/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11105420
that aliens don't exist and therefore there is no paradox

>>11105420
The machines/aliens that supposed to be in our solar system is us.

>>11105420
It isnt a paradox. The Fermi """"""equation""""""" has no predictive power.

>>11105439
That still doesn't explain anything you dunce.

>>11105420
civilization that starts out "colonizing the galaxy" will quickly become lots of different civilizations because of the light speed limit of communication, and when the civilizations grow different enough there's no reason to expect that each of those keep expanding. so the claim that it requires "one civilization" is fallacious
probes might keep expanding but they need not be particularly visible.

>>11105420
There exists a first civilization.
Why not us?

>>11105451
There is nothing to explain if the paradox doesnt exist, retard. The chance of life spontaneously arising on suitable planets is far, far lower than Fermi thought (he actually thought it was guaranteed LOL).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9D8dzl4zGk
who said they don't exist?

>>11105474
yeah but the amount of planets and star systems estimated has also shot up like insane, people did not think there were that many planets up until very recently till we got better sattelites

>>11105461
>>11105420

lmao, the absolute state of space fags

Face it, the entire argument presupposes that somehow alien life and civilization in general, exponentially grows in Intelligence, Social organization, Economy, technology, energy, etc etc. The enitre argument is secular religious bait taken from sci fi novels. Whats the point of expanding? We dont even allow ourselves to expand into rural parts of our own world. I seriously doubt there will ever be a Central city in Antarctica or underwater, and those places are infinitely more useful then expanding to another planet. Even if we set up an underwater territory, You have to deal with social phenomenon like socialism, anarchism, etc that will stifle growth even more. The drive to not expand is way more enticing in our intelligent life, so why would aliens be different?

Formula is for calculating alien existance not the probability that two random civilizations know the existance of each other

>>11105461
>and when the civilizations grow different enough there's no reason to expect that each of those keep expanding

The point is, there is no reason to expect each of them to stop expanding. Remember, it only takes one.

>>11105420
>What's your solution to the Fermi Paradox?

Life is extremely rare. Alternatively, intelligent life is extremely rare. To the point that we are likely the only civilization in observable universe.

Simplest solution is the most plausible. We don't see anyone else because they don't exist.

>>11106067
>Remember, it only takes one.
But that's the fallacy! it takes many civilizations to do that since as they expand into space they inevitably become different civilizations, which may not share the desire to expand

>>11105420
>What's your solution to the Fermi Paradox?
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

>>11105420

The stars don't actually exist and we're in an ancestor simulation.

>>11106079
>as they expand into space they inevitably become different civilizations, which may not share the desire to expand

But the opposite is also true. And in the long term, those who expand will always win and fill the whole galaxy.

>>11106232
Depending on how common you expect expansion to be, you might still expect our galaxy to be filled. If that's what you mean then yes.

>>11105420
>What's your solution to the Fermi Paradox?
Distance. A huge gargantuan, unfathomable amount of distance.

>>11105420
False premise
No solution

>>11105474
>the paradox doesnt exist because I say it doesnt
Either you will be collecting your nobel this year for your revolutionary work in abiogenesis or you are another moron.

I wonder which one it is?

>>11105420
Their technology is efficient so their heat/light/radio emissions are too low to detect at a distance.

>>11105940
1) Every life form we know of expands indefinitely given the opportunity
2) Speculating on the psychology of aliens is utterly fucking useless
3) Speculating on possible similarities of intelligent life is utterly fucking useless
4) The universe is already quite old with respect to the development of life as we know it
5) It only takes one
6) There is some evidence to suggest that biogenesis and entropy are linked causally.

Its truly shocking that people as outright stupid as you exist.

>>11106079
Christ you are absolutely brain dead
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_pressure

>>11105940

>Bro shit won't expand exponentially. Sources? No, I don't need any.

Have a look at any fucking graph. GDP, population, steel production, papers published. Everything is going up very quickly.

