Science fiction writers depict most extraterrestrial civilizations as anthropomorphic to the point of being completely indistinguishable from humans. There are works with non-humanoid characters, but these characters differ from humans most often in form rather than in content (Hall Clement, Vernor Vinge, Orson Scott Card, etc.). Very rare are works where another mind is incomprehensible and contact is impossible (“Black Cloud” by Fred Hoyle, “Solaris”, “Eden”, “Invincible”, “Fiasco” by Stanislaw Lem, “False Blindness” by Peter Watts). The last type of mind seemed the most likely in reality, but, with rare exceptions, far from literature.

Space is a different habitat, a different evolution, a different attitude to reality. Everything is different!

The second circumstance that made us mistrust the descriptions of contacts: the speed of light, which limits the possibilities of interstellar travel. Science fiction writers came up with spaceships flying through zero-, above-, under-, super-hyper- and other spaces, which later received scientific justification in the form of “wormholes”. However, to create an artificial “wormhole” you need so much energy that humanity does not have and will not have for a very long time (perhaps never). And natural wormholes, if they exist at all, are unlikely to be located near the solar system, so they cannot solve the problem of interstellar flights.

Contact fiction developed along the lines of optimism. Space science fiction paradigm: there are a lot of extraterrestrial intelligences. Space science, on the one hand, confirmed the hopes of science fiction writers, on the other, it certainly rejected them.

Frank Donald Drake, a professor of astronomy and astrophysics at the University of California, Santa Cruz, developed a formula in 1960 to estimate the number of advanced civilizations. In optimistic scenarios, it turned out that only in our Galaxy there could exist millions of civilizations more or less similar to ours.

However, over time, pessimistic assessments of the probability of the origin of life arose, leaving practically no chance for a future meeting of brothers in mind. The probability of the random emergence of a living molecule from nonliving matter is so small that such a process requires a period many orders of magnitude longer than the lifetime of the Universe. In addition to this unlikely chance, dozens of others are needed, reducing the insignificant probability of intelligent life appearing on Earth to almost zero. From article to article, the idea wanders that without the Earth having a massive satellite (the Moon), which stabilizes the tilt of the axis of rotation, life would sooner or later die. And if there were no giant planets in the outer orbits of the solar system, the bombardment of the Earth by comets and asteroids could destroy all life in the first billion years of its existence (there are, however, works in which intense asteroid bombardment is declared to be a consequence of the restructuring of the orbits of gas giants that caused disturbances in the asteroid belt, but it was the bombings that could have contributed to the emergence of life, so everything here is rather vague. — Prim. edit. ). Similar bombings (albeit weaker ones) repeatedly led to the extinction of many species of living organisms. Incredible luck that Homo sapiens survived, although his chances were extremely low.

The emergence of a universe suitable for life is also extremely unlikely. If the value of Planck's constant differed from the current one by a few percent, atoms could not form, there would be no stars and planets. If the cosmological constant (now called dark energy) were slightly different, the Universe would either expand instantly or collapse very quickly. In both cases, life would not have had time to arise. And so on.

Pessimists are sure: for the origin and subsequent development of life on Earth, the coincidence of such a large number of different conditions is necessary that the probability of a repetition of a similar process anywhere in the Universe is practically zero. Cosmologists call this “fine-tuning” and formulate the “strong anthropic principle,” which states that “the Universe is the way it is because we exist in it.”

There are two alternative consequences of the strong anthropic principle.

First: God exists, and his will created the Universe as we observe it. Probability theory has nothing to do with it.

Modern science offers another alternative: our Universe is not the only one. There are many universes with different laws of nature, world constants and initial conditions. No matter how small the probability of the emergence of our Universe, such a Universe certainly present in an infinitely diverse set of worlds.

Modern physics comes to a similar conclusion based on various ideas and theories. The Big Bang inflation model assumes the continuous creation of many universes (chaotic inflation). String theory allows for the existence of an infinite number of worlds, each of which is no less real than the others. The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics assumes the existence of a huge (possibly also infinite) number of worlds - as many as the number of solutions to the Schrödinger equations.

The theory allows for the existence of “parallel” worlds, but no one will ever be able to observe them.

In recent years, this concept also seems to be beginning to undergo changes. Physical experiments have been carried out that border on science fiction (the Dutch group of Paul Kvyat, the Japanese physicists Tsegaue and Namekata, the Brazilian physicists Adonai and Ottavio), the results of which, in principle, can be interpreted as the interaction of different physical realities.

It's time to propose an idea that is equally crazy for science and fiction. The idea of ​​interworld cosmonautics, which will not require starships and sub-light speeds. Perhaps further research will show that this idea is incorrect, but it has qualities that have always attracted science fiction writers and now scientists. Such ideas, which seem crazy at first, sometimes win and become everyday practice. At one time, the ideas of the constancy of the speed of light and the quantization of electron orbits in the atom looked crazy. The idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun was at one time not only crazy, but also seditious.

Almost all descriptions of contacts with extraterrestrial intelligence are guilty of anthropomorphism and extensiveness. The “power” of the mind is determined by its energetic capabilities. In 1964, Soviet astrophysicist Nikolai Semyonovich Kardashev proposed such a classification of intelligent civilizations.

Type I civilization uses energy comparable to that of its planet.

More developed Type II civilization capable of utilizing the energy of a star.

Type III civilization utilizes the energy of the galaxy.

According to this logic, there may be Type IV civilization, capable of using the energy of clusters and superclusters of galaxies, and Type V civilization, utilizing the energy of the universe.

With this approach, expansionist needs grow to the size of galaxies, and the inherent human need to colonize new “lands,” including through military intervention, extends to all extraterrestrial civilizations.

In my opinion, it is more correct to classify civilizations not according to extensive (energy), but according to intensive (new knowledge) criteria. Reason is the ability to explain the world around us and the ability to create new knowledge about the universe. And only then - attempts to use this knowledge for practical applications.

Type I civilizations They consider their planet to be the center of the world.

Type II Civilizations They consider their star to be the center of the world.

Type III civilizations They are sure that they live in a unique Universe.

Type IV civilizations They know about many worlds, but have not yet learned to move from one world to another.

Type V civilizations can make contacts with worlds where the laws of physics are the same.

Type VI civilizations make contacts with worlds where the laws of nature are different.

Type VII civilizations capable of changing the laws of physics and creating worlds according to the changed laws.

Possible civilizations VIII, IX and more “advanced” types, about which we currently have no idea.

Once upon a time, people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and was created by God (gods) specifically so that humanity could live on it. Then they realized that the Earth is not the center, and they placed the Sun in the center. Then the understanding came that the Sun is not the center of the universe, but just an ordinary star. The natural thought arose that many intelligent races could exist on many planets around many other stars. Having moved to the next stage of development (type III civilization), people realized that the Galaxy is not the center of the universe; there are billions of galaxies in the expanding Universe. And modern ideas about physical multi-worldliness transfer the Universe into the category of one of an infinite number of diverse universes.

Humanity moves even further away from the non-existent center of the universe, but returns (at a new turn of the spiral) to the understanding that there are an infinite number of intelligent races. The problem, however, is that each civilization is in its own universe.

The existence of life and intelligence is not possible in every universe. An infinitely large number of universes are unsuitable for the development of any kind of life, and only an extremely small fraction of them support the conditions for the emergence of intelligence. But since there are infinitely many worlds, even a very small part of them is enough for there to be an infinite number of universes where not only life is possible, but also intelligence.

Humanity belongs to a type transitional from the third to the fourth.

In just five centuries, humanity has gone through the development path from civilization type I to type III. It is a type III civilization that generates assumptions about many minds in a single Universe, searches for them, does not find them, and begins to think about how unlikely the emergence of mind is. When a civilization moves to type IV (we are already close to this), the vector of scientific research shifts, the main paradigm changes. The mind has already explained why it is alone in this Universe, and understood that communication with other branches of the multiworld is not only possible, but also inevitable. It is then that the long-awaited meeting with another mind will take place, which, most likely, is also unique in its universe.

