See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/365374857

Can the Theory of Everything be the Great Filter?

Preprint · November 2022

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33027.99364

CITATIONS READS

0 1,095

1 author:

Federico Re
Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca
21 PUBLICATIONS 43 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Federico Re on 15 November 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Can the Theory of Everything be the Great Filter?
Federico Re∗

October 16, 2022

∗ Dipartimento Fisica “Giuseppe Occhialini”, Università di Milano Bicocca, Milano, Italy;

[email protected]

Contents
1 Introduction 2
1.1 State of art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 The role of time and distance in communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2 The technological explosion 7

2.1 Exponential model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2 Strong version of the Fermi Paradox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3 In future we trust: the role of economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4 The role of scientific discoveries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3 The Theory of Everything as the Great Filter 13

3.1 “Culture-independent” answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.2 The Theory of Everything is a preferable answer to the Fermi Paradox . . . . . . . . . 15

4 Socio-economic consequences of a Theory of Everything 16

5 Conclusions, future perspectives and criticisms 19

Appendices 21

A Glossary 21

1
 Abstract
Superficial considerations about the exponential growth humanity experienced in the last few centuries
lead us to wonder how much can it endure. This rapid progress can benefits from subsequent explosions
thanks to the discover of always new scientific theories. Hence we conclude that it will find an end, or a
slowdown at least, after the Theory of Everything will be eventually discovered. Since the technological
progress is linked to economic wealth and to pacific policies, we conjecture if its stop can constitute a
risk of collapse for our civilization.
Since the Theory of Everything can act as a Great Filter for the human society, we wander if this
mechanism can work for any galactic civilization, thus finding a solution to the Fermi Paradox. After
a recap of the main conceptual tools to tackle the Fermi problem, and of the already proposed answers
about, we generalize the concept of exponential growth. The technological civilizations, which are the
matter of the Paradox, should experience such a rapid growth, as humanity is doing. If an exponential
explosion has no end, a technological society should rapidly occupy the entire Galaxy, but we do not
see any trace of galactic empires. These considerations leads again to believe that the progress must
have an end, for any civilization, and that the Theory of Everything should constitute its ultimate
limit. This results to be a somehow preferable answer to the Fermi Paradox.

1 Introduction
The Great Filter is a concept that emerged [1] among the discussion on the Fermi Paradox: “Where
are everybody?”[2], [3]. I.e., let the Mediocrity Principle holds, and nor the Earth nor the human
species have a privileged role among the nature (as five centuries of astronomical, biological and
scientific discoveries suggest) [4]. And let therefore life, intelligence and technology are widespread in
the Galaxy and in the whole universe. So why none of these technological civilizations ever tried to
contact us, in person or by message? Why we do not detect their presence in any way?

1.1 State of art

A lot of possible answers to the Fermi Paradox were proposed [5], with variations and combinations
of them. Honestly, the Fermi Paradox is likely to constitute a sort of Rorschach Test[6], bringing out
the personal psychology of those who propose the solutions, with their relationship with diversity, or
their deep fears about society and nature, rather than objectively plausible proposes. Nevertheless,
taking in mind this caveat, the fashion of the Fermi Paradox is due to the existence of objective clues:
data from astrophysics, biochemistry or statistics, which allow to exclude some of the options, and
to prefer some of them to others. The first, and the most famous, of these instruments is the Drake
Equation: an estimation of the number N of technological societies existing in the Galaxy [7] [8]. Here
we write it in this form:
N = R∗ np fe fl fi fc L, (1.1)
where:

• R∗ is the star formation rate in the Milky Way;

• np is the average number of planets orbiting around a star;

• fe is the fraction of habitable planets, or the probability that a planet is habitable;

2
 • fl is the probability that life appears on an habitable planet - while the forms of life are defined as
a set of termodinamically semi-open systems, such that they are able to regulate (homeostasis)
their internal energy and entropy [9], and following a darwinistic evolution process [10];

• fi is the probability that life evolves in an intelligent species - which can be defined as a creature
with an elaboration system complex enough to include a model of the world and of its place in it
[11], and such that these models and generically the behaviors of the creatures are predominantly
regulated by memetics and cultural information, rather than by genetics [10];

• fc is the probability that an intelligent species develops a technological civilization - that, for
our purposes, is characterized by the ability of establish interstellar communications (Cfr. with
discussion in §1.2 for the exhaustive definition of what a “communication” is, and see the Glos-
sary);

• L is the average time span of technological civilizations - what contemplate also possible break
periods, when the species somehow lose the ability of communication and then get it again,
or periods when the species is extinguished, but is later replaced by another intelligent and
technological society.

Obviously, the Drake Equation admits criticisms. E.g., one can observe that the probability of hab-
itability of a planet depends on the class of its star. Hence, it would be better to distinguish the
formation rates of the different classes of stars, and each of them has different habitability criteria
[12] [13]. One can argue that some of the passages considered in (1.1) are not strictly necessary for
the subsequent ones. Life could appear on interstellar planets [14], or on satellites big enough [15]
[16]. The “life”, as it is defined, may not be a prerequisite of intelligence: let’s imagine an IA, or a
Boltzmann brain [17]. Similarly, technology may not require to be developed by an “intelligence”, as
we defined it. Moreover, the estimation of the Drake Equation is uniform in space and along time,
but the distance between us and the other civilizations can put decisive obstacles to communication
[18]; or the period we live in, more or less prolific of intelligence, could be as much relevant [19] [20]
[21].
With all these cautions, we recognize that the Drake Equation has the advantage of systematize the
approach to the problem, and divides it in more manageable sub-problems. Looking at it, we can
categorize the possible answers to the Fermi Paradox with three major classes.

• Rare Earth hypothesis: “They do not exist”.

Here we have all the proposals that, for any reason, negates the Mediocrity Principles. If at
least one of the factors between np and fc is very low, then it would be N < 1, so that the
technological civilizations are a too rare phenomenon so that we can hope to establish a contact.
It is not necessary that they are totally non-existent: they could be just very rare.
E.g., it was conjectured that abiogenesis is a very improbable event [22]1 . Some authors high-
lighted many critical steps, along the story of life on the Earth, for which the evolution of
complex and intelligent forms of life may not be taken for granted: the endosymbiosis [23]; the
Great Oxidation Event; the multicellularity [24]; or the intelligence itself [25], that could be a
gable, as evolutionary feature. Moreover: supposing that intelligence is not rare, it may not be
1
Strictu sensu, this is the original meaning of “Rare Earth”: that it is the only one living planet. Here we generalized
the meaning of this traditional expression: the Earth would be a “rare”case even if it would be the only planet with an
intelligent species, in a universe of living planets but without intelligence. Cfr. the Glossary

3
 a common outcome the expression of science and technology [26], or their equivalent in alien
cultures.
Whether one imagines an essentially lifeless universe; or a universe rich only in simple life; or
only in complex, not intelligent life; or in intelligent, but not technological civilizations: for all
these cases, he is claiming that the today’s planet Earth is in a special condition, a condition
characterized by at least one of the listed reasons.

• Great Filter hypothesis: “They are all dead”.

Assuming that the Earth and humanity do not have any privileged role, and that N < 1 anyway,
we conclude that L has a very low value. In other words: civilizations like ours are very common
in the galactic history, but they are all short-lived, for some reason; hence, it never happens that
two of them are existing at the same time. Several mechanism were proposed, which can lead
to the collapse of a civilization. Whichever is right, it is conventionally called Great Filter: a
terrible crisis, a totally unforeseeable, perhaps, but ineluctable, which any civilization goes to
meet, before it can leave durable evidences [27] [28]. Likely, humanity is also destined to face
it2 .
Observing the world nowadays, two candidates for the Great Filter are immediately noticed:
nuclear weapons [29] and global warming [30]. We can also imagine a combination of them:
with the climatic wars, the exodus and the growing tension, the rationality that is needed
to apply the MAD strategy can disappear, among the state leaders. These reasons of crisis
can be generalized, for a generic civilization: the technological development requires resources
consumption and exploitation of the territory. It implies, as well, also the development of more
and more effective artifacts for any purpose, including destruction; statistically, such arms will
be employed, sooner or later. However, a lot of other Great Filters were imagined: the loss of
control of an IA [31] [32], or of a power plant that exploits a Kerr black hole [33] [34]; the spatial
debris pollution [35]; the rise of a global dystopia; or vice versa, of an utopic condition, which
humanity would not desire to leave.

• The Dark Forest, the Zoo hypothesis, and so on: “They don’t want to talk”.
The Drake Equation estimates the number of today’s existing civilizations capable of commu-
nicating. It does not contemplate their desire to really establish a communication. Hence, we
can imagine many pictures about a Galaxy swarming of technological civilizations, which do not
show themselves, for some reason.
The desire of communicate and know seems a natural one to us, we can even claim that it is
intrinsic of an intelligent species. But actually, we know very little about the general character-
ization of intelligence, since we can study just one example: ourselves. It could be the case that
an intelligent species is more frequently an isolationist one: even if it is capable of building radio
antennas for interstellar communication, it has no reason to do so [36]. We can also imagine a
composite explanation. Intelligent species may belong to two classes. The curious and aggres-
sive ones rapidly self-destruct in an atomic Great Filter. On the other hand, many passive and
pacific civilizations are perhaps existing right now, since they have not incurred in any Great
Filter, but they don’t want to contact us or each other3 .
2
According to the original definition of Great Filter [1], it could consist of any obstacle on the way to the technology,
even in the past of the humanity. However, the cases in which our planet and our species already passed the Great Filter,
fall in the first class of answers: the Rare Earth hypothesis. Cfr. the Glossary
3
We don’t know if the human concepts of “desire” or “will” can be applied to alien cultures. Here we intend them
as any mechanism which works analogously to our will, leading to an action rather to another, within the possibilities.

