Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


Discord Now Fully Linked With 420chan IRC

I hate the fermi paradox

- Sat, 30 Jan 2016 02:53:49 EST Y6cuAVAn No.55979
File: 1454140429941.jpg -(232492B / 227.04KB, 600x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. I hate the fermi paradox
The Fermi paradox is not a fucking paradox. It's completely reasonable that in a universe this large and the short amount of time we have had are ears open looking for radio broadcasts AND the fact that intelligent life evolving or even evolving with the senses that would make radio waves a logical invention for them is highly unlikely. Given what we know about how many planets are in the habitable zones of stars.

It's totally reasonable that we have not heard a thing from anyone. Maybe if we listened for like I don't know 3 million years THEN we can safely say "yes fermi was right this IS a pardox" can anyone prove this idea wrong?
Tycho Brahe - Sat, 30 Jan 2016 04:57:30 EST rtyCXNfP No.55980 Reply
it's totally resaonable to assume that you have no idea what you're talking about. can anyone prove this idea wrong?
Urbain Le Verrier - Sat, 30 Jan 2016 07:12:48 EST s6y07R4Z No.55982 Reply
By this time any self-respecting civilization would have already expanded to a galactic empire.

Personally I believe very strongly in the Zoo Hypothesis but then again, that level of belief is about the same level of the belief needed for religion.

Humans are too dangerous anyways, we don't need to find aliens. Think of the poor aliens.
Jacob Kapteyn - Sat, 30 Jan 2016 08:31:52 EST QQlzobdd No.55983 Reply
What if there are aliens being oppressed by evil aliens?
And it's UP TO US to free them?
George Hale - Sat, 30 Jan 2016 09:59:29 EST vB+y87GU No.55984 Reply
The younger universe had too many supernovae and too few heavy elements. The Fermi Paradox is obsolete.
We ARE the ayyyliens
If I met an alien, I'd greet it by doing the 'live long and prosper' gesture and say 'ayyy, lmao'.
Urbain Le Verrier - Sat, 30 Jan 2016 11:33:24 EST s6y07R4Z No.55985 Reply
What if WE are the evil aliens?

On a serious note, if we stole space ship technology from aliens, we'd infest the galaxy with space pirates in no time flat.

They know this and that's why we see nothing that they don't want us to see but even that trick will eventually not work any more, humans are too clever for that. Eventually the lack of evidence becomes evidence itself.
Russel Hulse - Sat, 30 Jan 2016 12:18:50 EST sky71Ye7 No.55986 Reply

>Eventually the lack of evidence becomes evidence itself.

Occam's razor. If we see no aliens out there, there's a greater chance they simply aren't there.

I guarantee you, we are one of the first.
James Elliott - Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:56:57 EST 2+LwtyYh No.55987 Reply
>had are ears open
Go back to elementary school. Do not pass go; do not collect 200 dollars.
Urbain Le Verrier - Sat, 30 Jan 2016 15:43:42 EST s6y07R4Z No.55988 Reply
No, the implications that we're either one of the first or the only ones in this galaxy are much more complicated than the fact that we're scary as hell and the possibility that we're purposely quarantined.

I'd quarantine us too, it sounds like a reasonable decision.
Russel Hulse - Sat, 30 Jan 2016 17:53:02 EST sky71Ye7 No.55989 Reply

Why would a species capable of spanning the void between stars be so afraid of us that they'd hide themselves and put us in quarantine?

Knowing humans we'd probably try to set up relations the minute we found a comparable species we could talk to. Why would any alien be any different?
Carl Seyfert - Sat, 30 Jan 2016 21:26:18 EST Y6cuAVAn No.55990 Reply
1454207178468.jpg -(56152B / 54.84KB, 480x480) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Also it's worth talking about that fermi was a old ass man and his ideas might not mean shit anymore.

The basis of the Fermi paradox was based of the "Drake equation" and equation that was supposed to predict the number of intelligent life forms in the milky way based on the number of stars in the milky way. This equation predicted 10,000 intelligent life forms in our Galaxy.

From the time this prediction was made it was heavily criticized because the nature of the equation is unsolvable and based on what you put in the "X's" you can get 10,000, 100,000,000 or just 1 intelligent life forms in the Milky Way. It's a guess and now with what we know about exoplanets probably a very bad guess at that. It was a fun brain game some dude make up to explore the idea of intelligent life and fermi took it way too seriously.
Carl Seyfert - Sat, 30 Jan 2016 21:33:11 EST Y6cuAVAn No.55991 Reply
Disregard this I just wijovial jewd it and femi was dead for 9 years by the time that dude make the Drake equation
Annie Cannon - Sun, 31 Jan 2016 14:09:16 EST 8ZzPyJfq No.55992 Reply
I simply think we're just too far away in space and time to contact other intelligent life-forms. Feels lonely man.
A Wizard - Mon, 01 Feb 2016 01:50:09 EST 0HhPnpAt No.55996 Reply
For you I have del and morning coffee for now and I do think we can think we can contact intelegent life...
Mike Brown - Mon, 01 Feb 2016 14:48:39 EST fDZ3h+Vd No.55998 Reply
The Fermi paradox doesn't care what you think, its point still stands. Your reasoning of not having enough heavy elements is not true since even after 2 bilion years the universe had alot of galaxies and alot of really, really massive stars going on during that time since hydrogen & helium were abundant. There were plenty of heavy elements way before our time and stars from those times could still be around, because small red dwarfs live for trillions of years.

Thats why its a paradox, there should have been plenty of chances for life to develop on a multide of planets from what we know today.

Possible solutions to this that would make us still one of the first / first are the great filters. Either the early universe was way too inhospitable for life to develope, ie. gamma ray bursts were way more common back then or supernovae. Earth has been hit by both a few times, atleast thats speculated from geology. This would mean that the universe has calmed down recently and that there are plenty of other lifeforms developing at the same time as us, but I guess we'd still be the first to listen/broadcast(once).

