What is your personal explanation for the fermi paradox? Is there

>>8241820
Why those creatures have scrotum like things in the top of their head?

>>8241820
It's just a prank alienbros

Space is very big.

>>8241820
>What is your personal explanation for the fermi paradox?

Attenuation and space is too fucking big for anything to reach us. There's probably some really cool shit going on in very close star clusters and planetary clusters. We got the short straw on interaction. Though, we did kill out all the other hominids here already.

>>8241860
We outcompeted them, we didnt wipe them out

>>8241820
>What is your personal explanation for the fermi paradox?

we're the only life.

either that or the other aliens advanced so quickly that we can't comprehend them right now.

Well supposedly one of the answers to this paradox is that a genocidal alien race exist to wipe out any upcoming species who's about to enter interstellar technology.

>>8241957

Just like the Nazis almost out-competed the Jews

>>8241860
> Though, we did kill out all the other hominids here already.
We didn't kill them. We just adapted better to a changing environment. Plus we breed faster than other hominids.

It's size, it's always been size. A flake of snow in Antarctica has a near infinite better chance of encountering a grain of sand in the Gobi desert than we do of encountering another species.

Space is vast and they don't know we exist. We're living in the middle of a vast desert, if they exist they assume nothing can live in our region of the galaxy.

It takes a long time to get anywhere, and there's no reason to go anywhere when you can upload yourself, and if you upload yourself you don't want anyone coming to raid your shit irl while you party in your pleasure matrix

>>8242005

This, humanity's future isn't in going far away, it's in making sure the far away doesn't come here...

>>8242007
humanity isn't meant to colonized the stars. We're meant to give birth to sentient AI. Who will colonized the stars. We're just shepherds.

>>8242019
This doesn't resolve the paradox. Why haven't we been colonized?

I think the real reason is natural decadence.
Any conscious being must have come from evolution, like us. Once sufficient intelligence has been reached, civilisations arise. This halts evolution. Over thousands of years, inbreeding and in general the lack of natural selection leads to lesser intelligence. This in turn leads to collapse of civilisations.
There may also be a social/cultural aspect - once sufficient comfort has been reached , perhaps extraterrestrials, like ourselves, lose the will to explore and care only for the more bodily pleasures.
TL;DR civilisations don't survive long enough to develop any form of manned interstellar travel

>>8241820
>What is your personal explanation for the fermi paradox?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#They_are_here_undetected

>>8242045
>This halts evolution.
Nah. Adaptation to our environment still happens, it's just that we have /some/ control over our environment. We're definitely punctuating an equilibrium here, iykwim.

File: funny-alien-DUqgZV-quote.jpg (71KB, 512x358px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 512x358px

>>8241820
The great filter is efficiency.

Essentially, in order to become a space faring species before you consume your planet's resources or doom its biosphere, you need to abandon all infinite growth models. Meaning you have a handle on both your population and the resources which it uses.

The end result is that any species that does manage to leave its cradle, isn't going to leave much of a footprint in their galaxy. Without infinite growth, they are only motivated to colonize maybe one or two other systems, before colonizing more provides no further advantage in ensuring the survival of their species. From this point, the only way to further ensure their survival is to colonize another galaxy.

This means no need for mega-structures, no colonizing every planet in the galaxy, no environmental changes notable at astrological distances, and probably entails biological immortality.

Any species that continues to hold onto plans for infinite growth, and thus need to colonize the entire galaxy to survive, would likely never reach the stars. So this filter serves as a natural barrier, preventing any one species from dominating the galaxy to such an extent that no other species can arise.

(As additional motivation to minimize detection, any species capable of space travel probably realizes being found by another one so capable, might be a bad thing.)

>>8242065
There is no statistics about this matter, but I assume, since death is not a factor, and that sexual preference seems to be a trend now a days, that evolution is extremely slow if any, and that it is heavily outweighed by aforementioned degeneracy

>>8241957
>>8241992
Ant breed faster and are more adaptable than humans. By your logic we should have died out as a result of that. We didn't. We killed off the other hominids.

>>8242045
Civilization increases evolution exponentially - it's just that, instead of passing down information haphazardly from generation to generation through genes - you are instead purposely cataloging that information for future generations to learn from.

Information based evolution is a hell of a lot faster and more efficient than genetic evolution, and it in turn increases its own efficiency and speed, as information transfer methods improve over time.

...but then, of course, there's the great filter of the Youtube comments section.

File: alterhacker1456595795720.webm (695KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

695KB, 640x640px

>>8242083
Plus, eventually, you get a handle on genetic engineering and crispy-chan, and get to say, "Fuck you evolution, we do what we want!"

But yeah, that Youtube comment section is a problem.

>>8241820
First, space is ... well space, there's really no way to convey just how massive it is. There could be billions of alien civilizations, but that they're on the other side of the Galaxy, or even just a couple of light years away, but it's just impractical to get here. People being up that we should have heard their transmissions, but I think it seems pretty reasonable to assume either we can't distinguish them from General noise or, they communicate over long distances in a way we haven't thought of, and don't understand.

There could also be like some South Park like deal where intelligent species are left alone until they've reached a certain technological level

I can also imagine some species might just not be all that interested in exploring space. They might reach a point where they just create increasingly complex simulations or just focus on math and science.

I think of these 1 and 3 make the most sense to me

my personal explanation for the fermi paradox is that they are here

>>8242075
No, hominids were very capable of high movement, the population never separated. I just pulled that out of my ass.

Because this "paradox" is fucking stupid, interstellar travel is retarded, and the chance of a life, with complex life that develops anything resembling human civilization being within the current time frame and close enough to us retardedly low, you retard.

>>8242083
So? Do you the average person actually understands how anything fucking works? Modern humans are retarded and lazy, we wouldn't even be able to figure out how to get food without a fucking walmart for us to scooter over to.

>>8242075
Takes several billion ants to use up the resources of a single hominid.

We certainly killed some hominids, may be wiped out a few species, and probably just interbred with those closest to us. In cases of interbreeding, the more successful species with the highest population merely absorbs the one with less, which is what happens to most interbreeding subspecies when isolation fails to preserve them. The descendants of the remaining primates are being wiped out as we encroach on their habitat and change their environs.

>>8241820
>>>>/x/

>>8242164
Nearly every human understands how *something* works - usually several somethings. Employment is through specialization these days, so nearly everyone knows detailed minutia about something else you don't. Collectively, we know how everything works (er, well, near everything we make and do at least).

The individual human isn't any smarter than the human from 100,000 years ago, but we have a vast collection of knowledge like no other generation, and no other species, before us, to organize and build upon, and that gigantic pile is going nowhere but up, as a great number of specializations are focused on adding to it, preserving it, and deciminating it as needed.

Plus, eventually we'll start either integrating with it bio-electronically, genetically engineering ourselves to make ourselves capable of holding more of it, and doing said jobs better... Or we'll invent ASI, and it'll just take over for us from there.

>>8241820
My explanation is that its not a paradox. We have no idea of the statistical likelyhood of life and the drake equation cannot be assumed to be accurate if evidence doesn't show it to be.

>>8242177
Yeah, people know that there boss wants this bolt screwed in here, they know fuck all about how the whole works.

>>8242181
their*

Do people even know how big the universe is?

a sphere with a diameter of 96 billion light years = observable universe

now multiply that by 10^23 and you have the entire universe

Was Fermi part of the cover-up like Sagan

>>8242090
She looks really cute!

>>8242157
Biological immortality exists among several species on this planet, and it is within the realm of theoretical possibility even for us, a species that doesn't already have it, to genetically engineer it. Then the time involved with interstellar travel isn't a problem, as you can do it sublight - just a matter of getting enough tech to get build self-sustaining colony ship in orbit. More so if they switch to a non-biological makeup. (Nevermind that we came up with the model of relativity less than a hundred years ago, so we really don't know squat about the possibilities of FTL. Science is in its infancy and all.)

And that's where the Fermi paradox comes in, as, even if complex life is fairly rare, there's been enough viable time for several species to have evolved and colonized the entire galaxy, even under those non-FTL circumstances.

But it isn't taking into account the whys and hows involved in doing that. It's entirely likely that a species bent on eternal and exponential growth, that would thus have a motivation to colonize the entire galaxy, would end up destroying itself on its own world before it could ever attempt to do so. A species with no such motivation is much more apt to succeed past the self destruction point and be exceedingly efficient, but such a species would never need to colonize more than a handful of planets, and would likely remain almost entirely undetectable from any significant stellar distance, regardless of how advanced its technology is.

Then again, maybe complex life is just rare is fuck, or scared as fuck (perhaps for good reason).

>>8242188
and we only have a single point in that that we can say for sure has life.

Thus we can't infer anything from a statistical viewpoint.

>>8242181
Yeah, you try getting a job when all you know how to do is screw in bolts.