4
 On the opposite, the Dark Forest hypothesis claims that all the galactic civilizations are forced
to be aggressive [37], because the abysmal difference about biology and culture between alien
species leads to xenophobia, incomprehension, and any mutual trust is impossible. Moreover,
if the civilizations discovers the Dark Forest hypothesis, as we did, a fortiori they choose the
preventive destruction of any possible enemy - not necessarily because they want to do it, but
for self-preservation. Anyway, any civilization makes sure not to reveal itself, in order to avoid
the preventive attacks of all the others.
Yet another hypothesis is the Zoo’s one [38]. According to it, mutual tolerance and respect
for the diversity dominate in the Galaxy. For this reason, the more advanced civilizations don’t
want to contact us: in order to preserve our specificity, in the same way that we avoid contacting
the Sentinel people [39], and other un-contacted traditional cultures.

1.2 The role of time and distance in communication

We already noticed that the Drake Equation does not considers the time dependence. This leaves
room to some other possible answers.
One of them is the Early Bloomer hypothesis [40]; i.e., no one are contacting us because we are living
in the very first period of the history of the universe when it is possible the rise of technological civi-
lizations. Indeed, if we suppose that the carbon chauvinism is valid [41], then the only stars suitable
for life are those of the same generation of our Sun, with a sufficient abundance of heavy elements.
Moreover, billions of years are again required to biological evolution, in order to produce complex life,
and then intelligence. Suppose that the schedule of the Earth is a usual one for the required times
scale, or that it is even faster: formation of a planetary system 4.5 Gy ago, rise of life within 3 Gy ago,
complex life 600 My ago, intelligence 1 My ago, about. Hence, we are among the first civilizations of
the universe, and the other ones existing today are still rare. The Early Bloomer is an hypothesis of
the category of the Rare Earth, and its estimations has errors of billions of years, but it has the merit
of considering the role of time.
Another often proposed explanation of the Fermi Paradox is that the huge distances between civiliza-
tions forbid two-sided communication, even if the Drake estimation of their number in the Galaxy is
correct [42]. Consider, indeed, two civilizations with the ability of interstellar communication, sepa-
rated by a distance D of thousands of light years. They needs a time 2D/c, of thousands of years, just
to establish the first contact and receive reply. If this time 2D/c is bigger than the average time span
of technological civilizations L, then the bilateral communication is almost impossible. The Galaxy
may be teeming with civilizations, that are sending us messages, but when these messages will reach
us, their authors will be already extinct.
For the purposes of the present analysis, we will not consider this last hypothesis as valid, since we do
not need to require that the “communication” must be two-sided. The simple impossibility of frater-
nizing with alien cultures is not the truly paradoxical aspect of the Fermi’s question. The problem is
rather given by the total absence of their traces. We can define the “interstellar communications” in-
cluding the one-sided ones, and the puzzle retains its value. We need to explain why we are not at
least receiving messages from civilizations of thousands of years ago, which lived thousands of light
years away, and are extinct nowadays.
Being rigorous, we are not considering in the estimation N the civilizations contemporary to us, since
the coeval ones that are too far give no contribution. We are considering the civilizations that are
existing, or existed, on our past light cone. Their number is again the N that Drake estimated.
Cfr. the Glossary

5
However, this correction on the definition of fc allows us to mostly neglect the distance dependence.
Distance has nevertheless a relevant role in the difficulty sending a message that is perceptible for
the recipient. This is the main reason why we usually talk only about the life in the Milky Way, and
why the extra-galactic civilizations are neglected: they would need a huge energy to send a message
to us. Our current civilization has no energy enough for a message which is perceptible just by the
nearer star, although we have the radio technology. This did not stop us to try, with messages as the
Arecibo one [43], hoping in some superior alien reception technology. However, if antennas sensitive
about as the ours are listening, there are no hopes that the Arecibo message will be collected.
Let we define fc as: “the fraction of intelligent civilizations that are able to send a perceptible inter-
stellar message, even a one-side one”. Hence, humanity does not belong to them. Kardashev called
them civilizations of I kind, i.e. civilizations that are able to control the whole energy of their planet
[44]. Recall that the Kardashev degree is defined as

log10 W − 6
K := , (1.2)
10
where W is the number of watt the civilization can produce [45]. The II degree is reached by a
civilization that is able to control the energy of its star; the III degree by one that controls the energy
of all its galaxy. Today (data for 2019) humanity has a Kardashev degree of 0.725 about [46]. So, we
are not at the technological level of a message sender, although we have the technology required to
listen.
Kardashev did not consider civilizations beyond the III degree, since they should be characterized
by a scientific and technological knowledge that would be totally unintelligible to us. Here we recall
the Clarke’s Third Law: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”[48].
We can e.g. imagine that a civilization above the III degree discovers scientific laws overcoming the
Conservation of Energy. If it is the case, then the concept of energy itself, which is the theoretical
foundation of Kardashev scale, would lack. Such a scale would not be applicable to higher civilizations.
Sometimes, these civilizations are generically put in an Ω kind, instead of enumerate the degrees IV,
V, and so on, purposeless [49]. In other words, the Ω civilizations are those who realize Shermer’s
Last Law: “Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God”[50].
Even for less esoteric cases, which are applicable to the future of humanity or to other civilizations,
one can doubt of the descriptiveness of the Kardashev scale. Indeed, Kardashev assumes a certain
validity of energetic determinism, which is disputed [51]. Nevertheless, in this work we will use the
energetic determinism and the Kardashev scale as conceptual instruments. Indeed, some technical
or intellectual achievements do not require big amount of energy, but the interstellar communication
does, apparently. For the purposes of the Fermi Paradox, this is what we have to consider. Moreover,
higer is the degree in Kardashev scale, and more difficult is to hide the civilization. Hence, the energy
level seems to be a good parameter for observational checks.
Here we see the need to generalize the definition of “communication”, for the last time. Indeed, we
have to include also the unaware communications. For the purpose of Fermi Paradox, it doesn’t matter
the will in communication, as it doesn’t matter if it receives an answer. A civilization of level I needs
some effort, in order to send a perceptible message; but it is probably necessary to build some mega-
structures, e.g. a Dyson sphere [52], in order to get the level II, and these would make the civilization
detectable, even without its will. The discover of any techno-signature would constitute a one-side,
unintentional communication. We need to explain why the SETI program, along fifty years of activity,
never detected any (but see [53]). Regarding to the civilizations of III kind, we can certainly say that
none of them exist in our galaxy: otherwise, it would have already colonized the Solar System too.

6
Their mega-structures should be so huge that they would be detectable from a distance of several
galaxies - but we have no clues of such beings, in all the visible universe.

2 The technological explosion

Now we tackle the problem studying the technological evolution of a civilization.

2.1 Exponential model

Demography and even economy admit quantitative models, but it is very difficult to develop such
models for the technological, scientific and cultural evolution. This is due to the extreme qualitative
variety of ideas that can be found, even within the human history. Moreover, the scientific process
consists of the discovery of previously unknown laws, and of the collapse of theories previously con-
sidered valid. So, in order to foresee the future science and technology, we would need to know the
laws that will be discovered in the future, but they are unknown today.
Since detailed forecast models are impossible, we limit ourselves to generic observations about the
nature of technology. It is a self-catalytic mechanism, whatever its kind: the technology available at
each step is employed to improve its own efficiency. The self-catalytic processes imply exponential
growths. The Moore Law is a famous example [54], which has maintained its validity for fifty years.
Technology is also employed to invent totally new mechanisms. It provides better instruments to the
pure research, speeding up the discovery of new fundamental laws. These will be applied in turn to
new technologies, in a virtuous circle. Such a circle is established also between the science/technology
and the whole society: science provides resources and wealth to society, which in turn invests in re-
search. This coupling justifies the estimation of the general develop of a civilization looking to its
technological achievements.
Assuming that a technological society has an exponential grow, we can try to estimate its growing
rate. We do not refer to particular technologies, as microprocessors are, but to the total production
of energy.
The human civilization is the only example we have. The human beings do not belong to the fc
fraction, according to our definition, but we will consider them a “technological society” anyway.
Humanity has the “technology” from 1600, or from 1800, depending on whether you want to take it as
a reference the Scientific Revolution or the Industrial Revolution4 . We will start from 1800, because we
have enough data only from than year on [46] [47]. From the year 1800 to 2019, the human energetic
production has grown by a factor of 28. Humanity went from a Kardashev degree 0.58 to 0.725. The
growing in time of the Kardashev degree K(t) can be well approximated to the regression line, with
R2 ∼= 0.95, and the quadratic mean of the deviations from the linear law is σ ∼ = 0.0117 (see Figure
1). Since the Kardashev scale is a logarithmic one, this confirms an exponential technological growth.
The regression line is so inclined as to involve the increase of a whole Kardashev degree every 1370
years about.
t
K(t) ∼
= − 0.756 (2.1)
1370y
4
Note that we are using the term “technological society” with two different meanings. First meaning: a society that
is capable to send a perceptible interstellar message. Second meaning: a society with an exponential growth of energy,
granted by the self-catalytic virtuous circles between science and technology. The first meaning defines the factor fc in
the Drake Equation. The second meaning is a growth regime of the Kardashev level. They are related, but not identical
notions. Cfr. the Glossary

7
 Figure 1: Regression line for K(t) data, from 1800 to 2019.

If this linear law is projected in the future, it would foresee that humanity will become a type I
Kardashev civilization in the year 2406 ± 16, and so being part of the fraction fc . This forecast is
obtained with coarse methods, but it is confirmed by the recent analysis [55]. Jiang and his colleagues
showed how it is possible to reach the degree I even in 2371, just with the today’s known technological
tools. This year falls within the ±3σ of our projection.