So what if some social values incentivise lower population growth? They'll be outcompeted by the people who breed fast. And besides, immortality is within reach.

>>11106441
This is the obvious solution. Imagine having a computer-detector that expects the heat and energy signature of Eniac when the thing it's looking for is an iphone.

>>11106472
>immortality is within reach.
we can't even figure out how to grow hair on a patch of skin that's supposed to have hair because so huuurd but yeah immortality is just round the corner

>>11106451
Evolutionary pressure selects for traits that are good for spreading the relevant genes in the ancestral environment they were selected for. What evolution however is not is any kind of long-term plan. Evolution for example couldn't plan for contraception in advance. Our desires are not optimized for space colonization. It could be that all the desires that evolution has given us could be better satisfied in virtual environments, for example.

>>11106524

In cosmic terms, immortality is just around the corner. We discovered DNA 80 years ago. Cells were only discovered a few hundred years ago.

Do you really think someone from 1919 could have predicted what we can do today? How about 919?

If not, then why place upper bounds on what we can do 100 or a 1000 years hence?

>>11106472
>figure out science and economics
>population explodes
ok, so what? The question is are we set up to utilize this to create space empires. We already know FTL is not possible for example, and I, and many many people suspect we are at the limit of physics. Of course I could be wrong, People thought that in the past etc etc. But not even einstiens theory produced anything but negative results for our civilization development. Why should a Higher theory give us that?

>GDP, population, steel production, papers published. Everything is going up very quickly.
Papers are irrelevant to civilization, growth, society unless they are directly related to things like infrastructure and economic development at this point. Steel production dosen't mean anything. high GDP just means world-society as a whole is getting richer. The most highly developed countries, on the contrary, are getting more socialist and are growing extremely slowly or even declining.They should be expanding way faster then they are if we seriously want galactic empires.

>So what if some social values incentivise lower population growth? They'll be outcompeted by the people who breed fast. And besides, immortality is within reach.
this entire phrase is retarded. Why should we believe africans wont go full socialist if they ever become as developed as europe, The europeans did it. Africa is barley out of the primitive stage now and half of them are already socialist. Immortality will never be in reach. How can you not see you are engaging in retarded picture-think religion?Literal hopeful faith is deluding you

>>11106434
got my laugh of the day, thank you kind stranger

>>11106549
We only conceptualized empirical science in the 17th century. Its no surprise that this stuff was discovered a few hundred years ago. There is no other option.

>Do you really think someone from 1919 could have predicted what we can do today? 919?
Yes, everything you are saying, immortality,flying cars, space empires, etc was all predicted in the past for the same reason you are predicting it now: they thought it was some magic system that just churns out better and better technology. The only intellectual knowledge of 919 was inductive, ie mathematical and theological. The human mind was not able to conceive the word in empirical intellectual manner.

>If not, then why place upper bounds on what we can do 100 or a 1000 years hence?
because if you understand what science is, you see its limits and understand what is tries to do.

>>11105420
http://www.unz.com/akarlin/katechon/

>>11105420
If our capabilities of making cat girls in laboratories is real, then the answer to:
"where is everybody?" is simple.

-Awaiting to be created-

>>11105420
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.

>>11105420
>>11106627
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.

>>11105420
>>11106631
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.

>>11105420
>>11106633
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.

>>11106582
>>11106562

It IS a magic system that churns out better and better technology. We just have to be patient.

We're closing in on GAI, fusion and nanomolecular engineering. Designer babies only await political approval, they're well within our technical capabilities. Any of these breakthroughs accelerates everything else. More energy, more resources, more brainpower is going to become available very soon.

>Hurr, people predicted things in the past and were wrong until they were right.

This doesn't matter. Take a longer view of time. Look at the past before you bemoan the fact that things haven't happened yet.

It's impossibly shortsighted to complain that space colonization and immortality are impossible just because they haven't happened yet. If they said it would happen by 2000 in the 70's and it didn't, that means it'll never happen at all!

