Explain the Fermi Paradox (i.e. We are Alone)

[Kev1972]

Most likely faster than light travel is not possible.

Most likely intelligent life does exist in other parts of the universe.

Most likely the distances are far too great to ever meet any of them.

If we built a fully sustainable spacecraft that could support life indefinitely it would take 80,000 years to reach the next closest star system.

[ZombieClive]

Being so advanced, they would have spaceships, drones, satellites, flags, artwork, debris engineering projects that would be impossible to hide. But we haven't seen anything at all.

brah its not like we have google earth for distant galaxies lol.

brb no flag seen on planet millions of light years away-- must be vacant...

[NKWulf]

Missing the argument here.

If there were millions or billions of civilizations, then we would have clear evidence of their existence by now because they would be millions or billions of years more advanced than us (i.e. capable of space travel and other majestic feats).

But as we have no evidence despite that logical premise, then the conclusion follows that they don't exist.

no we wouldn't. along with that, maybe we did, in the past, all the drawing could be legit aliens. Also, maybe they don't give a **** about us. Along with the fact that we just now have a satellite that left our solar system, and we are still discovering possible planets that are with in the "earth" like distance from the sun, shows that we are barely hitting a cusp of technology that will allow us to leave this solar system with manned crafts.

Who is to say that "aliens" are not at the same level of tech as we are. And if they are "x" years ahead, doesn't mean they would be capable of galactic travel.

[JeffereyTyrone]

But what the Fermi Peradox makes you think about is:

- think of the rate humans have advanced in the last 1000 years.
- Now imagine a civilization that is millions of years older (and still around) than humans
- imagine mathematically how much more advanced than humans they should be
- Now imagine the BILLIONS of other civilizations that should mathematically be out there, of which can be MILLIONS if not BILLIONS of years more advanced
- Now think of the absolute (relative but hardly) zero evidence we have of ANYTHING outside of Earth

If you want to play the stats on why life should be out there, then you have to include points from the Fermi Paradox and include the stats which show that by now we SHOULD have some sort of evidence of life other than humans. Those stats should be leave a greater chance of us finding proof versus the stats of life potentially being out there.

Can't tell if srs
You're speculating waay too much
Why a million years?
Did you include distance?
Did you exclude science fiction
Why does it have to be intelligent life?
Other than radio waves what sign of alien life is there to find?

[AbbeBusoni]

...In what universe? Which planets were formed in millions of years and then evolved life in hundreds of years into intelligent forms AND THEN allowed them to break the laws of physics to do things that are theoretical and considered sci-fi or fringe science in order to show us they exist over millions of light years away?

In 4.5 billion years, we reached the point at which we are. The Universe is 14.5 billion years. If there is a planet like Earth that is, say, 8 billion years old, then any intelligent life-form there would be 3.5 billion years more advanced than us (if you assume that all that happened on Earth is typical, not special).

With a 3.5 billion year head start, their technology would be advanced enough to populate the galaxy. Even if they don't travel at the speed of light, they could populate the entire galaxy in less than 50 million years. And what is 50 million years compared to a 3.5 billion year head start?

And recall that the volume of planets means there should be millions of older civilizations (again, assuming that what happened on Earth wasn't special), which mandates that they should be all over the milky way galaxy.

But we have literally nothing but silence.

[GimpManlet]

But what the Fermi Peradox makes you think about is:

- think of the rate humans have advanced in the last 1000 years.
- Now imagine a civilization that is millions of years older (and still around) than humans
- imagine mathematically how much more advanced than humans they should be
- Now imagine the BILLIONS of other civilizations that should mathematically be out there, of which can be MILLIONS if not BILLIONS of years more advanced
- Now think of the absolute (relative but hardly) zero evidence we have of ANYTHING outside of Earth

If you want to play the stats on why life should be out there, then you have to include points from the Fermi Paradox and include the stats which show that by now we SHOULD have some sort of evidence of life other than humans. Those stats should be leave a greater chance of us finding proof versus the stats of life potentially being out there.

I entirely disagree. The energy needed to exert significant influence over a meaningful region of space is so great, that you are firmly into "tiny accident destroys the planet" territory. I believe civilizations will always self-destruct when the tech evolves far enough.