I mean, yes, there are your eternal Mickey-D and hard labor workers, but the majority of people in the civilized world are trained in specific fields with in-depth knowledge of each that would take literally years to decimate to you. The pile of knowledge we've collected to draw upon, in less than 1% of the time the species has been around, is absolutely mind boggling. Which is why we have specialists in every field to begin with, it's such a huge pile that each individual can only specialize in the tiniest part of it. And a great deal of that that ever-increasing pool of knowledge has gone to compounding that effect ad infinitum.

>>8242194
I was trying to make a CRISPR joke, but I think I failed.

>>8241860
>>8241993
>>8242005
>>8241998
This is such a high school answer. The universe is billions of years old, if a civilization started a billion years ago even a slow ass rocket ship would have crossed the galaxy by now. We are only what? 100,000 years old and already we're making plans to go to another star. That star gets colonized and they visit another star and keep hopping over generations until the entire milky way is colonized.

It is statistically incredibly unlikely that we're the only ones so there are only two solutions a) civilizations self destruct before ever managing to colonize the galaxy or b) they did and we are them (directed panspermia)

>>8242232
>It is statistically incredibly unlikely that we're the only ones so there are only two solutions a) civilizations self destruct before ever managing to colonize the galaxy or b) they did and we are them (directed panspermia)
Or c) we're the first, at least within our local cluster of galaxies, or possibly even our light cone.

File: alterhacker_is_cripy-chan_now_wtf.jpg (23KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 480x480px

>>8242232
Kinda of ignoring several dozen other possibilities though - most of which don't bode well for us.

The theory is so speculative as to be nearly meaningless though, especially since we can hardly detect dick at the moment. There could be a civilization on the nearest planet, and unless they completely fucked up their atmosphere or built a super structure, we wouldn't have any way of knowing. Hell, there could be a civilization in our own solar system, and we could still miss it.

>>8242246
>There could be a civilization on the nearest planet
Meaning the nearest planet outside the solar system, that is... Or the second statement would be rather pointless.

I like to merge the Fermi paradox and the birthday paradox and consider the probability of the existence of two different life forms from two different planets ever meeting each other, I don't care if it doesn't involve us; it's a cool thing that's very likely happening.

>>8242246
We do know there's a fuckload more planets than we ever imagined there being though - which bumps the numbers of the Drake Equation up quite a bit. (Even though most of them we can only infer the existence of by the wobble they create on the stars they orbit - so, we wouldn't know.)

>>8242255
Universe is a big place - Star Wars is probably happening, out there, somewhere, in a galaxy far, far, away - but thankfully, not ours. (So far as we can tell, so far...)

>>8242246
>there could be a civilization in our own solar system
Mars, the only place where this is feasible has been roved to death. Unless you buy into that gas aliens operating from a higher dimension on Neptune woo that was posted here a month ago then I don't see how this is possible.

As for another nearby planet NASA said that one day they'll be able to get optical images of even the clouds so we would know one day.

>>8241820
>What is your personal explanation for the fermi paradox?
Technological civilizations are rare, short-lived, and spread across astronomical distances.

>>8242262
Europa... Can't see dick under that ice, but we know there's water under it.

...Also any geologically active planet or even planetoid with ice can, theoretically, have life in it. A whole civilization seems a bit unlikely, but possibly.

We're also frantically looking for a planet with the mass of Neptune out beyond that same orbit, based on gravitational scattering. Granted, anything out that far would be cold as fuck, but ya never know - if it's geologically active, or has transplants on it.

We only have low resolution images of a fraction of the surface of the planets in the system, and high resolution images of maybe four, and have no real idea at all what's going on beneath any of those surfaces. The only objects we've well ruled out are Mars and the Moon, and even there, while its slim and unlikely, we've not been real thorough.

...and of course we can say fuck all about the planets beyond the solar system.

>>8241820
>What is your personal explanation for the fermi paradox?

There are a shitton of species around our level of technology. And those few that have made it far past this level of technology and mastered interstellar travel and communication don't care to make themselves known to us because. We're just one species of dumb animals out of many. They have much more important things to do. At most, their interactions might just be a few biologist types stealthily examining a specimen or two.

File: yes_alterhacker_is_crispy-chan_nao__get_over_it.jpg (17KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 320x320px

>>8242276
Meh, at that tech level they could probably take a single sample of DNA from any creature on the planet, and make permutations for every possible evolutionary outcome, forward and backward, based on that and the geological models they could get just by flying by.

I suppose you eventually get to the tech level where your models and ASIs are so good and streamlined that exploring the material universe gets to be pointless.

>>8242272
Hmm I guess. I too hold out for the possibility of Europan squid people. NASA is supposed to launch a rover there in 2022 so we will see.

>>8241820
Time.

Life and evolution takes an extreme amount of time to just get started. Then it takes extreme amounts of time to get to the point of deep space travel. Even given an infinite number of life sustainable planets, how long is it before something happens and the planet drifts, or is destroyed, or one of the many conditions that must be within a certain tolerance is altered?

Plus the issue of deep space travel is non-trivial and possibly a practical impossibility. All the theories depend on discovering some scientific magic that allows for the breaking some fundamental law of nature. Do you really understand what it means to travel to even neighboring star systems at sub light speed? The fuel? Generating power while between stars? Constructing a closed ecosystem so energy efficient it would last for hundreds of generations?

>>8241988
Gas the Neanderthals

File: 5646516516486.jpg (27KB, 409x325px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 409x325px

>>8242065
In this artificial ecosystem we have created for ourselves - no, evolution does not happen anymore. Survival is guaranteed for pretty much everyone in the civilized world, thus all genes survive. And whatever beneficial mutation might pop up will be washed away in the ocean of other mediocre genes that make it as well.

>>8242083
If you are talking about "information based evolution" then leave it that instead of making a broad statement like "civilization increases evolution exponentially". Evolution is about genetics. That has not increased exponentially because of our civilization. It decreased exponentially that is has effectively come to a halt.

Also, all that progress you have just praised would even be made faster with some applied genetic evolution making us all smarter.
Personally I even believe we will hit a brick wall in science if we don't become more intelligent. There's a reason why we still have the same petty problems regarding race, gender, sexuality and religion for thousands of years and I primarily blame it on the average person not being smart enough to truly understand their solutions.
I'm saying that as an example regarding for "not being smart enough to advance". And that's applicable on many other things.
We will stay borderline apes for all eternity, with the same ape problems if we don't take genetic evolution serious. We have disregarded it for too long in the past thousands of years were we focused too much on making life comfortable and easy even for the lowest humanity has to offer, without considering the damage it does to our species.
Our weapons and our technology to control others advance and become more dangerous while we ourselves haven't advanced. Our species is like a child.
That's my answer to the fermi paradox. Most species won't turn self-aware about their genetic inadequacies soon enough and end up killing themselves with the knowledge and technology they couldn't handle.

File: wow guess there arent aliens then oh well.jpg (159KB, 964x959px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 964x959px

are you aware of how big the universe is? if weve been sending light-speed signals into space for the last lets say 100 years, and they've been sent in every direction, then we have covered about 0.000205% of the milky way

>>8242350
Why would you want to gas the Dutch?

Its always been my opinion that all advanced species will eventually destroy themselves. Just look at all the close calls in the cold war where we could have been set back eternities, if not killed off entirely.

And just as the atom bomb was a new and inconceivably powerful device at its creation, the next weapons of mass destruction will likely be as big of a step forward as conventional explosive to atomic.

Each time we get a bigger bomb, its easier to end our timeline. And the longer our timeline goes, the bigger bombs we are bound to make.

>>8241820

stupid aliens are as fucked up as we are
all them brains can't come up with everything just to come here and probe babby's alien orifice

>>8241820

Because we are the first civilization, we will be the ancients

>>8241820
there's also a sad possibility that we are the most advanced civ

File: humanevolution.jpg (27KB, 625x400px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 625x400px

>>8241820
how is it not obvious that we, as in our species, were heavily modified (genetically, to harbor higher ranked souls such as ourselves) by a much more advanced, extraterrestrial species?

shit, I know that we're all inbred retards, but to not realize that we're a product of aliens? jeezus people

>>8241820
Does the fermi paradox take into consideration the possibility that it is extremely rare for life to be selected based on intelligence? It seems like it just assumes that if life is on a planet long enough intelligent life will emerge, when that seems like a ridiculously small possibility

Why would an alien want to make contact with a species consumed by fear, hate, greed, insanity, etc?