>>11105420
1. Simple, it doesn't exist, therefore it doesn't exist.
2. It's younger than us
3. Just as old, and can't even get to other planets like us
4. They blew themselves up or smashed themselves into submission because leftism. Or
5. It doesn't exist
6. This is based on them existing. Wich they don't

>>11105905
Nice jet exhaust. The video is called 'gimbal' for a reason.

>>11106472
>scientists constantly going on about how all this is utterly unsustainable
Yep, looks like population massively overshooting carrying capacity. If only I remembered what comes after such an event..

>>11106985

please go back to /pol/

>>11107118

>The population will never go above 1 billion
>We can't possibly fit 3 billion on the planet!
>6 billion is pushing it!

World population is 7.7 billion.

Carrying capacity is another word for genocide. If you genuinely believe in the concept, then you also have to endorse mass extermination more radical than anything we've ever seen before.

>>11105420
>be quite older than modern civlization and thus much more advanced and had a lot of time to expand (Human civ is recent, it's much more likely that other civs are millions of years older than us than be close to our own)
There is literally no proof for this. The whole "paradox" can be explained by us being the one of the older civilizations.

>>11105420
This thread is really making the rounds, innit?
Anyways...

Eternal Inflation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation
It posits that the inflationary epoch never ended and there's an either practically or literally infinite number of "bubble universes" which are constantly and exponentially forming by the "inflationary field" which normally has an extremely high rest value, randomly falling into a lower, truer rest value.
Due to the exponential nature of the formation of new bubbles, the vast majority of bubbles are new, and the vast majority of civilizations are the first to form in their bubble.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJCX2NlhdTc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chsLw2siRW0&
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XglOw2_lozc&

>>11105420
>>11105428

Haven't read the thread but the solution seems pretty simple to me: interstellar travel just isn't practical. Even if you accelerated to near light speed, which would take an absurd amount of energy, it would still take a very long time to get to even the closest stars. The Fermi paradox exists because it's factoring in the entire goddamn universe (and/or the galaxy). If we shrunk the search range down to everything within 1,000 lightyears of Sol, it starts to seem a lot less like a paradox.

>>11107300
Unlike mouth breathers, I don't talk about shit I don't understand, thus, I won't comment on the physics stuff. The population part is absolutely retarded though, it implies that human population increase an exact mathematic formula and ignores all other factors, such as wars, diseases, the prevalence of death all around before the development of modern medicine, the tendency of humans into organizing into nations and the inability of such nations provide enough food, shelter and monetary support for people to reproduce without worry, the recent proved tendency of developed societies to experience a decrease in populational growth...etc.
I'm pretty sure someone more experienced than me in the field of natural sciences can explain the fallacies on the physics side of the argument.

>>11105420
>Fermi Paradox

>>11105420
>no alien
>alien but no here
>alien here but no see
very stimulating topic

>>11107213
>Carrying capacity is another word for genocide
No it isn't. It's a physical/ecological limit (which isn't static and can change through things like better agricultural technology). Pointing out physical limits isn't the endorsement of anything.


>The population will never go above 1 billion
>We can't possibly fit 3 billion on the planet!
>6 billion is pushing it
Who are you quoting here? Are you saying that we're not currently on an unsustainable path?

>>11105420
Here's a fact I believe to be important: Life exists in one of two states. Intelligent or unintelligent.
There are millions of unintelligent species on earth, but only one developing intelligent species.

Unintelligent life won't give any signal that they exist, perhaps stuff like oxygen/co2, but most of them may live under the surface of the planet even.

Intelligent life develops exponentially. This is the incredibly brief period of time we are currently in. A theory of everything is probably old news for intelligent aliens.

What this means is that they don't use stuff like radio waves to communicate over long distances. And they have no reason of contacting us. You can be sure they are observing us and waiting for us to become intelligent.
We can only speculate about the true nature of the universe and life in it. The fact is that we are babies who are trying to understand but we don't know anything yet.

