/sci/ - Science & Math

aliens are fucken stupid

>>9328357
>Fermi paradox
not science or math

The chances of intelligent life similar enough to us are low, and we're limited by the size of the observable universe.

>>9328369
>the greatest statistical problem of all time
>not science

Fuck off brainlet.

>>9328357
While life may be common, Intelligent life is not guaranteed, and what intelligent life does spring up may not be in the position to advance technologically
>>9328379
do not respond to shitposters

>>9328378
>The chances of intelligent life similar enough to us are low

Explain.

>>9328379
>>the greatest statistical problem of all time
*blocks your path*

>>9328379
>>the greatest statistical problem of all time
*blocks your path*

>>9328382
there's many different ways life could come about, our version is just one very specific possiblility

>>9328380

*blocks your path*

>>9328357
The observable universe is huge, the possible universe is even bigger than that.
Our radio waves haven't even reached 1% of the observable universe, let alone the possible universe and we also haven't even observed a fraction of that.
Us making claims about, or against the existence of aliens, is utterly pointless pseudoscience.
The least you can say is that extraterrestrial life probably exists, intelligent extraterrestrial life is doubtful and ever seeing complex extraterrestrial life in person is extremely unlikely.
Once again, the universe is intangibly massive.

>>9328357
the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

>>9328405
>without saying anything about interstellar travel.

>>9328406
>But muh paradox from an irrelevant 50's physicist!

>>9328427
I don't know if it's fair to call Fermi 'irrelevant'

How about a "strong" mediocrity principle? That is to say, humans aren't just average, but we're EXTREMELY average. Every planet with life, which is common, has developed to almost exactly the same stage as us, just because all the factors (stars forming, planet cooling, life forming, evolution leading to complex intelligence, development of technology) all average out to taking around the same amount of time. Humans wouldn't be able to detect each other.

>>9328408
I didn't though, where did I say that?

>>9328435
I would wager that his highest achievement was building the first nuclear reactor. Basically, at his peak, he built a hot water heater.

>>9328464
it was implied

>>9328476
Implication isn't explicit though, not provable.
Checkmate, I do believe.

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I've always figured that post-radio civilizations demolish themselves within a couple thousand years at most. If that's true then statistically speaking the likelihood of any civilization developing at the right time to receive transmissions from another would pretty low, and chance that messages could be returned would be even lower, although I suppose two-way communication wouldn't really be necessary to resolve the basic question.

We aren't very good at detecting other civilizations, like we couldn't even detect radio signals coming from the nearest star system. Other ways of detecting civilizations would require them to have built some huge dyson swarm or something, which just may not be feasible at all.

>>9328458

That’s my thought as well.

>>9328357
Anthropic principle. If we had met aliens they would have killed us all.

>aliens get to a certain level of consciousness that forces them to leave developing cultures alone to grow on their own resources

>aliens have visited us already and the people they talk to dont tell the rest of us

>we get visited all the time, but their technology allows them to hide out of sight of our instruments

>theres an agreed-upon reason in some sort of alien group never to go to earth

>earth is quarantined from other lifeforms for some reason

>>9328357
Answer 3 + 5 without using 5.

>>9328841
3+1+4

>>9328389
Right, but you'd need an organic mechanism of some sort to craft tools. That's a universal law.

>>9328357
Possibility: Intelligent life is just rare AF.

Possibility: It's fairly common, but we're out here in the sparsely populated boondocks of this far arm of the galaxy, while all the real action is going on closer to the densely populated center, too far away for us to see.

Possibility: Biological immortality, or near to, is inevitably discovered before a species can terraform planets in its own system (mind, that's not "interstellar"), which in turn leads to an inevitable population cap, or prompt extinction, as the species burns through the resources of the biosphere it is trapped within in short order. Once this cap is established, there's much less motivation to expand.

Possibility: Every species that becomes sufficiently advanced builds a particle collider capable of measuring the top quark, finds it is unstable, and thus discovers we are living in a doomed false vacuum. These species escape inevitable extinction by escaping into a pocket universe. There's a slight risk that other species doing the same will interfere with their escape mechanism, so they don't leave notes behind to warn others.

Possibility: We live in a simulation designed to re-create the galactic alt-history of a specific species under the premise as to what would have happened if they never had contact with another civilization as part of an isolation experiment.

...there's others, but I'd actually have to mention interstellar travel - which is kinda of an odd request, as if there is no interstellar travel, there is no Fermi paradox.

>>9328357
The Dark Forest. p sick book.

>>9328357
>without saying anything about interstellar travel
>if there is no interstellar travel, there is no Fermi paradox.
This... The whole premise of the Fermi paradox is that some species bent on infinite expansion should have colonized the whole galaxy by now. No interstellar travel = no Fermi paradox. (Though I tend to agree with the biological immortality possibility [>>9328942]
, though possibility #1 seems more likely.)

It's not about the lack of radio signals, because pic related is actually an extreme exaggeration, when you take inverse square into account. The lack of Dyson spheres is stupid, because Dyson spheres are stupid, and if you aren't engaging in interstellar travel, seems you'd be much less apt to need them.

>>9328942
First off, excellent post.

>Wouldn't a species with enough scientific curiosity that it develops the technology necessary to reach biological immortality still want to explore the cosmos around it?

>Why would a sentient alien species not want to warn other sentient life in the universe about the imminent collapse of the false vacuum if there is one?

Alternate possibility: eventually intelligent aliens run an experiment in a particle collider that, through some mechanism that isn't common enough that it happens in nature through cosmic rays, spawns negatively charged strangelets that are long lived/in a dense enough environment that they turn their home planet into a smoldering mass of strange matter a la an ice nine scenario. This has the added benefit of explaining the paucity of antimatter in the universe given the positively charged ground state of naturally generated strangelets as predicted by most models.

Personally, I just think habitable planets that survive long enough to evolve life generally don't last long enough for intelligent species to arise, and those that do last a long time are generally in such low energy environments that it's evolutionarily infeasible for complex lifeforms to evolve (think underground oceans in jovian moons). Given that most stars are red dwarf stars and most planets that orbit red drawf stars in the habitable zone are tidally locked, life as we know it is probably very uncommon.

>>9328357
Anything about interstellar travel
Frik

>>9328458
Agreed. Extremely average and I would add, inevitable, for a planet in the goldilocks zone.

