The Fermi Paradox -- Where is everybody?

pharmakos

bµɐʁwɐʞoƨ
<Bronze Donator>
12,774
9,186
40d 15h 33m
Actually I'm over caffeinated and you're dumb so I'll spell it out

your entire argument of "the law of large numbers therefore aliens" is the basis of this thread. Go though the steps of the Drake Equation and ask yourself "if Drake Equation then WHERE IS EVERYBODY?" And then rejoin us in the thread
 

Punko

Macho Ma'am
<Gold Donor>
6,613
10,431
84d 9h 35m
based on what sample data? :)

According to most sources there are between 100 - 400 billion stars in the universe.

Considering a bunch of disorganized monkeys made it where they have, in their time, it seems silly to me to assume that some alien race wouldn't have done 10x better.

Not having dark ages would have helped a lot, for example.
 
  • 1Seriously?
Reactions: TheBeagle

Ravishing

Uninspiring Title
<Bronze Donator>
8,212
3,372
90d 13h 43m
Actually I'm over caffeinated and you're dumb so I'll spell it out

your entire argument of "the law of large numbers therefore aliens" is the basis of this thread. Go though the steps of the Drake Equation and ask yourself "if Drake Equation then WHERE IS EVERYBODY?" And then rejoin us in the thread

OK so I love this stuff so looked into the Equations and it raises a lot of good questions.
It seems the parameters for the Drake Equation are highly contested.

Fraction of the above that develops intelligent life, fi[edit]
This value remains particularly controversial. Those who favor a low value, such as the biologist Ernst Mayr, point out that of the billions of species that have existed on Earth, only one has become intelligent and from this, infer a tiny value for fi.[36] Likewise, the Rare Earth hypothesis, notwithstanding their low value for ne above, also think a low value for fi dominates the analysis.[37] Those who favor higher values note the generally increasing complexity of life over time, concluding that the appearance of intelligence is almost inevitable,[38][39] implying an fi approaching 1. Skeptics point out that the large spread of values in this factor and others make all estimates unreliable. (See Criticism).

In addition, while it appears that life developed soon after the formation of Earth, the Cambrian explosion, in which a large variety of multicellular life forms came into being, occurred a considerable amount of time after the formation of Earth, which suggests the possibility that special conditions were necessary. Some scenarios such as the snowball Earth or research into the extinction events have raised the possibility that life on Earth is relatively fragile. Research on any past life on Mars is relevant since a discovery that life did form on Mars but ceased to exist might raise our estimate of fl but would indicate that in half the known cases, intelligent life did not develop.

Estimates of fi have been affected by discoveries that the Solar System's orbit is circular in the galaxy, at such a distance that it remains out of the spiral arms for tens of millions of years (evading radiation from novae). Also, Earth's large moon may aid the evolution of life by stabilizing the planet's axis of rotation.

There has been quantitative work to begin to define {\displaystyle f_{\mathrm {l} }\cdot f_{\mathrm {i} }}
{\displaystyle f_{\mathrm {l} }\cdot f_{\mathrm {i} }}
. One example is a Bayesian analysis published in 2020. In the conclusion, the author cautions that this study applies to Earth's conditions. In Bayesian terms, the study favors the formation of intelligence on a planet with identical conditions to Earth but does not do so with high confidence. [40] [41]

Taking this information, if you favor a high value for fi, then the question I ask is.. what are the chances that a 2nd intelligent life form rises on Earth, with a completely unrelated genome to humans?

This research paper was published 1 month ago and is really interesting, and perhaps answers the above question:

Kipping worked with a few data points:
  • We know that Earth became habitable about 4.21 billion years ago. That's after the lost planet Theia (and possibly another impactor known as "Moneta" 40 million years later) slammed into the ancient proto-Earth 4.51 billion years ago, wrecking the surface and forming our moon. It took about 300 million years after that cataclysm for liquid water and an atmosphere to return.

  • Strong evidence of life on Earth ⁠— microfossils in rocks ⁠— goes back 3.465 billion years, or about 745 million years after the planet became habitable. There's also a more controversial hint of life ⁠— bits of carbon with missing isotopes in zircon deposits ⁠— going back to just 304 million years after habitability, according to Kipping.