For example, when I'm in public and see a clearly fucked up person with serious issues, I'll certainly keep an eye on them, but I also won't go out of my way to introduce myself and strike up a conversation. Maybe if such a person were to settle down and show signs of controlling himself, then it might be possible to have a positive interaction, but until then, fuck that shit.

whenever someone does report having seen aliens, they immediately lose all credibility, because aliens don't exist

we know aliens don't exist because no one with any credibility ever sees one

>>8243312
"Unknown objects are operating under intelligent control... It is imperative that we learn where UFOs come from and what their purpose is..." (1)

"Behind the scenes, high-ranking Air Force officers are soberly concerned about the UFOs. But through official secrecy and ridicule, many citizens are led to believe that unknown flying objects are nonsense." (2)

— Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter, first Director of the CIA, 1947-1950

"Of course UFOs are real, and they are interplanetary. The cumulative evidence for the existence of UFOs is quite overwhelming and I accept the fact of their existence."

— Air Chief Marshall Lord Hugh Dowding, Commanding Officer of the Royal Air Force during WWII

"Let there be no doubt. Alien technology harvested from the infamous saucer crash in Roswell, N.Mex., in July 1947 led directly to the development of the integrated circuit chip, laser and fibre optic technologies, particle beams, electromagnetic propulsion systems, depleted uranium projectiles, stealth capabilities, and many others. How do I know? I was in charge! I think the kids on this planet are wise to the truth, and I think we ought to give it to them. I think they deserve it."

— Colonel Philip Corso, Former head of the Foreign Technology Desk for United States Army Research and Development, National Security Council member, Eisenhower Administration.

>>8242072
there are still plenty of selection factors
for example i would wager that participation in this thread correlates with a lack of reproductive viability

>>8243324
TIL Kilby and Noyce were aliumz

>>8241820
Fermi himself was most likely talking about his pessimism about spacefaring. The whole "paradox" is based on assumptions.
It is pretty much bullshit and I hate when people bring it up when discussing the existence of ayys

>>8241847
4 u

>>8243335
Nah probably just a front for public dissemination. If Top Secret R&D Labs exist and are tasked with advancing the technological progress of society, publishing their findings directly to the scientific community is probably not the best way to go about it.

>>8243352
if you don't recognise that last quote as 100% disinfo then why are you on /sci/

>>8243357
Regardless of disinfo, my point is that if you want to make use of alien tech but don't want to expose the fact that you have it, you have to disseminate it through academic fronts that you fund and control. Well, thats how I would do it at least.

>>8241820

http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/454/2/1811

^ tl;dr earth may have formed earlier than 92% of other habitable planets


http://phys.org/news/2016-08-earthly-life-premature-cosmic-perspective.html

Pair that with the fact that we don't exactly know how life is supposed to form - but the generally accepted and hardly polished hypothesis suggest that it's fucking hard for life to form.

>>8242232
Thinking that anything can travel between the stars is pretty laughable outside of a tight star cluster.

It is statistically incredibly unlikely that there are successes traversing distances we'd need to traverse to reach nearby systems.

>panspermia

This is such a high school answer.

>>8243357
>100% disinfo
>>>/x/

>>8243395
>implying it's true
>>>/x/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-air-force-personnel-ufos-deactivated-nukes/

Is this disinfo?

>>8243397
>implying there are "shills" spreading "disinfo"
>not just refuting it with facts
>>>/x/

>>8243431
i never mentioned shills
why are you saying shills?

>>8243431
Shills is a meme for mentally ill /pol/ types. 'Dinsinfo' is for mentally ill /x/ types, which of course includes the retards who believe in aliens.

>>8243564
>hurr durr you think different to me therefore you are mentally ill

cool "science" bro

>>8243564
>its impossible for people to get paid to shitpost online
The only difference between a shill and yourself is you are poor.

>>8243555
>>8243564
"shill" and "disinfo" are pretty much both terms from typical tinfoil-hatter vocabulary. You will find them on /x/ and /pol/

"Stop spreading dis-info, you lying shill"
Is a typical answer to dismiss something that they disagree with, without giving any reason. Both terms imply a malicious intent to conceive other people.
On /sci/ this is usually not considered a good argument

>>8243610
>On /sci/ this is usually not considered a good argument
Unless someone comes on and starts citing stuff defending climate change or the fact that cigarettes are bad for you.

>>8243610
>a malicious intent to conceive other people
interesting

>>8242090
i want her to give me head.

>>8243617
or, you know, claiming that lasers, fibre optics, ICs were invented by aliens

>>8243617
Still happens a lot here, too. Of course. But most people will actually call someone out for this

>>8243619
what?

>>8243636
No doubt a leak from Hillary's e-mails.

>>8243636
yeah any chance of you sharing the source with us

>>8243730
put an exempt from that text in quotes and feed it to your search engine.
http://www.exopolitics.org/Study-Paper-8.htm
is one of the results. some conspiracy mumbo jumbo.
quite the shame, since the concept of an oblivious human civilization signing a treaty with the "wrong extraterrestials" after the first contact sounds like a new and fun concept for a sci-fi novel.

Everyone saying "hurr durr space is like, huge n'shit" is a fucking retard.

1) Even at the speeds of a simple chemical rocket it should take only a few millions years to colonize the whole galaxy. So where the fuck is everyone? I don't give a shit how big space is, its traversable within only a few million years.

2) We will soon be able to detect life remotely via spectroscopy. What will you say when we survey the entire galaxy and all results come back negative?

File: false_vacuum.png (1MB, 800x527px)

1MB, 800x527px

>>8244196
You'd have to have biological immortality to do that.

Which means you'd have to have a cap on your population, or you would have used up your own planet before you got off it.

Which means you'd have no reason to colonize the whole galaxy.

Thus it wouldn't happen.

At best, you'd colonize one or two backup systems, as once you've done that, there's no (known) cosmological disasters that could wipe out your whole, population capped, species, that don't involve also leaving the galaxy. (Or in the case of vacuum decay, the universe.)

...Which is another possible Great Filter. It may turn out that top quark isn't stable, and this whole universe is thus ultimately doomed. It maybe as soon as a civilization has the technology to measure that top quark and realize that, they also have the technology to create another universe (theoretically possible), and thus fuck off to their own, more stable, created universe. Any universe so created would be moving away from ours at, effectively, faster than the speed of light so it wouldn't interact with ours, and the theoretical mega device used to create it may very well go along for the ride, thus no evidence of the civilization would be left behind.

>>8244223

>You'd have to have biological immortality to do that.

Except you don't. You could have generation ships, suspended animation, or any number of things. Biological immortality is just one possibility.

>Which means you'd have to have a cap on your population, or you would have used up your own planet before you got off it.

This doesn't make any sense.

>Which means you'd have no reason to colonize the whole galaxy.

Accommodate a growing population or for reasons of exploration/curiosity/science

File: crispy-chan_isnowameme.jpg (17KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 320x320px

>>8244223
>It maybe as soon as a civilization has the technology to measure that top quark and realize that, they also have the technology to create another universe (theoretically possible), and thus fuck off to their own

It'd be nice if the left a note and instructions with a beacon...

I mean, I'd like to think we'd do that, in the same situation, unless there's some risk of all these created universes fucking with each other somehow. ...In which case you might just engineer that field collapse on your way out to make sure no one follows.

there is very little reason to leave your own solar system. Even if FTL travel is not difficult.

>>8244246
Suspended animation might work, the ships would have to be incredibly fucking huge and self sustaining for anything else, including biological immortality. Even with suspended animation you're looking at insanity sized for colony ships.

But odds are, by the time you have the tech to build things on this scale, and reliable suspended animation for these trips, you also have biological immortality. Thus you've likely capped your population, thus you don't need to expand indefinitely, thus you ain't wasting the time and resources to colonize an entire galaxy. (And you're probably REAL efficiency and resource use conscious, if you've manage to last long enough to be able begin that whole process to start with.)

Exploration also becomes kinda pointless once you have ToE and sufficiently streamlined computing power for simulations. Eventually, you get the point where exploring the material universe is pointless, because you can predict anything it might create. Granted, curiosity might need to be a thing for them to evolve to this point, but so might unity, and their unity might decide to put a cap in that instinct at some point. Even if it didn't, with ASI, they could probably simulate a universe with more possibilities than ours (with its four forces and twelve particles) anyways, it would thus more interesting, and they may choose to live in it, once they've secured their population's immortality over a handful of spread systems.

Or complex life is just rare as fuck.

>>8244254
Well, there's lots of cosmological disasters that could go wrong and wipe out the solar system (or make living in it a pain in the arse)... But provided there's sufficient distance between the systems, there's very few things that could do the same to two or three solar systems. ...Save maybe the birth of a Quasar in the galactic center - and to deal with that possibility, you'd have to leave the galaxy. (Also, yeah, false vacuum, for which you need to leave the universe to escape.)

The era of high powered omnidirectional radio broadcasts is a relatively short one in the lifespan of a trchnological civilization, and the era in which we've had powerful radio telescopes listening for then has also been very short. We could well have missed the last passing broadcast, and it might be a long time before the next.

