/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9768246
Probably "life is rare". There's an interesting paper I read awhile back (https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.08448)) that puts forward the idea that life on earth might be among the first to evolve in the universe.

>>9768270
What do you think of the Boötes void? Do you think it is likely to be a Type 3 civilization?

>>9768270
Nah, not really though. If a planet has liquid water, it will have single cells that turn the CO2 into oxygen. Eventually it will develop multi-cellular life and an evolution happens of plants and animals, that will further make the planet it is iliving on more habitable and after a few billion years you have a gigantic diversity of species, in which it is very likely that one is going to specialise in intelligence to survive, which will mean it will sooner or later develop a civilization, which in itself will again accelerate technological development.

Really, all you need is a planet with a lot of liquid water. And there are plenty of those in the universe.

>>9768246
The fermi paradox is solved by that earth is about to be overran by niggers.
The whole world will be paying for their stupidity, and thus fail to focus efforts of space colonisation.

>>9768315
But do you think advanced civilizations fall victim to their nigger equivalents >99% of the time?

>>9768323
Yes
Any more advanced civilisation will have those that wish to use their nigger equivalents as cheap labour, but in the same process be overran by their nigger equivalents as there cheap labour gets out of hand.

See Haiti, South Africa, Zimbabwe, and now the US and soon to be Europe.

>>9768246
Hey OP
I'd like to think that if other species haven't advanced to the point of technology we have (likely they have if they are around and past out level of understanding,) we are just one of the first advanced bipedal life forms.

Another solution, that is like the zoo hypnosis, or something to that extent: is that all life after a certain point of development is very unique, based off of how evolution works. So much so that they can learn quite a bit from just observing us with advanced telescopes and forms of surveillance equipment. So any multicellular life is more valuable to not create or enhance but to allow to seed and "germinate," for hundreds of thousands of millions of years to get to a end platue of development or view a few re-starts as to see how life forms and re-forms.
Certain members of my family have suggested that our planet was seeded with life and is just one big experiment. What a crazy idea that would be.

Isaac Arthur's Fermi Paradox videos on YouTube are great to watch.

>>9768328
Those advanced civilizations could just automate away their niggers when they get advanced enough.

>>9768335
Of course they could, but by that point it will be too late.

>>9768246
The answer is that the universe is so filled with life that nobody is bothering to contact or even visit us, because we are nothing special, and we in return are not being able to detect any extraterrestial intelligence because we don't even have the technology to detect the ninth planet in our solar system, let alone a civilization lightyears away.

>>9768341
>but by that point it will be too late.
But would it? What's stopping them from just slaughtering all of their niggers?

>>9768314
>Really, all you need is a planet with a lot of liquid water.
I suggest that you publish your findings immediately.

>>9768346
I don't need to, this is the current state of astrobiology. I have never read of an astrobiologist who thinks life is extremely rare.

>>9768246

Here's one I haven't heard posted much:

Civilizations are rare. The vast majority of species which develop a high level of intelligence become more like dolphins, octopi or pigs in their overall behavior, and don't develop civilizations, specialization of labor, advanced tools, or wide-scale domestication of other species on their planet. They just continue to live as animals, albeit intelligent ones.

For one thing, the planet would need to have the right type of species such that farming would be possible. Maybe most species that become intelligent end up lacking other traits that would be necessary for civilization-building; maybe you need certain anatomical features (e.g. opposable thumbs) or certain psychological traits as well.

I've also heard it stated that the agricultural revolution was only possible because of how unusually stable the Earth's climate has been for the past 10,000 years or so (which makes it possible to predict crop yields and produce a reliable source of food every year). Maybe the type of climatic stability necessary for early civilizations to arise is also extremely rare.

>>9768355
There is no reason to assume a civilization needs agriculture. This might be down to individual humans actually not being that smart, so that they need society to write things down and collectively develop new stuff. There is no reason to assume we are the end of the ladder intelligent-wise, we might be pretty dumb for intelligent life-standards and other civilizations didn't need the collectiveness of humans to emerge.

>>9768349
>this is the current state of astrobiology
Then astrobiology is more of a joke than I originally thought.

>>9768358
t. special little snowflake who wants to believe earth is super-super rare.

>>9768357

I assume that most species which develop high intelligence also have very high caloric requirements. In order to build the necessary infrastructure to develop something like space travel or radio communications, they would likely need to bring their population numbers up to a level that the natural environment would not normally support without a systematic means of cultivating and processing food sources. It is also worth noting that humans have a huge range of food sources that they are able to eat; maybe this is also a rare thing that helped us to grow our numbers and find food sources that are more easily domesticable.

What I am trying to get across is that civilizations might not be some inevitable end-result of the evolution of complex life. This may be a fluke in the grand scheme of things.

>>9768359
t. Reddit pleb that's watched too much star trek.

But seriously, if the current state of astrobiology is "just add water, bro" then it's a shitty subject.

>>9768355
Imagine if we didn't have fossil fuels either.
We'd have gotten nowhere.

>>9768364
Any why do you assume that you need agriculture to satisfy those needs? Elephants and Whales are doing just fine without agriculture.

There is no reason to assume a species needs to span over the whole planet to achieve high-end civilization levels. This is again human narcissm at work thinking it can only work exactly the way it worked for us. In fact, it might even be a huge disadvantage. Due to the fact that we spread across the whole globe we are quickly exhausting earth's ressources and polluting it to a degree that might shorten our own time on the planet. This also means we might have less time to develop into a more sophisticated civilization.

>>9768246
It is very probable that all the advanced civilizations are of a very pacifistic nature, because aggressive, war-mongering specieses will most likely whipe themselves out as soon as they discover advanced weaponry such as nuclear missiles. So the solution to the paradox is probably the fishbowl thing, where we are being left alone, because only if we are pacifist enough do we deserve to grown into an advanced civilization.

>>9768371

The development of high technology requires very high levels of energy consumption and a high degree of labor specialization, which means that it probably requires very large populations, and more importantly, high population densities (to facilitate the creation/transmission of ideas and to aid in the specialization of labor). In other words, I tend to believe that civilization in even its broadest definitions requires some sort of equivalent to the concept of a city or a hive. This, in turn, has very high food requirements, which necessitate the development of a system by which food is brought from other regions into the population center, which means that it must be systematically cultivated. I'm not saying that an alien equivalent to agriculture would need to look anything like what we've developed, but the systematic cultivation of food is probably a requirement for the development of an advanced civilization.

You're not going to see a herd of 50 alien elephants coordinate to build a spacecraft, if that's what you're envisioning.

>>9768366
Why exactly do you think you need so much more? Carbon (very abundant in the universe) liquid water, and enough time to evolve, that's literally you need.

Also, most alien life is probably living around red dwarfs.

>>9768382
no, but one of 10.000-100.000 can do that. You dont need a globalized economy to build a spaceship.

>>9768383
I'm genuinely shocked at how reductionist you are. I mean even right now, on earth, how life went from inorganic to organic to self replicating cells is still completely unknown. The idea that all you need is water, carbon and time is just dumb.

>>9768395
Everything else will eventually hit the planet. As long as a planet has a lot of liquid water for >5 billion years, it is very likely complex lifeforms will eventually develop there.

>>9768388

In order for a group of 100,000 elephants to be considered a 'herd' in the sense that the elephants farthest away from each other can communicate and coordinate with each other in the sense you're describing, there is a limit on the geographical space that the herd can occupy, absent technologically advanced forms of communication and transportation with a high throughput (which also require advanced technology to develop). This requires that the species cluster its populations into higher-density configurations than would almost certainly be supported by the ambient environment (since any intelligent species will require a certain amount of calories in order for their brains to run, and the amount of available energy in a given area will be limited by things like the amount of solar energy that section of the planet receives). Even to develop relatively simple technology requires quite a bit of labor specialization, so to even reach the point where those sort of things are developed, would require something akin to cities and agriculture.

>>9768406
>it is very likely complex lifeforms will eventually develop there.
And what are you basing that assertion on?

>>9768407
The first human cities didn't have agriculture, and still housed several thousand people. You could easily imagine that humans would have still developed without agriculture. At some point, they would be advanced enough to develop agriculture in less ideal circumstances, than they had. Not a strong argument.

