Editorial note:  The following is a speculative thought experiment intended to provide an objective assessment of our species.  It projects the likely view of one possible external observer, and is not intended to characterize the nature of all such observers if in fact any actually exist.  Undoubtedly, extraterrestrial life would be as diverse as terrestrial life, and extraterrestrial civilizations would be similarly different from each other.  Since the perspective here is based on science, subjective and supernatural beliefs along with their associated moralities reside outside the purview of this presentation.

By Robert A. Vella

The Fermi paradox, or Fermi’s paradox (named after physicist Enrico Fermi), is the apparent contradiction between the lack of conclusive evidence and the high statistical probability for the existence of advanced extraterrestrial civilizations.  Our own human history provides ample reason to hypothesize that before a crucial survivability threshold is reached in their evolution, intelligent species will likely face extinction from both natural and artificial threats (e.g. pandemics, predation, volcanic disasters, cosmic impacts, orbital disruption, solar variability, supernova explosions, catastrophic war, ecological changes, and environmental degradation).  In 1978, the Smithsonian Institution published an article by Dr. Carl Sagan titled The Quest for Extraterrestrial Intelligence which eloquently addressed this paradox:

When we do the arithmetic, the number that my colleagues and I come up with is around a million technical civilizations in our Galaxy alone. That is a breathtakingly large number, and it is exhilarating to imagine the diversity, lifestyles and commerce of those million worlds. But there may be as many as 250 billion stars in the Milky Way Galaxy. Even with a million civilizations, less than one star in 250,000 would have a planet inhabited by an advanced civilization. Since we have little idea which stars are likely candidates, we will have to examine a huge number of them. Thus the quest for extraterrestrial intelligence may require a significant effort.


And why has there been no clear evidence of extraterrestrial visits to the Earth? We have already launched slow and modest interstellar spacecraft called Pioneers 10 and I 1 and Voyagers 1 and 2 -which, incidentally, carry small golden greeting cards from the Earth to any space-faring interstellar civilizations which might intercept them. A society more advanced than we should be able to ply the spaces between the stars conveniently, if not effortlessly. Over millions of years such societies should have established colonies which themselves might launch interstellar expeditions. Why are they not here? The temptation is to deduce that there are at most only a few advanced extraterrestrial civilizations – either because we are one of the first technical civilizations to have emerged, or because it is the fate of all such civilizations to destroy themselves before they are much further along.


There are some who look on our global problems here on Earth – at our vast national antagonisms, our nuclear arsenals, our growing populations, the disparity between the poor and the affluent, shortages of food and resources, and our inadvertent alterations of the natural environment of our planet – and conclude that we live in a system which has suddenly become unstable, a system which is destined soon to collapse. There are others who believe that our problems are soluble, that humanity is still in its childhood, that one day soon we will grow up. The existence of a single message from space will show that it is possible to live through technological adolescence: the civilization transmitting the message, after all, has survived. Such knowledge, it seems to me, might be worth a great price.

Imagine an advanced extraterrestrial species visiting Earth for the first time.  What would they think of us?  Let’s assume they have evolved beyond the critical point of survivability (“technological adolescence,” in Sagan’s words), that their technology has solved the time and distance problems of interstellar travel, that they have been observing our planet remotely for some time, and that their interest in us is purely scientific curiosity.

Upon arriving in our solar system, the E.T.s would probably verify what they had already learned about the Sun, Earth, and the other planetary bodies.  Then, they would turn their focus to our planet.  They would study our atmosphere, lithosphere, geology, chemistry, biochemistry, and discernible histories.  They would begin analyzing and cataloguing the Earth’s life forms from the smallest microorganisms to the largest flora and fauna.  They would immediately realize that one species, which calls itself Homo sapiens, is capable of impacting the biosphere of the planet very quickly and significantly;  so, they take precautions to conceal their presence and restrict their activities.

