute to the entire debate over what may be possible. Those research papers have enormous value. However, I find myself asking about the framing of the discussion and whether this has been a deliberate strategy to control the narrative over the potential of an ETI presence on Earth today and for which may have held back scientific progress in the search for intelligent life.
I have not come to this conclusion lightly, but through much thought over many years of being a researcher in interstellar studies but also my interactions with the SETI community which I would not describe as particularly welcoming. This is also based upon personal objective observations that are yet to be articulated in the public domain but I intend to do so in the near future. Elephants indeed! I end this post by stating my view clearly, that the SETI Institute is wrong to deny the possibility that there may indeed be an ETI presence today and I would suggest it starts considering this possibility if it aims to remain relevant, giving what is likely over the horizon in the very near future. For it is my stated opinion, that the truth may already be at our door.