>>9768246
It's not a sexy answer but I'm going with "FTL isn't actually possible". Even if generational ships are technically possible, I don't believe the argument that they'll lead to totally populating a whole galaxy. You've got good odds of some sort of failure before reaching one inhabitable planet, and then landing with a few dozen people on a strange land doesn't guarantee a civilisation will emerge, and nothing then guarantees that civilisation will ever become advanced enough to build another similar ship.

>>9768411
Are you some sort of intelligent design nutbag? Early earth had oceans, and life in it that started to produce oxygen. There is nothing inherently special about earth.

>>9768416
>There is nothing inherently special about earth.
Isn't there? Show me one other planet with life on it. Just one.

>>9768418
>mfw when life is found 20 years from now and I post a screencap of your comment

>>9768416
Was meant for >>9768410

>>9768418
That's a bit impossible to ask considering we have never looked directly at a planet with liquid water outside our solar system.

Even in our own solar system, there are multiple locations where life could have evolved (Mars at some point in time, several moons).

>>9768246
Because God created us being unique, and in His image.

>>9768314
>If a planet has liquid water, it will have single cells that turn the CO2 into oxygen.
>Eventually it will develop multi-cellular life and an evolution happens of plants and animals
>that will further make the planet it is iliving on more habitable and after a few billion years you have a gigantic diversity of species
Brainlets should be banned from /sci/

>>9768415
Plus, the ressources you are going to find in your own solar system are so vast no civilization might have had the need yet to expand beyond it.

>>9768426
Sure thing. Prove it.

>>9768416
The only thing actually special about earth I can think of is it’s megnetosphere, but mercury and mars also have them, and the gas giants have fuckoff huge ones that protect their moons.

>>9768430
That’s what happened here, but it’s much more complex than just “water is here in a liquid form therefore life springs from it mystically”

>>9768423
Anon if that happens I'll be happy.
>>9768425
Yeah I figured it was. I think what you've done is taken a basic heuristic that SETI and the like use when looking for life (that is: life on earth seems to thrive in and around water, therefore when looking for life on other planets, looking for water first would be a good starting point) and then assumed that water is in fact the be all and end all of requirements for life. That clearly isn't the case, as I've mentioned before, the conditions on earth that allowed basic amino acids to go from amino acids to even single celled organisms is still largely unknown.

>>9768434
For starters "it will have single cells that turn the CO2 into oxygen." dosn`t follow from this "If a planet has liquid water". Then it excludes the quite high possibility of the galactic equivalent of "Rocks fall, everyone dies".
Its extremly reductionist.

>>9768432
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
Genesis 1:27

>>9768426
>>9768442
Fuck off christtard

>>9768439
Yeah, but of all that happened on earth, too, I mean we were hit by a gigantic dwarf planet (which became our moon) and life still kept evolving.

>>9768438
No, the answer to that question is literally impossible because of our technological limitations. We didn't even know what Pluto looks like up until recently. We have never observed any planet or moon with liquid water on it besides our own, despite having one in our solar system (Europa). So yeah, liquid H2O oceans aren't rare, and most likely life isnt either.

>>9768246
Intelligent, industrialized, life is rare + space is big.

>>9768449
>We have never observed any planet or moon with liquid water on it besides our own
>So yeah, liquid H2O oceans aren't rare
What?

>and most likely life isnt either.
But again you've not show that life follows from water existing. Which isn't surprising since you've got no idea what conditions are needed for life to form.

>>9768456
If in 1 solar system there are at least two bodies with liquid water on it, then this show it isn't rare. If only 1% of the stars in the solar system have at least one body in them with liquid oceans, that's 10-40 billion planets or moons with liquid oceans. What exactly is your definition of rare?

>>9768460
*if only 10%

>>9768442
Bible quotes aren’t proof you fucking moron.

>>9768456
>>9768460

You’re both assuming water is necessary for life in general.

>>9768460
For the fourth time now, just proving that a planet has water doesn't imply that life exists. I don't know how to make this any easier for you to understand.

>>9768314
>If a planet has liquid water, it will have single cells that turn the CO2 into oxygen.
wrong

>>9768246
The theory we've outlined here provides a plausible explanation for the so-called Fermi Paradox. It is believed that there should be numerous planets on which technologically advanced civilizations have evolved, and which are not so remote from us that we could not by this time have detected their radio transmissions. The Fermi Paradox consists in the fact that our astronomers have never yet been able to detect any radio signals that seem to have originated from an intelligent extraterrestrial source.
According to Ray Kurzweil, one common explanation of the Fermi Paradox is "that a civilization may obliterate itself once it reaches radio capability." Kurzweil continues: "This explanation might be acceptable if we were talking about only a few such civilizations, but [if such civilizations have been numerous], it is not credible to believe that every one of them destroyed itself" Kurzweil would be right if the self-destruction of a civilization were merely a matter of chance. But there is nothing implausible about the foregoing explanation of the Fermi Paradox if there is a process common to all technologically advanced civilizations that consistently leads them to self-destruction. Here we've been arguing that there is such a process.

>>9768246
>What is the most plausible solution to the Fermi Paradox?
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

>>9768484
It actually is from a Bayesian perspective.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mnS2WYLCGJP2kQkRn/absence-of-evidence-is-evidence-of-absence

>>9768486
>lesswrong

>>9768486
>Less wrong
On the one hand I agree, on the other....less wrong.

>>9768486
>It actually is from a Bayesian perspective.
Even from a Bayesian perspective, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

>>9768486
>https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mnS2WYLCGJP2kQkRn/absence-of-evidence-is-evidence-of-absence
Any non popsci links?

>>9768484
t. brainlet

>>9768499
>t. brainlet
Not an argument.

>>9768463
All the ingredients of life are abundant in the universe, you only need a large liquid ocean of water where these ingredients will eventually form life and can spread. Even a planet like Mars could have large liquid oceans if it was warmer.

>>9768496
Explain. Surely when you don't find evidence for something you update your posterior to reflect that, making it less likely.

>>9768504
You haven`t provided an argument, either. You just restated a talking point brainlets use whenever they don`t understand something.
So answer the question, what is the most plausible solution to the Fermi Paradox?
Since its an fact that we haven`t found any evidence yet.

>>9768506
>All the ingredients of life are abundant in the universe
But you're missing out massive and important steps. Like going from basic chemicals to amino acids, then from amino acids to RNA (or something similar) then from RNA to cells. Not a single part of that chain is trivial, you can't just say "all you need is water".

>>9768510
>Surely when you don't find evidence for something you update your posterior to reflect that, making it less likely.
You your posterior with evidence, not an absence of evidence. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference#Formal_explanation

>>9768515
>You your posterior with evidence
You update* your posterior with evidence

>>9768512
>So answer the question, what is the most plausible solution to the Fermi Paradox?
It's not even a real "paradox" to begin with, you're simply begging the question by assuming it requires a "solution".

>>9768518
>It's not even a real "paradox" to begin with
What does that have to do with your non-answer?
Why do you think we haven`t found evidence supporting the existence of other forms of intelligent life yet?
Just answer, brainlet.

>>9768515
Absence of evidence is evidence for something not existing. That's why we don't believe in Mermaids, there's just no evidence of them.

>>9768521
>What does that have to do with your non-answer?
Why would my post be anything other than a non-answer? A false "paradox" requires no answer.

>Why do you think we haven`t found evidence supporting the existence of other forms of intelligent life yet?
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

>>9768524
>Absence of evidence is evidence for something not existing.
From a Bayesian perspective, this is false.

>>9768528
>From a Bayesian perspective, this is false.
Wrong.
https://ojs.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/2967
>Instead, I develop a Bayesian analysis of this motto and prove that, under plausible assumptions about the nature of evidence, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

>>9768525
>Why would my post be anything other than a non-answer? A false "paradox" requires no answer.
Are you legitimatly autistic? The fact that it is commonly called a paradox has nothing to do with the validy of the question itself.
So I ask you again: What is, in your tiny-brained opinion, the most likely explanation of the apparent contradiction between the lack of evidence and high probability estimates for the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations?

>>9768535
>https://ojs.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/2967
>>Instead, I develop a Bayesian analysis of this motto and prove that, under plausible assumptions about the nature of evidence, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
I don't intend to read your blog post, but under no plausible assumptions is the absence of evidence evidence of absence. The only way you could conclude such an absurdity is if you assume it to be true.

>>9768538
>Are you legitimatly autistic?
There's an absence of evidence regarding this (note that this is not evidence of absence).

