/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9197932
The universe is a simulation. Much more plausible.

Probably ftl travel is imposible, if so we will never be able to interact/see any ayys unless they are very close to us (which is unlikely even if there's a fuckton of planers with life), the distances are just too large.

It might be possible to extract arbitrarily many resources from a small area, making the long trip across space unappealing to a hivemind of post-biological aliens.

I mean, having a shitty internet connection sucks.

>>9197932
>are there any other plausible Fermi Paradox solutions?
Aliens have always been there, it's just that they only communicate with us telepathically while we're under the influence of psychedelic compounds so the plausible deniability keeps us from having a collective nervous breakdown over their existence.

>>9198048
>we're the fucking aliens man

>>9197932
Aliens could have visited Earth in the past thus disproving the paradox.

>>9197932
>they should have colonized the entire galaxy by now.
Why would they do that.
First, look at the periodic table: the galaxy is pretty much the same everywhere.
Second, who said that you need infinite expansion? Even we have stopped doing that.
Third, giving the low speed of light any expansion is going to be untenable, you can't have communications that need thousands of years to send a message.

>>9197932
We are probably too retarded to notice them.

As if a species that moves across stars even uses EM waves as information transfer method.

Humans are stupid as fuck.
They believe whatever profits them.

You're boring, and not interesting enough to talk to.

it would be like trying to discuss Opera with gorillas, or handing an AK47 to a monkey. It serves no purpose.

Maybe in a 100 years.

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

>>9198382
>handing an ak-47 to a monkey

That's what we need, to become the toys of a bored virtually omnipotent alien who gives us advanced technology to see what will happen.

>>9197932
Maybe aliens prefer to Dysonize instead of colonizing.

>>9198048
this

>Because by now if other intelligent aliens did exist they should have colonized the entire galaxy by now.
Why is this necessarily true? This sounds like a bias towards aliens acting like humans

>>9197932
Humans are in the territory of an extremely advanced xenophobic species. No other species dares to try to contact us.

We are an intelligent ant colony in a huge military base. The species that controls this military base does not care about us at all, completely ignores us.

>>9197932
>most likely answer being that humans are the only intelligent species in the galactic cluster
Jesus you're an idiot.

>>9197932
>any other plausible Fermi Paradox solutions?
Dozens. Here's twenty:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#Hypothetical_explanations_for_the_paradox

The "paradox" itself is retarded.
"If people like us are possible, why haven't we met any others?"
Well, since we've never left home, the universe _could_ be chock full of civilizations just like us, and none of them would ever meet.

>>9197932
There is no Fermi "paradox". Humans are just shit at detecting anything. Just because extraterrestrials don't come down in people's backyards and say "Hi" doesn't mean they don't exist. Only humans could be so stupid to think their inferior abilities and understandings = solitude. This is like fucking baby object permanence bullshit.

>if other intelligent aliens did exist they should have colonized the entire galaxy by now
>implying they didn't
>implying all earthling DNA isn't alien nano technology programmed to replicate and upgrade itself over time
I'm not even memeing. Think of this: An advanced civilization wants to colonize space. It then builds thousands of nano bots, puts each one of them in thousands of laser powered space sails and shoot them into potentially colonizable targets. If the nano bot lands in a coloniziable target, it will be able to replicate itself and develop advanced AI bots, which will set up infrastructure for our civilization and send signals into space by the time it's done (radio or whatever). If that is possible (it is), and if most sentient beings are the civilization's AI, not the civilization itself, then we probably are their bots. Just think about it.

The real question should be: "why were you expecting to meet/find aliens?"
We occupy a tiny spec of dust in a vast cosmos, and it's only been the last century or two that we would recognize aliens as such.

Let's say there's been a million visits to Earth by aliens with the intent of contacting any intelligent life here.
I'm not talking about the occasional fly-by that we might still not detect or recognize.
I'm not talking about stealthy visits to mutilate cattle or probe a few hillbillies.
No, a MILLION "take me to your leader" style visits.
The Earth has been here for 4.6 billion years.
Let's say we only count the post-Hadean era, that's still 4 billion years.
So a million visits would mean one every 4,000 years on average.
All of recorded history is only 6,000 years, so we can expect one, maybe two visits in all of recorded history.
So maybe one or two stories of a god descending from the skies is an actual alien visit, and that's the level of contact I'd expect from a million attempts to contact us in person.

The "great silence" is the result of the inverse square law.
We couldn't pick up broadcasts as powerful as our own at interstellar distances (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#We_are_not_listening_properly).).

Fermi asked why we can't see any of their "great works", when even today, we still don't have the instruments required to detect a Dyson sphere.

Aside from wondering why aliens haven't set up permanent residence here, there is NO mystery.
It's all just hubris.

>>9197932
>the most likely answer being that humans are the only intelligent species in the galactic cluster

There are at least 100 billion stars in the galaxy.
Never mind FTL limitations, just assume we invent warp drive tomorrow.
Let's say we build a thousand starships to explore the galaxy.
Assuming our thousand Captain Kirks each explore two star systems a week, that's a hundred per year per ship, a hundred thousand systems a year in total.
It would take a decade to explore a million stars, a century to explore ten million, and a million years to explore the galaxy.
Other estimates put the number of stars as high as 400 billion.

The vast number of stars makes starfairing neighbors likely, but also means we're unlikely to bump into them.

>>9197932
Not exactly what you're looking for, OP, but consider the following.
Eventually, humans will establish self-sustaining colonies on other planets. It may not be soon, it may be very far in the future, but given ENOUGH time it will happen.
Furthermore, at some point after the colony is established, civilization will collapse on one of the two and communications will break down. Once again, it may take a very long time to occur, but it's unlikely that the intergalactic colonial power in question will be stable enough and stay around for the billions of years required for earth and the sun to die.
Thus, it may take several "revolutions" or collapses, but eventually communications between the colony and Earth will break down, and records of the colony will eventually be lost.
With these prerequisites satisfied, we have now essentially created extraterrestrial life, as we have living beings on two different planets (that have likely evolved to be very different over such a long span of time), and in at least one instant, neither group is aware of the other.