Or the great filter is in evolution and is behind us, something about life moving from single cell to multicell organisms might be very improbable to happen, or maybe intelligence requires very specific enviorments to develop. I think the latter might be the most probable. The "Cradle of Humanity" has been studied extensively and its geology shows signs of a very harsh and rapidly changing enviorment. This has been speculated to have influenced human evolution in such a way that it forced our early human ancestors to adapt to an exteremly unstable enviorment and that constant change and adaptation was the impetus for selective pressure for more intelligence and consciousness rose of that.

There are many possibilities and it might be that somewhere in the observable universe there is life, but if it is as rare as it seems to be, there has to be some filter. Just pray that it's not infront of us.

I'm high as shit, so forgive typos
Robert Dicke - Mon, 01 Feb 2016 15:08:47 EST wOw6YQ0Z No.55999 Reply
I get slightly freaked out at the thought that there could be other lifeforms, right under our very noses in this solar system, but are too alien for us to identify. Stephen Hawking spoke of the possibility of outlandish gas cloud aliens, on Jupiter. How do I even?
Anders Angstrom - Mon, 01 Feb 2016 17:30:41 EST vB+y87GU No.56001 Reply
Gamma ray bursts and supernovae, brah.
We are the ayyyliens.
William Fowler - Tue, 02 Feb 2016 09:22:25 EST fDZ3h+Vd No.56002 Reply
1454422945560.jpg -(666823B / 651.19KB, 1388x2000) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Well that is one of the more likelier explenations, but such events at a great frequence would have left its mark on Earth, the ones we see now are rare events, only a few in the history of the planet.

This means that they must have happened before the earth - and the sun - formed. Do you realize how luck we have to be to be around JUST after it and be first? Its just so improbable. If it is a combination of hard evolutionary first steps and the inhopsitable universe, then it might be more resonable.

It would be amazing if it is true, we would be literally living at the start of the first galactic civilization, atleast in the milky way. Hopefully atleast, since we still might off ourselves. Though I do think that extraterrestial life exists, maybe just not intelligent. Or they're still playing catch up to us and haven't got to radio technology or are on the other side of the galaxy.
Bernard Burke - Tue, 02 Feb 2016 16:02:14 EST vB+y87GU No.56003 Reply
I'm not sure we have any way of measuring how many GRBs or supernovae occured before the earth cooled. I should also point out that at 4.5 billion years old, our system is pretty young. Our solar system is a very late arrival to the party, having missed out on the first TEN BILLION YEARS of the universe existing. If cosmic radiation caused at least one extinction in our distant past, imagine how often it was 5 billion years ago, 7, 10. We may not be the first, per se, but we are probably some of the first who have a real chance at interstellar exploration etc.
Kip Thorne - Tue, 02 Feb 2016 22:58:44 EST feK9r3AW No.56004 Reply
1454471924693.jpg -(17438B / 17.03KB, 297x422) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Stephen Hawking don't know what the fuck he talkin bout, son. Ain't no gas cloud aliens on Jupiter, nigga get real.

Might be sharks on Europa tho...
Thomas Henderson - Tue, 02 Feb 2016 23:42:44 EST GLWCpz5s No.56005 Reply
I hate how this concept has totally desecrated the original meaning of the word paradox, which simply described a conceptual dead end, where logic fails completely. As OP already pointed out, there just isn't enough information to call the absence of alien contact even remotely something resembling a paradox.

The universe is huge as fuck.
Edwin Hubble - Wed, 03 Feb 2016 11:14:20 EST s6y07R4Z No.56006 Reply
Because we have the incredible ability to fuck shit up and they have probably been at peace for the last 1,000 years or more.

Sure they could just wipe us out but that would just be needlessly cruel. A civilization stable enough to stay intact over multiple star systems likely has a lot more empathy than that, if not they'd probably wipe themselves out before ever finding us.

Knowing humans now, we'd probably fuck up and violate the prime directive only to find out it's a bad idea and never do it again. That's probably what galactic society already did, they learned from it, and it's probably better for us to figure it out ourselves.

Figure what out, you ask? Maybe it's warp travel, maybe it's the fact that there's no invisible man in the sky, or maybe it's the simple fact that we need to take care of each other to ensure our co-survival and not constantly act like dicks to each other.
Giuseppe Piazzi - Wed, 03 Feb 2016 13:04:35 EST sky71Ye7 No.56007 Reply

I seriously doubt that any civilization could maintain a monolithic existence for so long without conflict. They eventually come crashing down under their own weight if they don't get toppled by something outside. Life has a tendency for maximizing diversity, and civilizations are no different.

If there are any aliens aware of us, I think the reason for their absence is simply disinterest in us.
Riccardo Giacconi - Wed, 03 Feb 2016 14:02:21 EST vpTqpr/x No.56008 Reply
1454526141524.jpg -(123709B / 120.81KB, 1600x926) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Are you 100% sure? How deep and at what scales did you check?
William de Sitter - Wed, 03 Feb 2016 14:33:17 EST fDZ3h+Vd No.56009 Reply
Thats what I was hinting at, atleast during the lifetime of our planet, there hasn't been apocalyptic events at a great frequence.
George Herbig - Thu, 04 Feb 2016 09:35:30 EST s6y07R4Z No.56011 Reply
>if they don't get toppled by something outside
Well then maybe they're at war with another race who they uplifted too early.

The war they're having creates enough cohesion to keep their society together, and the fact that they already fucked up by making contact too soon might be keeping them from contacting us.

If they weren't benevolent enough to protect us, or at least not smart enough not to let humans fall into the tentacles of the enemy, we wouldn't exist here right now. We'd either be dead or enslaved for cannon fodder.

It's a very complicated situation but personally I think it has less complicated implications than "we're alone just because".
Joseph Lockyer - Fri, 05 Feb 2016 05:49:54 EST pjhpxsvC No.56012 Reply
What if
>the universe is infinitely big
>there are infinite amounts of galactic civilizations everywhere
>surrounded by effectively infinite distances

That's the kind of thinking that makes me break down during shroom trips.

