Search This Blog

Saturday, June 16, 2018

Fermi paradox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A graphical representation of the Arecibo message, humanity's first attempt to use radio waves to actively communicate its existence to alien civilizations

The Fermi paradox, or Fermi's paradox, named after physicist Enrico Fermi, is the apparent contradiction between the lack of evidence and high probability estimates[1] for the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations.[2] The basic points of the argument, made by physicists Enrico Fermi (1901–1954) and Michael H. Hart (born 1932), are:
  • There are billions of stars in the galaxy that are similar to the Sun,[3][4] and many of these stars are billions of years older than the Solar system.[5][6]
  • With high probability, some of these stars have Earth-like planets,[7][8] and if the Earth is typical, some may have developed intelligent life.
  • Some of these civilizations may have developed interstellar travel, a step the Earth is investigating now.
  • Even at the slow pace of currently envisioned interstellar travel, the Milky Way galaxy could be completely traversed in a few million years.[9]
According to this line of reasoning, the Earth should have already been visited by extraterrestrial aliens. In an informal conversation, Fermi noted no convincing evidence of this, leading him to ask, "Where is everybody?"[10][11] There have been many attempts to explain the Fermi paradox,[12][13] primarily either suggesting that intelligent extraterrestrial life is extremely rare or proposing reasons that such civilizations have not contacted or visited Earth.

Basis


Enrico Fermi (1901–1954)

The Fermi paradox is a conflict between arguments of scale and probability that seem to favor intelligent life being common in the universe, and a total lack of evidence of intelligent life having ever arisen anywhere other than on the Earth.

The first aspect of the Fermi paradox is a function of the scale or the large numbers involved: there are an estimated 200–400 billion stars in the Milky Way[14] (2–4 × 1011) and 70 sextillion (7×1022) in the observable universe.[15] Even if intelligent life occurs on only a minuscule percentage of planets around these stars, there might still be a great number of extant civilizations, and if the percentage were high enough it would produce a significant number of extant civilizations in the Milky Way. This assumes the mediocrity principle, by which the Earth is a typical planet.

The second aspect of the Fermi paradox is the argument of probability: given intelligent life's ability to overcome scarcity, and its tendency to colonize new habitats, it seems possible that at least some civilizations would be technologically advanced, seek out new resources in space, and colonize their own star system and, subsequently, surrounding star systems. Since there is no significant evidence on Earth, or elsewhere in the known universe, of other intelligent life after 13.8 billion years of the universe's history, there is a conflict requiring a resolution. Some examples of possible resolutions are that intelligent life is rarer than we think, that our assumptions about the general development or behavior of intelligent species are flawed, or, more radically, that our current scientific understanding of the nature of the universe itself is quite incomplete.

The Fermi paradox can be asked in two ways.[16] The first is, "Why are no aliens or their artifacts found here on Earth, or in the Solar System?" If interstellar travel is possible, even the "slow" kind nearly within the reach of Earth technology, then it would only take from 5 million to 50 million years to colonize the galaxy.[17] This is relatively brief on a geological scale, let alone a cosmological one. Since there are many stars older than the Sun, and since intelligent life might have evolved earlier elsewhere, the question then becomes why the galaxy has not been colonized already. Even if colonization is impractical or undesirable to all alien civilizations, large-scale exploration of the galaxy could be possible by probes. These might leave detectable artifacts in the Solar System, such as old probes or evidence of mining activity, but none of these have been observed.

The second form of the question is "Why do we see no signs of intelligence elsewhere in the universe?" This version does not assume interstellar travel, but includes other galaxies as well. For distant galaxies, travel times may well explain the lack of alien visits to Earth, but a sufficiently advanced civilization could potentially be observable over a significant fraction of the size of the observable universe.[18] Even if such civilizations are rare, the scale argument indicates they should exist somewhere at some point during the history of the universe, and since they could be detected from far away over a considerable period of time, many more potential sites for their origin are within range of our observation. It is unknown whether the paradox is stronger for our galaxy or for the universe as a whole.[19]

Criticism of logical basis

The Fermi paradox has been criticized as being based on an inappropriate use of propositional logic. According to a 1985 paper by Robert Freitas, when recast as a statement in modal logic, the paradox no longer exists, and carries no probative value.[20]

History and name


Los Alamos National Laboratory

In 1950, while working at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Fermi had a casual conversation while walking to lunch with colleagues Emil Konopinski, Edward Teller and Herbert York.[21] The men discussed a recent spate of UFO reports and an Alan Dunn cartoon[22] facetiously blaming the disappearance of municipal trashcans on marauding aliens. The conversation shifted to other subjects, until during lunch Fermi suddenly exclaimed, "Where are they?" (alternatively, "Where is everybody?"). Teller remembers, "The result of his question was general laughter because of the strange fact that in spite of Fermi's question coming from the clear blue, everybody around the table seemed to understand at once that he was talking about extraterrestrial life."[23] Herbert York recalls that Fermi followed up on his comment with a series of calculations on the probability of Earth-like planets, the probability of life, the likely rise and duration of high technology, etc., and concluded that we ought to have been visited long ago and many times over.

Although Fermi's name is most commonly associated with the paradox, he was not the first to ask the question. An earlier implicit mention was by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky in an unpublished manuscript from 1933.[24] He noted "people deny the presence of intelligent beings on the planets of the universe" because "(i) if such beings exist they would have visited Earth, and (ii) if such civilizations existed then they would have given us some sign of their existence." This was not a paradox for others, who took this to imply the absence of ETs, but it was for him, since he himself was a strong believer in extraterrestrial life and the possibility of space travel. Therefore, he proposed what is now known as the zoo hypothesis and speculated that mankind is not yet ready for higher beings to contact us.[25] That Tsiolkovsky himself may not have been the first to discover the paradox is suggested by his above-mentioned reference to other people's reasons for denying the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations.

Michael H. Hart published in 1975 a detailed examination of the paradox,[9] which has since become a theoretical reference point for much of the research into what is now sometimes known as the Fermi–Hart paradox.[26] Geoffrey A. Landis prefers that name on the grounds that "while Fermi is credited with first asking the question, Hart was the first to do a rigorous analysis showing that the problem is not trivial, and also the first to publish his results".[27] Robert H. Gray argues that the term Fermi paradox is a misnomer, since in his view it is neither a paradox nor due to Fermi; he instead prefers the name Hart–Tipler argument, acknowledging Michael Hart as its originator, but also the substantial contribution of Frank J. Tipler in extending Hart's arguments.[28]

Other names closely related to Fermi's question ("Where are they?") include the Great Silence,[29][30][31][32] and silentium universi[32] (Latin for "silence of the universe"), though these only refer to one portion of the Fermi Paradox, that we see no evidence of other civilizations.

Drake equation

The theories and principles in the Drake equation are closely related to the Fermi paradox.[33] The equation was formulated by Frank Drake in 1961 in an attempt to find a systematic means to evaluate the numerous probabilities involved in the existence of alien life. The speculative equation considers the rate of star formation in the galaxy; the fraction of stars with planets and the number per star that are habitable; the fraction of those planets that develop life; the fraction that develop intelligent life; the fraction that have detectable, technological intelligent life; and finally the length of time such communicable civilizations are detectable. The fundamental problem is that the last four terms are completely unknown, rendering statistical estimates impossible.

