Talk:Fermi paradox/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

UFO Template at the bottom of the page

I've added the UFO template at the bottom of the page. It's been reverted by ජපස citing WP:ONEWAY. Does that apply to a template at the bottom of the page on this subject? The Fermi Paradox is exactly on the lack of evidence for extraterrestrial civilization. The page links prominently to UFO conspiracy theory so the template seems appropriate. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The template is essentially organizing UFOs as a fringe/paranormal topic. This is a WP:MAINSTREAM article. A template that was about "extraterrestrials" might be able to include a link to UFOs and might be relevant to this page, but this page is not about UFOs, if that makes sense. jps (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply ජපස. What do you mean by "extraterrestrials"? Could you make an example? One of the possible solutions to the Fermi Paradox are UFOs (as described in the article). Maybe this discussion should be in the Template:UFO discussion page. Usage guidelines are not defined and maybe WP:ONEWAY should apply to that template as well. It clearly gives undue weight to very FRINGE theories that should probably be left out of the templates. E.g. the Template should link to Ufology and List of investigations of UFOs by governments but probably not Nazi UFO. Providing both links in a template that goes in many pages puts the two topics on the same level which is strange for Wiki. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 20:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe not "extraterrestrials", but rather something like Life outside Earth or SETI, etc. We already have enough templates about this, I would say. jps (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Looking over the template, Template:UFOs, I'm not seeing enough relevance to merit inclusion. It appears to organize topics that would be more in the fringe/paranormal category than this article. Yes I would say that the guidance at WP:ONEWAY applies as well. VQuakr (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The topic of the template is "UFO" not "Crazy theories related to UFOs". UFOs per se are not FRINGE (see WP:FRINGE/PS). They are just unknown. I guess we probably need to clean it up first as WP:ONEWAY should probably apply to the template as well. Would you agree? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 20:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Right, but the mainstream interpretation of UFOs (literally, something in the air that hasn't been identified yet) is irrelevant to this article. The only relevant meaning is "flying aliens", which is fringe. VQuakr (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Well put. Only one possible explanation for UFOs is relevant here I agree. So Ufology links should probably not be included. I understand and agree with the removal of the template now.

Unrelated note: "Flying aliens" isn't fringe. It's just an hypothesis/theory and should not be discarded a priori. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

What makes you think anyone has discarded the flying alien proposal a priori? Incidentally, this idea is not a hypothesis as there is no validated evidence in favor of it -- more of wild speculation or crazed belief. jps (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for not being able to comment for the past 24 hours, but I was a subject of unintentional block. However, I add my support for the comments made by jps above. Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

You can propose a move of this page if you wish: Extraterrestrial hypothesis. However the scientific method has been going strong since the 16th century so you might have a hard time changing the definition of hypothesis to what you are proposing. In any case this discussion is closed as far as I'm concerned as we have consensus on this issue. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 23:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Astrobiological Copernican principle

@Drbogdan I added the Astrobiological Copernican principle to Drake equation, since it seems more on-topic there; personally I think it's incorrect, but it probably has enough mainstream support for inclusion. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Rolf h nelson: Thank you for your comment - and adding the edit - yes - agreed - seems there may be sufficient mainstream support to include the edit - iac - Thanks again for your comment and all - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Aestivation hypothesis

The article aestivation hypothesis is obviously related to the Fermi paradox and so should probably be mentioned in the flow of the section about proposed explanations. I have done so, but this was @reverted by @Geogene based on the argument that aestivation hypothesis did not have sufficient weight to be mentioned in this article. This strikes me as odd -- in this case that page should perhaps be deleted, but if the page exists it looks weird not to link it here. Opinions welcome. --a3nm (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I have my doubts about the aestivation hypothesis' notability, but I'm not inclined to open an RfD, that might be WP:POINTY. I also think this argument that because an article exists elsewhere, the subject of that article must be mentioned and linked in the parent article, has an aspect of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But the aestivation hypothesis article has another problem, too, namely that a paper [1] has since come out that claims that Sandberg et. al. misunderstood some critical aspect of the thermodynamics of computation when they formulated their hypothesis. On the talk page, the WP editors that edit that article are aware of the problem, but expressed a preference for leaving it to a subject matter expert in thermodynamics interpret that paper and write adequate coverage of it into the article. But the claim that it's based on bad thermodynamics is devastating, if true.

