• Asafum@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Unfortunately I’m on the side of: space is so unimaginably, incredibly, excessively, large that no other intelligent species is even remotely close enough to us to ever have the hopes of interacting with us. The best hope we have is finding “bacterial” life on another planet/moon here in the solar system.

    Stupid physics… :(

    • Deme@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      2 months ago

      That distance exists not only in space, but most likely time as well. Extrapolating from our singular data point, it would seem that the lifespan of a technological civilization is quite short. The odds of two of those being around at the right times for even one of them to detect the passing emission shell of the other is diminishingly small.

      • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        That and OUR ability to detect things is very, very limited. We’re just barely getting to the point of using tricks to observe other planets’ entire existence, let alone any animal on those planets.

        Our perspective is certainly still too small to make any true determinations on the Fermi Paradox outside of ruling out some basic extremes.

    • Kintarian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      Even if they could reach us from some far-flung star system. There’s no guarantee that we would be able to even communicate with them. For instance ants use pheromones to communicate. There’s no way we could understand pheromones. We still can’t talk to dolphins. The other problem, generally when a civilization comes in contact with a less evolved civilization they tend to wipe them all out.

    • 31337@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think I’ve seen calculations that we could explore every star in the galaxy with self-replicating probes in something like a million years; and other civilizations could do the same.

  • doingthestuff@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    2 months ago

    Yes, they are a highly superior squid-like race that can travel through the vacuum of space without any spacecraft.

    But how do they taste?

    • Shard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Generally reminiscent of calamari. However if FTL fluid pouches are perforated during butchering, it can result in the flesh having hints of cherry or apricot with a splash of time dilation.

      We recommend the less adventurous amongst you avoid the quantum entanglement seed pods as its certainly an acquired taste, akin to the flavors of lutefisk or durian. Overconsumption can cause unwanted side effects such as experiencing CMB-radiation flashes in your peripheral vision.

      Please note that the tentacle like appendages are not suitable for human consumption as they contain high concentrations of element 166. Which is theorized to induce quantum tunneling at the macroscopic scale. May result in indeterminate teleportation to areas outside the observable universe or potentially other realities. Do not consume.

  • Deme@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    2 months ago

    My thinking is that a technological species either goes into ecological overshoot so badly that it kills itself (or at least its capacity to conquer space) ((this is what we’re doing currently)), or then it learns to live harmoniously as a functioning part of the wider planetary system, and thus has no need to spread into space.

      • Deme@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Space exploration necessitates a technological industrial civilization. So they/we would somehow have to figure out how to first do #2 (so as to not die), while still maintaining the industrial capacity to spread out into space. That sounds like an even more improbable subset of the already improbable scenario #2.

        • where_am_i@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          It’s obvious that stars provide obscene, unimaginable amounts of energy. It’s also clear that this energy can be captured and stored.

          We, currently, can’t exit our orbit without using oil, but that does not mean it’s theoretically impossible.

          • Deme@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Climate change is just one of six planetary boundaries that we’ve crossed, out of a total of nine. The choice of rocket fuel is largely inconsequential compared to the effects of maintaining the industrial capacity necessary for such endeavours.

          • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Don’t most rockets use hydrogen oxygen reaction? Separating hydrogen from oxygen requires only electricity, which we can produce renewably.

    • idiomaddict@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think it’s a variant of #2: the ozone layer is much more susceptible to damage from space flight than we yet realize, and it’s a trade-off between keeping a hospitable home world and interstellar travel. By the time a species is scientifically advanced enough to be technologically capable of it, they learn the risks and decide it’s not worth it.

  • Allonzee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    This is probably the number one reason I’d be giddy about it.

    Our species desperately needs to learn some humility. We’re literally destroying our only habitat out of blind arrogance and greed.

    If they didn’t come in peace. We’re boned, and everyone’s problems are over.

    If they did, at some point they’re still going to need to use corrective action on our arrogant monkey asses.

    Because all human history.

    As an adult, it’s the biggest plothole in Trek to me. Species so far ahead of us taking our lead only a couple hundred years after we took a break bombing each other and managed to cobble together a single, shitty warp drive a Vulcan toddler could probably improve the design of at a casual glance. If there was a consortium of species, at our stage we’d correctly need to beg to get provisional Jr. membership after 1,000 years of probationary observation.

    They really shouldn’t take us until our species agrees to stop letting people starve while others grow obese just to get the fat sucked out of them to do it again.

    • CitizenKong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      That’s why I really like the Mass Effect universe where humanity is more of an underdog species. Same with Babylon 5.

    • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Obesity isn’t a social inequality problem, except in the sense that obese people are more likely to be poor, and to suffer obesity due to stress, poor nutrition, and addiction. Obese people are not oppressing anyone. If you want to talk about food waste while people starve, then talk about the corporations throwing perfectly good food in dumpsters that they put a padlock on to stop homeless people from dumpster diving.

      Sure, obesity was a sign of privilege and oppression 200 years ago, before modern agricultural practices such as the use of pesticides and heavy machinery. These days, there isn’t too little food, there’s too much. Starvation isn’t a problem of natural scarcity, and certainly not a problem of people eating too much. It’s a product of artificial scarcity, wherein good food is thrown away because people can’t pay for it. Your political theory is two centuries out of date. It’s time to stop hating fat people.

  • superkret@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    To be fair, humans have prevented the looming extinction of horses (their numbers were dwindling a couple thousand years ago, cause they were being outcompeted by bovines who can process grass more efficiently due to their multiple stomachs).

    Horses, cows, chickens, dogs, cats, rice and wheat have spread all over the globe due to humans.

    So purely from an evolutionary standpoint, being a slave or food for humans is the best thing you can do as an organism.