A natural question arises: if we are the only ones in our Universe and we are practically impossible to detect among a huge number of star systems in a huge number of galaxies, then how will we, even if we manage to make the transition to another universe, discover “brothers in mind” in its depths?

I don't have a scientific answer to this question. A discovery has not yet been made that will allow our civilization to move to the next, fifth type. But I am confident that such a discovery will be made, just as the discoveries were made thanks to which humanity evolved from the first type to the third.

Let us assume that the classification is correct, the reasoning is correct, and there are no other civilizations in the Universe other than ours. To establish contact with other civilizations, you must first understand, then explain, and then learn how to communicate between different worlds in a multi-world. Is it therefore necessary to abandon attempts to reach distant planets and stars using existing technology?

Of course not. It is impossible to approach a new qualitative leap without going through all the previous stages of development. The faster humanity goes through all the current stages of research and technical development, the faster it will reach a discovery that will change the fate of our civilization.

Therefore, we need to fly, explore space, build colonies on Mars, scientific stations in the orbit of Saturn, send expeditions to Pluto and the Kuiper belt. We need to search for extraterrestrial civilizations in all conceivable ranges of the electromagnetic spectrum. We need to search for Earth-like planets located in the “belts of life” in distant star systems. The more powerful the offensive, the faster humanity will pass this necessary stage and rise to the fourth level of development.

Only when a type IV civilization makes the next Copernican revolution and an infinite number of universes open up for study, will we be able to choose for research worlds that arose “in our image and likeness”, contacts with other civilizations will become possible, probable and certain.

Every person has at least once felt the nagging feeling of loneliness, when there are a lot of people around you and no one to talk to. They won't understand. At least that's what you thought, especially as a teenager. Therefore, instead of solving the problems of loneliness by communicating with friends or making new acquaintances, you closed yourself off even more and enthusiastically began to feel sorry for yourself.

Is this a familiar picture? Moreover, it is believed that in most cases women at any age suffer from loneliness. And all because they are more impressionable, and the psychology of loneliness is close to their spirit. But it is impossible to say that such a feeling is alien to men. Many psychologists are sure that they simply suffer in silence, considering their feelings an unacceptable weakness. What can I say! They are not even ready to admit to themselves that they are lonely, much less to a specialist at the reception.

If we talk about territorial divisions, then in megacities the problem of loneliness is felt more strongly. Long distances do not allow people to meet as often as we would like. And a huge crowd of people is not conducive to emotional communication. Everyone is running somewhere, in a hurry, jostling with elbows in the crowd and not even looking back to apologize. A huge faceless mechanism absorbs people. And the person himself does not notice how he stops communicating with his family (no time), coming to family holidays (far away), preparing home-cooked food (why, if the restaurant tastes better). Men and women live as if by inertia. And one fine moment they look around, and there is no one nearby. This is loneliness. The numerous colleagues with whom you spent most of your time move on with their own lives. Your family has become unaccustomed to you, and you simply have nothing to talk about. Empty words about the weather and politics can kill time, but not loneliness.

In small towns the situation is better. But this also has its problems. For example, a person who suffers from loneliness may not seek professional help to overcome it. We are not talking about dating services, but about psychologists. After all, in order to get rid of a problem, it is necessary to determine the cause of its occurrence. How, tell me, can a man complain that his wife doesn’t understand or hear him when the psychologist is his wife’s friend? Or a guy who is in his teens cannot go to a psychologist? In a small town, everyone knows each other, so there is no opportunity to meet someone new. How can you still get rid of the feeling of loneliness? Let's figure it out.

Loneliness and human uniqueness

Oddly enough, loneliness is our whole life. Man came into this world alone. He will leave him alone. But it is very difficult for people to realize this fact. They created the institution of marriage, a social society, and built multi-story buildings where it is impossible to hide from each other. And all in order to be close to someone. If primitive people gathered in communities in order to make it easier to hunt, then a modern woman costs nothing to carry a carton of milk from the supermarket. But at the same time, she so wants to have a family, friends, acquaintances, to feel loved and needed. And a freshly killed mammoth on the threshold of a cave has nothing to do with it.

In order to understand what the essence of the feeling of loneliness lies, you need to trace the entire path of development of this psychological phenomenon. Let's go back to cave times. At first, primitive people did not feel lonely. They went hunting, burned fires and were happy with life. And this continued until one of them realized that man is very different from inanimate nature. That human skin is not at all the same as, for example, the surface of a stone. The primitive thinker was shocked. The only solution that came to his mind was to elevate a body unlike him to the rank of a deity. We should not blame our ancestors for stupidity and cowardice. They acted very carefully - they tried to make friends with what was unfamiliar to them. But the key concept here is not fear or cunning, but awareness of one’s own uniqueness.

Loneliness in childhood

As soon as a person began to understand that he was not like the same mammoths, the first feelings of loneliness began to arise in him. And out of habit, he elevated organisms unlike himself to the rank of deity. Here it is - one of the main mistakes of humanity and the main problem of loneliness. We like to put everyone before ourselves. Nature is like that. If our ancestors sinned with this, then what can we say about us?

Tell me, who do people pray to today? To Jesus. To a person. Let us consider that we have reached the boundaries of awareness of our uniqueness. First there was inanimate nature, then animals, and then man. People realized that they were different from others and... started to feel lonely. Because if he is different, not like everyone else, then no one will be able to understand him. Moreover, you should not think that loneliness is an innate quality.

When a person is born, he does not realize that he is alone. The baby is quite happy (with proper care). His parents adore him, his grandmothers idolize him. As soon as you cry, you are wearing a clean diaper, and your mother is carefully giving you milk. What kind of loneliness can we talk about? But the point is not in excessive care for the child, but in the fact that he does not yet feel like a person. When a baby learns to speak, he calls himself “we” and speaks about himself exclusively in the third person. He's in society. And as soon as the pronoun “I” slips into the conversation, you can be sure that the first brick to the feeling of loneliness has been laid.

This quality will worsen in those children whose parents decided to realize all their dreams and aspirations in their own child. Mom didn't become a ballerina? The daughter is dragged to dance lessons every day, despite the active protests of the child himself. Did your dad want to become a surgeon? Since childhood, a profession he doesn’t like is forced on his son. And if the child begins to resist, moral blackmail is used. Parents begin to remind the child of all the benefits that they gave him. Don't you want to go to the dance? Bad girl. I'll take your new bike and give it to the neighbor girl. She's obedient.

The peak of such blackmail is the statement that the intractable child will be exchanged for another, good one. Tell me, will such a baby feel lonely? Of course it will. He sees that his parents do not understand his desires and aspirations. And most importantly, they do not realize its uniqueness. The worst thing is that childhood problems are laid deep in the subconscious and shape future character. The girl, who never became a ballerina in her teens, becomes withdrawn. She rightly believes that if her own mother did not understand her, then what to say about strangers. No, the girl does not completely interrupt communication with the world. She communicates, makes friends with her peers, but does not reveal her soul to anyone. And she feels immensely lonely.

By the way, in adolescence the problem of loneliness is especially acute. Absolutely no one understands you: not your parents, not your friends, and especially not your teachers. Added to this are distorted impressions about your appearance - and that’s it! You're a loser with absolutely no one to talk to. And even after overcoming this difficult period, there will be scars on the soul that will always remind you of adolescence.

Women's loneliness

In addition, the psychology of a woman’s loneliness is very often associated with the absence of a man. Have you noticed that a divorced girl very often calls herself lonely even though her child is sleeping in a stroller next to her? And when they start telling her that she is not alone, the woman begins to project her loneliness onto the baby: “Nobody needs us.” The girl means that her ex-husband does not need her and the child, but the projection turns out to be so broad that it covers all of humanity.

What is the problem with such a painful female desire to have a family? No, this is not a far-fetched need, as men like to talk about it. This behavior is inherent in nature. Look at the kids in kindergarten. While the boys are running around the playroom with slot machines, the girls are playing daughter-mother. They cook soup in a plastic saucepan, swaddle dolls, and put tiny clothes in lockers. They already dream of a white veil and a handsome husband. So what can we say about grown-up girls?

