But is it just the paradoxes? To me it seems that the early estimations of the numbers of inhabited planets from the Drake equations seem like hubris. Aren't

But is it just the paradoxes? To me it seems that the early estimations of the numbers of inhabited planets from the Drake equations seem like hubris. Aren't we moving from the "we live in a Star Trek type galaxy, teaming with life" to "well, maybe we are alone in the whole Galaxy but not the Universe" to "Actually, the more we learn about how life on Earth came to be, the more it looks like we are alone in the whole UNIVERSE -- because it seems like every day we find more free terms to the Drake equation". Isn't the whole "we really don't know yet" argument hubris? Isn't it true that you cannot prove the lack of existence of something? Compared to 50 years ago, where do we stand with the question "Are we alone in the universe?" What is 50 years of data telling us, should we be more optimistic or pessimistic? Or is it just saying "we really don't know yet" -- because that's where I believe the real hubris lies -- not accepting the most likely scenario the data we have points to.