ITT: We discuss Fermi paradox

>ITT: We discuss Fermi paradox
the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Of course. But the Fermi paradox begins with an assumption that there are lots of alien civilizations so we should have seen some of them. That is not a valid assumption.

Yes it is. It’s a completely valid assumption considering sheer number of solar systems in our local group alone.

And by solar systems I mean ones that resemble ours with a sun like star and planets orbiting it

1: Space is far larger than what people can actually imagine, with spaces between stars incomprehensible to human experience.
2: There's more debris in space than people think.
3: Attenuation is the biggest bitch there is.
4: Humanity psychologically projects way to much.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Forest

>The universe is full of life. Life in the universe functions on two axioms: 1. Life's goal is to survive, and 2. Resources are finite. Like hunters in a dark forest, life can never be certain of alien life's true intentions. The extreme distance between stars creates an insurmountable "chain of suspicion" where any two civilizations cannot communicate well enough to relieve mistrust, making conflict inevitable. Therefore, it is in every civilization's best interest to preemptively strike and destroy any developing civilization before it can become a threat, but without revealing their own location, thus solving the Fermi paradox.

ITT: pseudoscience

>t. virgin

>There is no evidence to suggest we are special
Except there is. The fact that we have no evidence of any other lifeforms in the universe makes us special by definition. If the human race doesn't wipe itself out we could easily colonize the entire galaxy in the next 10 million years, practically a blink of the eye in cosmological time scale. So why hasn't anything done it before us? Why is there no sign of anything out there at all? Isn't the better presumption that we ARE special until proven otherwise? The fact that we can't seem to find anything else out there is evidence supporting that we are, and we have nothing to support the idea that we aren't.

Nobody wants to talk to meat.

No, it isn't.

The problem is that the rarer abiogenesis is the more it starts to look like it's actually not possible. You need to start with at least a reasonable chance life can arise naturally or else we wouldn't be here, but if there is no other life even with billions and billions of inhabitable planets in our galaxy alone then it starts creating problems with the assumption that life can arise naturally.

>no evidence of any other lifeforms in the universe

Except for everything on Earth that is "other lifeforms".

>So why hasn't anything done it before us?

Because, it literally can not be done in the first place, you stupid fucking sci-fi manchild.

>Because, it literally can not be done in the first place
Why is that?

Not really since the anthropic principle means there is no real lower bound to how unlikely an abiogenesis event may be. There could be trillions of dead universes and we find ourselves in the one freak one, or this universe could have gone through trillions of big bang/big crunch cycles before abiogenesis occured. There's no real way to determine this simply by observing we exist, you'd have to get some idea about how likely abiogenesis is to happen by understanding the process of how it happens.

Also that just describes the question of other planets bearing life. In order for there to be advanced civilizations that life would have to pass through many more "filters" like the emergence of complex multicellularity, use of language, etc, and there is no way of determining how fantastically unlikely each of those stages are either.

The anthropic principle is circular logic that is not an explanation, it's used to avoid explanation. If I won the lottery 50 times in a row and responded to your incredulity with saying "In any universe where I have over a billion dollars I must have won the lottery 50 times. I have a billion dollars therefore it had to happen" would you find that satisfying?

Anthropic principle is simply "It don't have to be like it do but it is"

>If I won the lottery 50 times in a row and responded to your incredulity with saying "In any universe where I have over a billion dollars I must have won the lottery 50 times. I have a billion dollars therefore it had to happen" would you find that satisfying?
Huh? You winning the lottery 50 times isn't a necessary condition of making observations. There are many possible worlds that you can observe in which you didn't win, there are no possible worlds you can observe in which you don't exist.

>You winning the lottery 50 times isn't a necessary condition of making observations
No but it's a necessary condition for me having a billion dollars. Hence the explanation if I have a billion dollars I must've won the lottery 50 times. It says absolutely nothing about how such an unlikely event occurred just that it did, which is completely useless.

Likewise "Things had to be the way they are or else we wouldn't be here to observe them" is completely useless. That we need to find that our universe has properties that allow our existence is a given, it doesn't say anything about how it would come to have those properties in the first place it just shrugs and says "Well it is that way so...stop asking questions"

when did this board turn into reddit

In 2010 with the [math]0.999\ldots\,\neq\,1[/math] baits.

No offense but I don't think you really understand observation selection effects.Winning lotteries is not a necessary condition of making observations, so it doesn't apply here.

If there is some arbitrarily large number of possible worlds and I find myself observing one, all I can determine is that there is at least one possible world where observers arise. There's no way to determine the ratio of worlds with observers to those without since no matter how small the number of observer-worlds I will always find myself in one of them.