As far as Weight goes, I still don't think it has much. I've found through Google Books that the aestivation hypothesis paper is cited in Solving Fermi's paradox (2019) by Duncan Forgan, in the references [2]. I don't have access to the book and so can't find the context in which it was cited, but the term "aestivation hypothesis" never occurs in the body of the 426 page book, despite the author obviously being aware of the work. If someone has that book they can check and see if there's coverage that I overlooked. There's another book with aestivation hypothesis in the reference section, Evolution, Development and Complexity (2019), edited by Martinez et. al. [3], but no evidence of substantial coverage of the aestivation hypothesis [4] or Fermi's paradox [5]. Geogene (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Geogene: OK, thanks for looking into the notability of the aestivation hypothesis article. I'm not myself convinced about the notability of the article to be honest, I won't bother opening an RfD for it either, but feel free to do it if you like (I don't see the connection to WP:POINTY). I'm just saying that, if the article is there, there ought to be some kind of way to get to it from the Fermi paradox article (I don't see how this relates to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). If you think that it's less notable an explanation that all others listed in the body of the article, then fine, maybe keeping it under "See also" is the way to go. No strong opinion here, just thinking we ought to somehow connect the articles we do have in a sensible way. Other opinions from other editors welcome, I won't insist further myself in one direction or another. --a3nm (talk) 08:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Apparently this discussion didn't move fast enough for at least one author, who added the aestivation hypothesis anyway. I have fixed that addition, but recommend removing it altogether as the original paper was essentially debunked about two years after its initial publication. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, I just removed it. WP:ONEWAY applies. VQuakr (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

This had snuck its way into Template:Extraterrestrial life - removed. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Added novel

• Calculating God - a science fiction novel by Robert J. Sawyer Moscowdreams (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

New addition at 'Willingness to communicate'

Shouldn't this paper from last month [6] wait until WP:SECONDARY sources are available discussing it? There is an unlimited supply of "solutions" to Fermi's Paradox, this article shouldn't cover all of them. Geogene (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

"Microbiological" or "Pandemic" explanation

I read the entire article and most of the Talk. I paid attention to the comment dates. There is an entire concept missing that should, I believe, have been raised anyway, but in the context of the global COVID-19 pandemic, which was well underway in the news media and politics by April 2020 when some of the comments occurred, I find its absence astonishing. It's not new. It's as old as H.G. Wells' science fiction novel, "War of the Worlds," where the ultimate doom of the Martian invading force was their utter lack of immunity to Earth microorganisms. I tend to think someone must have formally raised it already in response to the Fermi paradox, in which case it should have been included in the article. (I don't have time to search for that right now.) Whether you want to call it the "Microbiology factor", the "Pandemic factor," or something else, it can take either of two forms: (1) Avoidance: Intelligent civilizations WITH an awareness of germs and viruses being the cause of disease might well decide that the risk of physical exposure to any other life-bearing planet was excessive. (2) Ignorance: an intelligent civilization in terms of engineering and space travel might still LACK a germ theory of disease and not think of this concept. Through invasion OR peaceful contact they might bring about a pandemic on the visited world AND/OR their own and be unable to combat it due to that same ignorance, thus either slaying their population or forcing them back to a primitive mode of existence. A sociological reaction of utter aversion to extra-world contact could also result. Again, H.G. Wells thought of it. Michael Crichton somewhat approached it in his novel, "The Andromeda Strain," where the extraterrestrial organism arrived by physical accident rather than alien contact. It seems like a valid answer to the Fermi Paradox. To paraphrase Fermi, "Where is it?" SvensKenR (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