>>9328458
Noice

>>9328388
How is this the greatest statistical problem of all time? It's so fucking cut and dry and just matter of fact. brainlets can't into variable change

>>9328988
>Why would a sentient alien species not want to warn other sentient life
There's the question as to whether it would be possible. I mean there's no real conceivable way to put out a galaxy-wide warning that'd last a good long while, that wouldn't also sterilize a good portion of said galaxy (and wouldn't involve something ludicrous, like an artificial quasar). Granted, it maybe they've integrated a warning in such a way that we can't read it yet, such as a hidden message within the quantum fields themselves, that gets discovered about the same time as you're capable of measuring the top quark, as I believe a certain sci-fi used as a plot device.

You could send out self-replicating robots to build such warning signals in every solar system, but it'd take so many millions of years. It might be too late by the time they were proliferated enough to do any good, and you run the risk of such robots evolving and doing something more destructive.

And then there's the good long debate as to how likely it would be for a species to be empathetic enough towards other species to bother with the warning. It's kind of a happy accident of evolution that we give a damn about other species at all ourselves - mostly the result of a broad-based baby identification instinct. A species that had a more keen interspecies identifier - say pheromone based, might not be nearly so concerned about others not of its kind.

Does lead to the other science problem, in that while it might be possible to artificially spawn a universe, there's no currently conceivable way to transfer to said new universe - it'd instantly be moving away from this one at faster than the speed of light. Assuming cosmic censorship isn't a thing, it would also be possible to stick yourself inside a large and calm event horizon to buy yourself more time, but I couldn't bring that up without mentioning interstellar space travel. The only viable candidate nearby is Sagittarius-A, and it probably isn't calm enough.

>>9328988
>Wouldn't a species with enough scientific curiosity that it develops the technology necessary to reach biological immortality still want to explore the cosmos around it?
I suspect even an immortal species that caps its local population and under a million, or perhaps even just hundreds, would at least want to create similarly sized colonies in a few other systems just to avoid being wiped out by cosmological phenomenon. However, you wouldn't need more than two or three such colonies before you couldn't ensure your survival any further by making more, either outside the galaxy or universe, which may not be an option. (And again, couldn't bring it up under OP's rules.)

As for exploration, I do suspect you reach a point in predictive technology where additional exploration becomes pointless. With only four forces and a handful of particles, there's going to be a point where your natural and artificial intellect combine to make exploring the universe is a lot like "exploring" in Minecraft. Same shit made of the same blocks, everywhere you go. Once in awhile there's an out of place floating rock or a mountain with a neat hole through it, but that's about it. It may get to the point where they create artificial virtual universes with more complex laws, capable of sating their boredom, and explore those instead.

>>9328357
Dark forest hypothesis. Some non-zero percentage of alien civilizations are out to eliminate all possible competitors for resources and have the technology to do it. Exponential nature of technological progress means a non-threatening civilization might make the jump to a threatening one very quickly on a cosmological time-scale, so the safest course of action upon encountering such a civilization is to eliminate it. No one can trust anyone's intentions so everyone stays quiet.

>>9329576

>the universe becomes boring due to the same shit being everywhere

An excellent point. Maybe it’s just kind of like No Man’s Sky.

>>9329581
>of alien civilizations are out to eliminate all possible competitors for resources and have the technology to do it. Exponential nature of technological progress means a non-threatening civilization might make the jump to a threatening one very quickly

This. Its the Hobbesian state of nature.

>>9329592
Then why wouldn’t they just seed every possible habitable planet with a doomsday device that blows up when it detects technology?

>>9328988
>Given that most stars are red dwarf stars and most planets that orbit red drawf stars in the habitable zone are tidally locked, life as we know it is probably very uncommon.
Tidal locking is overrated. It rarely happens here, where we could actually observe it, even in the most ideal circumstances. Mercury, for instance, should be tidally locked as fuck - but isn't tidally locked at all. Venus isn't truly tidally locked, and in some sense, it's the opposite of tidally locked, as it's spinning the wrong way (albeit slowing). There's also a lot of moons so close to their parent planets they should be tidally locked, relative to their owners, yet remain some of the furthest objects from being said, often being both fast spinning and retrograde. Proto-solar system formations are a violent mess, and any collisions that happen during that time can keep things spinning for billions of years, as will any good-sized moon. Finally, if you are on a moon - you might be tidally locked to your parent, but not to the sun. ...and, as some have argued, you can still get life in tidally locked situations, and a heavy atmosphere largely counters the effect.

Bigger problem is that red dwarves are pretty active in their habitatal zones. Still, good-sized moon producing a good magnetic field, or a moon of a good-sized gas giant with a strong magnetic field (which most tend to have), or just a whole lotta water, and you're good to go.

Though, yes, even so, I think it's likely that intelligent life is just rare AF. Industrial life maybe just as rare - if you think about the amazing number of coincidences that had to come together to give us even The Renaissance, it isn't exactly inevitable that we would have had The Industrial Revolution if that had never happened. Plus, as I always say, the fact that there's only been five global extinction events here, and not five million, is pretty damned incredible.

>>9329597
Who says they didn't? You wouldn't wanna make it easy for primitives to find, lest they disarm it.

>That second moon in Beast Wars.

>>9328382

It's possible nearby alien civilizations are cavemen right now, or maybe they were advanced to about our current level but then went extinct.

>>9328357
they're all fuckin deaf.

What if the chance of organic life developing is simply astronomically low? Even if a planet has the right size, distance from its star, chemical make up, stable orbit etc, it can go billions of years without developing life.

As far as I know, we still have no clue what the first self replicating molecules really looked like, and how they came to be.

Maybe life showing up on earth after a measly 100 million years of having oceans is simply a freak statistical anomaly.

>>9329794
more likely our tech just can't detect them. the mediocrity principle is stronger than supposing we aren't making any errors

This is the grand solution to the Fermi's paradox. There's no aliens around because there's no need to wander around - it is possible to create resources out of nothing.

>>9329202
>Spotted the newfag

>>9328464
>>9328476
>>9328479
Dennis Reynolds visits /sci/

>>9329799
Yeah, but if it's so rare it only comes together in one in 10,000 galaxies - odds are, we ain't gonna ever see it. There's only 54 galaxies in our cluster, we've got five billion years before we merge with the nearest, and by the time they all merge together, the rest of the red-shifted universe will have expanded forever beyond our reach, and even our vision.

Taking the average number of stars in each of those galaxies, being generous with the number of planets around them, even assuming life has a chance of forming at least once around every single planet, if it happens less often than 3.24x10^11/1, then we'll never see it.