>>9768539
>I don't intend to read your blog post
It's someone else published paper. Perhaps you should read more, brainlet.

>>9768538
>the apparent contradiction between the lack of evidence and high probability estimates for the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations?
Why is that an "apparent contradiction". The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and so it doesn't contradict these subjective and arbitrary "high probability estimates".

>>9768246
All solutions could be true, there are obviously more than one type of alien out there so why assume only one option could be right?

>>9768544
>It's someone else published paper. Perhaps you should read more, brainlet.
Irregardless of the author, I don't read popsci blog posts.

>>9768246
Distances are far too great for detecting any visual confirmation or radio etc. communication emissions. Interstellar travel on the other hand is simply a bad joke because the required energy levels are ridiculous and magic doesnt exist. Maybe one day humanity will build massive enough telescopes to detect something but that will be far into future.

>>9768547
>Irregardless
lol
> popsci blog posts.
What? It was published in a peer reviewed journal. kek brainlets get dumber every month.

>>9768541
Actually there are at least two sings of autism in your posts:
>A person with ASD might:
>Repeat words or phrases over and over
>Give unrelated answers to questions

>>9768545
>There are billions of stars in the galaxy that are similar to the Sun, and many of these stars are billions of years older than the Solar system.
>With high probability, some of these stars have Earth-like planets, and if the Earth is typical, some may have developed intelligent life.
>Even at the slow pace of currently envisioned interstellar travel, the Milky Way galaxy could be completely traversed in a few million years.
>Yet we have found no evidence, at all, that points to the existence of other intteligent life.
Why is that, brainlet? Just give an answer.

>>9768555
>Why is that, brainlet? Just give an answer.
Why is it that you're still begging the question?

>>9768323
>advanced civilization require consciousness
>consciousness leads to liberalism
>liberalism leads to niggers

No win scenario. Artificial difficulty. This game is shit.

>>9768557
Because challenging brainlets on /sci/ while waiting for replies in real threads has the best enjoyment-to-effort rate out of everything aviable to me

>>9768514
no point in explaining this to him he's retarded

>>9768524
Pretty sure the oceans are smaller than fucking space and we have absolutely no knowledge of any way mermaids could evolve whereas Ayy lmao is an obvious possible. “I don’t see an elephant in this room” is pretty good evidence there isn’t one in the room. “I don’t see a flea in this room” is not good evidence there isn’t one in the room.

>>9768555
>Even at the slow pace of currently envisioned interstellar travel, the Milky Way galaxy could be completely traversed in a few million years.

So? Maybe there are already gigantic galaxy spanning empires. We would have no clue. If there is a large alien colony in the asteroid belt mining it for its ressources we would have no clue about it. Hell, it could have an underground base on the moon and we would have no clue.

So at the end of the day, we take the fact that we, a planet out of potentially trillions in the milky way, not being incorporated into such a galactic empire, that it is impossible it exists.

>>9768538
>Using “autistic” as a pejorative still

>>9768564
>Because challenging brainlets on /sci/ while waiting for replies in real threads has the best enjoyment-to-effort rate out of everything aviable to me
So this is your mind on the belief that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Interesting.

>>9768539
back to stat 1 with you

>>9768567
I just assume there’s some kind of “Don’t fuck with developing species” policy.

>>9768555
>>A person with ASD might:
>>Repeat words or phrases over and over
>>9768499
>brainlet
>>9768512
>brainlets
>>9768521
>brainlet
>>9768544
>brainlet
>>9768552
>brainlets
>>9768555
>brainlet
>>9768564
>brainlets

>>9768566
>Pretty sure the oceans are smaller than fucking space
But anon, absence of evidence is not absence of evidence. Therefore we can't rule Merpeople out, it's a completely legitimate hypothesis. Much like:
>Phlogiston
>Flat earth
>Small gnomes ferrying electrons about to make lights work
There's no evidence for any of them, but since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence we're unable to rule them out.

>>9768575
>Using the same insult multiple times is clinically valid evidence of ASD

You use the word “The” a lot, so you’re got autism confirmed.

>>9768514
There are several theoretical concpets how you go from dead to organic materials, all of which can be true. There is no reason why several chemical reactions parallely are the reason life gets created. At the end of the day, liquid water is a perfect environment for chemical reactions, now all you have to is wait until all the ingredients necessary happen to be combined by chance under what ever circumstances necessary. On a planet with large liquid oceans is only a matter of time, like you winning the lottery has a probability of 100% if you just try often enough.

>>9768576
>inb4 REEEEEEEEEE

>>9768575
Joke's on you, only the first one and 5 of the others are from me

>>9768578
>>Using the same insult multiple times is clinically valid evidence of ASD
Is "using the same insult multiple times" not "repeating words... over and over"?

>>9768576
Absense of evidence is evidence of absense in certain contexts and not in others. Nice strawman though.

Flat earth is just disproven by the way.

>>9768582
Not in the way that diagnostic criteria actually means, no.

>>9768584
>Absense of evidence is evidence of absense in certain contexts and not in others.
The only context in which absence of evidence is evidence of absence is the context in which you assume it to be true.

>>9768584
>Absense of evidence is evidence of absense in certain contexts and not in others
So what you're saying is absence of evidence is evidence of absence when you want it to be.

>Flat earth is just disproven by the way.
Errrrrrm anon, there's no evidence for a flat earth, as per the previous maxim we can't rule it out.

>>9768587
If I see no tyrannosaurs in the playground, that is evidence they aren’t there. If I see no fleas in the playground, that is not evidence they are not there.

>>9768586
He has autism, so you have to understand the difficulty he has in grasping the importance of context.

>>9768589
But what if you are blind?

>>9768588
>So what you're saying is absence of evidence is evidence of absence when you want it to be.


Nope.

>Errrrrrm anon, there's no evidence for a flat earth, as per the previous maxim we can't rule it out.

....No. There is hard evidence to the contrary, so it is ruled out.

>>9768589
>If I see no tyrannosaurs in the playground, that is evidence they aren’t there.
What does this have to do with an absence of evidence?

>If I see no fleas in the playground, that is not evidence they are not there.
So you're saying that since absence of evidence is evidence of absence, that this absence of evidence regarding fleas is evidence of the absence of fleas?

>>9768426
How come he gave men nipples?
Does god have nipples?
Does he have genitals too?

>>9768591
>He has autism, so you have to understand the difficulty he has in grasping the importance of context.
I'm not a "he".

>>9768597
But you are, anon-kun.

>>9768586
>Not in the way that diagnostic criteria actually means, no.
But neither is what you referred to, since you truncated the part of the diagnostic criteria that says "(echolalia)", which refers only to vocalizations. Perhaps you should read more, brainlet.

>>9768593
That would make it even more difficult, and you’d have to use touch, smell, and hearing. A tyrannosaur should be obvious to find even without sight with these senses, but you’re not going to hear or smell a flea. You’d have to find it by touch, which would require it to actively jump onto you and for you to even register this sensation, which is not certain. This further reinforces my point.

>>9768246
I like to believe a combination of "space is too vast and life is extremely rare" but with a twist

life is extremely rare, but space is big enough that life is abundant. fine.

but, I believe we're one of the earliest forms of life to evolve sentience and enough intelligence to explore the universe, thus, if we don't kill ourselves we'll eventually become one of the if not the very first forms of life to be capable of traversing the universe

OR it's simply impossible, flat out no matter what, for any life anywhere to establish transportation that can reliably and in a short enough timespan where it's relevant to travel to meet other species

>>9768589
>If I see no fleas in the playground, that is not evidence they are not there.
It is evidence, just weak evidence since you are unlikely to see them.

>wake up with no memory
>find yourself in a desert
>look around, fail to identify any other lifeforms
>other life seems not to exist
>that seems unlikely
>it's a paradox

Envision a universe that's absolutely teeming with technological civilizations, almost all of whom are aware of their neighbors, but who don't necessarily gain that awareness instantly upon realizing that they should be looking for neighbors.

If this the "space is too vast" scenario, or is that scenario meant to describe a universe where civilizations can never be aware of each other because of the vastness of space?

>>9768612
>It is evidence, just weak evidence since you are unlikely to see them.
define "weak evidence"

>>9768595
*sigh*

>What does this have to do with an absence of evidence?
I see no tyrannosaurs. Since they are very large, this absense of evidence is evidence they are not present.

>So you're saying that since absence of evidence is evidence of absence, that this absence of evidence regarding fleas is evidence of the absence of fleas?