It's like being in a candy store with free candy, except you haven't got arms, legs and sensory perception.
James Christy - Fri, 05 Feb 2016 13:55:22 EST cQBIryFa No.56013 Reply
1454698522949.jpg -(657645B / 642.23KB, 1122x886) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
This is probably the answer.
But the real big question is: why do we expect to have met the aliens even if they're all over the place?

If intelligent life is common, it's because intelligence came to be in many, diverse environments.
If interstellar travel is common, someone probably owns this part of the galaxy.
If both these are true, our "landlords" probably can't live comfortably on Earth, and haven't bothered to announce themselves to us.
Or they came by so long ago we wouldn't have recognized them as aliens, and recorded them as gods,
Rudolph Minkowski - Sat, 06 Feb 2016 09:31:13 EST s6y07R4Z No.56017 Reply
But what about our galaxy? It really is a big place.

Are you meaning to tell me that there's only one semi-intelligent, mobile, and curious sentient species in a well-sized spiral galaxy such as ours?

And I'd understand not being able to reasonably overtake the Hubble Volume, but failing at crossing at least half of a galaxy is an impossibility, stars do it all the time.
Roger Penrose - Sun, 07 Feb 2016 00:27:07 EST Y6cuAVAn No.56019 Reply
1454822827617.jpg -(53658B / 52.40KB, 700x463) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
dude still doesn't explain why its a paradox. you kinda said what i was saying, i think intelligent life is probably super rare. and for that life to get to the point where they can travel outside of there system is probably uber rare. so given all that and the time it takes for non natural radio waves to move threw space. i still stand by what i said. fermi paradox is not a paradox.

if it turns out that faster than light travel is possible i think that it might be possible that aliens have already been to earth. if not then i think they have never been hear. i also think that any intelligent life that have lived that long to evolve to that point is probably non violent. as making to it that point with that technology alive would be the result of a inherent, relatively, mostly non violent demeanor. unless they are more like the Borg who aren't really violent. they just wanna absorb everything including us for the good of the Borg.
Carl Seyfert - Mon, 08 Feb 2016 03:54:55 EST r6P+KyX6 No.56023 Reply
What if, in other solar systems and galaxies, inter-galactic civilizations and interstellar travel is the norm, yet Earth just happens to be located in a particularly isolated environment? Can you imagine loads of aliens having fun on each other planets, developing culture and swapping ideas, yet here we humans are, so far and distant away on our lonely rock with no one to talk to?
Johan Galle - Mon, 08 Feb 2016 09:42:39 EST fDZ3h+Vd No.56024 Reply
But the point is that from what we know, it shouldn't be that rare. There are plenty of planets and life showed up on Earth as soon as it cooled enough. The logic based on what we know now suggests that there should be plenty of aliens by this stage of the universe, but there aren't. That's why it's a paradox.

Now, if we somehow come up with an explanation for why there aren't any other lifeforms when there should be plenty, then its no longer a paradox. Right now all we have is speculation and that is not enough to cast away the paradox.
Charles Bolton - Mon, 08 Feb 2016 12:51:46 EST cQBIryFa No.56026 Reply
1454953906650.jpg -(43684B / 42.66KB, 382x500) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Our galaxy is far too big to be considered our local neighborhood.
Never mind the distance, look at how many stars their are.
Different studies give numbers ranging from 100 billion to 500 billion.
Let's say we discover warp drive tomorrow, and we build a thousand starships.
For comparison, all the world's Navies combined don't have a thousand ships.
Let's say they're so fast they search two solar systems a week.
That's a total of 100 per ship per year, 100,000 a year for the whole fleet, a million would take ten years, a hundred billion would take a million years.

And besides, what makes you think someone who found us would bother to let us know they existed?
Charles Bolton - Mon, 08 Feb 2016 13:00:14 EST cQBIryFa No.56027 Reply
1454954414650.jpg -(121865B / 119.01KB, 500x519) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>it shouldn't be that rare.
> life showed up on Earth as soon as it cooled enough.
Google "weak anthropomorphic principle".
You can't say "we've only been to one solar system, but there's life here, so we can expect life is common".
No matter how rare life is, the only place people speculate about is on a life-bearing world.

>there should be plenty of aliens by this stage of the universe, but there aren't.
There's no reason to believe that alien life isn't common.
It's arrogant to assume that we would expect to have been greeted by now.
Johan Galle - Mon, 08 Feb 2016 16:26:11 EST fDZ3h+Vd No.56028 Reply
If I understood that principle correctly - and I am pretty high - then it doesn't really concern itself with what you're talking about. It is about basically the multiverse and an idea that universes themselves go through evolution and only in some of those do the properties of it make life possible. Even it is true, we are still living in a universe where life is possible and should have (based on the amout of exo planets we're finding)millions of chances to develop in a galaxy our size.

>There's no reason to believe that alien life isn't common.
I'm gonna assume you mispoke here, unless you do agree with me. I'm not saying and the paradox isn't saying that the aliens would have visited us, it says that we should have seen some sign of them by now, radio signals most likely. And really, the consensus on how common life should be based on the exoplanets, looking like atleast one per star, is really moving towards very common.
Robert Wilson - Mon, 08 Feb 2016 16:36:32 EST sky71Ye7 No.56029 Reply

>we are still living in a universe where life is possible and should have (based on the amout of exo planets we're finding)millions of chances to develop in a galaxy our size.

I think what he's getting at is that because we have only one data-point when it comes to life, namely Earth, we have no idea how common it is. If life is exceedingly rare, then the number of planets in your average galaxy doesn't matter. Life might seem like a given, but that's just because we take it for granted as living beings.

>the consensus on how common life should be based on the exoplanets, looking like atleast one per star, is really moving towards very common.