Granted, those are slim odds, and the odds of it happening nowhere else in the observable universe, let alone the great unknown beyond, border on statistical insignificance, but realistically speaking, it's only this galaxy we have to worry about - it's fanciful to think of the other 53. Then, using that same generosity, the odds only have to be worse than 1 in 6 billion. ...and that's just life - let alone intelligent life.

Granted, it's all pretty meaningless, as our theories of abiogenesis are sketchy at best. I suppose some of the successful RNA generation experiments put the odds at much better than that, but we've no evidence that any of those experiments relate to what actually happened. What's worse, is the process by which we went from animal life to intelligent life is even less understood, and even from intelligent life to industrial life, while part of the historical record, is mired in controversy.

Unless, of course, teleportation style FTL is possible, then all bets are off, so much as they were ever on. Either way, ain't no one got a right to call the odds on this draw.

>>9329842

Every indication is that it's not rare. When the universe makes something it makes 10 billion of them. It's erroneous to assume this suddenly stops being the case for one specific phenomenon, just because we can't see it. Example: the Oumuamua comet. There was a Fermi paradox for that too, until only recently. Extrasolar objects were thought to be very common, but no one held it under as much scrutiny as ET. Why? Because we're biased creatures.

>>9329802
Unlimited resources don't necessarily save you from cosmic nor terrestrial disasters, nor from the curiosity required to achieve them.

You'd wanna colonize at least a few other systems to rule out the first problem - though, yeah, the second problem could eventually be nullified by the "No Man's Sky" effect by the time you achieve that.

>>9329859
>10 billion
How many galaxies are there again? If there's only 10 billion incidents of life in the universe, we're more forever alone than the average 4chan user.

>>9329859
Further, extrasolar objects are thought to be so common (trillions) that they transit our solar system on a regular basis, and we've only found one so far. Extrapolate that to ET, and consider there are 10-100 other advanced civs in our galaxy, and we may as well be searching for them with binoculars.

>>9329859
>It's erroneous to assume this suddenly stops being the case for one specific phenomenon, just because we can't see it.
One bugger with this assumption is that all the life here is related to every other. This suggests either the odds are really, really, shit, as on this whole world, life only happened once, or the conditions just have to be very specific, and in that short window where they were, whatever microbe we're all descended from overran the planet and ate all the other instances of life.

>>9329862
10 billion was just a facetious number to illustrate a point obviously.

>>9329863
There could be an Earth like civilization in our own solar system, and we could still miss it, particularly if it was subterranean. Inverse square is kind of a bitch, and we're pretty damned blind.

>>9329867
We might yet find a pocket of goop with some unrelated DNA. We've found plenty of unrelated RNA.

>>9329868
Still the case that the odds don't even have to be lottery level bad before they're bad enough that you'll never encounter another life form not of your own making.

>>9329869
>Still the case that the odds don't even have to be lottery level bad before they're bad enough that you'll never encounter another life form not of your own making.
~1 in 175 million? If you're going by galaxy, yes. If you're going to solar system, no, they'd have to be much, much worse than lottery-level bad.

>>9329860
Create your own planet. UNLIMITED RESOURCES.

>>9329881
Doesn't do ya any good if you've done it near a star that's going to explode or in the path of a GRB. Eventually, ya gotta make some backup plans at other locations.

>>9329873
Even 1 in 175 million odds give us hundreds of civs per galaxy.

>>9329883
...That was my point.

Though, again, going by solar system (even more if by planet), but not if the odds are 1 in 175 million per galaxy - then yer boned.

>>9329886
End problem is we don't have any idea what the odds are.

Sampling size of one is a bitch.

>>9329867
>whatever microbe we're all descended from overran the planet and ate all the other instances of life.
There's some evidence to suggest that indeed happened, at some point... Albeit, well after life formed, but it's an explanation for one of the GEE's - that one microbe exploded into activity on the ocean floor and produced so much methane that it raised the temperature of the oceans and that in turn created a cascade event that raised the global temperature by about 10 degrees, temporarily. So it isn't unthinkable that some similar disaster may have killed all other life in the formative years.

Other possibility is that the first RNA based life that switched to DNA was just so much more efficient, some similar run-away bloom effect happened, altering the environment sufficiently to kill all the rest.

>>9328357
Generation ships with self-replicating probes dispatched in the millions in every direction. Doesn't matter if it takes hundreds, thousands, or millions of years. They will make contact eventually and Fermi will be BTFO. And if they don't make contact with other civilizations they'll still make contact with each other and, having been separated for millions of years, think they're making contact with non-human civilizations and Fermi will once again be BTFO. In every conceivable way, one civilization will make contact with another and Fermi will be BTFO.

>inb4 human-based lifeforms making contact with other human-based lifeforms doesn't count
Yes it does you fucking brainlet because you can't prove to me that we're not some spawn from some extraterrestrial civilization a la Prometheus.

>>9329897
How were the pyramids made? Why does NASA keep faking images of Earth?

>>9329902
I bet you have a really high IQ.

The notion that aliens don't exist somewhere in our galaxy is about as retarded as this statement:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/universe-shouldn-t-exist-cern-physicists-conclude

>>9329912
>resorts to ad hominem
Try answering any of the two questions.

>>9329897
You just described the reason for the Fermi paradox. If any race had been bent on infinite colonization with that same methodology, with but a few million years head start on us, they should have already colonized every planet in the galaxy. There's been enough time for such a race to send ships to every star in the galaxy, even at sub-light speeds, if every colony they make repeats the process.

Though yes, there's always "lulz, we are the colonists" - but we're clearly related to everything else here going back some 2 billion years. Even if we go full ancient aliens, those were some very subtle tweaks, given all the intermediary stages and failures.

Though I still contest that infinite expansion is retarded. Life may take that mode by default, but when it comes to escaping a biosphere with that methodology, as soon as you discover extreme biological longevity - you either erase that instinct and permanently cap your per-planet population, or you die in the biosphere that birthed you as you burn it out. Life that fails to defeat that modus operandi, fails to sail among the stars.

>tfw you probably won't live to see first contact

>>9329980
>Life that fails to defeat that modus operandi, fails to sail among the stars.
That's pretty much a given. Everything will change once/if we discover how to extend our lives.

Mediocrity principle is probably the most valid.

I'm fond of the fact that earth-style life only came about because of utter chance.
Most life and coalesces into a layer of organic material over the surface of the planet because this is the most efficient possible state for life. This even almost happened during earth's lifespan several times but it gets averted by sheer chance. Most worlds with life will just be covered with a 5 inch thick layer of interdependent bacteria colonies.

