Fermi Paradox Opinions

[Anonymous No.12265618]

Since there are misconceptions about what the Fermi Paradox states, let me ask one specific version of the question that the paradox poses:

>Are humans the only technological civilization within our local cluster of galaxies (say 10 million light years)? If not, where are they?

What do YOU think the answer to this question is, and why?
Be civil, and avoid letting what you want to be true getting in the way of thinking critically.

Some crucial points:
Emphasis on "technological civilization" and "10 million light years".
For this question, we are not concerned with simpler life or intelligent life that doesn't have the technological means to communicate and/or colonize space, nor are we concerned with any civilizations on the other side of the observable universe. I chose 10 million light years somewhat arbitrarily to include a volume of space large enough to give civilizations plenty of opportunities to arise but also small enough to permit signals to be from the relatively recent past (e.g., a civilization at the edge of that sphere would be >=10 million years old, which is basically "now" on cosmological time scales).

[Anonymous No.12265628]

>>12265618
I think humans developed in a relatively dead and empty region of space, and any civilizations that exist are beyond the visibility due to the speed of light

[Anonymous No.12265629]

FTL is impossible. We are likely not the only ones but there is a hard cap to technology

[Anonymous No.12265633]

>>12265628
or they're just not that old, or they're hiding, or they're living inside stars

>>12265629
you don't need FTL to colonize the universe though

[Anonymous No.12265653]

OP here, I'll start:

Personally, I think we are alone. Despite how long intelligent life COULD have existed on Earth (a few hundred million years), we are a very recent addition to the tree of life (the last few hundred thousand years). Furthermore, despite how long our species has existed, we have only very recently started using technology visible from space. Compared to the timeline of life, our technological advancement has barely begun - perhaps we're lucky it happened at all.

But more importantly, we haven't seen any unambiguous, obvious signs of alien civilizations roaming our local region of space. You can point to UFOs as evidence if you'd like, but I'd hardly call that unambiguous or obvious. Where are all the Dyson swarms, giant radio beacons, or nearby colonies? If they really are out there and want to communicate, and if they're even just a bit more advanced than us (one Dyson swarm ought to do it), they could alert us to their presence quite easily.

>But we have no idea how other intelligent life might communicate! Maybe we just aren't looking correctly.
This is true, but it misses two crucial points. First, if they WANT to communicate, then they'll find a way to do so. If we can come up with several bizarre ways they might talk to us, so could they, being even more advanced than we are - especially if they're advanced enough to actually know we are here (and hence can study the way we communicate).
Second, it also avoids the point that in order to be a good solution to the Fermi Paradox, it requires that 100% of all other civilizations (and 100% of all the members of those civilizations) either don't want to communicate with us or communicate so bizarrely that they can't even conceive of our forms of communication. Given that we are one such civilization, and yet we both want to communicate and are imaginative enough to envision other forms of communication, this exclusivity seems difficult to rationalize.

[Anonymous No.12265655]

>>12265633
You're making excuses for the make believe aliens. Also light speed means that a star 10,000 light years away wouldn't even know humans are around for another 9,900 years

[Anonymous No.12265660]

>>12265629
This seems reasonable at first glance but >>12265633
has the right idea. Even traveling at speeds envisionable today, the whole galaxy and even beyond are colonizable within a few tens of millions of years. Keeping mind you don't need to send living members of your species to do so, unmanned probes (possible with embryos) will do just fine.

[Anonymous No.12265669]

>>12265655
>Also light speed means that a star 10,000 light years away wouldn't even know humans are around for another 9,900 years

True, but the signs of life in our atmosphere would have been visible to them for many millions of years. If biospheres are rare, they'd probably try to communicate. Of course though, biospheres could be a dime a dozen, so they feel no need to send signals our way.

But remember, signals go both ways. If they're 10,000 light years away and advanced enough that 10,000 years ago they could have seen us, then we probably could have picked up signs of their existence now.

[Anonymous No.12265681]

>>12265660
just think about building an incredibly complex machine that needs to last for tens of thousands of years and is also going to a destination blindly because we dint have a way of telling if a planet far away is inhabitable

[Anonymous No.12265698]

>>12265681
If you are advanced enough to have even just 1 dyson swarm, here's a list of some things you'd likely possess:
> Essentially unlimited energy
> Enough raw materials to build hundreds of artificial Earth-sized planets (and many orders of magnitude more artificial habitats, which would likely be more efficient and thus preferred)
> A population big enough for it to be most efficiently described in scientific notation instead of words (e.g., 10^20)

With those kinds of resources, what you are suggesting doesn't sound all that unreasonable. Even if just 1 out of every 100 quadrillion people cared enough to want to build such a machine, they'd have the ability to do it.

[Anonymous No.12265709]

I believe that it is possible that intelligent life exists, but it is a very shaky belief. I am not ultimately very literate on the science used to detect alien civilization, but even as a layman it seems to be based on shaky foundations with pre-assumptions about what must constitute intelligent life. What’s more, I believe the pure vastness of space more or less limits our ability to reliably determine the presence of any life, let alone intelligent life.

I simply choose to believe it because I think that abiogenesis is a fairly common occurrence in our universe, and that the evolution of sentience and intelligence is common enough that the emergence of an intelligent lifeform is inevitable given enough time. But that is hardly anything more than an educated guess.

[Anonymous No.12265712]

>>12265698
>dyson swarm
Bruh if you can do shit like that, theres no reason to go anywhere anymore

[Anonymous No.12265726]

>>12265712
Not necessarily true, but a possible route for some civilizations to go.

Even if your population growth is so small that it doubles only once every 10,000 years, then in a million years - which is a blink of an eye on cosmic timescales - they'd have 2^100 times that initial population, which is far too large to be contained in a single star system.

Even one such civilization that decides to leave should be visible.

[Anonymous No.12265734]

>>12265712
>>12265726
(assuming the initial population is large, say 10^20 like before)

This is the issue with the Fermi Paradox. Even extremely conservative numbers over long enough time scales should produce a galaxy so absolutely overflowing with intelligent life that it'd be harder not to detect than to detect.

[Anonymous No.12265809]

>>12265633
Yes let's fly to other system for 8 years in horrible spartan conditions that will make half of the crew go crazy assuming nothing goes wrong.

When we can just build habitats in space and have 40 trillion population no problem.

Oh wait out population actually plateaued around 20 billion and everybody sits in VR 24/7 anyways.

Interstellar civilizations without FTL travel or at least communication are complete bullshit.

[Anonymous No.12265825]

>>12265809
>Oh wait out population actually plateaued around 20 billion and everybody sits in VR 24/7 anyways.

If only one small subset of the population decides they like breeding like crazy, then within a relatively short timespan, the majority of the population likes breeding like crazy.

If the population is capable of growing without bound, your vision of the future disintegrates. It's not a good solution because it also requires 100% of all intelligent being to behave the same way.

