[bonzaidrinkingb]

This theory is itself grabby, and grabs itself at that.

> Furthermore, we should believe that loud aliens exist, as that’s our most robust explanation for why humans have appeared so early in the history of the universe. But if loud aliens will soon fill the universe, and prevent new advanced life from appearing, that early deadline explains human earliness.

Even furthermore, we should believe that Big Foot Medusas exist, as that's our most robust explanation for why humans have not seen these yet and are still alive. Since Big Foot Medusas turn everything alive into stone upon observation, and we are still here, it suggests we are early in our explorations and observations of Big Foot Medusas.

Anyway, a loud grabby alien civilization expanding is "first come, first serve". Perhaps we have not seen grabby aliens, because the first grabby aliens became quiet, and make new grabby aliens impossible, or they finally became superrational and realized they need more than one civilizations to have an economy, cooperation, cosmodiversity, or competition: If aim is to win at tennis, you can't play tennis alone.

As for earth specifically, it was probably already grabbed, and humans are the terraforming organisms put in service of the grabbies to make our planet habitable. Or the grabbies are in such a zeal to expand and get the most of our galaxy that they focus on planets that are close to the horizon, after which they will be moving away at faster than light speeds due to accelerating expansion of the universe. Only after that will they get around to Earth (first building a Dyson Sphere around the universe to harness its energy).

[BugsJustFindMe]

Yeah, the first reaction to "we should believe that loud aliens exist, as that’s our most robust explanation for why humans have appeared so early" should be "sorry, but that's not how explanation, loudness, or existing work."

The most robust explanation for why we're here now is that unlikely things happen all the time, and we only think that's weird because of anthropic bias.

[Veserv]

Of course it makes no sense if you are answering the wrong question.

The question being asked is not: "Why do we not see grabby aliens?"

The question being asked is: "Under what circumstances can humanity become grabby aliens that colonize the galaxy in reasonable time given that we do not see grabby aliens?"

The simplest circumstances that would allow humanity to become grabby aliens in the future is that becoming grabby aliens is easy for a modern human-like society. However, grabby aliens that colonize the universe in reasonable time preclude humanity from existing if we intersect with their existence.

That means there must either be something else special about our existence, or that we are unlikely to ever become grabby aliens. That is the entire point of the thought exercise, figuring out if there is a hope that humanity will become grabby aliens (Star Trek).

[bonzaidrinkingb]

> if there is a hope that humanity will become grabby aliens (Star Trek).

You talk as if being a loud grabby alien to other space civilizations is a hopeful thing for humanity to aspire to. Did not Star Trek had a Prime Directive for some reason? Though I do like solving the Fermi Paradox by humanity taking a good hard look in the mirror. May disprove us being Big Foot Medusas with one stone too.

Humanity just got rid of a nasty period of colonizing space on earth. I would not let us near intergalactic space without a time-out period.

[Veserv]

You are arguing a meaningless point. The argument form takes what you hope humanity will become as a parameter. You extrapolate from there to determine under what circumstances humanity can become that desired future given the facts we have available.

If we assume that every intelligent species will turn the universe into goo within 10,000 years of achieving human-level technology, then that is only compatible with the fact that the universe is not currently goo under very limited circumstances. Again, I am not arguing that is the future or desirable, I am merely stating that if you believed that then you must also believe that we are also in one of those very limited set of circumstances. Otherwise you need to rethink your beliefs.

The analysis made in the article is: "Assume you want humanity to expand to the stars and that humanity is not special or unique in temperament so aliens will do so as well. Humanity can only come into existence under a limited set of parameters and there are only a limited set of parameters that explain the data we have available."

[bonzaidrinkingb]

> You are arguing a meaningless point.

> If we assume that every intelligent species will turn the universe into goo

The analysis made in the article is of similar bad form. If I am arguing a meaningless point, I suspect that is due to the all-round meaningless points I am responding to.

[makeworld]

> humans are the terraforming organisms put in service of the grabbies to make our planet habitable

Now there's a thought.

[antifa]

It is interesting, but I think a civilization capable of planning on million year timescales would have a better plan.

[geon]

Or we are the descendants of a failed colony.

[johnfn]

If you yourself are a Big Foot Medusa then I would believe this logic.