The Drake equation has been used by both optimists and pessimists, with wildly differing results. The original meeting, including Frank Drake and Carl Sagan, speculated that the number of civilizations was roughly equal to the lifetime in years, and there were probably between 1000 and 100,000,000 civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy.[34] Conversely, Frank Tipler and John D. Barrow used pessimistic numbers and speculated that the average number of civilizations in a galaxy is much less than one.[35] Almost all arguments involving the Drake equation suffer from the overconfidence effect, a common error of probabilistic reasoning about low-probability events, by guessing specific numbers for likelihoods of events whose mechanism is not yet understood, such as the likelihood of abiogenesis on an Earth-like planet, with current likelihood estimates varying over many hundreds of orders of magnitude. An analysis that takes into account some of the uncertainty associated with this lack of understanding has been carried out by Anders Sandberg, Eric Drexler and Toby Ord[36], and suggests that with very high probability, either intelligent civilizations are plentiful in our galaxy or humanity is alone in the visible universe, with the lack of observation of intelligent civilizations pointing towards the latter option.

Empirical projects

There are two parts of the Fermi paradox that rely on empirical evidence—that there are many potential habitable planets, and that we see no evidence of life. The first point, that many suitable planets exist, was an assumption in Fermi's time that is gaining ground with the discovery of many exoplanets, and models predicting billions of habitable worlds in our galaxy.[37]

The second part of the paradox, that we see no evidence of extraterrestrial life, is also an active field of scientific research. This includes both efforts to find any indication of life,[38] and efforts specifically directed to finding intelligent life. These searches have been made since 1960, and several are ongoing.[39]

Mainstream astronomy and SETI


An artist's depiction of the "little green man" described in the novel Martians, Go Home

Although astronomers do not usually search for extraterrestrials, they have observed phenomena that they could not immediately explain without positing an intelligent civilization as the source. For example, pulsars, when first discovered in 1967, were called little green men (LGM) because of the precise repetition of their pulses.[40] In all cases, explanations with no need for intelligent life have been found for such observations,[41] but the possibility of discovery remains.[42] Proposed examples include asteroid mining that would change the appearance of debris disks around stars,[43] or spectral lines from nuclear waste disposal in stars.[44] An ongoing example is the unusual transit light curves of star KIC 8462852, where natural interpretations are not fully convincing.[45] Although most likely a natural explanation will emerge, some scientists are investigating the remote possibility that it could be a sign of alien technology, such as a Dyson swarm.[46][47][48]

Electromagnetic emissions


Radio telescopes are often used by SETI projects

Radio technology and the ability to construct a radio telescope are presumed to be a natural advance for technological species,[49] theoretically creating effects that might be detected over interstellar distances. The careful searching for non-natural radio emissions from space may lead to the detection of alien civilizations. Sensitive alien observers of the Solar System, for example, would note unusually intense radio waves for a G2 star due to Earth's television and telecommunication broadcasts. In the absence of an apparent natural cause, alien observers might infer the existence of a terrestrial civilization. It should be noted however that the most sensitive radio telescopes currently available on Earth would not be able to detect non-directional radio signals even at a fraction of a light-year, so it is questionable whether any such signals could be detected by an extraterrestrial civilization. Such signals could be either "accidental" by-products of a civilization, or deliberate attempts to communicate, such as the Arecibo message. A number of astronomers and observatories have attempted and are attempting to detect such evidence, mostly through the SETI organization. Several decades of SETI analysis have not revealed any unusually bright or meaningfully repetitive radio emissions.

Direct planetary observation


A composite picture of Earth at night, created with data from the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) Operational Linescan System (OLS). Large-scale artificial lighting produced by human civilization is detectable from space.

Exoplanet detection and classification is a very active sub-discipline in astronomy, and the first possibly terrestrial planet discovered within a star's habitable zone was found in 2007.[50] New refinements in exoplanet detection methods, and use of existing methods from space (such as the Kepler Mission, launched in 2009) are starting to detect and characterize Earth-size planets, and determine if they are within the habitable zones of their stars. Such observational refinements may allow us to better gauge how common potentially habitable worlds are.[51]

Conjectures about interstellar probes

Self-replicating probes could exhaustively explore a galaxy the size of the Milky Way in as little as a million years.[9] If even a single civilization in the Milky Way attempted this, such probes could spread throughout the entire galaxy. Another speculation for contact with an alien probe—one that would be trying to find human beings—is an alien Bracewell probe. Such a hypothetical device would be an autonomous space probe whose purpose is to seek out and communicate with alien civilizations (as opposed to Von Neumann probes, which are usually described as purely exploratory). These were proposed as an alternative to carrying a slow speed-of-light dialogue between vastly distant neighbors. Rather than contending with the long delays a radio dialogue would suffer, a probe housing an artificial intelligence would seek out an alien civilization to carry on a close-range communication with the discovered civilization. The findings of such a probe would still have to be transmitted to the home civilization at light speed, but an information-gathering dialogue could be conducted in real time.[52]

Attempts to find alien probes

Direct exploration of the Solar System has yielded no evidence indicating a visit by aliens or their probes. Detailed exploration of areas of the Solar System where resources would be plentiful may yet produce evidence of alien exploration,[53][54] though the entirety of the Solar System is vast and difficult to investigate. Attempts to signal, attract, or activate hypothetical Bracewell probes in Earth's vicinity have not succeeded.[55]

Conjectures about stellar-scale artifacts


A variant of the speculative Dyson sphere. Such large scale artifacts would drastically alter the spectrum of a star.

In 1959, Freeman Dyson observed that every developing human civilization constantly increases its energy consumption, and, he conjectured, a civilization might try to harness a large part of the energy produced by a star. He proposed that a Dyson sphere could be a possible means: a shell or cloud of objects enclosing a star to absorb and utilize as much radiant energy as possible. Such a feat of astroengineering would drastically alter the observed spectrum of the star involved, changing it at least partly from the normal emission lines of a natural stellar atmosphere to those of black body radiation, probably with a peak in the infrared. Dyson speculated that advanced alien civilizations might be detected by examining the spectra of stars and searching for such an altered spectrum.[56][57][58]

There have been some attempts to find evidence of the existence of Dyson spheres that would alter the spectra of their core stars.[59] Direct observation of thousands of galaxies has shown no explicit evidence of artificial construction or modifications.[57][58][60][61] In October 2015, there was some speculation that a pattern of light from star KIC 8462852, observed by the Kepler Space Telescope, could have been a result of Dyson sphere construction.[62][63]

Hypothetical explanations for the paradox

Great Filter Hypothesis

The Fermi paradox can be explained by variants of the Great Filter Hypothesis, which posits that in order for intelligent life to occur and create civilization certain extremely low-probability events, called "great filters" need to occur, essentially "filtering" possible locations of intelligent life to those planets that "won the cosmic lottery", i.e. where these unlikely events did occur. The most commonly agreed-upon low probability event is abiogenesis: the spontaneous generation of the first self-replicating molecular compound by a randomly occurring chemical process. Other proposed great filters are the emergence of eucariotes or of meiosis (both known to have taken many billion years to evolve from the first on Earth) or some of the steps involved in the evolution of a brain capable of complex logical deductions.