Not at all. The number of exoplanets means nothing. Look at our own system, we have four rocky planets and three of them are absolute hellscapes for living things. Judging from what we know of their histories it seems there are far more things that can go wrong than right for prospective life-bearing worlds.
George Hale - Mon, 08 Feb 2016 22:28:07 EST cQBIryFa No.56030 Reply
1454988487169.png -(637005B / 622.08KB, 450x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
> It is about basically the multiverse and an idea that universes themselves go through evolution
I don't have time to google it, but I think you're looking at the strong anthropomorphic principle, not the weak anthropomorphic principle.

>I think what he's getting at is that because we have only one data-point when it comes to life, namely Earth, we have no idea how common it is.

That's close.
What I mean is that the only way we could speculate about how common life is is if we're alive ourselves.
Let's say the moon is required for life to exist.
It's no good saying "look at our solar system, out of three mid-range rocky planets (Venus, Earth and Mars), one has a big moon, odds of that happening is one in three".
If the moon really is required, then even if it's only a 1% chance a planet like ours would have a moon, we wouldn't be here to discuss the issue unless we had the moon.

Even if life is a million-to-one shot (and it probably isn't) it's no use using ourselves as an example, since we'd have to hit that cosmic lottery to be here to discuss it at all.

>I'm gonna assume you mispoke here, unless you do agree with me.
I do agree with you, in that I suspect/hope life is common.
My point is that we shouldn't expect to have met the aliens, even if they are common.
Earth has been here for 4.6 billion years.
We've only been recording history for 6000 years, 0.00013% of that time.
And it's only been in the last hundred years or so that we could interpret visitors as anything but gods/spirits/angels.
George Hale - Mon, 08 Feb 2016 22:34:37 EST cQBIryFa No.56031 Reply
1454988877169.jpg -(198467B / 193.82KB, 500x588) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>we should have seen some sign of them by now, radio signals most likely.

Nope. Inverse-square law.
Even with Arecibo, we'll never pick up signals similar to our own from even the nearest stars.
James Christy - Tue, 09 Feb 2016 04:35:57 EST fDZ3h+Vd No.56032 Reply
The exoplanets mean something, namely that habitable planets should be somewhat common because there is just so many chances for them to come about.

From wiki on exoplanets, based on Kepler's discoveries;
"About 1 in 5 Sun-like stars[a] have an "Earth-sized" planet in the habitable zone,[c] with the nearest expected to be within 12 light-years distance from Earth.[10][11] Assuming 200 billion stars in the Milky Way,[d] that would be 11 billion potentially habitable Earth-sized planets in the Milky Way, rising to 40 billion if planets orbiting the numerous red dwarfs are included.[12]"

Now even if only 1% of those were truly habitable, ie. hit the cosmic jackpot, that would still be 110 million. If on 1% of those life arose, that'd still be 1,1 million planets where evolution is doing its thing. Many of those should be in systems much older than ours. By now, they should have taken over the galaxy, and it only takes 1 civilization of that 1,1 million to do that.

This is because given just 0,1% of c, "would permit settlement of the entire Galaxy in less than one half of a galactic rotation period of ~250,000,000 years", wiki Space colonization. There really, really should have been another lifeform that we could spot by now, unless there is something we're missing. It goes against prevailing logic, human logic that is, and that is why it's paradox. Now, it may be completely possible that our human logic is completely wrong and other lifeforms don't feel the need to spread or they all invent some technology like dyson swarms etc. and don't leave their own system or they go into VR all and spend eternity there, but those are just possible answers to the paradox.

Or, maybe we're literally the one-in-a-million for this galaxy and there is nobody else, but I just can't bring myself to believe that.

These galatic civilizations should be really obvious by now because of their waste heat. But you're right, they're still perfecting that detection method, we simply may have just not had enough time, but that still doesn't negate the paradox. They should be everywhere in the galaxy by now and probably much more advanced than us, by our logic.
James Christy - Tue, 09 Feb 2016 04:44:46 EST fDZ3h+Vd No.56033 Reply
Also no dude, there are multiple variations of the WAP. I was reading the wrong one, you meant Brandon Carter's variant. But I still don't see how that relates to the fermi paradox, if anything it says also that there should be other life because we're here also. I'm still high though.

Yes I know, but as mentioned in the last post, they should be everywhere by current logic. Ofcourse it maybe that they don't even use radio any more, but the waste heat should be visible.
Thomas Henderson - Tue, 09 Feb 2016 12:58:30 EST vB+y87GU No.56034 Reply
Supernovae and GMBs, brah.
>Fermi parad...
Allan Sandage - Wed, 10 Feb 2016 22:18:36 EST tQX5ylFX No.56035 Reply
1455160716335.jpg -(105824B / 103.34KB, 960x811) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Math and prediction aside. Hasn't our deep space eyes seen enough of our nearby area with potentially habitable worlds to safely assume for the time being that there are many other places in the multitude of galaxies out there that have intelligent life?

I don't think this is a yes or no question any more. More a matter of when do we run into some one else? I think it foolish to not be prepared socially, mentally, and technologically and I don't mean with weapons though that's not a bad idea either just in case.
Allan Sandage - Thu, 11 Feb 2016 04:10:37 EST tQX5ylFX No.56037 Reply
them aliens must have some pretty complicated equipment.
William de Sitter - Thu, 11 Feb 2016 13:49:38 EST sky71Ye7 No.56040 Reply

'Habitable' in science means possibility of running water. The planets we've found can be pressure-cooker Venus-likes for all we know. Most of them are far bigger than Earth at any rate, which at least makes it implausible for space-travel to occur. Getting into orbit is difficult here on Earth, and our planet is relatively small and light.
Allan Sandage - Thu, 11 Feb 2016 16:31:43 EST tQX5ylFX No.56041 Reply
True but then again you are only thinking about Life like our own. With materials like our own. We can't live with such pressure but there are fish at the bottom of the sea surviving metric fuck tons of pressure. And who's to say inteligent life on planets in excess of 1g won't find better ways to get to space given enough time. Certainly the what, 14 billion estimated years of the universe is enough time for such things to happen. Ask not if it's possible, ask when and how. It's likely we may not even regocnize the first intelligent life we find given most, like you self, only think of Human like creatures with human like needs and limits. Hell, another organism may not even need water, that's just some thing we've seen on this planet with lots of water, coudl just be a comon evolutionary need for Earth organisms.
William de Sitter - Thu, 11 Feb 2016 17:04:12 EST sky71Ye7 No.56042 Reply

>We can't live with such pressure but there are fish at the bottom of the sea surviving metric fuck tons of pressure.