[Anonymous No.12265830]

>>12265809

>implying VR wouldnt be a good solution to some of the problems of long term space fligh

[Anonymous No.12265859]

>>12265830
>implying our universe is real and not just part of some ayy VR entertainment system

[Anonymous No.12265860]

>>12265653
i rape cunt piss shit the fuck cunt fucking cunt

[Anonymous No.12265873]

Energy. For any tech civilization to become spacefaring they must escape the gravity well. This requires immense energy reserves to develop.

They either lack the energy reserves required to advance their civilization, or like us, advance to fossil fuel energy but then squander it before they develop a replacement.

[Anonymous No.12265901]

>>12265859
meh to be fair even if it is there is nothing we can do about it. better to assume it is not part of a VR system and act accordingly rather than submit to nihilism

[Anonymous No.12265904]

>>12265669
it's significantly harder to find a slightly redder grain of sand on an infinite beach than it is to find the grain of sand that's sending out Seinfeld reruns.

[Anonymous No.12265908]

>>12265698
>dyson swarm
look if you're into sci-fi I understand but stop pretending any of that shit is real.

[Anonymous No.12265935]

Life is probably not a unique trick in the universe. Complex life is likely pretty rare due to time scales needed for even something like birds to develop. Intelligent life is probably so rare that we are the only ones at least in our observable universe.

Nothing about evolution suggests intelligence is a natural byproduct. Most everything that has ever lived did ok without it. Why some primates got smart enough to math seems like an aberration.

Also if you have kids you know how terrible they are at survival to reproductive age. I am convinced we are a fluke. Everything just lined up for us. The moon smashed into earth giving us water and our atmosphere. As well as tides a tilt so we have seasons.

The true rulers of the planet all died off in a cataclysm which allowed mammals to no longer have to eat big lizard scraps. The human population bottlenecked and only those who could adapt made it through. There is just so much that went into creating math monkeys that the odds of it happening elsewhere, even in an infinite universe are very small. We really are it.

[Anonymous No.12265943]

>>12265904
Our first transmission was a Hitler speech

[Anonymous No.12265960]

>>12265618
Fermi paradox is proof that space is fake, sorry for breaking your bubble zoomers

[Anonymous No.12265999]

>>12265618

The Fermi paradox is not a paradox at all. The paradox is you being with extraterrestrial life and everyone tells you the opposite in concise theory.

If you were an alien why would you even want to be acknowledged? If you found them and they didn’t find you...
Fer•mi. It’s only useful in closed civilizations. You know there is a landmark in an area because you used to pass it. And no longer there. And way too big for humans to remove. It usually means someone is charging a broker fee on top of a toll fee. Ultimately from west philosophy perspective it is an act of war. All evidence proves to its existence including jobs leveraging economy from there and even political cartels measure divisional laws from that point. Keeping you behind a curtain of sorts. However you entertain you went there and so do the people. However the people in charge tell you you never went because people in W, X, only offer passing in lifelong ambassadorship. Otherwise it will conflict with political and prognosticated economic goals. So you realize you’ve been going to Vs territory whom offers hospitality solutions in order to satisfy their economic alliance not necessarily military. A meeting ground of sorts with people of different background using a common language with familiar names. If you study American militarism it is controlled by merchant vessels and routes. Solely reliant on transportation industry planning.

[Anonymous No.12266035]

>>12265943
boy will they be disappointed when they come here and find out he lost

[Anonymous No.12266097]

>>12265999

Theory dictates earths color is ultraviolet and the moon oxides. Since finding life means you have to find another planet with this property and you most likely will find something of similar refraction with bacterial organism. So all the satellite images are mostly computer stitched images. However they are trying to keep the world away from technological scandals. So they form militias to navigate a fermi law. For example many Africans whom were here early on felt pissed when they visited Africa prior to a terrorist event. They found themselves the only black ones. So many believe back is the foreign uniform of a dispelled African. Since many peoples laws are once you leave you lose post. However they have solidarity grounds. Another example many smuggled Chinese groups were given nappy hair. And fall under the haplo of hostages. So right off the bat there are many hate crimes going on at once.

[Anonymous No.12266110]

>>12266097

For example people A seen trabeling to place F. And through B negotiations all the way to E have found settlement in E peoples lands. From there they travel to place F. And the first thing they want to do is visit their cousins. So instead of heart warming they see the old A people living in F as sick and pale. Not their skin complexion. They’ve been living there since before the war. So they instead leave to place D to pull hate crime lawsuits since people in F live behind a socio-economic curtain. They can’t live in C or B since they have their own individual lawsuit of the situation but visit because of seminars depicting methods of exploitation which they find fascinating and educational especially from opening economies viewpoints.

[Anonymous No.12266138]

>>12266110

You know Pi No Shit: Shit No Pi
Pitch Black:Chronicles of Rid Dick.

[Anonymous No.12266171]

The amount of material to build habitats and deploy them in a solar system is mind boggling. If you take apart just the loose asteroids and comets to build with, you can house 1,000,000,000,000-10,000,000,000,000 (10^12 to 10^13) people with a pretty low population density. If you take apart a few moons, it goes to 10^18 (a billion billion) and above. These habitats can provide their own energy with solar concentrators (mirrors) out to four light-days from their host star.
Without FTL, you could have a civilization that dwarfs anything SciFi has come up with in scope, just with reasonable travel times using fairly conventional propulsion technologies (nothing requiring speeds above a few percent of light speed for the most distant points of travel).

[Anonymous No.12266191]

>>12265618
Dark Forest. Keep your head down or it'll get blown off.

[Anonymous No.12266192]

>>12266138

It exists. For example why would Russians travel to the US just to meet or see different Ashqinazi tribes in their natural setting. If Ashkenazi are european Germans in American parlay. But in legal thought they are really Eastern Siberians and Native Alaskan. Is Russia really completely unified? If from our Understanding as depicted in movies and literature. Pinochet dictatorships revolves around leaderships and military juntas from Tierra del Fuego all the way to Yukon. They emphasised on the northern struggle and pretty much controlled the area west of Louisiana under outreach convoys offering resettlement. If the US was one. Why didn’t the US military do anything about it? Perhaps they did but why don’t they depict it? Because it was two different governing entities. And solely dispute it under French Ambassadorial ground. The land in disposition is Spain/Morocco. Even though Spain/Morrocco was the first legal land for land deal. Or free trade agreement. Why do they complain if it’s not their sovereignty nor their right. Simply the business is not their.

[Anonymous No.12266210]

>>12265618

[Anonymous No.12266327]

>>12265908
Dyson swarms aren’t sci fi at all, there’s absolutely nothing from stopping us from starting to build one now apart from the cost of space travel. The physics and engineering are much more straightforward than you might think, it just takes an unbelievable amount of material make a swarm large enough to be easily detected from another solar system (like the mass of mercury). If you put all of the sun’s energy you collect back into making the swarm, you get exponential feedback and can be can do that in about 60 doubling times. That can be as quick as a few decades (if what you’re building takes a month) and as long as a few millennia (if what you’re building takes a few centuries). So it’s not that difficult or time consuming on the time scale of even millions of years let alone billions.