As interesting as it may be to wonder about what would happen should two independently evolved biospheres come into contact with one another - and one of those possibilities is that the biochemistry would be incompatible and thus infection would not be possible - I am not aware that any sources on the Fermi Paradox have discussed this as a possible solution, and so we cannot include it here, per WP:No original research. Additionally, this idea only answers why aliens have not come to Earth itself, but it doesn't answer why we as yet see no evidence of their activity in our astronomical observations - whether in radio signals or otherwise. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised that there are no sources on the Fermi Paradox of which you are aware that have discussed it, although I understand why that would preclude adding it. However, it does not only answer why aliens have not come to Earth itself. I may have misstated the argument by only addressing the H.G. Wells scenario of contact between independently evolved biospheres and not including that our failing to see evidence of a civilization's activity in astronomical observations could be due to extinction or drastic reduction of activity due to a pandemic catastrophe within their biosphere. The concept of how large and complex a civilization can become before it creates conditions conducive to pandemic spread of infection, especially if awareness of microbiology (a la Pasteur) has not yet occurred, must have been addressed by someone. The development of population and trade in medieval Europe at the time of the Black Death seems very nearly to illustrate it.SvensKenR (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Loud Rabbits / Dark Forest

"The loud rabbit gets eaten" or "Loud rabbits get eaten". I thought this saying was in common use as it pertains to humans sending out signals in a universe full of predatory aliens. However, I find no rabbits in this article, nor do I find anything on a Google search. Who said this? Charles Juvon (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

This sounds a lot like the Dark Forest Theory, which I first encountered in Liu Cixin's book, "The Dark Forest": “Dark forest theory” holds that civilizations fear one another so much that they don't dare to reveal themselves lest they immediately be considered a potential threat and destroyed. Seganku (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Deep Thoughts

On May 24, 2021, I watched a conversation between Robert Lawrence Kuhn and Martin Rees on a special online program from "Closer to Truth". I was able to recover this conversation at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gvj2A-pAkX4

Kuhn asked Rees about the Fermi Paradox and why we have not seen extraterrestrials. Part of what Rees said in response was this:

"I would suggest that if they're really really advanced, there's no particular reason why they would want territory. They might just sit in a virtual world thinking deep thoughts." ---Dagme (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Crypto-cancer fade out end of civilization for Fermi paradox?

Imagine civilization gets a positive feedback mechanism for wasting resources, like cryptocurrencies: “one gets $100 banknote if burning $99 worth resources”, leading to exponential growth of waste at individual gains.

We can observe exponential growth of their energy consumption, worsening shortages of electronics, simultaneously these cult-like societies are growing in power/influence, can buy politicians (e.g. El Salvador) … further taking control of chip manufacturers and power plants, in a few years growing to 50%, 90%, 99% of world energy production?

Can such positive feedback be always balanced at a reasonable level, instead of approaching 100% of resources of civilization? In other words: could it lead to fading out end of civilization – as a way for “It is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself”? How frequent could it be? What are the chances for our civilization?

The question concerns if such mechanism is worth adding to “It is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself” Section.

ps. https://i.imgur.com/7nH8wx6.png - last 6 years Bitcoin energy consumption from https://cbeci.org/, nearly exactly 2x growth per year - if this trend continues, in the next 6 years could grow from 1% to ~60% of world energy production. --Jarek Duda (talk) 03:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Other references to include concept of “dark forest”?

Geogene, good catch and thank you. The site of Tor.com is a promoter of the “Three Body Problem” series of sci fi books.

But I think the idea of “dark forest” is a substantial enough concept that we should include it, provided we can find other good references. I’m going to later dive in and take a look. If the topic interests you, please jump in also. And everyone else, feel free to help out and/or take the lead.

As always, many hands make light work. :-) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The Dark Forest Theory of the Universe: A terrifying answer to “where are all the aliens?”, Ella Alderson, Medium.com, March 24, 2019

In Liu Cixin’s novel The Dark Forest, he assumes that, if push comes to shove, a species will value its own survival over that of other species. And he assumes that a species which has become spacefaring has at least some amount of both alertness and aggressiveness.

