What is the most plausible solution to Fermi's Paradox?

>everything done by nature can be replicated by intelligent species

>including the creation of the universe itself.

>you create your Little big bang machines

This is the worst answer so far

>can be replicated by intelligent species, including the creation of the universe itself.

back to PHIL100 with you

>Acting like speculations about Alien civilizations are scientific

Chill down dudes. My answer is about as good or bad as any in this thread.

It's not. Not only does yours assume things we don't know, it assumes things which are in opposition to things we know.

All the other advanced species realized that it's easier to just plug themselves into a happy matrix instead of expanding outwards.
Humanity is already going down this path with movies, video games, porn, etc

The universe is far too large.

...

>m-muh wormholes
you're joking right?

Since you dont know how universes are created, you can not rule out that you can create a universe within a universe.

The universe is too big if you have a lifespan of 80 years. If you have reached practically immortallity travelling for a Million years isnt that dumb. you just lay yourself into a coma and wake up at your Destination a Million years later. Feels like a nap.

There is no paradox. The universe is not obliged to satisfy manchild fantasies.

Aliens evolved to be so intelligent that they are too nihilistic and apathetic to explore the galaxy.

>the most plausible solution
is that is was an inside joke
Fermi knew they were here watching nukes, always have

Alright genius, tell me how it's impossible to travel to the Andromeda galaxy. You don't need wormholes to do it.

Citations needed or do you want me to tip your fedora.

i find this the most plausible we are drowning ourselves in distractions already, once we achieve the technology we will move our consciousness into a virtual reality
>checked btw

we dont know if its possible or not, but you have to take into account several things. For one it would take a really really really long time. It is 2 537 000 light years from earth. That means even with relativistic speed it would take almost 3 million years and thats the supposed speed limit without worm holes or some other exotic sci fi method of spacefaring. Other then the distance we don't really know whats in deep space. Lots of dark energy and dark matter probably and we know nothing about how those work. Lots of unknown factors about intergalactic travel

so why aren't we dead yet

We are dying. Look at the dysgenics being practiced in Europe. We're becoming amerifats.

I don't know about plausibility, but I'd say that our particular brand of consciousness, understanding and rationality, giving birth to our particular brand of science, technology, and relationship to our environment isn't a necessary outcome of darwinian evolution on every planet. (Read Solaris by Stanislaw Lem for an example of an encounter with a vastly different life form). Fermi postulates anthropomorphic alien life in his reasoning, kind of like your ugly-ass pic.

Given that

-we already know how it could be done

-none of the limitations you've proposed have any supporting evidence

Saying intergalactic travel impossible is bad answer to the Fermi paradox.

There wouldn't be a paradox if scientists accepted the feasibility of UFOs.

Climate change will eventually make humans extinct

Intelligent life is very rare, so rare that even with only sublight travel and modern earth tech we should see dimmed galaxies/stars from dyson swarms but we don't.
The aliens are too far away for their million year old civilisations to be visible.

This is the most plausible answer given the evidence we have.

Religion is damn sneaky.

There aren't aliens because the universe was created by God for us.

I like the one where we are first, the ancients.
Somebody has to be first.

That's historically been a bad sort of assumption to make. The chances we're in any sort of important position in the universe are much less than the chances we aren't.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediocrity_principle

We observed only a negligibly small part of the universe, so it's no fucking surprise we haven't found anything interesting yet.

yeah, sure, i get what you are saying, but still, it really like the concept.

>humans where first
>somehow we dont fuck up (we are fucking up in Real Life)
>humans go in to space
>find nothing
>start seeding planets
>build a empire
>shit happens
>no more humans
>entire the lifeforms of our seed planets
>etc..
>we are gods now to these lifeforms.

Souls.
The universe was made by God for mankind.
The absolute limit of animal intelligence is represented by crows, dolphins, chimps, et cetera.
Nature can't do better than that and never has, on earth or anywhere else.

It takes the divine spark to get a mind that asks "why"

All humanoid types originated in the Orion region, the most densely populated place in the entire galaxy. There are and have been and will continue to be literally millions of colonies.

We are the remnants.

Eons ago, the original humans left for their ancestral home and for greater things. We are the remnants of earlier experiments sold to new owners. The Human Farming Project. They breed half civilized men, dangerous even to their neighbors. For food and giggles and trading DNA.

Such is the somber state of affairs called the human condition.

>it takes psilocybin to get a mind that asks "why"

FYP

youtube.com/watch?v=TEF7Di_nkRk

whoa...

Those fall within the "life is extremely rare" answer.

We know now that planets are common.
Life is common but difficult to detect.
Reminder that Tabby's Star is likely inhabited and home to an alien megastructure.