The E.T.s do not see humans as like themselves.  They see nothing remarkable about human intelligence and social organization.  Rather, they simply recognize that Homo sapiens are the only technological species on Earth at the current time.  What the E.T.s do see as remarkable, however, is the Earth’s tremendous biodiversity which shares a unique physiology they’ve never encountered before.  They attempt to correlate it with other planetary life systems they’ve studied, but in each case the Earth’s combination of chemistry, gravity, temperature, and astronomical cycles make it particularly distinct.

Their research of life on Earth is so systematic and sophisticated that terrestrial scientists would be awestruck if privy to it.  Although they use techniques and practices unknown to us, some of their research would be recognizable such as direct examination of individual specimens temporarily immobilized when necessary.  For example, human scientists who study polar bears in the wild must tranquilize the animals first to ensure the safety of both themselves and the bears.  Typically, helicopters are used to quickly locate and immobilize their targets.  What the bears are thinking when being pursued in this way is unknown except for their obvious attempts to flee from a perceived threat.  After the examination and recovery from the anesthesia drugs – which can induce analgesia (insensitivity to pain), paralysis (extreme muscle relaxation), amnesia (memory loss), and unconsciousness – the animals can probably only remember the incomprehensible image of the helicopter, the fear they felt at being pursued, their capture, vague images of unusual creatures, and waking up alone.

The E.T.s would likely study human beings up close in a similar fashion.  In addition to our basic biological functions, they would surely be interested in our psychology and social habits as well.  Beyond that, they would be particularly interested in humankind’s past, current, and future impact on the planet as a whole especially with respect to our technological activities.  This would inevitably result in an assessment of sorts – a number of scientific conclusions which, if taken in the aggregate, could be interpreted as an appraisal of humanity or as an objective judgment on our species.

So, what would these E.T.s think of us?

  • Homo sapiens evolved from earlier hominins – which relied on bipedalism, intelligence, and social organization as a survival strategy – as early as 300,000 years ago.
  • The species was marginally successful in an era dominated by megafauna up until the end of the most recent ice age approximately 12,000 years ago.
  • From there on, warmer global temperatures and the extinction of many competing species fostered the development of agriculture which replaced Homo sapiens’ reliance on hunting and foraging as a food source.
  • The advent of labor-intensive agriculture necessitated the development of hierarchical social organization facilitated through the creation of philosophical constructs (e.g. religion) which elicited the population’s subordination to authority by defining existence arbitrarily and in lieu of empirical knowledge. The division of labor which resulted from social hierarchy additionally enabled a rise in technological advancement.
  • This new social organization, with its concentration of authoritative power and technological prowess, gave Homo sapiens a significant competitive advantage. Its populations grew measurably in both size and scope.  This success also encouraged its aggressive tendencies and instilled arrogance among its leaders.  Tribal conflicts escalated into regional wars, exploitation of natural resources began to degrade local ecosystems, and increasing population density resulted in deadly disease outbreaks.
  • These miserable living conditions prevailed for most humans until about 400 years ago when a series of social reforms, collectively known as the Age of Enlightenment, were implemented. Secular ideas and practices began to supplant religious dogma, equitable principles codified into legal constructs began to replace arbitrary authority, and a vigorous exploration of the empirical sciences sparked an explosion of technological achievement.  Living standards started to rise, population growth resumed, and contact between geographically isolated cultures dramatically increased.
  • However, the technological progress occurred disproportionately faster than did the social progress of this era and that caused an irresolvable imbalance. Humankind’s indefatigable aggressiveness, which had impelled the species to dominance over the planet, turned into its greatest liability.  Wars became global with ever worsening capacity for destruction, ecological degradation transitioned into an existential environmental crisis including a mass extinction event, and the unsustainably large population is now so restive that it is tearing the social fabric of the species apart.
  • We estimate that the time required for Homo sapiens to evolve into a self-sufficient species capable of interplanetary or interstellar habitability far exceeds our prognosis for its continued viability on Earth. Within the next 100 years, its social structures will collapse and its remnant populations will devolve separately in various secluded enclaves.  We recommend this planet be closely monitored for an indefinite period of time to:  1) record the demise of Homo sapiens, 2) observe the natural recovery of Earth’s biosphere, and 3) document the potential evolutionary advancement of other intelligent terrestrial species such as hominids (i.e. primates) and cetaceans (i.e. whales, dolphins, and porpoises).