Fleas are very small, very quick, and playgrounds are very large in comparison to them, so my inability to see any is not evidence they are not present in the playground.

Space is absurdly large and our knowledge of it is even more limited than the playground, because we cannot just walk around it and look under every grass blade, so our inability to see or find evidence of Ayy lmao is not evidence of absense.

>>9768604
>(echolalia)
In children, yes. For adults its a sing of Aspergers, too, just without the echolalia part.

>>9768622
>this absense of evidence is evidence
Is it evidence or not?

>>9768612
Now imagine there are only three fleas in the whole playground. Imagine you cannot move from your initial position and the playground is so large that photons emitted from two of the fleas will not reach you for several thousand years.

>>9768615
Evidence which only increases the probability of an event by a small amount.

>>9768626
Why are you unable to understand context?

>>9768625
Aspergers doesn’t exist. It’s just autism without a language delay.

>>9768633
>Why are you unable to understand context?
Why are you unable to understand that the only context in which absence of evidence is evidence of absence is the context in which you assume it to be true?

>>9768633
Wasn`t Aspergers just a shorter term for high-functioning Autism?

>>9768632
>Evidence which only increases the probability of an event by a small amount.
define "small amount"

>>9768641
of limited size; of comparatively restricted quantity; not big; little

>>9768639
There was usually significant overlap but what distinguished Aspergers was a lack of delay in language development which characterized typical autism. The so-called “severity” of the autism doesn’t really enter the equation outside of that context.

>>9768646
>of limited size
How limited?

>>9768579
>making assumptions about a process we know nothing about

>>9768637
>Why are you unable to understand that the only context in which absence of evidence is evidence of absence is the context in which you assume it to be true?

That’s not true, simple

>>9768656
>That’s not true, simple
DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF THAT

>>9768656
>That’s not true, simple
Not an argument.

>>9768652
It depends on context.

>>9768661
>It depends on context.
What is it in this context?

>>9768657
I’ve already explained how and why twice. Not doing it again. Bye.

>>9768660
>Not an argument.

Not an argument.

>>9768664
>I’ve already explained how and why twice.
There's an absence of evidence that you've already explained how (note that this is not evidence of absence).

>>9768669
Use your ability to scroll up to discover the evidence.

>>9768663
The increase in probability that there are no fleas in the playground is limited by the increase in probability that there are no tyrannosaurs in the playground.

>>9768682
Imagine you’re actually another flea, a few millimeters in size, and you’re trying to find other fleas, of which there are only three, in an area the size of a lawn.

>>9768628
There's still a small chance that one of the fleas will be close enough to you to see it. You don't know where the flees are going to be or how large the playground is before you look, so this kind of reasoning doesn't describe the probability you observe.

>>9768246
I have to go with space is too vast

>>9768689
So what? As long as there is a chance of finding another flea, the fact that you haven't is evidence that there are none. You are talking about degrees of evidence, not whether it is evidence.

>>9768690
This only implies fleas/Ayy lmao are
A. Uncommon/distant
B. Not making photons we can see
C. Both

>>9768697
It also implies that they don't exist.

>>9768700
>It also implies that they don't exist.
[citation needed]

>>9768700
Nope.

>>9768696
That’s pretty trash evidence then.

>>9768704
Aliens not existing explains the absence of evidence just as well as them being too uncommon/distant or not being observable. If you accept those possibilities then you must also accept aliens not existing as a supported possibility. Otherwise you're being a hypocrite.

>>9768706
>Nope.
Wrong.

>That’s pretty trash evidence then.
Good, you admit it's evidence.

>>9768712
>Aliens not existing explains the absence of evidence just as well as them being too uncommon/distant or not being observable.
[citation needed]

>>9768717
If aliens don't exist we would fail to find alien radio signals, just as if they don't send radio signals we would fail to find them and if they were too distant we would fail to find them. Yes or no?

>>9768716
>Wrong.

Nope.

>Good, you admit it's evidence.
in the sense a feral human raised by lizards on an island never seeing humans is evidence of humans not existing to them, yeah.

>>9768727
Maybe people don’t know this but we’ve only been sending radio trash into space for about 65 years and the amount being sent into space has declined. That’s a measly 65~ light years of space that could pick up our trash, and someone at the edge of that would need another 65~ years to send a reply, if they can pick it up, notice it, or even want to.

>>9768727
>just as if they don't send radio signals we would fail to find them and if they were too distant we would fail to find them.
You haven't accounted for relativistic effects.

>>9768712
>Aliens not existing explains the absence of evidence just as well as them being too uncommon/distant or not being observable
But if aliens exist then there would be no absence of evidence.

>>9768728
>in the sense a feral human raised by lizards on an island never seeing humans is evidence of humans not existing to them, yeah.
So you admit the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, good.

>>9768743
>So you admit the absence of evidence is evidence of absence
Where did I admit that? And even if I did, admitting something does not make it true.

>>9768740
Wrong. Do you think they should all be blaring radio signals into space?

>>9768743
Good for you. And?

>>9768747
>Wrong. Do you think they should all be blaring radio signals into space?
Are radio signals the only thing considered evidence?

>>9768731
So?

>>9768734
How do relativistic effects change the fact that the absence of aliens explains the absence of alien radio signals?

>>9768752
>How do relativistic effects change the fact that the absence of aliens explains the absence of alien radio signals?
Did you misread my post?

>>9768745
>Where did I admit that?
>in the sense a feral human raised by lizards on an island never seeing humans is evidence of humans not existing to them, yeah.

>>9768755
Did you misread mine?

>>9768751
There’s no other real way to detect that sort of thing from here, except maybe waiting for planets to cross their star so we can look for gasses in the spectra that could indicate industrialization. Everything we see would be years old, maybe gena of thousands or more anyway.

>>9768758
Different people m8

>>9768758
>Did you misread mine?
No.

>>9768762
So why did you respond to >>9768743 which responds to and quotes one person as if you were that person?

>>9768759
>There’s no other real way to detect that sort of thing from here
Is evidence that we can detect from here the only thing considered evidence?

>>9768758
>>in the sense a feral human raised by lizards on an island never seeing humans is evidence of humans not existing to them, yeah.
What part of this says that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence?

>>9768763
So explain to me how relativistic effects change anything I said here >>9768727

>>9768767
>a feral human raised by lizards on an island never seeing humans is evidence of humans not existing to them

>>9768770
Did you misread the part that said "in the sense"?

>>9768773
No. In what sense is there an absence of evidence of aliens?

>>9768776
>In what sense is there an absence of evidence of aliens?
What do you mean?

>>9768270
Unlikely to be first life, but maybe the first intelligent life in our neck of the woods

>>9768777
That's what I'm asking you.

>>9768781
>That's what I'm asking you.
No, you asked me "In what sense is there an absence of evidence of aliens?".

>>9768783
Yes, so answer the question. You said "in the sense of," so I'm asking you in what sense.

>>9768785
>Yes, so answer the question.
I don't know what you mean, that's why I asked "What do you mean?".

>>9768787
How can you not know what I mean when you used the phrase "in the sense of?" I'm asking you what you meant in the context of this discussion. Is there an absence of evidence of aliens or not?

>>9768246
That the vastness or emptiness of space is actually an advantage and not a disadvantage regarding the potential for civilizations to make contact.

>1. type 1 civilizations everywhere, most die out before any contact
>2. few civilizations become type 2 due to luck (but type 2's less likely to die out now)
>3. fewer type 3's develop, yet space far too large for even them to make contact (almost impossible to die out)
>4. space continues to expand, is it too late?
>5. von Neumann probes everywhere
>6. when almost all universal energy has turned into heat, when the very fabric of spacetime is about to tear, two probes meet

It's gonna happen, desu. Just needs time.

>>9768486
>https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mnS2WYLCGJP2kQkRn/absence-of-evidence-is-evidence-of-absence
Why would you use ~E to mean absence of evidence? E being absent doesn't mean you have ~E.

>>9768846
So is there an absence of evidence of aliens or not?

>>9768875
>So is there an absence of evidence of aliens or not?
What does that have to do with my post?

>>9768323
if every advanced civilization also has a subversive element (jews) equivalent, yes.

absence of evidence is evidence of presence = religiontard's perspective
absence of evidence is evidence of absence = equally retarded skeptic's perspective
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence = only rational viewpoint

>>9768878
We are discussing whether "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" explains the Fermi paradox. Is there an absence of evidence of aliens?

