The Fermi Paradox: Reasons why we havent been visited by Aliens

[RhymesWell]

I think it's like Mass Effect in a way. Intelligent life always ends up creating A.I and it always becomes sentient and wipes the creators out. Grey are probably A.I created by some ancient race.

 

[Yaboysix]

Ain't nobody talking about the grey's and the deals with the government And stuff ? Guess that's in the fiction section lol.

 

[Godless Socialist CEO]

I think it's like Mass Effect in a way. Intelligent life always ends up creating A.I and it always becomes sentient and wipes the creators out. Grey are probably A.I created by some ancient race.

Or our leader's ignore the negative effects our presence has on the planet(Global Warming) and we kill ourselves off.

 

[Geek Nasty]

Didn't read the whole thing, but another issue is we're really in the golden age of the universe for intelligent life evolving. Enough stars have died to fill the galaxies with heavy metals. That wouldn't have been the case 8 billion years ago. Minor point though since there's still plenty of time for other civilizations to form.

 

[BuddahMAC]

An idea that popped in my head as a kid & I still like to play with ways that any reports of UFOs/spaceships are actually time travelers observing Earth in the past.

When people think of time travel, they forget we're on a spinning orb that's flying through space. You travel through time & you're not going to end up at the same place on Earth where you left from because the globe is at a completely different position of space in rotation & orbit than the Earth in the time you left behind. So, if you just travel though time yourself without some way to project and move yourself through space to the position Earth is in you're trying to go to, you're going to end up floating in space. So, easy solution- travel through time in a spaceship designed for the relatively short distances between your current position and a past or future Earth. Plus, if you're staying distant in some kind of craft used for observing, you eliminate all kinds of causality issues about messing with timelines. So, instead of any cover-ups being about aliens, they let that mess perpetuate because the reality of people using time fluidly is more conceptually shocking than aliens and the reality is space is littered with the dead bodies of failed time travelers.

 

[Drip Bayless]

Hard to say. 300 years is a long time considering the exponential growth of technology. Even if we did though, living there would suck dikk.

You're telling me that maybe we could terraform an entire planet in 300 years
That's insane, we would have to create a magnetosphere, create and pressurize an atmosphere, somehow deal with the fact that Mars has less than half of Earth's gravity, the reoccurring dust storms that would block out the sun a week at a time, and the fact that Mars' average temperature is the same as Antartica's. We have theories of how we could do this but they require a stupid amount of energy. We can't even solve the energy crisis here and we're going to have enough to pack up and remodel another planet?

 

[CHL]

There won't be any. We've only extended life on-average about 30 years since the Paleolithic Era.

​

That's actually pretty incredible given it's mainly due to some changes in diet, lifestyle, medicine etc. I'm talking about developments that will occur with the continued exponential growth of technology. There is no limit. Once they identify the genetic causes of ageing, and have the technology to change them and prevent cell failure, indefinite life will be a reality.

Unless you think it somehow conflicts with the laws of physics then given our current trajectory barring no disasters that threaten humanity, indefinite life will eventually become the reality. The question is how soon it will be.

 

[CHL]

Hard to say. 300 years is a long time considering the exponential growth of technology. Even if we did though, living there would suck dikk.

This. Think about where humans were just 100 years ago.The change is hard to fathom. 300 years in an age with exponential technological growth is just,

 

[BaldingSoHard]

You're telling me we that maybe we could terraform an entire planet in 300 years

Well there's two possibilities.

Either:

1. Yes
2. No

Both answers are speculation. With the rate technology is advancing now, we may not even have to terraform a planet in order to live on it. Who knows, breh. Seeing that far ahead is impossible.

 

[CHL]

Well there's two possibilities.

Either:

1. Yes
2. No

Both answers are speculation. With the rate technology is advancing now, we may not even have to terraform a planet in order to live on it. Who knows, breh. Seeing that far ahead is impossible.

At that point we might as well terraform any damaged parts of Earth to make them habitable and liveable

 

[Drip Bayless]

Well there's two possibilities.

Either:

1. Yes
2. No

Both answers are speculation. With the rate technology is advancing now, we may not even have to terraform a planet in order to live on it. Who knows, breh. Seeing that far ahead is impossible.

This is all I needed to hear. You have no clue what your talking about. Outside of a few extremophiles, no life could survive on Mars in it's current condition. The ONLY way to live on that planet would be to terraform it COMPLETELY. You have no actual idea how we could accomplish any of these monumental feats, your simply saying "Technology is moving fast, it's possible." over and over again, and that statement has no merit scientifically. What I said was speculative as well, but I have actual points.

 

[Drip Bayless]

At that point we might as well terraform any damaged parts of Earth to make them habitable and liveable

Honestly. If we had that much power it would be easier to fix a damaged house then start with just the frame of one far away. This thread is filled with a bunch of pseudoscientists. We don't even fully understand gravity yet, and we're supposed to either be able to adapt to such a drastic reduction, or stop it? Dudes in here are overestimating human potential to astonishing degrees. I think this would be possible at earliest in about 750 years or so. Computing power doubles at a crazy rate, about once every 18 months I think, but Moore himself said this would reach saturation soon and eventually slow down, and even so computing power ≠ energy
EDIT: 750 actually sounds kinda ridiculous, I'd say earliest 600

 

[BaldingSoHard]

This is all I needed to hear. You have no clue what your talking about. Outside of a few extremophiles, no life could survive on Mars in it's current condition. The ONLY way to live on that planet would be to terraform it COMPLETELY. You have no actual idea how we could accomplish any of these monumental feats, your simply saying "Technology is moving fast, it's possible." over and over again, and that statement has no merit scientifically. What I said was speculative as well, but I have actual points.

I love the "you have no idea what you're talking about" argument when someone doesn't agree with you.

The fact is, there's a strong belief by people smarter than both you and I that we may not even have biological bodies that far into the future. There's a book by my favorite author named Ray Kurzweil that describes it pretty well. It's called "The Singularity is Near". Kind of long winded at points and he tends to go on and on about how "right" he is in some parts of it, but it's a good read on the exponential rate of our technological and biological evolution.

Terraforming a planet to conform to our no longer existing biology would be kind of a moot point, don't you think?

But what do I know.

 

[Drip Bayless]

I love the "you have no idea what you're talking about" argument when someone doesn't agree with you.

The fact is, there's a strong belief by people smarter than both you and I that we may not even have biological bodies that far into the future. There's a book by my favorite author named Ray Kurzweil that describes it pretty well. It's called "The Singularity is Near". Kind of long winded at points and he tends to go on and on about how "right" he is in some parts of it, but it's a good read on the exponential rate of our technological and biological evolution.

Terraforming a planet to conform to our no longer existing biology would be kind of a moot point, don't you think?

But what do I know.

The statement you made was ignorant, in order to live on Mars as sentient life forms we would have to terraform it. The uploading consciousness to a digital sphere argument is quite prevalent, if we could do that there would be no reason to go to Mars at all. It's certainly more feasible to save our consciousness then our bodies. But that is a completely different debate, and I doubt that's what you were referring to when you initially talked about colonizing Mars.

 

[BaldingSoHard]

At that point we might as well terraform any damaged parts of Earth to make them habitable and liveable

The terms "habitable" and "liveable" will mean different things 300 years from now.
Hell, much of the American southwest wasn't even "habitable" until 1902 when we invented air conditioning.