>Life is common but difficult to detect.

no evidence

>Tabby's Star is likely inhabited and home to an alien megastructure

evidence?

>evidence?

The star's pattern of dimming is aperiodic and does not fit any naturalistic explanation. This is mostly undisputed though people are still reluctant to admit the megastructure hypothesis is the most likely (even though it is).

Space is huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge as fuck mixed with speed of light limit

Aperiodic dimming is consistent with transits of natural objects.

Its literally impossible unless you can go faster than light. If you are slower than light the universe between galaxies will expand faster than you can cross the distance

But that's wrong you retard. If it were true, nobody would be paying special attention to KIC 8462852 in the first place because it would be identical to all other cases of stars orbited by natural objects.

Except for Andromeda and the nearby dwarfs I mean, those we can reach

You don't need to travel faster than the speed of light to reach the galaxies in our local group. Without ftl there are galaxies beyond our local group that we could reach too.

Beyond that, there are galaxies that would require ftl to reach (probably impossible).

It's not necessarily that rare, universe is just extremely big and we examined small part of it. It's like you'd say there's no oil on the earth because you dug all of your backyard and found none

There is an advanced godlike civilization that has already figured out interstellar travel. They destroy other civilizations that are still developing to prevent them from reaching their status .

Where are you getting your ideas from? It can't be from the actual researchers. All of them accept the possibility that it might be a mega-structure, but all of them think it's more likely explained by natural phenomena.

Do you think you're just smarter than them? Or are you one of those people that thinks its all a conspiracy?

It's very simple, user. Explain specifically why anyone's paying attention to KIC 8462852 if it's already explained in terms of "transit of natural objects," or GTFO. SETI explicitly stated it hasn't been explained yet, so I doubt you'll be able to take the first option.

>all of them think it's more likely explained by natural phenomena

By which model? No one has put forth a naturalistic model that explains all the data.

non-existence of an accurate model doesn't imply aliums, it implies that there is some phenomenon taking place which is either not accurately categorized in terms of known science/natural models *or* is a totally new physical phenomenon which requires new physics (or science, etc.).

I don't know the propagating degrees of freedom in a high-Tc superconductor. That doesn't mean they must be little aliums propagating with dyson spheres so I can't see them, it's typically taken to mean there is some new physics or non-trivial application of current ideas needed to explain what's going on.

>No more humans
There will always be humans.

I would enjoy sitting around in a comfy planet governor's office governing a planet.

That is one solution. But why haven't they reached Earth? Which of the beginning galaxies did they come from?

>it's typically taken to mean there is some new physics

The existence of non-Earth based organisms is way less radical a suggestion than the proposal of "new physics."

>But why haven't they reached Earth?
Because we don't space transportation yet. They are waiting to see if we would destroy ourselves first. As soon as we step foot on Mars, we are toast.

intelligence shrinks into nanostructures until it disappears. maybe aliens are hiding in the cores of their original planets playing vidya.

>Explain specifically why anyone's paying attention

Kepler looks at dimming of stars to determine the presence of objects (planets) around them.

Many planets were discovered this way.

One star showed very interesting dimming that can't be explained by a planet.

This is because 1) much more light is blocked at times than would be blocked by a planet, 2) the dimming doesn't occur at regular intervals like it would with a planet, and 3) the dimming is variable (sometimes more light is blocked than at other times).

Scientists are now trying to determine exactly why that is.

We've never observed similar dimming before.

Do you really think that astronomers don't care or wouldn't pay attention to natural objects? What do you think astronomers do all the time?

>SETI explicitly stated it hasn't been explained yet

There are plenty of explanations, the scientists just don't agree. Here are some current hypotheses:

-it's a dust cloud
-it's a cloud of comets
-it's a cloud of dust and comets
-it's debris from the breakup or collision of small objects
-it's debris from the breakup or collision of large objects
-it's any or all of these things in various combinations
-it's a megastructure

Great perspective. Although I think there will always be outliers who give way to the powerful curiosity that lies within them. Science is more titillating to some than playing the sims. This is just basic human nature.

I have the answer to the paradox.

Aliens become so advanced that they leave the universe to exist in a state in-between where they are free to waifu and chill for an eternity without worry.

Prime directive

The best answer? Life is extremely rare, it's impossible to travel faster than light, and extrasolar travel isn't worth it.

This. I don't understand why any more explanation is necessary

kek

so rare it's never happened anywhere except on earth.
this.

That's the most boring answer.

>life is extremely rare
Why not just say life is entirely "unique" to earth. Until there is another confirmed instance of a 2nd genesis occurring, this is the only acceptable and correct answer.

I agree that the first two parts are likely, but

>extrasolar travel isn't worth it

Extrasolar travel is a must for any sufficiently long-lived civilization.