Let's say that we managed to put on the wedding dress. And the wedding ring on your hand says that life was not lived in vain. But where does this oppressive feeling of loneliness come from? It seems that my husband is nearby, and my children are growing up. Such is female psychology - loneliness often arises in people surrounded by family and friends. And quite justifiably. Very often, families live as if by inertia, not interested in the mood, thoughts and actions of those who are under the same roof with them. A woman lovingly prepares dinner, choosing the best dishes from a cookbook, and in response she hears the usual “thank you.” There is an instructive joke on this topic: the mother of the family put an armful of hay on the table in front of her husband and sons, and when the men began to be indignant, the nurse said: “How else could I know that you see what you eat?” Did this woman feel lonely? Without a doubt.

By the way, very often a woman dooms herself to forced loneliness. This usually happens after an unsuccessful romance, when the relationship ended very painfully for the girl. She was abandoned, humiliated, she was hurt. Instead of adequately overcoming these difficulties, a defense mechanism is activated, which finds the cause and, generalizing, says that men are evil. And the woman no longer tries to build her personal life, believing that everything will end the same as last time.

As a result, she becomes even more unhappy than before. Since fear prevents her from creating relationships, and her entire subconscious yearns to love and be loved, the woman lives contrary to her desires. And, in the end, she has to restore not only her ability to trust men, but also to recover from loneliness. But if the reason is not in the other half of the person? What if someone is clearly lacking communication? Let's look at the problems of social loneliness.

From loneliness to self-improvement

Ask yourself a question: why do people around you not want to communicate with you? Maybe they are not interested in you? Or are you fixated on one topic that people get tired of talking about for the hundredth time? This sometimes happens to young mothers who are ready to discuss their newborn baby all day long. How he eats, how he sleeps, how he holds his head. And if for the first time your unmarried friends willingly listen to your enthusiastic speeches about your child’s achievements, then after a week they begin to withdraw from communication, citing some problems. Don’t think that these same problems don’t exist, and that your friend came up with them in order to get rid of you. They are. And not at all from your interlocutor, but from you. You are no longer interesting to people. Stopped developing. And this is where the problem of your loneliness lies.

What to do? Many young mothers will now begin to talk about the fact that they have a catastrophic lack of time to study, otherwise they would be happy to learn something new and interesting. But is this true? What’s stopping you from taking your baby for a walk with a new book? While the child sleeps in the stroller in the air, you are improving. And this can be not only a romance novel, but also a psychology textbook or an English language tutorial. You must do everything possible to become a useful and interesting conversationalist.

The psychology of loneliness is very multifaceted and combines a number of diverse human problems. That is, loneliness can be experienced by a young mother, the director of a large enterprise, an old pensioner, and even a minor student. The reasons are different for everyone. The consequence is one. And in order to get rid of loneliness, you need to determine what type of psychological problem has overtaken you.

Types of Loneliness

1. Cosmic loneliness

   It can be encountered at any age. Here a person feels a break in connections with nature and space. But these are just his feelings. In fact, he is losing touch with himself, and this is a much more complex problem than the absence of an interlocutor. Cosmic loneliness is observed in those people who do not live their lives, sacrifice themselves for the sake of others, whose talent does not develop.

   This can be either an obedient child who fulfills the will of his parents despite his own needs, or a housewife who dreamed of becoming a leading economist, but in the end devoted herself to her family. To overcome such a problem, self-realization and defending your own point of view are necessary.

2. Cultural loneliness

   This feeling arises if a person’s personal values ​​do not fully correspond to the values ​​of society. A similar problem is faced by dissidents, emigrants, and people who have experienced profound social changes. Cultural loneliness was very common among older people during the collapse of the Soviet Union. The country began to live in a new way, but part of society did not want to accept these changes. This type of loneliness is especially acute for people in adulthood and old age.

3. Social loneliness

   When a person is forced to break off contact with a certain group that he would like to join. This could be work (a woman was sent on a well-deserved rest) or college (a student was expelled for unsatisfactory behavior). In this case, a person feels not only lonely, but also exiled and unworthy. He withdraws into himself for a long time, over and over again experiencing his collapse in his soul, mentally replaying the situation, going through options that, in his opinion, could save the situation.

   Often the feeling of social loneliness is exacerbated by those who are close to the collapsed person. Colleagues continue to call and cheerfully tell us that the company is thriving. Students invite an expelled friend to a party, where they actively discuss the past session. Solution: Did you get fired? Are you suffering? Then sever all ties with your previous place of work so that nothing reminds you of the fiasco. You can even change your route so you don't have to drive past your old job every day.

4. Interpersonal loneliness

   Here the reason is a break in connections with other people. For example, a person has no friends. Or there are people near him whom he cannot trust. In this case, many people turn to a dating service or start communicating with strangers on the street. However, if you do not determine the true cause of interpersonal loneliness, you will not be able to build new relationships. To overcome it, seek help from a psychologist and delve into your memory. Most likely, you are hindered by an old inferiority complex. Get rid of him, and new friends will appear on their own.

When is loneliness good?

Are there people who consciously accept loneliness as a behavior pattern? Of course yes. These are introverts. Inward-looking people who do not need communication to feel happy and self-sufficient. Naturally, introverts do not adhere to complete solitude. They have family and friends. But in general they lead a rather secluded lifestyle. Moreover, they can only recover one on one with themselves.

When does loneliness become destructive for them? When the connection with a loved one breaks, and at any age. For example, a woman had a fight with her best friend. Or the husband filed for divorce. Suffering is intensified due to the fact that introverts are very reluctant to let strangers into their lives, and they value those whom they consider close to very highly. This makes the losses more significant than for a sociable extrovert. To overcome the resulting stress, an introvert needs time and, of course, healthy solitude.

Changing our attitude towards loneliness

No matter how strange it may sound, psychologists do not consider loneliness as the main problem - the essence lies in people’s attitude towards this feeling. Example: a woman raised her children, married them off and now feels uncomfortable in an empty apartment. She misses communication and children's voices. She's lonely. To smooth out the feeling that has arisen, the woman begins to often visit the children’s new families and call them in the evenings. Naturally, young people may not like such close attention. A conflict arises.

And what, according to psychologists, should a woman do to overcome her loneliness? Find yourself a new hobby. Join a club of similar interests and make friends with people like her. Look at how older people behave in the West. They communicate a lot, travel, throw parties where there is no place for loud music and strong alcoholic drinks. Guests listen to old records and talk about knitting or fishing. They are happy and do not burden their children with their problems. Therefore, try to love your loneliness, find the positive aspects of the fact that you are alone at the moment, and life will improve.

Discussion 2

Pavel Amnuel Science fiction depicts most extraterrestrial civilizations as anthropomorphic to the point of being completely indistinguishable from humans. There are works with non-humanoid characters, but these characters differ from humans most often in form rather than in content (Hall Clement, Vernor Vinge, Orson Scott Card, etc.). Very rare are works where another mind is incomprehensible and contact is impossible (“Black Cloud” by Fred Hoyle, “Solaris”, “Eden”, “Invincible”, “Fiasco” by Stanislaw Lem, “False Blindness” by Peter Watts). The last type of mind seemed the most likely in reality, but, with rare exceptions, far from literature.

Space is a different habitat, a different evolution, a different attitude to reality. Everything is different!

The second circumstance that made us mistrust the descriptions of contacts: the speed of light, which limits the possibilities of interstellar travel. Science fiction writers came up with spaceships flying through zero-, above-, under-, super-hyper- and other spaces, which later received scientific justification in the form of “wormholes”. However, to create an artificial “wormhole” you need so much energy that humanity does not have and will not have for a very long time (perhaps never). And natural wormholes, if they exist at all, are unlikely to be located near the solar system, so they cannot solve the problem of interstellar flights.
Rice. M. Smagina Fiction about contacts developed in the direction of optimism. Space science fiction paradigm: there are a lot of extraterrestrial intelligences. Space science, on the one hand, confirmed the hopes of science fiction writers, on the other, it certainly rejected them.

Frank Donald Drake, a professor of astronomy and astrophysics at the University of California, Santa Cruz, developed a formula in 1960 to estimate the number of advanced civilizations. In optimistic scenarios, it turned out that only in our Galaxy there could exist millions of civilizations more or less similar to ours.