>>9768897
>We are discussing whether "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" explains the Fermi paradox.
No we're not, I asked why it would make sense for ~E to represent an absence of evidence.

>>9768246
>What is the most plausible solution to the Fermi Paradox?
Great filter, white genocide, leftism - all sides of the same coin, being the reason civilisations fail to reach the space exploration stage.

>>9768246
Great filter behind: the plague and other near extinction deseases.
Everyone before us has been stopped there

Current filter: nuclear armagedon
You are here.

Future Filter: overpopulation?

>>9768898
No you didn't, you were replying to someone else's post. Avid where dio you think "absence of evidence" came from? This whole line of discussion started with >>9768484

>>9768922
>No you didn't
see >>9768846

>>9768926
Yeah that's replying to someone else. You didn't ask me anything.

>>9768931
>Yeah that's replying to someone else. You didn't ask me anything.
I don't think I ever said I wasn't replying to someone else or that I did ask you something. I still don't know why you replied to my post with an unrelated question

>>9768808
Isn't type 3 one that controls the whole galaxy?

>>9768943
Why are you talking about absence of evidence in this thread then? What does it have to do with the Fermi paradox?

>>9768951
Autism.

>>9768951
>Why are you talking about absence of evidence in this thread then?
Because someone posted a link to a website discussing it, you'd have to ask that person why they posted it to begin with

>>9768955
I don't have to, it's right there in the thread. Now why are you avoiding the question?

>>9768971
>Now why are you avoiding the question?
Avoiding what question?

>>9768579
You are displaying some of the lowest levels of literacy and critical thinking I have seen on this board.

>>9768984
It's there an absence of evidence of aliens?

>>9768892
>absence of evidence is not evidence of absence = only rational viewpoint
I agree and that is why atheists are retarded

>>9769081
>It's there an absence of evidence of aliens?
I guess I'm avoiding it because it doesn't concern me, I just wanted to know why someone would model an absence of evidence as the presence of certain evidence

>>9768576
>not understanding the difference between evidence against X and absolute proof X doesn't exist
Mermaids, phlogiston, gnomes, flat earth, etc are possible, but that doesn't mean that they don't have an extremely small probability.

>>9768808
>1. type 1 civilizations everywhere, most die out before any contact
What would cause most Type 1 civilizations to die out?

>>9768912
The Plague didn't get anywhere close to being a Greal Filter. The Plague only killed something like 30-50% of Europe's population, and there were more than enough surviving individuals to repopulate. If some disease killed 99% of the world's population, that would be a legitimate Great Filter.

>>9769112
It's not modeled as the presence of certain evidence, it's found to be that via deduction. The phrase "absence of evidence" as it's applied refers to an absence of evidence confirming a specific hypothesis. The two well known uses of the phrase are by Donald Rumsfeld in reference to the failure to find evidence supporting the presence of WMDs in Iraq and by Carl Sagan in reference to the failure to find evidence for the existence of intelligent life on other planets. But the failure itself happens to be evidence supporting the contrary hypothesis, since the failure was not guaranteed to occur.

>>9768479
But once self-propagating systems have attained global scale, two crucial differences emerge. The first difference is in the number of individuals from among which the "fittest" are selected. Self-prop systems sufficiently big and powerful to be plausible contenders for global dominance will probably number in the dozens, or possibly in the hundreds; they certainly will not number in the millions. With so few individuals from among which to select the "fittest," it seems safe to say that the process of natural selection will be inefficient in promoting the fitness for survival of the dominant global self-prop systems. It should also be noted that among biological organisms, species that consist of a relatively small number of large individuals are more vulnerable to extinction than species that consist of a large number of small individuals. Though the analogy between biological organisms and self-propagating systems of human beings is far from perfect, still the prospect for viability of a world-system based on the dominance of a few global self-prop systems does not look encouraging.

>>9769227
The second difference is that in the absence of rapid, worldwide transportation and communication, the breakdown or the destructive action of a small-scale self-prop system has only local repercussions. Outside the limited zone where such a self-prop system has been active there will be other self-prop systems among which the process of evolution through natural selection will continue. But where rapid, worldwide transportation and communication have led to the emergence of global self-prop systems, the breakdown or the destructive action of any one such system can shake the whole world-system. Consequently, in the process of trial and error that is evolution through natural selection, it is highly probable that after only a relatively small number of "trials" resulting in "errors," the world-system will break down or will be so severely disrupted that none of the world's larger or more complex self-prop systems will be able to survive. Thus, for such self-prop systems, the trial-and-error process comes to an end; evolution through natural selection cannot continue long enough to create global self-prop systems possessing the subtle and sophisticated mechanisms that prevent destructive internal competition within complex biological organisms.

>>9769234
Meanwhile, fierce competition among global self-prop systems will have led to such drastic and rapid alterations in the Earth's climate, the composition of its atmosphere, the chemistry of its oceans, and so forth, that the effect on the biosphere will be devastating. In Part IV of the present chapter we will carry this line of inquiry further: We will argue that if the development of the technological world-system is allowed to proceed to its logical conclusion, then in all probability the Earth will be left a dead planet-a planet on which nothing will remain alive except, maybe, some of the simplest organisms-certain bacteria, algae, etc.-that are capable of surviving under extreme conditions.

>>9768546
I never made that assumption. I am just asking which solutions are the most and least likely to be true.

>>9768415
>and then landing with a few dozen people on a strange land doesn't guarantee a civilisation will emerge, and nothing then guarantees that civilisation will ever become advanced enough to build another similar ship.
Except that if an advanced alien civilization could travel to other planets, it would have already created civilization. It wouldn't just magically go back to having paleolithic technology once it colonizes another planet. Furthermore, if a civilization got to that point, it would probably have also experienced a technological singularity, and would have achieved superintelligence.

>>9768343
>>9768549
Advanced civilizations wouldn't necessarily explicitly need to make contact with us for us to detect evidence of their existence. Even if there are no radio messages directed to Earth, there would be accidental radio signals, and there could be evidence of things like Dyson spheres and other hypothetical megastructures.

Guys, what if they already visited us? What if they are hidden by theCIA in Area 51 and have taken human form to control humanity from the inside?

>>9769381
I mean it's very unlikely, but so are the hypothesis in OP

The whole fermi paradox thing is fucking stupid, it relies on the assumption that we would be seeing aliens based on either radio signals (Fucking retarded for obvious reasons) or observing megastructures built around stars, in reality if an alien civilisation halfway across the universe decided to dyson up it's star and the closest hundred other stars, we would have no fucking clue, not to mention there is no guarantee that anyone is building dyson spheres anyway since it seems pretty overkill unless your population is in the 100s of quadrillions or whatever, at which point why not just chuck them on ice and send out sublight ships or strap some engines to rotating habitats and fuck off to another star system.

If I had to pick a solution though I think the most likely ones are either the rare earth or a type 3 super predator species that obliterates any competition. I really hope we don't find signs of life on Mars because that would make the super predator a scarily realistic option.

>>9769434
It's not that stupid. An estimate of how long it would take to colonize the entire galaxy by sending out colony ships travelling at 10% the speed of light is around a million years, which sounds like a lot but on the cosmological timescale it's the blink of an eye. Dinosaurs existed for 165 million years and have been dead for another 65 million years before humans even came onto the scene. If one of those dinosaur species achieved human level intelligence and didn't wipe themselves out they could have not only colonized the entire milky way but also the entire local group.

Now add in that there are billions of habitable planets older than Earth and it's a reasonable question of why some species hasn't achieved it yet. Maybe life is exceptionally rare. Maybe intelligent life is exceptionally rare. Maybe there's an unpassable wall at some point in the development of intelligent civilization that prevents every species from making the jump to interstellar civilization.

Given the timescales we're talking about and the sheer number of habitable planets even if there was only 0.00000001% chance of intelligent life forming then there would still be thousands of chances for a species to propagate itself. And yet zip.

It causes havoc with out understanding of how life formed on Earth as well. The first cell developed almost as soon as Earth cooled down, that would imply it's not too difficult for abiogenesis to occur. But if it isn't then we should see a galaxy teeming with life. But it isn't so abiogenesis must be relatively rare, but if it is then how did it happen so incredibly quickly after Earth developed the right conditions for it?

