Talk:Zoo hypothesis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconAstronomy Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPhilosophy Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


  • I don't like messing in anothers work, but it strikes me strongly that the order of relevancy and exposition in this article is ass-backwards. The older references like Clarkes, should be cited first, etc. chronologically.
  • I also doubt the list is anywhere near complete, you might want to fling the question to some long time editors like Judy Lynn DelRay at DelRay Books, and James Baen of Baen books. Both were editing when most us startrek watchers were still living at home before highschool.
  • IIRC, The DelRays also compiled a history of sciencefiction that is encyclopedaic in scope. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 3 July 2005 02:04 (UTC)
  • Probably should limit it to especially poignant examples of 'zoo' to illustrate the point. I'd suggest that starcraft, for example, is excessive. I had half a mind to put in Homeworld as a doomed Zoo.~~
  • What about a blerb that discusses how south park portrayed this hypothesis as earth being an elaborate reality show for an alien race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Olaf Stapledon[edit]

  • I found a reference in Stapledon's 1937 novel Star Maker which almost perfectly encapsulates the zoo hypothesis, so I added a note here, and over at the prime directive article as well. The full extract is here[1] Steve (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Major editorial work coming[edit]

I plan to subsume the current article's content into a History section and provide some non-fiction referrence.Julzes (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While my idea is probably correct, it's been brought to my attention that I'm not actually doing anything. If anybody else wants to, it would be good. The article as it now stands is very weak.Julzes (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If this is true[edit]

If the zoo hypothesis is true, couldn't it explain a lot of abductions? If aliens are watching us from afar, and they see that we are getting close to discovering them or are getting to nosy, wouldnt they abduct us? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems likely to me that super-intelligent civilizations would not need to stage such risky abductions. It does sound like something humans would do if we discovered life elsewhere, but I suspect we will have better methods by the time we master interstellar travel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phinizyspalding (talkcontribs) 22:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, obviously. "Abduction" is a crude trope of crackpots, a civilization millions of years advanced beyond us would have no need for such crude measures to find stuff out and may very well have seeded/directed human evolution and have no need for such "examinations". These things (abduction stories) have been fairly conclusively established as an artifact of the social layer that produces them. I am reminded of my late stepfather who could not be dissuaded from his opinion that there were mirror planets to the existing ones in the solar system. Telling him that if there were we would know because that's how the outer planets were discovered (by their gravitational effects) was pointless. Phinizyspalding, I indented your entry. You should also sign them with four tildes. (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Chimpanzees' Tea Party Sub-Hypothesis): Actually what I find mildly interesting is your apparent illogical belief that one can 'prove' anything in this area, in this case your apparent belief that alien abduction has been 'proved' to be a purely social phenomenon (or to use your exact words, 'fairly conclusively established as an artifact of the social layer that produces them'). Suppose, purely for the sake of argument, that aliens are abducting humans, presumably for reasons best known to themselves. Then they are presumably perfectly capable of arranging pseudo-proofs adequate to satisfy wishful thinkers who don't want abductions to be happening, or are terrified of being ridiculed as 'crackpots' if they don't deny that abductions are happening, or whatever. It should be obvious that we can't prove that we aren't being deceived by some such pseudo-proof, and that consequently the belief (that we can 'prove' that abduction is a purely social phenomenon) is yet another instance of humankind's tendency towards illogical self-delusion (as instanced by most or all of our religions/quasi-religions/ideologies, including the belief that abductions are happening and the belief that they aren't, as well as the belief that Aliens are out there, and the belief that they aren't). As for what the hypothetical Aliens' motive might be, who knows? But seen as this discussion is supposed to be about the Zoo Hypothesis, I do recall that when I was a kid one of the most popular things at the Zoo was the Chimpanzees' Tea Party, in which people laughed at chimps being rather like humans but in a way seen as funny. So maybe the Aliens abduct some of us and then the entire Galaxy gets to laugh its head off at the absurd ways we go about deluding ourselves that it hasn't happened.
As this Talk section is supposed to be about improving the article, I would suggest that this "Chimpanzees' Tea Party Sub-Hypothesis" is a sub-hypothesis of the 'Zoo Hypothesis', and would make a useful subsection in the article which can and should be included if and when any so-called Reliable Sources are found that discuss it and/or anything similar, so I would appeal to other editors to let us all know whether any such Reliable Sources currently exist, or to do so if and when such sources come into being sometime in the future. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this really paranormal?[edit]

I think of this as science, although it is an unproven hypothesis. However, it is one that is pretty firmly grounded in scientific evidence. Placing it under paranormal trivializes it.