Extraterrestrial life is rare or non-existent

Those who think that intelligent extraterrestrial life is (nearly) impossible argue that the conditions needed for the evolution of life—or at least the evolution of biological complexity—are rare or even unique to Earth. Under this assumption, called the rare Earth hypothesis, a rejection of the mediocrity principle, complex multicellular life is regarded as exceedingly unusual.[64]

The Rare Earth hypothesis argues that the evolution of biological complexity requires a host of fortuitous circumstances, such as a galactic habitable zone, a central star and planetary system having the requisite character, the circumstellar habitable zone, a right sized terrestrial planet, the advantage of a giant guardian like Jupiter and a large natural satellite, conditions needed to ensure the planet has a magnetosphere and plate tectonics, the chemistry of the lithosphere, atmosphere, and oceans, the role of "evolutionary pumps" such as massive glaciation and rare bolide impacts, and whatever led to the appearance of the eukaryote cell, sexual reproduction and the Cambrian explosion.

No other intelligent species have arisen

It is possible that even if complex life is common, intelligence (and consequently civilizations) is not.[65] While there are remote sensing techniques that could perhaps detect life-bearing planets without relying on the signs of technology,[66][67] none of them has any ability to tell if any detected life is intelligent. This is sometimes referred to as the "algae vs. alumnae" problem.[68]

Intelligent alien species lack advanced technology

It may be that while alien species with intelligence exist, they are primitive or have not reached the level of technological advancement necessary to communicate. Along with non-intelligent life, such civilizations would be also very difficult for us to detect,[68] short of a visit by a probe, a trip that would take hundreds of thousands of years with current technology.[69] To skeptics, the fact that in the history of life on the Earth only one species has developed a civilization to the point of being capable of spaceflight and radio technology, lends more credence to the idea that technologically advanced civilizations are rare in the universe.[70]

It is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself


A 23-kiloton tower shot called BADGER, fired as part of the Operation Upshot–Knothole nuclear test series.

This is the argument that technological civilizations may usually or invariably destroy themselves before or shortly after developing radio or spaceflight technology. Possible means of annihilation are many,[71] including war, accidental environmental contamination or damage, resource depletion, climate change,[72] or poorly designed artificial intelligence. This general theme is explored both in fiction and in scientific hypothesizing.[73] In 1966, Sagan and Shklovskii speculated that technological civilizations will either tend to destroy themselves within a century of developing interstellar communicative capability or master their self-destructive tendencies and survive for billion-year timescales.[74] Self-annihilation may also be viewed in terms of thermodynamics: insofar as life is an ordered system that can sustain itself against the tendency to disorder, the "external transmission" or interstellar communicative phase may be the point at which the system becomes unstable and self-destructs.[75]

It is the nature of intelligent life to destroy others

Another hypothesis is that an intelligent species beyond a certain point of technological capability will destroy other intelligent species as they appear. The idea that something, or someone, might be destroying intelligent life in the universe has been explored in the scientific literature.[29] A species might undertake such extermination out of expansionist motives, paranoia, or aggression. In 1981, cosmologist Edward Harrison argued that such behavior would be an act of prudence: an intelligent species that has overcome its own self-destructive tendencies might view any other species bent on galactic expansion as a threat.[76] It has also been suggested that a successful alien species would be a superpredator, as are humans.[77][78]

Periodic extinction by natural events

New life might commonly die out due to runaway heating or cooling on their fledgling planets.[79] On Earth, there have been numerous major extinction events that destroyed the majority of complex species alive at the time; the extinction of the dinosaurs is the best known example. These are thought to have been caused by events such as impact from a large meteorite, massive volcanic eruptions, or astronomical events such as gamma-ray bursts.[80] It may be the case that such extinction events are common throughout the universe and periodically destroy intelligent life, or at least its civilizations, before the species is able to develop the technology to communicate with other species.[81]

Inflation hypothesis and the youngness argument

Cosmologist Alan Guth proposed a multiverse solution to the Fermi paradox. This hypothesis uses the synchronous gauge probability distribution, with the result that young universes exceedingly outnumber older ones (by a factor of e1037 for every second of age). Therefore, averaged over all universes, universes with civilizations will almost always have just one, the first to develop. However, Guth notes "Perhaps this argument explains why SETI has not found any signals from alien civilizations, but I find it more plausible that it is merely a symptom that the synchronous gauge probability distribution is not the right one."[82]

Intelligent civilizations are too far apart in space or time


NASA's conception of the Terrestrial Planet Finder

It may be that non-colonizing technologically capable alien civilizations exist, but that they are simply too far apart for meaningful two-way communication.[83] If two civilizations are separated by several thousand light-years, it is possible that one or both cultures may become extinct before meaningful dialogue can be established. Human searches may be able to detect their existence, but communication will remain impossible because of distance. It has been suggested that this problem might be ameliorated somewhat if contact/communication is made through a Bracewell probe. In this case at least one partner in the exchange may obtain meaningful information. Alternatively, a civilization may simply broadcast its knowledge, and leave it to the receiver to make what they may of it. This is similar to the transmission of information from ancient civilizations to the present,[84] and humanity has undertaken similar activities like the Arecibo message, which could transfer information about Earth's intelligent species, even if it never yields a response or does not yield a response in time for humanity to receive it. It is also possible that archaeological evidence of past civilizations may be detected through deep space observations.[85]

A related speculation by Sagan and Newman suggests that if other civilizations exist, and are transmitting and exploring, their signals and probes simply have not arrived yet.[86] However, critics have noted that this is unlikely, since it requires that humanity's advancement has occurred at a very special point in time, while the Milky Way is in transition from empty to full. This is a tiny fraction of the lifespan of a galaxy under ordinary assumptions and calculations resulting from them, so the likelihood that we are in the midst of this transition is considered low in the paradox.[87]

Lack of resources to spread physically throughout the galaxy

Many speculations about the ability of an alien culture to colonize other star systems are based on the idea that interstellar travel is technologically feasible. While the current understanding of physics rules out the possibility of faster-than-light travel, it appears that there are no major theoretical barriers to the construction of "slow" interstellar ships, even though the engineering required is considerably beyond our present capabilities. This idea underlies the concept of the Von Neumann probe and the Bracewell probe as a potential evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence.

It is possible, however, that present scientific knowledge cannot properly gauge the feasibility and costs of such interstellar colonization. Theoretical barriers may not yet be understood, and the resources needed may be so great as to make it unlikely that any civilization could afford to attempt it. Even if interstellar travel and colonization are possible, they may be difficult, leading to a colonization model based on percolation theory.[88] Colonization efforts may not occur as an unstoppable rush, but rather as an uneven tendency to "percolate" outwards, within an eventual slowing and termination of the effort given the enormous costs involved and the expectation that colonies will inevitably develop a culture and civilization of their own. Colonization may thus occur in "clusters," with large areas remaining uncolonized at any one time.[88]

If exploration, or backup from a home system disaster, is the primary motive for expansion, then it is possible that mind uploading and similar technologies may reduce the desire to colonize by replacing physical travel with much less-expensive communication.[89] Therefore, the first civilization may have physically explored or colonized the galaxy, but subsequent civilizations find it cheaper, faster, and easier to travel by contacting existing civilizations rather than physically exploring or traveling themselves. This leads to little or no physical travel at the current epoch, and only directed communications, which are hard to see except to the intended receiver.