That's all that the anthropic principle establishes, that the simple observation of ourselves doesn't give us any information of how many other observers there are. It's not an "explanation" as to why the world is the way it is in some fundamental sense.

Its not remotely close to a paradox and people need to stop bringing it up and act as if it is. "The fermi problem" might be more accurate.

>If there is some arbitrarily large number of possible worlds
This isn't an assumption the anthropic principle makes. The existence of other universes or possible worlds is completely and utterly irrelevant. The only point of the anthropic principle is that if the universe was not conducive to the existence of human life we would not be here to observe it. That's it.

>.Winning lotteries is not a necessary condition of making observations
I never said it was. It's called an analogy. Replace "making observations" with "having a billion dollars" and it's the same point. The anthropic principle says the any observations we make about the universe must be in line with the fact it can give rise to human life otherwise if they weren't we wouldn't be here. Similarly I can say that if I have a billion dollars I must have won the lottery 50 times since that's the only way I would have such a large sum of money. It's post hoc reasoning and goes nowhere in both cases.

The part where the anthropic principle falls apart is it's all well and good to say the universe must be conducive to human life, because we exist, but when you start looking at how unlikely it is that it has that particular set of properties then it has absolutely nothing to add on the subject other than "It had to be that way for us to be here". That's not an answer, that's a deflection, and the anthropic principle is useless for getting any meaningful information about WHY the universe is the way it is, because the antropic principle simply says "it is" full stop

>That's not an answer, that's a deflection, and the anthropic principle is useless for getting any meaningful information about WHY the universe is the way it is, because the antropic principle simply says "it is" full stop
I agree it doesn't answer fundamental "why" questions, but in conjunction with assumptions based on other observations we make about the universe (such as that there were other ways it could have been, including configurations in which there are no observers) it can give us some information about why the universe we find ourself in is the way it is rather than some other way.

It doesn't matter for the question at hand anyway, which is the likelihood of alien civilizations arising. Anthropic reasoning does give us information in this case, in that it shows we can't infer a likelihood of civilization arising simply by observing ourself.

Wait...does it?

FTL is impossible, It would be a waste to leave your planet/solar-system. There is no paradox without FTL.

>"The fermi problem"

Also acceptable;
>The Fermi question.
>The Fermi really real big thinker of a thought.
>The Fermi what if.
>The Fermi like... woah man that's deep.
>The Fermi almond activation station.
>The Fermi Whodunit.
Are also acceptable.

>There is no paradox without FTL.
It only takes around 1 million years to fully colonize a galaxy at sublight speeds. Considering that our galaxy has existed for around 9 billion years that is more than enough time for a species to develop and spread out across the galaxy. FTL is entirely unnecessary

>paradox

[citation needed]

youtube.com/watch?v=sNhhvQGsMEc

>IF we were to build generation spaceships that could sustain a population for around 1000 years we could colonize the whole galaxy in 2 million years.
So we can't build generation spaceships.

There's nothing impossible about building a ship large enough to sustain a population indefinitely. Beyond our current capabilities? Yes. But once we figure out a way to get material into space more efficiently building larger and larger ships will be a piece of cake.

>once we figure out how to
>ignore gravity to get mass to space
>grow food
>keep warm
>make ships that can survive 1000 years
>keep generations of humans alive in space
>cold fusion because why not at this point

>piece of cake.
Yup, we are so close to taking over. Almost there.

We could say it would take us 5000 years and it would still be irrelevant on the timescales we're talking about. You don't think we'll have the technology to do it in 7000AD? The point is when we compare it to the lifespan of the Milky Way it's a blip.

Why would you want to colonize the entire galaxy? There might be no motivation for an advanced species to expand infinitely like some bacteria, after you have a few systems you have already guaranteed your survival and probably have godlike tech and just sit back to enjoy your VR anime waifus

>easily colonize the entire galaxy in the next 10 million years
Look up how far the nearest star from us is. And how long it would take to get there with our means of travel.

Of course its nothing compared to the lifetime of a star or whatever. But how do you sustain a ship while flying trough space for atleast a 1000 years? With no ressources or energy to gain while on the way?

Stop asking him to justify his answers, you fucking manchild faggot

Your posts are giving me autism.

>And how long it would take to get there with our means of travel.
10 million years is a long time. Let's say it takes us 50,000 years to discover how to accelerate a large Manhattan sized spacecraft to around 10% of the speed of light. That still gives 9,950,000 years to propagate throughout the galaxy. And 10 million years is like 0.1% of the current lifespan of the galaxy.