>Why not just say life is entirely "unique" to earth.

Because it's stupid to assume that's true given the size of our observable universe. If you really want to say something like that, a better phrasing would be "known life is entirely unique to earth."

>it's stupid to assume truth and facts are truth and facts
wha?
>a better phrasing would be "known life is entirely unique to earth."
adding the 'known' is redundant and unscientific because it implies things that are unfactual.

since when is Veeky Forums opposed to truth, fact, and proper reasoned language?

1. That the universe is a large fucking place

2. That intelligent life is a rarity in this universe

3. Many intelligent beings, societies, etc have better things to do than hone in on a radio source no bigger than 200 light years wide.

It's neither truth nor fact that "life is entirely unique to Earth." It's a guess, and a bad one. "Known life is entirely unique to earth" is a true statement.

>adding the 'known' is redundant

No it isn't. There's a difference between what's known and what exists. Thousands of new insect species are still discovered each year for example. If you tried to conflate the population of known species with the population of species, you'd be leaving out large amounts of the existing population.

>intelligent life is a rarity
wouldn't it be more accurate to describe it as "unique" to earth? looking for accuracy, after all this is Veeky Forums
>Many intelligent beings, societies, etc have better things to do than hone in on a radio source no bigger than 200 light years wide.
imagining the motivations of non-existent and undiscovered life? wow.

There are a billion things that can go catastrophically wrong on such a millenia-long journey.

That is, if it ever becomes economically feasible or sensible to launch such a spacecraft.

That is, if such a cure or suspension of aging is or can ever be found.

Even just an attempt of such a mission requires a unique mix of desperation, recklessness, wealth and sophistication. The galaxy in which even one occurs might be rare indeed.

>wouldn't it be more accurate to describe it as "unique" to earth?

That line in his post is one of three *possible* explanations for the Fermi Paradox. There's no "accurate" figure for the amount of life in a proposed possibility. Also, you can't even say it's true life is unique to Earth. We only know the life that's been discovered by us so far is unique to Earth, which leaves a very large amount of room for yet to be discovered life in the vastness of the observable universe we haven't thoroughly examined yet.

Your response to that person is correct. But that person is wrong about what that kind of journey would take.

>a millenia-long journey

It doesn't have to be that long. With current technology we are capable of reaching relativistic speeds (we haven't built it yet obviously).

>if it ever becomes economically feasible or sensible to launch such a spacecraft.

It is potentially very easy to transition into a post-scarcity society. It would be very easy to fund a craft and to gather the necessary energy.

>That is, if such a cure or suspension of aging is or can ever be found.

won't be necessary in my scenario

If you look at strictly from the scientific or technological perspective, all it takes is constructing a dyson swarm

>unique to earth

I'm really talking about finding a suitable planet whose biome is conducive to life within a reasonable distance from our system. It's very unlikely we would find such a system within 20 light years, let alone 2000 light years from our planet.

>imagine the motivations of non-existent and undiscovered life?

We could assume that if any reasonably intelligent sentient race of beings is capable of detecting radio signals from any distance to their own solar system, the chances of a return signal would take many years to reach our own. And that's making the bold assumption they would want to respond, or is capable of understanding what they are listening to.

And mind you by the time they receive our signal (assuming they live 200 light years away) the signal would by then be so degraded it could easily be confused with background noise, or some stellar object, etc. And given that most habitual systems would be located on the outer arms of our galaxy it's highly likely no sentient race could pick up our signal due to enormously distances, line of sight issues involved.

I am just conveying the point the distances are so vast that it's very likely no one is listening. And if they are then they are not likely to respond given the tepid strength of early radio broadcast signals

>life is entirely unique to Earth
why did you add the word "entirely" user? just make a true statement based on all obtained knowledge without dog whistle words for atheists to signify shit you cannot prove?
>semantics
all of your examples are on earth correct? so why is accurate language so difficult for you. There is no life anywhere except earth, that makes it --unique--. It's the best word for the statement we be agree on. quit being a bitch and just agree. life is unique to earth.
>There's no "accurate" figure for the amount of life in a proposed possibility
>you can't even say it's true life is unique to Earth
provide an example of how life is not unique to earth, this is ground breaking user!

what denomination are you?

my Church doesn't have a position on life being unique to Earth.

>why did you add the word "entirely" user?

I didn't. It was quoted from your post.

>atheists

Where did I say I was an atheist?

>There is no life anywhere except earth

There is no *known* life anywhere except Earth. You keep conflating what's known with what exists. The standard cosmology model (Lambda-CDM) is premised on the Copernican Principle. You're making more of an assumption by declaring all life in existence is on Earth than anyone who's supposing the existence of life on planets other than Earth is.

