Ranking the “Great Filters”: Where Does Alien Life Fail?
View: https://youtu.be/dchBY5XO6Qg
Some comments.
The argument revolves around what are dubbed 'loud aliens', that is, those that are detectable by us, here, now.
Webb's 'monocultural fallacy' is
almost there. I.e., his argument is that cultures are diverse, so even if one explanation for 'Fact A' (that earth has not been colonised) that still allows alien technological civilisations, then surely the inevitable outliers will expand and colonise the galaxy. Webb unconsciously assumes that only one explanation at a time can be considered and be then falsified. In fact, many of the explanations offered are not exclusive and can therefore be cumulative in their effect. He shows that he almost understands when at the end of his book he runs a kind of reverse Drake equation adding up all the impediments to the development of complex life and their cumulative effect. If he'd thought just five seconds longer...
The great filter is a hypothetical concept with no hard evidence or constraints, so therefore I think it's premature to start talking about how it works with any confidence. A one-dimensional line with filters built across it at right angles is how a physicist thinks. Evolution is not a car driven at high speed at a wall in the hope that it will break through or the sad outcome that it crashes. To extend the metaphor a little, crisis requires adaptation or extinction and adaptation is not breaking through, it's bending the path. The resulting line of evolution will not be a direct linear extrapolation from a starting point, but diverted unpredictably by major contingencies. The point is it's a drunkard's walk and the form of life that develops far down the line cannot be predicted from the starting point. Looking for radio signals and Dyson swarms is like a chimp looking for giant bananas. Or, try asking an anglerfish about how a mountain goat lives. If it could speak, it would ask you what a mountain is.
Biologists, evolutionists, sociologists and experts in every discipline outside of pure theory laugh at scenarios of infinite linear extrapolation because they've all seen that complex factors
inevitably accumulate and interfere.
'Fact B', I will have to say, is that we have absolutely no practical experience of interstellar colonisation (if that term is even meaningful). The proof of the pudding is in the eating and we haven't even baked it yet. In fact we only have hypothetical recipes, no oven, and no ingredients (the map is not the territory and all that).
David Kipping points to the history of life on earth in search of prior great filters. Fair enough, it's the only example we have - but that's also the problem. There's what's called the 'Whig interpretation of history':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history
In a nutshell, it holds that the past is prologue to the inevitable and ideal telos of the present.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telos
For example, an astronomer looking at biology only sees a straight line. He says that photosynthesis is the necessary prerequisite for earth's biosphere. Almost. On earth, we do know that photosynthesis was able to become dominant where we see it. Yet there are biospheres that don't rely on it, such as geothermal ocean vents, and some proposes that life began in such environments. Sure, photosynthetic autotrophy (growing like a plant) is an efficient way of getting usable energy and using it continuously, and heterotrophy (eating other living things) is even better, but it's not the only source. Even slow accumulation of energy is good, given time - the big advantage that seeds have over spores is their accumulated energy store held until a flurry of activity when conditions are right. Nature uses what is possible with what it has and is adequate for the situation, not what is ideal for an external perspective.
(Some optimists have proposed 'aestivation' as a viable survival strategy over cosmological time scales as the universe expands and cools - wake up, stoke the fire, go back to sleep for another trillion years.)
Next he goes on about the 'rare complexity scenario.' He argues that all eukaryotic life today is descended from one genetic lineage. Again, he proposes this as a great filter, but it's not rare. Symbiosis at sub-cellular and super-cellular scale has happened repeatedly and independently (like the evolution of the eye) - the discovery of nitroplasts is a recent example.
And so on. Essentially, it all amounts to Whigism. We have exactly one planet's history, incompletely understood, as a case study. That is not sufficient to be true to scientific method.
In response to Occam's razor, Einstein is supposed to have said that an hypothesis should be as simple as possible, but not simpler than possible. Whigism is at least simpler than is actual.
And then there's a Tier List. Head/desk interface imminent. I will accept that you need some kind of infrastructure for a civilisation to arise and that ones able to support a civilisation might be rare, and that only a few will become loud, but that list only compounds and makes rigid the faults of the prior reasoning.
To be fair to Kipping, he does know that he doesn't know and is interested in many different possibilities. The 'Eschatian hypothesis' is another.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSlbplt7GhA
Basically, that holds that loud civilisations are by definition in disequilibrium and they must either evolve towards equilibrium (which looks like quietness) or die. A fast and loud civilisation is not pre-adapted to the constraints of the interstellar environment which is resource-thin and takes millennia to traverse. That is a condition of the universe that biases evolution towards quietness or strangeness (see above on unpredictability, evolution that veers off a straight line) - both ways of being undetectable by us, by our available means, here, now.
So, overall, I'm not impressed at all by Webb and I think that the great filter hypothesis is so oversimplified as to be seriously misleading. Whigism (unconscious as it may be) is unscientific. The conditions of the interstellar environment bias the development of interstellar organisation - however diverse it may be in its origins - towards quietness or strangeness.