>>9330019
Meh, this planet has been incredibly stable, all things considered. Really, given everything we know, there should have been thousands or millions of major extinction events, yet we've only had the five. Other planets will probably have a lot more shocks, and may be even less uniform, so it's unlikely a sphere covered with life would stay uniform for long - and indeed, in such instances where that may have happened here, it so radically changed the environment that life was forced to adapt to the new reality it created.

On the other hand, if you build up layer upon layer of such bacterial films, each learning to adapt to the layer created by the other, each layer creating its own unique environment, and all the layers eventually build up a neural network, combined a constant fuel force from the lowest decaying layers, you could just end up with Hellstar Remina.

>>9329980

Exponential expansion is the dumbest fucking meme every pseudo-scientist is spouting these days because they watched a Carl Sagan video once. We haven't even colonized a significant portion of earth yet, nor are there any indications we ever will.

>>9330033
Well, by sheer biological weight, we do collectively outweigh all the land animals that came before us combined, including the dinosaurs, and then our livestock collectively weighs even more than us. Albeit, that still pales next to the collective weight of microbes and insects, but we're already having a pretty heavy impact on the environment (climate change or not), having wiped out 50% of the land mammal species we so heavily outweigh, in just the past century, mostly by habitat alteration.

Sure, you can stick the whole population inside Texas, but it'd be dead within the week. Sure, the population growth is slowing in areas where family has become detrimental to a career, but make the generation life longer and that factor goes out the window, particularly if the fertile period increases as well.

Make us near immortal, or even just double our lifespans, and it becomes a real problem, real fast, and all evidence suggests we're much closer to that than to interstellar colonization. Even if one of the meme warp drives turns out not to be a meme, you'd have to find a near twin of the Earth. You certainly don't have time to terraform a planet and move huge swaths of the population before that becomes a factor.

>>9329574
Except humans are responsible for 98% of animal extinction

>>9330055
Well, maybe, but mostly incidentally. We still find animals cute and/or useful, and have bred those in such numbers such as the world has never seen, or likely could ever produce unaided. Another species, one not so prone to fall for "the cute", might have wiped out all other life in its native environment, and not give the slightest shit about any potential life elsewhere it doesn't identify as its own, having eliminated any potential resource reasons to keep any of it around long ago. Indeed, if anything, it seems it would be a much more likely evolutionary path to take (and might be our fate, if we find some reason to CRISPR out the "omg kewt" response.)

>>9330052
>Make us near immortal, or even just double our lifespans, and it becomes a real problem, real fast
Am I evil/insane because I don't feel bad about all the deaths due to things like disease, war, famine, etc.? It's not like I feel good about it, but I also see the silver lining whenever I read about some tragedy, that at least there are less humans alive in this overcrowded world.

>>9330071
Nah, just edgie. Not that I'm not guilty of the "anything that makes the freeway move faster" thoughts myself, from time to time.

I suppose, like most of us, 4chan has stripped almost every last hope I have for humanity, but I still think we're the last and best hope for life here to expand beyond its egg in the max billion years it has left to hatch, and I'm holding onto valuing that... If barely. If we can survive, maybe we can evolve into something worthy of survival afterwards. Maybe... Possibly...
DON'T MAKE ME CRY!!

>>9330077
>If we can survive, maybe we can evolve into something worthy of survival afterwards.
It sounds like what you need is some singularity. Advances in medicine and science at EXPONENTIAL RATES will give you all the metahumanity you will ever need. 2029. Watch this space and save this tweet.

>>9328357
(You) Can Read This! Q.E.D.

>>9330087
It's kinda scary to think of what humanity would become if we had a singularity right now. While I'm certainly for leaving the planet before we solve all the world's problems (as I think a lot of them would be aided by doing so, and some may not be solvable without doing so), I really do hope we can resolve some of our fundamental determinants, before they become the cemented features of a virtually immortal monster race as it charges across the galaxy.

>life evolves on earth for approximately 4 billion fucking years before shitting out an ape that can ask why instead of how
Because intelligence is a fluke.
Alternatively, the galaxy and possibly the universe were created to support for some as-yet unknown purpose.

>>9330099
>fundamental determinants
You mean like our humanity? Let's assume we are the way we are fundamentally because of a genetic makeup that is a result of billions of years of evolution. If we start trying to improve on it by editing out genes we don't find desirable, will be humanity that leaves our star system?

Also, I'm far more confident that our choices, whether they be "good" or "bad," are essentially results of free will. That's not to say there's not some subconscious lizard brain pulling some levers (at least partially), but that even if we were to become something else, we'd still fundamentally remain the same (i.e. a lot of the time it is reasonable to be an asshole).

>>9330114
That is a bit of a problem, and it's difficult to sort out one problem without removing some other advantage. You, for instance, can't give up tribalism without simultaneously giving up the core mechanisms for civilization. But I'm not suggesting genetically ripping things out - that's exactly the sort of thing we'd do if we had a singularity right now, and among the reasons it sounds so disastrous to me. I hope we can instead evolve more culturally, but not at the expense of that survival effort - as it's a billion years *max*, and again, the fact that we've gone this long really is a minor miracle. So, while I don't want things to slow down, we should recognize we've already at the point where our reach exceeds our grasp.

>>9330121
A conservative approach to scientific advancement sounds very reasonable to me but I fear that using a metric as nebulous as "cultural evolution" to signal when it is that we are ready to do x or y is problematic to say the least. History suggests culture is at least partially a by-product of whatever incidental context exists, so it might be a waste of time to wait for some type of New Age awakening of humanity.

It's not wise to start gratuitously tearing away at our genomes, no doubt, but people aren't going to change just because you sit around and wait for them to do so. This is fundamentally my problem with democracy. That's not to say I don't think democracy is the least worst political system, but I don't think anything exceptional is predicated on anything ordinary. And the overwhelming majority of humans are average, ordinary individuals, and you and I are witnessing the world go to shit because of the average, ordinary decisions that they make as a result of democratic systems. I think what I'm trying to say is fuck the culture, or at least fuck it insofar as we need to wait around for the masses to decide to do something about the world they live in. If we're going to favor certain traits over others, why not favor certain people over others?

>>9329867
The tree of life is a giant mollusk?

>>9328357
Fermi:How come we havn't met aliens?
Answer:Space is big
That was easy

>>9329841
You're not going to hurt these anons, are you bro?