And Cixin has this quote: “ The universe is a dark forest. Every civilization is an armed hunter stalking through the trees like a ghost, gently pushing aside branches that block the path and trying to tread without sound. Even breathing is done with care. The hunter has to be careful, because everywhere in the forest are stealthy hunters like him. . . “

What I like about this article is that it’s more about the Fermi paradox than it is about the novel, and I think this is what we want. I’d like to find at least one other source. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Especially since Medium is typically not a WP:RS. I agree this is very likely DUE (and a really cool concept I am also fascinated by, as an avid reader of the trilogy), but we need independent secondary RSes to show that it is. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Here are some more RSes: [7] [8] [9] [10] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Shibboleth, I’m not married to Medium or anything. I think it’s a solid article which explains the concept of “Dark Forest.” In the years to come, I think all of us will need to get more familiar with judging new media and separating the (generally) good stuff from the crap.

Maybe if we include new media, we should include at least two other sources? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't cite Medium. Schazjmd (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Schazjmd, personally I like the fact that Medium is a subscription site with a difference. But alright, for our purposes here, I don’t want this to become a big thing, so let’s not use it. After all, there are plenty of other good articles. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 05:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Good article, except that towards data science appears to be affiliated with Medium! Ouch. Well, I'll keep looking.

2. Aliens, The Fermi Paradox, And The Dark Forest Theory: A Game Theoretic View, towards data science, Shehab Yasser, Oct. 21, 2020.

Yasser states that civilizations expand, but resources are finite. (This assumption of expansion is behind much of the Fermi Paradox).

Yasser concludes that there is significantly more potential downside to contact and an attempt at friendship, than there is potential upside. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

It Is The Nature Of Intelligent Life To Destroy Others

I believe that this study could improve this section of this article.

Free but not peer reviewed version:

Peer Reviewed but paywalled version:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chantern15 (talk • contribs)

This source is not reliable, so no improvements to the article will be possible based on it, and the links to it (I see you've been posting this on other Talk pages) should be removed. Geogene (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

What would make this source reliable?Chantern15 (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

Getting it past a peer review board in a respectable journal would help, but since this is about ancient nuclear warfare on Mars, I think this discussion is unlikely to lead anywhere useful, which, again, is why I'm against it being allowed on article talk pages (this one or any others). Geogene (talk) 05:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

The AIAA is accredited by the ANSI as seen here:

Chantern15 (talk) 05:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

I would also like to add that this study shows up in the usra here:

which is overseen by 114 Universities as seen here: . Not to mention that the usra is affiliated with NASA and under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences. Not to mention that it was founded by James E. Webb.Chantern15 (talk) 05:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

Why don't you mention George Washington while you're at it? This was a conference talk. There was no peer review. It seems pretty obvious that that guy's opinions about the "Face on Mars" don't represent NASA, ANSI, James Webb, NAS, AIAA, or any university. And pointless discussions like this are a waste of volunteer effort that never lead to any improvement of articles, which is why you shouldn't be allowed to post this stuff. Geogene (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Why don't we all read his paper and debate it on its merits? I'm sure that if we prove or disprove his suppositions, it would only make Wikipedia more scientifically rigorous. My intention was not to bog you down in details, it was merely to show independent links that my sources are not meant to be unreliable, and that they come under the auspices of well-established and well-respected institutions.Chantern15 (talk) 06:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

Because this is not a forum for debate. Anyway, you aren't participating in good faith in this discussion, because you're still trying to claim that this conference talk was somehow endorsed by the AIAA and other institutions. Geogene (talk) 06:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

How would you like me to show good faith then? What can I do?Chantern15 (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

Stopping to insist on using a source that is clearly not good enough would be a first step. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

You got it! :DChantern15 (talk) 07:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

References

Nukes and viruses?

