|
|
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
I just find myself scratching my head at concepts like Fermi Paradox. I don't think it's a paradox at all yet it appears to be one if there are only a handful of considerations.
It seems like a very strong conclusion based on highly speculative and incomplete information.
FWIW the wikipedia page has dozens of responses to why the Fermi Paradox is what it is. Most of them sound like a bunch of wild speculation but some of them seem to be based on reasonable assumptions.
The bottom line is that we have nearly 0 data on answering the questions that outline the parameters of this.
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I think we test it by defining it and collecting data. If we can't distinguish between enslavement and freedom, then we have not defined it. If we can distinguish them, then we can figure the data accordingly.
I feel like doing so would give ample evidence that we are not enslaved by aliens. This isn't to say that we're not a part of some unknown greater mechanic, but that's not the same as being enslaved by aliens. Even something as strange as our thoughts being their energy should be testable. But even then it's not testable as long as the definition is to test an unknown
SMH
and you call yourself a soul reader
Originally Posted by wufwugy
If humans used every bit of raw material the solar system has to offer, sending out trilions of vessels, wouldn't that be virtually nothing in the scope of the galaxy? We'd just be spreading seed to empty space
Well, I kind of meant targeting a star that is likely to have a 'good' planet and shooting at it a bunch of times. However, the odds of hitting the planet and not the star are gonna take some tweaking. If you had some automatic controls and not just a rock with some cells on it, then it wouldn't take too much.
I think the important thing is that "life support" systems may be unnecessary for a long-term project. This makes the cost of sending life out to 'seed' the galaxy much lower.
The motivation to do such a thing is beyond me, but that doesn't mean that no intelligence would see a motivation.
|
Reply With Quote