>>9330133
No, no, no... Like I said, I don't wanna slow things down, and if anything, new discoveries we've not yet made are key to that portion of our evolution - if it was something we could fix simply through talking, we woulda fixed it by now. But a singularity, right now, at this instance, while I'd take it out of desperation, would be highly regrettable. We'd definitely be the preemie baby of such civilizations, uncooked and incomplete, forever searching for that missing piece. Hopefully, we'd either find it later, borrow it from a more sensible civilization, or have it beaten into us by said... But if we are alone, and we reach an equilibrium, it might be a hole we never fill that ultimately dooms us, much like an adult who was once an abused child who missed some critical stage of development in his youth.

Still, even that beats death by cosmic golf ball.

>>9329202
The Monty hall problem may seem simple but there is more there than you think. Relations to quantum mechanics, AI, genetic algorithms, etc.

>>9329202
[math]welcome to the machine[/math]

>>9328357
every alien is at the same technological level as us.

>>9330871
I understand what it is you're arguing for but it's also pretty vague. Maybe that's all it can be at the moment. I agree that I'd like to see humanity evolve linearly but I don't know when or how we're going to know we've evolved sufficiently enough that we can now pull the strap and slingshot into the galaxy Kardashev-style. Also, perhaps you should consider that sudden changes in the velocity of our development might be a good thing in the grand scheme of things. Using your analogy of the human missing a step during his development, maybe there's something abnormal that a child can experience that will ultimately make that child better off/stronger than what they would have been had they not had such an experience.

>>9332145
Heh, if it was the kinda thing you could put your finger on, that didn't simply arise out of "human nature" critical to some other aspect we'd either find abhorrent to abandon, or be crippled by abandoning, they wouldn't be such hard problems.

Again, not for slowing things down in any way, but Singularity suggests post-humanism in short order, a movement so fast that we're blind to its consequences until it's come and gone with permanently transformative effects that are effectively beyond our control and dictate. You do not want a half-formed creature to make such a transformation. You do not want to turn an angsty teenage child into a god. You end up with End of Evangelion.

I mean, if such a thing had come upon us in the 11th century, the end result would probably look something like Warhammer 40k. Grimdark is all well and fun to play with as fiction, but you don't wanna live it.

(I mean, man, the heresy...)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhduvvA_Xpo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEGo41443iI

>>9332244
I'm not familiar with Warhammer but I understand what you mean and I agree, perhaps somewhat. Still, better safe than sorry, right? Or not. Whatever.

I WANT TO MAKE IT. I DON'T WANT TO JUST DIE HERE ON THIS ROCK. I DON'T WANT TO HAVE BEEN "BORN TOO EARLY." ... FUCK.

>>9332364
Well, like I said, I'd take the Singularity out of sheer desperation, if it happened, just sayin, probably be unfortunate timing in the long run. Though, unlike some people around here, I don't see it anywhere on the near horizon, though we may be on the cusp of some interesting cascades.

I'm old, so I'm not leaving the planet - just holding out hope for my great^10 grandchildren, and really, life in general. Though, if you're young, maybe there's some hope - quite a few potential cascades on the horizon for longevity.

>>9330071
>Am I evil/insane because I don't feel bad about all the deaths due to things like disease, war, famine, etc.?

That is the literal definition of a villain.

>>9328357
Universe is incomprehensibly large, chance of intelligent life very small, and humans have only really been looking with useful methods for 50 years out of the billions of years the universe has existed. Also we may still not be looking in a useful way, but radio astronomy seems like a pretty good way imo so I'm not sure what would be better.

>>9332480
Thanks for the constructive conversation, anon. I think we agree on almost everything, main difference being I'm probably less prudent. I am young (if 25 is still considered young). Any words of wisdom for an autistic debutante looking to go all the way (grad school)? I want to work in academia and I'm pumped as shit about getting there; I just have no idea what the "big boy" world is like.

>>9332884
I question my sanity almost on a daily basis.

>>9328357
The chances of detecting their transmissions are low, add a time limit to any transmissions that may have already passed us and it's damn near impossible.
Optics will never be good enough to resolve possible megastructures in orbit around stars
Everything we see is x years in the past due to light speed limit, if there are civs we will not see evidence of them for millions of years, by then we'll be gone.

>>9328458
Fucking retard. If the asteroid hadn't hit earth there would never be intelligent life. That's a one in a billion event that was critical to the development of humanity. If development of intelligent life is inevitable, why did it take five billion years and multiple mass extinctions on our own planet for it to occur? You're not just making wild assumptions, you're making assumptions that are wildly incongruent with the evidence.

The arguments in this thread are utterly retarded. Please watch Isaac Arthur's videos on the Fermi Paradox before posting in this thread ever again.

>>9329598
>Industrial life maybe just as rare -
I would say that technological development is far more inevitable than the evolution of intelligent life. As soon as we started living in towns and cities with dense populations, technology started talking off immediately and didn't really slow down. If the Renaissance hadn't kicked off, the industrial revolution would just start a few hundred years later, in China or some other place.
Now, whether alien life, even if intelligent, has the means for the kind of population density required for technological development is up for discussion, and may very well be the divider between us and them. Maybe the kind of agriculture we take for granted is very rare on other worlds, to the point where they remain hunter gatherers with primitive technology.

>>9332923
As a wise negro once said, plan everything that happens within days or weeks, in hours, and anything that happens further in the future than that, as if you'll never die. Plan for the moment, don't live for it. "Live each day as if was your last." might guarantee a good looking corpse, but it won't be a happy one.

Also, avoid student loans. Wasn't really a problem for me, but it sure as fuck is now. Seems they'll be taxing grants soon, yeeesh.

...and don't live for love - seriously, don't. Not saying you can't have it, just don't hang your life on it, if you get it.

...and eat your greens. [/gramp's copypasta advice.]

>>9333006
Eh, if you study your history a bit more closely, you'll find that it's entirely likely that China coulda gone on with all the mechanisms for a jump equivalent to the renaissance in place, as it had for centuries, and continued that for millennia - no one else was really close. Further, there really have been nearly as many backwards slides in technological progress as forwards, recoveries only made because pockets survived and the stuff was rediscovered, often miraculously. If the Black Plague hadn't lead to such massive wealth concentration in Europe, and they hadn't geared their economy in such a way as to cause a massive death toll to do just that, we might be a near thousand years behind where we are now, if not further.

Nevermind earlier advancements. For how many tens of thousands of years did we run about without anything but fire and flynt? ...and who knows how long before we were scurrying before language.

