Why haven't we discovered any traces of intelligent life yet? The universe is billions of years old has trillions of stars with quadrillions of planets. Finding life in the universe should be like finding life in the ocean. You shouldn't even need to look for it, it should be right there. The universe should be filled with intelligent radio signals or advanced civilizations manipulating stars or large artificial structures like Dyson Spheres or have ANY sign that there is something intelligent out there. But there isn't a single thing. Why?
My guess is that civilized, industrialized, evolved species burn out with the span of a few centuries. Nuclear war, resource depletion, ect. They burn bright like a spark and die out quick like a spark.
Given the geological age of the universe, it'd be like winning the lottery to find another intelligent alien race.
Also, the gold standard for detecting alien civilizations is RADIO broadcasts. Why the fuck would advanced aliens still use plaintext, uncompressed radio signals?
We are one star in hundreds of billions.
We have only had the tech to listen to radio signals barely more than a century.
We have only put radio dishes up to point at the sky less than a century ago.
Either the pings hit us at a time where we were unable to recieve them, we misinterpreted them, or they just haven't gotten to us yet.
Keep in mind that the nearest star is also a bit more than 4 light years away.
there's also a language barrier, even in the way our computers would interpret the signals.
We're just not there yet, we could even be the first. It may take beyond the remainder of your lifetime, but just give it time.
It's not that advanced aliens would still use it but there should just be so many aliens that use it or have used it in the past and the universe should be filled with those signals. A planet that's a million light years away from here will be able to pick up Earth's intelligent radio signals a hundred million years from now even if we stopped using them by then or ceased to exist.
No, not really. Radiowave propagation 101, Hitler zeig-heiling on TV everywhere only reached 0.3 AU, nowhere near where aliens would receive it.
Only powerful, narrow-focused radio waves aimed at a SPECIFIC target would propagate through interstellar medium. The whole point of SETI is that some other world full of nerds like us is out there shooting radio waves at stars hoping somebody is listening.
Maybe aliens don't use radio for communication, they are not aiming at us with radiowaves, they are not trying to recieve radio signals. Maybe they are and it's an incomprehensible compression and it just receives like static to us.
SETI and all these other attempts are retarded. Advanced aliens are not fucking on their HAM radios trying to talk to our backwoods, way-too-bright freakish star on single-channel plain text.
yeah i dont think you understand the actual scope of the universe
the universe isn't just the small specks of matter, it's the spaces inbetween things
just like an atom is 99.999+% free space, so is the universe
What does that have to do with anything?
Intelligent should be as easily detectable as an electron in an atom. It doesn't matter that the atom is 99% empty space, the electrons are easily detactable and traceable simply because of their properties. Same with intelligent life. The marks it would leave on the universe should be unmissable
Assuming there is intelligent life out there somewhere, do you think they get all obsessed with finding other life or is it like you say, just a passing phase on their way to wiping themselves out?
I think a REALLY intelligent life form wouldn't even try to make first contact, that would just be fucking dangerous IMO. Potential of Borg general. I mean look at us, we would pump some lead right through an alien noodle at first sign of trouble.
>Only powerful, narrow-focused radio waves aimed at a SPECIFIC target would propagate through interstellar medium. The whole point of SETI is that some other world full of nerds like us is out there shooting radio waves at stars hoping somebody is listening.
And the shitty thing is, even if it's aimed like a billionth of a millionth of a second away from us, because of the distances involved, we can still easily not get it by millions of miles.
>Finding life in the universe should be like finding life in the ocean. You shouldn't even need to look for it, it should be right there.
>Intelligent should be as easily detectable as an electron in an atom.
Scale. It's like we're one of those electrons, and we're wondering if other electrons in other atoms exist. Do you realize how damned big the universe is? For fucks sake, the Earth is a speck when compared to its own solar system, I think the sun is 97% of the mass, Jupiter is like 2%, and then the rest is everything else. If you take a step back in terms of your point of view, you'll realize how small we really are. And that means that the odds of us intercepting another civilization's signals are tiny, and vice verse
Yeah, my personal theory is that industrial, technological societies are fragile and very, very short-lived.
