[no_wizard]

I myself think if any theory beyond that of the Fermi Paradox holds water it’s likely the Aurora Hypothesis which simply states that colonizing space is incredibly dangerous and therefore hard to do at scale beyond your immediate solar system, hence why we haven’t seen anything in ours

I don’t quite buy it but it feels the most plausible of all the alternative explanation for Fermi

Because of phenomenons like Simultaneous Discovery[0] I feel that we are the first of the many civilizations in the Type I to Type II transition

I personally believe we are on the precipice of finally colonizing another planet or planets long term), and therefore given the distinct possibility that life all basically started around the same time (simultaneous discovery) we are just among the first of civilizations ever, I don’t believe currently that other galactic civilizations existed or currently exist that are not at the same pace as us, as I (and I admit I have little evidence here) that simultaneous discovery applies beyond just ideas, but there may be some kind of this phenomenon in natural evolution, and making (albeit big) assumption that is true and evolution follows certain paths like our own, we just happen to be among the first civilizations to be at our level, and in fact other alien life is likely to be similarly or less advanced than us

I’m either very right or very very very wrong, I figure

[0]: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/05/12/in-the-air#ixz...

[PeterisP]

I'm sceptical of any notions of "we are just among the first of civilizations ever" because as far as I understand from the studies of sun-like star sytems that could be hospitable to life, Earth is a bit on the late side; close to the average, but definitely not an "early" formation, and the time advantage or "development head start" that a sizeable fraction other stars/planets comparable to ours (I'm not talking about "first generation" hydrogen stars here) has had is immense (e.g. a billion years).

In essence, the idea of us being among the first in our galaxy is compatible with the notion that intelligent life forming is so scarce that there's only ever going to be just a couple civilizations in our galaxy or that we're alone; because if life is so common that our galaxy would have (for example) a hundred intelligent civilization spawning events, then the expectation is that half of them would have been before us, and it would be a really, really unlikely that all of them are on Earth-like planets younger than us and none of them are on the multitude of Earth-like planets orbiting Sun-like planets older than us.

Also, given all the time-consuming steps required for life to form, "around the same time" would optimistically mean something on the scale of +/- a million years. Like, if the protozoic era took 0.1% more or less, that would be a difference of two million years; so if some civilization was much older or much younger, then the difference would be much more than that, and if we encounter a planet that's +/- hundred thousand years of progress, that mean that we really progressed at a remarkably coincidentally equal starting point and pace; and if we encounter a civilization that's just a thousand years of technological development ahead or behind, then that would be a so unbelievable coincidence that I'd consider that some kind of intelligent designer is required to explain it.

The concept of simultaneous discovery happens because the discoverers share an environment where the prerequisites for that discovery appear at the same time; this would not be plausible for civilizations forming naturally through evolution without any contact or influence between them, that would work only if they're e.g. intentionally designed and "planted" on planets by some previous civilization.

[no_wizard]

Massive caveats here:

- I’m not an expert

- I know for a fact I’m more than likely wrong

With that said, I just want to put this thought out there:

Since we don’t really know 100%, I posit that in order for life to evolve to begin with, intelligence is a prerequisite in nature, down to the microbial level. I’m not saying nor do I believe there are little microbial societies or anything, but a certain amount of attainable intelligence must be be there and shareable at that level of function

Therefore, is simultaneous discovery simply an extension of nature, in that it’s within natural systems of all kinds to have this, or is it only in the context of civilization, which is synthetic to the natural world?

[mcswell]

I suspect you're right, but I've also wondered at the fact that while Homo sapiens has been around and intelligent for at least 45k years, within perhaps 3000 years at least three and possibly six civilizations independently invented writing: the Babylonians and Egyptians and Minoans + Mycenaeans (probably three independent inventions), China, and the Maya.

[graycat]

> we are just among the first of civilizations ever,

Well maybe could say "one of":

We recall that the big bang was ~14 billion years ago.

Our solar system was made ~5 billion years ago (very rough arithmetic) out of the results of an exploded star. The star may have exploded ~7 billion years ago. In that case it may have been a first generation, hydrogen star and took ~6 billion years to form, make heavy elements, and explode (and make more heavy elements).

So, that makes our star a second generation star and our solar system, from an exploded first generation star, one of the first.

If all that is true, then, okay, "we are just among the first of civilizations ever".

[mcswell]

IIRC (it's been a long time), first generation stars were very low in "metals" (which term astronomers use to mean any element heaver than helium), and what they did have was mostly (maybe entirely) lithium. They may not have had any planets, or if they did, the planets were pure gas (hydrogen and helium). Thus no life, much less intelligent life.