2.2 Strong version of the Fermi Paradox

The extension of the exponential growing model can return absurd results. E.g., if (2.1) is extended
though the past, it would be found a Kardashev degree of 0 for the year 1036 ± 16 A.D. In fact,
a zero degree for humanity would rather correspond with its condition after the Toba catastrophe,
approximately 70.000 years ago: the technology was limited to lithic industry, control of fire, robes
and no more, and the population was reduced to 10.000 people about [56]. A value K = 0 during the
High Middle ages is totally unlikely.
The growing rate of an intelligent, but not technological species is however far less than the rate
of a technological one. Our exponential law can be extended not before the 1600 A.D., when the
Scientific Revolution made humanity a technological species. Some kind of self-catalytic growth could
be sustained by intelligence alone, during the previous millennia, allowing humanity to select and
apply better and better technological innovations. Hence, we can imagine others linear regimes of
K(t) for the phases of human history. The line inclination probably changed thanks to the major
revolutions, as Neolithic Revolution or Urban Revolution. Anyway, without the scientific method,
innovations were random, emerging not from a methodical research. So, if a regression line existed
before 1600 A.D., it would have had a far less inclination (it’s coherent with a Kardashev growth of
0.5 along tens of millennia).
We are by now an industrial society, so we can believe that the exponential model is valid for the
future. The projection returns that we will reach the II degree in the year 3775, and we will be a
civilization of III kind at 5145 A.D. about. For many reasons, these forecasts are absurd.
First of all, Galaxy has 100.000 ly of diameter. The settlers would require hundreds of millennia just
to reach all the stars. Even the use of Von Neumann universal constructors would not change this fact
[57]. Hence, we can exclude to control the whole Galaxy just thirty-two centuries from now - unless
some sci-fi technology are discovered, e.g. the Asimov’s hyperatomic drive [58], or the Roddenberry’s
warp drive [59], or some control on wormholes [60].

8
Secondly, it’s difficult to keep up to date with technological innovation for the average human, even
today. With a constantly accelerating progress, people would be soon unable to learn quickly enough
how the new world works [61]. Not to mention emotionally accepting it. This “mental friction” could be
reduced changing the human nature itself, with technological tools as genetic engineering. Otherwise,
the AIs could manage the progress [62]. Or a middle ground can be followed, enhancing the human
mind with electronic systems, nanotechnologies, and linking it to computer processor or to a mental
internet [63], and so on.
The first and second objections admit these answers, imagining some suitable future technology.
Now we consider a third one, which is linked to the Fermi Paradox itself. Assume that, when a civ-
ilization reaches a scientific phase (or a technological one, or any equivalent), it really takes three or
four millennia to colonize the whole Galaxy. So why hasn’t it already happened? The Drake Equation
estimates our contemporaries civilization of type I (or those civilizations that existed on our past light
cone, anyway). The number of the technological societies ever appeared in all the galactic history,
of ten billion of years, has a totally different order of magnitude. It is enough that this event - a
technological explosion of four millennia - although improbable it is, happened just once along 1010
years, on any of the 1011 star systems of the Milky Way. If it happened, we would live now on a
“xeno-formed” world (as we would like to “terraform” the other worlds, such an alien species would
have “xeno-formed” the Galaxy in his image). Its empire could also have collapsed later, but it is
enough if it lived for some millennia. Its traces would be everywhere. Instead, we see nothing.
This is a sort of a strong version of the Fermi Paradox. Not: “Where are everybody?” But rather:
“Why they are not already here?” The question is justified, because the disproportion between two
orders of magnitude: the age of Galaxy, and the time required to colonize it, in the case of an ex-
ponential technological explosion. The explanations for the Fermi Paradox belonging to the third
class, “They don’t want to talk”, are not applicable to this strong Fermi Paradox. Regardless of its
willingness to communicate, the presence of a conquering civilization would be obvious5 .
In the light of the strong Fermi Paradox, only the first two classes of answers are acceptable. Within
the first one, we can consider a variation of the Early Bloomer hypothesis: the “First in, last out” hy-
pothesis [21]. The idea is that a scientific-technological revolution has such a potential that makes
inevitable the domain of the Galaxy, with a time scale that is trifling if compared with the age of
the Galaxy itself. However, we see no such empire. Hence, we are the first civilization that reaches
this stage. There might be someone else that did the same almost at the same time, but no more.
Unfortunately, this is another way to refuse the Mediocrity Principle. It is justified by an adaptation
of the Anthropic Principle: if we weren’t the first, then we wouldn’t even exist; so, the fact that we
are here, wandering about the problem, is a proof of our primacy [66].
Remember however that is it preferable to avoid this kind of answers, belonging to the first class: if
only for Occam’s Razor. Indeed, we can object that it does not seem legitimate to apply the Anthropic
Principle in this case [67]. Let’s imagine an Aztec thinker, with enough abstraction skills. He could
propose an analogous argument, but on the smaller scale of the human cultures, expanding on the
world. Making use of the Anthropic Principle, he would have concluded that the mesoamerican culture
was the only one that achieved the Neolithic Revolution. Only in the Mesoamerica, the writing was
discovered and an urbanization was experienced - otherwise, he would not be able to consider these
matters. A few years later, the landing of Cortés would prove his mistake.
5
We don’t want to consider non-falsifiable and solipsistic explanations here, e.g. the argument of the simulated
universe [64]. However, it could be considered the case in which the conquering civilization made so deep changes that
are not identifiable. An example from the sci-fi is the Cixin Liu’s trilogy, in which the limit of speed of light itself is due
to xeno-formation [65].

9
 So, the best class of answers seems to be those of the Great Filter. We can sketch a quantitative
argumentation adapting the Drake Equation (1.1) to this strong version of the paradox. Let Ns be
the number of civilizations that colonized the whole Milky Way in some moment of the past. Then
we can write
Ns = R∗ np fe fl fi fIII A, (2.2)
where A ∼ = 1010 y is the age of the Galaxy, and fIII is the probability that an intelligent species reaches
the III Kardashev degree. Hence, fIII is the probability that a civilization starts a technological
explosion regime similar to (2.1), and endure it for three or four millennia.
It is an empirical fact that Ns < 1, since the absence of a galactic empire cannot be due to a choice
of the colonizers not to communicate. A is a fixed and big factor, unlike to L. If any factor between
np and fi is set very low, we break the Mediocrity Principle; and the Anthropic Principle seems not
to be a justification for that. Hence, deduce that fIII  1.
Humanity already reached the exponential growth regime. So, we can’t justify that fIII  1 assuming
a very low probability of starting the technological phase: this would break the Mediocrity Principle,
too. Hence, the best conclusion is that these technological phases do not endure for more that three
millennia.
The strong Fermi Paradox is a key clue that the technological growth cannot be exponential for
millennia. The Great Filter is the cause of stunting, since the only class of acceptable answers for this
version of the paradox is the second one.

2.3 In future we trust: the role of economy

We considered three objections against the possibility of a unlimited exponential growth. Now we
see a fourth one: such a phenomena is widely believed to be impossible, in almost all the scientific
environments. The exponential growth of a population, will eventually face a Malthusian disaster.
An epidemic can at most reach the wholeness of the infectable subjects, but no more. A self-catalytic
chemical reaction continues until the reagents are finished. Even the hypothetical inflationary universe,
assuming that it happened, had after all a stop. For almost all the known cases, from any scientific
topic, the exponential growths run out soon.
Any considered system has some limit. Any considered scientific model has an evolution law with
a maximum limit for the growth. In the case of the Moore Law, the limit is given by the quantum
Uncertainty Principle - and we reached it now [68]. Rather, we should wonder how an exponential
growth as (2.1) could continue for 220 years, at least.
The only community whose specialists seems to not refuse the unlimited growths, even the expo-
nential ones, is economy. The booms of particular investments have always an end, and they can even
generates severe economic bubbles. Nevertheless, it is widely believed that the whole economy, in the
long run, can plausibly continue to grow - indeed, this is necessary and desirable. From centuries, the
economic thinkers believe that the growth of companies, nations and of the whole world is desirable
(no matter the capitalist or socialist orientation). The growth rate can be higher or lower, but a too
low level is believed to be a pathological symptom, not an inevitable stabilization. There is a non zero
physiological growth rate, and this means an exponential growth, even with a 1% rate for year6 .
Economy is atypical because its variables does not depend only on material goods, but mostly on
expectations, i.e. on human psychology . The most part of the money existing in the world today,
6
Just a growth of 1% for years means a factor ∼
= e for century. It corresponds to the growth of an order of magnitude
each 100 ln 10 ∼
= 230 years about, and the increasing of a whole Kardashev degree in just twenty-three centuries. This is
less that twice the times scale of the law (2.1)!