Can we find a reference saying advanced civilizations self destruct via technology such as nukes and engineered viruses? Charles Juvon (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

This is already mentioned in the article, under Fermi_paradox#It_is_the_nature_of_intelligent_life_to_destroy_itself. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Calculating God

• Calculating God – 2000 novel by Robert J. Sawyer by Robert J. Sawyer
• The Singularity Is Near – 2005 non-fiction book by Ray Kurzweil by Ray Kurzweil

I added these books to the "See also" section. thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:1370:810c:a73:f45e:8ddf:9555:8122 (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Now removed by another editor ("see also" doesn't need to be an extensive list of books), —PaleoNeonate – 00:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Opening section

I think the opening section could be improved by adding reasoning to the "And since many of the stars similar to the Sun are billions of years older, Earth should have already been visited by extraterrestrial civilizations, or at least their probes" section to say why exactly earth should have been visited by some form of life or technology instead of just that it could have been if the conditions were right. As it is now, this line is very presumptuous and needs facts.

2A02:C7F:9D5A:9D00:ADE4:62C4:D609:7CCD (talk) 12:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)connor

There is no paradox

As this article admits, "The most sensitive radio telescopes on Earth, as of 2019, would not be able to detect non-directional radio signals even at a fraction of a light-year away". Therefore, with today's technology, there is no paradox, and in 1950, the creators of this paradox did not bother to run the basic math on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Einslaten (talk • contribs) 13:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Already discussed in the article. See Fermi paradox#Discovery of extraterrestrial life is too difficult. VQuakr (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Should our intro have quicker description of Fermi Paradox?

On Nov. 7, 2021, someone added at the top of the article:

"WARNING: This article is about the Fermi Paradox but doesn't contain the actual paradox in words. Find a different article dude." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fermi_paradox&diff=prev&oldid=1053959583

This edit was properly reverted, because an editor shouldn't just throw criticism.

But he or she kind of has a point. Our article currently does not give a brief, clear, and succinct description of the paradox. And we probably should. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The lead is much better now, FriendlyRiverOtter, thanks for reworking it! Schazjmd (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Schazjmd, you’re very welcome! :-) And thank you for the nice compliment. And when you see our article has a pressing need, please, jump on in. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

When I think about it I always see it as a question of probability, space and time at the universe scale. For clarity I added a tentative summary of the last paragraph at its end in these terms, —PaleoNeonate – 22:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, thank you. Like you, I also think it’s important to include time scale. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Towards short section on "Dark Forest" hypothesis

I think it'd most helpful toward our readers' time for this topic to have its own smaller section. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Aha! That Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell video, which is inspired by an obscure novel called "The Dark Forest” (2008) by Liu Cixin, the second volume of the great trilogy “Remembrance of Earth’s Past”. There is a source site for the video, but this is very original research in my opinion, since it synthesize and make hypothesis on their own. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

And yes, this is very into fancruft and original research in my opinion, since a video and a novel is not going to establish enough notability. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@VQuakr and @FriendlyRiverOtter as courtesy ping. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Technology’s dark forest, TechCrunch, Jon Evans, Jan. 20, 2019.

“‘Dark forest theory’ holds that civilizations fear one another so much that they don’t dare to reveal themselves lest they immediately be considered a potential threat and destroyed.”

Wow. Maybe the best shorthand descriptions so far.

However, the rest of the article is I think what the author really wanted to talk about — which is that tech isn’t a dark forest where we should assume the worst motives on the part of tech companies, and stick with that assumption.

But maybe the fact that Dark Forest and Fermi is short and sweet at the beginning is a strength. In any case, this certainly appears to be an acceptable article. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 05:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

China's 'Dark Forest' Answer to 'Star Wars' Optimism, Discover magazine, Jeremy Hsu, Oct. 31, 2015.

" . . Except it’s actually much worse than the 'Hunger Games' scenario, because the chance of agreeing to become even temporary allies becomes very unlikely due to the communication and trust issues. And the possibility of technological leaps means a seemingly weak tribute with no weapons might suddenly evolve into a fully-armed tribute shooting at you with a bow and quiver full of arrows. . "

This article ends with a quote from a Liu Cixin postscript: " . . But for the universe outside the solar system, we should be ever vigilant, and be ready to attribute the worst of intentions to any Others that might exist in space. For a fragile civilization like ours, this is without a doubt the most responsible path."