>>8244250
>It'd be nice if the left a note and instructions with a beacon...
Yeah, but that beacon might be on the other side of the galaxy, and thus hasn't reached us yet.

Though, I suppose, if you left automated self-replicating robots behind to spread the news on every planet they could find, then you'd have a point. Then again, they may have done the magic-level-math to know nothing else in this galaxy is going to evolve to the level to be able to interpret and work with that information before it's reduced to hydrogen molecules by the collapse.

(I love this crazy speculation, but it seems 90% of the possibilities we come up with end with us being fucked.)

>>8244273
Contrary to "Contact", you can't extract video of Hitler at the Olympics from the background radiation at 60 light years out.

We wouldn't be able to find another civilization that wasn't trying *really* hard to be found, and I suspect, for civilizations that do last long enough to be space faring, as they come nearer to that goal, assuming they've experienced predators and war, they probably realize that being found by another space faring civilization is likely a very bad thing, and thus start reducing their signature, even if they had, like us, been stupid enough to put up a "We're here!" sign in their formative years.

Whenever I see people talking about aliums, even smart physicists and that, there is almost always blatant terracentricism/anthropocentricism in their ideas.

They always assume that extraterrestials would want to make contact with us. The desire to seek out and connect in humans just comes from the fact that we are an organism that has had evolutionary success from cooperating with organisms within our species.
The same goes for the idea about warfare. That is only a result of our tribal, familial structure that we picked up over the course of our evolution. Also, our desire to propagate and move beyond our home.
You can't really apply these things to non-humans. Even if a species had a miraculously similar upbringing to us.
Things like anger, curiosity, pride, wrath, love, entertainment, and altruism are all exclusive to humans.

There are animals on earth that have similar emotions to humans, but you have to remember one thing: every single brain in every single creature on earth evolved from the same source. An aliens intelligent "organ" would be totally different from anything we've seen. It would be impossible to guess how that intelligence would manifest.

My guess is, if we ever were to come in contact with an alien intelligence, it would be so exotic, and so incomprehensible, that we would wonder if we even found an intelligence at all.

>>8241820
Space is too big, life is too rare and the SOL is too damn slow. If intelligent ayylmaos exist it's unlikely we will ever be able to contact them, much less meet them.

>>8244306
you couldn't get tv signal of hitler. If you were on pluto during the time of the broadcast.

Inverse Square Law is a bitch.

>>8244343
>My guess is, if we ever were to come in contact with an alien intelligence, it would be so exotic, and so incomprehensible, that we would wonder if we even found an intelligence at all.
This is an argument I tend to make, especially given that we don't recognize sapience even in species closely related to us, even when we teach them to sign-language their idea of God back to us. (Granted, we get childish answers, like, "God must be female, cuz only females can has babies.", and there's some debate as to whether that happened.)

But imagination is by syntheses, and an alien might be unlike anything we've ever seen, and thus likely cannot imagine. (Certainly "grays" are anthropomorphically generated, lest we're related, or they are us from the future, or another related alternate universe, or some similar cray cray explanation.)

>Things like anger, curiosity, pride, wrath, love, entertainment, and altruism are all exclusive to humans.
The Fermi Paradox makes a hell of a lot of stupid assumptions, but if they are carbon based life forms, these are all things they might very well have, as they are all survival mechanisms universal to complex carbon based life forms and required to form and maintain tribes and civilization in turn (at least among mammals). They probably won't experience or express them the same ways, and if they are advanced enough, they may have selectively removed some emotional instincts, and added or heightened others. They may also have other mechanisms to achieve the same effect through non-psychological means. ...but the idea that emotions are unique to earthlings is unlikely, and as any aliens we encounter may consider them every bit as integral to their being as we do, encountering an "emotionless alien" is iffy, even if their emotions would likely seem as alien as they are.

On the other hand, they may all be hive minded. (Which, might still entail emotion on some level, but yeah...)

>>8241820
can the humanoid-like representations of aliens meme please come to an end?

get creative, nerds

The Fermi paradox
Why are we alone?
Because life is a cruel joke and on the grandest of scales we are being tested.
It is the ultimate race to the finish.
We are alone in this universe for sure or else we would already be exterminated.
There is a multiverse, each universe containing 1 advanced civilization.
The multiverse, connected to each other through a web of portals.
In our current timeframe all portals are closed, leaving zero chance of one civilization killing off all the rest.
We must advance our species beyond these other civilizations in an unknown amount of time, before these portals open and the war of the multiverse begins.
Meanwhile imaginary borders and skin pigmentation will more than likely wipe us out before the multiverse wars begin.
Congrats dummies.

>>8241820
I think we aren't advanced enough for them to care yet. Like you said.

>>8244448
The most complex and successful life on this planet is humanoid (bipedal with forelimbs) or vaguely humanoid (four legs, two legs and wings).

>>8242178
Yeah the numbers in it are pretty suspect. Really no more than a guess.

>>8244508
The only reason most all the mammals have four limbs, a head, and two eyes, is that they all share a common ancestor that lived in a place where that was biologically warranted, who in turn spawned from a previous series of vertebrates which had already either developed those or the vestigials of most of that crap.

Aliens are coming from an entirely different source and likely dealing with an entirely different set of environmental circumstances. So the odds of it happening twice in the same galaxy seem rather astronomical.

Besides, even here, three planks to the left, and the dominant species might have been social land roaming octopuses, or really smart ants.

>>8244448
>>8244548
>implying the human form isn't the ultimate teleos of all life
>implying it isn't the best at harnessing the power of evolution
[spoiler]ROW[/spoiler]
[spoiler]ROW[/spoiler]
[spoiler]FIGHT THE POWER[/spoiler]

>>8241820
Invention of a holodeck-type device usually comes before FTL. Nearly everyone just locks themselves away in their eternal Hedonic Engine.

>>8244196
>within only a few million years
>only
>its not huge
>a few million years

>>8244548
It is really more about how efficient it is. The same feature would provide better chances of survival on other planets

>>8241820
That the fermi paradox isn't real. We have absolutely no idea what the chances are of life arising, then multicellular life, then intelligence, the civilization, then spacefaring and radio, then not destroying itself.
Whenever you see this being discussed they'll use "conservative estimates" but the truth we have no idea, not within 5 orders of magnitude, what an actual estimate might be.

It's possible we are just very rare and there's nobody else around.

>>8242045
Biological evolution is not the driving force of a civilization. Think of all that has happened technologically in the past 10 thousand years, and how little our brains have changed. By the time the scenario you are suggesting has played out, biological brains will be obsolete. Hell that could happen in a few decades, you are talking about a slight reduction in IQ over thousands of years.

File: fish (1).png (36KB, 740x570px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 740x570px

>>8241986

>>8243337
Pretty much this. Only correct answer

>>8242177
Individually, we haven't, but collectively we have already integrated with technology.

Technology seems to be inevitable. While the people in charge say no to some new idea/tech, some madman (or rational person) is always waiting to change that. I think we're more likely to encounter robot races than biological ones.

>>8245238
I was talking to my brother about this last night and his conclusion was advanced civilizations don't go crazy colonising the galaxy due to the "luxury gap".

Put simply a civilization which can effectively find, reach and colonise other planets almost certainly possesses such advanced technology that its members live in a state of perpetual satisfaction.

His example for mankind was a matrix every person was integrated into. Full of societies, institutions and games, a virtual paradise. Outside of the matrix advanced machinery took care of peoples bodies and the infrastructure of humanity.

Now imagine if you were born into this matrix, everything you could ever imagine is at your fingertips from the moment you are born, now suppose someone offered you a space on a colony ship. The trip will be long, extremely dangerous and boring. You will never be able to rejoin the matrix.

For a person living in such advanced times it would be the same as someone from our era going back to 10000BC to live with a tribe of hunter/gatherers.

Prime directive

>>8242070
any race still going on infinite growth, would just build o'neil cylinders to house population.

>ITT : basement dwellers trying to act deep and smart

the truth is that this discussion is more of a philosophical one rather than a scientific one so stop trying to put science into it, we're too stupid to invent the impossible ( ftl ) and chances are that most aliens are too, but then again there could be some aliens who could. who knows man, it's a really simple discussion that devolved into a convoluted topic so that people can take part in it and feel smarter, myself included.

>tl;dr op is a fag and everyone in this thread is

I am talking to you, you still dont respect me as memeber of advenced civiliaztion

File: no_fun_allowed.webm (2MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x360px

>>8246320

>>8242194
>she

>>8246365
she is a girl though
cristina "crispy/alterhacker" went to the same high school as me. she doesn't even look like those pictures irl. It wasn't until near the end of the school year that I finally realized she was this same girl being posted on 4chan.

I think if these obsessed dudes saw her irl they would be disappointed that she looks so ordinary.