10
whether banknote or electronic money, takes not its value from concrete goods, or from services. Its
value comes from investments on what will be realized, but does not exist yet. Hope for the future is
the biggest source of economic value. This fact allows virtuous financial circles to establish. Thanks
to this confidence in the future, in the Modern Era the interest rates on loans became quite low, with
respect to previous historical periods. This allowed to many more companies to born, and to gain
success. Observing the effectiveness of the progress, the banks lowered more and more the interest
rates on loans. This consolidated the economic value of the hope [69].
Such psychological and sociological mechanisms are the reason why economy has no conservation laws.
This way of thinking can be strongly counter-intuitive for physical scientists. The amount of money
and value in the world is not constant. It is not limited by the present matter or energy, but only
by people’s imagination. For this, an economist does not distrust from unlimited growths, as long as
the population has the time for recognize and validate them. Of course, he is aware of the physical
limits, as the speed of light, or the heath death of the universe; but these are negligible for his models,
because they are too far.
Human hope needs a constant improvement in material welfare to be justified. For this, the market
has to always puts new ideas into action. It has to open new market niches, and it is inspired by
technological and scientific discoveries. There is a mutual catalysis between the scientific-technological
world and the economic-financial one. This is one of the alliances that are allowing the fast, exponential
growth in the Modern Era. Discoveries and inventions consolidate the people’s trust in progress; the
obtained capital is invested also in research and development sectors.

2.4 The role of scientific discoveries

Now we can see how the exponential growth could last for over two centuries, and even today there is
no clue of a Malthusian limit. Recall that such a limit is given by the nature of the growing system:
it follows some models, and often these models include conservation laws. The process of scientific
discovery consists precisely in refuting models and laws. The laws are substituted with other, more
general ones, so that the considered “system” results to not be the same. The new system has again
a Malthusian limit, but it is usually higher than the previous one.
Hence, the technological growth can be interpreted not as a unique exponential curve, due to a certain
model, but rather as many exponential curves, overlapping and gluing [47]. Each partial curve is
given by the model that is valid during its historical period. Any time this curve starts to slow down,
because the saturation of resources, then a new model is implemented. This starts a new exponential
explosion, without any rest. At the beginning of this Section, we pointed out that it is impossible to
find a unique description of scientific evolution: science consists in overcoming the known laws, even
those laws that we can try to use to describe it. The chain of explosions in the technological growth
is a consequence of this.
This picture can be recognized in the technological and economic history of the past two centuries
[70]. The Industrial Revolution was not just one, indeed: to date there are already three or four
[71]. The First Industrial Revolution allowed an explosive growth, starting from the end of the XVIII
century, thanks to exploitation of coal and to the industrial use of the steam engine. The engines were
used to extract faster the coal. But the self-catalysis was doomed to be braked by the difficulties in
finding new mines, and by their greater deepness [72]. The Second Industrial Revolution (exploiting
oil) took the start before the previous one would reach its limit [73]. Even now, the fossil fuels are
running out and are becoming ecologically unacceptable, but we know already many alternatives, as
renewable energies and nuclear engines. Similarly, the Moore’s Law reached its limit due to the classic

11
physics, but we know the laws of modern physics for more than a century, and we are applying them
to quantum computing [68].
The energetic growth is granted by constant technical innovations, and these are in turn allowed
by the succession of scientific discoveries, which can be led back ultimately to the fundamental laws of
nature. Such discoveries can happen with great advance (even more than a century) with respect to
the time when their applications are needed. However, they are the remote cause of the linear climbing
of Kardashev scale, and they are indispensable for this. Even the economic growth is in some way
coupled to scientific discovers, although it is untied by material obstacles: discoveries and inventions
justifies the investors’ trust in the future.
This analysis depends strongly on human specificity, especially for the role of economy. Other in-
telligent beings may have no analogues of economy, or may have analogues with radically different
mechanisms. Nevertheless, we are allowed to believe that if a civilization is experiencing a techno-
logical explosion (improving linearly its Kardashev degree, with a rate comparable to ours), then it
must have had their own kind of Scientific Revolution. For our purposes, we can generalize the role
of scientific thinking as: “a certain trait of the civilization that allows to substitute continuously and
quickly its growth models, so that any previous Malthusian limit is broken” (Cfr. the Glossary).
Without such an element, any exponential growth must run out soon.
Now recall the first objection we met in §2.2, about extending the exponential model to future mil-
lennia. Now we can reformulate the answer to it, thanks to the concept of “generalized scientific
progress”: the limit of the speed of light is usually taken for granted, but it is just another Malthusian
limit to the growth. The Special Relativity can be considered valid for a long time, as other funda-
mental laws were: the Galilean Invariance resisted for three centuries, and the Einstein’s one has little
more than one. Analogously to other theories, also the Special Relativity can eventually collapse,
finding a substitute. The exponential model (2.1) can remain valid, just if Relativity will be refused
in some moment by the LII century. This seems not to be so unlikely, if we look at the past history
of science.
Such a line of thought can be criticized as not-falsifiable [74]. We are imaging that anything is
possible for an advanced enough civilization. But if we cannot study the Fermi Paradox relying at
least on our most fundamental knowledge about universe, then any rational analysis is impossible. We
could legitimately claim any arbitrarily absurd idea about aliens, and about the nature of the cosmos.
Any objection would use some accepted law, but these would be refused for higher civilizations.
Moreover: if we believe in an unlimited scientific progress, then the strong Fermi Paradox becomes
even more serious. Assume that even the speed of light is not an inviolable limit, and that even a very
young (if compared with the age of the Galaxy) civilization will be able to broke it in just two or three
millennia. Then why the Galaxy was not inexorably colonized a long time ago? If the speed of light
is not a true limit, then we need to consider also the intelligent beings from all the other galaxies, not
only from ours. The estimation (2.2) has to be extended even beyond the visible universe: indeed,
only the limit of the speed of light makes its horizon inviolable.
The universe is not infinitely old, as far as we can tell. Nevertheless, its spatial curvature results to
be zero, net of experimental errors [75]. Hence (assuming an homogeneous spatial topology, even at
large scale [76]), the universe is spatially infinite, beyond our visible horizon. Assuming always the
Mediocrity Principle, it follows an infinite amount of habitable planets. However small the factors
in (2.2) are, doesn’t matter. However small is the probability fIII that a civilization discovers the
superluminal travel (i.e. the Kardashev’s III degree), doesn’t matter. As long as these numbers are
not exactly zero, the Drake estimation returns an infinite amount of civilizations that whould have
already colonized the entire universe - including the Earth.

12
These considerations point that the superluminal travel is impossible, whatever is the progress degree.
With more generality, we should believe that an unlimited technological progress is impossible. Inci-
dentally, this means that the Clarke’s Third Law, the Shermer’s Last Law and similar claims have no
absolute validity.

3 The Theory of Everything as the Great Filter

The myth of an unlimited scientific progress comes from the principle (in philosophy of science) that
all scientific theories are falsifiable [74], and from the fact (in history of science) that almost all past
theories were eventually falsified. However, even if all the theories can fall, this does not mean that
they must fall.
Scientific theories are models, produces by humans in order to describe the Laws of Nature. The
theory does not coincide with the Law: it is just an effort, or an approximation. That’s why it can
be substituted by a better model. Note that this research method assumes the existence of some
fundamental Law of Nature: otherwise, it cannot be sought, and approximated better and better. We
do not know this Law. We cannot claim to know it with certainty, ever, since this would mean that
the theory describing the Law is not-falsifiable. Nevertheless, we must suppose that the Law exists.
The existence of an absolute Law of Nature - independent of human knowledge, intrinsic to reality - is
not a scientific principle. It is rather a meta-scientific principle, since it is an axiom necessary for the
scientific method itself. Obviously, it is open to philosophical criticisms, e.g. about the knowability of
reality itself7 ; or even about the existence of reality, following solipsistic arguments. If the existence
of an objective reality is anyway accepted, a reality that is external to the mind studying it; and
if it is accepted that such reality presents regularities (as it is pointed by human intuition, and by
centuries of scientific achievements); hence, the absolute Law of Nature exists, and it consists on these
regularities (Cfr. the Glossary).
The Theory of Everything would be the scientific theory describing the very Law of Nature. If
scientists will formulate it, they will never have the epistemological certainty that it is the real Theory
of Everything. The possibility of a confuting experiment, or a confuting observation, must always
be considered. So, they will must always contemplate the possibility that the Theory of Everything
does not really describe the Law of Nature. At the end of the XIX century, physicists believed that
they had build almost totally the Theory of Everything - and the biggest revolution of the history of
physics was arriving. Today, some researches dare to suggest that the Theory of Everything is almost
reached - and one can expect that they will be confuted similarly in the future. However, if a theory
were effectively the Theory of Everything, it will never be falsified; even though it can never be called
“the Theory of Everything” with certainty.
In such a case, the Theory of Everything would not be substituted by an ulterior wider theory, anymore,
because such a theory does not exist. Hence, the Theory of Everything would provide the definitive
model of the technological growth. Unlike the Malthusian limits of the previous theories, the one of
the Theory of Everything is an authentic impassable limit. Once it is reached, the resources of the
universe itself are exhausted, and not just the resources of a sub-system.
The strong version of the Fermi Paradox points that the Theory of Everything exists, and that its
limit is reached at some moment before the III Kardashev degree. We can call KM the Kardashev
degree at which the ultimate Malthusian limit is revealed. Here we are claiming that KM exists and
is less than 3.
7
the Kant’s “noumenon”

13
 The Theory of Everything is unknown to us, but we may infer that the limit of the speed of light
(or some analogous obstacle) could be among its components. Indeed, if the Laws of Nature would
allow arbitrarily fast travels, the universe would be already colonized by infinite civilization, as we
said above. The first two Principles of Thermodynamics could be other components of the ultimate
Theory: if a civilization would break them, it would be able to deploy a perpetual motion machine of
the first kind, and this would make it a Ω level civilization.
With a bigger generality: any scientific theory consists of a prohibition, of a claim of impossibility,
rather than of the possibility to build new technologies. Any scientific law claims that only the
phenomena allowed by it can happen; among all the other phenomena one can imagine, none of them
can happen. The wider is the exclusion, the more noteworthy and advanced the law, and the more
falsifiable it is, in the Popper’s sense [74]. The Theory of Everything should be seen as the ultimate
obstacle, for the discovering society, rather than a source of technical applications. Such applications
run out over a couple of centuries, while the no-go principles are eternal.

