/sci/ - Science & Math

In short, no.

>>11081735
>is antinatalism the solution to <societal problem x>?
>see problem
>choose to fucking die

>>11081735
the only solution to the fermi paradox you need is a reminder that you can't make a statistical argument without statistical data

there is no paradox

>>11081735
>Is antinatalism the solution to the Fermi paradox?
No, but the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence is.

>>11081735
Niggers should be killed

>>11081735
maybe all civilizations just tend to elect really stupid irresponsible leaders

>>11081760
>thinks he'd do a better job

no, what a fucking retarded conclusion

>What if you become so clever you just die out
story of my life, ahah

>>11081735
>ayylmao civilizations are so advanced they suffer from cosmic ennui and commit seppuku before being observed by human telescopes
Why, what a not-at-all insane theory

>>11081735
This reminds me of that shitty hfy story I read where the Fermi paradox was because humans were insane/mentally defective, and didn't immediately suicide when they became conscious like all other life did.

Why should we kill ourselves?
Why not just immobilize ourselves in stasis and then roam the galaxy preventing other races from becoming advanced because there is no point?

>>11081942
>>thinks he'd do a better job

>>11082008
>before being observed by human telescopes
This is the key to the whole "paradox".
The universe could be chock full of intelligent, tool-bearing life. But we wouldn't know about any of it unless they come here and announce themselves.
And even if they did that a thousand years ago, we'd remember them as gods descending from the heavens, not as interstellar neighbors.

See also: >>11081748

>>11082501
Oops, forgot pic.

>>11081760
DRUMPF

>>11081735

You are a weakling for not making your own purpose in life.

>>11081735
It would need to be something ALL civilizations end up doing to solve the Fermi paradox. The entire point is how even if X civilizations do Y thing to take them out of the running for candidate first contact civilizations that still wouldn't explain the large number Z other amount of expected civilizations not showing up.

>>11081735
The coolest solution I can think of is slowly amping up into spacefaring society where the equivalent of a houseboat is a warp capable space ship with safe nuclear (or equally good and cheap) power and having orbital Chinese strip clubs.
Humanity’s innovations come by necessity and luck so it’s actually important to continue populating the planet.

>>11082008
>95% of all matter is invisible to human sensory technology.

>>11081735

>>11081735

If the number of new universes increases by a factor of some impossibly large number every second due the mechanics of the eternal inflation, then the vast, vast majority universes in existence were born recently. There are vastly more universes born one second after ours than were born at the same second as ours.

Now assume, there's a set amount of time for the first intelligent life to form in any one of these universe, (let's say 10 billion years). Pretend that it's the same in all universes down to the second. The first intelligence appears in our universe after exactly 10 billion year and call that moment "second one". The same happens in the exact same second for universes that formed at the same time as ours. Now, one second later - "second two" - you might get some more intelligent lifeforms forming in those same universes maybe just as many as in second one. But consider the wave of universes that formed one second after our own. These are only now reaching the 10 billion year mark and producing their first intelligent lifeforms and there are vastly more of those slightly younger universes - more than all of the atoms in all of the universes that formed one second earlier.

So, first civilisations in those younger universes will always outnumber all the civilisations in older universes. The result is that at any one moment, almost all of the intelligent beings in the eternally inflating multiverse are in the youngest universes that have had time for intelligent life to form. So if we imagine that we are a typically intelligent lifeform, then we're most likely the most common type across the multiverse, which means we're the first to appear in our universe.

This solves the Fermi Paradox and opens the way for the Youngness paradox.

>>11081735
>able to see moves far ahead (like in chess)
>below
their fault, the game isn't chess

>>11082678
A lot more than 95% buddy

>>11083061
this is based on too many flimsy assumptions

>>11081735
>assume Drake equation parameters are favorable for life
>see no life
>wow what a paradox

>>11082438
Can you please find it it sounds interesting

>>11081735
No because it needs to apply for every group of nearly every species to be a good solution and it just won't. Species that arise to dominate their planet probably have the same expansionist urges they had during their rise. Secular reasoning already exists and is not incompatible with continued life.