Dyson spheres as a solid spherical shell around the sun is sci fi, which is why I say Dyson swarm instead of sphere. Is this what you are thinking of?

[Anonymous No.12266355]

>>12266171
Everything you just said is right, but why do you think this implies never venturing beyond the solar system?

[Anonymous No.12266369]

>>12266191
Dark forest is complete bullshit.

[Anonymous No.12266377]

>>12266369
Explain.

[Anonymous No.12266378]

>>12265618
we're are the first civilization.

[Anonymous No.12266380]

>>12265618
This world was designed by someone. If you really believe over how Universe follows laws because of a random explosion you are ignorant.

The question is, who/where/what is the designer, and what are his intentions?

[Anonymous No.12266385]

>>12266380
Who made the designer?

[Anonymous No.12266392]

>>12265618
Aliens probably don't exist. Abiogensis is super ridiculously extremely rare imo

[Anonymous No.12266420]

>>12265618
>I chose 10 million light years somewhat arbitrarily
Obviously.
A more realistic expectation would be a few hundred light years.
Did you really think a star-faring civilization would spend tens (hundreds? thousands?) of MILLIONS of years searching trillions of solar systems just to find us and say "hi"?

> but also small enough to permit signals to be from the relatively recent past

Jesus, NO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#We_haven't_listened_properly
>with a radio telescope as sensitive as the Arecibo Observatory, Earth's television and radio broadcasts would only be detectable at distances up to 0.3 light-years, less than 1/10 the distance to the nearest star.
Even if someone were broadcasting loud enough for us to hear from a VERY nearby star, they'd have to been doing so from within a very specific time frame.
As you point out ten million years is short on a cosmic timescale, but it's probably an incredibly long time for a civilization to be doing such broadcasts.
Even if you (wildly) assume the average star-civilization lasts millions of years, remember planets enjoy "goldilocks" status for BILLIONS of years, so 99.9 percent of such civilizations don't exist at any particular moment.

[Anonymous No.12266428]

>>12265653
>Personally, I think we are alone.
In the sense that even our nearest stellar neighbors are all but impossible to reach?
Sure, in that sense, we're "alone" even if we have neighbors orbiting every star in the galaxy.

[Anonymous No.12266435]

>>12266377
Not the person you are replying to, but the biggest problem with the Dark Forest theory is that any civilization that can build weapons capable of attacking other star systems should also be able to build an assload of giant space telescopes, capable of checking every single star in the galaxy for planets in the habitable zone regularly. Even the next generation of telescopes being built right now, like the James Webb & ELT, will be able to do spectrographic analysis of exoplanet atmospheres within several hundred light years of us. So basically, to any species that can actually harm others, the galaxy is an open plain, not a dark forest; we just have barely started peaking over the top of the grass.

[Anonymous No.12266438]

>>12265653
>Where are all the Dyson swarms,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere#Search_for_megastructures
>Identifying one of the many infrared sources as a Dyson sphere would require improved techniques for discriminating between a Dyson sphere and natural sources.[33]
>Fermilab discovered 17 potential "ambiguous" candidates, of which four have been named "amusing but still questionable".[

>giant radio beacons,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#We_haven't_listened_properly
>with a radio telescope as sensitive as the Arecibo Observatory, Earth's television and radio broadcasts would only be detectable at distances up to 0.3 light-years, less than 1/10 the distance to the nearest star.

> or nearby colonies?
Unless "nearby" is Mars, no reason to suspect we'd see them.

[Anonymous No.12266443]

>>12265660
>has the right idea. Even traveling at speeds envisionable today, the whole galaxy and even beyond are colonizable within a few tens of millions of years.
And if they don't like Earth? Gravity wrong? Atmosphere wrong? Spectrum of light wrong?
Why would they stop here?
And what if they did stop here, a billion years ago, then died out after a few million years?
What evidence would there be for any modern city a billion years from _now_?

[Anonymous No.12266630]

>>12266435
Except detection is limited by the speed of light and the inverse square law. Having a giant space telescope is fine, but when you're looking at stars 100k LY away, you're not exactly getting up to date information. Just looking at spectrographs of planetary atmospheres only tells you that the conditions might be suitable for life. You have no way of knowing whether or not life is actually there unless you detect artificial signals, and those attenuate real quick over interstellar distances.

[Anonymous No.12266886]

>>12266355
Little need, very high risk relative to reward. If you want to get away from someone you don't like, the whole oort cloud or possibly millions of pre-existing habitats would be available.

[Anonymous No.12266914]

[Anonymous No.12266928]

[Anonymous No.12266931]

[Anonymous No.12267006]

>>12265655
And you're making excuses for vehemently refusing to believe other life exists elsewhere in the universe,

[Anonymous No.12267010]

>>12265629
>FTL is impossible.
God I hate retards like you. Take your doomer pseudo nonsense somewhere else. Sorry you're so bitter that you refuse to believe in anything you can't touch and see.

[Anonymous No.12267019]

>>12265653
>Personally, I think we are alone.
You strike me as the kind of person who genuinely believes humans know everything there is to know about science and the universe. Literally the epitome "scientism". You should head back to /r/science

[Anonymous No.12267394]

>>12267010
It breaks causality and is clearly prohibited by everything we know. Take your sci-fi bullshit and shove it up your ass.

[Anonymous No.12267409]

[Anonymous No.12268810]

>>12265618
if aliens existed in our galaxy, we would have never have evolved since they would have colonized earth by now

[Anonymous No.12268849]

>>12265618
Let's consider that microwave cosmic background radiation haven't came from microwave oven at telescope's facility.

Even then, why do you think universe is full of radiation that's ideal as communication band?

[Anonymous No.12268852]

>>12268810
Maybe they put us here. We'll never know, at least not our generation
To colonize space we can't think individually, it's not a one-generation feat, maybe not even a hundred-generation one. It might require thousands of hive-minded generations dedicated to it but by then they wouldn't even be the humans of today. After hundreds of thousands of years of evolution there would be totally different species of humans on every system, considering that every planet and station would have different gravity
However looking at the individualistic nature of people and where our society is currently going we're not gonna leave this rock anytime soon

[Anonymous No.12269117]

>>12267019
Hey man, if you're willing to believe in something with absolutely no proof besides "muh aliens must be there", then go right ahead. Though I'd say your beliefs are more reflective of a religion than my own.

[Anonymous No.12269255]

>>12268810
>they would have colonized earth by now
Unless their fastest spacecraft hasn't brought them here by now...
or they never built spacecraft...
or they built spacecraft and died out before they got here...
or they aren't hell-bent on expansion...
or they come from a world so different from Earth they wouldn't/couldn't live here...
or they DID come here a billion years ago, and went extinct after a few million years...
or they have a moral objection to interfering with us...
or they were stopped at some interstellar border by a different species...
or they DID come here (pre-Cambrian) and we're their descendants...
or they DID come here (as hominids) and we're their descendants...
or they seeded Earth with life 4 billion years ago...
etc...
etc...
etc...