3.1 “Culture-independent” answers

Compared to other proposed answers to the Fermi Paradox, the Great Filter of the Theory of Every-
thing appears to be preferable since it is “culture-independent”.
We can imagine an extreme biochemical, anatomical, psychological and cultural variety of civ-
ilizations. A “good answer” to the Fermi Paradox should disregard this diversity. A “culture-
dependent” answer, which is inspired by some aspect of human culture or psychology, can give reason
for only a fraction of the existing societies (Cfr. the Glossary). E.g. one can conjecture that curios-
ity and aggressiveness are intrinsic features of intelligence. So that, as the technological skills grow,
destruction tools also grow, and the society will use them against itself before it gain interstellar rel-
evance. But such an answer only applies to aggressive societies. It can explain why we never got in
touch with aggressive civilizations, at most. But it does not explain why no other kind of civilizations
showed itself: the non aggressive ones; or those for which aggressiveness is a meaningless category.
With some imagination, we can even conceive a planet on which have been established biological
laws that are different from ours. On the Earth, Darwinian selection is given mostly by competi-
tion between individuals. Even if social animals, and also symbiotic animals exist, competition is
anyway the dominant biological dynamic for the life on Earth. But if the mutual symbiosis would
be established from the very first ages of life, then the natural selection would exclude rather those
elements that are unable to cooperate with biosphere [77]. Such a biological context would have note-
worthy consequences for an intelligent species, and for its culture. Such an intelligence could develop
a technological civilization, but without instruments of total destruction. Moreover, it would be an
ecologically compatible civilization, with respect to its biosphere. In this case, the two most proposed
Great Filters, nuclear war and environment destruction (which are so plausible for humanity today),
would not show up at all.
Why the Galaxy is not populated by pacific and ecological societies? Why not by civilizations in-
sensitive to dystopias, utopias, and to any other culture-dependent Great Filter? Why the first one,
among these, has not exponentially expanded in few millennia, as soon as it reached its technological
phase?
Obviously, it is not an easy task do distinguish the culture-dependent answers to the others. Since
we are the only known example of intelligence, we can’t say if a human feature is intrinsic of any
intelligence, or if it is just an our particular characteristic. According to the sensitivity and the world
vision of each thinker, it could be seen as an arbitrary feature, or as an inevitable one. Again, the

14
Fermi Paradox seems to act like a Rorschach Test. The very definition of intelligence, which we have
given in the Introduction, is just an effort to generalize a concept of which we do not know the true
limits. Memetic could be irrelevant in cases as hive-minds [78], which are nevertheless capable of
developing technology.
Beyond these defining difficulties, we should prefer as much as possible culture-independent answers.
This was already highlighted in [21]. Indeed, the “First in, last out” hypothesis has the merit of
disregard the particular features of each kind of intelligence. On the contrary, it exploits their differ-
ences, given by billions of years of independent biological evolution: it is impossible to recognize the
“life” and the “intelligence” of what you come into contact with. The expanding civilization would
wipe away any other being, not because a destructive will, but inadvertently. In the same way, a
excavator can devastate an anthill, unaware that it developed a collective intelligence - and maybe it
wouldn’t even care.
The Dark Forest hypothesis is another explanation that exploits the biological and cultural differences
between civilization, and so it enjoys some culture-independence. It is inspired by human history,
anyway, in which the first contacts between different civilization was followed almost ever by total
incomprehension, and devastation for the weaker part. It is based nevertheless on quite objective
points: space and matter are limited and civilizations grow, so that they will eventually compete, if
only for self-preservation. Cooperating and federating would be an alternative, but mutual trust is
needed for this purposes. Some civilizations can be aggressive, some other can be pacific; but if we
don’t know to which category belongs the one we are dealing with, we cannot take risks. Without
common cultural traits (does this species believe in honor? Does it understand basic logic?), the safest
strategy is preemptive attack. This is a big Prisoner’s Dilemma [79], on galactic scale.
Except for these two, all the other proposed answers to the Fermi Paradox listed in §1.1 seem to be
culture-dependent, even those in the second and third classes. Indeed, a Great Filter is a threat only
if the civilization has the inclination to take that path. The will or indifference in communication are
even more determined by culture.

3.2 The Theory of Everything is a preferable answer to the Fermi Paradox

The Theory of Everything is clearly culture-independent, since it is a feature of the universe itself,
rather than of the civilizations that discover it. Different intelligences can describe the Law of Nature
with instruments that are very different from the ours: maybe without mathematics, or following
a method that is not the scientific one. They can follow a different path to build the Theory of
Everything. Maybe, other societies do not start discovering the limits of the speed of light, and of
the Energy Conservation, but they first discover other components of the Theory - components that
are still unknown for us. But whatever is the followed path to the Malthusian limit of the Theory of
Everything, whether the civilization is aware or not, the limit must stop the exponential growth of
energy.
When such limit is reached, the civilization can react in different ways. It can go on with its expansion,
but it will be no more an auto-catalytic and exponential one. The Theory of Everything allows to
build some technologies that guarantee an increase of available energy; this could be done e.g. building
Dyson spheres, or interstellar colonizing navies. Such a growth will be linear, at most, i.e. K(t) will be
a logarithmic law. We don’t know at which Kardashev degree KM is reached this definitive Malthusian
limit. If this KM is less enough than 3, then it would not be so easy to develop a civilization of III
kind. After KM < 3, the grow can be at most linear, requiring far more than few millennia. This
new time scale can be now comparable to the age of the Galaxy, so that the strong Fermi Paradox is

15
solved.
In the meanwhile, the civilization could run out its physiologic life L. Or it could split up, because the
communications to interstellar colonies require too much time to keep them together. If divided by
millennia of independent history, without contacts, the colonies can differentiate so much to become a
different civilization de facto. This new culture could even fight against the motherland. However, even
if interstellar war is avoided, interstellar distances hold back the expansion. During the technological
explosion phase, the growth catalyzes other growth; during the interstellar colonization phase, on the
contrary, growth inhibits a further growth. Probably, even W (t) will be less than linear.
Another possibility is that the Malthusian limit can create a backlash to the civilization. The expansion
can be stopped. The civilization can even collapse. This would be the very effect of a Great Filter.
Anyway, all these possible developments would be a consequence of the laws inherent in the universe: c
is inviolable, energy cannot be created by nothing, and so on. Hence, these are all culture-independent
effects.
In the previous Sections, we mentioned other “preferability criteria”(Cfr. the Glossary), aside the
culture-independence. It turns out that the Theory of Everything enjoys also these other criteria.
First, an answer to the Fermi Paradox should provide an explanation to its strong version too. The
Theory of Everything does. So it is preferable to, e.g., the Dark Forest hypothesis. The Dark Forest
does not explain why, along billion of years, none of the competing technological societies arrived
to colonize the Earth. This could be done silently, without betraying its presence. If only to gain
advantage to the other civilizations, each one should colonize uninhabited planets, as fast as possible.
A second preferability criterion is the Mediocrity Principle. It is broken by all the answers in the
first class, including the “First in, last out” hypothesis. On the other hand, the Theory of Everything
respects it. We can require as a third criterion to refuse the Clarke’s Third Law - or at least, to refuse
an absolute validity to it. Otherwise, any rational study on the Fermi Paradox, using the knowledge
available to us, would be totally impossible. The fourth and last preferability criterion is the culture-
independence.
Pay attention: these criteria have no material value. A problem as the Fermi Paradox has no obligation
to have a solution which is formatable by human beings, on the base of our current knowledge. In
the same way, the universe has no obligation to meet the Mediocrity Principle. These criteria have
value just as methodological principles. They do not exclude totally some options, but they rather
point which options are best to consider first. Only when all the answers that satisfy a criterion are
confuted, then the other ones becomes plausible.
In this sense, we claim that it is preferable - currently preferable, until no evidence to the contrary
emerges - to answer to the Fermi Paradox saying that any technological society discovers the Theory
of Everything, within a maximum of two or three millennia of scientific explosion. The discover of this
Theory constitutes the Great Filter, ending the technological explosion. As far as we know, this is the
only explanation that solves also the strong Fermi Paradox, that meets the Mediocrity Principle, that
negates the Clarke’s Third Law, and that is culture-independent.

4 Socio-economic consequences of a Theory of Everything

So far, we studied the implications of the discovery of the Theory of Everything for a generic civ-
ilization. In this Section, we consider which may be the consequences specifically for the human
civilization. Let’s try to imagine a future development with a very early manifestation of this Great
Filter.