With these two references, I think we're ready to include a short section. We can also include from elsewhere on Wiki that the full name of this trilogy is Remembrance of Earth's Past (although it's often more casually called The Three Body Problem after the first novel). FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fermi_paradox&diff=1061498953&oldid=1061196457

Although it seemed better flow to hold off on the extra information about the trilogy. It's readily available for people who are interested. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I oppose this as undue weight and fancruft. Geogene (talk) 07:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Um, no not remotely close to warranting a section. VQuakr (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Geogene, with respect, in one edit summary on our main page, you write "low notability/non-notable" and "coatracked" and "gratuitous." Wow. I admire strong feelings. That's part of it. But you still got to give measured argument. Or I guess not have to, but it's highly helpful. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

But I do have to give specific reasons for not supporting content. If I didn't provide them, it would fall under WP:IJUSTDON'TLIKEIT. It probably isn't surprising that I take a deletionist view on pop culture references in many subject areas of interest to fandom, this edit from a few days ago for example [11]. In my opinion, a little fancruft tends to become more, and my thought on seeing a popular YA novel that has nothing to do with aliens or space name dropped out of the blue like that was that it was escalating really quickly this time. Geogene (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm in favor of more sections, and keeping each one short and sweet, as if our readers who are busy executives who can easily decide for themselves what they want to read more of. And once you think about it, a bartender can be just as busy as an executive and just as smart. Meaning, we should endeavor to present well-written, succinct information to readers from all walks of life.

I used to shy away from analogies.

And I assume that when you say a popular YA novel that has nothing to do with aliens, you're talking about the writer including The Hunger Games. Yes, I suppose I could have rewritten it in dry, abstract fashion. But his quote is so much quicker to read, as well as being closer to the source. I myself have never either read these books nor seen the movies, and yet I quickly realized he was talking about a one-against-all situation. And I assume our fellow readers can as well. And this quote is at the heart of his argument of why it's difficult to form even temporary alliances.

I'm in favor of having a short pop culture section.

But with the Dark Forest Hypothesis, we seem to have a ton of writers discussing it within the context of the Fermi Paradox. It's almost a question of how to manage too much information. And many of these are the kind of solid, secondary sources which we want most of all. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The parent article, Search for extraterrestrial intelligence, doesn't have a pop culture section. We certainly don't need one here. VQuakr (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

VQuakr, if I say I think the Dark Forest hypothesis is a good, succinct concept, backed up by seemingly enough references linking it to the Fermi Paradox, I would like to hear what measured arguments you give in return. After all, I might be mistaken. I'd like to know. And please, out of respect to me, don't make major changes to Talk page sections unless you've been a big participant. The first section ended up being mainly about whether Medium.com is a good enough source (it isn't). And the second section was two references which do discuss Dark Forest overwhelmingly in context of the Fermi Paradox (although first reference only briefly at the beginning, which might actually be a strength), and not the novel's plot, characters, etc. And all of SETI is a field in which some ideas emphatically do come from science fiction. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Your proposal to elevate this particular novel above every other pop culture item mentioned in the article is simply not going to happen. It's such an obvious non-starter that I can't tell if you're being silly, or simply are in need of a reality check. It isn't a distinct idea from the general "communication is dangerous" explanation. No, I don't accept your offer to be arbiter of who is recognized as a "big participant" in discussions. VQuakr (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not me who's proposing to elevate this particular novel. It's a number of writers who are discussing the Dark Forest Hypothesis squarely within the context of the Fermi Paradox. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

No, the idea of creating a separate section is editorial. Our hands are not tied by some unnamed policy as you seem to imply. Your proposed edit also rapidly digressed away from the subject of this article to the Hunger Games and the author's musings. VQuakr (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

An obvious hypothesis not included

Humans can already design, if not execute, invisibility materials. The technology is scientifically plausible. We manipulate light waves in lasers, mirrors, in fiber optics, etc. An ET visitor would presumably be capable of being invisible, or makes its probes that way. After all, given the difficulty of interstellar transit, mechanical probes should be favored. But a first step would be to properly camouflage them. Indeed, detection might only be possible for organisms with sufficiently advanced technology to use it themselves.