Yea, I'm not really arguing against life itself. Personally I'd bet life is more common than what is expected, at least microbial seems to be very plausible. Even Venus could be colonized by certain terrestrial bacteria so yeah.

>And who's to say intelligent life on planets in excess of 1g won't find better ways to get to space given enough time.

What I am talking about are planets ten times the size of Earth. Regular rockets(even fucking big ones) won't work on such planets. It's not only gravity that's a hurdle. The bigger a planet is, the more dense the atmosphere is expected to be. No tech we know can escape Venus for example, not even near-future rockets. Perhaps life there could find a way, but they'd be standing against far grander odds than us.

> Certainly the what, 14 billion estimated years of the universe is enough time for such things to happen.

Science recently shown that the universe have only been favorable for complex(terrestrial) life a few billion years. Don't remember the source(perhaps there's a thread about this report), but the writers estimated that only 6-8% of all life that will exist, exists today. It has something to do with more stable stars only now beginning to exist(i.e. no frequent supernova stars eradicating any possible life) and the generation of heavier elements(required for complex chemical reactions). Essentially these scientists are arguing that the universe is only now maturing for life, which is a very interesting proposition and would adequately explain the Fermi Paradox. I personally bet this is the reason. We are one of the first to arise.

>It's likely we may not even regocnize the first intelligent life we find given most.... Hell, another organism may not even need water, that's just some thing we've seen on this planet with lots of water, coudl just be a comon evolutionary need for Earth organisms.

Again, I'm not arguing against life. It's life capable of space-travel I doubt exist in 'abundance'. And to be honest, if we don't recognize the first 'life' we find, would it truly be life? Or something else?
Jacob Kapteyn - Sat, 13 Feb 2016 18:43:19 EST Qxst8MSm No.56053 Reply
>we don't see aliens/why aliens no come

They likely have the same problem we do, in that the time it takes for light to travel across the universe. Andromeda Galaxy is 2.537 million light years away, if aliens be there, they are looking at an earth from 2.5 million years ago. If their expedition left a million years ago they still have 1.5 million years left to reach us.
William Lassell - Thu, 18 Feb 2016 05:23:48 EST yEkFgooa No.56062 Reply
Radio waves have only been transmitting from earth for roughly 100 years or so, meaning they've only traveled 100 light years in total. That's nothing in the scope of our galaxy, let alone our universe. When we look at stars and galaxies that are millions of light years away, we are looking millions of years into the past. Let's say we are able to observe galaxy HIFFWE which is 500 million light years away. We are looking half a billion years into the past; if this galaxy did manage to produce an intelligent civilization on par with humanity within those 500 million years, we simply wouldn't know because of the vast space between us.
sorry if i repeated the arguments made ITT already, i'm high and haven't read it
Bernhard Schmidt - Mon, 22 Feb 2016 23:21:59 EST tQX5ylFX No.56075 Reply
I mean more unlikely to recognize it as intelligent. Of course if we see some thing in space that's clearly going to give it away as some what capable. As far as the known universe being only recently able to hold life as we know it couldn't there still be others with a similar species life span as our selves? I suppose it will be interesting to accurately know the time table of our own world compared to others. Plus a contrast of life of any kind on other worlds. I mean how long does it really take for intelligence capable of space travel take to develop? Guess we can't answer that until we find another.
Pierre-Simon Laplace - Wed, 24 Feb 2016 07:13:16 EST sky71Ye7 No.56078 Reply

>I mean how long does it really take for intelligence capable of space travel take to develop?

What I find interesting is that it's not a given that intelligent beings will develop space travel. It's all dependent on the cultural development.

Like with us humans, out of all cultures and civilizations that has existed, only one started the move towards industrialization and space travel. Now imagine if Rome never fell, or if the mongols invaded Western Europe. Would modern science ever develop in such a scenario?
Russel Hulse - Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:25:59 EST tQX5ylFX No.56079 Reply
I never considered this. I always assumed space travel as an inevitability with out realizing other possibilities. With out a strong cultural goal requiring innovation does technology progress? If all a species is concerned about is living then all they need to do is defend against the wilds and produce food. Easy stuff, surely don't need rocket propulsion and advanced chemestry for this. I'm sure most intelligence would probably ask "why is all of this here and where do I fit in?" But the right mind set is of extreme importance. How does scientific thought begin with in a civilization?
George Airy - Wed, 24 Feb 2016 22:07:31 EST fDZ3h+Vd No.56082 Reply
It began as curiosity about our environment and adaptation to that environment. We were curious long before we became as adaptive as we, homo sapiens, are though. This adaptation capability is probably because of to the harshness and constant state of change that our "Cradle of Humanity" seems to have been in.

I think, for a species like ours, technological advancement is inevitable. Ever since we became homo sapiens we've made tools, huts, fire, invented stuff like the wheel, the spear, pottery, fishing, bow making and everything else. This is all technological advancement and they all improve your chances of survival, that is to say, it's not a culture that demands innovation, it is the environment which demands you to adapt. Normally this would be done through evolution and if you're not fast enough to adapt, you disappear. But we humans are smart and can think of our own solutions to the problems our environment throws at us. This stands true through history in adaption to droughts, disease, war, famine and etc, though now we're mostly past having to battle these for our lives, but now we face global threats that don't call for a single organism to adapt, but the whole species. Climate change, the possibility of an extinction event, drug resistant diseases etc. all have the possibility to end our run and the only way to make sure those don't happen is through technological advancement.