16
 Let’s assume that, about in the middle of this century, we will manage to quantize gravity [80]. The
definitive experimental confirm could arrive around 2100, with a suitable particle accelerator or some
other experimental setup, e.g. one that detects the graviton. Adding the graviton to the Standard
Model (SM), all the theoretical predictions becomes coherent to the experimental measures, within
their errors. Assume also that the open problems in cosmology - as dark matter, dark energy and
inflation - will be explained, thanks to the new quantum gravity (QG).
A century from now, physics seems to explain almost any known phenomenon. Obviously, some small
problems remains. Many scientists believe that these “small clouds”[81] can be clues for an imminent
revolution of physics, analogously to the photoelectric effect, the black body problem and the ether
at the end of XIX century. Explanations are proposed, modifying the SM+QG, adding particles, or
even changing the paradigm. After experimental checks, these turn out to be always wrong. On the
contrary, suitable applications of the main theory clear progressively the small clouds.
Two centuries from now, humanity reaches the Kardashev degree of 0.85. Energetic crisis are solved.
On the Moon and on Mars there are permanent colonies, starting terraforming [82] [83]. Energy is
guaranteed by a mix of fusion reactors and photovoltaic systems [55]. Projects exist about mining
the asteroid belt [84] [85] [86]. Meanwhile, the fundamental physics did not see relevant discoveries
in the last hundred years. More and more experts start to suspect that the current theory could be
the last one - or at least, that a progress would require very advanced experimental setup, more than
available; or superior computing power; or some analogous jump.
Technology, informatics and applied science continue to provide inventions for all the XXII and XXIII
centuries. They draw on the “old fashioned” quantum physics8 , and then on the particle physics9
and on quantum gravity. These inventions keep on supporting the exponential growth. In the XXIV
century, even the bicentenary quantum gravity starts to run out the applications. The innovations
are reduced to the logistic and organizational ones. This is enough to lead humanity to become a
civilization of I kind for Kardashev, four centuries from now.
In the XXV century, the majority of physicists are convinced that the quantum gravity is the Theory
of Everything. For intellectual correctness, they know to must contemplate the possibility that the
theory can be put in crisis, by some extraordinary experiment, or by an observation from the deep
space. But the more decades and centuries pass, the less this is believed to be plausible. Popper’s
falsiability becomes more a myth, than a method: a curiosity from the history of philosophy. Even
the non expert population incorporates this mentality. They see that the level of wealth and progress
is similar to those of their fathers, or of their grandparents.
A half of millennium from now, no one can remember a time when the humanity had a different
technology. Big works go on, of course. Mars is almost terraformed. The terraforming of Venus is
started [87] [88], as the colonization of satellites of Jupiter and Saturn, as well. Spatial stations orbit
around the Sun, as the first elements of a Dyson swarm [89]. But the rhythm of these improvements
is constant, without a hope in sudden, relevant innovations.
Along this historical period, the interest rates slowly grows, reaching the pre-modern levels. Ob-
viously, it is not a uniform trend. Investments at low cost are allowed in random moments, due to
political and social changing, popular protests or projects organized by governments. However, the
global trend of the markets is to distrust investment on future. Indeed, any production growth can
be easily predicted: it depends essentially by planetary colonization. The total richness of humanity
grows slowly, or it does not grow at all. It is senseless to hope in its relevant increase.
This has political consequences. In the age of exponential growth, the more rational and effective way
8
This started already in XXI century, with quantum computers
9
Cixin Liu imagines “strongly interacting materials”[65]

17
to get rich is to pacifically invest. With the end of this growth, the pre-modern conception of economy
returns to be valid: the total richness is like a pie, with an almost fixed size [69]. Hence, the more
effective way to get rich is to appropriate the other slides, even with violent methods [90].
In five centuries, the political institutions can change a lot, with respect to those of the XXI century.
We can try to identify the global trends. Since the birth of the first states, the history showed the
trend to unify humanity [69]. So, at the start of XXVI century, it could exists a government of the
Earth - maybe a federal government. It could even exist an interplanetary union. However, in the
Modern Era the unification is favored by mechanics of mutual investment (aside to other factors),
which invite to cooperate. With the end of investments, the competition between different regions
would increase - even if included is the same nominal state. If the biggest colonies, on Mars and on
the Moon, are not already independent, they can easily secede because the big distances.
The following political history could embark on a cycle: formation of big multicultural empires, split-
ting up, and again; as it was in the Middle Ages. With a key difference: in the XXVI centuries,
nuclear and thermonuclear weapons exist. They might have been banned and dismantled, in some
phase of international cooperation or global government. But the awareness of being able to build
them is not canceled. During any war, any front can decide to develop again a nuclear arsenal; if only
as deterrence against the rivals.
This triggers an arms race, analogous to the post-war’s one. The resulting equilibrium is not stable,
because it is not made easy by economic benefit; it is supported only by the awareness of the Mutual
Assured Destruction. It can’t hold on forever. Any fanatic movement can decide that the destruction
of the enemy worth more than their own survival. Else, the malfunction of the deterrence automatic
systems can lead to the random launch of bombs, and to the cascade responses. Or else, a power can
be aware of the possibility of such a breakdown, and installs control mechanisms. But these mecha-
nisms can cause a delay in the deterrence response, maybe involving a human second check, and this
encourages the enemy power to attack. It would trust in an excessive delay in the response, which
does not occur, leading to the mutual destruction.
This is a totally fictional scenario. It is arbitrary to fix to the XXVI century the collapse of human
civilization, and it is due to the pessimistic assumption that we are now almost reaching the Theory of
Everything. Nevertheless, this imagined future has the advantage of point out the main vulnerabilities
of the humanity, before the Theory of Everything.
Even if we would wait millennia for the Theory of Everything, it would lead to the stop of technology
over just a couple of centuries. If we consider the fundamental mechanisms of economy, as they are
currently, this would mean the end of the virtuous circle of financial investments. According to this
interpretation, the whole scientific progress is just a huge financial bubble. Its bursting would lead
to the worst and deepest financial crisis of the history. It could be long or short; it could lead to
immediate upheavals, or the society could be able to adapt itself again to a pre-modern economy. But
such a production economy promotes war conflicts [69] [90], and the post-atomic humanity cannot
afford the total war.
This cause-and-effect chain is highly culture-dependent. It cannot be applied to civilizations without
economy, without wars or weapons. For a generic society, the Theory of Everything could mean just
a brake on growth. But we have reasons to believe that for some societies, including ours, it could be
such a shock that leads to the collapse. For this cases, it would be a Great Filter, with the original
meaning of this term.
The above hypothesis about future history could be excessively pessimistic (or optimistic?). Anyway,
the exponential trend (2.1) seems to point out that this Great Filter awaits us. We can estimate that
it will arrive between a minimum of five centuries and a maximum of two millennia.

18
5 Conclusions, future perspectives and criticisms
With this work, we tried to set up a methodical approach for the problem of the Fermi Paradox. We
considered equally, as far as possible, the many proposed solutions. We classified them, and afterwards
we proposed some preferability criteria on them. After a superficial modeling of the exponential
technological explosion, we tried to study its functioning. Hence, we formulated a strong version of
the Fermi Paradox. Inspired by these considerations, we made our proposal of solution: the Theory of
Everything entails an impassible limit for the technological growth, and hence it constitutes a Great
Filter for any civilization. It is the only answer, known to us, that enjoys all the preferability criteria.
Morevover, we argued that its consequences would be particularly serious for humanity.
We believe that these considerations can have some utility. Firstly, an intellectual utility, if it is the
solution of the Fermi Paradox; or, at lest, for the methods we developed to face the problem. Secondly,
there could be even a utility as long term warning, about the risks that the society may face in the
future.
If we would like to guard against the consequences of the Theory of Everything, avoiding at least the
particular vulnerabilities of the human species, it would be useless to discourage the scientific research.
It would only anticipate the big financial bubble, running out anyway the applications of the known
science. It is rather advisable to act on the deep mechanisms of economy and politics.
Note that the science may run aground even if it does not reach the Theory of Everything. We
could reach the same result because endogenous social dynamics. E.g. if the members of scientific
community would be more and more victims of logical bias. In this case, the experimental confutation
would no longer be enough for abandoning a theory. We can imagine another dynamic, if the different
disciplines lose contact, because an extreme specialization, and because the number of researchers and
the amount of required knowledge grow too much. In this case, the cross fertilization [91] of sciences
would be impeded, as the serendipity phenomena as well [92], and the research as a whole would be
braked. A third example: the expectations of the societies and of the markets could conflict too much
with the intellectual honesty of the researchers, and with the falsifiability principle [93]. Humans can
even run into an extreme case: an historical phase globally dominated by dictatorships. In order to
preserve the regime ideology, the critic thought and methodical doubt would be forbidden. This would
make science, and any other rational study of reality, basically impossible.
Any of these mechanics could lead to the end of scientific discoveries, and to the consequences we
imagined in §4. However, these are not unavoidable phenomena - unlike the Theory of Everything.
Our line of thought has some limits and is open to criticism, of course.
First of all, it could be in reality determined by author’s personal convictions and concerns, and
hence its validity would be only apparently objective. However, as we highlighted above, this is an
inevitable risk when one approaches to the Fermi Paradox. We hope to have minimized this risk with
the application of a methodical setting, and seriously considering the other possible answers to the
Paradox.
Another limit is the almost total absence of quantitative calculations in this work. So, the claim to
have solved the Fermi Paradox and its strong version is a fragile claim, since they involves numerical
estimates. E.g., it could be the case that many civilizations do not collapse, once the Theory of
Everything is reached, but rather keep on with a linear growth. If this happens after the most part
of the exponential curve, and if the linear growth is nevertheless fast enough, then the time scale for
reaching K = 3 would be anyway short with respect to the age of the Galaxy. The strong Fermi
Paradox is hence already open, because of this possibility.
A fortiori, the original (“weak”) Fermi Paradox would remain open. Indeed, even the pessimistic