>>9198107
Some retarded asshat probably threw a rock at one in the 1500's and now we are on the list of planets you shouldn't visit.

>>9197932
>they should have colonized the entire galaxy by now.
Don't project, nigger.

>>9197932
The answer is always the same. Space is fucking huge and attenuation is a fucking bitch. Unless you turn the sun itself into a lighthouse communication device, you'll never have enough power to overcome attenuation in order to communicate with anyone out there.

>>9198023
But even going at speeds known to be possible by current engineering it shouldn't take more than a few hundred thousand/million to reach both ends of the milky way.

There are cosmic entities that travel around destroy any right-angles they see. Most civilizations are destroyed before they reach interstellar space because right angles are an inherent part of any possible civilization.

If by our standards they are intelligent they probably can't go more than the distance mars is from earth away from there home planet

>>9199408
>right angles are an inherent part of any possible civilization
Not so fast.

>>9198704
>Humans
You mean all living things or anything that reproduces or uses energy.
If something doesn't want to reproduce then it dies anon.

>>9198773
You don't get it. If aliens existed they should be detectable on every star in the sky. That is how exponential growth works.

>>9199386
>Project
>Hurr durr how does growth or natural selection work

>>9199473
Not necessarily. Assuming different starting conditions, you can get an immortal lifeform that's the singular member of its species.

>>9199482
No you can't. That doesn't make any sense. If a species consisted of only one individual who didn't reproduce then he couldn't have evolved in the first place.

>>9199486
You're assuming all life works the same way everywhere as it does on earth.
Assume some sort of creature that has a system of mutation that doesn't revolve around death and reproduction.
Hell, just assume a creature is from an extremely static environment where change is not required, so you have some immortal singular extremophile living in some cave.

>>9197932
Aliens definetely dont have to come to every single planet and say hi. They might actually explicitly avoid that, because of some ethic reason or something.

But of course we might still detect them in some way.

But here, the analogy of taking a glass of water out of the ocean and concluding whales dont exist is fitting.

We are either not able to detect them, or we are detecting them, but we don't know it's actually aliens that we are seeing, and not something natural.

baryonic life is actually pretty rare.
Most life is non-baryonic which is why we can't see them
This is the most reasonable answer

>>9197932
Aliens periodically reset life until intelligent one arises.

If you are FTL travel capable there's a very good chance someone else achieved that millions of years before you so it's not a good idea roaming around and alerting them since if they happen to be hostile you're fucked.

From a survivial standpoint It makes more sense to stay hidden than explore the universe.

>>9199551
Such civilizations are probably aware of you anyway and are just not giving a fuck. At the end of the day it's quite stupid to speculate what the typical millions or even billions old civilization behaves like. We know one civilization, and that is 5000 years old.

>>9199561
It depends how often such civilizations arise.
If there's many of them they are probably into some kind of no aggression alliance and make contact only with arising civilzations that just developed FTL.
Or there's too little of them and they are too spread out making it impossible to find each other even with FTL.

>>9199569
Or they just move into a higher dimension where there is cocaine and hookers en masse and dont give a fuck about this universe anymore. We have one data point about a civilization that is 5000 years old, and 0 about a civilization that is millions or Billions years old. So whats the point of speculating? We dont even know what is actually technologically possible and what not. Might be way more than we can fantasize about, or way less.

>>9199576
We know what's theoretically possible through physics which is universal.
And to the second point, because it's fun speculating, what else are you gonna do give up ?

>>9199486
Look it's very simple. You evolve from something that reproduces, then you happen to be basically immortal. Everyone else dies and you are alone for a long time.

>>9199587
Lol right our <1000 year old physics has probed the limits of what's possible.

>>9197932
>if other intelligent aliens did exist they should have colonized the entire galaxy by now.
Interstellar travel will never be practical because there is no way to move faster than light.

>>9199478
>. If aliens existed they should be detectable on every star in the sky.
Let's assume there ARE aliens orbiting every star in the galaxy.
Why do you think we'd be able to detect ANY of them????

>That is how exponential growth works.
Lol, no.
Let's start with us.
We're already past "peak child". There were more infants twenty years ago than there are today.
And the more advanced societies tend towards less growth.
Using ourselves as a model, we can't assume unlimited growth of an advanced society.

But never mind that, let's look at your misunderstanding of "exponential growth".
If your hypothetical aliens double their population every billion years, that's still exponential growth, but they aren't filling up the galaxy anytime soon.

And let's not forget that overpopulation doesn't necessarily lead to colonization, nor will expanding to the stars relieve population pressure on the homeworld.
Look at us again. Our population growth is slowing, but we're still gaining 70 million people a year. Unless we ship a million people a DAY offworld, our population will still rise.
cont...

>>9199551
>ITT niggers believe that interstellar civilizations are cannibals too.

>>9199638
...cont
But let's say we build our own star-empire, and that we double the size of the empire every hundred years. Easy enough, right? All we need is for the average human-occupied star system to build and launch a single colony ship once every century.
Now let's get the calculator out. 100 years: 2 worlds, 200 years: 4 worlds, etc.
Every thousand years we multiply the number of occupied star systems by 1000.
100 years: 1000 worlds, 2000 years one million worlds, etc.
We should be able to fill the galaxy in under 4000 years, right?

FUCK NO! It would take longer than that for a ship traveling at 99% of C to leave the local arm.
The far side of the galaxy is 70-80 thousand years away at nearly light speed.

If your aliens are traveling at 1% of c, it would take them millions of years to cros the entire galaxy,
And when they get here? If the gravity, temperature, background radiation, etc, etc, aren't just right, they won't colonize.

>>9199641
>he doesn't understand that aggressor species are more likely to be intelligent than passive species

The limits of technology aren't much beyond what we currently have, a rapidly changing environment due to technological advances leads to behavioral sinks that prevent any civilization from making use of the technology they can even muster.

>>9199645
Don't the ones that hunt in packs tend to be omnivorous?

>>9199645
Yeah, like Sweden.

>>9199643
>*1000 years: 1000 worlds,

>>9199403
why even attempt that instead of taking the comfy vicinity of plants

>>9198219
>you can't have communications that need thousands of years
How about smoke signs?