Human beings have not existed long enough

Humanity's ability to detect intelligent extraterrestrial life has existed for only a very brief period—from 1937 onwards, if the invention of the radio telescope is taken as the dividing line—and Homo sapiens is a geologically recent species. The whole period of modern human existence to date is a very brief period on a cosmological scale, and radio transmissions have only been propagated since 1895. Thus, it remains possible that human beings have neither existed long enough nor made themselves sufficiently detectable to be found by extraterrestrial intelligence.[90]

We are not listening properly

There are some assumptions that underlie the SETI programs that may cause searchers to miss signals that are present. Extraterrestrials might, for example, transmit signals that have a very high or low data rate, or employ unconventional (in our terms) frequencies, which would make them hard to distinguish from background noise. Signals might be sent from non-main sequence star systems that we search with lower priority; current programs assume that most alien life will be orbiting Sun-like stars.[91]

The greatest challenge is the sheer size of the radio search needed to look for signals (effectively spanning the entire visible universe), the limited amount of resources committed to SETI, and the sensitivity of modern instruments. SETI estimates, for instance, that with a radio telescope as sensitive as the Arecibo Observatory, Earth's television and radio broadcasts would only be detectable at distances up to 0.3 light-years, less than 1/10 the distance to the nearest star. A signal is much easier to detect if the signal energy is limited to either a narrow range of frequencies, or directed at a specific part of the sky. Such signals could be detected at ranges of hundreds to tens of thousands of light-years distance.[92] However, this means that detectors must be listening to an appropriate range of frequencies, and be in that region of space to which the beam is being sent. Many SETI searches assume that extraterrestrial civilizations will be broadcasting a deliberate signal, like the Arecibo message, in order to be found.

Thus to detect alien civilizations through their radio emissions, Earth observers either need more sensitive instruments or must hope for fortunate circumstances: that the broadband radio emissions of alien radio technology are much stronger than our own; that one of SETI's programs is listening to the correct frequencies from the right regions of space; or that aliens are deliberately sending focused transmissions in our general direction.

Civilizations broadcast detectable radio signals only for a brief period of time

It may be that alien civilizations are detectable through their radio emissions for only a short time, reducing the likelihood of spotting them. The usual assumption is that civilizations outgrow radio through technological advancement.[93] However, even if radio is not used for communication, it may be used for other purposes such as power transmission from solar power satellites. Such uses may remain visible even after broadcast emission are replaced by less observable technology.[94]

More hypothetically, advanced alien civilizations may evolve beyond broadcasting at all in the electromagnetic spectrum and communicate by technologies not developed or used by mankind. Some scientists have hypothesized that advanced civilizations may send neutrino signals.[95] If such signals exist, they could be detectable by neutrino detectors that are now under construction for other goals.[96]

They tend to isolate themselves

It has been suggested that some advanced beings may divest themselves of physical form, create massive artificial virtual environments, transfer themselves into these environments through mind uploading, and exist totally within virtual worlds, ignoring the external physical universe.[97]

It may also be that intelligent alien life develops an "increasing disinterest" in their outside world.[98] Possibly any sufficiently advanced society will develop highly engaging media and entertainment well before the capacity for advanced space travel, and that the rate of appeal of these social contrivances is destined, because of their inherent reduced complexity, to overtake any desire for complex, expensive endeavors such as space exploration and communication. Once any sufficiently advanced civilization becomes able to master its environment, and most of its physical needs are met through technology, various "social and entertainment technologies", including virtual reality, are postulated to become the primary drivers and motivations of that civilization.[99]

They are too alien


Microwave window as seen by a ground-based system. From NASA report SP-419: SETI – the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence

Another possibility is that human theoreticians have underestimated how much alien life might differ from that on Earth. Aliens may be psychologically unwilling to attempt to communicate with human beings. Perhaps human mathematics is parochial to Earth and not shared by other life,[100] though others argue this can only apply to abstract math since the math associated with physics must be similar (in results, if not in methods).[101]

Physiology might also cause a communication barrier. Carl Sagan speculated that an alien species might have a thought process orders of magnitude slower (or faster) than ours.[citation needed] A message broadcast by that species might well seem like random background noise to us, and therefore go undetected.

Another thought is that technological civilizations invariably experience a technological singularity and attain a post-biological character.[102] Hypothetical civilizations of this sort may have advanced drastically enough to render communication impossible.[103][104]

Everyone is listening, no one is transmitting

Alien civilizations might be technically capable of contacting Earth, but are only listening instead of transmitting.[105] If all, or even most, civilizations act the same way, the galaxy could be full of civilizations eager for contact, but everyone is listening and no one is transmitting. This is the so-called SETI Paradox.[106]

The only civilization we know, our own, does not explicitly transmit, except for a few small efforts.[105] Even these efforts, and certainly any attempt to expand them, are controversial.[107] It is not even clear we would respond to a detected signal—the official policy within the SETI community[108] is that "[no] response to a signal or other evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence should be sent until appropriate international consultations have taken place." However, given the possible impact of any reply[109] it may be very difficult to obtain any consensus on "Who speaks for Earth?" and "What should we say?"

Earth is deliberately not contacted


Schematic representation of a planetarium simulating the universe to humans. The "real" universe is outside the black sphere, the simulated one projected on/filtered through it.

The zoo hypothesis states that intelligent extraterrestrial life exists and does not contact life on Earth to allow for its natural evolution and development.[110] This hypothesis may break down under the uniformity of motive flaw: all it takes is a single culture or civilization to decide to act contrary to the imperative within our range of detection for it to be abrogated, and the probability of such a violation increases with the number of civilizations.[17]

Analysis of the inter-arrival times between civilizations in the galaxy based on common astrobiological assumptions suggests that the initial civilization would have a commanding lead over the later arrivals. As such, it may have established what we call the zoo hypothesis through force or as a galactic/universal norm and the resultant "paradox" by a cultural founder effect with or without the continued activity of the founder.[111]

Earth is purposely isolated (planetarium hypothesis)

A related idea to the zoo hypothesis is that, beyond a certain distance, the perceived universe is a simulated reality. The planetarium hypothesis[112] speculates that beings may have created this simulation so that the universe appears to be empty of other life.

It is dangerous to communicate

An alien civilization might feel it is too dangerous to communicate, either for us or for them. After all, when very different civilizations have met on Earth, the results have often been disastrous for one side or the other, and the same may well apply to interstellar contact. Even contact at a safe distance could lead to infection by computer code[113] or even ideas themselves.[114] Perhaps prudent civilizations actively hide not only from Earth but from everyone, out of fear of other civilizations.[115]

Perhaps the Fermi paradox itself—or the alien equivalent of it—is the reason for any civilization to avoid contact with other civilizations, even if no other obstacles existed. From any one civilization's point of view, it would be unlikely for them to be the first ones to make first contact. Therefore, according to this reasoning, it is likely that previous civilizations faced fatal problems with first contact and doing so should be avoided. So perhaps every civilization keeps quiet because of the possibility that there is a real reason for others to do so.[29]

Liu Cixin's novel The Dark Forest talks about such a situation.