In the grand scale that may not seem like much time, but shit happens. We barely made it this far as it was - our genetics show that we were all once isolated in a single area with a population well under 10K, inbreeding ourselves into oblivion for over a thousand years (which is also responsible for every other genetic disease we have to this day).

>>9333054
>Based gramps.
Thanks again, anon. All the best.

>>9332926
Try getting off /sci/ for a little while and start reading the news. This place makes everyone too apathetic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksJpuznVJFM

>>9333178
>this place
>makes you more apathetic
>than the news
Damn, that is an achievement.

>>9333194
Science is cold and calculating. It comes with the good and the bad; especially since most people here don't actually discuss science.

>>9328357

>Answer the Fermi paradox without saying anything about interstellar travel.

You dont need interstellar travel for paradox to hold. Lack of interstellar communication is enough.

>>9328942
I know you probably won't see this, but what did you mean by ''doomed false vacuum''?

>>9333220
>he doesn't know about false vacuum :3
Brace yourself to feel like a bear in a certain George Takei short:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum

TL;DR version, depending on how the top quark and the boson field measure up to one another, there may be another energy state that the whole universe could collapse into at any moment. It wouldn't support any matter more complex than H2, and basically, the whole universe could disintegrate from one or more points at the speed of light, without warning.

But, at our level, there's so many things that could kill us without warning, kinda pointless to worry about.

>>9328960

Your picture does not explain the paradox. Aliens do not need to receive our radio signals to beam their messages at us. You cannot hide a planet like Earth. Even humanity with our primitive technology have already discovered thousands of exoplanets. If aliens exist in this galaxy, then they must know Earth is here and is a habitable planet covered with an Ocean, forests and oxygen in the atmosphere. An ideal target for interstellar signals. So, where are the signals? Hence the paradox.

>>9332939
>alien civs could colonize the entire galaxy given enough time
>not a completely retarded assumption

>>9328357
I'm answering way to often to these dumb threads, but here you have it again:

Because everyone is hiding out of fear of being detected by a more advanced civilization. Actively trying to contact other civilizations e.g. through radio signals is as dumb as if the aborigines and native americans were sending letters to europe so europe could know about them centuries before Columbus et al

>>9333236
Only directional modulated radio beams are detectable from beyond the orbit of Jupiter. There could be a civilization, just like ours, in our own solar system, putting out the same amount of radio waves, and we wouldn't notice it.

Inverse square - that 200ly radius illustrated is a hell of an exaggeration, since there were no active SETI transmissions until 1974, and that one will only be readable by M13 (in about 25,000 years), not crossing any other stars, and if *we* were on M13 when that signal passed, our own SETI program would ignore it as background noise (too short, too faint).

The only way we'd pick up an alien radio transmission is if they were very close to us, and dedicated more resources than we'd ever be willing to, in order to sustain the signal - just to call us, and no one else. ...and we are in the fucking boonies, orbiting a star that barely lives long enough for us to evolve on it.

>>9333240
Try doing the math... Even at less than 0.1c accel - if each colony you make colonizes every star it can reach, you're done in less than a million years. (Or, if you wanna spread it out a bit, and you live a little longer, you can colonize every star with no more than a 30c gap of non-colonized space between them in 250K years.)

Granted, you'd still need quite a bit better technology than us to start on that, but it isn't inconceivable nor does it involve any sci-fi materials or physics - just a whole lot of industry.

But like we've been saying (RtMFT), any species with that sorta mentality would probably burn itself out before it managed to leave its solar system, especially since it seems likely that near biological immortality inevitably comes up before interstellar space travel.

>>9333232
Thanks for the info anon. Can't say it's overly comforting, but it's interesting as hell.

>>9328357
Easy. There isn´t any other life in the universe except on this planet. Life isn´t guaranteed outside what we know to exist.

>>9333295
Blocked your path at the tenth post in >>9328392

I do miss the days when folks couldn't post in threads without first opening them.

Almost wondering if we should make this a monthly general /FERMI/ with bunch of links to common counters to common answers in the top post, seeing as how this thread gets made at least that often, and, well... Every damned time.

>>9333248

>Only directional modulated radio beams are detectable

no shit Sherlock

>and we are in the fucking boonies

Not true at all, the fact that Earth exists is a big "call me" sign visible in the entire galaxy for like past 2 billion years. We are prime real estate.

So where are the signals? Hence the paradox.

>>9333318
Judging by just what we see around us, we might not be prime real estate, we're in fact around a shit star. This yellow beast took billions of years to form a proper planet, which sits for 2 billion before making life, which then takes 2 billion years to make sapient life, and now the planet has less than 1 billion years before it's no longer in the habitable zone (or even near it) - which makes the 4 billion after that, before the star just dies and swallows it entirely, rather pointless. Meanwhile, these much more common red dwarves last for trillions of years, and make a lot more rocky planets.

...and what's prime real estate for one species, might not be for another (hell, oxygen is poisonous for some life born on *this* planet)... And looking for real estate in the far arm of the galaxy, when there's magnitudes more houses closer in towards the city center, where presumably the jobs are... And in the time it'd take you got here, you could terraform any old rock nearby.

...and if they wanted us for real estate, why would they signal us? I don't see any species that can travel that far, and is for some reason desperate for land, wiring an offer for a down payment.

>>9333345
>wiring an offer for a down payment
Assuming it's the city slickers checking out the prairie, an offer they would have had to start sending out 25,000 years ago, and keep sending out, to this day, that we would have only been able to notice in the last 50 years.

Yeah, no.

Plus, there's almost no conceivable way to detect a planet this size from that far away, let alone know it's "prime real estate". We can't even determine that for planets in this class less than 40 light years away.

>>9333345

Red dwarves have radiation flares and tidally locked planets so they may not be ideal for life despite being more numerous.

However, the more important point is that our star type and location does not matter. If aliens exist then they have long ago and repeatedly catalogued planets around every star in the galaxy. They know Earth is here and is a planet with complex, multicellular life due to greenery and oxygen signature.

>why would they signal us?

Why wouldnt they? It would be quite strange to find this planet with life and then not send directional signals their way. Hence the paradox.

>>9333368

>Plus, there's almost no conceivable way to detect a planet this size from that far away, let alone know it's "prime real estate". We can't even determine that for planets in this class less than 40 light years away.

We have been at it for just a few decades. Aliens, if they exist, have been observing the galaxy at least for hundreds of millions of years. JWST is a childrens toy from their perspective.