Could be a worldout there where sentient aliens dwelled for 7 billion years and they long ago fissioned every atomic isotope, burned every bit of hydrocarbon eons ago and they lack the energy to do anything beyond a sustainable agriculture-based civilization. So even if they did manage to avoid everything that could have wiped them out entirely, they do not have the means to be relevant outside of their atmosphere. Maybe they also periodically reach Malthusian crisises, wipe themselves down to a handful of survivors and it takes another 5000 year cycle to even start to recover.
When you think about it, it'd be amazing if humanity is around still surviving and fucking around in space in another 1000 years, and that's nothing on a geological or cosmic timescale.
You fail to understand a major factor.
Light's speed and wavelength do not scale proportional to distance. It takes an electron nearly an instant to be detected. It takes the sun 8 minutes to be detected. It takes some super intelligent society on the other end of the universe billions of years to be detected. Even if they do exist, humankind will likely pop up and die out way before any signals are halfway here, and that's if they were going to hit Earth anyway; a planet that's moving around its orbit around a star that's moving around its orbit in a galaxy that's moving around Space.
A good marksman can hit a slowly moving target from like a kilometer away. It's nearly impossible to pinpoint targets moving thousands of miles an hour from billions of lightyears away.
We actully have found messages but the goverment.doesnt want you to know
>Why haven't we discovered any traces of intelligent life yet?
Because we haven't discovered time travel, and all the other alien civilizations are using FTL travel. They literally exist in physically separate tracts of history *because* they found us at a point in our early history at which time their arrival caused a divergence in natural history. Using FTL to contact other civilizations creates a time paradox because we're traveling in time as well as space rather than just traveling in space. General relativity 101 here.
Yeah that's an interesting concept. Like even if we did locate the source of some "intelligent" transmissions coming from planet x 100 million light years off, say take 1000 years to organize a trip there through some miracle, another 100 million years to get there by some other miracle, it would be a miracle for that life to still be around. Then again crocodiles have been around for about 100 million years. For sure geological time is a problem and it all looks to be a waste of time and energy even looking for it. I mean, I think looking out at the universe with Hubble is great, but SETI is on par with any other new age religion, not really based in reality.
At this juncture, say some "intelligent" transmissions were received, most would probably immediately start to worship the source as some sort of God like entity, might even start new age doomsday cults. Humans are still pretty low on the "intelligent life form" scale IMO.
Conciousness beyond a certain level is self-destructive, therefore any species that reaches human levels of conciousness or higher either accidentally or voluntarily goes extinct or stays just below the intelligence threshold needed to explore space.
Even among our species you can see how unintelligent, uncivilised and uneducated people breed the most. The higher your level of (self-)awareness, the less likely you are to reproduce.
High intelligence is selected against.
Yes, but strictly non-parallel if they arrive too soon in our history.
Precisely so. Space travel is a one-way thing no matter how you go about it.
You can slow and degrade the temporal regression asymptotically, but the acausal effects will always be there in the gravity waves the device emanates.
Most? We have threads like that on /x/ regularly. There's not a trace of cult formation about it. We know well that aliens aren't gods.
>Conciousness beyond a certain level is self-destructive
Do you have a source on that? Don't bother to link it to me because I don't trust current cognitive practices to study cognition itself, but do you actually have a source on that or did you pull it out of your ass?
> Don't bother to link it to me because I don't trust
The defense rests.
Radio signals decay faster than the cocksucking rate of ur mum
The universe can only be filled with background noise.
Also, 80% of earth-like planets are yet to be born.
This is not out of question that we are the precursors ( at least in this galaxy ).
Don't worry, there's going to be a lot of space rape yet.
We just have to find out which role we are going to assume, rapist or rapee ( both are fine in my book ).
It's merely speculation of course. It can't really be more than that since we ourselves are the first and only species on our level of intelligence that we've observed.
But the idea is that beyond a certain level of conciousness/awareness/intelligence you start to run into 'malfunctions' that people with a lower levels of those qualities do not, at which point intelligence turns into a maladaptive trait.
I feel that it is more important for us to find and for there to be in first place habitable planets.
With a real atmosphere and a proper magnetic field not like mars.. all fucked up with holes 'n shit.
A planet with organic life would mean winning lottery.
