/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10855563
Attenuation.

/thread

>>10855563

Yep. Basically. Advanced civilization grow inward, not outward. 1 trillion human minds within a room sized server farm, and thats just within the next 100 years. This Universe has infinite depth, why expand outward when you can expand inward?

>>10855563
>The real answer to Fermi Paradox is that
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The real answer is that it's not a paradox if you are just eyeballing with little actual data. The amount of solar systems like ours in our light cone are not really that much.

>>10856224
It's always down to muh dyson spheres we can't see when it's just a stupid sci-fi concept that could very well be completely worthless.

>>10855563
Asuka was not clamped.

>>10856166
it is

>>10855563
The entire point of the Fermi Paradox is it only takes 1 case of an alien civilization bucking the trend and becoming visible even if a billion other cases aren't visible for some plausible common reason like not expanding outward and keeping to themselves. Pointing to some behavior beimg common isn't enough to change that premise. You would need to show it's not only common, but universal for that alone to be the explanation.
>>10856156
>why expand outward when you can expand inward?
Because that's what every civilization we know of has done on the sub-planetary scale and also because if you don't expand out and others do you become an easy target, like every indigenous population throughout history.

>>10858081
But youre still also making massive assumptions about the likelyhood of life occuring on an earth like planet. The equation uses so called conservative guesses, but thats bullshit because when you have absolutely no basis to go of off you cant qualify if your guess is conservative or not.

>>10859205
>But youre still also making
I actually covered that point already here:
>>10858081
>You would need to show it's not only common, but universal for that ***alone*** to be the explanation.
If your explanation also includes an argument that life is extremely rare THEN that could work.
On its own though any argument for aliens tending to behave a certain way that leads to them not exploring space would already be addressed by the original Fermi Paradox outline in that it was predicated on even what seems like vanishingly small percentages in other contexts still yielding many candidates for detection.
You can definitely challenge that premise of life being common due to scope of the universe and the mediocrity principle that we aren't in a privileged position in the universe and ought to constitute something near an average case compared to the rest of the universe. But this isn't the same as making the argument aliens aren't detected because they tend not to expand out since that alone wouldn't explain why some relatively small percentage but large raw number of exceptions bucking the trend wouldn't still be detected.

>>10855563
I'm waiting until we know more about other planets beyond "star wobbles" before deciding anything desu. Do we even know what the asteroid belts of other systems are like?

>>10858081
>The entire point of the Fermi Paradox is it only takes 1 case of an alien civilization bucking the trend and becoming visible

Fermi paradox is complete bullshit since we have no idea how advanced civilisation looks and what technology they use. Dyson spheres or star lifting are just sci-fi concepts.

Look how many sci-fi concepts from 60-70's turned out to be utter bullshit.

>>10858081
Nuclear weapons stopped large sale wars and even shitholes like North Korea can survive only because people fear nukes.

On galactic scale you have relativistic kill missiles and other shit that would work as deterrent same way nukes work on Earth.

>>10860060
>Nuclear weapons stopped large sale wars
The Battle of Black Friday. Never forget.

>>10855563
The anti spirals race did the same thing. They put themselves in stasis forever

>>10855563
Even if civilization in general is inward-focused, there will always be parts of the civilization that want to expand outwards. This idea that all civilizations will just remain willfuly confined to a single planet for billions of years is asinine.

The real answer to the Fermi paradox is the most straightforward one - we are alone in the observable universe.

>>10858081
This.

>>10855563
>advanced civilizations don't spread and colonize

Some probably dont. All of them, all of their subgroups, and for all the time? I find that hard to believe.

>>10860214
Small parts of the society may want to expand but we won't see a small colony. All we can see now are fucking dysons.

>>10855563
>Rich countries are already struggling with birth rates. Add virtual reality and even more advanced stuff we can't imagine today and barely anyone will breed.
Irrelevant in the long run. Even if technology leads to a sharp decline in fertility in the short run, natural selection will reverse the fertility decline. The "breeders", despite being a small portion of the population initially, will eventually grow to be the majority of the population. Religions fundamentalists, like the Amish and Mormons, are set to inherit the earth.

http://www.unz.com/akarlin/where-do-babies-come-from/
http://www.unz.com/akarlin/breeders-revenge/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYEyv5a_3LM

>>10855563
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.

>>10860264
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.

>>10860269
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.

>>10860271
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.

>>10860248
Small part wont stay small for long. Life is an expoential increase, like a fire. It will spread as long as even a small part remains.

>>10860257
>Even if technology leads to a sharp decline in fertility in the short run, natural selection will reverse the fertility decline. The "breeders", despite being a small portion of the population initially, will eventually grow to be the majority of the population.

Quoted for truth.

The real answer is that we are simply one of the oldest intelligent life forms in the universe.

>>10860279
We already struggle with collapsing birth rates.

>>10860060
>Nuclear weapons stopped large sale wars and even shitholes like North Korea can survive only because people fear nukes.
>On galactic scale you have relativistic kill missiles and other shit that would work as deterrent same way nukes work on Earth.
For this argument to work you would need everyone in the observable universe to all be aware of these deterrents.
For them to all be aware of these deterrents would mean alien life is detectable, defeating the purpose of this argument for why alien life isn't being detected.
>>10860053
>Fermi paradox is complete bullshit
People today are way too quick to shit on the Fermi Paradox. I think maybe out of frustration from years of being told in trash pop sci articles about it. It's a great insight and exactly what we should be asking questions about, regardless of whether the resolution involves life being extremely uncommon to the point of effectively not existing for us to see or not, and regardless of whether alien life would be more exotic and different than we'd know how to look for or not.
In fact both of those resolutions were brought up in the original formulation of the 'Paradox', so it's kind of silly to call it bullshit even if you have good reason to argue for either of those resolutions. Obviously there's some sort of resolution that makes the lack of alien life detection explicable, and Fermi was never under the impression there *wasn't* some resolution / explanation. The point was just to bring up how it was an unresolved question that we ought to explore, not to assert there was no resolution.