However, over time, pessimistic assessments of the probability of the origin of life arose, leaving practically no chance for a future meeting of brothers in mind. The probability of the random emergence of a living molecule from nonliving matter is so small that such a process requires a period many orders of magnitude longer than the lifetime of the Universe. In addition to this unlikely chance, dozens of others are needed, reducing the insignificant probability of intelligent life appearing on Earth to almost zero. From article to article, the idea wanders that without the Earth having a massive satellite (the Moon), which stabilizes the tilt of the axis of rotation, life would sooner or later die. And if there were no giant planets in the outer orbits of the solar system, the bombardment of the Earth by comets and asteroids could destroy all life in the first billion years of its existence (there are, however, works in which intense asteroid bombardment is declared to be a consequence of the restructuring of the orbits of gas giants that caused disturbances in the asteroid belt, but it was the bombings that could have contributed to the emergence of life, so everything here is rather vague. — Prim. edit. ). Similar bombings (albeit weaker ones) repeatedly led to the extinction of many species of living organisms. Incredible luck that Homo sapiens survived, although his chances were extremely low.

The emergence of a universe suitable for life is also extremely unlikely. If the value of Planck's constant differed from the current one by a few percent, atoms could not form, there would be no stars and planets. If the cosmological constant (now called dark energy) were slightly different, the Universe would either expand instantly or collapse very quickly. In both cases, life would not have had time to arise. And so on.

Pessimists are sure: for the origin and subsequent development of life on Earth, the coincidence of such a large number of different conditions is necessary that the probability of a repetition of a similar process anywhere in the Universe is practically zero. Cosmologists call this “fine-tuning” and formulate the “strong anthropic principle,” which states that “the Universe is the way it is because we exist in it.”

There are two alternative consequences of the strong anthropic principle.

First: God exists, and his will created the Universe as we observe it. Probability theory has nothing to do with it.

Modern science offers another alternative: our Universe is not the only one. There are many universes with different laws of nature, world constants and initial conditions. No matter how small the probability of the emergence of our Universe, such a Universe certainly present in an infinitely diverse set of worlds.

Modern physics comes to a similar conclusion based on various ideas and theories. The Big Bang inflation model assumes the continuous creation of many universes (chaotic inflation). String theory allows for the existence of an infinite number of worlds, each of which is no less real than the others. The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics assumes the existence of a huge (possibly also infinite) number of worlds - as many as the number of solutions to the Schrödinger equations.

The theory allows for the existence of “parallel” worlds, but no one will ever be able to observe them.

In recent years, this concept also seems to be beginning to undergo changes. Physical experiments have been carried out that border on science fiction (the Dutch group of Paul Kvyat, the Japanese physicists Tsegaue and Namekata, the Brazilian physicists Adonai and Ottavio), the results of which, in principle, can be interpreted as the interaction of different physical realities.

It's time to propose an idea that is equally crazy for science and fiction. The idea of ​​interworld cosmonautics, which will not require starships and sub-light speeds. Perhaps further research will show that this idea is incorrect, but it has qualities that have always attracted science fiction writers and now scientists. Such ideas, which seem crazy at first, sometimes win and become everyday practice. At one time, the ideas of the constancy of the speed of light and the quantization of electron orbits in the atom looked crazy. The idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun was at one time not only crazy, but also seditious.

Almost all descriptions of contacts with extraterrestrial intelligence are guilty of anthropomorphism and extensiveness. The “power” of the mind is determined by its energetic capabilities. In 1964, Soviet astrophysicist Nikolai Semyonovich Kardashev proposed such a classification of intelligent civilizations.

Type I civilization uses energy comparable to that of its planet.

More developed Type II civilization capable of utilizing the energy of a star.

Type III civilization utilizes the energy of the galaxy.

According to this logic, there may be Type IV civilization, capable of using the energy of clusters and superclusters of galaxies, and Type V civilization, utilizing the energy of the universe.

With this approach, expansionist needs grow to the size of galaxies, and the inherent human need to colonize new “lands,” including through military intervention, extends to all extraterrestrial civilizations.

In my opinion, it is more correct to classify civilizations not according to extensive (energy), but according to intensive (new knowledge) criteria. Reason is the ability to explain the world around us and the ability to create new knowledge about the universe. And only then - attempts to use this knowledge for practical applications.

Type I civilizations They consider their planet to be the center of the world.

Type II Civilizations They consider their star to be the center of the world.

Type III civilizations They are sure that they live in a unique Universe.

Type IV civilizations They know about many worlds, but have not yet learned to move from one world to another.

Type V civilizations can make contacts with worlds where the laws of physics are the same.

Type VI civilizations make contacts with worlds where the laws of nature are different.

Type VII civilizations capable of changing the laws of physics and creating worlds according to the changed laws.

Possible civilizations VIII, IX and more “advanced” types, about which we currently have no idea.

Once upon a time, people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and was created by God (gods) specifically so that humanity could live on it. Then they realized that the Earth is not the center, and they placed the Sun in the center. Then the understanding came that the Sun is not the center of the universe, but just an ordinary star. The natural thought arose that many intelligent races could exist on many planets around many other stars. Having moved to the next stage of development (type III civilization), people realized that the Galaxy is not the center of the universe; there are billions of galaxies in the expanding Universe. And modern ideas about physical multi-worldliness transfer the Universe into the category of one of an infinite number of diverse universes.

Humanity moves even further away from the non-existent center of the universe, but returns (at a new turn of the spiral) to the understanding that there are an infinite number of intelligent races. The problem, however, is that each civilization is in its own universe.

The existence of life and intelligence is not possible in every universe. An infinitely large number of universes are unsuitable for the development of any kind of life, and only an extremely small fraction of them support the conditions for the emergence of intelligence. But since there are infinitely many worlds, even a very small part of them is enough for there to be an infinite number of universes where not only life is possible, but also intelligence.

Humanity belongs to a type transitional from the third to the fourth.

In just five centuries, humanity has gone through the development path from civilization type I to type III. It is a type III civilization that generates assumptions about many minds in a single Universe, searches for them, does not find them, and begins to think about how unlikely the emergence of mind is. When a civilization moves to type IV (we are already close to this), the vector of scientific research shifts, the main paradigm changes. The mind has already explained why it is alone in this Universe, and understood that communication with other branches of the multiworld is not only possible, but also inevitable. It is then that the long-awaited meeting with another mind will take place, which, most likely, is also unique in its universe.

A natural question arises: if we are the only ones in our Universe and we are practically impossible to detect among a huge number of star systems in a huge number of galaxies, then how will we, even if we manage to make the transition to another universe, discover “brothers in mind” in its depths?

I don't have a scientific answer to this question. A discovery has not yet been made that will allow our civilization to move to the next, fifth type. But I am confident that such a discovery will be made, just as the discoveries were made thanks to which humanity evolved from the first type to the third.

Let us assume that the classification is correct, the reasoning is correct, and there are no other civilizations in the Universe other than ours. To establish contact with other civilizations, you must first understand, then explain, and then learn how to communicate between different worlds in a multi-world. Is it therefore necessary to abandon attempts to reach distant planets and stars using existing technology?

Of course not. It is impossible to approach a new qualitative leap without going through all the previous stages of development. The faster humanity goes through all the current stages of research and technical development, the faster it will reach a discovery that will change the fate of our civilization.

Therefore, we need to fly, explore space, build colonies on Mars, scientific stations in the orbit of Saturn, send expeditions to Pluto and the Kuiper belt. We need to search for extraterrestrial civilizations in all conceivable ranges of the electromagnetic spectrum. We need to search for Earth-like planets located in the “belts of life” in distant star systems. The more powerful the offensive, the faster humanity will pass this necessary stage and rise to the fourth level of development.

Only when a type IV civilization makes the next Copernican revolution and an infinite number of universes open up for study, will we be able to choose for research worlds that arose “in our image and likeness”, contacts with other civilizations will become possible, probable and certain.

Are we alone in the Universe?