ITT

>>9199403
>But even going at speeds known to be possible by current engineering it shouldn't take more than a few hundred thousand/million to reach both ends of the milky way.

By "known to be possible", surely you mean "we've already gone that fast"?
So, we can't count the Helios probes, since we dropped them almost into the sun.
That means the fastest outbound speed "known to be possible" is Voyager 1's speed of 38,610 mph.
At that speed, the far side of the Milky way is well over a billion years away.
But Op was talking about the local group.
The local group is about 10 million LY across, so, more than 10 time the age of the universe at Voyager speeds.

Fuck the paradox, let's just uplift a bunch of species and the we'll have someone nonhuman to talk to.

>>9199500
>You are assuming all life works the same way
Natural selection works the same way.
>A system of mutation that doesn't revolve around death and reproduction
Doesn't exist.
>>9199622
That immortal thing would also reproduce though making infinite immortal being since it can't die.

>>9199526
>Alien avoids spreading to every planet
>Other alien doesn't avoid it
>The alien that doesn't outnumbers the alien that does trillions to one
That is why they are either everywhere or nowhere.

>>9199551
False. If the hostile alien has FTL you would have already been fucked because a hostile alien with FTL travel could literally nuke every single planet to death every few million years or so. That is also bad logic because an alien that outnumbers you would have been everywhere anyways so you couldn't hide from them.

>>9199786
>doesn't exist
On earth
Reproduction isn't the only possible survival strategy

>>9199636
You don't have to move faster than light to colonize another solar system.
>>9199638
>Why would they detect any of them
They would give off energy and they would be visiting us to colonize it as well.
>There are more infants tweny years ago than there are today
false

>>9199789
>That is why they are either everywhere or nowhere.
You're assuming an "advanced" civilization will relentlessly expand, consuming all in its path.
And let's not forget, every species will need a particular set of conditions for a planet to be habitable.
You might as well argue humans don't exist because there aren't any living on Mars (or Mercury for that matter).

>>9199797
>They would give off energy
Such as?
See:
>>9198773
>We couldn't pick up broadcasts as powerful as our own at interstellar distances (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#We_are_not_listening_properly).).

>>9199797
>would be visiting us to colonize it as well.
Assuming they have nothing better to do than multiply like mindless insects, AND they could live comfortably here, AND they have no moral objection to displacing life here, AND life here doesn't pose a serious threat to them living here.

>>9199817
p.s.:
...AND no other species is trying to stop their simple-minded expansion.

>>9199797
>>There are more infants tweny years ago than there are today
>false
https://www.google.com/search?q=peak+child

>>9198048
Not this. This whole point of the Fermi question is to query the lack of an alien presence in our Observable Universe. So you have to either explain why they're not there or why they go to the massive effort of concealing their observability to light waves that intersect with Earth.

The LSD communications thing is superfluous detail.

Your real proposed explanation is that they go to efforts that are currently considered scientifically impossible to conceal their presence from us because: "we couldn't handle it."

Sick theory bro

>>9198229
>brainlets feeling wise

>>9199674
Learn basic mathematical biology

>>9198382
Your simile really collapsed at the end there. Of all the objects you could combine with subjects too stupid to understand them, you chose a monkey and a gun? Monkeys can use guns, bro, look it up.

>>9198630
>Kardashev-cucks

Jesus not again

>>9199795
Yes it literally is. You can't have immortality. That is fucking impossible because even without aging something can still die. You also can't have natural selection without reproduction.

>>9199809
>Your assuming
I'm assuming laws of math still apply. Every single species biologically wants to reproduce. Even if they aren't biological the things that reproduce grow to outnumber the things that don't want to.
>habitable
That's star wars shit. It's far easier to create your own habitat than find planets.

>>9199817
>>9199824
>Such as
Heat for starters
If literally every other star is colonized it is fucking retarded to believe no one would visit the last non colonized star.

>>9199827
>None of the links prove you right
So you admit you were just bullshitting.

>>9198762
That is a sophistical phrasing of the Fermi question. I agree that it doesn't qualify as a paradox, that's just marketing.

The Fermi question in its most credible form says that the outputs for the Drake equation should result in some alien presence being evident in our Observable Universe.

Since it isn't, it follows that either the presence is being concealed from us or some unknown factor in the convergent path of civilisational progress is preventing the expansion of civilisations or their communications.

This limiting factor would have to lie further down the Kardashev scale than we are currently, because we made it this far with no impediment.

Every time we encounter a phenomenon which adjusts our Drake estimates up (like lakebeds on Mars and gravitational warming on Europa) then we also have to adjust up our prior on the likelihood of this civilisational limiting factor.

It could be grey goo or nuclear war or whatever. But it has to be something. That is why the Fermi question is important. Your post did it zero justice and mis-phrased it badly.

>>9199824
>Other species stop their expansion
That would mean that those species also have expanded across the galaxy. That isn't a solution to the paradox that just makes it even harder to explain away. How are there this many brainlets on /sci/?

>>9199679
Where did you get your math from monkey? Going at Junos speed would take 777 million years and that is just with earth technology. Fusion power is expected to go nearly 100 times that speed and while humans don't have that tech yet it's very likely we will one day. Not only that but you don't have to go from one end of the galaxy to another have a massive presence. If they only covered 1% of the galaxy that would have been a massive detectable presence.

>>9200014
>why they go to the massive effort of concealing their observability
Nigger, there are dozens of objects, the size of Florida or bigger in our own solar system we're just finding out about in the last decade or so.
We've only direct imaged one or two exoplanets, the rest we infer by noting minor variations in the light from their stars.
We're looking for Dyson spheres, and the best we can do is about a dozen "maybes".
We have NO idea what's going on with Tabby's Star or the Fast Gama Bursts.
For all we know, pulsars were deliberately created by aliens who collapse whole stars into blackholes (somehow) just to get our attention.
There could be a civilization like our own orbiting every star in the universe, and we wouldn't have any way to notice them, unless they come here in a deliberate effort to announce themselves.