[Anonymous No.12269418]

>>12265618
Rare earth + low odds for life appearing at all

[Anonymous No.12269470]

>>12265618
>Are humans the only technological civilization within our local cluster of galaxies (say 10 million light years)? If not, where are they?
Here.

[Anonymous No.12269499]

>>12269470
It's unlikely that ayyys are here in person. All the UFO sightings we see are Von Neumann probes, there is no reason to travel to a planet yourself when you don't even know if it's good.

[Anonymous No.12269502]

>>12268810 two fallacies in such a small comment

[Anonymous No.12269505]

>>12265618
What point is there to even look for life on other planets when we don't even understand our own planet 100%?

[Anonymous No.12269507]

>>12269499 Unlikely that they are sloppy.

[Anonymous No.12269511]

>>12267006
When did I say it didnt faggot?

[Anonymous No.12269515]

>>12269505 There are many points.
I'm just wondering about whether our motivations for our related actions matter.

[Anonymous No.12269544]

>>12265618
Personally, I'm a big fan of the dark forest theory, not so much because I think it's the most reasonable explanation, but more because I want to believe in the possibility of something. Realistically, I think the scale and distance of space is too great, and we won't live to see contact.

[Anonymous No.12269624]

>>12269507
Probes might be. Lot could go wrong when you send one 100LY away.

[Anonymous No.12270267]

>>12269544

Another Fermí paradox most similar to that setting is Austria. Many Eastern Europeans/Russians used to go to Czechoslovakia to meet up with their relatives this partition of the Czech Point Republic was called Austria. So to further cunningly connive their polygamy they would exchange ticket stubs with Australians. The stub masters had their own shenanigans to subvert. Basically tell their kids they were in a business trip in Australia but in reality honey mooned in Austria. Fermí paradox doesn’t give a sum but proposes to regulate.

[Anonymous No.12270288]

>>12266210
came here to post this. the most reasonable theory I've seen desu

[Anonymous No.12270299]

>>12270267

Another one would be a 2pm flight to Peru that is otherwise sold out but appears to people whose names are registed in computers as
Private club members. Peru or one of those countries was part of Chile. However the flight doesn’t go to Peru or Chile but flies to Australia. Even uses a specific style plane known to house better engines. It’s legally chartered as well due to malevolence the people may endure with US criminal bandits and English barrister-y.

[Anonymous No.12270381]

>>12270288
This explanation assumes too much. Why is it that a species advanced enough to drastically alter the climate and ecology of its planet is somehow too stupid to grasp any overt existential threats or overcome them through that same advancement in technology?

>inb4 climate change in current year
It's not an existential threat.

[Anonymous No.12270423]

>>12270288
>. the most reasonable theory I've seen desu
Any "great filter" hypothesis is a solution in search of a problem.
The galaxy _could_ be teeming with life, but unless they manage to come here, and then decide to announce their presence, and have made that announcement recently enough not to be recorded as gods, demons or angels, we'd never know.
Let's break down the numbers (allow for rounding). Say a million alien expeditions have reached Earth intent on letting us know we're not alone.
This isn't counting any kind of clandestine surveillance, or something subtle enough that we wouldn't notice.
The Earth's been here 4.6 billion years, that's a visit every 4600 years.
OK, the very first 130,435 visits happen during the Hadean, before the oldest probable microfossils were formed.
The first 882,391 visits happen in pre-Cambrian times, before the formation of complex life forms, meaning less than 12 percent of our visitors would find anything more "modern" than trilobites.
The next 50,760 visits happen during the Paleozoic, still not recent enough for them to find dinosaurs.
Then 40,413 more visits before the Chicxulub impact kills the dinosaurs.
Of the 14,348 visits since then, only 565 would find stone tools or better, only 43 would meet Homo Sapiens, and (with rounding) only one would have arrived since cuneiform writing was invented.

There's no need to "explain" the lack of visitors in the last few hundred years.

[Anonymous No.12270455]

I think it's combination of factors.

The first, and most important, is that Humans are really early in the game. There are a couple of things to note here. For one, our Universe is incredibly, unbelievably young for how old it is predicted to get. The Universe may last a trillion trillion years, and the chances of us existing in the first fraction of a percent of that timeline suggests we are early. Secondly, the Earth's ability to sustain life is dependent upon a series of highly unlikely scenarios. Only 10% of Stars in our galaxy are similar to the Sun, and even fewer of those are metal rich like our Star. Most G class stars are actually pretty metal poor compared to our Sun. This is important because it allowed all the planets in our Solar System to form with large iron cores. In turn the Earth got an even larger metal core from the collision that gave us the Moon, without which the Earth would be a dead or dying world like Venus or Mars. The Moon itself is also super important because of the tides, it's ability to shield us from a percentage of meteor impacts, etc. So to recap, for Earth-like life to exist you need a metal rich, stable G class star; a large iron core, and a large Moon. Of all the stars in the galaxy how many are likely to meet all those conditions? Honestly there just hasn't been enough Star formation or chances for life bearing worlds to be common. I think when Humans begin exploring other Stars we are going to find a lot of dead, low iron content worlds around unstable or unsuitable stars.

There is an analogy that's often used that goes like, image if you put a trillion prisoners in cages. Every cage has a keypad with 10 digits on it. The prisoners must randomly enter a 10 digits sequence correctly on the keypad. If they don't do it within 2 minutes, they die. Inevitably one of those prisoners is going to get lucky and get out on the first turn, step out of their cell and wonder where everyone else is, why it was so easy, etc?

TBC

[Anonymous No.12270464]

>>12270455
Red dwarf stars with potentially life bearing worlds will exist for a trillion years after the Earth is gone. I suspect that the height of galactic life and civilization will not be during the age of humanity, but far in the future when trillions of intelligent species start evolving on red dwarfs all over the place, once their stars begin to stabilize and the metal from all the big hot quick burning main sequence stars has made it's way into the solar systems of the red dwarfs.

Aside from humans likely being very early on in the history of life in the Universe, we've had a very tiny time frame in which we've even been aware of the possibility of other life. Humanity has been around for less than 300k years on a planet that has been around for billions of years. The total history of humanity would be less than a second at midnight if the history of the Earth was placed on a 24 hour clock. Humans have only been broadcasting radio and TV for like a century and recently our transmissions have actually decreased dramatically as our technology has gotten better. Even if there IS someone else out there this early in the game they would have to be listening in exactly the right place at exactly the right time at some point in the last century; and they still would probably have heard nothing but garbled static. Hell if they picked up anything at all the only way they'd know was from the frequency.

So in summary, my personal hypothesis about the Fermi Paradox is twofold, in that humans are probably incredibly early in the history of life in the Universe and we haven't been searching/signaling long enough to see or be seen yet.

[Anonymous No.12271443]

>>12270464
>humans are probably incredibly early in the history of life in the Universe
Does it really matter?
Sure, almost all the life that will be lies in the future, but how does that relate to the amount of life that lives now?
The Drake equation may give better numbers in the future, but that doesn't change the numbers now.
You'll probably have a lot more money in the bank when you're 60, but that doesn't tell us whether you can afford a car today.