There is nothing in the laws of physics that says it can't be done, all we need to do is find more efficient energy sources and propulsion methods

This reminds me, I need to need to make an XKCD edit for the Drake equation.

>Situation: You have one implausible problem (number of civilizations)
"Lets use the Drake equation!"
>Now: You have seven implausible problems

>There is nothing in the laws of physics that says it can't be done
Are you seriously going with the defense that if it isn't physically impossible then it is guaranteed to work?

>all we need to do is find more efficient energy sources and propulsion methods
And be able to support life in a glorified tin can without outside energy for a minimum of 50 years to get to the next habitable exoplanet.

The universe is a dark forest.

>And be able to support life in a glorified tin can without outside energy for a minimum of 50 years to get to the next habitable exoplanet.

With advanced nuclear fission or fusion I dont think its impossible. Creating a self-sufficient closed system is not a big problem if you have lots of time and resources of the entire solar system.

>And be able to support life in a glorified tin can without outside energy for a minimum of 50 years to get to the next habitable exoplanet.
That's a trivial problem to solve. You seriously don't think we'll find sources of energy in the next 1000 years that could power a manhattan sized colony ship for 50 years?

You're kind of missing the forest for the trees here. Mankind can absolutely colonize the entire galaxy. All we need is time. There are no insurmountable problems that stop us floating a bunch of ships at sublight speeds to other star systems over the course of a million years. Now if our only constraint is time, and the Milky Way has existed for around 12 billion years then why hasn't a species done it already? The galaxy is only 100,000 light years wide. A species sending out colony ships moving at 5% the speed of light could go from one end of the galaxy to the other in a little over 2 million years, or around 0.002% of the lifespan of the galaxy.

>With advanced nuclear fission or fusion I dont think its impossible.
I disagree.
>Creating a self-sufficient closed system is not a big problem if you have lots of time and resources of the entire solar system.
It's a pretty big fucking problem when 99% of human life and achievements are solar powered.

>That is a trivial problem.
>You seriously think we won't find unobtaium in this sector?
I'm in stitches.

>You're kind of missing the forest for the trees here.
>proceeds to just spout bullshit with no basis
HAHAHAHAHA

What do you call it when someone argues with themself by countering an argument that was never made in order to make a point
I call you a moron

Nuclear fission is even more energy dense than solar power. Why should it be impossible?

Nuclear fission isn't impossible. No one is claiming that. The japs got a pretty heavy lesson in nuclear fission some 73 years ago. The problem is that it is too energy intensive and a problem to contain and harness that energy.

>Nuclear fission is even more energy dense than solar power.
Are you a fucking moron? Solar power is free as long as you are near a star. There is no fucking density problem except your thick skull.

>I'm in stitches.
Yes, our civilization has peaked and we will never create more efficient ways to store energy than what is currently possible, you're right.

Physics has peaked, not civilization what are you going to pull out of your ass as a more dense energy storage medium than nuclear power?

>Solar power is free as long as you are near a star
Except we're talking about a source of power that would be used to power a ship for ~50 years on a journey to another system. I think fusion power would easily fit the bill, it's not as if we're appealing to something that is totally in the realm of sci-fi, even fission could be used if you brought enough fuel.

>even fission could be used if you brought enough fuel
Your ship would have to be entirely fuel.

>Physics has peaked
Are you literally retarded?

when the_donald and SJW crap on reddit motivated the more right leaning redditors to become more interested in Veeky Forums as an alternative and reject the left leaning reddit environment.

There is no magic energy particle, we already know what protons and neutrons and electrons are made of and what energy we can harvest from them.

In 500 years our current knowledge of physics will be held in the same regard as we currently regard our understanding of physics in the 1800s. Claiming progress is over and we've discovered everything there is to know about physics is a statement so bafflingly retarded I'm staggered someone who seemingly has enough interest in science to browse Veeky Forums would actually say it

>nuh uhh everything in science fiction will eventually be real
And yet no alien civilization has discovered it before us and settled the galaxy. Which one of us is working on the evidence put before him and which is working on fairy-tales.

>nuh uhh everything in science fiction will eventually be real
Ironically I'd actually consider that a less retarded statement than saying that our current 21st century knowledge of physics is complete and there is nothing else to find or no new potential ways to harvest or store energy, ever.

If we can store and control enough energy to make functional light-sabers I'd say that's pretty close to the right level of tech needed to explore the stars.