The simulation theory

Similar to the Planetarium hypothesis, it is theorized that our perceived reality is a simulation created by more intelligent beings. The creators of this hypothetical simulation may have purposely excluded life other than what has been found on Earth, or have simply not introduced it to humans in the simulation yet. It is also possible that they themselves are more intelligent humans, who also have not come in contact with alien lifeforms.

They are here undetected

It is possible that a civilization advanced enough to travel between the stars could visit or observe our world while remaining undetected or unrecognized.[116]

They are here unacknowledged

A significant fraction of the population believes that at least some UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects) are spacecraft piloted by aliens.[117][118] While most of these are unrecognized or mistaken interpretations of mundane phenomena, there are those that remain puzzling even after investigation. The consensus scientific view is that although they may be unexplained, they do not rise to the level of convincing evidence.[119]

Similarly, it is theoretically possible that SETI groups are not reporting positive detections, or governments have been blocking signals or suppressing publication. This response might be attributed to security or economic interests from the potential use of advanced extraterrestrial technology. It has been suggested that the detection of an extraterrestrial radio signal or technology could well be the most highly secret information that exists.[120] Claims that this has already happened are common in the popular press,[121][122] but the scientists involved report the opposite experience—the press becomes informed and interested in a potential detection even before a signal can be confirmed.[123]

Extinction event

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Extinction intensity.svg Cambrian Ordovician Silurian Devonian Carboniferous Permian Triassic Jurassic Cretaceous Paleogene Neogene
Marine extinction intensity during the Phanerozoi



c
%
Millions of years ago
Extinction intensity.svg
The blue graph shows the apparent percentage (not the absolute number) of marine animal genera becoming extinct during any given time interval. It does not represent all marine species, just those that are readily fossilized. The labels of the traditional "Big Five" extinction events and the more recently recognised End-Capitanian extinction event are clickable hyperlinks. (source and image info)

An extinction event (also known as a mass extinction or biotic crisis) is a widespread and rapid decrease in the biodiversity on Earth. Such an event is identified by a sharp change in the diversity and abundance of multicellular organisms. It occurs when the rate of extinction increases with respect to the rate of speciation. Because most diversity and biomass on Earth is microbial, and thus difficult to measure, recorded extinction events affect the easily observed, biologically complex component of the biosphere rather than the total diversity and abundance of life.[1]

Extinction occurs at an uneven rate. Based on the fossil record, the background rate of extinctions on Earth is about two to five taxonomic families of marine animals every million years. Marine fossils are mostly used to measure extinction rates because of their superior fossil record and stratigraphic range compared to land animals.

The Great Oxygenation Event was probably the first major extinction event. Since the Cambrian explosion five further major mass extinctions have significantly exceeded the background extinction rate. The most recent and arguably best-known, the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event, which occurred approximately 66 million years ago (Ma), was a large-scale mass extinction of animal and plant species in a geologically short period of time.[2] In addition to the five major mass extinctions, there are numerous minor ones as well, and the ongoing mass extinction caused by human activity is sometimes called the sixth extinction.[3] Mass extinctions seem to be a mainly Phanerozoic phenomenon, with extinction rates low before large complex organisms arose.[4]

Estimates of the number of major mass extinctions in the last 540 million years range from as few as five to more than twenty. These differences stem from the threshold chosen for describing an extinction event as "major", and the data chosen to measure past diversity.

Major extinction events


Badlands near Drumheller, Alberta, where erosion has exposed the K–Pg boundary


Trilobites were highly successful marine animals until the Permian–Triassic extinction event wiped them all out.

In a landmark paper published in 1982, Jack Sepkoski and David M. Raup identified five mass extinctions. They were originally identified as outliers to a general trend of decreasing extinction rates during the Phanerozoic,[5] but as more stringent statistical tests have been applied to the accumulating data, it has been established that multicellular animal life has experienced five major and many minor mass extinctions.[6] The "Big Five" cannot be so clearly defined, but rather appear to represent the largest (or some of the largest) of a relatively smooth continuum of extinction events.[5]
  1. Ordovician–Silurian extinction events (End Ordovician or O–S): 450–440 Ma (million years ago) at the OrdovicianSilurian transition. Two events occurred that killed off 27% of all families, 57% of all genera and 60% to 70% of all species.[7] Together they are ranked by many scientists as the second largest of the five major extinctions in Earth's history in terms of percentage of genera that became extinct.
  2. Late Devonian extinction: 375–360 Ma near the DevonianCarboniferous transition. At the end of the Frasnian Age in the later part(s) of the Devonian Period, a prolonged series of extinctions eliminated about 19% of all families, 50% of all genera[7] and at least 70% of all species.[8] This extinction event lasted perhaps as long as 20 million years, and there is evidence for a series of extinction pulses within this period.
  3. Permian–Triassic extinction event (End Permian): 252 Ma at the PermianTriassic transition.[9] Earth's largest extinction killed 57% of all families, 83% of all genera and 90% to 96% of all species[7] (53% of marine families, 84% of marine genera, about 96% of all marine species and an estimated 70% of land species,[2] including insects).[10] The highly successful marine arthropod, the trilobite, became extinct. The evidence regarding plants is less clear, but new taxa became dominant after the extinction.[11] The "Great Dying" had enormous evolutionary significance: on land, it ended the primacy of mammal-like reptiles. The recovery of vertebrates took 30 million years,[12] but the vacant niches created the opportunity for archosaurs to become ascendant. In the seas, the percentage of animals that were sessile dropped from 67% to 50%. The whole late Permian was a difficult time for at least marine life, even before the "Great Dying".
  4. Triassic–Jurassic extinction event (End Triassic): 201.3 Ma at the TriassicJurassic transition. About 23% of all families, 48% of all genera (20% of marine families and 55% of marine genera) and 70% to 75% of all species became extinct.[7] Most non-dinosaurian archosaurs, most therapsids, and most of the large amphibians were eliminated, leaving dinosaurs with little terrestrial competition. Non-dinosaurian archosaurs continued to dominate aquatic environments, while non-archosaurian diapsids continued to dominate marine environments. The Temnospondyl lineage of large amphibians also survived until the Cretaceous in Australia (e.g., Koolasuchus).
  5. Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event (End Cretaceous, K–Pg extinction, or formerly K–T extinction): 66 Ma at the Cretaceous (Maastrichtian) – Paleogene (Danian) transition interval.[13] The event formerly called the Cretaceous-Tertiary or K–T extinction or K–T boundary is now officially named the Cretaceous–Paleogene (or K–Pg) extinction event. About 17% of all families, 50% of all genera[7] and 75% of all species became extinct.[14] In the seas all the ammonites, plesiosaurs and mosasaurs disappeared and the percentage of sessile animals (those unable to move about) was reduced to about 33%. All non-avian dinosaurs became extinct during that time.[15] The boundary event was severe with a significant amount of variability in the rate of extinction between and among different clades. Mammals and birds, the latter descended from theropod dinosaurs, emerged as dominant large land animals.
Despite the popularization of these five events, there is no definite line separating them from other extinction events; using different methods of calculating an extinction's impact can lead to other events featuring in the top five.[16]