19
projection in §4 contemplates that humanity would become a I kind civilization, and that for a couple
of centuries it would remain at this Kardashev degree. Other civilizations can be even more stable.
It follows a certain abundance of civilizations of I kind, i.e. capable to send interstellar messages.
If we want really to answer to the Fermi’s question, we have to calculate exactly how many these
civilizations are, and how long they last. Such calculations are postponed to future work - assuming
that it is even possible to do.
A third possible critic is that the depletion of scientific discoveries does not necessarily implies the end
of exponential explosion. It could be however supported by other kind of discoveries. Mathematics,
in particular, seems not to be limited by a Theory of Everything, or by something analogous. We can
potentially discover infinite mathematical theorems. Even the extensions of axiomatic systems are
infinite: the Incompleteness Theorems grants this [94]. The “interesting” mathematical discoveries
(the discoveries open to applications) could be however limited; but, as far as we can tell today,
nothing points out this. A growth could be supported by the mathematical, logistic and IT efficiency,
and not by fundamental physics or science. It may be slower, but still exponential.
Fourth critic: even if the exponential explosion ends, it could eventually start again. The applications
of scientific methods have limits, because the Theory of Everything; but we can’t exclude that, in
some future, some totally different method for rationally determining the truth will be formulated.
Such new method could be superior to our current scientific method, as much as science is superior
to the pre-modern systems of thought. Hence, civilizations could alternate phases of technological
explosion, and linearly growing phases, or even involution phases.
Regarding this latter criticism, we observe that it has some non-falsificability, analogously to the
Clarke’s Third Law. We can’t totally exclude it. However, we believe that it should be provisionally
set aside, until proven otherwise, because the preferability criteria.
Acknowledgments
We thank Francesco Haardt, Vittorio Gorini, Anna Riva, Davide Astesiano and Sergio Cacciatori for
useful discussions.

20
Appendices
A Glossary
Along this paper, we introduced some technical expressions, in order to define precisely what we are
talking about. We made also use of terms that already existed in the literature, but with a slightly
different meaning, or a generalized meaning. In order to improve the readability, we recap here all the
definitions built in the text.
Here are not included all the technical concepts taken from the literature about the Fermi Paradox,
or about other fields of study, if used with their original meanings. Any deepening about is provided
by Bibliography.

• Culture-dependence
We say that a proposed answer to the Fermi Paradox is cultural-dependent when it applies only
on civilizations with certain cultural traits, involving its evolution path or choices; i.e., when the
answer supposes that these traits belong to all intelligent beings, and not only to humanity (see
§3.1).

• Great Filter
The second class of explanations of the Fermi Paradox, characterized by the conjecture of a short
average life L for technological civilizations (see §1.1).

• Intelligence
A form of intelligence is a population of creatures that are complex enough for self-reference, i.e.
that include a model of the world and of themselves inside it. Such a model and self-reference
constitute the cultural information, which is spread through the population, and is describable
by memetics. The creatures are intelligent only if their behaviors are determined by culture
more than by genetics (see §1.1).

• Interstellar communication
For the purpose of Fermi Paradox, an interstellar communication is any kind of message, even a
unique and one-side message, which makes an intelligent species aware of the existence of another
living species on a different stellar system, even if the second one sent the message inadvertently
(see §1.2).

• Law of Nature
The order intrinsic to the universe. Scientific research must require, as a meta-scientific axiom,
that it exists and is unique (see §3).

• Life
A form of life is a population of termodinamically semi-open systems, which are able to regulate
their internal energy and entropy - i.e. are capable of homeostasis - and which evolves according
to a Dawrinistic process (see §1.1).

• Preferability criteria
We can’t determine whether of the proposed answers to the Fermi Paradox is the correct one;
but we can judge whether is more or less preferable, in some sense. We say that an answer
is preferable if it explains also the strong Fermi Paradox; if it does not break the Mediocrity

21
 Principle; if it refuse the Clarke’s Third Law; and if it is cultural-independent. It turns out that
the most preferable answer is a Great Filter consisting of the Theory of Everything (see §3.2).
Preferability criteria can be met even within other topics, whenever the true can’t yet be deter-
mined by rigorous methods. Mediocrity Principle is a preferability criterion even aside of the
Fermi Paradox, as well as the Occam’s Razor. These should be seen as methodological principles,
which can’t determine the correct hypothesis, but rather suggest whether hypothesis should be
followed first.

• Rare Earth
The first class of explanations of the Fermi Paradox, characterized by the refusal of the Medi-
ocrity Principle (see §1.1).

• Scientific explosion
With its most general meaning, a scientific behavior is a trait of a culture that allows its en-
ergy consumption to have many exponential explosion, without rest, breaking each time the
Malthusian limit of the previous growing phase. It makes possible the technological phase of the
civilization (see §2.4).

• Strong Fermi Paradox

“Since a technological civilization grows exponentially, with an high rate, it should fill the Galaxy
in few millennia. This chance, with some non zero probability, existed for any form of intelligence,
lived on any stellar system, for all the life of the Galaxy. So why don’t we see a galactic empire
today, or at least the traces of such a past colonization?” It is an alternative form of the Fermi
Paradox, for which the focus is on the III kind civilizations, rather than on the I kind ones; but
it applies to a quite larger number of civilization, since it concerns also the extincted ones, and
not only the present ones (see §2.2).

• Technological civilization
The word “technology” is used with two slightly different meanings, in the text. In the first
meaning, a civilization is technological if it is accounted in the Drake’s estimation, i.e. if it is
capable of interstellar communication (see §1.1 and §1.2). The Fermi Paradox requires to explain
why we never detect the existence of such a civilization, since we are already able to receive some
forms of communication, and we are ourselves almost at that level.
According to the second meaning, a civilization lives its technological phase if its energy produc-
tion grows exponentially through time, with a rate of a whole Kardashev degree in few millennia
(see §2.1). Such regime is possible thank to a scientific explosion.

• Theory of Everything
The ultimate scientific theory, which describes totally the Law of Nature. Due to falsifiability
principle, scientists can never say to have achieved the Theory of Everything, even if they have.
In such case, scientific method keeps on search a better theory, without ever finding it (see §3).

• Will
With its most general meaning, it can be any mechanism that leads an intelligent creature to
follow a certain action, rather any other action in the range of the possible. The third class of
explanations of the Fermi Paradox are characterized by the appeal to the will, or free choice to
communicate, of the technological civilizations (see §1.1).

22
References
[1] R. Hanson The Great Filter – Are We Almost Past It?
https://web.archive.org/web/20100507074729/http://hanson.gmu.edu/greatfilter.html
(1998)

[2] K. Tsiolkovsky The Planets are Occupied by Living Beings. Archives of the Tsiolkovsky State
Museum of the History of Cosmonautics, Kaluga, Russia (1933)

[3] Dr. Eric M. Jones ”Where is everybody?”: An account of Fermi’s question. Los Alamos technical
report. Archived June 29, 2007, at the Wayback Machine
https://web.archive.org/web/20070629174738/
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/la-10311-ms.pdf

[4] A. Kukla Extraterrestrials: A Philosophical Perspective. Lexington Books (2009)

[5] S. Webb If the Universe Is Teeming with Aliens ... WHERE IS EVERYBODY?: Seventy-Five
Solutions to the Fermi Paradox and the Problem of Extraterrestrial Life. Springer International
Publishing. Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London (2015)

[6] G. Groth-Marnat Handbook of psychological assessment. John Wiley and Sons (2003)

[7] M.J. Burchell W(h)ither the Drake equation?. International Journal of Astrobiology. 5 (3),
243–250 (2006)

[8] N. Glade, P. Ballet, O. Bastien A stochastic process approach of the drake equation parameters.
International Journal of Astrobiology. 11 (2), 103–108 (2012)

[9] E. Schrödinger What Is Life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell. Cambridge University Press
(1944)

[10] R. Dawkins The selfish gene. Oxford University Press (1976)

[11] D. Hofstadter Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid. Basic Books (1979)

[12] X. Bonfils et al. The HARPS search for southern extra-solar planets XXXI. The M-dwarf sample.
A&A 549 A109 (2013)

[13] X. Delfosse et al. The HARPS search for southern extra-solar planets XXXV. Super-Earths around
the M-dwarf neighbors Gl433 and Gl667C. A&A 553 A8 (2013)

[14] D. S. Abbot, E. R. Switzer The Steppenwolf: a proposal for a habitable planet in interstellar
space. ApJL 735 (2) L27 (2011)

[15] D. Schulze-Makuch, L. N. Irwin Alternative energy sources could support life on Europa. Eos,
Transactions American Geophysical Union. 82 (13) 150 (2001)

[16] A. Affholder, F. Guyot, B. Sauterey, R. Ferriere, S. Mazevet Bayesian analysis of Enceladus’s

plume data to assess methanogenesis. Nature Astronomy 5 805-814 (2021)

[17] A. Andreas, S. Lorenzo Can the universe afford inflation? PRD 70 (6), (2004)

23
[18] W.T. Newman, C. Sagan Galactic civilizations: Population. dynamics and interstellar diffusion.
Icarus 46 (3) 293–327 (1981)

[19] S. J. Dick Cultural evolution, the postbiological universe and SETI. IJA 2 (1) 65-74 (2003)