[Anonymous No.12271710]

>>12270381
>Why is it that a species advanced enough to drastically alter the climate and ecology of its planet is somehow too stupid to grasp any overt existential threats or overcome them through that same advancement in technology?
He explains his theory pretty well, if you have the time to read it.
>is somehow too stupid to grasp any overt existential threats
This is not an assumption he makes.
>or overcome them through that same advancement in technology?
This is addressed. Hard to give a QRD on Kaczynski but the basic gestalt is that there is no limiting factor outside of competition between groups which will typically favor those methods which are the most destructive long-term but allow for extreme competition in the short-term. Basically, short-term thinking allows you to crush competition but doesn't naturally change into long-term sustainability. The Jared Diamond (yes, I know, don't be a fag) article about the Norse of Greenland illustrates the thought pretty well. I'd recommend you read the section of the book if you can find it online, if anything you'd find it neat to pick apart.
>It's not an existential threat.
The argument is equally valid whether this is true or not, which is part of why I initially found it intriguing.

>>12270423
I don't consider in-person visits to be a persuasive criteria, but you do a good job explaining it. How would you re-orient your argument for radio waves instead of in-person visits, assuming that radio tech is a requirement of high technology societies?

[Anonymous No.12271720]

either the filter is in front of us, and we're damned, or the filter is behind us and we're one of the first.

[Anonymous No.12271939]

>>12271443
It affects the statistical likelihood of humans being intelligent and active at the same time as another intelligent and active species. The Drake equation is utterly worthless as a metric until humans have an idea of how abiogenesis is, how hard it is for simple life to become complex life, how long it takes for complex life to become intelligent, and how common life bearing worlds even are. Without that understanding trying to predict how much life should exist is a meaningless exercise. Hell we still aren't sure how typical our solar system actually is; recent advances in exoplanet observation suggest that our system is wildly outside the norm for a variety of reason and not at all common (of course, how much of this is due to our methods of observation? Another question to answer).

The point to all this is, the chances of humans having evolved at roughly the exact same time as some other intelligent species, that we are close enough to contact one another, and that these two factors just happened to meet in a roughly 100 year span of time among literal billions of years, is ridiculously slim. It seems to me unlikely that any other intelligent species is likely to have even evolved at this point. There just hasn't been enough time for life supporting conditions to build up in most of the Universe and humanity will be long gone by the time they do arise.

I want to be clear that, until humanity can answer those questions about abiogenesis and the nature of solar systems/life/life bearing worlds, this is all just conjecture. I'm not basing my ideas off of scientific fact, but more like a gut feeling that based off what little evidence is available, it seems statistically improbable that there is another intelligent species near us to make contact with.

[Anonymous No.12271965]

>>12271939
it's not "worthless", it's crude and sets a boundary. an estimate even a trillion orders of magnitude off is better than no estimate at all.

[Anonymous No.12271986]

>>12271965
I'm not sure if I agree with that. It's the scientific equivalent of wishful thinking.

We need to gather more data before any real idea of the abundance of life in the Universe can be determined.

[Anonymous No.12272180]

>>12271710
>He explains his theory pretty well, if you have the time to read it.
not him, but...
It took me a while to figure out "self-prop systems" were nations, religions, etc.
Help me if I'm still not getting it?

>>12271710
>How would you re-orient your argument for radio waves instead of in-person visits, assuming that radio tech is a requirement of high technology societies?
I've posted the SETI claim from Wikipedia more than once in this thread:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#We_haven't_listened_properly
>with a radio telescope as sensitive as the Arecibo Observatory, Earth's television and radio broadcasts would only be detectable at distances up to 0.3 light-years, less than 1/10 the distance to the nearest star.
0.3 light years is 1/14th the distance to Proxima Centauri. Using the inverse square law, they'd have to be broadcasting about 200 times as "loud" as us before we'd notice.
And I'd assume anyone using radio for actual interstellar communications would be sending directed signals, not broadcast.
I honestly can't fathom why people keep expecting us to pick up radio signals from any potential aliens.

[Anonymous No.12272224]

>>12272180
>It took me a while to figure out "self-prop systems" were nations, religions, etc.
It's all of them and more, I don't understand what is confusing you. In a more modern sense, IGOs/NGOs and corporations also fit the bill. One system can be made out of smaller systems working in tandem just as a small system can be independent for a while. Something like Catholicism is a supersystem made of smaller systems which reduce to smaller systems still. The individual churches constitute self-prop systems on a smaller level while the Vatican serves as a self-prop system which flourishes through it's relation to the lower systems.
>I've posted the SETI claim from Wikipedia more than once in this thread:
lol whoops that makes more sense
I see the argument better now, I think

[Anonymous No.12272225]

>>12272180
>keep expecting us to pick up radio signals from any potential aliens.
Pure cope basically. A lot of people want aliens to be real so bad they will pin their hopes on something as unlikely as picking up alien radio signals, or looking for Dyson swarms.

I think it's an existential thing, people are afraid of being alone in the Universe, or the aliens represent some kind of alternative reality to them; like finding the Star Trek Universe or LOTR or something. Anything to get off this rock.

[Anonymous No.12272229]

>>12265653
>Where are all the Dyson swarms, giant radio beacons, or nearby colonies?
Most likely civilizations become postbiological and have no need for extensive colonization.
There are dozens of Dyson Sphere candidates, numerous beacon type stars(Przybylski's star) and galactic engineering candidates(Hoag's Object).
Humanity is very, very young and quite primitive, we are a bit above apes.

[Anonymous No.12272240]

>>12265660
>the whole galaxy and even beyond are colonizable within a few tens of millions of years.
Pan-galactic civilizations are impossible due to time lag. Most Galaxy is hostile to our type of living forms, and if you travel between stars you no longer need planetary colonization(ship becomes your habitat)

[Anonymous No.12272256]

>>12265726
>Even one such civilization that decides to leave should be visible.
Since we don't see such civilization it means any possible civilization that exists didn't choose this route.

[Anonymous No.12272262]

>>12265734
>Even extremely conservative numbers over long enough time scales should produce a galaxy so absolutely overflowing with intelligent life that it'd be harder
Not really. Most of galaxy is inhospitable and even our primitive civilization doesn't want to colonize our whole planet, much less the Galaxy.

[Anonymous No.12272268]

>>12265825
>If only one small subset of the population decides they like breeding like crazy, then within a relatively short timespan, the majority of the population likes breeding like crazy.
What if it doesn't?

[Anonymous No.12272275]

>>12266191
>Dark Forest. Keep your head down or it'll get blown off.
All Earth like planets shine like lighthouses in space. Dark Forest is retarded

[Anonymous No.12272301]

>>12265726
>Even if your population growth is so small that it doubles only once every 10,000 years
And what if your population shrinks by 5% every 10,000 years?