For the evolution of living organisms from the simplest forms (viruses, bacteria) to intelligent beings, enormous time intervals are required, since the “driving force” of such selection is mutations and natural selection - processes that are random in nature. It is through a large number of random processes that the natural development from lower to higher forms of life is realized. From the example of our planet Earth, we know that this time interval apparently exceeds a billion years. Therefore, only on planets orbiting sufficiently old stars can we expect the presence of highly organized living beings. Given the current state of astronomy, we can only talk about arguments in favor of the hypothesis of the multiplicity of planetary systems and the possibility of the emergence of life on them. Astronomy does not yet have rigorous proof of these most important statements. In order to talk about life, we must at least assume that fairly old stars have planetary systems. For the development of life on the planet, it is necessary that a number of general conditions be met. And it is quite obvious that life cannot arise on every planet.

We can imagine around every star that has a planetary system, a zone where temperature conditions do not exclude the possibility of the development of life. It is unlikely to be possible on planets like Mercury, the temperature of the part illuminated by the Sun is higher than the melting point of lead, or like Neptune, whose surface temperature is -200°C. However, one cannot underestimate the enormous adaptability of living organisms to unfavorable environmental conditions. It should also be noted that very high temperatures are much more “dangerous” for the life of living organisms than low ones, since the simplest types of viruses and bacteria can, as is known, be in a state of suspended animation at temperatures close to absolute zero.

In addition, it is necessary that the radiation of the star remains approximately constant over many hundreds of millions and even billions of years. For example, a large class of variable stars, whose luminosities vary greatly with time (often periodically), should be excluded from consideration. However, most stars radiate with amazing constancy. For example, according to geological data, the luminosity of our Sun has remained constant over the past several billion years with an accuracy of several tens of percent.

For life to appear on a planet, its mass should not be too small. On the other hand, too much mass is also an unfavorable factor; on such planets the probability of the formation of a solid surface is low, they are usually gas balls with a density rapidly increasing towards the center (for example, Jupiter and Saturn). One way or another, the masses of planets suitable for the development of life must be limited both above and below. Apparently, the lower limit of the mass possibilities of such a planet is close to several hundredths of the Earth’s mass, and the upper limit is tens of times greater than the Earth’s. The chemical composition of the surface and atmosphere is very important. As you can see, the limits of the parameters of planets suitable for life are quite wide.

To study life, you must first define the concept of “living matter”. This question is far from simple. Many scientists, for example, define living matter as complex protein bodies with ordered metabolism. This point of view was held, in particular, by Academician A.I. Oparin, who worked extensively on the problem of the origin of life on Earth. Of course, metabolism is the most essential attribute of life, but the question of whether the essence of life can be reduced, first of all, to metabolism is controversial. Indeed, in the inanimate world, for example, in some solutions, metabolism is observed in its simplest forms. The question of defining the concept of “life” is very acute when we discuss the possibilities of life on other planetary systems.

Currently, life is defined not through the internal structure and substances that are inherent in it, but through its functions: a “control system,” which includes a mechanism for transmitting hereditary information that ensures safety to subsequent generations. Thus, due to the inevitable interference in the transmission of such information, our molecular complex (organism) is capable of mutations, and therefore of evolution.

The emergence of living matter on Earth (and, as can be judged by analogy, on other planets) was preceded by a rather long and complex evolution of the chemical composition of the atmosphere, which ultimately led to the formation of a number of organic molecules. These molecules subsequently served as “building blocks” for the formation of living matter.

According to modern data: planets are formed from a primary gas-dust cloud, the chemical composition of which is similar to the chemical composition of the Sun and stars; their initial atmosphere consisted mainly of the simplest compounds of hydrogen - the most common element in space. The majority of the molecules were hydrogen, ammonia, water and methane. In addition, the primary atmosphere must have been rich in inert gases - primarily helium and neon. Currently, there are few noble gases on Earth, since they once dissipated (evaporated) into interplanetary space, like many hydrogen-containing compounds.

However, it seems that plant photosynthesis, during which oxygen is released, played a decisive role in establishing the composition of the earth's atmosphere. It is possible that some, and perhaps even a significant, amount of organic matter was brought to Earth during the fall of meteorites and, possibly, even comets. Some meteorites are quite rich in organic compounds. It is estimated that over 2 billion years, meteorites could have brought to Earth from 10 8 to 10 12 tons of such substances. Also, organic compounds can arise in small quantities as a result of volcanic activity, meteorite impacts, lightning, and due to the radioactive decay of certain elements.

There is fairly reliable geological evidence indicating that already 3.5 billion years ago the earth's atmosphere was rich in oxygen. On the other hand, the age of the earth's crust is estimated by geologists at 4.5 billion years. Life must have arisen on Earth before the atmosphere became rich in oxygen, since the latter is mainly a product of plant life. According to a recent estimate by the American planetary astronomer Sagan, life on Earth arose 4.0-4.4 billion years ago.

The mechanism of increasing complexity of the structure of organic substances and the appearance in them of properties inherent in living matter has not yet been sufficiently studied, although great successes have recently been observed in this area of ​​biology. But it is already clear that such processes last for billions of years.

Any no matter how complex combination of amino acids and other organic compounds is not yet a living organism. One can, of course, assume that under some exceptional circumstances, somewhere on Earth a certain “proto-DNA” arose, which served as the beginning of all living things. However, this is unlikely to be the case if the hypothetical “proto-DNA” was quite similar to modern DNA. The fact is that modern DNA by itself is completely helpless. It can function only in the presence of enzyme proteins. To think that purely by chance, by “shaking up” individual proteins - polyatomic molecules, such a complex machine as “praDNA” and the complex of protein-enzymes necessary for its functioning could arise - this means believing in miracles. However, it can be assumed that DNA and RNA molecules evolved from a more primitive molecule.

For the first primitive living organisms formed on the planet, high doses of radiation could pose a mortal danger, since mutations would occur so quickly that natural selection could not keep up with them.

Another question that deserves attention is: why doesn’t life on Earth arise from inanimate matter in our time? This can only be explained by the fact that previously existing life will not provide the opportunity for a new emergence of life. Microorganisms and viruses will literally eat the first sprouts of new life. The possibility that life on Earth arose by chance cannot be completely ruled out.

There is one more circumstance that may be worth paying attention to. It is well known that all “living” proteins consist of 22 amino acids, while over 100 amino acids are known in total. It is not entirely clear how these acids differ from the rest of their “brothers”. Is there some deep connection between the origin of life and this amazing phenomenon?

If life on Earth arose by chance, it means that life in the Universe is a rare (although, of course, by no means an isolated) phenomenon. For a given planet (such as our Earth), the emergence of a special form of highly organized matter, which we call “life,” is an accident. But in the vast expanses of the Universe, life arising in this way should be a natural phenomenon.

It should be noted once again that the central problem of the emergence of life on Earth, the explanation of the qualitative leap from “non-living” to “living”, is still far from clear. It is not without reason that one of the founders of modern molecular biology, Professor Crick, said at the Byurakan Symposium on the problem of extraterrestrial civilizations in September 1971: “We do not see a path from the primordial soup to natural selection. One may come to the conclusion that the origin of life is a miracle, but this only testifies to our ignorance.”

The exciting question of life on other planets has occupied the minds of astronomers for several centuries. The possibility of the very existence of planetary systems around other stars is only now becoming the subject of scientific research. Previously, the question of life on other planets was an area of ​​purely speculative conclusions. Meanwhile, Mars, Venus and other planets of the solar system have long been known as non-self-luminous solid celestial bodies surrounded by atmospheres. It has long become clear that in general terms they resemble the Earth, and if so, why shouldn’t there be life on them, even highly organized, and, who knows, intelligent?

It is quite natural to believe that the physical conditions that prevailed on the terrestrial planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars) that had just formed from a gas-dust environment were very similar, in particular, their initial atmospheres were the same.