[SpicyCurrie]

What if we're actually a prison planet?



Humans were placed here millions of years ago as punishment, the other race that placed us here left us and only came back in small groups (ancient gods). But they began to see that we hadn't changed and we were still a violent species so they again left us on our own. Left us to drift on a prison in a region far removed from all other solar systems.

[apolloman]

But what the Fermi Peradox makes you think about is:

- think of the rate humans have advanced in the last 1000 years.
- Now imagine a civilization that is millions of years older (and still around) than humans
- imagine mathematically how much more advanced than humans they should be
- Now imagine the BILLIONS of other civilizations that should mathematically be out there, of which can be MILLIONS if not BILLIONS of years more advanced
- Now think of the absolute (relative but hardly) zero evidence we have of ANYTHING outside of Earth

If you want to play the stats on why life should be out there, then you have to include points from the Fermi Paradox and include the stats which show that by now we SHOULD have some sort of evidence of life other than humans. Those stats should be leave a greater chance of us finding proof versus the stats of life potentially being out there.

This is why the theory falls apart for me. Why are you assuming this civilization is far more advanced then us? Whats to say that we are in fact not the most advanced in the known universe? Dinosaurs roamed the earth for over 150 million years, why didnt they develop space craft in that time? Oh wait, they lacked the ability to perceive the future and the compound transfer of knowledge. There could be millions of planets with species such as the dinosaurs roaming its grounds with no fuks given about space or anything we are discussing right now. The transfer of knowledge is why in a mere 200,000 years homo sapiens have been able to accomplish the wonders we have. What if that meteor never hit? do you think mammals would have had the chance to evolve the way we know today?

[Jorge0886]

Can't tell if srs
You're speculating waay too much
Why a million years?
Did you include distance?
Did you exclude science fiction
Why does it have to be intelligent life?
Other than radio waves what sign of alien life is there to find?

Really?

Because why not? If earth is billions of years old, and humanity is some form possibly millions of years old, and there are planets out there which should be BILLIONS of years older than our earth than why isn't it easily possible for there to be beings out there millions of years older than humans?

Does distance really matter in this scenario? Especially considering humans only know and understand the science/theory that we've created. Who says the entire universe follows the same laws? Why don't know CHIT in reality

Science fiction? Bro please, I'm being simplistic.

Because that's the argument, "aliens" that people believe are out there are intelligent. I'm not arguing against some form of bacteria. I'm talking about "aliens" as we know it.

[AbbeBusoni]

This is why the theory falls apart for me. Why are you assuming this civilization is far more advanced then us? Whats to say that we are not in fact the most advanced in the known universe? Dinosaurs roamed the earth for over 150 million years, why didnt they develop space craft in that time? Oh they lacked the ability to perceive the future and the compound transfer of knowledge. Its why in a mere 200,000 years homo sapiens have been able to accomplish the wonders we have. What if that meteor never hit? do you think mammals would have had the chance to evolve the way we know today?

Because of the age of the universe! Earth is a relatively young planet at 4.5 billion years old. Probability says there are billions of Earth-like planets that are billions of years older than Earth. Hence, the life-forms there should be a billion years more advanced than us.

Unless, of course, you argue that all that happened on Earth was special. It sounds as if you are arguing that (i.e. - citing the dinosaur extinction).

The Fermi Paradox assumes that what happened on Earth wasn't special.

[MusicProducer]

What if we're actually a prison planet?

Humans were placed here millions of years ago as punishment, the other race that placed us here left us and only came back in small groups (ancient gods). But they began to see that we hadn't changed and we were still a violent species so they again left us on our own. Left us to drift on a prison in a region far removed from all other solar systems.

LOL, we don't see evidence intelligent life because the whole universe went no-contact on us.

[rando_commando]

For those that want to read more : http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html

[Jorge0886]

I entirely disagree. The energy needed to exert significant influence over a meaningful region of space is so great, that you are firmly into "tiny accident destroys the planet" territory. I believe civilizations will always self-destruct when the tech evolves far enough.

But that's because we can only imagine it with the technology we have and understand now. Not saying I disagree, but we can't act like the science we have is the end all be all... we hardly understand most things about our own planet, biology, solar system, etc.