>>9769492
The whole premise still relies on megastructures around stars where there is absolutely no guaratee they would even bother building one, let alone a whole galaxy of them. The amount of life that can be supported by other resources in system is fucking crazy.

>>9769492
As pointed out earlier, we do not fucking know if there is a civilization out there that has colonised all of the galaxy, we are technologically extremely primitive and barely left our planet a few times to explore the universe. As I said, there could be an alien colony housing a trillion aliens in the asteroid belt and we would have no clue about it.

>>9768654
You can literally create organic matter in the lab you dumb fuck

>>9769061
You are just like all the other retards who dont know shit about biochem. kys.

>>9769550
Can you create a cell in a lab by sloshing around a large jar or water and random chemicals though? Because that's what abiogenesis is.

>>9769510
>there is absolutely no guaratee they would even bother building one
Well it's reasonable to assume that the first method any species would use to generate energy is to harness their star. A swarm of satellites would noticeably decrease luminosity and is our best bet for detecting any advanced species. We haven't really noticed any stars that are outputting significantly less light than they should though.

>>9769530
Earth is prime real estate. If a species is spiderwebbing it's way out by sending colony ships out from each new colony it's unlikely they would've skipped our system. The fact we're here is evidence against any galaxy spanning species.

>>9769550
You are a special kind of retard, aren`t you?

>>9769550
>You can literally create organic matter
Characterizing an amino acid as "organic matter" is a little bit disingenuous

>>9769554
If you slosh it around for a few million years, sure.

>>9769556
Unless an alien civilization is after coal and oil, there is nothing on earth that you wouldn't find plenty more of in the rest of the solar system.

As I said, this solar system could be fully colonized and we wouldn't even know. There could be a giant He-3 mining going on on Jupiter and we would have zero clue about it.

It is ridiculous to assume they can't be there because we didn't see them yet, there is a motherfucking planet in our solar system that we never observed.

>>9769569
Have you got anything to back that up at all?

>>9769554
I know it is hard to fathom for brainlets like you, but this is how chance works. If you let a chimp hammer on a keyboard for millions of years, at some point it will have accidentally written Romeo and Juliet, or the american constitution. Sure it sounds incredible, but it's true.

>>9769576
>There could be a giant He-3 mining going on on Jupiter and we would have zero clue about it.
We've had several satellites make passes of Jupiter. Nobody's home.

>>9769556
We would not detect a star or even a grouo of them a few galaxies over going dim, our observation equipment is simply inadequate to draw any meaningful conclusions.

>>9769596
>We would not detect a star or even a grouo of them a few galaxies over going dim
We can actually. How do you think we detect exoplanets? We can detect the drop in luminosity when the planet passes in front of the star

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_of_detecting_exoplanets#Transit_photometry

>>9769593
Yeah, because you can totally tell that from thousands of kilometres away. We don't even know what that giant red spot is and now here this fucker wants to tell me we know for sure it's not colonized.

there was that paper from some physicist some years ago that argued that life is not only common but is actually physically bound to come around on any planet with a semi-stable environment and solar energy and enough time

>>9769702
How does he reconcile that with the fact that we can't even create a single protein even in the most favorable conditions we can muster. The furthest we've gotten is amino acids which is like creating a brick when your goal is the Empire State Bulding

>>9769710
He was looking at it from a physics point of view. I'm a brainlet so I can't really convey it but something about how a semi-closed system like a planet will naturally tend towards better conservation of heat/energy. And while a barren rock is shit at storing energy, a lizard on that rock will borrow the heat better and conserve that energy. Really out there shit

https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-of-the-origin-of-life-20140122/

https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.1875

also just as an aside, do we know for a fact that life requires proteins?

>>9769588
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution

>>9769710
>not realizing that this would be on an entire planet for millions/billions of years and not just for a few days in a small lab
>not realizing that our inability to create something yet doesn't make it impossible

>>9769702
>>9769725
One possible solution to the Fermi Paradox might be that life forms on planets frequently, but can g extinct extremely easily soon after it forms. Sufficient biodiversity is needed for a biosphere to survive mass extinction events, but if there is only 1 or a few different species on a planet where life has just recently formed, it probably wouldn't take much to wipe it out.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

>>9769983
There's no standing theory though that says ".. and the next step is, we leave these amino acids here for a million years".

There has to be a triggering step at some point, and it has to be something we could eventually manufacture.

>>9768246
Indolence.

>>9768246
That picture gave me cancer

>>9770514
It is very obvious that it didn't go from ammino acids to cells directly. There probably was some sort of proto-cell that eventually evolved into a cell. There are different concepts what a proto-cell might have looked like, but we don't know what exactly they looked like, because we never saw them. Our oldest fossils are of bacteria, so several steps ahead, and without knowing what proto-cells looked like you never know for sure. Going to different planets might actually be very useful, because odds are higher you are going to find remains of a proto-cell on a planet where the evolution got cut short in that very early stage. Mars is a good candidate here.

jews did that for sure they killed other species

>>9768349

this is not true at all, rare Earth hypothesis is very much alive and well in astrobiology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis#Advocates

>>9768246

>our wires are crossed

This does not account for the fact that it only takes a few million years to physically colonize an entire galaxy. Fermi Paradox is not only about interstellar communication, if aliens exist, they should already be everywhere.

>>9769550
>he thinks we got life's origin figured out when the simplest bacterium is orders of magnitude more complex than a fucking amino-acid and the transition from one to the other remains a mystery

>>9768395
>completely

it's likely some variation of this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQrCsPrh11M

>>9768246
>most plausible solution
This really shouldn't be the question at hand.
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.
Who knows how many genuine "take me to your leader" style visits have been remembered as a god descending from the heavens?
We can't even find all the "dwarf planets" in our own solar system.
_Something_ passed through our solar system in October, and we couldn't get a decent look at it. We don't even know if it was a single object or some kind of debris field.
We don't have a radio telescope sensitive enough to detect broadcast signals like our own from even the nearest star.
We've barely scratched the surface of exploring our own home system, and we've NEVER gone anywhere else.
The universe could be crawling with E.T.s and we just wouldn't have any way to know.
Nah, the Fermi "paradox" is just an excercise in hubris. The belief that modern society is somehow the center of the universe, and it's supposed to be surprising the aliens aren't jumping through hoops to let us know we're not alone.

>>9770565
>astrophysicists
>Sci fi writer
>computer engineer

You don't seem to know what an astrobiologist is.

Let's see what actual astrobiologist argue.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/11075748/The-Copernicus-Complex-The-Quest-for-Our-Cosmic-InSignificance-by-Caleb-Scharf-review-compelling.html

Oh, who would have thought.

>>9770672
>The real question should be: "why were you expecting to meet/find aliens?"
Due to the vast size of the universe and the numerous chances for life to emerge, and the fact that Earth has resources that alien civilizations could potentially use.
>Nah, the Fermi "paradox" is just an excercise in hubris. The belief that modern society is somehow the center of the universe, and it's supposed to be surprising the aliens aren't jumping through hoops to let us know we're not alone.
Advanced aliens don't explicitly have to try to make contact with Earth for us to detect evidence of them. We could theoretically detect megastructures such as Dyson spheres, yet none have been found.

We are the first intelligent life in the observable universe.
Have fun knowing we are special

>>9768270
>life is rare
That's kind of already built into the Fermi Paradox to begin with. The whole point is even if life were ridiculously rare the scope of planets in the universe is large enough to where you'd still expect plenty of life.
Like even though winning the Powerball lottery is rare (e.g. 1 / 292.2 million chance of winning), you'd almost certainly win if you played it 1 quadrillion times in a row.

>>9771619
>We are the first intelligent life in the observable universe.
That is one of the least likely explanations there is.
It also goes completely against the Copernican principle which the standard model of cosmology (Lambda-CDM) assumes.

Space is too vast

>>9771619
>We are the first intelligent life in the observable universe.
Another point for God, another blow to the Copernican principle. I love it.

>>9771681
>The whole point is even if life were ridiculously rare the scope of planets in the universe is large enough to where you'd still expect plenty of life.
Not if life is rarer than planets are plentiful. Who are you to say how rare is "ridiculous"?

>>9770672
>it's supposed to be surprising the aliens aren't jumping through hoops to let us know we're not alone
No. It would take only as little as 5 million years for modern Earth tier technology driven, very slow interstellar travel to allow for colonize the entire galaxy.
If there's even the slightest bit of space and time compatible with life, the expectation is we'd be flooded with signs of it by now, and not at all because aliens are trying very hard to contact us (just the opposite, they wouldn't have to be trying very hard at all and the numbers would still work out in an excess of observable alien activity).