>>9200085
But if that were true it would be obvious. If there was a civilization on every start there would be so many signs. Even if for some reason NONE of the aliens used signals that could be read by seti we would be able to tell by how much energy they are taking from the sun or many other ways.

>>9200044
>>None of the links prove you right
>So you admit you were just bullshitting.

Here's the first few:
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24835822
> fertility is still trending downwards
> In the last decade the global total number of children aged 0-14 has levelled off at around two billion,
(a decade is 10 years, ten is less than 14, you do the math)
>http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=peak%20child
>Because of falling birth rates there will never be more children in the world than there are today – we are at peak child.
http://girlrising.com/blog/dr-hans-rosling-the-world-has-reached-peak-child/
>the number of children in the world has stopped increasing; that we have reached “peak child”.
http://www.gapminder.org/news/world-peak-number-of-children-is-now/
> the number of children in the world has now reached its peak.

But let's say I was wrong.
Are you claiming that ANY potential alien species MUST breed like locusts?
That population growth is inevitable?

>>9198382

>handing an AK47 to a monkey.

That's extremely interesting dude

>>9200041
>Heat for starters
???
Help me out here.
We can't detect any exoplanets based on their heat emissions, and there must be plenty far hotter than an inhabited planet.

>If literally every other star is colonized
Nobody's making that claim.

>retarded to believe no one would visit the last non colonized star.
Even if the entire universe _were_ inhabited, we could easily be "off limits", either because they don't want to disturb us, or maybe just because the galactic overlords can't live comfortably here.
Maybe the interstellar locusts prefer lower gravity, or a stronger magnetic field.

>>9200108
None of those proven what you said. Fertility rate is decreasing but the human population is still increasing meaning that you have more babies today than before.
>Because of the falling birthrate there will never be more children
Based on a bloggers opinion.
To prove your point you would have to show a long term decrease in the amount of humans born.
>Population growth is inevitable
Either that or extinction. In any group the subgroup that reproduces successfully faster will always outnumbers the ones that don't. You don't have to reproduce every single day for that to accomplish, but it means that population growth will always be positive when possible. That is how all reproducing organisms work.

>>9200038
>Every single species biologically wants to reproduce.
...and yet most species don't invade non-native habitats.
Different places have different species.


>it's far easier to create your own habitat than find planets.
[citation needed]
It sounds like you speak from experience, but in reality, you're just pulling shit out of your ass.
Write back when anybody lives in an artificial biosphere.
But if you're right, why would the aliens ever travel to another star?

>>9200115
>exoplanets
If you had a dyson sphere around a sun you would fucking notice it easily. It would have a radius bigger than that of the star itself.
>Be off limits
So? When you have a population of literally trillions of trillions of aliens do you think every single one will listen?
>Nobody is making that claim
Yeah but it's the only logical conclusion if aliens exist that can travel to different solarsystems. All living things expand.

>>9200085
There are plenty of ways for a interstellar civilisation to get itself noticed without doing stupid shit like collapsing stars.

All you need to do is broadcast organised signals - ie information - of any kind.

So no, any objects in our solar system however low res our current imaging of them, are not likely to be interstellar beacons because if they are that then they're non-functional, and all nearby beacons being non-functional is still a big Fermi mystery, considering that the mass emission of broadcast beacons to neighbouring stars is literally the second most basic interstellar exploration tech after fucking radio waves.

Dyson spheres would only be civ's that don't want to talk to us, considering how close and advanced they would have to be, and the Fermi problem still applies, because even if no one wanted to talk to us, the fact that they all took the same stance despite capabilities for contact is another stupid-big fucking question mark.

>There could be a civilisation like our own around every star
Then the Fermi question would be in the form of "Why the fuck is everyone at 21st C. human tech at the same time instead of many being past it into at least the realms of what we already know to be theoretically possible?"

>Tabby's Star or the Fast Gamma Bursts
Stay with me, here, mate.

>What is strange?
An observable universe with no other life signs.

>What is only SLIGHTLY LESS strange?
An observable universe with no other life signs except maybe these few weird anomalies.

The Fermi question still fucking applies. It would apply even if an alien DID turn up, but in the modified form "What took you so long and where are all the other intelligent races?"

In your attempt to do deference to the scale of the galaxy you are failing to grasp the implications of even our most conservative plug ins to the Drake equation. Life should be more common, but its not. You haven't dissolved the question just by saying "Space is big."

>>9200048
>the outputs for the Drake equation should result in some alien presence being evident in our Observable Universe.
We don't have any real numbers to plug into the Drake equation, so there are no outputs.
The rest of your drivel belongs on /x/.

>>9200049
>That would mean that those species also have expanded across the galaxy.
No. There could be some species local to this part of the Galaxy that doesn't tolerate trespassers.
That's why the Fermi Paradox is just mental masturbation. It's 100% unfounded speculation.
We're locked in a windowless, nearly soundproof room, guessing at what _might_ be outside based on an almost complete lack of information.
The only thing we can be sure of is, nobody seems to be making much of an effort to contact us.
At least presently.
In a way we could detect.

>>9200133
>There could be some species local to this part of the Galaxy that doesn't tolerate trespassers.
That would mean that THEY would have colonized all of the local space of that part of the galaxy. Why is this so hard for you brainlets to understand? .

>>9197932


there are either no or barely any aliens or exo-solar travel isn't possible by any practical means besides robot probes visiting nearby
stars.

The galaxy itself is unfathomably big

>>9200137
>>9200133
Also
>A species is a single person
All it would take is one member of the species to fuck up or purposely want to contact people. This retarded ass zoo conspiracy theory falls flat for so many reasons and is extremely illogical.

>>9200061
>Going at Junos speed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juno_(spacecraft)#Earth_flyby
> It used Earth's gravity to help slingshot itself toward the Jovian system in a maneuver called a gravity assist.[28] The spacecraft received a boost in speed of more than 3.9 km/s (8,800 mph) and was set on a course to Jupiter.[28][29][30]

Voyager is moving at only about half the Earth's orbital speed, but it's still the fastest outbound object ever.

>>9200061
>Fusion power is expected
Fusion power has been "expected" for decades.