Why look for them? We don't even have any known way of traversing through the warp yet
I'll weigh in on this - higher intelligence in humans is strongly correlated with psychological disorders of virtually every kind and generally with worse mental stability overall.
That said, we can't draw any conclusions about the nature of intelligence itself; at this point our brains are the evolutionarliy hypertrophied equivalent of a narwhal's horn or a peacock's feather display. I tend to hold the opinion that we're pushing the boundaries of our basic biological constraints (in the bilateral symmetry, bipedal design we have at least), which is why especially highly intelligent humans have a lot of cognitive problems. Too complex of gene expression, too much energy usage in a small complex area (leading to wear and tear), too narrow of hips to bear children with bigger heads to alleviate some of this, etc.
I DON'T think those problems are related to higher intelligence itself, just it's expression in human primates which are just not ideally suited to carrying intelligence above a certain level. Other, much different body layouts may be better suited and if, say, octopi had moved onto land and occupied the niche we do instead of primates they may have been able to evolve to be more intelligent before hitting the soft ceiling we're up against now.
tl;dr, there is every indication that human issues with high intelligence are due to:
-the fact that our intelligence is embodied in a less than ideal human form
-isolation, as those who are highly intelligent are still social creatures, but have fewer peers to socialize with
>I'll weigh in on this - higher intelligence in humans is strongly correlated with psychological disorders of virtually every kind and generally with worse mental stability overall.
Most studies show that the more intelligent one is, the less likely one is to suffer from mental disorders (ranging from depression to schizophrenia).
Good points to be honest.
It's hard to speculate about non-human intelligence since it's so utterly alien to us, but I still suspect that intelligence in general might lead to a level of awareness that sabotages motivation, in the sense that intelligence does not only lead to problems with living but also to the notion that life itself is inherently problematic and futile to a degree that it might not be worth continuing. Awareness is generally disruptive, I think.
That could very well be an unwarranted assumption, but at the same time the notion that any intelligent species would share the human desire to 'conquer space' is also unwarranted. Maybe those alien smart cunts are smart in a way that leads them to take it easy and don't fuck with the program and the reason we haven't met any is simply because they lack the desire to go meet species from other planets.
news to me, but let me see if I can get a study to back this up though - don't want to be one of those nonsourcing shitters.
not a study, but cites several fairly well selected ones, sums up my points:
The Finnish study they link to is particularly good:
And for good measure here is another about creativity and mental illness, so as to include that kind of 'soft' intelligence, not just IQ or numerical ability like Tiihonen et al.
I'm not saying there aren't some good studies that indicate the opposite, but there is hard evidence for what I'm saying.
Where are your citations on these 'studies' though, while we're playing this game?
Can't argue with your philosophical arguments, it is definitely conceviable that intelligence/ennui have some kind of relation that prevents high intelligence the same way the square cubed law prevents skyscrapers sized whales.
I'd argue that curiosity is associated with intelligence in general (not just high intelligence) and that plus competition would be likely to drive any species outwards, but that is total unsourced speculation on my part.
sorry for the pithy response by the way, no offence meant and I'd love to hear your thoughts on the topic, this board doesn't have enough good discussion but fermi paradox threads always seem to do well
The universe is so large and stars within galaxies so well seperated that radio becomes meaningless noise after only a few light years.
Also - what people should really keep in mind more - science fiction does not equal science prediction. Many of its technologies and ideas are simple fantasy and wishful thinking. There very well may not be a workable way to travel faster than light, or climb the Kardashev scale beyond 1.x, with economics and game theory breaking the neck of whatever workable idea remains.
It simply does not matter if a civilization could get together and build an interstellar spacecraft if they pooled all their planets resources, finances and work over many years. Not only is there no payoff for the investment (the beneficiary is the abstract "humanity" and the generations down the line that arrive at your destination), but there'd be better uses for the money at every single step along the way. So not only is the technological feasibility doubtful, but the practicability as well. The universe is probably littered with civilizations that simply have no means to reach beyond their star for good.
Because space is huge, OP.
>asks for citation
>claims opposing opinion is true without citation
Plus the fact that we are basicly in the galactic equivalent of the Boons. There are not many stars near us as other parts of the galaxy.