>>9333376
>Red dwarves have radiation flares and tidally locked planets so they may not be ideal for life despite being more numerous.
>RtMFT
See: >>9329598

>Why wouldnt they? It would be quite strange to find this planet with life and then not send directional signals their way. Hence the paradox.
See: >>9328942 >>9328988 >>9329576

Also "No Man's Sky" syndrome, and the sheer energy it would take to be constantly beaming signals to every planet with potential life for however many billions of years before it develops radio technology. Only to risk it feeling threatened, building a relativistic kill bomb, and sending it your way. (Cuz you could be millions of years ahead of them technologically, and that could very well still be an unavoidable solar system killer.)

>>9333391
There are absolute limits, if you're using light or radio telescopes, even if your receivers are the size of small planets, which I don't see any civilization investing in. I suppose there's active scanning options, but you're liable to fry the planet you are looking at, or have your self reproducing nano-probes evolve. Now if there's some magitech involved, who knows.

>>9333404

You need magitech if you want to observe exoplanet surface in detail, or observe planets in distant galaxies.

But if you just want to observe exoplanets in this galaxy as a point of light, enough for a spectroscope, then such technology is in the realm of hard science fiction. Still a very advanced technology from the perspective of humanity but does not break known laws of physics.

>>9333199
Yeah, but science is neither good nor bad in itself - just hella boring most of the time, if you're actually doing it.

The """NEWS""" on the other hand, is ALL bad. I mean, even when it tries not to be, the shear shallow vapidity of it all is soul crushing.

I figured you just meant 4chan in general, which is pretty much as close as you can get to the worst humanity has to offer, without risking immediate physical harm (lest you start following one of those "make your own really cool crystals at home" tutorials). At the same time, the """news""" has started using us as a source for so often, we're making it even worse.

>>9333498
You'd still be looking at planet sized devices... And I don't bother speculating on magitech beyond our theoretical comprehension. I stop at around black hole driven starships (which are actually not quite as crazy as they sound).

Should make it clear that I suspect the real answer is intelligent life is just rare AF (mediocracy principle aside, odds could still just be that bad for industrial life in this same galaxy - especially given how miraculous that life lasted 2 billion years here). I'm just saying the lack of radio signals is a shit proof. There's really no reason to be doing that, and the fact that we do it ourselves, at all, is borderline retarded. Though I suppose we can at least rest assured that our whispers in the dark have been so quiet and pathetic, that if we were to hear them ourselves, we'd ignore them as background noise.

>"paradox"
Lol, what makes retards think we can calculate the probability of intelligent life popping up based on one(1) example? Just because a planet meets some of the more basic criteria we can identify as necessary for life doesnt mean life will form there, there are countless more factors we can never possibly hope to identify beyond just "muh habitable zone" or "muh atmosphere" etc.

>>9328458
Yet on a planet that already has tons of life intelligent life only developed once

"muh mediocrity principle"
Literally just personal incredulity with a catchy name.

>>9333832
Well, that, and the laws of physics, general temperature of the galaxy, and number of earth like planets has been just about the same for about nine billion years. With billions of potentially earth-like planets, over all those billions of years, and the fact that we went from knocking rocks together to space in about 15,000 years (never mind what we might be capable of with millions or billions of years head start)... Makes it EXTREMELY unlikely that we'd be all be on the same playing field. If intelligent life was common, and always progressed at the exact same rate, a whole lot of it would be incomprehensibly far beyond us - not by millions of years, but by billions.

Not that there isn't some chance that life did evolve here more than once, as some others pointed out when I brought up that same point (>>9329867). While there's only one family of DNA based life on the planet, there's a lot of loose RNA and XNA laying around that we aren't related to. (And we even find nucleobases on meteorites from time to time - hence the xenogenesis fags.) Might be that DNA life is just so much better, it bloomed and ate everything else, and the resulting oxygen density and climate change, coupled with the fact that bacteria eat RNA, prevents it from happening again.

>>9333872
Yeah I know that life in general might have developed multiple times, I just meant that 'intelligent life' only developed once. Also typing this post sorta made me wish we could do italics here.

Space is just THAT big and life is that rare.
Remember that past a certain distance the speed of expansion of space exceeds the speed of light.

>>9333872
It maybe all the RNA based life evolved or went extinct - but there's a lotta RNA based viruses floating about.

>>9333888
Well, what happened to the Neanderthals? Part of the problem is once you get intelligent life, if it's sufficiently spread, it kinda takes over. It's incredibly efficient, bypassing DNA based evolution for information based evolution, and life doesn't put up with competition when it doesn't have to.

>>9333901
I was going to move goal posts and say something about there being only one *industrial* lifeform present - but then I remembered the same applies. I mean there's the other primates and dolphins, but, probably not for much longer.

>>9333901
Neanderthals, in the grand scale of life on Earth, were essentially the same as modern humans, so intelligence still only emerged from that one common ancestor. There are still plenty of other niches, particularly in the ocean, that intelligence could popped up in if were so mediocre. Another point is that plenty of people are pretty much predicting the end of humanity in the next few centuries anyway, and we haven't exactly done much that comes close a guaranteed sign of our existed for distance life.

>>9333872
>If intelligent life was common, and always progressed at the exact same rate, a whole lot of it would be incomprehensibly far beyond us - not by millions of years, but by billions.
>billions
The Last of the Old Ones are clandestinely nursing their children's planets under treaty in preparation for a future proxy war, and if any one of them looks like they might be capable of travel to another solar system, they kindly reveal themselves and inform them to stop or die, for, "the time is not yet ripe".

Think some at /x/ say this is exactly what happened on the moon.

>>9333920
On the grand scale of life on Earth, we all emerged from one common ancestor.

But I don't think there are many niches left that we aren't rapidly destroying. Intelligent life in the ocean kinda has to come up on land to make it, as it's kinda hard to discover fire under there. I mean, some of the octopus show some promise - but both they, and the aforementioned dolphins, are experiencing extreme habitat degradation, and I don't see us leaving the octopus alone long enough to develop firearms - nevermind what we'd do to them the first time they touched one of ours.

I mean, if we all left (or killed ourselves in a supervirus war), give them another few million years, and they might replace us... Maybe... Wouldn't leave them much time before the sun cooked everything though.

>>9328357
We are in intergalactic quarantine because of the Lucifer rebellion.

>>9333931
Yeah but I think that just demonstrates all the little specific things that happened in Earth's history that were necessary for human intelligence to develop, the atmosphere had to be flooded with oxygen by early organisms, which was necessary for us to develop fire, and obviously there had to be enough liveable exposed land with other useful organisms on it for us eat, etc. It just doesn't seem like all the different factors are quantifiable, and that the Fermi Paradox is built upon a much oversimplified idea of an ecosystem.