For Mary and Rosaliene

25 thoughts on “What would E.T.s think of us?

  1. Have you ever read Terry Bisson’s, Meat?


    “They’re made out of meat.”


    “Meat. They’re made out of meat.”


    “There’s no doubt about it. We picked up several from different parts of the planet, took them aboard our recon vessels, and probed them all the way through. They’re completely meat.”

    “That’s impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the stars?”

    “They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don’t come from them. The signals come from machines.”

    “So who made the machines? That’s who we want to contact.”

    “They made the machines. That’s what I’m trying to tell you. Meat made the machines.”

    “That’s ridiculous. How can meat make a machine? You’re asking me to believe in sentient meat.”

    “I’m not asking you, I’m telling you. These creatures are the only sentient race in that sector and they’re made out of meat.”

    “Maybe they’re like the orfolei. You know, a carbon-based intelligence that goes through a meat stage.”

    “Nope. They’re born meat and they die meat. We studied them for several of their life spans, which didn’t take long. Do you have any idea what’s the life span of meat?”

    “Spare me. Okay, maybe they’re only part meat. You know, like the weddilei. A meat head with an electron plasma brain inside.”

    “Nope. We thought of that, since they do have meat heads, like the weddilei. But I told you, we probed them. They’re meat all the way through.”

    “No brain?”

    “Oh, there’s a brain all right. It’s just that the brain is made out of meat! That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you.”

    “So … what does the thinking?”

    “You’re not understanding, are you? You’re refusing to deal with what I’m telling you. The brain does the thinking. The meat.”

    “Thinking meat! You’re asking me to believe in thinking meat!”

    “Yes, thinking meat! Conscious meat! Loving meat. Dreaming meat. The meat is the whole deal! Are you beginning to get the picture or do I have to start all over?”

    “Omigod. You’re serious then. They’re made out of meat.”

    “Thank you. Finally. Yes. They are indeed made out of meat. And they’ve been trying to get in touch with us for almost a hundred of their years.”

    “Omigod. So what does this meat have in mind?”

    “First it wants to talk to us. Then I imagine it wants to explore the Universe, contact other sentiences, swap ideas and information. The usual.”

    “We’re supposed to talk to meat.”

    “That’s the idea. That’s the message they’re sending out by radio. ‘Hello. Anyone out there. Anybody home.’ That sort of thing.”

    “They actually do talk, then. They use words, ideas, concepts?”
    “Oh, yes. Except they do it with meat.”

    “I thought you just told me they used radio.”

    “They do, but what do you think is on the radio? Meat sounds. You know how when you slap or flap meat, it makes a noise? They talk by flapping their meat at each other. They can even sing by squirting air through their meat.”

    “Omigod. Singing meat. This is altogether too much. So what do you advise?”

    “Officially or unofficially?”


    “Officially, we are required to contact, welcome and log in any and all sentient races or multibeings in this quadrant of the Universe, without prejudice, fear or favor. Unofficially, I advise that we erase the records and forget the whole thing.”

    “I was hoping you would say that.”

    “It seems harsh, but there is a limit. Do we really want to make contact with meat?”

    “I agree one hundred percent. What’s there to say? ‘Hello, meat. How’s it going?’ But will this work? How many planets are we dealing with here?”

    “Just one. They can travel to other planets in special meat containers, but they can’t live on them. And being meat, they can only travel through C space. Which limits them to the speed of light and makes the possibility of their ever making contact pretty slim. Infinitesimal, in fact.”

    “So we just pretend there’s no one home in the Universe.”

    “That’s it.”

    “Cruel. But you said it yourself, who wants to meet meat? And the ones who have been aboard our vessels, the ones you probed? You’re sure they won’t remember?”

    “They’ll be considered crackpots if they do. We went into their heads and smoothed out their meat so that we’re just a dream to them.”