This is why the theory falls apart for me. Why are you assuming this civilization is far more advanced then us? Whats to say that we are not in fact the most advanced in the known universe? Dinosaurs roamed the earth for over 150 million years, why didnt they develop space craft in that time? Oh they lacked the ability to perceive the future and the compound transfer of knowledge. Its why in a mere 200,000 years homo sapiens have been able to accomplish the wonders we have. What if that meteor never hit? do you think mammals would have had the chance to evolve the way we know today?

I'm not arguing against your point, but what you just said plays even more into what I was trying to say. You gave one example, of our earth, and the creatures that have lived on it. Now exponentiate that by any number you want, and that's a valid proportion of not only the amount of "intelligent" life that should be out there, but also of the rate of advancement they have achieved. If you want to believe that the math is right, and there should be billions of planets like earth out there, of which should have at least millions that contain life, and in those millions there must be "x" number that have life, and of "x" at least "y" should evolve into intelligent life (because humans did and we are nothing special), and of "y" at least "z" of them must be exponentially more advanced than us.

I'm rambling now, but all I'm trying to say is if you want to play numbers and base it off of math and probability then it all leads me (personally ) to believe that we really are alone because of reasoning like the Fermi Paradox. But again, that's just my opinion. I don't look down on anyone who thinks otherwise.

[JeffereyTyrone]

In 4.5 billion years, we reached the point at which we are. The Universe is 14.5 billion years. If there is a planet like Earth that is, say, 8 billion years old, then any intelligent life-form there would be 3.5 billion years more advanced than us (if you assume that all that happened on Earth is typical, not special).

With a 3.5 billion year head start, their technology would be advanced enough to populate the galaxy. Even if they don't travel at the speed of light, they could populate the entire galaxy in less than 50 million years. And what is 50 million years compared to a 3.5 billion year head start?

And recall that the volume of planets means there should be millions of older civilizations (again, assuming that what happened on Earth wasn't special), which mandates that they should be all over the milky way galaxy.

But we have literally nothing but silence.

How would they travel the galaxy again?
Also, being special=being the only one
Again, science fiction isn't an indicator of whether or not they exist?

[JeffereyTyrone]

Because of the age of the universe! Earth is a relatively young planet at 4.5 billion years old. Probability says there are billions of Earth-like planets that are billions of years older than Earth. Hence, the life-forms there should be a billion years more advanced than us.

Unless, of course, you argue that all that happened on Earth was special. It sounds as if you are arguing that (i.e. - citing the dinosaur extinction).

The Fermi Paradox assumes that what happened on Earth wasn't special.

Life doesn't have to be special for intelligent life to be special does it?
Also, I never said it wasn't special my comments were in response to op who said it was a one time thing.

[Woodyy]

Our telescopes can reach millions of light years -- recently, scientists were able to photograph the Andromeda Galaxy, which is about 3 million light years away.

Also remember the pivotal point that the alien civilizations would be millions or billions of years more advanced than us (if they exist). Being so advanced, they would have spaceships, drones, satellites, flags, artwork, debris engineering projects that would be impossible to hide. But we haven't seen anything at all.

And your second point (that the aliens don't want to see us) is too improbable. If life is common, then there would be millions of civilizations out there. To assume that ALL of them refuse to show themselves is astronomical. The majority could refuse, depending on their mindset, but not all.

Are you srs? How can our telescopes even hope to detect those kind of things outside of our solar system?

We're lucky if we can even directly exo-planets, the only way we can even detect them is by their slight gravitational effect on their star..

[SymphonyXXX]

Because of the age of the universe! Earth is a relatively young planet at 4.5 billion years old. Probability says there are billions of Earth-like planets that are billions of years older than Earth. Hence, the life-forms there should be a billion years more advanced than us.

Unless, of course, you argue that all that happened on Earth was special. It sounds as if you are arguing that (i.e. - citing the dinosaur extinction).

The Fermi Paradox assumes that what happened on Earth wasn't special.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda, bitch.

Just 'cause you or Enrico Fermi says so, doesn't mean ****.

This "theory" is an anthropocentric jerk fest in shrouded in the veil of "objectivity."