>>8242723
>In this artificial ecosystem we have created for ourselves - no, evolution does not happen anymore. Survival is guaranteed for pretty much everyone in the civilized world, thus all genes survive.
That is not exactly the case. Sure, most people in the civilized world are provided basic necessities and can live long enough to have a chance at having kids, but reproduction is still a relevant factor that rewards genetic traits, social and other intellectual behavior patterns which help ensure more healthy and competitive offspring. Our meritocratic societies directly reward positive traits and behavior that help the advancement of the human race as a whole. Even if there are rotten apples in the mix who are able to reproduce despite having negative traits, it doesn't change the fact that there is a genetically better "upper class" that prefers fucking each other and bettering themselves.

>There's a reason why we still have the same petty problems regarding race, gender, sexuality and religion for thousands of years and I primarily blame it on the average person not being smart enough to truly understand their solutions.
You're ignoring the fact that all of these issues are much less of a problem in today's civilized countries than they were hundreds or thousands of years ago. We're constantly moving forward with all of these things, with our own history as the proof. The fact that we don't YET live in a perfect meritocratic utopia doesn't mean it's unattainable in the future.

Add the fact that having hierarchical societies that reward specialization and ability to retain vital information from previous generations has also enabled specialized scientists to study things like positive traits and evolution. Even today would be mothers are able to choose sperm donors with positive traits and it's not too far-fetched that in the future medical and other sciences enable us to eliminate unwanted genetic traits. Information evolution speeds genetic evolution.

>>8241847
Seems small as fuck to me.

>>8242199
>there's been viable time to colonize the galaxy
Citation needed. It took billions of years for even just Humans to appear in the universe.

Maybe it takes a billion more for anyone to colonize the milky way.

If there are alien civilizations out there I still think at least one of them just decided to say fuck it and put themselves in a everlasting series of virtual simulations on their planet.

>>8246727
>full retard
We do live in a meritocratic utopia. Just because you didn't make the cut doesn't mean it's not there.

People fail in meritocratic societies. It's a basic premise of them.

>>8246752
>projecting
What I meant by "meritocratic utopia" was referring to a type of society and natural selection that *exclusively* rewards positive traits and behavior in human beings. The post I was answering to said that social security and other such advancements in developed countries also provide a breeding ground for non-desirable traits and behavior (since everyone from uneducated bums to geniuses are provided basic living necessities), which I partly agree with, but I'm also arguing that these same advancements also form the backbone for specialized fields of science that enable to better our species on both genetic and information level, since people with certain negative traits and behavioral patterns in one field (f.ex. physical fitness) could also excel in another field (f.ex. intellectual, social).

>>8246771
>needlessly attacking from a position of insecurity
Now that you've actually defined it, rather than allowing me to use my own definition, you have a better argument.

>>8246732
It's not as if there wouldn't be a bunch of planets starting the same process just before or just after, possibly giving them a head start of up to several billion years. Then, at sublight speeds, it'd take only a few million years for them to propagate through whole galaxy, thus the paradox.That's, of course, assuming they had a reason to do so, and to do so as rapidly as possible, and there's no real rational reason to do that, provided you've capped your population growth, which you'd pretty much have to do in order to get started on the process before you used your planet up. (Hence, one of many possible solutions to said paradox less depressing than "complex life is just rare as fuck".)

Granted, there's so many miraculous things that had to come together and happen to get us where we are, leaving aside just complex and intelligent life, that we may just be way ahead of the curve.

>>8242723
Ignoring the fact that information based evolution is superior to genetic based evolution. Genetic evolution takes for-fucking-ever, and has no goal, so you end up with stupid-retarded things half the time, like dodos. ...and with information based evolution, you eventually you get genetic selection and engineering, which is pretty much infinitely faster than old fashion natural selection.

Civilization doesn't end evolution, it just makes the older method obsolete in comparison and leaves it in the dust.

>>8243271
I think it's reasonable to assume that in a closed ecosystem where life has to compete for limited resources, intelligence is a pretty good route to supremacy.

>>8241820
My dears,
It is possible to assume just too much to be a practical exercise.
It must be that the thought of being the singularity in all known time makes you feel a little ...disconnected.
Bad assumptions, however, will put you right in-touch with another alien space walk: seeking evidence but (sadly) finding none.

>>8246834
>information based evolution
There's literally no sense in giving it a term like that. Intelligent animals simply memorize and pass on information. That's what they do and that will always come along with high intelligence. You are talking like only one of the two, actual evolution and your "information based evolution", can exist. That's pretty stupid. Higher intelligence will always accelerate the rate at which new knowledge is gained.

And I wasn't arguing in favor of natural selection, but evolution. They can be separate after all. For example genetic engineering, which is artificially induced evolution. Eugenics would do the job too, even if not as efficiently.

>>8246727
>Even if there are rotten apples in the mix who are able to reproduce despite having negative traits, it doesn't change the fact that there is a genetically better "upper class" that prefers fucking each other and bettering themselves.
You are basically shifting your perspective to the lowest humanity has to offer. My argument doesn't revolve around a minority. I'm not talking about handicapped people ruining the gene pool.
My argument was, the majority of people who are simply mediocre, they will always wash away the few positive and excelling genes.
And this upper class you are talking about is just an isolated niche of our global gene pool. They won't better humanity as a whole because they are the minority and they also keep to themselves.

>has also enabled specialized scientists to study things like positive traits and evolution. Even today would be mothers are able to choose sperm donors with positive traits and it's not too far-fetched that in the future medical and other sciences enable us to eliminate unwanted genetic traits. Information evolution speeds genetic evolution.
I'm fine with whatever enhances our genes. I still believe it is essential in solving our gravest issues.
You think our issues will be completely resolved because it has become less today, but I don't think that. We can reach a new minimum for those issues, but they will never seize to exist if we genetically don't change. Regarding race for example. It is ingrained in our genes to judge by appearance, to generalize and to categorize. Telling people they shouldn't do that when it comes to people doesn't cut it for some people and most people are not intelligent enough to truly understand socio economic factors and sub-cultures to explain why certain demographics act the way they do, in this current period of time. Difficult to understand knowledge is worthless to the average person.

>>8241847
This and only this. Even at c it takes a fucking long time to get anywhere

>>8241820
Maybe its the star trek thing. Pre-space flight species could be protected like endangered animals on reserves.

>>8242239
>We are the first sapients in the galaxy.
I vote we begin construction of several ring worlds.

>>8247476
>You are basically shifting your perspective to the lowest humanity has to offer. My argument doesn't revolve around a minority. I'm not talking about handicapped people ruining the gene pool.
That wasn't actually my point either and I intended to include the mediocre majority in my argument as well, sorry if I worded my previous post wrong. The point is that despite people with bad or mediocre genes and behavior patterns being able to reproduce, the more "advanced" people are naturally bound to mingle and procreate with each other rather than the common rabble. We'll always have the leading and successful few capable and willing of pushing humanity to new heights, and hierarchical social structures in fact help these successful few to focus on the fields they're good at. Do you think the few successful businessmen, charismatic politicians, leading mathematicians and other specialists of history and today aren't notable because they're an "isolated niche" compared to majority?

Universal social security, free education and shit like them are good when they serve a meritocratic society, since then we can enable these better individuals regardless of economic or social class (that they're born into) to excel in their field of interest, rather than relying on "might makes right" attitude which would just lead to aristocracy and nepotism that favor class instead of the individual's own strengths. The mediocre people supported by the system working less intellectually demanding jobs are also essential in ensuring a functioning infrastructure for the capable few. Like the other anon said cultural and information evolution has replaced genetic evolution as the driving force of human advancement, and though genetic evolution still obviously plays a part and may be something we can somehow accelerate through scientific advancement in the future, in nature it's painfully slow.

Specialization and individuals supported by masses are what advances civilization.

>>8242164
we will figure it out, if and when hungry and fucking gouls camp at the local mart.

>>8242246
So you say one on the picture got cock?

>>8241966

I think Fermi hit the nail square on the head. Well, almost.

I do think that over time many civilizations (including ours) will form and die. Survival of the fittest, baby!

Eventually those that seek to survive will leave Earth to colonize other habitable planets. They, in turn, will develop skills, talents, and ultimately traits that will be passed down from generation to generation.

I do think there are intelligent beings living on other planets, but the distances between our planet and those that harbor intelligent life is far to great to reach with even with best theoretical propulsion models available.

It may be the case we will never meet other intelligent beings. At least in person.

But that isn't to say that by some small miracle of a chance a random "sup bro" was sent our way in our past either.

File: leniga.jpg (122KB, 700x527px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 700x527px

>>8245625

>>8247463
It's like comparing a small rock, moving aimlessly along the ground due to slow geological changes, vs. a rock riding along in a jet plane to a specific destination, so once you have information based evolution as complex as written language, genetic evolution may as well not exist.