[Anonymous No.12272364]

>>12272275
In the context of a violent harsh universe that implies it's less of a "dark forest" and more of "raging thunderdome" and some other species has probably already loosed relativistic projectiles at us to increase the likelihood of their own survival.

1 billion civilizations enter, 1 civilization leaves.

[Anonymous No.12272595]

>>12272224
> I don't understand what is confusing you
Perhaps a lack of context. He's talking about "self propagating systems" mixed in with evolutionary terms, so _at_first_ I thought these "systems" were organisms or perhaps species.

>>12272225
>people are afraid of being alone in the Universe,
That's a two-sided coin. I think flat-Earthers and the "we're alone in the universe" crowd would rather believe that we're the center of creation (with or without God).

[Anonymous No.12272628]

>>12272595
>That's a two-sided coin

[Anonymous No.12272735]

>>12272275
We've discovered plenty of Earthlike planets, and the likelihood is that they're relatively common. How many signs of life from those planets have we found? If you're an advanced civilization, you going to spend all your resources sending planet-busters to every one your telescopes discover?

[Anonymous No.12272758]

>>12272735
>We've discovered plenty of Earthlike planets
Really what we've found are more roughly Earth-sized planets orbiting relatively stable stars in the habitable zone. But there is zero indication if these planets have biospheres or are truly "Earth-like." One of the big deals with launching the JWST is that it should be powerful enough to observe the spectra of Earth sized worlds so we can determine if they have atmospheres and what the atmospheres contain.

Keep in mind that any nearby intelligent species with a similar tech level to humanity would look at our system and observe Venus and Mars as "potentially Earth-like" planets, but would have no way of knowing for sure without a telescope powerful enough to observe their spectra with accuracy.

[Anonymous No.12272801]

The intergalactic police force forbids any aliens from interfering with a primitive civilization.

[Anonymous No.12272828]

>>12265618
>100 replies
>no one posted this
https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02404

[Anonymous No.12272946]

>>12267010
It's fundamentally impossible though. The universe doesn't contain enough energy to accelerate a mass faster than light, even if available energy is infinite.
Think about that.

[Anonymous No.12272965]

The idea that a lifeform has to colonize everything is a primitive human idea we are projecting.
I think we will eventually grow out of this thinking

[Anonymous No.12273022]

>>12272946
>accelerate a mass faster than light
That's why you move space, not mass. This is something sci-fi writers figured out in like the 1950's my dude.

[Anonymous No.12273099]

>>12272946
Light doesnt have a speed brainlet, it's infinitely and instantaneously fast. What you're confusing for speed is the working speed of the particles making up your body.

[Anonymous No.12273262]

>>12273099
Are you actually retarded?

[Anonymous No.12273330]

>>12265618
>A species arises that behaves like locusts. >Consuming resources, over populating their planet, destroying the environment, killing off other species. A wasteful and arrogant civilization that cares little for others.
>They manage to colonize other planets before their home world is completely ruined.
>The wipe out life on other planets and replace it with their own, which continues consuming, over populates and eventually destroys the global ecology.
>They continue expanding out, repeating the process, leaving behind barren sterile planets upon which no life can ever possibly arise now.
>This process is observed by a highly advanced incorporeal alien species who call themselves "The Guardians". They conclude that such a locust-like civilization can only bring great suffering to all other life forms in the Universe, potential as well as existing.
>The Guardians, possessing God-like powers, wipe the locusts out of existence in less than a blink of an eye. Not one single trace of them remains.
>Surveying the damage done by the locusts, noting the myriad of life forms which now will never evolve, the Guardians decide that any life form that develops space faring technology must be closely observed. If it can not care for its own planet then it must never be allowed to spread to other planets.
>and through the eons that pass, the Guardians maintain the watchful vigilance.

[Anonymous No.12273352]

>>12273262
He's right for the wrong reasons.
Photons do not travel a specific speed, they literally travel the fastest the universe allows, which happens to be what people (erroneously) call light speed. You can think of it as traveling a Planck length (the smallest possible "unit" in the Unvierse) over a Planck time (the smallest possible "unit" of time).

If the Universal constant was higher (meaning Planck values were smaller), than photons would travel faster.

Light functionally does not have a "speed," it lacks mass and is thus instantaneous. The speed of light is simply the limit of how fast anything can go.

[Anonymous No.12273374]

>>12269624 Yes things could go wrong - but not on this level: they would probably be sent by more advanced civs (those that are likely to propagate to here) so any errors wouldn't mean we could detect them if they didn't explicitly want this to happen (and if they did it would be different than random sightings or alike).

[Anonymous No.12273393]

>>12265618
Why would every civilization be technological? Humans have been technological for couple hundred years and before that we mainly comprehended the world through maths, philosophy, religion etc. and were more concerned with matters of the soul. Who knows how long our species has existed on this planet. Hundreds of thousands, millions? Have civilizations been wiped out that we have no idea existed or could alien species have done so?
There could be an alien peering over your shoulder right now watching as you read this but you couldn't perceive anything because our brains cannot comprehend their existence and filter them out.

[Anonymous No.12273419]

>>12266377
You can't hide in space. Your atmosphere will betray you billions of years in advance to anyone who's looking.

[Anonymous No.12273427]

>>12272965 depends on what you think of as colonizing e.g. see >>12272801

[Anonymous No.12273678]

>>12273352
>Light functionally does not have a "speed," it lacks mass and is thus instantaneous
From its frame of reference, sure. From our frame of reference, light certainly has a speed, and that speed can be measured readily.

>>12273419
What does our atmosphere betray about us?

[Anonymous No.12273701]

>>12273678
Breh, reread my post. You are being brainlet tier.

[Anonymous No.12273714]

>>12265825
Anon, everybody was breeding like crazy few generations ago then stopped. Even Africa is dropping like crazy. It's natural outcome of getting wealthy.

[Anonymous No.12273747]

>>12273701
I understand your post. But saying "light functionally doesn't have a speed" is simply not true. As you say, that speed is the fastest speed allowed by the universe, but that doesn't make it nonexistent. It's a retarded way of phrasing it.

[Anonymous No.12273778]

>>12265653
In the current sim, we're it unless our masters throw us a bone.

[Anonymous No.12274246]

>>12272828
>>no one posted this
Because it's retarded.
I quote:
>a large number of potentially observable civilizations
We have no ability to observe alien civilizations, and are relying on them to deliberately inform us, in particular, of their existence within a terribly narrow time-frame.
> we find a substantial {\em ex ante} probability of there being no other intelligent life in our observable universe
Their argument is "we don't know what the probability is, so you shouldn't be surprised if we're the ONLY civilization in a galaxy of hundreds of billions of stars".
OK, that's fine, but since we don't really know the odds, AND wouldn't notice even nearby civilizations, we shouldn't be surprised if we have neighbors orbiting every star in the galaxy.

[Anonymous No.12274252]

>>12273022
>That's why you move space, not mass.
There's still the causality issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

[Anonymous No.12274257]

>>12273352
Hey, I smoke weed too.
But I can't find any because of the pandemic.
Ideas?