    “A dream to meat! How strangely appropriate, that we should be meat’s dream.”

    “And we marked the entire sector unoccupied.”

    “Good. Agreed, officially and unofficially. Case closed. Any others? Anyone interesting on that side of the galaxy?”

    “Yes, a rather shy but sweet hydrogen core cluster intelligence in a class nine star in G445 zone. Was in contact two galactic rotations ago, wants to be friendly again.”

    “They always come around.”

    “And why not? Imagine how unbearably, how unutterably cold the Universe would be if one were all alone …”

    Liked by 5 people

  2. Reblogged this on Gogwit's Blog and commented:
    Interesting article and comments, nice. Hence the reblog.
    I just feel that if ET doesn’t read vehicles, structures, smart white goods (with a distributed group mind) as the dominant life forms here on Terra, all horribly infested with us swarming in out, under and over them, then from their observation of us, their access to history via the internet and their monitoring of our culture via the medium of the small and the large screen, they will steer well clear of us and our psychopathic tendencies.
    Our first contact track record with intelligent species is not an enviable one: our expansion across continents, across the globe is a trail of subjugation, exploitation, and civilisation level annihilation – of our own kind. Our encounter with Cetaceans, aquatic cephalopods, and primates related to us is not so cheery either.
    The jury is still out on whether or not we did for the Neanderthals.
    Still, by the time it becomes an issue, we will have the proposed US Space Corps to act as the arm of interplanetary diplomacy.
    (Sorry, the USSC is a gift from Vice President Pence that just keeps on giving.)

    Liked by 1 person

  3. A single very heavy solar storm can catapult us back to the Stone Age by destroying all electronical equipments with a socalled E-wave. Nobody likes to ponder such options which can happen tomorrow or in thousands oft years. So the technological basis of this human civilization really not very stable in reality.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Well reasoned article, Robert.

    I agree with the ETs’ evaluation of homo sapiens:
    “Humankind’s indefatigable aggressiveness, which had impelled the species to dominance over the planet, turned into its greatest liability. ”

    I believe that they’re already here and monitoring our progress for a re-design of John’s “Meat” prototype.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Love it! Excellent. I believe you could turn this into a book. Part one the evolution of the species part with some basic geology thrown in. Part two, where we’re at now and the signs of self destruction and Part three, the eventual end of humanity. And as an epilogue, the renewal of the earth itself becoming ready once more for ….?

    The Fermi Paradox is quite interesting. I’ve always felt that the vast distances in space and the time frames of actual planet formation as well as technological advancement are solely random and occur at vast time differences. One dies out much like earth will and it might be millions, if not billions, before a new one reaches the same level of life. The timing is such that there would never be but a few existed at the same stage and the same time.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Thanks, Mary. Turn this into a book? Hmm… parts 2 & 3 and the epilogue would certainly be intriguing and fun to write, but it would be a challenge to keep part 1 from being a boring read – kind of like a school textbook. For motivation, I’d also need someone to kick me in the butt from time to time – lol!

      I think you’re on the right track about the Fermi Paradox, and Sagan addressed that point in his essay. He also suggested that if civilizations do survive their technological adolescence, they can become self-sufficient and therefore extend the lifespan of their species. If true, then the number of concurrent advanced civilizations would increase with time.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Part one could be very brief. I remember reading Michener’s
        Centennial and he went into a lot of detail about the formation of the Grand Canyon

        Liked by 1 person

        • I’ve heard of him. His 2003 book A Short History of Nearly Everything was a hit in the U.K. Its layperson approach to science was compelling, although it did contain a few errors – such as whether the universe is contracting, steady, or expanding.

          Liked by 1 person

        • The universe rests gently and calmly in the right hand of God. It’s there all the time except when he showers. When he showers, he places it onto a plastic stand called “God’s Universe Stand”. After his shower, he takes the universe back into his hand, sings dulcet lullabies to it, crawls into bed with it, snuggles it closely to his omnipotent hairy chest and wanders off into a deep sleep til morning. $Amen$

          Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.