bhaskar saikia

Where are the aliens?

It is one of the greatest mysteries of all time. Our galaxy alone has hundreds of billions of stars, many with planetary systems that fall within the habitable “Goldilocks Zone.” Scientific models—like the famous Drake Equation—predict that, statistically, intelligent life should be abundant.

Yet, despite decades of searching, we have no confirmed contact with extraterrestrial civilizations.

Why?

This question, famously posed by physicist Enrico Fermi in 1950, is the foundation of what we now call the Fermi Paradox: If the universe is teeming with life, then where is everybody?

Scientists and thinkers have proposed many possible solutions. Some argue that intelligent life is exceedingly rare. Others suggest that advanced civilizations deliberately avoid us.

But what if the answer lies in the very nature of scientific progress itself? What if the reason we have not encountered interstellar civilizations is not that they do not exist, but because they never get the chance to reach that stage?

This is where Saikia’s Paradox comes in.

The Tragic Contradiction of Progress

Let’s consider a fundamental requirement for any civilization to achieve interstellar travel: advanced scientific and technological development. A species must develop propulsion systems capable of reaching other star systems, sustainable life-support mechanisms and vast energy sources to power their journey.

However, the very process of reaching this stage comes with an unintended consequence. The moment a civilization becomes technologically advanced enough to master interstellar travel; it also gains the ability to destroy itself.

The Core of Saikia’s Paradox

Saikia’s Paradox:

“The level of scientific advancement required for a civilization to achieve interstellar travel is also what leads to its self-destruction before it can reach that stage.”

In essence, progress carries within it the seeds of its own undoing. A species that develops spacefaring technology will almost certainly have also unlocked the power of nuclear energy, artificial intelligence, bioengineering and other potentially catastrophic forces. History has shown us that as civilizations grow more powerful, they become more capable of self-inflicted extinction.

The Human Example

Consider humanity’s own trajectory. Less than a century after we discovered the power of the atom, we built weapons capable of annihilating our species. The Cold War brought us terrifyingly close to mutual destruction and even today, nuclear arsenals remain a looming threat. Meanwhile, climate change, artificial intelligence and biotechnology introduce new existential risks that could spiral out of control.

If we are not careful, we may never reach the stars—not because we lack the ability, but because we self-destruct before we get there. And if this is true for us, it could be true for any other civilization that reaches our stage of development.

Saikia’s Paradox vs. the Great Filter Hypothesis

Both Saikia’s Paradox and the Great Filter attempt to explain why we haven’t encountered advanced extraterrestrial civilizations, despite the high probability suggested by the Drake Equation; however, they differ in key ways:

Nature of the Barrier

The Great Filter suggests that at some stage—from the emergence of life to interstellar expansion—civilizations face an obstacle that most fail to overcome. This filter could be biological (life is rare), technological (space travel is too difficult) or self-destructive (nuclear war, environmental collapse, etc.).

Saikia’s Paradox, on the other hand, identifies a specific contradiction: The very scientific progress needed to achieve interstellar travel is also what inevitably leads to a civilization’s self-destruction before it gets there. It’s not just a filter—it’s an inherent paradox.

Focus on Cause vs. Effect

The Great Filter is an open-ended hypothesis that suggests a single or multiple barriers along a civilization’s timeline, without specifying a direct causal link.

Saikia’s Paradox establishes a direct relationship between scientific progress and self-annihilation, arguing that technological civilizations are doomed by their own advancements.

Implications for Humanity

If the Great Filter is behind us (e.g. life itself is rare), then humanity might be among the first intelligent civilizations, with hope for expansion. If it is ahead of us, we may still face our extinction.

Saikia’s Paradox suggests that civilizations inevitably destroy themselves at the peak of their advancement, meaning survival requires breaking the cycle of self-destruction. It’s not just about overcoming a filter—it’s about managing progress responsibly.

In short, the Great Filter is a broad mystery about survival odds, while Saikia’s Paradox identifies why civilizations fail at the final frontier.

What This Means for Humanity

If Saikia’s Paradox holds true, then our silence in the cosmos is no mystery—it is a warning. The reason we do not hear from interstellar civilizations is that they do not last long enough to leave their home planets.

So, is there a way to break the paradox?

Perhaps.

If humanity is to avoid becoming just another statistic in a universe filled with silent, self-destructed civilizations, we must learn to decouple technological progress from existential risk. That means developing ethical safeguards, global cooperation and a deeper awareness of our own fragility. It means ensuring that our advances in nuclear energy, AI and biotechnology do not lead to the same fate that may have befallen countless other civilizations (both terrestrial and extraterrestrial) before us.

The stars may be within our reach.

The question is—will we survive long enough to grasp them?