I'm pretty sure we can figure out how to build an extrasolar spacecraft faster than Voyager, but that's not the same thing as "speeds known to be possible by current engineering".

>>9200101
>If there was a civilization on every start there would be so many signs.
Like what?
SETI estimates that we could only detect radio broadcasts like our own at a distance of 0.3 LY.
There's nothing we do that we could detect from interstellar distances.

>>9200101
>we would be able to tell by how much energy they are taking from the sun
We can barely detect the existence of planets based on how much sunlight they block.
See also:
https://www.google.com/search?q=tabby%27s+star

>>9200145
I don't see where in your post you disproven my math anon.

>>9200119
>Fertility rate is decreasing but the human population is still increasing meaning that you have more babies today than before.
The fertility rate has been declining since the early 1960's.
The number of new children born each year has been falling since the 1990's.
None of articles mention a specific date for "peak child", but every one says the number of children isn't growing.

>>9200125
>If you had a dyson sphere around a sun you would fucking notice it easily.

No, you wouldn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere#Search_for_megastructures
>Identifying one of the many infrared sources as a Dyson sphere would require improved techniques for discriminating between a Dyson sphere and natural sources.[33]
>Fermilab discovered 17 potential "ambiguous" candidates, of which four have been named "amusing but still questionable".[34][full citation needed]
>Other searches also resulted in several candidates, which are, however, unconfirmed.[35][36][37]

>>9200126
>There are plenty of ways for a interstellar civilisation to get itself noticed without doing stupid shit like collapsing stars.
>All you need to do is broadcast organised signals - ie information - of any kind.

They _would_ need to do something astronomically big to get our attention, we're not very good at listening for interstellar signals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#We_are_not_listening_properly
>Extraterrestrials might, for example, transmit signals that have a very high or low data rate, or employ unconventional (in our terms) frequencies, which would make them hard to distinguish from background noise.
>Signals might be sent from non-main sequence star systems that we search with lower priority;
>current programs assume that most alien life will be orbiting Sun-like stars.[89]
>The greatest challenge is the sheer size of the radio search needed to look for signals (effectively spanning the entire visible universe),
>the limited amount of resources committed to SETI, and the sensitivity of modern instruments.
>SETI estimates, for instance, that with a radio telescope as sensitive as the Arecibo Observatory, Earth's television and radio
>broadcasts would only be detectable at distances up to 0.3 light-years, less than 1/10 the distance to the nearest star.

>>9200141
>All it would take is one member of the species to fuck up or purposely want to contact people.
Assuming a single individual had access to interstellar travel, and assuming the trip takes less than that particular alien's lifetime, they might produce the kind of isolated contact that many people claim to have had with UFO's.

>>9200150
>I don't see where in your post you disproven my math anon.
none so blind...

>he thinks that out of 54 galaxies in the local cluster, there's no other intelligent life

The fermi paradox equation is a mental exercise, it doesn't represent reality in any provable manner. For all we know, there could be thousands of civilizations in our own galaxy that we just haven't seen yet. Our own EM emissions haven't even reach 0.001% of the galaxy in the last 100 years.

>>9197932
Who says alien civilizations have the resources for galactic travel?

This isn't some magical universe where once you have a certain intelligence, you can just go where you want with no logistical boundaries.

Alien galactic colonization and ownership of the galaxy is more absurd that thinking there is intelligent life close to home visiting us regularly.

>>9200127
>I specifically mentioned conservative estimates as plug ins to the Drake equations
>He thinks I was talking about definitive values

You're an idiot.

Also:

>The rest of your drivel
Literally just a straightforward explanation of the adaptability of the Fermi question to all of your utterly vacuous counter-examples.

Face it, you understand the Fermi question (which is itself embarrassingly basic), let alone are capable of dismissing its validity.

>>9200150
>I don't see where in your post you disproven my math anon.
Well, let's review:

>>9199403
>going at speeds known to be possible by current engineering
I'm interpreting this as meaning we've sent outbound probes this fast.
That means Voyager 1.
Even the chair I'm sitting in is moving at 70,000 mph relative to the sun. It's outbound speed that's a challenge.

>>9199403
>it shouldn't take more than a few hundred thousand/million to reach both ends of the milky way.
Starting from right here, reaching the far side of the galaxy (about 80,000 LY) in just a million years would involve traveling at 0.08c.
The speed of light is 299792458 m/s, so 0.08c = 23,983,396.64 m/s. There's 1609.344 meters per mile, so 14,902.6 miles per SECOND, or over 53 million miles per hour.
That's over 300 time as fast as Juno, or about 1400 times as fast as Voyager.

>>9200061
>Going at Junos speed would take 777 million years
That's moving the goalposts. 777 Million years is a LOT more than "a few hundred thousand/million".

>>9200197

>>9200151
If a Dyson sphere was close you would know because of how little visible light you would see compared to infored.
>>9200151
>Fertility rate
Doesn't mean population is decreasing it is still increasing and does so every day meaning that the number of children increases. You have no proof that it will decrease.

>>9200163
Yeah but we all know they are bullshitting faggots. Besides that one alien could easily just dump a hard drive with magical alien science on it.

>>9200203
777 million still means that if they exist and can somehow only go as fast as us (which is silly to think) they could have made themselves a big presence in only a few dozen million years to the point of being detectable.

>>9198048
this 100% unironically, communication with universal consciousness (god) is possible too

>>9200014
go read jack vallee and come back woke, we've been visited and they're not from other planets, you trying to understand their intentions is like an ant trying to understand why humans have theme parks, they're on a whole other level

>>9200228
We can barely detect planets, why do you think we woul be able to detect an interstellar civilization?

>>9200014
>This whole point of the Fermi question is to query the lack of an alien presence in our Observable Universe.
What you see and hear under the influence of psychedelic compounds is still part of the observable universe.
> why they go to the massive effort of concealing their observability to light waves that intersect with Earth
Why do they need to have light waves like that to conceal in the first place?

>>9200394
>still part of
Semantics

>Why would they have a presence to conceal in the first place
This is just sidestepping the Fermi question, since it becomes either:

"Why does there expanding civilisation leave no physical or radiation signatures?"