>>9771693
>Who are you to say how rare is "ridiculous"?
Enrico Fermi said it. Who are you to overrule Enrico Fermi on this?

>>9771692
It's not a blow to the Copernican principle, it's a decision to ignore it.
We don't actually have a good reason to believe we're anywhere close to the first intelligent life in the observable universe. Not finding life so far is unexpected per the Fermi paradox, but there are lots of potential explanations that aren't as out there as the explanation we're somehow the first. That explanation is about as unlikely as the explanation celestial bodies appear to revolve around our planet because we're literally at the center of the universe. When your explanation is telling you we're extremely special, that's a strong hint it's wrong since there are a lot more possibilities where we aren't special in that way than the one possibility where we are.

>>9771536
>Earth has resources that alien civilizations could potentially use

What exactly can they find on earth that they can't anywhere else?

>>9771536
>We could theoretically detect megastructures such as Dyson spheres, yet none have been found.

No, we couldn't, because a Dyson sphere absorbs all the light of a star, so there is nothing that we could detect.

>>9771715
>What exactly can they find on earth that they can't anywhere else?
Dank memes.

>>9771695
>No. It would take only as little as 5 million years for modern Earth tier technology driven, very slow interstellar travel to allow for colonize the entire galaxy.

As already stated, there can be 1 billion aliens living in underground bases on the moon and we wouldn't know. You are clearly overestimating our observation capabilities of the universe. We don't even know what kind of animals live in the depth of our oceans, let alone knowing about what is happening in every corner of our solar system. Especially if the colonizer civilization doesn't want to be seen, we have 0 change to detect them.

>>9771699
Fermi was a physicist not a biologist. He cannot say how likely it is for life to develop on an earth-like planet. The fact that we haven't seen an signs of intelligent life is strong evidence that it is very rare.

>>9771729
>strong evidence
Not really. The explanation we're very bad at figuring out how to detect signs of life is a lot more plausible than the explanation where we're super-special.
This is why we need the Copernican principle, everyone's always forgetting how bad of an idea it is to believe we're a special case.

>>9771727
>there can be 1 billion aliens living in underground bases on the moon and we wouldn't know
Possibly, but that's not what you're really arguing for. What you're arguing for is that all life within detectable range is living in underground bases and not one of them is ever poking their heads out / transmitting anything outside the base. Which is conspiratorial.

>>9771736
It wouldn't be very difficult for intelligent life to make itself known to us. This is one area where it makes sense for us to be a special case. If life is extremely rare any life that does exist will have to be a special case from its own perspective.

>>9770691

>Let's see what actual astrobiologist argue.

Yeah, lets see. Nothing in that article contradicts the rare Earth hypothesis. Also there is this:

>BR: Do you believe life in the galaxy is abundant, or rare?

>Caleb Scharf: Honestly, it depends on the day of the week. I am constantly assessing and reassessing my ideas on these questions.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/billretherford/2018/02/20/earth-analogues-almost-certainly-in-the-tens-of-billions/#22112d3b3035

Bottom line is that nobody knows for sure whether life (intelligent or not) is rare or not in the universe. Not even the best astrobiologists in the world.

>>9771742
Well, since radiation shielding is probably a thing for aliens, too, living underground might be the standard colonization model. Also, we are not constantly observing every inch of the moon, so they could communicate, leave and arrive as much as they want, we wouldn't know. Europeans colonized all of Latin America, and they were still plenty of tribes who only knew about it centuries after it happened.

Especially if the aliens don't want to be seen, which there are plenty of good reasons for, we have zero chance to detect them. They might be literally standing next to you and you wouldn't know.

>>9771536
>the vast size of the universe
A bigger haystack doesn't make it easier to find the needle.

>and the numerous chances for life to emerge
The real issue here is the ratio. How many solar systems are there for every interstellar species?

>Earth has resources that alien civilizations could potentially use
Most of the water, mineral resources, and energy sources in the solar system aren't on Earth.

>Advanced aliens don't explicitly have to try to make contact with Earth for us to detect evidence of them.
Really? That seems very unlikely. I'm not sure how we would detect an alien civilization.

>>9771536
>We could theoretically detect megastructures such as Dyson spheres,
Nope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere#Search_for_megastructures
>SETI has adopted these assumptions in their search, looking for such "infrared heavy" spectra from solar analogs.
>As of 2005 Fermilab has an ongoing survey for such spectra by analyzing data from the Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS).[31][full citation needed][32]
>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]

>>9771681
>even if life were ridiculously rare the scope of planets in the universe is large enough to where you'd still expect plenty of life.
Probably not as much as you'd think.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_habitable_zone
The huge number of stars in the galaxy is mostly because of the incredibly dense galactic core, where high background radiation and the frequency of nearby supernova make the billions of years required to reach the Cambrian Explosion a real minefield.
Besides, the whole galaxy is far too big to count as the local neighborhood.

>>9771695
>as little as 5 million years for modern Earth tier technology driven, very slow interstellar travel to allow for colonize the entire galaxy.
The far side of the galaxy is about 80-85kly away, and actual colonization would likely follow the spiral arms, and not cut through the core.
We have no practical experience with interstellar travel, but let's assume a species is headed this way at 0.01c, on a path that will take them 100kly to reach us.
That's a 10 million year journey.
You also have to assume they're only driven to move on to the next star when some kind of local conditions justify the next colonization, so you can't assume continuous progress.
Just two million years ago, our ancestors were fancy animals just starting to bang rocks together. Can we really assume a species will maintain the ability and desire to travel for 10+ million years?
Let's say they do, but when they get here, unless conditions (visible light spectrum and amount, GRAVITY, temperature, elements present, etc. etc.) are just right, they're likely skip over Earth.
And what if they avoid colonizing worlds with existing life? Maybe they are worried about local biological threats, or maybe they're interested in preserving local life.
And how long do you think interstellar civilizations last, anyway?
Nothing lasts forever. If they last on average tens of millions of years, but planets enjoy Goldilocks status for billions of years, that means about 1% of all potential civilizations exist at any given point in time.

>>9771806
>>Earth has resources that alien civilizations could potentially use
>Most of the water, mineral resources, and energy sources in the solar system aren't on Earth.
And who knows how many passing species harvested those resources over the 4.6 BILLION years our planet has been here?
All of recorded history is about 0.00015% of that time.

>>9769348
>there would be accidental radio signals, and there could be evidence of things like Dyson spheres and other hypothetical megastructures.
Which have been detected numerous times.We just can't confirm them.

>>9768246
Consider this
1.Once you can travel between the stars to start colonies, you no longer need to. You alread solved either mortality issue or can create perfect artificial environment for your population, without risk of travel.
2.Life is uncommon based on our Solar System(out of planets only Earth has it in abundance-might be some underground on Mars or in Venus clouds, but isn't significant).Comlplex life is also uncommon looking at our biosphere, we have more microbial life than complex life. Now comes intelligence-even more rare, elephants, dogs, cats, primates and humans have it.
Complex intelligence with technological civilization-we only know humans out of millions of species.Ultra rare.
Now an alien species would be millions of years ahead of us. It wouldn't learn much from us, but we could pursue our own development which would be unique eventually.
If they would contact us, then our culture would be dominated by them and the only valuable trait would be gone.

>>9768415
>It's not a sexy answer but I'm going with "FTL isn't actually possible". Even if generational ships are technically possible, I don't believe the argument that they'll lead to totally populating a whole galaxy. You've got good odds of some sort of failure before reaching one inhabitable planet

Colonizing or terraforming planets is a meme.
Why destroy a valuable biosphere which is a wonderful natural laboratory or waste hundreds of years.
Build orbital habitats instead-save time and have perfect living conditions.

If scientists found a fetus on Mars, they still could not definitively confirm life. This is where the search for outside life falls apart- we have such vague and yet secular opinions of what life is on our own fucking planet

>>9773011
>we have such vague and yet secular opinions of what life is
True, but the Fermi paradox is mostly about serving many people's emotional need to believe we are the center of the universe, and not some incredibly rare/obscure footnote.
So they're looking for aliens. Tool-using, spaceship-bearing aliens that have an unlikely degree of similarity to us.