Now taking into account the Fremi Paradox and say there are maybe a dozen space fairing civilization in the galaxy which had billions of stars and perhaps millions of planets that have earth like conditions, and that we have only been transmitting radio into the galaxy since the 30s, and the fact they probably don't use such "primitive" means anymore and yeah.
Unless they are actively looking for us they're no seeing us, plus why be interested in a race that will likely burn out like so many others before it.
It seems a little shortsighted to say there is no incentive - at this point, yes, but there is no practical bar to us spreading within this solar system, and the vast resources available in the rest of the system are already some kind of incentive. At the point when we are multi-planetary, the barrier to entry for constructing even a generation starship is much lower (even assuming relatively feasible seeming tech like ramscoops that could accelerate something a significant percentage of C).
Obviously this assumes we go interplanetary, but that is not even close to impossible, maybe even only fairly improbable at this point, given how the private space race is heating up.
Yes there will always be something better to spend the money and resources on, but we haven't even started to tap the amount of usable matter in the system, or the amount of energy we could even without outlandish dyson sphere/zero point energy nonsense.
The reason why you don't see life anywhere else is that it's 99.9% microbial and as such is totally undetectable over interstellar distances. We can't even tell if Mars has subarean microbes, and it's the closest planet to us.
Intelligent life itself may be frequent enough, say, 1000 civilizations like ours over the extent of the galaxy's habitable zone... but the average separation is many lightyears for such a number. Detection is iffy at best, and there won't be travel between them. The trip simply takes too much time. About the only spaceship which would work, is biospheric, meaning we might as well just stay on Earth and travel the galaxy at 225 km/sec.
>Plus the fact that we are basicly in the galactic equivalent of the Boons. There are not many stars near us as other parts of the galaxy.
Clearly you don't understand. These "boons" are stable zones where biospheric development can take place without much interstellar disruptions, as one star passes close by another and throws comets inward from the Oort Cloud interactions.
I always find the "they just don't want to" or "they just don't use that" arguments extremely stupid. The argument of the Fermi Paradox is that there should be so much intelligent life in the universe that those who "just don't want to" don't matter. You'd have to come up with an argument that prevents any intelligent, including humans, to ever colonize the entire milky way. Which is actually something that can be done even considering supposedly unbreakable limits like light speed within a couple of million years. So if there's intelligent life that's billions of years old they should be everywhere. And going even further even more advanced civilizations of other galaxied that are much older than the milky way should be able to colonize the entire observable universe and further beyond.
Anything you can imagine humans doing should have been done by some other intelligent life
We can't even find intelligent life on this board!
Ever heard the analogy "finding a needle in a hay stack?"
Well try finding the needle I dropped somewhere on this planet. Or maybe the moon.
>tfw i always wanted to be the best at something
>i wanted to be the best in the class
>i wanted to be the best in the town
>then started going to national olympiads and get medals
>then went abroad to study
>then went to a top 10 worldwide university for my master's
but no matter how good i am, our planet is even smaller than my classroom when it comes to the whole universe.
i'll never be able to compete with and beat the real intellectual elite ;_;
Aliens do not exist. They are a push to further disway people from knowing the creator and unite people under a luciferian doctrine.
Rule of thumb is that if hollywood and mainstream tv is pushing aliens then its an agenda.
UFOs do exist but they are corporate black projects that the majority of the military is unaware of, even to the united states, because it can be a risk factor to be reverse engineered by any power nation or the materials are very very dangerous for commercialization. UFO sighting are usually test runs performed and sometimes the pilot assigned, who probably picked the winning number that day, will show off its functions to whoever happened to see it that day. Mainstream news pushes it as aliens or implies it to be aliens to fit an agenda.
SEE THE BLACK MANTA OR TB-3 FOR MORE DETAILS.
Yes you have, it's called humans.
The very concept of the existence of humans is simplythe proof that biological creatures can evolve and build a civilization when the planet have the right conditions.
indeed. since its proven that alien life can exist, and did exist once already, you can't say that "other alien lives don't exist" you can only say that you've never seen another alien life before.
there's an unknown probability *everything* exists, thus according to your philosophy, you can't say *anything* doesn't exist. this is defensible, but it is at least in some ways incompatible with casual discussions, beliefs and opinions, which are perhaps the basis of a public forum
Humans have been sending signals for one hundred years now. Let's assume that aliens have some kind of all knowing technology. They would had detected the waves already with their advanced technology. They haven't. The likely probability is that advanced aliens don't exist!
this is what i mean by becoming the same philosophical question as believing a god exists.
you have the words "can", "possibly", "probability" ect.
