N = R* × fp × ne × fl × fi × fc × L

where:

N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;

and

R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fl = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space

One easy way to deal with the Fermi Paradox is to plug in low numbers for fl, fi, fc and L. It’s pretty easy for me to see how it could be rare for life to arise, but I find it quite implausible that there are very many living planets out there that won’t at some point create intelligences capable of making radios. Most of this is moot, however, because the Drake equation deals only with present civilizations, not past ones. It’s my understanding that any civilization with a level of technological power greater than or equal to where we’ll be in a century or so would be able to easily make Von Neumann probes.

A Von Neumann probe is essentially a self-replicating spaceship capable of autonomously exploring the galaxy. On each probe is a beacon that broadcasts its findings as it explores and when it finds a new system it establishes a factory that makes more probes. Each factory also has a beacon, so the probes know to avoid previously-explored systems. Because of the self-replication factor a single Von Neumann probe would likely be able to blanket the entire galaxy with beacons in less than ten million years. Initially this seems like a long time, but considering the galaxy has been around for over 12 billion years it’s a curiosity to me that SETI has been operating for so long without any trace.

So how do I resolve the Fermi Paradox, especially considering self-replicating artifacts? Just recently I found a hypothesis which seems reasonable, and I’ll lay it out in the form of axioms and conclusions. When I talk about “power” below I mean ability to reach assorted goals. Intelligence, resources, and knowledge are all forms of power. When I talk about “the singularity” I mean an intelligence explosion that leads to a civilization being controlled by artificial intelligence (which may or may not be acting in accordance with the desires of its makers.)

Axiom: Contact with a less intelligent alien has no significant power benifit post-singularity.

Axiom: Contact with a more intelligent alien has a mild power benefit if they are benevolent.

Axiom: Contact with a more intelligent alien is incredibly dangerous if they are hostile.

Axiom: A society capable of inter-stellar spaceflight is almost certainly going to be post-singularity.

Axiom: A constructed intelligence will always destroy an alien that might possibly interfere with its goals if said alien is not an asset and protection or existence of said agent is not explicitly a goal.

Axiom: Evolved intelligences will typically not state explicit preservation goals for aliens when building their superintelligence. (Many will likely not even code in preservation goals for their own species.)

Therefore: Alien civilizations will either be major existential threats or of no real value.

Therefore: A rational intelligence will avoid attracting attention from aliens if not actively hiding from them.

Therefore: A civilization will have only a tiny window between when they develop radios and when they are either wiped out or hidden away by advanced AI.

Therefore: There may be plenty of intelligent life out there, but it’s likely hanging around star systems hidden by Dyson spheres.

Okay, so it’s not quite predicate calculus but it was the easiest way for me to organize my thoughts. If you find errors with my logic or disagree with an axiom please leave a comment. ^_^

Robotics confronts me continuously online, to the point where I cease to keep track. In terms of military equipment there is Ember, TROPHY, and the old news predator UAV, which I was unhappy to learn now advertises on Hulu (unable to find link, sorry).

More links abound. Seriously. I could do this all day.

Oh, and speaking of Hulu, there was an interview on the Colbert Report (last section) just the other day with Seth Shostak. At the very end of the interview (roughly 20:45), Dr. Shostak points out that the alien life that we make first contact with is likely to be “beyond-biology.” That is, that they’re likely to be AI.

I applaud the out of the box thinking on this one. Most sci-fi would have us in fist-fights with bipedal cat-people, and I think aliens have gotten a bit of a bad rep for it. (Apologies for picking on sci-fi, though. I do so love it.) But I really think that Shostak is wrong here. The biological systems that have evolved over the last three billion years are incredibly more complex and efficient than anything artificial, and I would even state that it is more efficient than anything we’re likely to develop in the next century.

Just for a second, imagine a nano-machine that communicated with other bots with a swarm network to create macroscopic effects, re-arrange in the swarm or repair itself. Now imagine that this machine not only could self-replicate, but could do so in a sustainable fashion with very little waste and even make small improvements upon itself. I just roughly described a biological cell.

Now, let me be very clear, computers and machinery are VERY useful, and capable of doing many things that organisms cannot. My point is simply that there are many things that both approaches cannot accomplish easily, and that the path of least resistance is in combining artifice with the vast amount of powerful organic machinery all around us. We already do this to an extent, where the newest microprocessors are created by applying the human brain in conjunction with present day computers, and where the newest human brains grow in an environment that is connected by technology. We cure disease and disability so that we can live happier lives, but as we do so we cease to exist as a purely biological species. And in that same way, I cannot believe that the machines of the future could not be at least partially organic.