>>9771695
>the numbers would still work out in an excess of observable alien activity).
_STILL_ waiting to hear why ANY alien activity would be observable.

>>9772260
>without the risk
Implying every one will want your pussy lifestyle

>>9772267
Mars has no biosphere, its a blank slate for us, and a good place to concentrate humanity's colonization instincts to cut down on suburban sprawl and protect the oceans as they are

>>9772267
>Colonizing or terraforming planets is a meme.
Really? How much experience do you have with this?
How many interstellar civilizations are you familiar with?
Can you give me examples of failed attempts at colonizing or terraforming?

>>9773287
>terraforming Mars to look like Sibera with unsuitable gravity for human life
>circa 500-5000 years
>creating an artificial habitat capable of supporting climate of South Italy
>50 years

>>9773305
You're missing the part where we're speculating about an alien race with an unknown lifespan, and a culture we can't even begin to guess at.
There's no way you can claim a wholly unknown alien race would or wouldn't terraform or colonize an existing world.
You're just pulling shit out your ass.

>>9773318
I don't need to know their biology or culture.
It's a simple allocation of resources, energy and time that dictates terraforming to be a waste of time, resources and energy.

>>9773320
>I don't need to know their biology or culture.
OK, never mind how absurd this argument is.
(And it's REALLY REALLY wrong).

>>9773320
>allocation of resources, energy and time that dictates terraforming to be a waste of time, resources and energy
This statement implies you/we have any practical experience in this area, and unless you have some secret interplanetary project that you've been running for centuries, that's just plain wrong.
It's like somebody from the 18th century saw a balloon and declares that travel to the moon is impossible.

>>9768246
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale?wprov=sfla1

>>9773391
I'm not sure how this is supposed to relate to this thread, but I'm going to take a minute to express my contempt for the Kardashev scale.
The whole idea here is that the more "advanced" civilizations consume more energy.
And that they do so because they have a larger population and/or make less efficient use of energy.
Neither of these ideas seem very "advanced" to me.

>>9768246
test

>>9773455
>The whole idea here is that the more "advanced" civilizations consume more energy.
No. They have the ability and technology to harness massive amounts of energy, thus making them more advanced. Efficiency has nothing to do with this.

>>9773467
Let's say a species has complete knowledge of physics, and has mastered all potential technologies.
Unless this somehow compels them to grow the population until they somehow use the power of an entire galaxy, or even a star, they're still low on the scale.
Nah, the only thing to learn here is the mindset of Kardashev and his adherents.

>>9773494
>implying you can master all potential technologies without ever having the need for more power
Where would we be today if we kept the 1900 levels of electricity and made no attempts to increase output?

>>9771938
> using actual logic before posting
you seem lost. We only pretend to be smart around here, no actually posts or debates anything of value in these threads.

>>9773512
probably happier

The colonizing theory is just retarded. Colonisation is barely worth it on earth, let alone beyond it. The chinese never colonised because it was a waste of ressources, and most colonies of the europeans were done for prestige, religious and military reason. Even the US was a drain on the british empire. Besides India, basically all colonies bankrupted the europeans.

>>9773512
We increased output because the population grew. Now, there is not a single technologically advanced nation with a growing population. Further increase of the output is not needed. And I don't know why you would assume trying to grow your population to infinity is the normal process of any civ. In fact, since it takes a scientific mind to progress to the level where you are able to travel through space, most space fairing civs would probably prefer to study, and not to colonize.

>>9773455
>>9773467
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_convergence

>>9773593
>Now, there is not a single technologically advanced nation with a growing population
Except for China and the US.
I never assumed that a civ would use the power to grow their population, but to discover new technologies just as we did. Could CERN operate with 1900 tier electricity? Could servers?

>>9773621
The US has a fertility rate of 1,8 per women, china of 1,6. France has 2,07, but that's largely due to immigrants.

>>9773643
Yeah, that means that their population is growing. Not by as much as in pooland but growing, still.

>>9773512
Per-capita energy use in the US is dropping.
Does that mean we're regressing?

>>9773599
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_convergence
> the hypothetical tendency for most sufficiently intelligent agents to pursue certain instrumental goals such as self-preservation and resource acquisition.
>hypothetical
>tendency
Besides, the article is mainly concerned with AI's.

And any "sufficiently intelligent agents" with any knowledge of biology should have goals related to stable populations, not the centuries of incredible growth required to populated even a Dyson sphere, let alone whatever the galactic equivalent would be.
Nah, even though "advanced" is a subjective concept, I doubt larger populations using more power would be considered automatically better by most people.

>>9773781
Another thought on this subject.
If a single Dyson sphere can house billions of times as many folk as a single world, and it's unlikely there are billions of worlds suitable for any particular species in a single galaxy, wouldn't any species intent on maximizing their population concentrate on building a Dyson sphere instead of traveling to other worlds?
Of course, you'd have to bring materials from many other solar systems to get the required mass to build one, so maybe that's wrong...
Anybody have any real numbers on this?

>>9773568
One might argue that european colonies were sales markets, but yeah I agree with you. Sad that /sci/ often ignores posts like these.

species kill themselves via advanced weapons before they begin to colonize or the universe does it for them (gamma ray bursts, etc)

Theres so many ayy's that we just mistake any proof of them as physical laws.

Imagine if utopistic civilization spred itself to the whole universe. Where's the abnormalities? Where's the chaos? At that point it would be just determinism in these scales.

>>9773803
>species kill themselves via advanced weapons
The part of the "great filter" argument that's alwys bothered me the most isn't that it's so clearly based on contempt for modern society.
Nope, it's the part where whatever defines our exact moment in history also must surely define the fate of all intelligent species, everywhere.
During the cold war, it was "they all developed nukes and wiped themselves out".
Then came the growing eco/green concerns of the 1970's and suddenly: "they all poisoned their environments".
In the modern day, /sci/ keeps asserting "they invented a comfy VR and won't leave the couch" (singularity optional).
I doubt that intelligent life in the galaxy is so homogeneous that it all shares a common fate.

>>9773736
No, we are just stepping our efficiency up.

>>9773825>>9773825
>, we are just stepping our efficiency up.
Exactly. More advanced societies presumably use less energy per capita.
So unless higher populations = more "advanced", the Kardashev scale is completely wrong.

>>9773795
Dyson spheres are impossible. There is no material that could withstand the stresses a structure of that size would experience. A dyson swarm is far more feasible.

>>9773843
More advanced tech requires more power, no matter how efficient. Just think about it, a theoretical warp drive would need huge(like really huge) amounts of power to function.

>>9773928
>More advanced tech requires more power, no matter how efficient.
Sorry, that 's just wrong.
My 2009 Jetta has an engine less than half the size of 1947 Cadillac series 62 convertible, but produces almost as much horsepower (140 vs 150) while getting far better mileage, and not just because my car weighs about half what the Caddie does.
We have no experience wit any kind of warp drive, I can only assume if one were even possible, it would require far less energy than a conventional reaction drive to accomplish the same results.
And even a "Type One" civilization would have a population with about 18 zeros living in a shell around a single star. The per-capita need for a warp drive would be absurdly low.
There's just no way "more power used" equates to "more advanced'.

>>9773676
>Yeah, that means that their population is growing. Not by as much as in pooland but growing, still.
Unless "their" means "France", you're wrong.
Both China and the US would have declining populations, just like Japan, except for immigration.
As near as we can tell from actual observation (not nihilistic philosophy), more advanced civilizations tend to have declining populations, and do NOT trend towards using all the power of a star or galaxy.

>>9769710
i think that on the pico and femo scale, there are things yet we do not understand.

Hell we are barely into re programing viruses for our benefit in vaccinology. The cells in our bodies, and the viruses we barely understand what exactly are the smaller components that they are made up of.

Everything is machinery, functions like machinery. We see biology and its only in our macro scale and we try to smash elements together and think we can create cells. I think quantum mechanisms are still quite elusive and we haven't quite yet got a complete understanding, as is understandable.

Nanotech isn't even close to mastered yet. We have a long way to go. Even newtonian physics third law we've proven may not be correct.
>See NASAs Emdrive

>>9769710
>How does he reconcile that with the fact that we can't even create a single protein even in the most favorable conditions we can muster.
Scientists tell us the galaxy has 100-400 billion stars which produce energy through nuclear fusion.
How does he reconcile that with the fact that we can't even create a single net gain fusion reactor even in the most favorable conditions we can muster.