>>10855563
>everybody in the entire universe must be a mindless gaming zombie

>>10860333
>The real answer is that we are simply one of the oldest intelligent life forms in the universe.
Possible but the standard cosmology model (Lambda-CDM) assumes the Copernican Principle that we're a mediocre case rather than holding a privileged position in the universe.
Knowing nothing else and trying to assess where you stand in any given random scenario it's better to guess you're average rather than occupying some extreme since by definition there are many more average cases than there are extremes.
When your view of the world and your role in it gives you the impression you're special that's a huge red flag you're letting the bias of judging yourself determine your conclusion rather than an impartial reading of the evidence a la the original historical example of believing celestial bodies revolved around us.
It seems like we're the center of the universe with celestial bodies revolving around us, but this conclusion actually tells us more about how our biased perspective of viewing phenomena from our particular planet is warping our thinking than it does about our planet actually holding any sort of privileged significance. And the generalized Copernican Principle would say something similar about our position as an instance of life in the universe. In the way it looks like you're the center of the universe from the perspective of any planet you're on, it might look like you're one of the oldest or most fortunate or most successful instance of life from the perspective of any sort of life you constitute.

>>10855563
True. I work as a data scientist in pre-clinical research and literally everybody I know has no kids and quite often single

>>10858081
What if it's not a billion, but 10^100? To estimate the very possibility of a specific socioeconomic structure you would need a scientific model of society, which we don't have.

>>10858081
>Because that's what every civilization we know of has done on the sub-planetary scale
Which developed society practices street shitting?

>>10860589
Yeah, I think a lot of people are missing the huge point of Fermi Paradox that proposed solutions which don't argue for life being rare to a much greater extreme than originally thought would need to be universal rather than simply just what most alien life is doing.
The whole point of the original formulation was "we know the observable universe is this massive, which would mean even if life is exceedingly rare to the point of X, that would still make extremely small percentages of X a relatively large raw count of alien life instances." That premise would mean even if 99.9999% of alien life is doing behavior Y which explains their non-detection there would still be the remaining 0.0001% of X alien life not doing behavior Y which would still be a large raw number of alien life instances that could be detected.
You can challenge this premise and argue life is not only extremely uncommon but extremely uncommon to the point of almost not existing at all in spite of how massive the universe is, but that'd be your real resolution then, not behavior Y.
For behavior Y arguments to stand on their own you would need to show they apply universally for some reason rather than just commonly.

>>10860611
By just being, we are an extreme case based on everything we've seen to date.

>>10860644
Which either means we're an extreme case or our perspective's misleading us.
And standard cosmology takes the latter premise to operate with rather than the former. We're presumed mediocre and we try to find out where we're getting misled when we start to get the impression we're exceptional rather than concluding we're exceptional.
>>10860621
>What if it's not a billion, but 10^100?
That was the point. It is completely valid to question how rare life is. But then the behavioral explanation of aliens prefer not expanding outward isn't *on its own* your resolution to the Fermi Paradox. Your resolution would be challenging how rare we think life is. See:
>>10859238

>>10860214
>there will always be parts of the civilization that want to expand outwards.
Retards armed with nukes will kill their immediate neighbors first, such civilizations don't last long.

>>10860257
https://www.infoq.com/presentations/moore-law-expiring/
extrapolations

>>10855563

The problem is women's freedom. As always.

Women need to realize that caring for your family after getting educated is better than aiming to a career as a corporate slave.

>>10860842

Ah... it's still me, btw education should be free amerilards!

>>10860678
Fermi paradox doesn't estimate probability of infinitely expanding civilizations.

>>10860257
Yeah that would be if the religious white people were breeding at the same rates as Africans but they're not.

>>10860281
Yeah but as I said, religious whites in America are barely at 2 instead of the 2.1 they should be at. To replace the current population they'd need to breed much faster.

>>10860257
Chinks already were there, fix your education.

>>10860644
Life on Earth appeared incredibly fast. This means life should be very common.

>>10860257
Complete bullshit.

>>10860574
>would mean alien life is detectable

It's detectable for advanced civilisations not fucking babies who can't even find the last planet in their own fucking system.

>>10860053
>Fermi paradox is complete bullshit since we have no idea how advanced civilisation looks and what technology they use
True, but we do know the laws of physics and can extrapolate that knowledge to know how intelligent rational species should behave.

For example EVERY advanced species would try to reduce pointless entropic events to elongate their own existence. Thus every star in the sky should have been put out to reduce the rate of entropy happening in the universe.

But we still see stars in the sky which is direct proof there are no advanced species out there as letting stars burn is basically the same as killing yourself since you're wasting away millions of years of existence for your civilization every day you let stars burn.

Biggest retarded circlejerk I've ever read on /sci/

Our space observing skills are at their most basic.
It would be an exaggeration to compare it to the accuracy of Europeans 15th century world map.

We can't even look directly at another solar system planets, we only might detect them once per orbit.

We haven't even clearly mapped 1% of our galaxy neighborhood.

If other space civilization are advanced, they might have put us in a national park type of structure.

Game theory and thermodynamics with the current expanding universe also make it efficient to rush for cryogenics and wake up later to access more efficient and therefore powerful computing capacities due to easier cooling.

>>10861037
>what's a quasar
>implying the star we see aren't the useless ones

>>10856156
>why expand outward

ego