[20] Xiang Cai et al. A Statistical Estimation of the Occurrence of Extraterrestrial Intelligence in the
Milky Way Galaxy. Galaxies 9 (1), (2021)

[21] A. Berezin ”First in, last out” solution to the Fermi Paradox. arXiv:1803.08425 (2018)

[22] P. D. Ward, D. E. Brownlee Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe.
Springer (2000)

[23] N. Lane Life: is it inevitable or just a fluke?. New Scientist. 214 (2870) 32–37 (2012)

[24] B. Gordon, W. Dembski The Nature of Nature: Examining the Role of Naturalism in Science.
Intercollegiate Studies Institute (2010)

[25] C. H. Lineweaver Paleontological Tests: Human-like Intelligence is not a Convergent Feature of

Evolution. From Fossils to Astrobiology (2019)

[26] A. Loeb Are Alien Civilizations Technologically Advanced?. Scientific American (2018)

[27] S. Baum Is Humanity Doomed? Insights from Astrobiology. Sustainability 2 (2) 591–603 (2010)

[28] J. Haqq-Misra, Ravi Kumar Kopparapu, E. Schwieterman Observational Constraints on the Great
Filter. Astrobiology 20 (5) 572–579 (2020)

[29] P. R. Ehrlich et al. Long-term biological consequences of nuclear war. Science 222 (4630)
1293–1300 (1983)

[30] L. Billings Alien Anthropocene: How Would Other Worlds Battle Climate Change?. Scientific
American. 28 (3) (2018)

[31] S. J. Russell and P. Norvig Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Prentice Hall (2009)

[32] A. Turchin, D. Denkenberger Classification of global catastrophic risks connected with artificial
intelligence. AI & Society 35 (1) 147–163 (2018)

[33] R. Penrose and R. M. Floyd Extraction of Rotational Energy from a Black Hole. Nature Physical
Science 229, 177-179 (1971)

[34] W. E. East and F. Pretorius Superradiant Instability and Backreaction of Massive Vector Fields
around Kerr Black Holes. PRL 119, 041101 (2017)

[35] M. Garcia Space Debris and Human Spacecraft.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission pages/station/news/orbital debris.html (2021)

[36] A. Zaitsev The SETI Paradox. arXiv:physics/0611283 (2006)

[37] P. Musso The problem of active SETI: An overview. Acta Astronautica 78, 43-54 (2012)

24
[38] B. Gato-Rivera A Solution to the Fermi Paradox: The Solar System, part of a Galactic Hyper-
civilization?. arXiv:physics/0512062 (2006)

[39] M. Sasikumar The Sentinelese of North Sentinel Island: A Reappraisal of Tribal Scenario in an
Andaman Island in the Context of Killing of an American Preacher. Journal of the Anthropolog-
ical Survey of India 68 (1) 56-69 (2019)

[40] D. S. Spiegel, E. L. Turner Bayesian analysis of the astrobiological implications of life’s early
emergence on Earth. PNAS 109 (2) 395-400 (2011)

[41] C. Sagan The Cosmic Connection. Anchor Books (1973)

[42] S. von Hoerner The Search for Signals from Other Civilizations. Science. 134 (3493) 1839–1843
(1961)

[43] The Staff at the National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center The Arecibo message of November,
1974. Icarus 26 (4) 462–466 (1975)

[44] N. S. Kardashev Transmission of information by extraterrestrial civilizations (1964)

[45] C. Sagan Carl Sagan’s Cosmic Connection: An Extraterrestrial Perspective. Cambridge Press
(1973)

[46] Our World in Data,

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-primary-energy?country= OWID WRL

[47] Vaclav Smil Energy Transitions: Global and National Perspectives. Praeger (2016)

[48] A. C. Clarke Profiles of the Future: An Enquiry into the Limits of the Possible (1962)

[49] Z. Galántai Long Futures and Type IV Civilizations (2003)

[50] M. Shermer Shermer’s Last Law. Scientific American (2002)

[51] A. V. Belyi Limitations of resource determinism in international energy studies. Energy Research
& Social Science 12 1-4 (2016)

[52] F. J. Dyson Search for Artificial Stellar Sources of Infrared Radiation. Science 131 (3414)
1667–1668 (1960)

[53] M. Schuetz, D. A. Vakoch, S. Shostak and J. Richards OPTICAL SETI OBSERVATIONS OF

THE ANOMALOUS STAR KIC 8462852. ApJL 825 (1) L5 (2016)

[54] G. E. Moore Cramming more components onto integrated circuits. Electronics 38 (8), 114 (1965)

[55] J.H. Jiang et al. Avoiding the Great Filter: Predicting the Timeline for Humanity to Reach
Kardashev Type I Civilization. arXiv:2204.07070 (2022)

[56] S. H. Ambrose Late Pleistocene human population bottlenecks, volcanic winter, and differentiation
of modern humans. Journal of Human Evolution 34 (6) 623–651 (1998)

[57] B. McMullin John von Neumann and the Evolutionary Growth of Complexity: Looking Backwards,
Looking Forwards.... Artificial Life 6 (4) 347–361 (2000)

25
[58] I. Asimov Foundation. Bantam Books (1991)

[59] M. Alcubierre The warp drive: Hyper-fast travel within general relativity. Class.Quant.Grav. 11
(5) L73–L77 (1994)

[60] M. Morris, K. Thorne, U. Yurtsever Wormholes, Time Machines, and the Weak Energy Condition.
PRL 61 (13) 1446–1449 (1988)

[61] A.H. Eden, J.H. Moor, J.H. Søraker, E. Steinhart Singularity Hypotheses: A Scientific and Philo-
sophical Assessment. The Frontiers Collection. Springer, Dordrecht (2012)

[62] I.J. Good Speculations Concerning the First Ultraintelligent Machine. Advances in Computers 6
31-88 (1966)

[63] E. Musk, Neuralink An integrated brain-machine interface platform with thousands of channels.
bioRxiv: 703801 (2019)

[64] N. Bostrom Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?. Philosophical Quarterly 53 (211) 243–255
(2003)

[65] C. Liu Remembrance of Earth’s Past . Chongqing Publishing Group, China (2010)

[66] N. Bostrom Where Are They? Why I hope the search for extraterrestrial life finds nothing.
Technology Review 2008 72–77 (2008)

[67] R. Penrose The Emperor’s New Mind. Oxford University Press (1989)

[68] M. M. Waldrop The chips are down for Moore’s law. Nature 530 (7589) 144–147 (2016)

[69] Y.N. Harari Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. Dvir Publishing House Ltd., Israel (2011)

[70] I. McNeil An Encyclopedia of the History of Technology. London, Routledge (1990)

[71] C. Bai, P. Dallasega, G. Orzes, J. Sarkis Industry 4.0 technologies assessment: A sustainability
perspective. International Journal of Production Economics. 229 107776 (2020)

[72] D. S. Landes The Unbound Prometheus. Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge (1969)

[73] J. Hull The Second Industrial Revolution: The History of a Concept. Storia Della Storiografia 36
81–90 (1999)

[74] K. Popper The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Routledge (1959)

[75] Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim et al. Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. A&A
641, A6 (2020)

[76] D. W. Hogg et al. Cosmic homogeneity demonstrated with luminous red galaxies. Astrophys. J.
624, 54 (2005)

[77] J.E. Lovelock, L. Margulis Atmospheric homeostasis by and for the biosphere: the Gaia hypothesis.
Tellus, Series A 26 (1–2) 2-10 (1974)

26
 [78] J. Prucher Group Mind n., in Brave New Words: The Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction.
Oxford University Press (2009)

[79] W. Poundstone Prisoner’s Dilemma. Anchor, New York (1993)

[80] R. H. Kraichnan, Special-Relativistic Derivation of Generally Covariant Gravitation Theory.

Physical Review 98 (4) 1118–1122 (1955)

[81] Oliver Passon Kelvin’s clouds. American Journal pf Physics 89 1037 (2021)

[82] C. McKay, J. Kasting and O.Toon Making Mars Habitable. Nature 352 489-496 (1991)

[83] E. Musk Making Life Multi-Planetary. New Space 6 1 (2018)

[84] CalTech Asteroid Retrieval Feasibility Study.

https://www.kiss.caltech.edu/final reports/Asteroid final report.pdf (2012)

[85] M. Elvis How many ore-bearing asteroids?. Planetary and Space Science 91 20-26 (2014)

[86] P. Calla, D. Fries, C. Welch Asteroid mining with small spacecraft and its economic feasibility.
arXiv:1808.05099 (2019)

[87] P. Birch Terraforming Venus quickly. Journal of The British Interplanetary Society 44 157-167
(1991)

[88] G. Landis Terraforming Venus: A Challenging Project for Future Colonization. AIAA SPACE
2011 Conference & Exposition, Long Beach, California (2011)

[89] S. Armstrong and A. Sandberg Eternity in six hours: Intergalactic spreading of intelligent life
and sharpening the Fermi paradox. Acta Astronautica 89 1-13 (2013)

[90] Steven Pinker The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. Viking Books
(2011)

[91] S. Iyengar, W. J. McGuire Interdisciplinary Cross-Fertilization. Duke University Press (1993)

[92] T. G. Remer Serendipity and the Three Princes, from the Peregrinaggio of 1557. University of
Oklahoma Press (1965)

[93] S. Hossenfelder Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray. Basic Books (2018)

[94] K. Gödel Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme,
I. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, 38 (1) 173–198 (1931)

27

View publication stats