You have people willing to believe that aliens do or can exist but there is no evidence and only assumptions based on assumptions based on theory.
The evidence for a creator is easier to find ironically from science discoveries and contradictions of explanations of the origins of the universe and life. The only problem is that most people automatically tie "creator" with "bible" or "islam" much like how americans tie "Hispanic" with "brown people" or "mexicans". This is actually more evidence of mainstream media and PR honing in on programming though patterns of a majority.
the argument becomes a fight with willful ignorance of evidence and observation, which some people live day to day.
No one has see a creator but there is evidence that things work under rules and direction.
No one has seen aliens but there is assumption that they exist based on theoretical cosmology that changes every now and then.
You know. You actually can't prove Aliens exist. The claim "Aliens don't exist" is just as valid as the claim "Aliens do exist". Nobody is right until we find proof or counterproof for aliens to exist.
It's just gonna be hard to find definitive counterproof that aliens don't exist. One way would be to colonize the entire observable universe.
Though with every planet we discover that doesn't contain aliens the probability of aliens not existing rises so you might argue that way that "aliens don't exist with a probability approximating 100%"
aliens do not exist. my reasoning is that the push in mainstream media means that there is an agenda at hand to sway public opinion. 20 years ago ancient aliens on the history channel would have been laughed at and cancelled.
>Why haven't we discovered any traces of intelligent life yet?
I know, right? I searched the entire thread. Not a single trace of intelligent life.
Not that you can expect much of 4chan, though.
except this logic doesn't work because Ants can very well detect beings of similar intelligence by detecting pheromons or hormons of other insects. So it's actually just further proof that it's weird we aren't detecting anything, because like how ants aren't the only insects on earth we shouldn't be the only, I don't have a word for it but I'd say, "human level intelligence or beyond" beings in the galaxy
Language barriers can be surmounted by the broadcaster if that is the broadcaster's intention.
One special thing about sound is that no interpretation is required to convert it to and from radio signals, and since sound works as a sense in any environment with a medium other than vacuum, it'll be very common throughout the universe.
This can be used to deliver language samples.
Beeps, meanwhile, could be reserved to represent numbers, with one beep meaning one and a hundred beeps meaning a hundred.
Then, parts of language could be communitcated by mixing these numbers with language samples.
>"BEEP plus BEEP equals BEEP BEEP"
This could possibly be given a few interpretations, so just keep throwing more additions at them: The more the better, especially if it takes them a while to actually start recording your broadcast.
Then, include multiplications as well, then they'll be sure what is meant by "equals".
"Equals" is a very useful word to have taught to the recipient of your broadcast.
Using things like "2+4 or 2x3 = 6", you can also communicate the concept of "or". More maths can eventually communicate any logic operators you want.
Then, you can do things like "*1 beeps* multiplied by second equals *1 second beep*, and continue on from there to make sure they understand that a second has a value of time rather than a number.
You can then run through the emission lines of various elements, giving the names of them and then their emission frequencies as tones accompanied with the wavelengths of those frequencies as "wavelength equals ___ multiplied by metre".
You can make the word "galaxy" by first saying "star equals hydrogen multiplied by 1392 million metre (they won't know that you mean diameter till you give size of milky way)" and then saying "galaxy equals star multiplied by (milky way diameter)".
Once you can say "distance from centre of galaxy", that can be used to pinpoint the origin of your broadcast.
This comic really irks me from a design standpoint. The way the last four panels build up to... a stupid cartoon little shark just kind of squirting in from the left instead of anything actually threatening or ominous totally kills the point that Randall "Why Won't Megan Let Me Finger Her" Munro is trying to make
>You now realise for another civilization to have industrial capabilities such as humans developed during the industrial revolution they would need access to oil
>You know realise how unlikely that is
>You now realise far off worlds could perpetually be stuck in the middle ages
The fact there's multiple species of insects on a planet isn't proof that there should be multiple instances of intelligence in a galaxy, that's a shit tier analogy and based on nothing but what you "feel" like should be right.