But yes, a species could be content to just live in its environment, never developing any technological advancements. The neanderthals pretty much did this, though they did make clothes and spears. Now they're all gone and it is speculated today that either we killed them all or they couldn't adapt fast enough to the changing European climate. My point being that large animals like us are very susceptible to extinction if their environment changes too much and they cannot adapt fast enough. Evolution is a slow process compared to some of the changes that an environment can throw at you so curiosity, adaptation and thus technological progress seems to be a pretty good evolutionary strategy.

What I'm saying is that beings that don't develop technology we wouldn't consider intelligent by our stantards and that they wouldn't survive very long in any case. As for us, the inevitable march of technology has been just that, inevitable, because thats what we do, we adapt. We've always done it, the pace has just accelerated alot and there are alot more things we know to be curious about, many people today are saying that we're on an exponential curve with our technological advancement and we're just on the cusp of the shot up.

If Rome never fell we may very well be already exploring the stars. Rome was very technologically advanced and lots of its knowledge was lost after its fall, only to be rediscovered hundreds of years later.
Arthur Eddington - Thu, 25 Feb 2016 07:09:29 EST sky71Ye7 No.56083 Reply

>If Rome never fell we may very well be already exploring the stars. Rome was very technologically advanced and lots of its knowledge was lost after its fall, only to be rediscovered hundreds of years later.

I doubt that actually. Modern science came about as a product of a chain of events directly linked to the fall of Rome. While the Empire itself was advanced for its time, it did not have the same kind of philosophical vitality as what was during the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment. Also, without the rather equal and ambitious kingdoms of Europe there would never be any competition to drive European scientific innovation.

Ancient China was also advanced, in some ways more than Rome, yet they were content just sitting in their middle kingdom.

You are right that humans continually develop technology, but there's a fair difference between the odd inventor discovering better ways of doing things, and the philosophical organization of inquiry that is science. It is in many ways a unique ideology and a world view, and one rather unintuitive to regular human world-view at that. It could've been snuffed out in its infancy, and who's to say humans would develop it again?
George Airy - Thu, 25 Feb 2016 08:30:40 EST fDZ3h+Vd No.56084 Reply
I dunno man, Rome continually sought to improve its technology not only by borrowing(stealing) ideas from other cultures, but also by doing trial and error themselves. And whose to say that had Rome survived another millenia that it wouldn't have had something akin to the Reneissance? The "Dark ages" that supposedly preceeded the Reneissance is today pretty much dismissed as an idea, since there was plenty of going on in Europe and especially in the middle east, which preserved most of what we know today about Rome.

And by the way, the scientific method(atleast the inductive experimental method refined from the ancient greek methods of reasoning, which I'm guessing you mean) wasn't first widely used in Europe during the Reneissance, it was actually used widely in the Islamic world during the start of the first millenia CE, particularly by Ibn al-Haytham who made great strides in optics, but also by many others. They basically continued on from the Romans. And come on, the Romans had plenty of large enemies it had to defend against, isn't that basically the same as smaller squabbling kingdoms in europe?

And yes, ancient china was advanced, but they were also basically shut out from the outside world because of its geography, only the merchant caravans could cross the deserts and mountains of western china(the silk road was treacherous, but profits were huge enough for people to do it) and they didn't exactly have the need to expand.

Also, I'm not so sure I agree with your assertion that there is alot of difference between what you described, its just more refined. Like everything in todays world, it's evolved into what it is now from those beginnings. They had research labs in the olden days too, you know. Particularly for anything useful in war such as optics and metallurgy. There were also groups of people who shared the same intrests and researched them and gathered data together, mostly astronomers. Its just the evolution of it.

And it really couldn't have been snuffed out, by the 1500 the scientific method was used almost everywhere, mostly spread by Islamic traders to Asia and Europe and partly from the ancient greek texts, but those didn't use the inductive experimental method, but the greek style of just reasoning.

Also, I find your eurocentrism disturbing and I'm Finnish.
George Airy - Thu, 25 Feb 2016 08:41:00 EST fDZ3h+Vd No.56085 Reply
Oh and to add to this, because Europe was composed of small kingdoms, often very vary of the others, it didn't allow for the spread of some ideas, particurlarly those that were in any way useful in war. Now a unified empire? Much more of a better environment for information to spread freely, in my opinion.
Arthur Eddington - Thu, 25 Feb 2016 08:52:09 EST sky71Ye7 No.56086 Reply

>Also, I find your eurocentrism disturbing and I'm Finnish.

Well then again you're not European

>[Science] wasn't first widely used in Europe during the Reneissance

True, but that period laid the philosophical groundwork for what was to come. Without it, the ancient culture of thought the Greek nurtured would probably not have been reimplemented.

>it was actually used widely in the Islamic world during the start of the first millenia CE

The Islamic contributions shouldn't be ignored, but it's important to note that the "proto"-science they performed was indeed snuffed out. Following their advancements during the early first millenia, reactionary religious forces started to dismantle the Islamic focus on knowing the natural world(which was then seen as one of three ways of knowing Allah). One scholar even claimed that mathematics is the language of the devil. By the 1500's Islamic innovation had all but stopped. The ME has had trouble with modernization ever since.

>Also, I'm not so sure I agree with your assertion that there is alot of difference between what you described, its just more refined.

What I'm aiming at here is the red line going from Ancient Greece to modern science. Such philosophy has few if any true analogues in other parts of the world. What I am trying to say is that science is but one of many developments that may or may not happen. Aliens can take completely different roads, and it's entirely possible that a lot of them remain agricultural to their end. Seeing how inquiry of the natural world was repressed in the Islamic world, we can easily imagine a reality where Europeans followed the same road. Science might be a one-time kinda deal, and might not be common among other alien civilizations.
Arthur Eddington - Thu, 25 Feb 2016 08:56:59 EST sky71Ye7 No.56087 Reply

>it didn't allow for the spread of some ideas, particularly those that were in any way useful in war.

No, actually it was the other way around. Because of the intense competition between European nations and houses, once one group did something better, everyone else jumped on the bandwagon in order to not get conquered or eclipsed.

