Talk:Fermi paradox

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fermi paradox article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 6 months

Discussions on this page have often led to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about the Fermi paradox. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the Fermi paradox at the Reference desk.

	Fermi paradox is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 13, 2005.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 12, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted April 23, 2006 Featured article review Demoted April 28, 2006 Peer review Reviewed June 27, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted September 13, 2010 Featured article review Demoted Current status: Former featured article

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Astronomy Mid‑importance Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Spoken Wikipedia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Science Fiction Mid‑importance Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Tim Higgins (4 October 2025). "Why Conservatives Are Attacking 'Wokepedia'". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 5 October 2025. For many years, in fact, Musk shared links to Wikipedia entries on topics that sparked his interest, such as one about the Drake equation ("worth reading"), the Fermi paradox and the Volkswagen emissions scandal. In 2021, he even joined in celebrating Wikipedia's 20th anniversary, writing, "So glad you exist."

Alistair Reynolds "Inhibitor" hypothesis probably needs a mention

In the Revelation Space Universe of several novels he suggests that early in the life of our galaxy one of the the first space-faring civillizations came to the conclusion that it is harmful for a society to expand beyond its home star system and so the set up a way of detecting and destroying space-faring cultures whenever they arose. Steve77moss (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meta comment: start including pop culture (Dark Forest) in a science article, and it'll attract more.... Geogene (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think what we actually need is to demand WP:SECONDARY WP:DUE-establishing coverage of stuff like this. Our own interpretations of these novels is not enough. We need secondary reliable sources to establish these connections for us. That is also how we, through WP:RSUW, prevent over-proliferation of these pop culture one-off mentions. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn’t that project require a lot of spacefaring, to deploy, in the galactic scale, self-replicating, self-maintaining automated observation-&-response orbital devices, to protect against colonization & other predation?

Hopefully such a system exists. If there’s anyone out there, then launching Breakthrough-Starshot would probably be a big mistake. 2600:6C55:7F40:1033:8930:F906:A225:399F (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about real life alien intelligences, not about fictional ones. Works of fiction are not valid references. Cambalachero (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. No “real” aliens are known to exist. It’s a speculative topic.

Science-fiction expresses speculation. That’s why it’s called “ speculative fiction”

It’s standard & routine to cite fiction in these matters.

e.g. Dark Forest, & Saberhagen’s Berserkers.

Lighten-up.

2600:6C55:7F40:1033:8930:F906:A225:399F (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but if a fictional scenario brings our attention to a real-universe possibility? You needn't mention the books, it could just say "Explanation xxx: an aggressively anti-spacefaring culture or other entity may be snuffing out interstellar travel whenever it arises".

To me that's a real non-fictional hypothesis. I do though agree that this article isn't the place for sharing about our favourite stories... Steve77moss (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is worthwhile to mention the origin of this term

According to articles published in the peer-reviewed journal Astrobiology (journal), the term "Fermi paradox", though widely known, inaccurately reflects Fermi's views regarding the feasibility of interstellar travel and the potential existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life. In addition, it incorrectly attributes ideas primarily from Hart and Tipler to Fermi, using his reputation for endorsement. Furthermore, it suggests a logical inconsistency where there isn't one.

1. [1]The Fermi Paradox Is Neither Fermi's Nor a Paradox

2. [2]Fermi's Paradox Is a Daunting Problem—Under Whatever Label

3. The So-Called Fermi Paradox Is Misleading, Flawed, and Harmful

I think this is worth mentioning. I added this but was removed immediately with the reason: "unattributed opinions".

On the contrary, all the sources cited in the very first paragraph introducing the "Fermi paradox" are online media websites. I don't understand how online media websites are more reliable than a serious peer-reviewed scientific journal (except for the most prestigious multidisciplinary journals like Nature and Science, Astrobiology (journal) is likely the best in this area).

Ortsaxu (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those seem like extravagant claims to source from two WP:PRIMARY papers in a single journal. Whats more, they were stated in Wikivoice and added directly to the lead. Geogene (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"An article says..."

The second sentence of this article says "As a 2015 article put it, "If life is so easy, someone from somewhere must have come calling by now."". Referenced by an article at the New York Times, with an explanation for the layman of what is the Fermi Paradox. Valid as a reference, but quoted that way it makes it seem as if it was more noteworthy than what it really is. It may be better to make the article summary in wikivoice. Cambalachero (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How's that? Remsense ‥ 论 07:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]