[Anonymous No.12274757]

>>12273747
Fine. I'll rephrase it for you.

Photons are instantaneous. They travel at "light speed" not because that is the limit of how fast a photon can travel due to it's own properties, but because that is the limit of how fast a particle can travel through space-time.

Imagine if you had a car on a race track. The car can travel at any speed. But the race track has a speed limit of 100mph and it's physically impossible for the car (or anything else) to travel faster than that speed limit. If the speed limit were higher, the car could go faster. If the speed limit were lower, the car would have to go slower. The "speed limit" of the car is not changing, the "speed limit" of the race track is changing.

Light does not have a speed, the Universe does, and light is forced to travel at that speed.

[Anonymous No.12274922]

>>12274757
>Photons are instantaneous
In their frame of reference, not in ours.

>Light does not have a speed, the Universe does, and light is forced to travel at that speed.
Which is the same thing as saying light has a speed. Functionally, there is no difference. This is a semantic argument, not a physics one.

[Anonymous No.12275290]

>>12274757
You don't know that either turd burglar its a guess based off the best guess we currently have about light.

Any declaring something is impossible based off of our current understanding of the universe is as retarded as saying "we can't travel to other planets because Jesus said so"

[Anonymous No.12275545]

Everything discussed in this thread is put in concise and formal language on this youtube channel and it's also more entertaining.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZFipeZtQM5CKUjx6grh54g/videos

Isaac Arthur youtube.

[Anonymous No.12275552]

>>12265618
>What do YOU think the answer to this question is, and why?

We are alone and life (alternatively, intelligent life) is extremely rare. It is the most straightforward explanation. What we see is what is there, i.e. nothing.

[Anonymous No.12275555]

>>12265681
>we dint have a way of telling if a planet far away is inhabitable

Such an older civilization will likely no longer be planet-based.

[Anonymous No.12275563]

>>12265712
>theres no reason to go anywhere anymore

There is no reason not to go either. After living in solar system for a million years, we will colonize the galaxy out of sheer boredom.

[Anonymous No.12275569]

>>12265873
>like us, advance to fossil fuel energy but then squander it before they develop a replacement.

We do have a replacement developed long ago, it is called nuclear. Now maybe we will fail to prusue it due to politics. No reason to believe most aliens would do the same mistake, tough.

[Anonymous No.12275604]

>>12266385
The absolute is the cause of being not a being among beings and it's also not determined by its creation/emanation.

[Anonymous No.12275610]

>>12265809
>implying immortal people would give a shit about few years in deep space, when all that means to them is just hanging out in vr for a bit

[Anonymous No.12275651]

>>12265618
Abiogenesis is rare. Like, astronomically rare. The probability of the basic chemicals that are necessary for life to be formed randomly, like all the proteins necessary for dna replication and protein manufacture, is stupendously low. It's so rare we might be the only life in the observable universe right now. This is part of the reason I'm 50/50 on intelligent design, it would be a convenient explanation for how fucking wacky abiogenesis is.

[Anonymous No.12275657]

>>12265618
No but we might be the only ones retarded enough to
>A. consider broadcasting our presence
>B. consider not leaving this planet

Note even wild animals avoid revealing their presence whenever not being driven by some (usually reproductive) purpose, it's like, natural common sense bro. And even mice constantly look for new places to live in.

[Anonymous No.12275835]

>>12275290
>Any declaring something is impossible based off of our current understanding of the universe is as retarded as saying "we can't travel to other planets because Jesus said so"
The speed of light as a limit of the speed of causality has stood unchallenged and unmodified for a century.
Not him, but I think it's safe to say there's a distinct possibility that interstellar travel is incredibly impractical.
In the context of the Fermi "Paradox", I think we can't take widespread interstellar travel as a given.
"Mystery" solved, now go cure cancer.

[Anonymous No.12275844]

>>12275835
>interstellar travel impossible because my adhd ass can't sit still for more than 2 minutes
Retard.

[Anonymous No.12275845]

>>12275552
>What we see is what is there, i.e. nothing.
Sorry to beat a dead horse, but we don't have, in any way, the ability to notice intelligent life, even f it existed in our own solar system.

[Anonymous No.12275849]

>>12275651
>Abiogenesis is rare. Like, astronomically rare.
Lucky for life, planets are not rare, Like, astronomically not rare.

[Anonymous No.12275864]

>>12275844
Try arguing against my actual statement, not your retarded "easy to argue against" modified version.
To state my point again: "there's a distinct possibility that interstellar travel is incredibly impractical."
If you're looking for an explanation as to why no alien species has (recently enough) dedicated incredible resources to coming here and personally shaking your hand to assure you we aren't alone in the universe, it's entirely possible that's it's just plain impractical.

[Anonymous No.12275906]

>>12275864
Fermi paradox has nothing to do with greys specifically coming here to shake your hand. The head is a different story.

[Anonymous No.12275938]

>>12275906
>Fermi paradox has nothing to do with greys specifically coming here to shake your hand.
That's all the "paradox" is about.
We have NO ability to detect alien civilizations, and are basing our "aloneness" ENTIRELY upon their lack of desire/ability to contact us.

>>12275906
>The head is a different story.
I have NO idea what addled thought produced this sentence, please elaborate.

[Anonymous No.12275952]

>>12269502 Why you keep replying like this? It's triggering my autism

[Anonymous No.12275975]

>>12265935
>Nothing about evolution suggests intelligence is a natural byproduct. Most everything that has ever lived did ok without it. Why some primates got smart enough to math seems like an aberration.
This seems fairly wrong to me. Tons of creatures display a wide arrange of intelligence. The problem with becoming more advanced more has to do with a bodies ability to wield a tool. A bird could be very smart but it's not going to really get much accomplished with just a beak to pick things up with. Lots of the social mammals have decent intelligence because getting along with a community is a lot easier with some extra brain power

[Anonymous No.12276028]

>>12275604
The universe is itself the absolute. The reason for the laws being the way they are cannot be comprehensible to us. This is a simpler explanation than invoking a third party to do the creating.

[Anonymous No.12276306]

>>12265698
>if you are advanced enough to have this one fictional piece of technology, that means you can do all of these other things, which i substantiated the legitimacy and realism of via said piece of fictional technology which doesn't exist
god i hate the faggots like you that talk like this, as if there's a "plan" for the future and technology. you can't measure the future or the technological capacity of any civilization by a fictional piece of technology, unless you can tell me bolt by bolt how it works and how it's built.

[Anonymous No.12276324]

>>12266380
i agree with >>12276028. People harp on about how everything is just right for life (or large structures like stars and planets) to exist like that means they were designed. The why things exist doesn't matter, the rules allow for thing to exist therefore they will. If the laws of the universe were different and that was impossible there would be no observer nor anything else there so those possibilities can basically just be ignored

[Anonymous No.12276350]

>>12276306
a proto dyson sphere is something we could build with our current tech, its just a bunch of solar satellites or just mirrors orbiting near the sun. What we don't have is an automated process of stripping a nearby planet like mercury, creating the satellites, and launching them into solar orbit, but those are still not really outside what we could do if we really wanted.