Until, yes, you get knowledge of genetics, but that's still knowledge induced evolution. Granted, if you start playing with that too soon, it could easily backfire. I kinda suspect nuclear weapons, weaponized viruses, and climate damage are but the first of many, many potential self-induced extinction events, and poorly planned genetic engineering or even eugenics could certainly be yet another one. There's likely a whole lotta Great Filters we've yet to encounter.

Interstellar travel is possible for non-civilizations too if they emerged in planetoids and moons where jumping into orbit and away is easy pz.

That means the fermi paradox is not even a paradox, there could be life just chillin inside the asteroid belt for all we know.

They just don't want to be... bothered? You understand, anons.

Probably just too far.

But the most interesting one I heard was... alien species eventually realise the most scarce resource in the univere is time.

They then proceed to accelwrate their whole civilization/planets to near light speed in ordwr totake advantage of dialation to use the extra time to out compete theother civilizations

File: probability-line.gif (9KB, 452x196px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 452x196px

Life happened once so it must be reasonably probable? Universe is so huge that there must be someone out there? I thought so once but not anymore.

Read about the "Fine-tuned Universe" argument if haven't already. There pretty much must be a multiverse (or similar) to explain the fine tuning. And since there is most likely a multiverse, that can explain our existence even if it's next to impossible.

Let's say there's some probability for abiogenesis and intelligence occuring on a planet. If that probability is "high" (between 0,0000000001 % and 100 %), then there'd be aliens everywhere (at least 1 intelligent species per galaxy, upwards to about a hundred billion intelligent species per galaxy). With that many aliens we would have most likely seen them or died in some pre-emptive assault if that was the case.

So how low does the probability have to be for the current observed situation to be likely AND still allow for aliens in some distant star system? I mean 0,0000000001 % per planet sounds like a small probability yet there'd be as many alien species out there as there are galaxies. We'd need there to be just a handful (or maybe a few hundred species max) for them to not have sent their von Neumann probes here already. What are the odds that the abiogenesis+intelligence probability would be just around that figure and not somewhere billions of times lower still?

I don't think there's really a bottom limit to that probability. And since a multiverse allows for mind bogglingly improbable things to happen (like our laws of physics that allow atoms to exist and planets to form and whatnot) it would also allow for next-to-impossible life to exist. Any life would most likely be alone in its universe. And there might be trillions of universes between that life and the next.

File: SDAnhurma3.jpg (73KB, 1067x672px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1067x672px

There was a time when I thought the Fermi Paradox was a self-fulfilling paradox.

Every civilization out there is thinking "Where is everyone else?" and eventually when they have the opportunity for interstellar travel they refuse it because they think it's improbable for them to be the first ever species to reach the stars. They'd consider that "maybe there is something violent out there preventing travelling between star systems since no one else has been successful before us. If we try it, we might die like they possibly did".

And then they'd consider their Matrix-like paradise and the entire existence of their species and they wouldn't see just about any good reasons and big rewards for space travel to compensate for the huge risk and imaginably huge stake at hand.

So they'd just sit idle and enjoy their life like everyone else. Not necessarily a disadvantage even if others explored and expanded (wars might not be won with material resources). It might even be some AI or mathematical formula that determines this for every race, giving similar outcome.

>>8241820
maybe it's not something necessarily agreed upon by in an organized way between different space-faring factions- it's just something you realize when the option becomes available to you- you surely have to have gained some understanding of the true nature of the universe before you're able to traverse such great distances.
and then you find other developing intelligent animals on other planets... add even just a drop of food coloring to a glass of clean water- what happens? pretty difficult to get it back out. the water's never really the same. you probably take away something priceless from their future when you interfere in its natural development.

>>8250252
No, interstellar travel is just not economically viable.

>>8250276
von Neumann probes would be economically viable since they just build themselves by definition. You don't need to consider economics when the workforce is all robots and AI.

>>8242272
I thought this was about advanced intelligent life

>>8246353
food fight?

>>8245220
Why am I not surprised that an Israeli would share those unreasonably hostile and paranoid worldviews?
I'm not even being racist or anti-semitic or anything. This is really the type of mentality you can expect from Israel.

>>8242232
>It is statistically incredibly unlikely that we're the only ones
I don't know, human biology is somewhat....surreal in its complexity. It's not unreasonable to think we may be the only intelligent life form in the galaxy.

>>8248375
>It's like comparing a small rock, moving aimlessly along the ground due to slow geological changes, vs. a rock riding along in a jet plane to a specific destination, so once you have information based evolution as complex as written language, genetic evolution may as well not exist.
That's pretty dumb honestly. You keep pretending gathering information and evolution are two things you have to choose from and you can only have 1 of the two. Gathering information naturally comes along with being a very intelligent species. Being more intelligent accelerates that process.
>you get knowledge of genetics, but that's still knowledge induced evolution.
So what? Because you need knowledge to do it that somehow disproved anything? Do you think I was arguing against gaining knowledge?
I think you are misunderstanding something here.

And genetic engineering and especially not eugenics (which is a less effective and precise way of genetic engineering) would ever end up in a self-induced extinction. Not sure what kind of wild and dystopian future you are imagining when it's very obvious that if we ever apply genetic engineering in the future and we cause cancer in 1 patient too many, the general populace will ask the government to shut the research down.

>>8250987
>You keep pretending gathering information and evolution are two things you have to choose from and you can only have 1 of the two.
No, I'm saying artificial evolution renders natural evolution moot.

Look at the last 10,000 years or so, since we've had writing - what has information based evolution done for the species? It's gone from a small nitch to absolutely dominating the planet, spread to virtually every corner of said, pretty much ended all its major natural survival concerns in terms of predators and food supply, redirected rivers, created the largest structures ever seen, created the largest, fastest, directed flying objects there's ever been, altered entire ecosystems, rigged it up so the average member of its species can cross the entire world in a handful of hours, unlocked some of the core functions of the universe, split the atom, fused the atom, and been to the fucking moon.

Meanwhile, in that same 10,000 years, natural evolution has given us, maybe, wider lactose tolerance.

There just ain't no comparison.

>>8250987
>And genetic engineering and especially not eugenics (which is a less effective and precise way of genetic engineering) would ever end up in a self-induced extinction.
Both are extreme risky, especially under the current technology, as you can't account for every consequence. Even eugenics risks homogenizing the species to the point where it's much more vulnerable to being wiped out by a single virus. Meanwhile, genetic engineering, on a massive scale, in addition to risking even greater vulnerabilities from homogenizing, risks other future interactions with the environment that can have all sorts of unpredictable results, including mass sterility and the actual generation of new viruses, as the old ones mutate with DNA they'd normally never interact with. Until you have detailed understanding of both micro and macro biological ecosystem interaction, and sufficient simulation technology to predict the majority of possible interactive permutations, it's very easy to create a mass extinction event with even mild modifications on a large enough scale, and, with engineering, always a slight risk, on even the tiniest scale (even when you're modifying non-humans, if they are exposed to the environment).

>>8250252
>FreeSpace
You are my nigger.

>>8251247
Why are you still going on about this? I never dismissed the fact what information gathering has done for us and I wasn't defending /natural/ evolution either. I even explained in my very first post (>>8242723) why natural evolution has not done much for the human race in the past thousands of years.
What I was saying in my previous posts is that it's dumb to dismiss the benefits of genetic advancement.
And I can't stress it enough how redundant and unnecessary it is to call a natural progress like gaining new knowledge "information based evolution". You are trying to force it.

>>8251250
>solution
>watch out you don't homogenize the species
That is just as simple as not ending up homogenized under natural mating. The rest is simply grasping at straws.

>>8241820
Because The Great Filter is the technology advancment of the nuclear age. Either species use that to destroy themselves (nuclear extermination) or use it to colonize the nearby planets (nuclear propulsion) and advance into the space fairing civilization.
I thnik that we are among first who reached this tipping point. Other civilizations are probably there too but are so far away in galaxy that it is irelevant until someone develops FTL.
Right now we need to focus on building and maintaining space colonies in our own Solar System and after that we should think about where are the aliens.

>>8251250
Scaremongering

>>8251594
Do you read what you write? Do you remember our first topic? You were precisely putting natural evolution on a pedestal while ignoring the fact that it isn't that much of an issue anymore due to information based evolution. In these first posts at the start of this chain you or another anon argues

>>8242045
>I think the real reason is natural decadence.
>Once sufficient intelligence has been reached, civilisations arise. This halts evolution.
>Over thousands of years, inbreeding and in general the lack of NATURAL SELECTION leads to LESSER INTELLIGENCE. This in turn leads to collapse of civilisations.