The main atoms that make up the molecular complexes from which living matter is formed are hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and carbon. The role of the latter is especially important. Carbon is a tetravalent element. Therefore, only carbon compounds lead to the formation of long molecular chains with rich and variable side branches. Various protein molecules belong to this type. Silicon is often called a carbon substitute. Silicon is quite abundant in space. In the atmospheres of stars, its content is only 5-6 times less than carbon, that is, it is quite high. It is unlikely, however, that silicon can play the role of a “cornerstone” of life. For some reason, its compounds cannot provide as much variety of side branches in complex molecular chains as carbon compounds. Meanwhile, the richness and complexity of such side branches is precisely what provides a huge variety of properties of protein compounds, as well as the exceptional “information content” of DNA, which is absolutely necessary for the emergence and development of life.

The most important condition for the origin of life on the planet is the presence of a sufficiently large amount of liquid Medium on its surface. In such an environment, organic compounds are in a dissolved state and favorable conditions can be created for the synthesis of complex molecular complexes based on them. In addition, a liquid environment is necessary for newly emerged living organisms to protect them from the harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation, which at the initial stage of the planet’s evolution can freely penetrate to its surface.

It can be expected that such a liquid shell can only be water and liquid ammonia, many compounds of which, by the way, are similar in structure to organic compounds, due to which the possibility of the emergence of life on an ammonia basis is currently being considered. The formation of liquid ammonia requires a relatively low temperature of the planet's surface. In general, the temperature of the original planet is very important for the emergence of life on it. If the temperature is high enough, for example above 100°C, and the atmospheric pressure is not very high, a water shell cannot form on its surface, not to mention ammonia. Under such conditions, there is no need to talk about the possibility of the emergence of life on the planet.

Based on the above, we can expect that the conditions for the emergence of life on Mars and Venus in the distant past could, generally speaking, be favorable. The liquid shell could only be water, and not ammonia, as follows from an analysis of the physical conditions on these planets during the era of their formation. Currently, these planets are quite well studied, and nothing indicates the presence of even the simplest forms of life on any of the planets of the solar system, not to mention intelligent life. However, it is very difficult to obtain clear indications of the presence of life on a particular planet through astronomical observations, especially if we are talking about a planet in another star system. Even with the most powerful telescopes, under the most favorable observation conditions, the size of the features still visible on the surface of Mars is 100 km.

Before this, we only determined the most general conditions under which life can (not necessarily must) arise in the Universe. Such a complex form of matter as life depends on a large number of completely unrelated phenomena. But all these arguments concern only the simplest forms of life. When we move on to the possibility of certain manifestations of intelligent life in the Universe, we are faced with very great difficulties.

Life on any planet must undergo a huge evolution before becoming intelligent. The driving force behind this evolution is the ability of organisms to mutate and natural selection. In the process of such evolution, organisms become more and more complex, and their parts are specialized. Complications occur in both qualitative and quantitative directions. For example, a worm has only about 1000 nerve cells, while humans have about ten billion. The development of the nervous system significantly increases the ability of organisms to adapt and their plasticity. These properties of highly developed organisms are necessary, but, of course, not sufficient for the emergence of intelligence. The latter can be defined as the adaptation of organisms for their complex social behavior. The emergence of intelligence must be closely connected with a radical improvement and improvement in the ways of exchanging information between individuals. Therefore, for the history of the emergence of intelligent life on Earth, the emergence of language was of decisive importance. Can we, however, consider such a process universal for the evolution of life in all corners of the Universe? Most likely not! Indeed, in principle, under completely different conditions, the means of information exchange between individuals could not be longitudinal vibrations of the atmosphere (or hydrosphere) in which these individuals live, but something completely different. Why not imagine a way to exchange information based not on acoustic effects, but, say, on optical or magnetic ones? And in general, is it really necessary for life on some planet to become intelligent in the process of its evolution?

Meanwhile, this topic has worried humanity since time immemorial. When talking about life in the Universe, we always meant, first of all, intelligent life. Are we alone in the boundless expanses of space? Philosophers and scientists since ancient times have always been convinced that there are many worlds where intelligent life exists. No scientifically based arguments were given in favor of this statement. The reasoning, essentially, was carried out according to the following scheme: if there is life on Earth, one of the planets in the solar system, then why shouldn’t it be on other planets? This method of reasoning, if logically developed, is not so bad. And in general, it’s scary to imagine that out of 10 20 - 10 22 planetary systems in the Universe, in an area with a radius of tens of billions of light years, intelligence exists only on our tiny planet... But perhaps intelligent life is an extremely rare phenomenon. It may be, for example, that our planet, as the abode of intelligent life, is the only one in the Galaxy, and not all galaxies have intelligent life. Is it even possible to consider works on intelligent life in the Universe to be scientific? Probably, after all, with the current level of technological development, it is possible and necessary to deal with this problem now, especially since it may suddenly turn out to be extremely important for the development of civilization...

Finding any life, especially intelligent life, could be of great significance. Therefore, attempts have been made for a long time to discover and establish contact with other civilizations. In 1974, the automatic interplanetary station Pioneer 10 was launched in the United States. Several years later, she left the solar system, completing various scientific tasks. There is a negligible probability that someday, in many billions of years, highly civilized alien beings unknown to us will discover Pioneer 10 and greet him as a messenger from an alien world unknown to us. For this case, there is a steel plate inside the station with a pattern and symbols engraved on it, which provide minimal information about our earthly civilization. This image is composed in such a way that intelligent beings who find it will be able to determine the position of the solar system in our Galaxy and guess our appearance and, possibly, our intentions. But of course, an extraterrestrial civilization has a much better chance of finding us on Earth than finding Pioneer 10.

The question of the possibility of communication with other worlds was first analyzed by Cocconi and Morris in 1959. They came to the conclusion that the most natural and practically feasible communication channel between any civilizations separated by interstellar distances could be established using electromagnetic waves. The obvious advantage of this type of communication is the propagation of the signal at the maximum speed possible in nature, equal to the speed of propagation of electromagnetic waves, and the concentration of energy within relatively small solid angles without any significant scattering. The main disadvantages of this method are the low power of the received signal and strong interference arising from vast distances and cosmic radiation. Nature itself tells us that transmissions should occur at a wavelength of 21 centimeters (the wavelength of free hydrogen radiation), while the loss of signal energy will be minimal, and the probability of receiving a signal by an extraterrestrial civilization is much greater than at a randomly taken wavelength. Most likely, we should expect signals from space on the same wavelength.

But let's say that we have detected some strange signal. Now we must move on to the next, rather important issue. How to recognize the artificial nature of a signal? Most likely, it should be modulated, that is, its power should change regularly over time. At first, it should apparently be quite simple. After the signal is received (if, of course, this happens), two-way radio communication will be established between civilizations, and then more complex information can begin to be exchanged. Of course, we should not forget that answers may not be obtained earlier than in several tens or even hundreds of years. However, the exceptional importance and value of such negotiations should certainly compensate for their slowness.

Radio observations of several nearby stars have already been carried out several times as part of the large OMZA project in 1960 and using the telescope of the US National Radio Astronomy Laboratory in 1971. A large number of expensive projects have been developed to establish contacts with other civilizations, but they are not funded, and very few actual observations have been made so far.

Despite the obvious advantages of space radio communications, we should not lose sight of other types of communications, since it is impossible to say in advance what signals we may be dealing with. Firstly, this is optical communication, the main drawback of which is the very weak signal level, because despite the fact that the divergence angle of the light beam was brought to 10 -8 rad, its width at a distance of several light years will be enormous. Communication can also be carried out using automatic probes. For obvious reasons, this type of communication is not yet available to earthlings, and will not become available even with the beginning of the use of controlled thermonuclear reactions. When launching such a probe, we would be faced with a huge number of problems, even if we consider the time of its flight to the target to be acceptable. In addition, there are already more than 50,000 stars less than 100 light years from the solar system. Which one should I send the probe to?

Thus, establishing direct contact with extraterrestrial civilization on our part is still impossible. But maybe we should just wait? Here we cannot fail to mention the very pressing problem of UFOs on Earth. There are so many different cases of “observations” of aliens and their activities that have already been noticed that in no case can one unequivocally refute all this data. We can only say that many of them, as it turned out over time, were inventions or the result of an error. But this is a topic for other research.