>>9328357
fuck off space niggers we're full

Truth is, extraterestrial life has probably already come to earth and decided we weren't smart enough. If monkeys are 2% dna difference from niggers and niggers are 1% from real people, then those looking at humans would see retards.

>>9328357
Quantum suicide is real and it applies on a global scale. The longer we go without getting wiped off the face of the earth by gamma ray bursts/asteroids/plague/killer AI/nuclear war/solar flares/etc, the more likely it is that we inhabit a timeline where all the other species did. Chaos magic is real and quantum suicide is fact. This explains everything from the placebo effect, to the global consiousness project, to Merlin, to the Fermi paradox. The mind is far more powerful than we realize.

>>9334224
Wow... I mean that's pure /x/, sure, but that's the most creative one yet.

>>9333924
Also basically the plot to Babylon 5.

>>9329597
>>9329581
Not only this, but a civilization that was this paranoid would probably not only sterilize any other civilization, but any planet that may harbor life which may give arise to another civilization. Earth, as seen on spectra by a large, space based telescope orbiting round some distant alien civilizations star, contains a mixture of gasses that can be explained by either some strange natural process or by life's chemistry. There is no reason to not sterilize it in the off chance it does contain life, so it gets put in the waiting list for the nicoll-dyson beam to aim at it for a few rotations of that planet, enough to cook all life that may be on it.

The "every civilization is scared of every other civilization and thus keeps quiet" is a bad solution for the fermi paradox because it doesn't lend any protection to a sufficiently paranoid species

the zeros of the zeta function are connected to the energy levels of complex quantum systems.


This is the biggest discovery since general relativity for sure

>>9331935
why?

>>9328357
Interstellar travel is not viable. What's my prize?

>>9335445
You can easily build a dyson swarm around a star without ever leaving the system
these would be very obvious and blatant to anyone that looks

at least be creative with your shitposting

>>9334416
why not ?

>>9335872
Cuz: >>9333872

Pretty much the only way that could happen is if there were some god-aliens mind controlling us all to keep it that way (and I guess then they'd be the exception).

>>9335445
>without saying anything about interstellar travel
Negative 10,000 internets, as mentioned interstellar travel.

You had one job, Nancy.

Biogenetics

>>9328942
>Possibility: We live in a simulation designed to re-create the galactic alt-history of a specific species under the premise as to what would have happened if they never had contact with another civilization as part of an isolation experiment.

Off topic, but if we get simulations as precise as our universe like in the example above holy hell am I going to have a time.

>>9328357
https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.03394

>>9338178
You'd be having the exact same experience you're having now - so live it up!

>>9338228
>Dose Cthulhu references, in an Arxiv paper no less. :3
So... Basically... Due to the "No Man's Sky effect", most advanced space faring civilizations are hibernating, hoping to wake up in the far future (halfway to Heat Death, apparently), so they can have increased computational resources in a cooler universe, and thus simulate something interesting enough to live in?

Interesting... But it seems a bit of a stretch. Actually not really seeing the point in full hibernation, if they can operate with a minimal virtually-immortal population. Also seems a species that couldn't resolve its boredom issues to this degree wouldn't get this far. Seems a big risk to take, just to upgrade your game consoles.

Still, gotta love that article.

>>9335763
>easily build a dyson swarm
>easily

ok

>>9328389
No that is not true we are an evolutionary prodoct of evolution that was succesfull
I don't thinks that the variant of intelligence life able to devolop technology is infinite but limited to really few that work
So having evolutionary convergency is a really big possibility

>>9328405
Ahah
He really think that radio wave are so fast

>>9332938
If the asteroid have hit 30 second after or before
Dinosaure would still exist

>>9333089
Greek was really close
Immagine what will be if greek have had the scientific revolution

>>9333199
No science is not about calculating, a little part of it is so.
Science is more about try and try harder

>>9333498
You yust need to use spectroscopy
And look up for significant amount of molecule that hint for diminushing valor of entropy
Thats it

>>9338886
That doesn't work for earth-sized planets from 25,000 light years away, as he was proposing, without planet sized devices, and a lotta luck.

>>9338871
Killed by the fact that their most popular philosophers cemented the idea that empiricism was an inherent fallacy, which Rome in turn picked up on, for nearly a thousand years (depending on how you count). That remained prevalent until centuries after the collapse, after most of that learning was lost.

Only takes one wrong fundamental belief to fsk the whole path up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEbW23Zx6P4

>>9332938
Not necessarily. Lots of dinos appeared to be developing socially hierarchical behavior, and many of their ancestors demonstrate extremely sophisticated such. Might have taken longer without the cosmic golf ball, but it still easily coulda happened. Really, here at least, you just need a scavenger or pack hunter with social tendencies that has to organize or get creative to access fud - preferably with manipulative digits. (Which is also why city rats are much smarter than forest rats - larger and more complex social structures, and more need for ingenuity.)

>>9338865
...and maybe another one woulda hit us. Kinda surprised we don't get it by one every 30 seconds.

>>9338959
You look up for strange atmosphere
Is what are we doing now
Life change in a drammatical way the atmosphere of a planet

>>9339214
Yes, but we can only do it for huge planets and stars, relatively close to us, less than 50 light years. We can't even see Earth sized planets more than twice that far away.

For planets larger than jupiter, it's closer to 1,000, and we can detect them away from as far as 13,000, from the pull they have on their own suns. Planets as small as ours don't have enough pull to cause solar wobbles.

But detecting an earth sized planet from 25,000 light years is almost out of the question without planet sized detectors, and getting spectrocity off of it, is pretty much impossible.

Not that there's any reason for center hub civilization to bother looking out here, when there's so many targets closer to home, and by the time they managed to get here, they could have terraformed any of those.

>>9328841
8

>>9328357
fermi retardation

>>9328379
That thing lives in my town.

>>9328830
We are the space orcs is the most likely answer if any aliens have visited us

>>9333273
>But like we've been saying (RtMFT), any species with that sorta mentality would probably burn itself out before it managed to leave its solar system, especially since it seems likely that near biological immortality inevitably comes up before interstellar space travel.

RtMFT???

>>9341470

>>9341485
Granted, at this point, it's a bit long.

>>9341485
Asshat you took the time to find a gif in your files rather then spell out an acronym

>>9341551
Involved less typing.

(Click choose file, type "rea" - autocompletes, done.)