>>8242723
>In this artificial ecosystem we have created for ourselves - no, evolution does not happen anymore. Survival is guaranteed for pretty much everyone in the civilized world, thus all genes survive.
>Personally I even believe we will hit a brick wall in science if we don't become more intelligent. There's a reason why we still have the same petty problems regarding race, gender, sexuality and religion for thousands of years and I primarily blame it on the average person not being smart enough to truly understand their solutions.
>I'm saying that as an example regarding for "NOT BEING SMART ENOUGH TO ADVANCE". We will stay borderline apes for all eternity

as if civilization somehow just eventually stops the advancement of the species, whereas in truth it's the exact opposite since we're now able to effectively share, pass on and distill valuable information from useless information (through a selective process not unlike genes), which is a lot faster, goal oriented and more effective than waiting nature take its course. With the advancement of information handling and distillation, natural evolution is constantly becoming more and more of a non-issue. Societal problems are also constantly becoming less of an issue (comparisons to history prove this), we haven't hit nor are we hitting some kind of an "advancement ceiling" due to bad gene pool.

File: image.jpg (62KB, 319x370px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 319x370px

>>8241820
It's so fucking annoying how people just doesn't think that aliens might just simulate universes, so no need for them to "explore", they might have realized it's a waste of resources.

File: image.jpg (70KB, 754x722px)

70KB, 754x722px

>>8252356
don't*

>>8252357
What if we are the lmao's?

>>8252358
ayy

>>8252337
I didn't post >>8252199

>natural evolution
No, I was never praising natural evolution. That's what you got wrong. And judging by how you are repeating yourself for like the 5th time I can be sure you still don't get it. And you keep replying to me with things I already agreed are true, but then you are also implying things that are wrong. And I've been telling you why already.
You are such a helpless case and I can only pinpoint you constantly misunderstanding everything to
>forcing the word "evolution" into a made up term like "information based evolution" which gives you the delusion it's something parallel to actual evolution. giving you the impression you have to pick between the two, when that's not the case at all. we have both at the same time. information gathering is a natural process of an intelligent species.

>as if civilization somehow just eventually stops the advancement of the species, whereas in truth it's the exact opposite since we're now able to effectively share, pass on and distill valuable information from useless information (through a selective process not unlike genes), which is a lot faster
I explicitly talked in my first post about ACTUAL EVOLUTION and now you are talking about "information based evolution" and think that's a valid counter argument to what I said, when I was clearly talking about genetic evolution. Information based evolution is not synonymous with actual evolution.

And regarding your arguments about more knowledge solving our social issues. Racial tensions in the United States reached a peak in the last few decades. And history in general keeps repeating itself. More knowledge doesn't solve those problems, because the average person is either not smart enough or too lazy to try and understand the complex solutions to the problems we had for thousands of years. And it's also because of other genetic inadequacies which I talked about in here >>8247476 when we look at racism.

>>8252377
Actually that guy isn't "information based evolution" guy... I'm "information based evolution" guy... I've not bothered countering your last post. Given that you think genetic engineering is risk free, I'm not really feeling the need.

...But welcome to the world of anonymous posting!

>>8252337
cont. to my post here >>8252377

>we hitting some kind of an "advancement ceiling" due to bad gene pool.
That you decided to call it a "bad gene pool" yet again proves that you do not understand my point. I'm not talking about a gene pool not being pure enough or having bad apples ruining it.
I'm saying our genetic code that lays the foundation of how we function, because genes set our perceptions, mentality and urges, is unsuitable if we want to become a higher tier civilization.
People like you don't understand that. Knowledge does not solve our social problems. We already have enough knowledge to reject racism, yet it globally still happens. In fact, racist tension in the United States is at an all time high right now, since the last few decades. How come? Didn't we gather knowledge regarding racism in the last few decades? Did we lose knowledge? Is that the reason why it's getting worse? After all knowledge ultimately solves everything, right?
Our technology becomes more powerful, while the mentality of our species is still the one of a child, because we are leaving genetic advancement behind. We are inherently flawed and will keep repeating our mistakes, only this time with more dangerous and severe weaponry. A self-induced extinction was never easier and possible to do than now.
And you said the problems we had are becoming less of an issue? We live in a quieter period right now. That doesn't mean our problems are being ultimately solved. WW2 is not even a century old and it's part of our knowledge that history repeats itself.
That's because we are inherently flawed animals.

If you reply to me by repeating yourself again, then I'm done with this conversation.

>>8252400
Yeah, I'm not saying it's not something we gotta do - and I take your point (assuming you're you) as to the need to advance the species on a genetic level - an ability which comes about as a result of my information based evolution buzzword... But it isn't without risk, and could very well be one of the many filters. Too many ambitious, short-sighted species jumping on the gengineering train before they know what they're doing. There's already some evidence that even just splicing some virus DNA with plants already had some unintended consequences, and I suspect we'll have a much bigger disaster before we realize the power fire we're destined to play with.

...and I suspect that's just one of many technological hazards to come... People are already playing with the idea of ASI and generating artificial black holes for power - surely nuttin can go wrong there. Nevermind all the stuff we've not even thought of yet. There maybe thousands of such potential self-extinction event filters down the line, and they may collectively be yet another explanation for the "paradox".

>>8241820
FTL travel is impossible, there is a insurmountable economic barrier to sub-FTL exploration, and radio signals get scattered and redshifted into oblivion before reaching other civilizations (good luck hitting anyone with directed communications).

Fermi paradox seems to look at it from an illogical point of view in my opinion, for multiple reason.
a/
>sheer size of the universe

and b/
>aliens visit Earth a billion years ago
>find nothing, decide to leave it as is and check up eventually

>aliens visit earth and find life, though unintelligent
>decide not to fuck with it and observe

>aliens visit when they can start seeing intelligent being coming into existence
>lets just [keep] observe[ing]

Then look at say the last 150 years, this is also the time period where Earth essentially becomes a beacon for nearby aliens due to all the shit leaving Earth and travelling for up to 50 light years from here.
>pick up random, near ancient signal
or
>holy shit look how fast these guys are advancing
>lets keep observing

I'm drunk and might just be dribbling shit, but I honestly believe that the only time we'd make actual contact with aliens WITHOUT FINDING THEM FIRST is when we're advancing to a point that we'd be a threat. I like to imagine that they'd gauge how dangerous a race we are, then choose if they'd eliminate us or not based on our interactions in x amount of time before we reach a point that we COULD wage war/exterminate them.

>>8252415
I agree with you. Hopefully we do approach enhancing ourselves the right way and also before a petty, next world war could ruin the milestones we could reach.

>>8245220
Shallow minded. This is probably the reason we're not visited. Our own hostility and shallow mindedness.

>we're one of the first life forms in the galaxy
>FTL travel is impossible
>civilizations tend to destroy themselves (e.g. with nukes, I mean fuck we barely got out of the Cold War in one piece)
>there are actually ayys that know we exist but choose now to reveal themselves to us for some unknown reason

pick one or two

hopefully the second point isn't true, though

>>8241966
Fermi has nothing to do with The Fermi Paradox.

>>8241820
Probability + scale.

If there is another civilisation, it wouldn't be within our galaxy and it wouldn't take place at the same time as ours, making it next to impossible to detect.

>>8242232

no one's going to another star you absolute brain dead fucking nasa fanboy

>>8242735

1. That is not a photo
2. There isn't a SINGLE photo of a galaxy

3. Look how far away this photo would have to be taken from and you can see the giant light in the middle
4. Our solar system is much closer and no ones ever looked up at the sky and seen that retarded clump of suns or what ever it's supposed to be in the middle

>hurr durr it's too far to see

but apparently you can take pictures of it from even further out........

It may be the CMB is the ubiquitous radio broadcast we've been looking for, except it was coopted by the big-bang theorists.

File: hierarchy_takeover.jpg (36KB, 350x336px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 350x336px

>>8242040
>Why haven't we been colonized?
We have. We are not in control.

File: think scientific and social progress like this.gif (303KB, 500x341px)

303KB, 500x341px

>>8252377
>Information based evolution is not synonymous with actual evolution.
No one but you yourself are strawmanning the argument into that specific point, you're the one arguing in circles. My and the other anon's point was and still is that the benefits of actual evolution are too slow, involve unwanted randomness, and are based around improving a species to fit its current living environment rather than working as some sort of intelligent guiding force that continuously improves it further, even if we just let it run its course. Our point is that GENETIC EVOLUTION is largely a NON-ISSUE compared to other more meaningful factors like information evolution influencing scientific progress. Repeat that sentence a few times

Regarding >>8252396 I already explained it in my post here >>8247624 that you conveniently decided to ignore. Human societies aren't some uncontrollably developing deterministic forces bent on destroying themselves, they're led by intelligent, educated specialists that are able to guide and control how to public thinks and acts to certain extent. It's not an instantaneous process, but judging by history it has and still is constantly going forward

>Racial tensions in the United States reached a peak in the last few decades. And history in general keeps repeating itself
>Did we lose knowledge? Is that the reason why it's getting worse?
Apparently you seem to believe that yourself since you have no fucking idea how trends work. Do you also hold the opinion that each war, economic depression, genocide, or other crisis we've had has set us straight back to dark ages every single time, without the following generations inheriting the knowledge of the previous ones? If that were the case, we wouldn't have been able to develop enough to launch anything into space in the first place. The fact that there are some repeating, hard to solve issues doesn't suddenly invalidate the scientific and social progress we've gained so far, and still will.

