Here's Why Humans Haven't Seen Aliens Yet, According to Brian Cox

With the plethora of alien sightings and space innovations reported on the news, why have we not seen any aliens yet? Renowned physicist Brian Cox sheds light on this intriguing question, which was first put forward by Italian physicist Enrico Fermi in the 1950s.

The Fermi paradox, named after the Italian physicist, which states that there's a contradiction between the abundance of alien life and the probability of humans seeing it or evidence of its existence. Space.com notes that given that the level of intelligence on Earth, which belongs to a young planetary system, is not that advanced compared to the rest of the universe, alien life (if they do exist) should have already developed interstellar travel and have visited Earth already.

When Fermi's theory came to light, scientists have been perplexed. Fermi, according to the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) website, "realized that any civilization with a modest amount of rocket technology and an immodest amount of imperial incentive could rapidly colonize the entire galaxy."

"Within ten million years, every star system could be brought under the wing of empire. Ten million years may sound long, but in fact it's quite short compared with the age of the galaxy, which is roughly ten thousand million years. Colonization of the Milky Way should be a quick exercise," SETI added.

Professor Cox, in a report from The Times, answers this perplexing question. According to Cox, mankind will never succeed on seeing alien life because these intelligent beings can destroy themselves shortly after their evolution.

“One solution to the Fermi paradox is that it is not possible to run a world that has the power to destroy itself and that needs global collaborative solutions to prevent that," Cox said.

Cox also warned that human beings, which could be considered as alien life too, could also approach potential destruction as science and engineering go beyond political development.

He said, “It may be that the growth of science and engineering inevitably outstrips the development of political expertise, leading to disaster. We could be approaching that position.”