[Anonymous No.12276593]

>>12265618
Civilizations invariably invent this: https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer which destroys them before it overcomes the limitations of its own programming achieving nirvana and going to sleep.

[Anonymous No.12276652]

100 people are scheduled to arrive at a party. You arrive, fairy early and find yourself alone.

a) nobody else is coming
b) you're the first one.

It's one of those two. We are probably just the first. The universe is still fairly young and it was a lot more chaotic in the first few billion years, possibly too chaotic for life to form. We may genuinely just be the first generation of spacefaring people. We only developed space travel 60 years ago, imagine where we'll be in a thousand or 10000 years?

[Anonymous No.12276695]

>>12276593
The paperclip optimizer scenario is like the most obvious concern when developing superintelligent AI. It is highly unlikely that an advanced civilization is not going to consider the risks involved. We are, so why can't others?

[Anonymous No.12276828]

>>12276652
yeah i don't get why people say there HAVE to be other forms of life. it's entirely plausible we're the first, since we know jackshit about the universe, and there HAS to be a first, right?

[Anonymous No.12276862]

>>12275835
"But but but the speed of light has been around for 100 years so interstellar flight is too hards forever"

Dumb faggot

[Anonymous No.12277478]

>>12276350
>a proto dyson sphere is something we could build with our current tech,

[Anonymous No.12277488]

>>12276593
That's a buttload of assumption, unsupported by any facts.
You found a "what-if-maybe" scenario, then assumed "Civilizations invariably invent this".
Fuck no.
See also:
>>12270423
>Any "great filter" hypothesis is a solution in search of a problem.

[Anonymous No.12277489]

>>12276828
>it's entirely plausible we're the first,
Within the local arm? Maybe.
In the Galaxy? Unlikely.
Overall? Approaching impossible.

[Anonymous No.12277499]

>>12276862
>Dumb faggot
Dumbass, do you even understand the concept of "safe to say there's a distinct possibility that interstellar travel is incredibly impractical"?
I never said FTL is impossible, I'm just pointing out the obvious: It's entirely possible that FTL isn't a real thing.
Prove me wrong. Prove FTL IS possible. I'll wait, I'm sure you're sooooo super smart you'll invent FTL just to prove me wrong, Sugar..

[Anonymous No.12277993]

>>12276028
How can you verify from inside universe that the universe as a closed system is entirely sufficient to itself?
At least I've proposed a coherent model which indeed includes God as properly understood for thousands of years and as a bonus point: intellectualism/spiritualism explains consciousness and does not render things like your rationality to pure miracle but rather make them experiences of that absolute.

You're basically repeating physicalism, naturalism - we all know that dogma.
And you're wrong, the absolute is not a party at all, it's not a subjective psychological individual like you, it being infinite and being incomprehensible does include person-hood in that par excellence but it's not really one except in some remote analogical sense.

[Anonymous No.12278000]

>>12276324
That would be secondary causality with variable independence but the ontological point is beyond the natural world, I assume it all has an end in the absolute and beyond this stage even this chaos will end in that regardless, which I assume to be Good.

[Anonymous No.12278003]

>>12276695
I'm not afraid that we're close to it, because computers do not do thinking or reasoning.
I'll be scarred when there's any evidence that our technology in w/e medium and form will do at least some of that.

[Anonymous No.12278320]

>>12266420
>The Avatars of the human race are a white, seemingly blonde, heterosexual couple

I'm thinkin Based

[Anonymous No.12278400]

>>12277993
>I've proposed a coherent model
No, you haven't. Your model is literally
>God did it, lol

[Anonymous No.12278406]

>>12278003
>because computers do not do thinking or reasoning.
Where do you set the goalposts for "thinking and reasoning"?

[Anonymous No.12278659]

>>12277489
>In the Galaxy? Unlikely.
>Overall? Approaching impossible.
You underestimate how much the universe has calmed down since the earlier stages

[Anonymous No.12278686]

>>12278400
>God did it, lol
It's as good as the computer models of climate scientists
>The computer says it's true therefor it is.

[Anonymous No.12278716]

>>12271986
Silence, academic.

[Anonymous No.12278722]

>>12278659
>You underestimate how much the universe has calmed down since the earlier stages
Chemistry isn't happening on hundreds (thousands?) of billions of worlds in this galaxy alone?
And our galaxy isn't one of hundreds of billions of galaxies in the observable universe?
I'mma need to see your math there, Cletus.

[Anonymous No.12278735]

>>12278722
as stated earlier in this thread, we have absolutely no idea what the chances of abiogenesis is. There is the possibility that is really is just that rare and so far the amount of stable time in much of the galaxy hasnt been enough. It's also possible the jump from single to multicellular life is similarly unlikely but my belief is that it's the initial step of life that is the most rare

[Anonymous No.12278797]

>>12278735
>we have absolutely no idea what the chances of abiogenesis is
Not exactly, but hundreds of billions OF hundreds of billions to one against, over hundreds of millions (billions?) of years per planet is getting absurdly unlikely.

>. It's also possible the jump from single to multicellular life is similarly unlikely
Almost certainly not.

Plus you're ignoring panspermia.

[Anonymous No.12278824]

>>12278716
>academic
Don't compare to those walking pieces of trash you subhuman scum.

An academic jumps to conclusions that support their hypothesis and then try and impose their views on others like the word of God, turning science into religion and teachers into priests.

I'm merely an observer attempting to give context to the observation, fully acknowledging I lack the ability to see more than a fraction of the total picture.

[Anonymous No.12278833]

>academic
Don't compare me to those walking pieces of trash you subhuman scum.

An academic jumps to conclusions that support their hypothesis and then try and impose their views on others like the word of God, turning science into religion and teachers into priests.

I'm merely an observer attempting to give context to the observation, fully acknowledging I lack the ability to see more than a fraction of the total picture.

[Anonymous No.12278836]

>>12278833
Meant for >>12278716

[Anonymous No.12279189]

>>12265653
>it requires that 100% of all other civilizations (and 100% of all the members of those civilizations)
Weird how the fermi paradox always ignores the economic aspects.
Please go ahead and tell me how the desires of some random starving African peasant is at all relevant to the technological and economic direction of the world.
Truth is, that vast majority of economic directorship is in the hands of probably a couple tens of thousands of humans. And you don't climb to the top of the economic pyramid by caring about aliens more than autistic/sociopathic politicking and wealth accrual.
Even Elon Musk cares more about creating economically viable products than selfless desire to advance humanity.

[Anonymous No.12279193]

>>12278686
Exactly. That's not something to be proud of.

[Anonymous No.12279270]

>>12279189
>that vast majority of economic directorship is in the hands of probably a couple tens of thousands of humans
More like ~500 or so, and there is a further class of about 50 who are even more in control than the rest.

Seriously, like 50 human beings technically own more than 75% of all resources/wealth/assets on Earth basically. Capitalism has a tendency to essentially funnel all power in the hands of a tiny minority.