Older fossil records are more difficult to interpret. This is because:
  • Older fossils are harder to find as they are usually buried at a considerable depth.
  • Dating older fossils is more difficult.
  • Productive fossil beds are researched more than unproductive ones, therefore leaving certain periods unresearched.
  • Prehistoric environmental events can disturb the deposition process.
  • The preservation of fossils varies on land, but marine fossils tend to be better preserved than their sought after land-based counterparts.[17]
It has been suggested that the apparent variations in marine biodiversity may actually be an artifact, with abundance estimates directly related to quantity of rock available for sampling from different time periods.[18] However, statistical analysis shows that this can only account for 50% of the observed pattern,[citation needed] and other evidence (such as fungal spikes)[clarification needed] provides reassurance that most widely accepted extinction events are real. A quantification of the rock exposure of Western Europe indicates that many of the minor events for which a biological explanation has been sought are most readily explained by sampling bias.[19]

Research completed after the seminal 1982 paper has concluded that a sixth mass extinction event is ongoing:
6. Holocene extinction: Currently ongoing. Extinctions have occurred at over 1000 times the background extinction rate since 1900.[20][21] The mass extinction is considered a result of human activity.[22][23][24]
More recent research has indicated that the End-Capitanian extinction event likely constitutes a separate extinction event from the Permian–Triassic extinction event; if so, it would be larger than many of the "Big Five" extinction events.

List of extinction events

This is a list of extinction events:[25]


Period or supereon Extinction Date Possible causes
Quaternary Holocene extinction c. 10,000 BCE — Ongoing Humans[26]
Quaternary extinction event 640,000, 74,000, and 13,000 years ago Unknown; may include climate changes, massive volcanic eruptions and human overhunting[27][28]
Neogene Pliocene–Pleistocene boundary extinction 2 Ma Supernova?[29][30] Eltanin impact?[31][32]
Middle Miocene disruption 14.5 Ma climate change due to change of ocean circulation patterns and perhaps related to the Milankovitch cycles?.[33]
Paleogene Eocene–Oligocene extinction event 33.9 Ma Popigai impactor?[34]
Cretaceous Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 66 Ma Chicxulub impactor;[35] Deccan Traps?[36]
Cenomanian-Turonian boundary event 94 Ma Caribbean large igneous province[37]
Aptian extinction 117 Ma
Jurassic End-Jurassic (Tithonian) extinction 145 Ma
Toarcian turnover 183 Ma Karoo-Ferrar Provinces[38]
Triassic Triassic–Jurassic extinction event 201 Ma Central Atlantic magmatic province;[39] impactor
Carnian Pluvial Event 230 Ma Wrangellia flood basalts[40]
Permian Permian–Triassic extinction event 252 Ma Siberian Traps;[41] Wilkes Land Crater;[42]Anoxic event
End-Capitanian extinction event 260 Ma Emeishan Traps?[43]
Olson's Extinction 270 Ma
Carboniferous Carboniferous rainforest collapse 305 Ma
Devonian Late Devonian extinction 375–360 Ma Viluy Traps[44]
Silurian Lau event 420 Ma Changes in sea level and chemistry?[45]
Mulde event 424 Ma Global drop in sea level?[46]
Ireviken event 428 Ma Deep-ocean anoxia; Milankovitch cycles?[47]
Ordovician Ordovician–Silurian extinction events 450–440 Ma Global cooling and sea level drop; Gamma-ray burst?[48]
Cambrian Cambrian–Ordovician extinction event 488 Ma
Dresbachian extinction event 502 Ma
End-Botomian extinction event 517 Ma
Precambrian End-Ediacaran extinction 542 Ma
Great Oxygenation Event 2400 Ma Rising oxygen levels in the atmosphere due to the development of photosynthesis

Evolutionary importance

Mass extinctions have sometimes accelerated the evolution of life on Earth. When dominance of particular ecological niches passes from one group of organisms to another, it is rarely because the new dominant group is "superior" to the old and usually because an extinction event eliminates the old dominant group and makes way for the new one.[49][50]

For example, mammaliformes ("almost mammals") and then mammals existed throughout the reign of the dinosaurs, but could not compete for the large terrestrial vertebrate niches which dinosaurs monopolized. The end-Cretaceous mass extinction removed the non-avian dinosaurs and made it possible for mammals to expand into the large terrestrial vertebrate niches. Ironically, the dinosaurs themselves had been beneficiaries of a previous mass extinction, the end-Triassic, which eliminated most of their chief rivals, the crurotarsans.

Another point of view put forward in the Escalation hypothesis predicts that species in ecological niches with more organism-to-organism conflict will be less likely to survive extinctions. This is because the very traits that keep a species numerous and viable under fairly static conditions become a burden once population levels fall among competing organisms during the dynamics of an extinction event.

Furthermore, many groups which survive mass extinctions do not recover in numbers or diversity, and many of these go into long-term decline, and these are often referred to as "Dead Clades Walking".[51]

Darwin was firmly of the opinion that biotic interactions, such as competition for food and space—the ‘struggle for existence’—were of considerably greater importance in promoting evolution and extinction than changes in the physical environment. He expressed this in The Origin of Species: "Species are produced and exterminated by slowly acting causes…and the most import of all causes of organic change is one which is almost independent of altered…physical conditions, namely the mutual relation of organism to organism-the improvement of one organism entailing the improvement or extermination of others".[52]

Patterns in frequency

It has been suggested variously that extinction events occurred periodically, every 26 to 30 million years,[53][54] or that diversity fluctuates episodically every ~62 million years.[55] Various ideas attempt to explain the supposed pattern, including the presence of a hypothetical companion star to the sun,[56][57] oscillations in the galactic plane, or passage through the Milky Way's spiral arms.[58] However, other authors have concluded the data on marine mass extinctions do not fit with the idea that mass extinctions are periodic, or that ecosystems gradually build up to a point at which a mass extinction is inevitable.[5] Many of the proposed correlations have been argued to be spurious.[59][60] Others have argued that there is strong evidence supporting periodicity in a variety of records,[61] and additional evidence in the form of coincident periodic variation in nonbiological geochemical variables.[62]


All genera
"Well-defined" genera
Trend line
"Big Five" mass extinctions
Other mass extinctions
Million years ago
Thousands of genera
Phanerozoic biodiversity as shown by the fossil record

Mass extinctions are thought to result when a long-term stress is compounded by a short term shock.[63] Over the course of the Phanerozoic, individual taxa appear to be less likely to become extinct at any time,[64] which may reflect more robust food webs as well as less extinction-prone species and other factors such as continental distribution.[64] However, even after accounting for sampling bias, there does appear to be a gradual decrease in extinction and origination rates during the Phanerozoic.[5] This may represent the fact that groups with higher turnover rates are more likely to become extinct by chance; or it may be an artefact of taxonomy: families tend to become more speciose, therefore less prone to extinction, over time;[5] and larger taxonomic groups (by definition) appear earlier in geological time.[65]

It has also been suggested that the oceans have gradually become more hospitable to life over the last 500 million years, and thus less vulnerable to mass extinctions,[note 1][66][67] but susceptibility to extinction at a taxonomic level does not appear to make mass extinctions more or less probable.[64]

Causes

There is still debate about the causes of all mass extinctions. In general, large extinctions may result when a biosphere under long-term stress undergoes a short-term shock.[63] An underlying mechanism appears to be present in the correlation of extinction and origination rates to diversity. High diversity leads to a persistent increase in extinction rate; low diversity to a persistent increase in origination rate. These presumably ecologically controlled relationships likely amplify smaller perturbations (asteroid impacts, etc.) to produce the global effects observed.[5]

Identifying causes of particular mass extinctions

A good theory for a particular mass extinction should: (i) explain all of the losses, not just focus on a few groups (such as dinosaurs); (ii) explain why particular groups of organisms died out and why others survived; (iii) provide mechanisms which are strong enough to cause a mass extinction but not a total extinction; (iv) be based on events or processes that can be shown to have happened, not just inferred from the extinction.