First, what do you mean by "intelligent?"

Second, just because we "look" for "intelligent life" does not mean that the other entities should or do.

Third, what happened on Earth is not a blueprint for the rest of the mother****ing universe. Herein lies the anthropocentrism. "It happened HERE and in THIS WAY so, it obviously must have happened over there yonder in the bayou of the Universes's butthole.
Clearly. Because science. And this is the only life that can ever exist."
There can be other forms of existence that can collectively be "living" yet not adhere to the observable human-written and human-observed definition of "life."

Fourth, the "laws" of physics COULD BE human representations of THIS part of the universe. Who's to say that this effort continues on elsewhere in the Universe? Yea. No one. That's ****ing who.

Fifth, most researchers believe in a carbon-based life forms. That could be true. It could also be true that that assertion holds true for this part of the Universe and, pardon Dear Sir, it is a rather large Universe.

Anyway, the point is this: The "natural sciences" are man's description of the world as HE sees it from his little piece of the Universe. To assume that man's laws are ALWAYS correct and are ALWAYS applicable across THE ENTIRE Universe is as anthropocentric as it gets and should be re-considered.

[jnbrk]

Maybe they have considerably higher IQ then us so that they didn't even mind connecting with us, just like we don't stop to have a tell something to a worm. Yeah you can tell something to it but I don't think you expect any answer, because it doesn't understand us.

[TheAmericano]

wrong, we just haven't reach the level, for us to be entitled to see all those other aliens.


- When we reach the level of technology that shows we are ready (space travel) we are going to be introduced to vast amounts of life outside of our planet.

- We have yet to land on any planet in our solar system. We are defiantly behind in space technology and travel


soon through

[Asthetik]

The possibility of alien life on other planets does not mean that they're
A) Anything like humans
B) Progress at the same rate as humans biologically or technologically
C) Even have the same minerals, materials, conditions at their disposal to advance as humans have
D) Have magically solved ways to bypass the LAWS of physics and travel massive distances in short periods of time.

The universe is simply too big and it would take a large coincidence for two planets of inhabitable conditions to exist close enough to each other to ever know the other one was there.

[AirJordanB]

Our telescopes can reach millions of light years -- recently, scientists were able to photograph the Andromeda Galaxy, which is about 3 million light years away.

Also remember the pivotal point that the alien civilizations would be millions or billions of years more advanced than us (if they exist). Being so advanced, they would have spaceships, drones, satellites, flags, artwork, debris engineering projects that would be impossible to hide. But we haven't seen anything at all.

And your second point (that the aliens don't want to see us) is too improbable. If life is common, then there would be millions of civilizations out there. To assume that ALL of them refuse to show themselves is astronomical. The majority could refuse, depending on their mindset, but not all.

Space is so vast that it's illogical to think that alien life has developed the technology to travel the cosmos...assuming they even still exist. They could have died off millions of years ago and we would have no idea. I don't think you comprehend space and time. You're one of those guys who sees a science fiction film and believes that wormholes are real and actually an obtainable means of transportation, despite the infinite amount of energy it would take to create the gravity necessary to create one IN THEORY, because they're just that.

Also, your entire theory is based on the assumption that man is the be-all, end-all authority on the universe and space-time. Just lol if you think we have all the answers.

[AbbeBusoni]

The possibility of alien life on other planets does not mean that they're
A) Anything like humans
B) Progress at the same rate as humans biologically or technologically
C) Even have the same minerals, materials, conditions at their disposal to advance as humans have
D) Have magically solved ways to bypass the LAWS of physics and travel massive distances in short periods of time.

The universe is simply too big and it would take a large coincidence for two planets of inhabitable conditions to exist close enough to each other to ever know the other one was there.

A + B implicitly assume that what happened on Earth was something special. The Fermi Paradox, however, assumed (based on Copernican heliocentrism or "The Principle of Mediocrity") that what happened on Earth was not special. Thus, given the volume of planets in our galaxy, there should be human-like creatures who progress at a similar rate as we do.

As for C, science confirms that there are billions of Earth-like planets within their sun's Goldilocks Zone,meaning they have the same "minerals, materials, conditions" that we have on Earth.

