5 ms·

The fermi paradox works on a different timescale than the points you bring up, which is exactly why it keeps being brought up. Our civilization has existed for

by c048 8y ago

The fermi paradox works on a different timescale than the points you bring up, which is exactly why it keeps being brought up. Our civilization has existed for only several thousand years. That is nothing on the cosmological scale. The fermi paradox asks why, when looking at the age of the universe, there is no visible (to our level of technology) trace of other civilizations. Even when expanding at a crawl, a civilization having had a million of years to do so should have reached every corner of our galaxy. The fermi paradox is simply a question: why? Suggestions, like a civilization uploading itself to some sort super computer to experience eternal life, are answers to the fermi paradox. But they do not invalidate it.

Razengan 8y ago
> a civilization having had a million of years to do so should have reached every corner of our galaxy. Why? Why indeed. Why should they? Why is it desirable to do so? Why haven’t we done many of the things that we technically could have done in our timescale by now? “They should have reached every corner of our galaxy” relies on at least the follow assumptions: • That it is desirable to them. • That their ability to reproduce/replicate can keep up with their technology to expand. • That their presence on every planet they colonize lasts indefinitely. • That there is no force—natural, adversarial or internal—that counters unrestricted expansion. • That they even can expand in all directions. (Again, consider our own solar system and how useless, hostile, uneconomic or unstrategic some of the planets in it would be to humans.) • Following on the previous point, that they’re dumb enough to spread themselves thin by colonizing every sub-optimal planet, instead of cherry-picking the planets which are best suited for them or, indeed, constructing their own artificial habitats in space. • That we have the ability to detect all signs of alien presence on all stars and all planets, including any possible artificial worlds and rogue planets. • That we have the ability to detect all PAST alien presence: An species may have already colonized this galaxy once, but thanks to the aforementioned timescales we may have missed running into them by a few million years, like we missed the dinosaurs on our own planet. —— The Fermi Paradox is a flawed premise that itself needs to answer many other “why”s before its “why” can be answered. “Intelligent Life -> [Long enough timespan] -> Intelligent Life on every planet around every star.” A -> [B] -> C, where [B] makes a ridiculous amount of assumptions, then takes the absence of C to invalidate the possibility of A.
- spenczar5 8y ago
  The Fermi Paradox, like any good paradox, isn’t a “premise;” it’s a tool to reveal premises. Your thoughtful comment on many possible explanations for why we might not see aliens is exactly what I like about the Fermi Paradox - it makes you think.
  - Razengan 8y ago
    My issue is with when it's still reverently referred to as a serious argument against the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence, even after we have had enough time to see that an intelligent species doesn't necessarily expand to other worlds just because it can.

by c048 8y ago

Razengan 8y ago

> a civilization having had a million of years to do so should have reached every corner of our galaxy. Why? Why indeed. Why should they? Why is it desirable to do so? Why haven’t we done many of the things that we technically could have done in our timescale by now? “They should have reached every corner of our galaxy” relies on at least the follow assumptions: • That it is desirable to them. • That their ability to reproduce/replicate can keep up with their technology to expand. • That their presence on every planet they colonize lasts indefinitely. • That there is no force—natural, adversarial or internal—that counters unrestricted expansion. • That they even can expand in all directions. (Again, consider our own solar system and how useless, hostile, uneconomic or unstrategic some of the planets in it would be to humans.) • Following on the previous point, that they’re dumb enough to spread themselves thin by colonizing every sub-optimal planet, instead of cherry-picking the planets which are best suited for them or, indeed, constructing their own artificial habitats in space. • That we have the ability to detect all signs of alien presence on all stars and all planets, including any possible artificial worlds and rogue planets. • That we have the ability to detect all PAST alien presence: An species may have already colonized this galaxy once, but thanks to the aforementioned timescales we may have missed running into them by a few million years, like we missed the dinosaurs on our own planet. —— The Fermi Paradox is a flawed premise that itself needs to answer many other “why”s before its “why” can be answered. “Intelligent Life -> [Long enough timespan] -> Intelligent Life on every planet around every star.” A -> [B] -> C, where [B] makes a ridiculous amount of assumptions, then takes the absence of C to invalidate the possibility of A.

spenczar5 8y ago
The Fermi Paradox, like any good paradox, isn’t a “premise;” it’s a tool to reveal premises. Your thoughtful comment on many possible explanations for why we might not see aliens is exactly what I like about the Fermi Paradox - it makes you think.
- Razengan 8y ago
  My issue is with when it's still reverently referred to as a serious argument against the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence, even after we have had enough time to see that an intelligent species doesn't necessarily expand to other worlds just because it can.