Came across this article on Reddit and found it pretty interesting. I thought you gents would find it interesting as well.
Assuming there are other life forms out there, and assuming David Wallace-Wells is correct and climate change will doom us and prevent us from being able to develop the means to go visit them, that still doesn't explain why they couldn't come to us.
Maybe they know we're doomed by climate change so they don't see a point. Though, if it were us, we'd probably take a shot at it. We study our own planet's doomed, almost-extinct species all the time. But climate change wasn't a thing 200 years ago. Or 400 years ago. (Etc.) So, assuming there's life out and there and assuming that some of it is more advanced than us, what stopped them from visiting us before climate change was a threat? The belief that mass extinctions on Earth are cyclical and thus there's no progress to be made with anyone/anything here in the long run?
I thought they were the ones that built the pyramids and only stay away now because Ted Cruz is even hated out in the greater universe
The climate change theory proposed in the article is not really the point of why I shared it. I thought it was more interesting in the sense that its a gentle reminder that humans have only inhabited the earth for about the wink of an eye relative to the earth's time being a "living organism".
Its just an interesting concept to think about that maybe the reason we have not encountered alien life is because its like trying to find a needle in a pile of needles the size of mount everest.
"Its just an interesting concept to think about that maybe the reason we have not encountered alien life is because its like trying to find a needle in a pile of needles the size of mount everest."
That certainly is a possibility.
Another possibility that a lot of scientists find plausible is that it's possible that we've already encountered extra-terrestrial life and we simply didn't recognize it as such or that it went/goes unnoticed.
Time is too long. Space is too large.
There is a belief that if you multiply a really large number (of stars in the galaxy, or years in which life might spontaneously develop on one) by a really tiny number (the likelihood that life will spontaneously develop on a planet in a given year), the number must be neither really large nor really tiny. But if you think about it, this is absurd. 10 to the 11th power times 10 to the -2011th power is 10 to the -2000th power, a tiny number. 10 to the 11th power times 10 to the -3 power is 10 to the 8th power, a big number. And nobody has any idea just how tiny the likelihood of development of life is.
The Fermi Paradox isn't a paradox, merely a result surprising to people who make wild suppositions like "If just 0.1% of potentially habitable planets in our galaxy harbored life."
Short answer: The Fermi Paradox is an interesting thought experiment. Linking climate change to the Fermi Paradox is stupid.
For a longer discussion, check out the Drake Equation.