If some form of life or civilization is discovered somewhere in space, then we absolutely, even approximately, cannot imagine what its representatives will look like and how they will react to contact with us. What if this reaction is, from our point of view, negative. Then it’s good if the level of development of extraterrestrial beings is lower than ours. But it may turn out to be immeasurably higher. Such contact, given a normal attitude towards us from another civilization, is of the greatest interest. But one can only guess about the level of development of aliens, and nothing at all can be said about their structure.

Many scientists are of the opinion that civilization cannot develop beyond a certain limit, and then it either dies or no longer develops. For example, the German astronomer von Horner named six reasons that, in his opinion, could limit the duration of the existence of a technically developed civilization: 1) the complete destruction of all life on the planet; 2) destruction of only highly organized beings; 3) physical or spiritual degeneration and extinction; 4) loss of interest in science and technology; 5) lack of energy for the development of a very highly developed civilization; 6) the lifetime is unlimited; Von Horner considers this last possibility completely incredible. Further, he believes that in the second and third cases, another civilization can develop on the same planet on the basis (or on the ruins) of the old one, and the time of such “resumption” is relatively short.

From September 5 to 11, 1971, the first international conference on the problem of extraterrestrial civilizations and communications with them was held at the Byurakan Astrophysical Observatory in Armenia. The conference was attended by competent scientists working in various fields related to the complex problem under consideration: astronomers, physicists, radiophysicists, cybernetics, biologists, chemists, archaeologists, linguists, anthropologists, historians, sociologists. The conference was organized jointly by the USSR Academy of Sciences and the US National Academy of Sciences with the participation of scientists from other countries. At the conference, many aspects of the problem of extraterrestrial civilizations were discussed in detail. The issues of the multiplicity of planetary systems in the Universe, the origin of life on Earth, and the possibility of the emergence of life on other space objects, the emergence and evolution of intelligent life, the emergence and development of technological civilization, the problems of searching for signals from extraterrestrial civilizations and traces of their activities, and the problems of establishing communications were discussed in detail. with them, as well as the possible consequences of establishing contacts.

Literature

• 1. Shklovsky I.S. “Universe, Life, Mind” 1976
• 2. Siegel F.Yu. “Astronomy in its development” 1988
• 3. Efremov Yu.N. “Into the Depths of the Universe” 1984
• 4. Gurshtein A.A. “The Eternal Secrets of the Sky” 1991

If this level of development is difficult to believe, do not forget that Planet X has a level of development 3.4 billion years higher than ours. If the civilization on Planet X was similar to ours and was able to develop into a Type III civilization, it is logical to assume that by now they had definitely reached interstellar travel, and perhaps colonized the entire galaxy.

One hypothesis for how galaxy colonization might occur is to create a machine that can fly to other planets, spend 500 years or so reproducing itself using the planet's raw materials, and then send two replicas to do the same. Even without traveling at the speed of light, this process would colonize an entire galaxy in just 3.75 million years, an instant in terms of billions of years of planetary existence.

Let's continue to think. If 1% of intelligent life survives long enough to become a potential galaxy-colonizing Type III civilization, our calculations above suggest that there must be at least 1,000 Type III civilizations in our galaxy alone - and given the power of such civilizations, their presence is unlikely would go unnoticed. But there is nothing, we see nothing, hear nothing, no one visits us.

Where is everyone?

Welcome to the Fermi Paradox.

We don't have an answer to the Fermi Paradox - the best we can come up with are "possible explanations". And if you ask ten different scientists, you will get ten different answers. What would you think of the people of the past who discussed whether the Earth was round or flat, whether the Sun revolved around it or the Sun around it, whether almighty Zeus gave lightning? They seem so primitive and dense. The same can be said about us discussing the Fermi paradox.

Looking at the most discussed possible explanations for the Fermi Paradox, it is worth dividing them into two broad categories - those explanations that suggest that there are no signs of Type II and III civilizations because they simply do not exist, and those that suggest that we do not see and We don’t hear them for some reasons:

I group of explanations: there are no signs of higher civilizations (types II and III), because no higher civilizations exist

Those who adhere to Group I explanations point to what is called the non-excludability problem. She rejects any theory that states: "There are higher civilizations, but none of them tried to contact us, because they all ...". Group I people look at the math, which says there must be thousands or millions of higher civilizations, so at least one must be an exception to the rule. Even if the theory supports the existence of 99.9% of higher civilizations, the remaining 0.01% will be different, and we will definitely know about it.

Thus, adherents of the first group of explanations say, super-developed civilizations do not exist. And since calculations say there are thousands of them in our galaxy alone, there must be something else. And this is something else called .

The Great Filter Theory states that at a certain point from the very beginning of life to Type III civilization there is a certain wall against which almost all attempts in life hit. This is a certain step in a long evolutionary process through which life practically cannot pass. And it's called the Great Filter.


If this theory is correct, the big question remains: at what point in time does the Great Filter occur?

It turns out that when it comes to the fate of humanity, this issue becomes very important. Depending on where the Great Filter occurs, we are left with three possible realities: we are rare, we are the first, or we are screwed.

1. We are rare (The Great Filter is Behind)

There is hope that the Great Filter is behind us - we managed to get through it, and this will mean that it is extremely difficult for life to develop to the intelligence of our level, and this happens extremely rarely. The diagram below shows that only two species have done this in the past, and we are one of them.


This scenario could explain why there are no Type III civilizations... but it would also mean that we might be one of the few exceptions. That is, we have hope. At first glance, it looks the same as how people thought the Earth was at the center of the universe 500 years ago - thought they were special, and we might think so too today. But the so-called “observation selectivity effect” says that regardless of whether our situation is rare or quite common, we will tend to see the former. This leads us to accept the possibility that we are special.

And if we are special, when exactly did we become special - that is, what step did we take where others get stuck?

One possibility: The Great Filter could have happened at the very beginning - so the very beginning of life was a highly unusual event. This option is good because it took billions of years for life to finally appear, and we tried to repeat this event in the laboratory, but we did not succeed. If the Great Filter is to blame, this will mean not only that there may not be intelligent life in the Universe, it will mean that there may not be life at all outside of our planet.

Another possibility: The Great Filter could be a transition from simple prokaryotic cells to complex eukaryotic cells. Once prokaryotes are born, they need at least two billion years before they can make the evolutionary leap to become complex and acquire a nucleus. If this is the whole Great Filter, it may indicate that the Universe is teeming with simple eukaryotic cells and that’s it.

There are a number of other possibilities - some even believe that even our latest leap to our current intelligence could be a sign of the Great Filter. Although the leap from semi-intelligent life (chimpanzees) to intelligent life (humans) does not seem like a miraculous step, Steven Pinker rejects the idea of ​​an inevitable "ascent" in the process of evolution: "Because evolution does not set a goal, but simply happens, it uses adaptations that will benefit specific ecological niche, and the fact that it led to technological intelligence on Earth may in itself indicate that such a result of natural selection is very rare and is not a common consequence of the evolution of the tree of life.”

Most horse races are not considered candidates for the Great Filter. Any possible Great Filter would have to be a one-in-a-billion thing where something incredibly weird would have to happen to provide a crazy exception - for this reason the transition from single-celled to multi-cellular life is not taken into account because it only happened on our planet 46 times as isolated events. For the same reason, if we find fossilized eukaryotic cells on Mars, they will not be a sign of the Great Filter (and neither will anything else that happened up to that point in the evolutionary chain) - because if it happened on Earth and Mars, then it will happen where something else.

If we are truly rare, it could be due to a strange biological event, and also due to what is called the "rare Earth" hypothesis, which says that there may be many Earth-like planets with Earth-like conditions, but separate conditions on Earth - the specifics of the solar system, the connection with the Moon (a large Moon is rare for such small planets) or something in the planet itself can make it extremely friendly to life.

2. We are the first


Group I believers believe that if the Great Filter is not behind us, there is hope that conditions in the Universe have recently, for the first time since the Big Bang, become such that they have allowed the development of intelligent life. In this case, we and many other species may be on the path to superintelligence, and it's just that no one has gotten there yet. We were in the right place at the right time to become one of the first superintelligent civilizations.