  • Intelligent life — humans, in Kipping's paper — came much later. Homo sapiens emerged in the last half-million years, so recently that we're just a rounding error on that 4.21 billion year timescale.

  • We're likely living in the last fifth of Earth's habitable history. Astronomers believe that in the next billion years, the sun will get so bright that the resulting energy will speed up the rate at which rocks pull carbon dioxide (CO2) out of the atmosphere (some rocks do this today, just more slowly). Once atmospheric CO2 drops below 10 parts per million, plants will die off, the food chain will collapse, and only microbes will survive. At that point, Kipping assumed, if intelligent life hadn't yet emerged it would have been too late.


Now what # do you assign to fi? I would think it's going to be vanishingly small. Life is likely to be abundant... but Intelligent Life is going to be incredibly rare.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: pharmakos

Sadre Spinegnawer

<Bronze Donator>
3,419
2,792
21d 20h 16m
I'll tell you where everyone is. We are at f(subset p) of Drake's equation. That is: number of stars that have planets. We used to think it could be as low as .2. It is likely in fact 1.

We have not solved the equation, but the steps we are making are trending toward that statistical likelihood. We are now working on a value for f(subset e).

I know where I am, do you know where you are? I'm working the equation. And these are the facts. And they are not in dispute.

And, travel is futile and communication unlikely, given the narrow window in which a civilization would actually give a fuck. This part is my 25 cents, but it is my answer to "where is everyone?" question. It ultimately, statistically, becomes a boring question, and pretty useless at a practical level, because c = banhammer, and that is my take, and my answer to the fermi paradox. It presumes ftl or nls travel, and communication, I say are likely rookie dreams. You can't kill c.

However, we can continue to try to get closer to N(subset e), and then f(subset l). I suspect the bottleneck would be f(subset i). But that is just my best guess.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: Pharazon2

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
21,246
29,714
100d 8h 43m
I like how this tool is musing about the Drake Equations like he's figuring some shit out and discussing some new thoughts and shit.
 
  • 2Worf
Reactions: Chanur and pharmakos

Sadre Spinegnawer

<Bronze Donator>
3,419
2,792
21d 20h 16m
I like how this tool is musing about the Drake Equations like he's figuring some shit out and discussing some new thoughts and shit.

And .... you can't even quote me to prove your point. Fail!

The equation is not complicated. It is a set of variables one would have to know the first variable is rate of star production. Let's just say, "lots" for the time being. The second variable is, f(subset p) which = the number of stars which have planets. We used to think the number was as low as .2, but the last decades are suggesting the value is very close to one. Now we are working on the next variable, which is N(subset e) which is the percentage of planets that could develop life. We do not know this variable yet with nearly enough precision, but this is what we are currently working to answer.

f(subset l) is the next hurdle: how many of those potential worlds actually develop life.

And I suggested f(subset i) is the bottleneck. Slime molds are life, but if that is all the dice of luck has for a planet before it gets shattered by some catastrophe, oh well.

I think some of you are just dying to say "therefore we are unique and God exists." Admit it. Let it out. Be proud. Dream big, I say.

And if you cannot make your case in your own words, I am not interested in your argument Pharmakos. You are just pissed because I answered your data set question decisively. And now you have the sadz. That's ok. We all take a tumble now and then. Speaking of which, say hello to your mother for me.
 

wormie

<Gold Donor>
11,851
22,188
213d 5h 14m
And .... you can't even quote me to prove your point. Fail!

The equation is not complicated. It is a set of variables one would have to know the first variable is rate of star production. Let's just say, "lots" for the time being. The second variable is, f(subset p) which = the number of stars which have planets. We used to think the number was as low as .2, but the last decades are suggesting the value is very close to one. Now we are working on the next variable, which is N(subset e) which is the percentage of planets that could develop life. We do not know this variable yet with nearly enough precision, but this is what we are currently working to answer.

f(subset l) is the next hurdle: how many of those potential worlds actually develop life.

And I suggested f(subset i) is the bottleneck. Slime molds are life, but if that is all the dice of luck has for a planet before it gets shattered by some catastrophe, oh well.

I think some of you are just dying to say "therefore we are unique and God exists." Admit it. Let it out. Be proud. Dream big, I say.