You're right, there is always more to learn, but that's not to say we don't have a pretty good grasp on it. If nothing else at least the laws we experience everyday. One of which is the speed of light. That's not saying the speed of light is governed by some universal speed limit, but that the speed of light has its upper limit for a reason.

See the thing is you're saying that we need to find some radically new technology to create a colony ship that would reach another system, but that's not true. We need some increases in how efficiently we store energy, yes. But do you really consider it as far fetched as "lightsabers" that we'll eventually get a grasp on fusion? Or that battery technology will advance? The point was that we only really need small advances on our current technology to build a colony ship, we don't need some radical new technology that hasn't been conceived yet. Hence why that method of colonizing the galaxy is "trivial" because we know it can be done we just need to incrementally improve tech we already have to get there.

Compare that to superluminal speeds which can't be achieved without a massive leap in technology, or overturning what we currently understand about physics. That's not trivial and more in line with what you're autistically sperging against.

We only need small advances to send our space junk to the nearest exoplanet. That still doesn't solve the issue of the contents of the ship surviving the journey.

>That still doesn't solve the issue of the contents of the ship surviving the journey.
Build it big enough to be self sustaining.

>Build it big enough to be self sustaining.
Would you say, that it would be the size of a small moon? Maybe with a reactor at it's core? Maybe an exhaust port no larger than a Womp rat?

Building a colony ship the size of Manhattan isn't beyond our capabilities, especially if we harvest some of the materials needed from surrounding bodies like the asteroid belt. Such a ship could carry ~200,000 people with space to spare for growing food. The biggest hurdle is finding a way to more efficiently escape Earths gravity well, when we find a way to get material into space without having to do it a few thousand KG at a time. There's nothing impossible or improbable about building such a ship, it's simply a matter of time before we get enough resources into orbit to do do. It's no more far fetched than putting a colony on the moon which most astronomers consider an inevitability, something we could even do now if we were really committed to it and we weren't bound by whats economically feasible..

Feeding 200,000 people would take 6 times the area of Manhattan in crops.

You can use space efficient methods like vertical farming to slash that by quite a bit, also by growing the most calorie dense foods. Again, it's not an insurmountable issue and if we're talking a time scale of about 300-500 years into the future then it's certainly not unreasonable to presume that even better and more efficient methods to feed people will be developed. Vat grown meat?

>implying the ship will be flat like a plot of land, lol

Ship the size of Manhattan has an area of a hundred Manhattans.

>Physics has peaked
kys, there are more open questions than ever you fucking brainlet
> what are you going to pull out of your ass as a more dense energy storage medium than nuclear power?
Just store matter and antimatter you brainlet, many orders of magnitude more energy dense than fuel rods. Of course, there might be more possibilities that we have no idea of yet.

The open questions relate to events like the Big Bang, supernovae and black holes. We're not in the era of breakthroughs happening one after another anymore, we understand too much for that. All that is left is minor refinements that will match the extremities I mentioned.

Just adding onto this that you could have most of the "seed" population of the ship be embryos. Rather than having 200,000 adults on an intergenerational ship you could do what they did in Interstellar and have around 1000 people, mostly women and use the embryos to rapidly increase the population once they arrived at their destination.

Enjoy your many failed pregnancies because space is a bitch.

>Can we go to space
>Yeah, but only if you agree to be baby machines when you get there
I don't think this would work anymore user. Maybe back in the 50's.

Well it'll take 50 years to get there, plenty of time for brainwashing a generation of young girls.

Yeah, fair enough.

>Enjoy your many failed pregnancies because space is a bitch

2-5 meters of plastic shielding means radiation is not a problem anymore.

artificial wombs are just a matter of time

Space isn't just radiation a ship like this is a well prepared Petri dish just waiting for a small mutation of some microscopic menace to kill everyone on-board.

Maybe our species deserves to die out on this rock after all

There is no reason to think a spaceship would vulnerable to infections.

>what is modern medicine

Any civilization that has the technology to attempt such voyages will certainly not be stopped by this. Try again.

In 50k years it's not an improbable assumption that we'll perfect fusion energy. Taking a fuckton of hydrogen with you would solve pretty much all energy needs and you can create some spare materials while you're at it. Do you really think a ship that's, say, 50% hydrogen in mass wouldn't be able to sustain itself for a thousand years or so with fusion?
Or perhaps energy storage technologies may propose something revolutionary. We're talking about timescales in which a hundred thousand years more of technological development is hardly significant.

>implying I would not want to go on a trip like this with my (future) wife

Are your friends (if any) this retarded? Some downie group?

Pic related and /thread

/thread

Because it is science fiction.