Large empires tend to stagnate because without outside threats, they stop being on their toes. This is exactly what did the Romans in. When the barbarian migrations came about, Rome's armies were performing abysmally to the extent that they started to hire barbarians to protect their own cities.
George Airy - Thu, 25 Feb 2016 14:12:07 EST fDZ3h+Vd No.56088 Reply
Sorry for any errors, I'm high as shit. Also grooving to music.

>True, but that period laid the philosophical groundwork for what was to come. Without it, the ancient culture of thought the Greek nurtured would probably not have been reimplemented.

Well, here we just have to agree to disagree then, because my opinion is that the rise of the scientific method was inevitable in humans. I do though concede that it may very well be likely that aliens don't have the same drive, since we can't likely even image them. Besides, don't you think that that groundwork was laid by arabic works coming with trade, since at that time it was flourishing there.

>The Islamic contributions shouldn't be ignored, but it's important to note that the "proto"-science they performed was indeed snuffed out. Following their advancements during the early first millenia, reactionary religious forces started to dismantle the Islamic focus on knowing the natural world(which was then seen as one of three ways of knowing Allah). One scholar even claimed that mathematics is the language of the devil. By the 1500's Islamic innovation had all but stopped. The ME has had trouble with modernization ever since.

Yes, but their method and knowledge had already spread around the known world by that point and I'm sure quite a few intellectuals also migrated.

Okay I'm just too high to finish this, I'll get back to you
Kiyotsugu Hirayama - Fri, 26 Feb 2016 15:00:39 EST bUVcT3Vi No.56094 Reply
Sounds like someone just got out of physics 101 then yoged to philosophy 96 with Dim Tim McFylnn to learn about hitting yourself in the head with a hammer. Nb
Walter Adams - Sat, 27 Feb 2016 18:01:36 EST fDZ3h+Vd No.56104 Reply
Whatever mang, considering your contributions to the board, I'm not too phased.

I'll try to finish my thoughts that I left off last time.

I see your point about the legacy of ancient greek thought and I understand that science might be a fluke, but just can't bring myself to agree with it. Besides, if evolution can bring about its changes over long times, maybe technologies may develop the same way in different cultures, i.e randomly finding things that work better? Or even the scientific method & philosophy itself, either way it could be an incremental process.

My point being that given long enough time, they would be hard pressed not to stumble upon the thought process. Though I do understand I've kind of spoken myself into a corner with this thought since I made a point of civilizations that don't change fast enough dying out quickly and reinforced your point, but still. I guess our disagreement is in the frequence of it.

Well I guess it comes down to a matter of which is better, competition or cooperation, somehow this dilemma feels familiar...
But yes, you are right, it probably made the others jump on something faster when they saw their enemies use it, but is that really better? They're all then just researching the same thing that one nation already has thus limiting the amount of resources that could be put toward thinking of new inventions.

Also as far as I remember, Rome was hiring barbarian mercenaries(Auxilia) for its legions waay before Rome started to crumble and this is what was speculated to be a factor towards the downfall, usually bowmen or cavalry, of which Rome had little experience. They started to rely too much on these auxiliaries and let their legions degrade. Romes problem was more its own success since it got so large that it just couldn't defend the borders, not even after Hadrian made a concious effort to try to nail down what they had, there were endless raids and skirmishes along the border across Europe and east of the Alps especially. Rome also didn't have enough land to give away to retiring legionaries after that point since they were no longer conquering new land to give away and no money from conquest to hire more auxilia.
Joseph-Louis Lagrange - Sat, 27 Feb 2016 23:41:35 EST C4wgokPz No.56105 Reply
It was a plot point of Asimov's Foundation series that the reason that technology had become stagnant in the decadent Empire, and even backslid, is that scientific method had been lost, and their scientific and educational systems were set up so that the scientists who reached any position of influence or power were incapable of original or critical thought, and when presented with a problem, would bury themselves in archives trying to find the solution, instead of experimenting.

An interesting idea especially in that Asimov was a biochemist himself, he must have been taking a shot at someone there...
Daniel Kirkwood - Mon, 29 Feb 2016 04:18:48 EST f/Tl+D5o No.56107 Reply
1456737528172.gif -(2205768B / 2.10MB, 320x133) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I have some memories from the past when I was in space before I started traveling here that I can recall me thinking that there is less than a dozen places (about 8) in the galaxy atm that have the ingredients that would appeal to me to travel to it. I have connected 2 species in this galaxy mentally while here, and think my space self was thinking broadly at 8.
George Hale - Mon, 29 Feb 2016 13:39:36 EST 5+wGokt8 No.56108 Reply
"In our science and philosophy, even, there is commonly no true and absolute account of things. The spirit of sect and bigotry has planted its hoof amid the stars. You have only to discuss the problem, whether the stars are inhabited or not, in order to discover it."

  • Henry David Thoreau
Karl Swarzchild - Mon, 29 Feb 2016 14:36:53 EST 3t/weoS/ No.56109 Reply

Hey, you have good points and counter-arguments. Perhaps I'm wrong in thinking science is something unique. After all, given enough time, humans will(or should?) eventually exhaust all possible ideas and philosophies. Science included.

I'm not going to go into the other stuff about our ancestors and historical development. I feel it would get too close to a derailment from OP's. History can be interpreted in a thousands ways at any rate, there is no absolute truth here. However I think it shows how the direction of the march of History is governed by accidents, twists of fate and coincidences.

I am a biologist by study, so my way of seeing things are in the vein of evolutionary thinking. There is no inherent natural drive towards the kind of general intelligence humans possess. If intelligent life do arise, competing civilizations, culture and ideas follows similar evolutionary rules. Science is indeed a game-changer when refined and advanced enough, but up until that point it is subject to extinction. I fear there's a bigger likelihood that most alien civilizations will die out before they get to the stars. Hell this is still a possibility in our case.