It is sometimes assumed that more advanced civilizations inevitably dominate less advanced ones, where the term "advanced" means technology, particularly techologies used to oppress. But an ET visitor will be extraordinarily vulnerable to any other planets long-evolved life forms, particularly parasitic ones like viruses. That's a good reason to use probes, but carefully. A good way to annhilate life on planets would be to send probes that bore some of the ET world's parasites. Invisibility is only part of the story, what's also needed is a kind of protection that prevents any interaction that carries particles.

With a high demand for complete separation, including sensory, ET probes will not be detected even if they are here. Their purpose would presumably be to communicate back, but through means that are not detected by beings who use broadband signals. It could be possible to distribute signals in background electromagnetic noise. So the Fermi paradox may be about us, not them. When Fermi said "where is everybody," the question can be read 2 ways. Either why are others scarce, or, as a child might say who is unable to find anyone in hide and seek, why are others not easier to see. The answer to that should be obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.117.214 (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Isn't this and arguments like this already covered in the Willingness to communicate and Alien life is already here unacknowledged sections? Rdelfin (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Dark Forest (2)

I've deleted this [12], which may be controversial because some of it is fairly longstanding content. And I know that the Remembrance of Earth's Past trilogy has a lot of fans; the internet loves it. And we've debated similar content a few times before. But:

• The sourcing for it (Discover Magazine, Tech Crunch) is minimally RS one of the sources is RS, but I argue it's low quality. These are not the best sources for writing science content.
• It isn't clear how the "Dark Forest hypothesis", as the article called it, is significantly different from ideas from Brin's 1982 paper in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society
• The text, as it was written, still comes across to me as being vaguely promotional.
• Here are the results from using "Dark Forest hypothesis" as a search term in Google Scholar. At the time I'm writing this, it generates only one hit [13]. "Dark Forest theory" isn't much better [14].

Again, I know that we've already debated this once or twice before, and have no doubt that it will be re-added sometime in the next six months, because that's the nature of pop culture content in this article. Geogene (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree it's a controversial deletion. This is barely science content anyway (Fermi hypothesis is now largely the stuff of pop science anyway). So I would disagree. It also is an expansion of Brin's hypothesis in literary form, and multiple sources mention it, so it's clearly DUE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe that it's a good practice to intentionally lower the standards based on an editor's personal opinion that the field is "barely science". Additionally there are points I set out above that weren't addressed. I'm also striking through what I said earlier about WP:TECHCRUNCH being minimally reliable based on its Perennial Sources entry; there's no consensus on its reliability and a particular concern about it being used for Notability (and by extension, DUE). Geogene (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, not my opinion. It's based on the sources you yourself have referenced. The majority of recent sources are more pop sci sources. The more legitimate papers are from many years ago. Ergo, this has entered the realm of pop sci. Besides, it's not a very testable hypothesis [15] [16] [17] , and therefore, many would say, not strictly "science." (BTW, I think those are pretty good pop sci sources I just linked). — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

As to your other points, my overall suggestion is "be the change you wish to see". If you think it's overly promotional, that isn't a reason to delete it. It's a reason to make it less promotional. I'm happy to help. It definitely needs cleanup, I'll agree there. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I've removed your "Unreliable" tag for techcrunch, because, as you say, we have no consensus on this. We could put a "questionable" tag on that if you like. Or just remove it and leave the sources that are already there. I think the sources are quite good for the content in question, and more importantly, the facts are not under dispute here. The question is more, "are these the best quality sources available for this content?" to which I think the answer is also yes. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)