It may be necessary to consider combinations of causes. For example, the marine aspect of the end-Cretaceous extinction appears to have been caused by several processes which partially overlapped in time and may have had different levels of significance in different parts of the world.[68]

Arens and West (2006) proposed a "press / pulse" model in which mass extinctions generally require two types of cause: long-term pressure on the eco-system ("press") and a sudden catastrophe ("pulse") towards the end of the period of pressure.[69] Their statistical analysis of marine extinction rates throughout the Phanerozoic suggested that neither long-term pressure alone nor a catastrophe alone was sufficient to cause a significant increase in the extinction rate.

Most widely supported explanations

Macleod (2001)[70] summarized the relationship between mass extinctions and events which are most often cited as causes of mass extinctions, using data from Courtillot et al. (1996),[71] Hallam (1992)[72] and Grieve et al. (1996):[73]
  • Flood basalt events: 11 occurrences, all associated with significant extinctions[74][75] But Wignall (2001) concluded that only five of the major extinctions coincided with flood basalt eruptions and that the main phase of extinctions started before the eruptions.[76]
  • Sea-level falls: 12, of which seven were associated with significant extinctions.[75]
  • Asteroid impacts: one large impact is associated with a mass extinction, i.e. the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event; there have been many smaller impacts but they are not associated with significant extinctions.[citation needed]
The most commonly suggested causes of mass extinctions are listed below.

Flood basalt events

The formation of large igneous provinces by flood basalt events could have:
  • produced dust and particulate aerosols which inhibited photosynthesis and thus caused food chains to collapse both on land and at sea[77]
  • emitted sulfur oxides which were precipitated as acid rain and poisoned many organisms, contributing further to the collapse of food chains
  • emitted carbon dioxide and thus possibly causing sustained global warming once the dust and particulate aerosols dissipated.
Flood basalt events occur as pulses of activity punctuated by dormant periods. As a result, they are likely to cause the climate to oscillate between cooling and warming, but with an overall trend towards warming as the carbon dioxide they emit can stay in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.

It is speculated that massive volcanism caused or contributed to the End-Permian, End-Triassic and End-Cretaceous extinctions.[78] The correlation between gigantic volcanic events expressed in the large igneous provinces and mass extinctions was shown for the last 260 Myr.[79][80] Recently such possible correlation was extended for the whole Phanerozoic Eon.[81]

Sea-level falls

These are often clearly marked by worldwide sequences of contemporaneous sediments which show all or part of a transition from sea-bed to tidal zone to beach to dry land – and where there is no evidence that the rocks in the relevant areas were raised by geological processes such as orogeny. Sea-level falls could reduce the continental shelf area (the most productive part of the oceans) sufficiently to cause a marine mass extinction, and could disrupt weather patterns enough to cause extinctions on land. But sea-level falls are very probably the result of other events, such as sustained global cooling or the sinking of the mid-ocean ridges.

Sea-level falls are associated with most of the mass extinctions, including all of the "Big Five"—End-Ordovician, Late Devonian, End-Permian, End-Triassic, and End-Cretaceous.

A study, published in the journal Nature (online June 15, 2008) established a relationship between the speed of mass extinction events and changes in sea level and sediment.[82] The study suggests changes in ocean environments related to sea level exert a driving influence on rates of extinction, and generally determine the composition of life in the oceans.[83]

Impact events

The impact of a sufficiently large asteroid or comet could have caused food chains to collapse both on land and at sea by producing dust and particulate aerosols and thus inhibiting photosynthesis.[84] Impacts on sulfur-rich rocks could have emitted sulfur oxides precipitating as poisonous acid rain, contributing further to the collapse of food chains. Such impacts could also have caused megatsunamis and/or global forest fires.

Most paleontologists now agree that an asteroid did hit the Earth about 66 Ma ago, but there is an ongoing dispute whether the impact was the sole cause of the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event.[85][86]

Global cooling

Sustained and significant global cooling could kill many polar and temperate species and force others to migrate towards the equator; reduce the area available for tropical species; often make the Earth's climate more arid on average, mainly by locking up more of the planet's water in ice and snow. The glaciation cycles of the current ice age are believed to have had only a very mild impact on biodiversity, so the mere existence of a significant cooling is not sufficient on its own to explain a mass extinction.

It has been suggested that global cooling caused or contributed to the End-Ordovician, Permian–Triassic, Late Devonian extinctions, and possibly others. Sustained global cooling is distinguished from the temporary climatic effects of flood basalt events or impacts.

Global warming

This would have the opposite effects: expand the area available for tropical species; kill temperate species or force them to migrate towards the poles; possibly cause severe extinctions of polar species; often make the Earth's climate wetter on average, mainly by melting ice and snow and thus increasing the volume of the water cycle. It might also cause anoxic events in the oceans.

Global warming as a cause of mass extinction is supported by several recent studies.[87]

The most dramatic example of sustained warming is the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, which was associated with one of the smaller mass extinctions. It has also been suggested to have caused the Triassic–Jurassic extinction event, during which 20% of all marine families became extinct. Furthermore, the Permian–Triassic extinction event has been suggested to have been caused by warming.[88][89][90]

Clathrate gun hypothesis

Clathrates are composites in which a lattice of one substance forms a cage around another. Methane clathrates (in which water molecules are the cage) form on continental shelves. These clathrates are likely to break up rapidly and release the methane if the temperature rises quickly or the pressure on them drops quickly—for example in response to sudden global warming or a sudden drop in sea level or even earthquakes. Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, so a methane eruption ("clathrate gun") could cause rapid global warming or make it much more severe if the eruption was itself caused by global warming.

The most likely signature of such a methane eruption would be a sudden decrease in the ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in sediments, since methane clathrates are low in carbon-13; but the change would have to be very large, as other events can also reduce the percentage of carbon-13.[91]

It has been suggested that "clathrate gun" methane eruptions were involved in the end-Permian extinction ("the Great Dying") and in the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, which was associated with one of the smaller mass extinctions.

Anoxic events

Anoxic events are situations in which the middle and even the upper layers of the ocean become deficient or totally lacking in oxygen. Their causes are complex and controversial, but all known instances are associated with severe and sustained global warming, mostly caused by sustained massive volcanism.[92]

It has been suggested that anoxic events caused or contributed to the Ordovician–Silurian, late Devonian, Permian–Triassic and Triassic–Jurassic extinctions, as well as a number of lesser extinctions (such as the Ireviken, Mulde, Lau, Toarcian and Cenomanian–Turonian events). On the other hand, there are widespread black shale beds from the mid-Cretaceous which indicate anoxic events but are not associated with mass extinctions.