One example of a phenomenon that could make this explanation possible is the prevalence of gamma-ray bursts, the giant explosions we see in distant galaxies. Just as it took the young Earth several hundred million years before the asteroids and volcanoes died down, opening the way for life, the universe may have been filled with cataclysms like gamma-ray bursts that burned out anything that could occasionally become life, up to a certain point . We may now be in the middle of the third astrobiological transition stage, where life can evolve for such a long time without anything stopping it.

3. We are finished (The Great Filter Ahead)


If we are not rare and not the first, among the possible explanations of group I is that the Great Filter is still waiting for us. Perhaps life regularly develops to the threshold on which we stand, but something prevents it from developing further and growing to higher intelligence in almost all cases - and we are unlikely to be an exception.

One possible Great Filter is a regularly occurring catastrophic natural event like the aforementioned gamma-ray bursts. They may not be over yet, and it is only a matter of time before all life on Earth suddenly divides into zero. Another candidate is the possible inevitability of self-destruction of all developed civilizations after reaching a certain level of technology.

This is why Oxford University philosopher Nick Bostrom says that “no news is good news.” The discovery of even the simplest life on Mars would be devastating because it would cut off a number of possible Great Filters behind us. And if we find fossils of complex life on Mars, Bostrom says, “it would be the worst newspaper story in human history,” because it would mean the Great Filter is almost certainly ahead. Bostrom believes that when it comes to the Fermi Paradox, "the silence of the night sky is golden."

Group II of explanations: civilizations of types II and III exist, but there are logical reasons why we do not hear them

The second group of explanations gets rid of any mention of our rarity or uniqueness - on the contrary, its followers believe in the principle of mediocrity, the starting point of which is that there is nothing rare in our galaxy, solar system, planet, level of intelligence until evidence indicates otherwise. They are also hesitant to point out that the lack of evidence of higher intelligence is evidence of their absence as such - and highlight the fact that our search for signals extends only 100 light years away (0.1% of the galaxy). Here are ten possible explanations for the Fermi Paradox from a Group II perspective.

1. Superintelligent life has already visited Earth, long before we showed up. In this scheme of things, living people have existed for about 50,000 years, which is relatively short. If contact occurred before this, our guests simply plunged into the water alone, and that was that. Also, recorded history only goes back 5,500 years - perhaps a group of ancient hunter-gatherer tribes encountered some unknown extraterrestrial crap, but found no way to remember or record the event for future descendants.

2. The galaxy is colonized, but we just live in some deserted countryside. Americans may have been colonized by Europeans long before a small Inuit tribe in northern Canada realized it had happened. There may be an urban moment in the colonization of the galaxy, where species congregate in neighborhoods for convenience, and it would be impractical and pointless to try to contact anyone in the part of the spiral galaxy in which we find ourselves.

3. All concept physical colonization - funny idea from antiquity for more advanced types. Remember the image of a Type II civilization in a sphere around its star? With all this energy, they could create the perfect place for themselves that would suit everyone's needs. They could incredibly reduce the need for resources and live in their happy utopia, instead of exploring a cold, empty and undeveloped Universe.

An even more advanced civilization might see the entire physical world as a horribly primitive place, having long ago conquered its own biology and uploaded its brains into virtual reality, a paradise for eternal life. Living in the physical world of biology, mortality, wants and needs might seem primitive to such creatures, just as life in the cold, dark ocean seems primitive to us.

4. Somewhere out there there are predatory, scary civilizations, and the most intelligent life knows that broadcast any outgoing signal, thereby giving away its location, extremely unwise. This annoyance could explain the lack of any signal received by SETI satellites. It could also mean that we are just naive newbies who are foolish enough to risk giving away our location. There is a debate about whether we should try to contact extraterrestrial civilization, and most people conclude that no, we shouldn't. warns: “If aliens visit us, the consequences will be worse than when Columbus landed in America, which obviously was not very good for the Native Americans.” Even Carly Sagan (who firmly believed that any advanced civilization that mastered interstellar travel would be altruistic rather than hostile) called the practice of METI "extremely unwise and immature" and recommended that "newborns in a strange and incomprehensible cosmos sit and listen quietly for a long time, patiently learning and absorbing before screaming into an unknown we don’t understand.”

5. There is only one representative of the highest intellectual life - civilization of "predators"(like people here on Earth) - which is much more advanced than everyone else, and is kept afloat by destroying any intelligent civilization as soon as it reaches a certain level of development. That would be extremely bad. It would be extremely unwise to destroy civilizations by wasting resources on this, because most of them would die out on their own. But after a certain point, intelligent species can begin to multiply like a virus and soon populate the entire galaxy. This theory implies that whoever populates the galaxy first will win, and no one else has a better chance. This could explain the lack of activity, because it would reduce the number of superintelligent civilizations to one.

6. Somewhere out there there is both activity and noise, But our technologies are too primitive and we are trying to hear the wrong thing. You walk into a modern building, turn on the radio and try to hear something, but everyone is sending text messages, and you decide that the building is empty. Or, as Carl Sagan said, our minds can work many times slower or faster than the minds of other intelligent forms: it takes them 12 years to say “Hello,” but when we hear it, it’s white noise to us.

7. We are in contact with intelligent life, but the authorities are hiding it. This theory is completely idiotic, but we have to mention it.

8. Higher civilizations know about us and are watching us(“zoo hypothesis”). As far as we know, superintelligent civilizations exist in a tightly regulated galaxy, and our Earth is considered something of a national reserve, protected and large, with a "look but don't touch" sign. We don't notice them because if an intelligent species wanted to watch us, it would know how to hide from us easily. Perhaps there really is some kind of "prime directive" from Star Trek that prohibits superintelligent beings from having any contact with lesser species until they reach a certain level of intelligence.

9. Higher civilizations are here, around us. But we are too primitive to perceive them. Michio Kaku explains it this way:

“Let's say we have an anthill in the center of the forest. A ten-lane expressway was built next to the anthill. The question is: “Will ants understand what a ten-lane highway is? Will the ants be able to understand the technology and intentions of the creatures that are building the highway next to them?

So not only can we not pick up signals from Planet X using our technology, we cannot even understand what the beings on Planet X are doing. For them to try to enlighten us would be like trying to teach ants to use the Internet.

This could also answer the question: "Well, if there are so many incredible Type III civilizations, why haven't they contacted us yet?" To answer this question, let's ask ourselves: when Pizarro was on his way to Peru, did he stop at anthills to chat? Was he being generous in trying to help the ants in their difficult affairs? Was he hostile and stopped from time to time to burn the hated anthills? Or did he really not care? Same thing.

10. We are completely mistaken in their ideas about reality. There are a lot of options that could completely divide our ideas by zero. The universe may be something like a hologram. Or we are aliens, and we were placed here as an experiment or fertilizer. There is even a chance that we are all some kind of scientists from another world, and other life forms simply were not programmed to appear.

As our journey continues, we continue to search for extraterrestrial intelligence, it is not entirely clear what to expect. Whether we find out that we are alone in the Universe or officially join the galactic community, both options are equally creepy and equally mind-blowing.

Beyond its shocking science fiction component, the Fermi Paradox leaves people with a deep sense of humility. This is not the usual “I am a microbe and I live for three seconds” that arises when thinking about the Universe. The Fermi Paradox leaves a clearer, more personal humility that can only emerge after hours spent studying the most incredible theories presented by the best scientists, which constantly turn the mind upside down and contradict one another. He reminds us that future generations will look at us the same way we look at the people of old who thought the stars were screwed to a wooden firmament and wonder, “Wow, they really had no idea what was going on.”

All this hits our self-esteem along with conversations about type II and III civilizations. Here on Earth, we are kings of our own little castle, proudly ruling over the handful of fools who share the planet with us. And in this bubble there is no competition and no one will judge us; we have no one to discuss the problem of existence with except ourselves.

All this suggests that we humans are probably not so smart, we are sitting on a tiny rock in the middle of a deserted Universe and have no idea that we can make mistakes. But we may be wrong, let's not forget about it in our attempts to justify our own greatness. We have no idea that somewhere out there there is a story in which we can’t even imagine the letters - a period, a comma, a page number, a bookmark.

Based on materialsWaitButWhy.com