Also, I was thrilled to see the recent edits/additions to the page. More work needs to be done, but it is becoming the most extensive information readily available on the matter, which is unfortunate. I wrote an editorial to Sky and Telescope about this that they should publish in the next couple of magazines.

Interestingly, I thought of this whole scenario independently when I was about 19, and I have been searching for information about it ever sense. I think is time for people to take it more seriously.

I agree. This subject is now headline news at Google News where the article mentions a radio astronomer from MIT came up with the zoo hypothesis. This should not be in the paranormal section. (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simulation hypothesis[edit]

If the oldest civilization still present in the Milky Way has, for example, a 100-million-year time advantage over the next oldest civilization, then it is conceivable that they could be in the singular position of being able to control, monitor, influence or isolate the emergence of every civilization that follows within their sphere of influence. This is analogous to what happens on Earth within our own civilization on a daily basis, in that everyone born on this planet is born into a pre-existing system of familial associations, customs, traditions and laws that were already long established before our birth and which we have little or no control over.

A very interesting point. And in a loose way, it nicely segues into the foundation of the simulation hypothesis. An advanced civilization with that much control would be able to control the fabric of reality. Viriditas (talk) 04:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No criticism?[edit]

So, does this hypothesis has no critics? Nobody actually tried to even suggest that the "cosmic conspiracy" like that requires a relatively low numbers of civilizations in the close proximity? That more civilizations, more probability that the signals sent long time ago would inevitably reach us in our life time when the other civilization was supposedly "too primitive" to join the "galactic Zoo conspiracy"? That with growing number of civilizations someone will inevitably break the radio silence? Nobody tried to point that currently understood laws of physics prohibit monitoring "the primitives" from the distance at last in the given time? Or the hypothesis is considered so implausible that nobody is trying even discuss with it? Because it's staggering when I see a lot of criticism in case of Rare Earth hypothesis and lack of criticism of that one. Does all criticism is only from those who believe that space civilizations are common and located in the close proximity to Earth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Assumptions" section is nonsensical[edit]

This whole section could be deleted, since it has no relation to the article. Nothing about the Zoo Hypothesis implies more than a single alien civilization doing the zookeeping, and nothing about the hypothesis implies that there are more zoo habitats than Earth. It only assumes that there is at least one alien civilization watching over at least one habitat. (talk) 03:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Manipulative references[edit]

"If just one civilization acquired hegemony in the distant past, it could form an unbroken chain of taboo against rapacious colonization in favour of non-interference in any civilizations that follow. The uniformity of motive concept previously mentioned would become moot in such a situation." - this is referenced with an article of Seth Shostak suggesting that he writes there uniformity counterargument concept is moot point. I read this to the end and its complitely opposite. He writes there that its a problem for the hypothesis, becouse assumption "sounds odd, self-centered and a bit too altruistic (...) more than little forced". Probably editor tried to enforce his own belief and arguments using references with conclusions that weren't even there.

  • You are correct. I have added "The main problem would be how a hegemonic civilization would block Earth from receiving all intentional or unintentional communications.", which is Shostak's point, before the cite. Johncdraper (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Appearances in fiction[edit]

Would CS Lewis's Out of the Silent Planet be an example of the Zoo Hypothesis, or would it be in another category? It seems similar to the Calvin and Hobbes comic cited, but before I was aware that the Zoo Hypothesis might be considered broad enough to include it, I personally described it as the "Quarantine Hypothesis" in which Earth is considered such a grave threat that it is under quarantine. It doesn't fit the Dark Forest since it applies only to Earth specifically. Does it fit here? Kaleb70 (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]