>>11107428
>Pointing out physical limits isn't the endorsement of anything.

There are no known physical limits.

>>11105420
THERE IS NO FERMI PARADOX BECAUSE WE KNOW 0 OF THE VALUES IN THE DRAKE EQUATION.
SO FUCK OFF AND DELETE THE THREAD.

>>11105461

Is there anything in our current knowledge of material physics that suggests that self replicating probes will ever be at all viable?

These things would have to be able to travel, mine, process and manufacturer themselves with no explination of how they even find required materials and also need to be able to deal with a huge array of conditions and atmospheres.
Then you have to ask why the fuck anyone would pollute a galaxy with something that has no clear goal.

>>11105420
We have no means of detecting them yet. It's that simple.

>>11107301

This is my belief too. Its cleary the most likely with current knowledge but I feel like it's the solution that nobody wants to be true and hence gets little support.

>>11107507
>with current knowledge
What you fail to include in your reasoning is how sparse our current knowledge is.
I used to think like you too, but I've realized it's incredibly naive.

>>11105420
>Fermi Paradox
Pop-sci horse shit based on a serious logic flaw and lack of simple things like, "space is fuck huge" and "inverse square law is a fucking bitch."

>>11105420
They got Sulva'd and Abolished themselves.
Whatever planet they're on, they've become so warped that what was left of them couldn't be said to be a species that valued life.

>>11107330
We're in condition four:
No alien but see alien.

God is good at jokes

I don’t think it is a paradox, it’s just anthropocentricism to assume that other complex life will take a form recognizable to our myopic civilizational pretensions.

Life is probably ubiquitous, it just doesn’t give a fuck about the things we do.

>>11107317
Another answer is that it's not even internally consistent. A constant exponential growth from 12 people 4500 years ago to 7 billion now would mean that the world population follows
pop = 12*exp((time from 4500 yrs ago)*0.004485393)

Supposedly Moses lived around 1600BC to 1200BC according to wikipedia estimates. To be generous lets say 1200BC or 1300 years from the flood, which is 4500 yrs ago. There are 4000 people around in the entire world according to this population model. How many Jews escaped Egypt? 600,000 men with additional comparable number of women and children, according to the bible.

>>11106472
>8 billion
somebody needs to spray baygon

>>11106549
Project Manhattan was only about a century ago.

I feel we haven't gone much further on a logarithmic scale since then. The best minds of our generation are wageslaving for Google optimizing neural nets for raising the ads revenue by 0.1%

>>11107213
>Carrying capacity is another word for genocide.
More like a warning for it. It's not far fetched to think X approaching 100 billion and every north american city looking like Delhi may trigger a genocide.

Civilization is just something weird that humans do and isn't actually a natural state or common evolutionary development at all. Life is common, perhaps intelligence is common, but organized planet spanning technological civilizations are an oddity.

>>11107486
>There are no known physical limits.
Your comment has passed the physical limit of a brainlet to capture it's retardation

>>11107300
Checked

>>11109535
Cringe

>>11105420
I honestly believe ayys are filtering out solar system. Jamming us if you will.

>>11105420
my solution to the fermi paradox is reminding people that the paradox only exists because of unfounded assumptions and wishful thinking not matching observable reality

Pic related is certainly one of the solutions to the paradox.

Another solution is that alien life is everywhere around us and we see it all the time (UFOs, etc), but they do not bother to talk to us in general because it would be like us trying to communicate with bacteria by voice.

>>11110694

the universe/god 'understands' that life is a problem and could potentially violate causality or mess with entropy if it becomes advanced enough.

so it added in a fail safe, an antibody for the rare disease known as 'intelligence'.
something that would eventually lead to the destruction of any civilization that discovered it.... and that is uranium.