The bio-availability of essential trace elements (in particular selenium) to potentially lethal lows has been shown to coincide with, and likely have contributed to, at least three mass extinction events in the oceans, i.e. at the end of the Ordovician, during the Middle and Late Devonian, and at the end of the Triassic. During periods of low oxygen concentrations very soluble selenate (Se6+) is converted into much less soluble selenide (Se2+), elemental Se and organo-selenium complexes. Bio-availability of selenium during these extinction events dropped to about 1% of the current oceanic concentration, a level that has been proven lethal to many extant organisms.[93]

Hydrogen sulfide emissions from the seas

Kump, Pavlov and Arthur (2005) have proposed that during the Permian–Triassic extinction event the warming also upset the oceanic balance between photosynthesising plankton and deep-water sulfate-reducing bacteria, causing massive emissions of hydrogen sulfide which poisoned life on both land and sea and severely weakened the ozone layer, exposing much of the life that still remained to fatal levels of UV radiation.[94][95][96]

Oceanic overturn

Oceanic overturn is a disruption of thermo-haline circulation which lets surface water (which is more saline than deep water because of evaporation) sink straight down, bringing anoxic deep water to the surface and therefore killing most of the oxygen-breathing organisms which inhabit the surface and middle depths. It may occur either at the beginning or the end of a glaciation, although an overturn at the start of a glaciation is more dangerous because the preceding warm period will have created a larger volume of anoxic water.[97]

Unlike other oceanic catastrophes such as regressions (sea-level falls) and anoxic events, overturns do not leave easily identified "signatures" in rocks and are theoretical consequences of researchers' conclusions about other climatic and marine events.

It has been suggested that oceanic overturn caused or contributed to the late Devonian and Permian–Triassic extinctions.

A nearby nova, supernova or gamma ray burst

A nearby gamma-ray burst (less than 6000 light-years away) would be powerful enough to destroy the Earth's ozone layer, leaving organisms vulnerable to ultraviolet radiation from the Sun.[98] Gamma ray bursts are fairly rare, occurring only a few times in a given galaxy per million years.[99] It has been suggested that a supernova or gamma ray burst caused the End-Ordovician extinction.[100]

Geomagnetic reversal

One theory is that periods of increased geomagnetic reversals will weaken Earth's magnetic field long enough to expose the atmosphere to the solar winds, causing oxygen ions to escape the atmosphere in a rate increased by 3–4 orders, resulting in a disastrous decrease in oxygen.[101]

Plate tectonics

Movement of the continents into some configurations can cause or contribute to extinctions in several ways: by initiating or ending ice ages; by changing ocean and wind currents and thus altering climate; by opening seaways or land bridges which expose previously isolated species to competition for which they are poorly adapted (for example, the extinction of most of South America's native ungulates and all of its large metatherians after the creation of a land bridge between North and South America). Occasionally continental drift creates a super-continent which includes the vast majority of Earth's land area, which in addition to the effects listed above is likely to reduce the total area of continental shelf (the most species-rich part of the ocean) and produce a vast, arid continental interior which may have extreme seasonal variations.

Another theory is that the creation of the super-continent Pangaea contributed to the End-Permian mass extinction. Pangaea was almost fully formed at the transition from mid-Permian to late-Permian, and the "Marine genus diversity" diagram at the top of this article shows a level of extinction starting at that time which might have qualified for inclusion in the "Big Five" if it were not overshadowed by the "Great Dying" at the end of the Permian.[102]

Other hypotheses

Many other hypotheses have been proposed, such as the spread of a new disease, or simple out-competition following an especially successful biological innovation. But all have been rejected, usually for one of the following reasons: they require events or processes for which there is no evidence; they assume mechanisms which are contrary to the available evidence; they are based on other theories which have been rejected or superseded.

Scientists have been concerned that human activities could cause more plants and animals to become extinct than any point in the past. Along with human-made changes in climate (see above), some of these extinctions could be caused by overhunting, overfishing, invasive species, or habitat loss. A study published in May 2017 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences argued that a “biological annihilation” akin to a sixth mass extinction event is underway as a result of anthropogenic causes, such as over-population and over-consumption. The study suggested that as much as 50% of the number of animal individuals that once lived on Earth were already extinct, threatening the basis for human existence too.[103][24]

Future biosphere extinction/sterilization

The eventual warming and expanding of the Sun, combined with the eventual decline of atmospheric carbon dioxide could actually cause an even greater mass extinction, having the potential to wipe out even microbes (in other words, the Earth is completely sterilized), where rising global temperatures caused by the expanding Sun will gradually increase the rate of weathering, which in turn removes more and more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. When carbon dioxide levels get too low (perhaps at 50 ppm), all plant life will die out, although simpler plants like grasses and mosses can survive much longer, until CO2 levels drop to 10 ppm.[104][105]

With all photosynthetic organisms gone, atmospheric oxygen can no longer be replenished, and is eventually removed by chemical reactions in the atmosphere, perhaps from volcanic eruptions. Eventually the loss of oxygen will cause all remaining aerobic life to die out via asphyxiation, leaving behind only simple anaerobic prokaryotes. When the Sun becomes 10% brighter in about a billion years,[104] Earth will suffer a moist greenhouse effect resulting in its oceans boiling away, while the Earth's liquid outer core cools due to the inner core's expansion and causes the Earth's magnetic field to shut down. In the absence of a magnetic field, charged particles from the Sun will deplete the atmosphere and further increase the Earth's temperature to an average of ~420 K (147 °C, 296 °F) in 2.8 billion years, causing the last remaining life on Earth to die out. This is the most extreme instance of a climate-caused extinction event. Since this will only happen late in the Sun's life, such will cause the final mass extinction in Earth's history (albeit a very long extinction event).[104][105]

Effects and recovery

The impact of mass extinction events varied widely. After a major extinction event, usually only weedy species survive due to their ability to live in diverse habitats.[106] Later, species diversify and occupy empty niches. Generally, biodiversity recovers 5 to 10 million years after the extinction event. In the most severe mass extinctions it may take 15 to 30 million years.[106]

The worst event, the Permian–Triassic extinction, devastated life on earth, killing over 90% of species. Life seemed to recover quickly after the P-T extinction, but this was mostly in the form of disaster taxa, such as the hardy Lystrosaurus. The most recent research indicates that the specialized animals that formed complex ecosystems, with high biodiversity, complex food webs and a variety of niches, took much longer to recover. It is thought that this long recovery was due to successive waves of extinction which inhibited recovery, as well as prolonged environmental stress which continued into the Early Triassic. Recent research indicates that recovery did not begin until the start of the mid-Triassic, 4M to 6M years after the extinction;[107] and some writers estimate that the recovery was not complete until 30M years after the P-T extinction, i.e. in the late Triassic.[108] Subsequent to the P-T extinction, there was an increase in provincialization, with species occupying smaller ranges – perhaps removing incumbents from niches and setting the stage for an eventual rediversification.[109]

The effects of mass extinctions on plants are somewhat harder to quantify, given the biases inherent in the plant fossil record. Some mass extinctions (such as the end-Permian) were equally catastrophic for plants, whereas others, such as the end-Devonian, did not affect the flora.[110]

Representation of a Lie group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_a_Lie_group...