[ExI] Discussion of whether the Fermi Paradox is a fallacy

[John Clark]

On Mon, Apr 6, 2026 at 1:24 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

*> I can summarize the issue as follows:*
> *Either (A) We are alone (there are no other intelligent civilizations), *
> *or (B) We are not alone (there are other intelligent civilizations).*
> *John reasons: if (B) and (C) intelligent life would spread rapidly across
> the cosmos and (D) it would be obvious to us if intelligent life spread as
> their megastructures would be clearly visible to us then we can conclude
> not (B) since we do not see obvious megastructures everywhere, thus (A).*
> *The reasoning is sound, but John treats (C) and (D) are necessarily true,
> rather than assumptions that need to be justified.*
> *For what it's worth, I think (C) is likely true (but not necessarily
> true,*
>

*It's necessarily true that there's never going to be universal agreement
on whether it's a good idea to build a Von Neumann Probe or not, but it's
also true that it doesn't change the end result because it would only take
one.  *


> *> but I have significant doubt about whether (D) is true.*
>

*The one thing I am most certain of is that the Second Law of
Thermodynamics is true, so regardless of how energy is made if it is used
to produce work then waste heat (that is to say energy that has a lot more
entropy than the original starlight) is going to be produced, and that heat
in the form of infrared radiation would be easily detectable. But we see
nothing. And that fact is telling us something profound about the extent of
intelligence in the cosmos.    *

*> As I see it, option (D) is like opting to burn whale oil that harms
> life, when more productive and less ecologically disastrous energy sources
> exist. Consider: nuclear fusion liberates only 0.7% of the energy contained
> in a star's mass, and it necessitates operating at high temperatures where
> computation is inefficient.*
>

*Obviously nobody is suggesting that computations are going to be made at
the center of stars, there are much better ways to get at that energy,
that's the entire point of Dyson Spheres/swarms.*

*> So if optimizing the total number of computations to be performed before
> the end of the universe is the goal, then I doubt Dyson swarms will be high
> on any intelligent civilization's list.*
>

*I don't see why it wouldn't be at the top of almost every ET's list, but
as I've mentioned before there will always be dissenters. *

* > Maximizing useful computations is the ultimate instrumental goal
> because it is the source of the only thing with intrinsic value: states of
> consciousness.*
>

*I agree, and I don't think we are unusual in that regard, I think there
will be *almost* universal agreement about that. And it's a fact that
consciousness requires computation and energy is required to make a
computation. *

* > And it doesn't matter if it takes hundreds of trillions of years to do
> it. 99.3% of energy will be trapped in stellar remnants for conversion via
> black hole engines to drive the hole computers, at times when the universe
> is much colder,*
>

*In space it's easy to cool down things to just 3 or 4 degrees
above absolute zero, all you need is a sunshield. Just look at the James
Webb telescope.   *


> *>and there is no danger of dooming other life to selfishly snipe that
> 0.7% for yourself at a time when it's so critical to self-originating life.*
>

*So you believe there will be universal agreement without one single
dissenter that the energy from 400 billion stars is unsatisfactory because
99.3% of the energy will still be stuck inside matter, so we should let all
those juicy low entropy photons radiate uselessly into infinite space and
wait for 10^100 years until the largest supermassive Black Hole in the
universe evaporates through Hawking radiation. **I disagree, I tend to
think there will be at least one ET who disagrees with that line of thought
and believes that waiting around for simple chemicals to turn into
intelligent life through random mutation and natural selection is not the
most efficient way to produce consciousness. And there are those, myself
included, who believe that there is nothing as cruel as Darwinian
Evolution.  *

*By the way, the construction of Dyson Spheres in no way changes the
evolution of stars into Black Holes or Black Holes into very low energy
high entropy photons that would be extremely difficult to turn into useful
work. *

*  John K Clark*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260407/eda45962/attachment.htm>