What I am talking about is what's referred to as the 'Great Filters', thresholds of 'development' of intelligence that most life-bearing planets won't ever cross. However, until we actually go out there and explore, we won't know if the Filters are at the level of civilizations(self-destruction or failure to develop science) or at the level of biology(multicellularism or intelligence). We remain here in front of our desks and speculate like any good armchair philosopher should.
John Riccioli - Mon, 29 Feb 2016 20:57:51 EST fDZ3h+Vd No.56112 Reply
Well said and I do agree, we're getting to the fringes of the topic at hand. And thanks, you bring up lots of valid points too!

I'm not going to argue with you on this point since you have background in it, but hasn't it been speculated that the Cradle of Humanity in Africa was a very rapidly changing, harsh environment which made an evolutionary pressure towards higher capability to adapt and our intelligence rose from that? This was based on the geology of the area which indicates alot of dry and wet periods (IIIRC) swapping quite quickly.

I very much agree with you on the view that technology, culture and ideas progress evolutionarily, but much faster than actual evolution. One thing I like to think about is how we were hunters and gatherers for hundreds of thousands of years, up until 12,000 years ago. Then in a relative blink of an eye after agriculture starts, we have writing, metal working, sailing, cities, city states, empires and everything else around us. In 12,000 years we went from all humans being hunter gatherers to almost no one. In 12,000 all the complexity of our history and technological development took place.

My point being, after the initial impetus that allows for a surplus(agriculture) so that people can specialize, there will be development and really fast development at that. Thats why I think that science would have nessecarily been rediscovered and taken to heart, there is just too much of a, shall we say, evolutionary forcing function towards science and I think atleast that some people have a kind of mind set for it in their personality. I mean, its basically just wanting to know the absolute truth and being willing to go to great lenghts to verify that information.

I talked about great filters either in this or the other fermi thread already, but yea, they're a scary thought. I remember hearing one astronomer say in regards to life on Mars that "No news is good news". This is because if life is found on Mars it means that life is very likely to arise, but rarely progresses past the initial stage or some other filter. If the filter is ahead of us, I don't think that should necessarily mean that we couldn't find other life since we got to this point and we have radio. But damn do I hope its not ahead of us.

Personally, I think either the evolutionary pressures required for intelligence are really, really specific or there is something about prokaryotic, eukarioty phases or even the coming of RNA thats very unlikely to happen. So yea, basically the filter, but I do not think that it's in the development from intelligence to our point, though. Or maybe agriculture, but that seems so obvious that it was bound to happen, though we still took 190 thousand years to figure it out.
Henry Draper - Mon, 29 Feb 2016 22:10:57 EST YZJD+iC2 No.56113 Reply
Anyone else freaked out by the idea that we are alone?
Giovanni Cassini - Tue, 01 Mar 2016 22:31:11 EST fDZ3h+Vd No.56114 Reply
It is an unsettling thought, one that undermines our responsibility to keep our civilization going. As Elon Musk has put it, "I think we have a duty to maintain the light of consciousness, to make sure it continues into the future." Because if we're the only ones around then we sure as fuck don't want to be the last also, this is also the reason why Musk wants to go to Mars so badly, he wants to make sure that we can't get wiped out by an extinction event here on Earth.

One event, a large asteroid, pathogen, GRB or even a super volcano going off might do us in and after that the universe would be without observers. Think of how sad that would be, all the beauty of the universe and all its complexities and discoveries, never to be experienced again by a consciouss mind. Though given the time it will take for entropy to win and the universe to die a heat death(100 trillion years, IIRC), I'm sure that there will be others, but nevertheless, we still have a duty to carry human conscioussness foward and not let it go out and if our galaxy is barren of others, to populate it. Good ol' Manifest Destiny, eh? Just hopefully without the natives and the genocide.

Personally, I think I'm more bothered by the sheer improbability of us being alone. I mean, if we never find anyone else that'll mean that the chances of us coming around are beyond astronomically small, considering the amount of chances that life should have to arise. It would just make us, in my eyes, waaaaaaaaaay too fucking lucky and just increase my belief that we're in a simulation or even wake solipsism in me. Add to that the truly amazing time we are living in, the greatest time of change in humanitys history when we're first starting to venture into space and maybe homestaying it, it just staggers belief that we are this lucky.

So yea, it freaks me out, but probably not in the same way as it does you.
Edwin Salpeter - Mon, 14 Mar 2016 18:28:04 EST CI7HCp3k No.56126 Reply
1457994484127.jpg -(41469B / 40.50KB, 400x487) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
It boils down to the Drake Equation and imho the probability of microbiological life evolving on habitable planets.
To quote wikipedia:
And now the tremendous pitfall:
>f_i is the fraction of habitable planets where microbial life arises. Ward and Brownlee believe this fraction is unlikely to be small.

This could be incredible small for all we know. From the current understanding of microbiology cell organelles are hypothesized to have formed from random convergence. Considering the relative size of these (in terms of number of molecules) it might turn out to be incredible improbable to happen.
Joseph Taylor Jr. - Tue, 15 Mar 2016 12:34:15 EST YHjXylC8 No.56127 Reply
But evidence of life starts very soon after the earth cooled.
This implies either those molecules are incredibly likely to occur on a scale of millions of years, and certain to occur on a scale of billions of years given pre-earthlike conditions.
Joseph Taylor Jr. - Tue, 15 Mar 2016 14:51:44 EST YHjXylC8 No.56128 Reply
1458067904251.png -(214525B / 209.50KB, 600x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
*This implies those molecules are incredibly likely to occur on a scale of millions of years, and certain to occur on a scale of billions of years given pre-earthlike conditions.
Bart Bok - Thu, 17 Mar 2016 03:05:33 EST 3t/weoS/ No.56130 Reply

For prokaryotes it seems the odds are in their favor, but eukaryotic life which is near required for multicellular life needed almost half the lifetime of Earth to develop. Which makes sense as they were born from symbiotic relationships between different prokaryotes, something that need specific spesializations to occur beforehand.

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.