>provide an example of how life is not unique to earth

We've already established all known life is on Earth, which makes your question inane since you can't simultaneously believe all known life is on Earth and that you know an example of life not on Earth.

you're just replying to bait posts. Do you think that person actually cares whether say "extremely rare" or "unique to earth"?

>It is potentially very easy to transition into a post-scarcity society.
Care to elaborate?

>with current technology we can build ships that can reach relavistic speeds

We can build spacecraft that can approach some fraction of the speed of light, say 20%, using current technologies (nuclear pulse propulsion, NTR rockets) .

But we are about 100 years from developing usable fusion rockets, and maybe even usable antimatter fueled rockets. Both could get us to 80% of c, but it would still take us roughly 300 years to reach the current boundary of our radio signal. Making such ships robotic saves mass, and could subtract 40 years from that journey at best.

Unless some other way can be found to reach our stated objective both ships (likely to be the first generation ships) would take a great deal of time and consume (given today's global gdp) a LOT of resources and capital. Such ships would be prohibitably expensive and would represent the greatest gamble humanity has ever undertaken.

Of course it would represent other firsts, and I for one would like to see the ship successfully reach its destination, but I'm afraid I wouldn't be alive to see this come to pass.

Having said this, I'm a firm believer in investing in technologies that could propel our species,into space. After all I'm a firm believer in the belief that if we want to survive as a species, we must colonize space.

No idea. I can only speculate.
I like to think that life isn't too uncommon in the universe and aliens have already visited earth many times. But they don't want to interfere with our affairs as there is no need, also for theirs and our safety.

One more thing, I think we would ultimately be able to construct large megastructures such as Dyson swarms, Dyson rings, Dyson spheres, etc.

But we are nowhere near capable of building such grand structures. Maybe a couple of thousand years from now......

taking (((science-fiction))) this literally is bad for your scientific reasoning skills. none of this is provable, fact, or logical. Aliens don't exist. Life is unique to earth.

>>>HIS

>known/what exists
Considering these are all encompassed by the Planet earth, it's safe to say "Life is Unique to Earth". just leave out the words, known, entirely, whatever dogwhistle term, just leave it simple and factual. This should be easy user.

>You're making more of an assumption by declaring all life in existence is on Earth
This isn't an assumption, it is a fact. Assuming you'll make a discovery contrary to all understood knowledge about the universe is folly.

honestly, the way you word it, the way you seem upset by simple plain descriptive language... it's almost like it offends your Faith in atheism or something.

I'm making the point of just how long it would take to get to a hypothetical world populated by intelligent beings like us.

>inb4 being populated by dicks like you

First I'll defer to the guy that got me interested in this stuff:

Post-Scarcity Civilizations: youtu.be/_Kt7883oTd0

Starlifting: youtu.be/pzuHxL5FD5U

Spaceship Propulsion: youtu.be/wXiitWK_6Qg

The Kardashev Scale: youtu.be/dArpj_VxxuQ

Those are some of his videos relevant to this.

I can summarize my thoughts on it though. Scarcity is essentially due to a lack of material and energy. Everything we need boils down to those two things. Given enough material and energy, we can do anything that is allowed by the laws of physics.

The sun is the source of almost all of the energy that we use, and it's also a vast store of material. If we're able to better exploit our sun, all of our basic concerns (food, shelter, protection) will become trivial.

This is accomplished through the construction of a Dyson swarm. A Dyson swarm is a complex of structures which surround a star which gather the energy which otherwise radiates outward and is wasted. These or similar structures may also be used to harvest material from the star (see the starlifting video).

This is all possible given our current level of technology. We're not yet able to fund it. It may require technological breakthroughs that make it less expensive. That's what I mean by it being potentially very easy: it's well within our capabilities.

>you're just replying to bait posts

I know, senpai.

>Considering these are all encompassed by the Planet earth, it's safe to say "Life is Unique to Earth"

No, it's not safe to say that. It would only be safe to say that if you believe we've already come anywhere close to finishing the exploration of the rest of our observable universe, which we haven't. It's also pretty suspicious anytime the only instance of X you know of exists in the same very tiny location of the universe you happen to live in. Copernican Principle.

Those are all good points. You're probably more knowledgeable about it than me. I've only recently become interested in this stuff.

Also fair points. I just don't view a few thousand years as that far away. And I don't think it will be that long anyway (though I don't expect it in my lifetime).

Please provide evidence of life outside of planet earth. Remember you are a 'scientist' and should put up or shut up.

Until this evidence is provided. Rational thought (this may be tricky for you) dictates that life is "unique" to Earth. Describing life as "unique" to earth is a rational and true statement of fact.

...

[citation needed]