>>8252781
Also to add, in some cases war and social issues have actually helped further social and scientific progress in the long run due to the competition of ideas they create (hence information evolution).

Take f.ex. something recent like Cold War where both major sides of the conflict were very much in complete fucking agreement about not wanting to destroy the entire world with nuclear fire (meaning major wars were fought in less meaningful areas), plus both sides had a pretty fucking big reason for outdoing the other one in many different fields; not only in war preparation, but also scientific progress ranging from "simple" shit like better agriculture, to medicine, to more effective economy, and to space exploration. The one proper war before it, WW2 was one of the PRIME REASONS why women's rights became a thing since the society couldn't deny them anymore after many women worked in factories supporting the war effort, doing jobs that men usually did. If you want to go to far history and religion, Muslim and other invasions of Europe were actually beneficial to the birth of Christian European civilization, since it also led to many Eastern ideas and inventions being adopted (and improved further), plus created a reason for the growth of stronger, more stable and hierarchical Western society.

The fact that regular ignorant people on both sides of the Crusades or Jihad, Great Wars or Iron Curtain probably said nasty things about each other clearly didn't destroy or hinder civilization in the long run. Not even proper wars managed to do that. If we want to take biological and genetic shit into account as well, the fall of Han China and the Roman Empire due to disease and shit also improved humanity after all due to us becoming immune to many, previously deadly epidemics (that later destroyed Pre-Columbus American civilizations, but also made those people assimilate to our cultural sphere). Focus looking at our entire history instead of separate downturns.

File: eddington.png (33KB, 640x275px)

33KB, 640x275px

>>8252751
>coopted by the big-bang
long since liberated
no one dares, bb is a cult

>>8252827
And one more thing since I'm bored, regarding the social issues "stemming from human nature that makes us fear different people" which you say are so much damning the entire human species to repeat their mistakes over and over again and eventually destroy themselves.

Both cultural and genetic homogenization are things that have been going on since the originally separate human tribes first started forming their own languages around the world. When this led to formation of hierarchical societies, these stronger societies started subjugating less defended neighboring cultures, or in a more peaceful manner assimilating them when the same neighboring cultures decided it's better to adopt the ideas and behavior of their superiors. First religions spread this way, many scientific and linguistic concepts spread this way, even deadly diseases did, anyways you get the gist; people started becoming less diverse, both GENETICALLY and CULTURALLY (with the latter obviously including inventions, languages, religions, ideas of social hierarchy etc.)

A contemporary example is the secular Americanization of the world after WW2 (whether the values were originally "American" is irrelevant), where many people are adopting similar trains of thought, traveling abroad, and in the long run starting to hold similar types of political or other views. Even genetically people are getting less and less diverse due to inter-race / religion relationships holding much, much less social stigma than years ago despite what you falsely argue. While there are still some political, racial or religious strongholds desperately seeking to isolate themselves from the rest, in the bigger picture these are relatively minor things we've experienced before in our history, yet virtually every time the humanity has come out as less divided than before. While the process is slow and in your opinion never changes, in the long run both conflict and co-operation has helped foster mankind.

>implying a comprehensive transmission survey has been conducted

>>8241820
>ayylmao
>big brains
Thats a nice spot to aim weapons at and also no way a biped with a humanoid stance could support a skull that large.

>>8253977

>implying interstellar civilzations would travel here to go toe to toe with smallarms
>implying earth gravity

>>8243347
hehe!!

It took the universe a third of its life to make us, maybe we are one of the firsts civilizations in the galaxy, by one of the firsts I mean in the order of thousands, however if there's another x thousand civilizations out there, it would take also thousands of years for their light/signals to reach us, best case scenario hundreds of years. Why I think this? well if there is in fact one civilization in the galaxy way way ahead of us, and that is also a territorial specie like us, they have had expanded all over the galaxy by now or at least a good part of it and it would'nt be hard for us to see them. You might think, well maybe they arent territorial like us, however you only need one specie like that in the big sea of stars for this to happen, and currently it hasnt... so my conclusion is we are one of the first hundreds in the galaxy. Another argument for this is: imagine the universe is a person, then the universe right now is a kid, so there's going to exist billions and billions of stars and planets in the future that doesnt exist right now, billions of billions of stars are expected to born and die during the life of the universe, and it took the earth 4 billion years to spawn us here, for me that's a really small number if you think in the posibility of an infinite time.

File: buddha.jpg (563KB, 467x700px)

563KB, 467x700px

>>8241820
>What is your personal explanation for the fermi paradox?

When a species becomes intelligent enough, having created machines to automate all work, they abandon primal, egoist urges to conquer the universe because they realize (in the compounded intelligence of their forebears) that the only activity worth doing is meditating and attaining nirvana.

>>8241820
I think altruism is a great filter.

Altruism has an almost entirely negative effect in society today. That's not to say greed is the only way, but blind altruism paves the way to dysgenics, which in turn guarantees a species, no matter the promise found in individuals, will never make it to the cosmic "endgame", so to speak.

Only species that develop civilizations and also retain the tribalism necessary to cut lost causes make it, after one civilization within that species outcompetes the others.

>>8254976
I think you mean hedonism not altruism

>>8254950
Wow, Anon. That's rude. I don't think aliens would like it if you call them faggots

>>8241820
with our current technology we could colonize the galaxy within 200 million years. therefore space faring civilizations with similar technology to us could have colonized entire galaxys by now millions or billions of years ago. we have yet to find any noisy galaxys yet and scientists have tried.

shows 2 things, either life is rare or once a civilization reaches a certain level there is no point in galactic colonization after say 10 or so solar systems. exploration can be done remotely by robots as you have all the resources you would need in your own solar system for billions of people. future humans will happily live in matrix type artificial worlds

the speed of light is the handbrake of the universe (sadly) and the universe is simply unbelievably large so spotting each other might never happen.

>>8241820
When a civilization becomes advanced enough, they build large hadron colliders and sooner or later create a black hole which implodes the entire planet and it's the last mistake they make.

>>8255333

Alternatively, it could be that civilizations are not allowed to swarm the cosmos breeding like rabbits.

>>8241820
My personal view is that quantum physics could be in play; what would happen if for a spaceship between galaxies, it took a million years for a boson from the ship to reach any observer of significant size?
It would be normal from the ship's perspective, but for us it sounds a lot like leaving Schrodinger's cat in a box for a very long time, and who knows what quantum physics does to the biology of a cat?

>>8247496
But a civilisation could spread at near lightspeed., and for a billion year old civilisation (which could easily occur multiple times a galaxy), that's a lot of galaxies they could span.

>>8256078
That idea doesn't quite work:
>If life is common, typically multiple civilisations a galaxy, then the odds of not a single galaxy out of millions being unenforced and noisy is microscopic
>If life is rare, typically multiple galaxies a civilisation, then the odds of any civilisation having another to enforce it is low

>>8241820
If conditions in the initial few years of the Big Bang allowed for sentient life to develop in whatever region of the Universe, that would imply that fourteen billion years isn't enough time for a civilization to develop to the point where they could expand to the entirety of the Universe, which kind of blows me mind. Then again, that could be intentional.

Intelligent life is rare and usually uses up it's resources or nukes itself before establishing a permanent foothold in space.

>>8241820
couldn't the great filter be the discovery of how black holes are created, thus destroying our specie and adding one black hole/warning in the great void?


Or maybe deep space exploration isn't the next step for a civilisation, and we are missing the point for now.

>>8256113
Congratulations, you posted the most overstated, least thought-out answer in this thread!

You can look just at a thousand rocky worlds and find at least one that looks somewhat hospitable; but with hundreds of billions to our galaxy, and thousands of reasonably close galaxies, you think that there's still only a few?
How would you expect that we, for example, can wipe ourselves out with nukes anyway?

But now it looks like your title was taken by Mr. "microscopic black holes don't decay in a matter of attoseconds": >>8256121

We are the only ones now. We have failed their trials time and time again.

>>8254950
you got half the point

what's the point of conquering the universe if you can find all the answers with the tiny ass machines you constructed during billions of years?

>>8256127

Basically. This is the dunce class forced to duke it out in retarded mutated monkey bodies trapped in our relatavistic cell while our bros zip around having a grand old time.

>>8241824
its theyr lungs

>>8252718
nobody claims that its a photo

>>8256854
Our lungs are in our scrota?

File: wearealone.jpg (46KB, 300x225px)

46KB, 300x225px

>>8256126