As for D -- consider the progress we've made in 100 years (airplanes, space travel, trains, computers), and consider the progress possible in a million years. Now consider that societies in space could be billions of years more advanced than us. It's not so improbable to suggest they have managed to break some of our so-called "laws of physics."

Still, even if you grant that the speed of light is the maximum, then even that is no barrier because older civilizations would have been around for so long. Traveling under the speed of the light, it would take around 50 million years to populate the galaxy; what is 50 million years compared to a billion?

[AbbeBusoni]

Space is so vast that it's illogical to think that alien life has developed the technology to travel the cosmos...assuming they even still exist. They could have died off millions of years ago and we would have no idea. I don't think you comprehend space and time. You're one of those guys who sees a science fiction film and believes that wormholes are real and actually an obtainable means of transportation, despite the infinite amount of energy it would take to create the gravity necessary to create one IN THEORY, because they're just that.

Also, your entire theory is based on the assumption that man is the be-all, end-all authority on the universe and space-time. Just lol if you think we have all the answers.

The argument that "The Universe is too big" forgets that older civilizations have had time. Traveling under the speed of light, it would take under 50 million years to touch the entire Milky Way. 50 million years is nothing compared to 1 billion. In other words, the Milky Way's size gives in to the time that older civilizations would have had.

The size of the Universe does not (and cannot) explain the Fermi Paradox.

[tehgosu]

mate for all we know the universe is infinite and assuming this there's even an infinite amount of earths and an inifinite amount of "you" out there

[CommonPheasant]

There's one theory out there that says all civilizations must be at roughly the same level of advancement, with none being billions of years older than the others.

The reason is because stars forming complex molecules that would be needed to support advanced life and civilizations didn't happen in the younger universe.

[Kev1972]

The argument that "The Universe is too big" forgets that older civilizations have had time. Traveling under the speed of light, it would take under 50 million years to touch the entire Milky Way. 50 million years is nothing compared to 1 billion. In other words, the Milky Way's size gives in to the time that older civilizations would have had.

The size of the Universe does not (and cannot) explain the Fermi Paradox.

You are assuming someone would create a self sustainable space craft that could function in the remote reaches of space with no external power. You aren't going to find resources or even solar energy in the long empty tracts of space between stars.

Yes it could be done. Maybe building it into a small resource rich asteroid and equipping it with some sort of nuclear propulsion. But what would be the purpose? Even if the earth was facing a giant meteor extinction level event it would still be more hospitable than an empty asteroid. The dust would eventually settle. Even colonizing the moon or mars would make much more sense.

The only thing that would push us out of our solar system would be our sun going supernova. And that is billions and billions of years away.

[NameUnavailable]

You are assuming someone would create a self sustainable space craft that could function in the remote reaches of space with no external power. You aren't going to find resources or even solar energy in the long empty tracts of space between stars.

Yes it could be done. Maybe building it into a small resource rich asteroid and equipping it with some sort of nuclear propulsion. But what would be the purpose? Even if the earth was facing a giant meteor extinction level event it would still be more hospitable than an empty asteroid. The dust would eventually settle. Even colonizing the moon or mars would make much more sense.

The only thing that would push us out of our solar system would be our sun going supernova. And that is billions and billions of years away.

Our sun won't turn into a supernova and it isn't "billions" and "billions" of years away.

You are like a factor of 10 wrong on your first assumption and a huge ass factor of a number wrong on your second assumption that the sun will eventually consume its own hydrogen fuel.

[SwagSoSick]

maybe there has been more life forms but they have destroyed themselves before interacting with us. There has to be the first life form which is advanced enough to explore the universe. I fail to see why it can't be us. I mean someone has to be the first. Also what if other life forms are already communicating with us but we just can't observe the message?

[Kev1972]

Our sun won't turn into a supernova and it isn't "billions" and "billions" of years away.

You are like a factor of 10 wrong on your first assumption and a huge ass factor of a number wrong on your second assumption that the sun will eventually consume its own hydrogen fuel.

Ok supernerd thanks for your input. Can you translate that to vulcan?

[Lolip0p]

TF born too late to explore the earth, born too early to explore the stars