>>11110694
this scenario called Dark Forest was explored in a novel series by Liu Cixin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three-Body_Problem_(novel)

>>11110694
>im not going to talk about ideas, im going to talk about reality
>talks about achieving 30% of light speed and antimatter fuel systems
lol stopped reading there

>>11106074
>We don't see anyone else because they don't exist.
yes, that’s the other prong of the paradox: we know of no reason why intelligent life should be rare, for a cosmic-scale definition of ‘rare’.

Is there any refutation to the idea that civilizations could use only partial Dyson Swarms and only during a transition period to using Kugelblitz black holes instead as energy source, and that these would be essentially undetectable to us? That would undermine the argument that we're probably alone because we can't detect any megastructures.
https://youtu.be/jW55cViXu6s?t=377

>>11107129
No.

The aliens are too busy calling each other faggot on their version of the internet.

>>11105420

Humanity is like that angry drunk guy who lives down the block, and everybody ignores him because he's known to pick fights.
we all live around him, but just don't show ourselves to him.

>>11105420
>assume retards can travel between stars
Huh? What if interstellar travel is difficult?

>>>/pol/
what is the paradox? does not that imply a question? there is no solution if there is no question.

>>11111990
>we know of no reason why intelligent life should be rare

We know of no reason why it shouldn't. We literally have a sample size of one.

>>11105420
life is so rare that we are the only intelligent lifeform in the milky way.
galaxys have habitable zone. solar systems have habitable zones. planets have habitable zones. if the sun is too big or small, no long term life possible.
and lots of other things too. earth is one of the very few planets in our galaxy life can exist on. but one big asteroid hit and it's over.
the possibility that life exist on a planet is really small. the possibility that life exists on a planet for a few million years is even smaller.
we are alone, or we are the very first intelligent lifeforms in the milky way. deal with it.

>>11112470
>what is the paradox?

The paradox is that given what we know about how quickly life developed on Earth, and what we know about how life inevitably expands, and how habitable the universe is, it seems as though any life form much older then use would have visited every planet in the galaxy by now. So their existence ought to be obvious.

Some people look at human behavior and fear that intelligence ultimately destroys itself. Nuclear war, climate change, mind control, grey goo?

> My hopeful solution:
Expansion into space never happens because there is a better option for expansion. What that may be I can only guess. Moving into alternative universes perhaps?

The above is my idea. I post it not because I believe it, but because it is something that I've never heard anyone else say. I fear the doomsday scenarios are just as likely.

>>11113976
I think you guys are gonna be surprised.

The amount of cases where people have seen flying craft with capabilities beyond ours, or even beyond our understanding of what's physically possible is seriously large and has been going on for a long time. This has been reported by militaries in many countries. There are even videos that are probably genuine.

It can't really be explained any other way than that it's aliens.

>>11113991
>Expansion into space never happens because there is a better option for expansion. What that may be I can only guess. Moving into alternative universes perhaps?

Nirvana

>>11105420
It's sad that something so retarded has Fermi's name associated with it. We have no idea about how common intelligent life is in the universe. Hell, we don't even know how life began on our own fucking planet (inb4 memiogenesis).

>>11113991
>>11112470
how quickly life developed is statistically irrelevant if you only have one example of life developing

we don't know how likely life is to start and given our current knowledge it's perfectly plausible that it only started once in the entire universe

there is no paradox unless the paradox is what you want to call the mismatch between wishful thinking and observable reality

>>11114001
scientifycally proof for your claim?

>>11114178
It's even worse than just having a sample size of one. The one sample we have is tainted by anthropic factors, it has to have taken place for us to even make the observation.

There's literally nothing we can conclude about the likelihood of abiogenesis by observing our own existence.

>>11105420
>>Fermi Paradox has no solution

>That's just what they want you to believe man!
>They're controlling our thoughts, and they're in our minds!!
>I'm not crazy for believing this! They just want you to think I'm nuts man!