Or:

"Why aren't they expanding, and why aren't others expanding in their place?"

Saying that aliens are around but secretive is, as I said originally, not an answer to the Fermi question, it is only a dodge of the question that sounds like an answer while producing an equally if not more mysterious question of its own.

>>9197932
Civilisations can not develop beyond nuclear age. They just wipe themselves out in a thermonuclear war.

Galaxy-wide life-destroying events occur at a frequency that prevent the development of spacefaring intelligent species.

Any aliens out there have had the same amount of time to evolve as us.

>Because by now if other intelligent aliens did exist they should have colonized the entire galaxy by now.
that's just retarded, there's no reason to expand forever like rabbits, do you honestly think humans are going to colonize billions of planets too? we don't even know if interstellar travel is technologically or economically feasible

>>9197932
>by now if other intelligent aliens did exist they should have colonized the entire galaxy by now.

why haven't we

>>9200585
>why haven't we

Selection pressure hasn't pushed human civilizations to seek it desperately. Until then, we're stuck hoping that someone who already can't wait to get off this rock figures out how to make it affordable for everyone.

>>9200650
>>9200585
It almost certainly will happen. I mean it might take a while but it's not like humans are dying any time soon and since are population is still increasing and since we will always want more resources it's only a matter of time until we start colonizing space.

>>9200580
>There is no reason
You say that as if population growth is planned. It's natural to all living things. That is how populations work. Humanity will never collectively to decide to just stop having kids because even if the vast majority of humans do, they will just replaced by the ones who don't want to stop having kids and the population will still grow. That is natural selection. All living things grow to their carrying capacity but what makes humans different than all other species that have ever existed is that we can increase our own carry capacity.

>>9200465
This is extremely unlikely. Even if we humans had hardcore nuclear war today it's unlikely it will kill all humans. Just out of dumb luck many would survive because they just happen to be in safer areas (like bomb shelters or random bits not effected) and then they would start civilization all over again.

>>9197932
Quite possible aliens have a prime directive. They are careful not to communicate with us till we are ready

>>9200390
Because an interstellar species would be far more detectable than a planet. A civilization that could colonize a solar system completely would literally have trillions of members all using energy, sending messages, absorbing sun light, ect.

>>9201209
you are fucking retarded if you think detecting a civilization that lives on a planet is easier than detecting the planet itself. so far we can barely see a planet that is not a gas giant, so how the fuck are we supposed to see a fucking solar plant you god damned retard.

>>9201199
>Humanity will never collectively to decide to just stop having kids
That's literally what's happening in advanced economies. Humans are not bacteria that just mindlessly reproduce. Eventually you reach a critical point and you have to start controlling population or nature will do it for you. We have nowhere to expand to but this planet for any foreseeable future, if ever

>>9201199
>>9201243
The more advanced a country is the less they are having kids. Take Europe for example, or Japan where population is going to drop by more than half by 2100. Population is only naturally growing in poor countries, in rich countries it's only because of immigration.

Haven't you faggots figured it out yet? The Fermi Paradox and "WTF is Dark Matter" are the answer for one another. There is some kind of tech out there that allows dwellers of this realm to switcharoo to 'heaven' which is actually just some subspace area where we can control matter and energy with our consciousness.

If you die you still go there, but the ayys who figured out how to get there mortally will call you a brainlet for all eternity

>>9197932
The transcension hypothesis. If the universe is finite then it doesn't make sense to expand within the perceivable universe when you can just escape the confines of the universe and transcend the dimension itself and this is me just hypothesizing but I think the entities you encounter on drugs like dmt are organisms that managed to either escape third dimensional confines to survive and achieve quasi apotheosis and transcend or are just natural 4th dimensional organisms.

>>9197932
The amount of radio transmissions Earth sends into deep space has been decreasing since the 80s due to the development of a worldwide fiber optic network and improvements to radio technology.

What SETI does is look for alien radio broadcasts. It's the only method we've got. There could be only a window of a century between aliens building their first powerful radio transmitters and moving on to better technology. This puts the odds of us ever finding one with this method extremely low.

>>9201234
>lives on a planet
I said solar system. An alien race that has colonized an entire solar system would almost certainly do more than use a single planet. Even then you don't have to detect a planet to detect radio waves or other clear signs.

>>9201243
>>9201310
You still don't get it. Even if some parts of a population don't reproduce they just get replaced by the ones that do. That is how natural selection works. We will never get humanity to have long term birth rates lower than replacement because they will just be replaced by the people who do want to reproduce more.
>Critical point
That is why a species decides to colonize space. You don't need to put a colony on an exo planet to colonize space either.

>>9201638
That's silly, there's not going to be enough people having a kids and "replacing" them when more of the planet develops. Human population will drop in the future and hypothetically colonizing planets in some far future isn't going to cause a population boom. The only reason to go to space is to prevent extinction and you won't need many separate populations for that

>>9201603
Reminds me that SETI is a massive waste of money. They're never going to find anything.

>>9201628
>Even then you don't have to detect a planet to detect radio waves
AGAIN:
>>9200161
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#We_are_not_listening_properly

>>9201753
>Human population will drop in the future
You have no evidence of this and all logic says it will continue to grow.

>>9202501
Yes but the thing is, if there were aliens on every single star (which the fermi paradox is about) then there would be a million other ways to tell.

>>9197932
>we are intelligent and haven't expansed beyond our planet
>any other intelligent life must surely be transgalactic
Why do people keep saying this

>>9198250
>They believe whatever profits them
literally nothing wrong with this

>>9202574
Because humans have only had rockets for a few dozen years and we are already trying to colonize mars and the moon and we know we have the technology to do it.

>>9202674
but elons video production team is definately working on the mars deal. itll be better than nasas gen 1 hue saturation at 33 funnies. and iiiiitll be lllow budget cgi mixed with cornball oy footage in reverse.

>>9202528
Literally every expert agrees that it will. Birth rates are already dropping in third world as they develop. Human population was stable for most of history, the big boom was caused by medical advancements and quality of life rising so suddenly most of their ten children didn't die as kids yet they kept having them anyway. Now that trend is going away worldwide. Human population is still rising but everyone agrees it will start dropping sooner or later, most estimates say sometime after 2100

>>9200038
>every species wants to reproduce

Pandas would like a word with you.