And if you cannot make your case in your own words, I am not interested in your argument Pharmakos. You are just pissed because I answered your data set question decisively. And now you have the sadz. That's ok. We all take a tumble now and then. Speaking of which, say hello to your mother for me.
Why the fuck are you writing f_p and the others like that? Go back to performing open heart surgeries with your bare hands fag.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1Worf
Reactions: Falxy-US and ShakyJake

Ukerric

Bearded Ape
<Silver Donator>
6,571
6,766
83d 10h 28m
OK so I love this stuff so looked into the Equations and it raises a lot of good questions.
It seems the parameters for the Drake Equation are highly contested.
Back when the Drake equation was proposed, everyone was excited about it. Scientists threw all the assumptions they made and got large numbers. You can find Carl Sagan gushing about thousands or even million of civilizations.

And then Fermi took a bucket of ice-cold water and drenched everyone's raging alien hard-on: "If there's so many of them, where are they?"

We have no idea what most of the parameters are. We are starting to get useful values for some, but the rest is based on a sample of 1, which isn't useful ("given that someone rolled a 1 on a dice of unknown size, what's the probability of rolling a 1 next time?").

What we do know is that the final number of the Drake Equation is low. Any large result yields an universe in which we see stellar engineering, detect radio communication, infrared heat dissipation, that are obvious. That's why you had the brouhaha about Tabby's star - an example of proto system-wide engineering was going to push up that number.

Note that this number is heavily correlated with the average duration of civilizations. If technological civilizations last 500 years, then you could have hundreds in the Galaxy. If they last 100k years, you could have only a handful at best. And if they last a million year, the odds are that we're the only one around.
Now what # do you assign to fi? I would think it's going to be vanishingly small. Life is likely to be abundant... but Intelligent Life is going to be incredibly rare.
And that's the Great Filter discussion. We know that at least one of the parameters of Drake Equation is small. Maybe multiples, but at least one has to be very low vs what we expected.

But we don't know which. Is it life? Complex life? Intelligent life? Technology? Civilization?

And if it's any but the last, then we've passed the Great Filter and we're going to be one of the first/few and the universe is ours.

But it might be the last. As I said, if the average civilization lasts 500 years, then we're probably never going to detect them while they're active, they're not going to leave an imprint... and then we're probably fucked, unless we get lucky and we're "above the average". Because in a couple centuries, we'll be navel gazing declining civilization or earth might not have any civilization left.
 
Last edited:

ShakyJake

Golden Baronet of the Realm
5,570
14,881
100d 23h 21m
But it might be the last. As I said, if the average civilization lasts 500 years, then we're probably never going to detect them while they're active
I never understood this argument. All it would take is for *one* of those civilizations to last long enough to colonize beyond their home world. And, at that point, they're golden. As others have mentioned, you don't need warp drive to colonize the entire galaxy in a relatively short period of time. It's not like you'd have all these colonized worlds just dying off. They would continue to propagate throughout the galaxy.

My feeling is that we're either the first or our current understanding of the universe is wrong.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: Ukerric

Jive Turkey

Karen
5,464
5,821
Probably one of the dumbest comments I've ever read. Grats!

how is that a dumb comment? The most successful living things on earth are insects and grasses. We can barely communicate with the next smartest species on the planet and can absolutely not communicate with the majority of species on the planet. They've all been evolving for the exact same amount of time as humans. An estimated 5 billion species have ever existed on Earth and exactly one of them has evolved the intelligence to leave the planet.
And never mind intelligence, eukaryotic cells are an impossibly improbable fluke that only ever happened once in 4 billion years. Getting past that hurdle alone is a staggering feat
 
Last edited:

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
21,246
29,714
100d 8h 43m
our current understanding of the universe is wrong.

Keep in mind we still have absolutely no idea how gravity actually works, and our models of how gravity works on either very small or very large scales is basically made up bullshit to fit our observations.

It is extremely likely that fundamentally, we do not understand the universe at all.
 

Lumi

Blackwing Lair Raider
2,851
2,485
36d 3h 41m
I came into this thread late. Didn't realize you were a fucking retard. Noted.

The fucking retard is the person saying that grass and insects are the most successful life forms and thinking life forms arising were merely a fluke. How anyone can be this fucking stupid is truly amazing.
 
  • 1Salty
Reactions: Jive Turkey