Seriously tho, I know how crazy that sounds, but it is technically the ONLY answer to the fermi paradox that exists at this time. Even if it is text book crazy as it's the ONLY answer doesn't that demand some exploration? Testing? Fact finding?
The fact that nobody takes this possible solution seriously only gives credit and serves as evidence that mind control/manipulative aliens exist and are here on Earth. In fact scientists are actively discouraged from persuading this line of thinking or risk being ostracized. If that's not a text book conditioned/brainwashed fear/fight or flight response then I don't know what is.

>>11105420
Evolvability of phenos responsible for intricate brain structures is too low to outpace metabolic costs of the lifestyle shifts those species cause, comorbid maladaptive behavioral patterns begin to constrain bootstrapping w/environmental supremacy that high intelligence acquires so that available resources are perpetually wasted on obsolete behavioral sinks. reproductive rate plummets as the structure of the increasingly eusocial organisms social environment begins to exert strong bottom up disincentivizing forces on the most intelligent subpopulations driving them into decline and trapping overpopulated less competent hordes inside of unsustainable heat engines with declining access to surface level energy resources. Probably some variation of this plays out everywhere.

>>11114962
not really, obviously it is possible since it happened at least once, so the possibility of it happening more than once is distinctly there

>>11114971
what solution are you even talking about

that there is no solution? of course there is, every paradox has a solution, that's inherent to the definition of a paradox

>>11114985
You purposely use so many big words it just makes me think you're trolling

>>11114997
>what solution are you even talking about
The solution is that mind control aliens actually exist, and humans are already a slave race. They use their mind control to make people forget their encounters, and use social engineering to control us and prevent scientists from researching the possibility that aliens exist.

I'm not saying it's true btw. That would be crazy. Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary proof. I'm saying is it's technically a valid answer that's yet to be disproven and I'm also asking is why nobody in the scientific community even mentions it as a valid answer to Fermi's paradox? and pointing out that the "answer as to why" also serves as a valid proof to support the claim which only increases the need to examine/investigate this possibility.

>>11115023
>mind control
oh, that one belongs in the unfalsifiable bin next to the religion morons and simulationist morons

>>11115026
>unfalsifiable
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

>>11115029
yes, however it is evidence of completely pointless theories and arguments

>>11115030
There's no evidence because nobody has bothered looking. Nobody bothers looking because there's no evidence. Breaking this circular logic loop brands you as insane. Seriously?!?

Nice circular logic you got there. Topped off with a fucking bow even.

>>11115040
no, there's no evidence because evidence can't be found by the central premise itself

the circular loop is inherent in unfalsifiable theories - there is no evidence because our memories are erased to make it so

I find it very hard to believe that there are many civilizations comparable to ours and all of them somehow fail to expand to the stars. This is why I think the great filter is already behind us - either abiogenesis, jump from prokaryotes to eukaryotes or the evolution of intelligence.

>>11105420
Well, why would any civilization want to waste money and resources venturing out into interstellar or even intergalactic space? Surely there is enough free real estate within their own star system sufficient to supply their civilization with energy and resources for an indefinite amount of time.

Too many people apply science woo-wooism to advanced civilizations. I could realistically see a civilization harnessing solar energy and staying within the boundaries of their system. On the extreme end, it might make sense for a mass exodus if their system is scarce in resources (albeit unlikely), or if their host star poses an immediate threat.

Anything past that is Sci-Fi bias and conjecture.

>>11115136
>I find it very hard to believe that there are many civilizations comparable to ours and all of them somehow fail to expand to the stars. This is why I think the great filter is already behind us - either abiogenesis, jump from prokaryotes to eukaryotes or the evolution of intelligence.

Have we searched hard enough to conclude the latter really? The observable universe is really big, you know.

>>11114994
Ok then, so it tells us the likelihood is non-zero. That still leaves an infinite range of probability.

>>11115204
well no, the range isn't exactly infinite, it goes from infinitesimal and all the way up to... one