In the galaxy, maybe. It doesn't really matter outside of that because intergalactic travel isn't something even a highly intelligent species would pursue, in my opinion. One galaxy has enough stars and resources to occupy a species for billions of years. Also, interstellar travel with speeds under c are still somewhat practical with advanced enough technology, but intergalactic travel would pretty much necessitate FTL speeds
>why haven't humans done things we think aliens have
Because we're a hundred thousand year old species that is at the beginning of their technological evolution? Two generations ago we didn't even have colored TV. Four generations ago not even electricity
Even if they are in the milky way, the chances of them coming in the last ten thousand years compared to any time else in the other 4 billion, is incredibly small. And if they had come earlier and decided to stay and colonize, humans would have never evolved they way we did and wouldn't be sitting here to consider the problem in the first place. After all, unless humans die out it's unlikely any other animal species will reach intelligence because our presence will hamper that progression. So it stands to reason that for intelligent life such as ours to develop, it must be left undisturbed during its development. Humans built their technological world from the ground up that is specifically tailored to our nature and existence, which is why even though we've invented language and government and what not, we can't just "share" this easily to other species because it doesn't work like that.
We've been around just too short of a time, and given the scale of the galaxy alone (if the solar system were the size of a quarter, the galaxy is the size of the continental United States), we can't really assume aliens would be here already. Give it another few billion years and I'll start to get suspicious
You're ignoring the billions of years before humans and that's it for you. Yeah if aliens colonized this planet at any point before humans we wouldn't exist. But this doesn't answer the question. Why DO we exist? Why isn't this some planet colonized by some other intergalactic intellligent life form?
Maybe the Zoo theory is actually the most plausible one
Why would intelligent life hamper evolution of other intelligent beings? In fact wouldn't the existence of one intelligent species be beneficial to the development of more intelligent species since a lot of animals learn by watching other animals? Dogs are just one species that our selective breeding made more and more intelligent over time. Some Elephants and Gorillas also have abnormal intelligence compared to their peers thanks to learning things from humans.
I don't think that if humans died out there would be no intellgent species ever emerging from earth again. There's no reason why that should be the case
I'm not saying that if humans died out there would be no intelligent species that would emerge in time, in fact I think there would be. But we methodically developed our technology/culture over thousands of years with the Earth at our disposal, and this is a unique advantage that no other species will be able to obtain, unless we die out and the Earth returns to its natural state. Our presence has changed the natural evolution of life irrevocably, it's hard to predict what kind of effect this has on a species' ability to develop intelligence. And that's even being able to identify intelligence at all in other animals. We're the only example we have to go off of.
>aliens don't exist, but god does.
This is a joke right?
Interesting. I mean lower ballpark than the Zoo theory because it would be much more cost efficient and would take a lot less time to just build the stuff yourself, but we might as well be lab rats and they wanna see how far we can go
Yeah I misread your comment. But even so, on what do you base the claim that intelligent life can't develop parallel to human intelligence? In fact it would be much easier to develop intelligence with humans around since intelligence is a trait we actually breed for and are fascinated about. We'd probably love some intelligent animal that can use human technology and speak the human language.
Now I'm not saying dogs are gonna start talking soon, but Earth is 4 billion years old and we're the first intelligent species on earth that is a couple of thousand years old. Just because there is no parallel intelligence to use doesn't mean it can't develop, because I'd rather say it's the other way round. Intelligence is something that will just spread.
>just convert every message to binary
Easy to detect as intelligent, impossible to decode.
Also, the point of origin of the signal might not be easily detectable; even if they're able to locate it to within a square arcsecond of the sky, that's still possibly thousands of stars within that patch.
I never understood the Fermi Paradox. Everything in the universe is the same age, correct? So why couldn't there be civilizations just like us, who are at the same stage of technology as us? I think it's a bit odd to assume that alien races would evolve faster than us. Consider that life is most likely to form on Earth-like planets. This means that anything that forms on these earth-like planets would be similar to earth's lifeforms since they follow the same path.