>>9203733
>Pandas would like a word with you.

Their biology has made a fatal switch to feast on a low nutrition energy source that leaves them too tired to do more than graze. They've selected for extinction.

>>9203739
So we're already backpedaling from the claim that all species exist to just reproduce cause muh biology?

What's to stop aliens from a million similar fates? The only certainty we have is there are untold uncertainties when it comes to ayys. To make claims purely based on what we've observed on our planet's behavioral fauna is frankly arrogant and unscientific at heart. There simply is not enough data. We all literally stem from one cell a long ass time ago. We can't make conclusions for what biological motivations for whatever other forms of life might be out there.

>>9203763
I'm not the one who made that claim in the first place. All successful species that make it through the gauntlet that is Life on Earth will have it, though.

>>9203766
Will have what?

>>9198630
we'd be dead by the end of the week but i agree

>>9200465
>he believes in cold war memes

We don't have the means to actually 100% wipe ourselves out right now (unless the gov is hiding a lot more than we can conceive)

>>9201203
It would set technology back to the stone age however.

If we took out a large portion of factories and skilled workers, computing as we know it would be done for. And we'd have a thousand years of catching up.

The survivors would look at hundred year old technology as magic and start to debate whether it was more likely a fairly tale, or that we were wizards.

paradoxes are features of human language (mathematics and the sciences are languages) and not reality at large

>>9203775
>Will have what?
The compulsion to reproduce.

>>9203830
animals and humans both want to have sex but humans are actually smart enough to prevent unnecessary reproduction while doing it

>>9203847
>animals and humans both want to have sex but humans are actually smart enough to prevent unnecessary reproduction while doing it

And the ones who "are smart enough" to do that and do not produce offspring will be replaced at large by the ones who do. In our infinite brilliance, we're selecting for stupidity.

>>9203861
Currently yes but it's not going to keep happening forever since the birthrates among the "dumb" population in poor countries have been dropping for years as well, it's just that other countries started doing it earlier. In not so far future more people are going to be dying than born each year

>>9203873
Africa has bucked the trend of industrialization reducing fertility rates.

>>9203877
I guess that says something about africans. Their fertility rates are still dropping though but maybe we need to "help" them with it if you catch my drift

>>9203887
There are active anti-fertility education/contraceptive handout programs in Africa. They're probably the only reason there's a dent at all.

>>9203542
>Human population is still rising but everyone agrees it will start dropping sooner or later, most estimates say sometime after 2100

pic related

>>9197932
The Fermi Paradox assumes that endless expansion is a sustainable model, and well, it's not, as fairly thoroughly demonstrated here.

Then add extreme longevity or biological immortality into the mix and suddenly a population cap is inevitable. As efficiency improves and population remains fixed, you need less and less resources. The alternative is to burn out your own biosphere before you manage to leave it.

Under such a model. once you colonize a handful of worlds in the galaxy of sufficient spread, no further colonization will further cement your species's survival. There's simply no terrestrial or cosmological threat that can be avoided that way. The only remaining threats, such as vacuum decay or quasar birth, can only be avoided by leaving the galaxy or universe.

Additionally, you eventually get so advanced that exploration becomes kinda moot. There's only so many different ways you can mix and match four forces and a smattering of particles. Predictive technologies eventually make exploring the universe as pointless as exploring in Minecraft - you know what you're going to see, and you can spawn nearly anything you need.

Thus, if there are space faring civilizations out there, odds are they are each but a few extremely efficient colonies, consisting of a near immortals a million in number or less. These technological deities likely use even less energy, and leave a tinier footprint, than our own wildly growing industrial civilization.

Thus, in the galaxy, civilizations like ours are probably the most visible - the ones burning themselves out. We'd be lucky to detect a civilization like ours in our own solar system, so detecting a stable and sane, one some millions of years older, is extremely unlikely, especially in this sparsely populated end of the stellar neighborhood.

>>9203830
But aliens do not go through the gauntlet that is life on earth, so it is not wise to assume they have our same drive.

>>9200157
That is only in cases where it was very far away. If the vast majority of stars were dysoned up you would know by the lack of visible light to the amount of stars in the galaxy. The cases in that link are for individual ones. The Fermi Paradox assumes nearly ALL stars are dysoned up. The fact that you can look outside and see the stars goes against it.

>>9200174
But again, the Fermi paradox means that if intelligent life exists it should have spread across the galaxy by now meaning it would be fucking everywhere.

>>9203542
>Every expert says
Where? What evidence do they have?

>>9203763
>>9203733
Pandas don't reproduce because they are in a situation far different than their environment that they naturally reproduce in.
>>9203763
>Muh biology
No retard, natural selection is more than just biology. Pandas are going extinct, either humans will go extinct or we will continue to expand. You can't have a middle ground. Natural selection dictates that even when 99% of humans decide not to have children you will still have a net INCREASE in humans over time because the 1% will quickly replace the 99%.

>>9204515
>it's not wise to assume natural selection exists because they are aliens
That isn't how it works.

>>9204083
>Endless expansion is sustainable
It is until every possible place to expand to has been used which means every single star.

>>9204757
already explained, time to go to bed timmy

>>9204767
Problem is you burn up and destroy your own planet's resources and viability long before you get the technology to move onto another. Particularly so, if you develop massive longevity before you manage to start colonizing other systems, and we're probably closer to that goal than interstellar colonies.

>>9204791
>Explained
That isn't a source faggot.

>>9204855
sorry I can't help you with mental retardation

>>9200585
Ugh... Because it takes thousands of years to develop the technology that would allow us to do that.
But in the grand scheme, thousands of years is extremely short, a blip on the radar. Considering the Universe is around 14 billion years old and that life could have theoretically began to form billions of years ago, the thousands of years those hypothetical intelligent species required to develop high-tech necessary for galactic colonization would have passed relatively quickly and they would have had more than enough time to completely swarm the galaxy by now.
>Why haven't we
Because we didn't start billions of years ago, we started some thousands of years ago, so we are still in the _relatively_ short transition towards multiplanetary species.

>>9203763
>when it comes to ayys
to this day I can't help but kek when we refer to aliens as "ayys", the meme never grows old

>>9203877
virtually no african society has finished industrialization, what are you talking about.

>>9204083
very interesting and thoughtful answer.
would like to add that more likely than not most multistellar life would be post-biological, which is a very interesting topic worthy of a separate thread.

>>9205004

>>9197932
We're first.
The Galaxy is ours.

>can't even properly see exoplanets yet
>hurr why can't we see any life you guyz?

>>9205170
>We're first
I refuse to believe the bar on this galaxy's intelligent lifeforms is that low.

>>9204083
>>9205028
Post-biological life forms might follow the same rules for similar reasons, though there's some question as to the motivation. I mean, yes, you've ensured your survival, and there's no need to go on making more of yourselves, and you're advanced enough that the universe isn't liable to generate anything particularly novel - so now what? Why stay? You've already defeated your instinct for breeding, why continue to follow your instinct for survival?

>The only remaining threats, such as vacuum decay or quasar birth, can only be avoided by leaving the galaxy or universe.
That opens another possibility... Presumably, before any species actually leaves its solar system, it will have the capacity to build a collider large enough to measure to the top particle. What if it turns out to be unstable? What if every potentially interstellar species inevitably discovers it lives in a doomed universe that could fall apart at any moment, and may indeed already be falling apart?

It could be that any race that reaches that stage of development bails on this universe upon that inevitable discovery. How one does this, I don't know, but technology of that level may open new possibilities. I suppose, if cosmic censorship isn't a thing, they could toss themselves into a large event horizon to buy themselves more time. Sagittarius-A would be large enough, though probably too active to enter safely.

It'd be nice if they left a note though.

>>9198219
The periodic table actually isnt a complete table of every element in the universe.
Chemists believe that there are possibly countless other elements that have yet to be discovered

>>9205369
>The periodic table actually isnt a complete table of every element in the universe.
>Chemists believe that there are possibly countless other elements that have yet to be discovered

No.

All the stable elements have been discovered. There are possibly a few more semi-stable elements in something called the "island of stability", but certainly not countless. And such elements would not be common anywhere else reachable by humans.

And then there is Neutronium which is a special case.

>>9197932
Life is self destructive. The ego(the distinction between the self and the universe) is necessary for survival and is what kills every 'intelligent' species. That or that the universe is massive and intergalactic species don't see much use being in this solar system if they haven't already been here.

>>9198630
>>9203784
We already have nukes. We'd be fine as long as the weapons were given to/confiscated by governments already handling nukes. Although having that kind of weapon could be used to threaten a lot of other countries into submission lmao, but it could just end in global nuclear war regardless of whether they're the only ones with that weapon or not.

>>9204083
I'd like to retort that a post-biological being's psychology would be MUCH different than ours. We have chemical reward systems to promote survival, I doubt highly advanced immortal beings would need that, if so, only a more simple, milder version than our own. It would be pretty hard to accurately empathize with them and get into their minds the same way it would be for a monkey to try to empathize with us and get in our minds.

>>9206058
We're talking aliens to begin with, so be it emotional or logical, biological or mechanical... For what purpose?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDvN-g-3SxI

Granted, I could see where the creators might somehow install a categorical imperative for collective survival that they cannot override, but short of that...

Mind, since we're talking "intelligent species" this does all ignore the possibility of space faring animals that just somehow survive in space by instinct, possibly engineered by some suicidal/homicidal alien having an off day.

>>9199417
>Aliens get out Reeee!
Only locals my post here

>>9198768
>implying there's no inevitable conflict of intrests and galactic politics that arises from autonomous colonists that dontvresemble the hosts except in their dna

>>9197932
aliens represent people who feel alienated from society. that was the whole concept

>>9204761
And yet you can't prove this is the case when it comes to ayys as we don't know what drives them asshat. They could be indestructible and never their driving force is the die. We will never know anything outside of the fact that we came from one cell. The drive to reproduce could literally have been hard coded into that one cell and missing in other forms of life.

>>9199646
T. 1900 guy

because our current model for how life exits makes it out to where our creation was the insterllar equivalent of winning the lottery, and getting struck by lightning, while winning a game of roullete, all at the same time

>>9197932

Physics effectively forbids relativistic travel just as it explicitly forbids FTL travel

>>9207834
Tell that to the next muon that hits you.

>>9197932
>should've colonized the entire galaxy by now
Its entirely plausible that the technology required to colonize a galaxy simply isn't possible under the laws of our universe.

>>9205545
>Chemists believe that there are possibly countless other elements that have yet to be discovered

And I believe Jesus is coming tomorrow, while you don´t have anything to disprove me, I can say we already got to quantum levels and we stopped there, and I say that it is almost impossible to actually find another element because at least in atoms levels we got that shit pretty accurate.

Sorry
>>9205545
This
>>9209359
was for you

>>9205369

>>9198382
This is so wrong...

If you found an animal who could for instance do basic math, would not that be interesting as fuck?

>>9209374
Rather depends on how common they are, and how easy they are to make.

Besides, in a non-FTL universe, anything with the tech to be colonizing the galaxy isn't really going to distinguish between regular animals, animals that can count to ten, and animals that can split atoms.

>>9199817
>Assuming they have nothing better to do than multiply like mindless insects

thats what would happen from evoluton mate

>AND they could live comfortably here
nigger were just 100 years away from colonising mars give us a thousand let alone a million or billion years and we could terrraform pretty mutch anything
>AND they have no moral objection to displacing life here
Again evoluton
AND life here doesn't pose a serious threat to them living here.
NIgger we would be basicly ants to them just look at 100 years tech diffrence

>>9200266
>why humans have theme parks
To provide sugary waste products for the ants, so they may thrive alongside us.
It's like a super picnic for ants.

>>9199561
I still think hyped advanced civs either commit mass suicide or dimension hop depending on whether or not they discover how to live for eternity

>>9200038
You can get rid of natural selection once you are intelligent enough to design yourself. If an individual lived as long as a species wouldn't they be equal?