The Great Filter: Are we all Totally Screwed?

[@willmfrank]

I saw a cartoon awhile ago... A young child asks the old sage "Are we alone in the Universe?" "Yes," he replies. "So...There are no other civilizations out there?" "There are many. They're alone, too."

[@ianyoung1106]

Deeeeeeeep!

[@kevinlatham5661]

that is a very accurate and valid explanation.

[@flowersforalgorithm3492]

Yep. That's the simplest explanation, space is way too big.

[@ChurchNietzsche]

There is no Fallacy... in that Logical Fallacy. Space is Huge. It's almost laughable to think "This is all there ever was or will be" ... ... but no more Ludacris to think life existed right next door on Mars. When you get right down to it ... which is more absurd?

[@Mr.Muscaria]

I believe it was Professor Kaku that said if we ever discovered an intelligent civilization. All that would change in your daily life would be that we would know there's life out there that's smart enough to communicate with us. We wouldn't actually be able to get there or do anything.

[@amaccama3267]

And the dolphins said "So long and thanks for all the fish ".

[@zerodadutch6285]

"Not again."

[@SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish.]

YES!! Lol

[@theUglyGypsy]

Don't panic. Carry a towel.

[@ChurchNietzsche]

@@theUglyGypsy I would never think of going anywhere without my trusty towel.

[@Manofvideos292]

Though this was misinterpreted as a surprisingly sophisticated attempt to do a double-backwards-somersault through a hoop whilst whistling the 'Star Spangled Banner'

[@skrag2112]

“Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.” ― Arthur C. Clarke

[@The1stDukeDroklar]

Far more terrifying and dangerous if we are not alone.

[@Raygo.]

@@The1stDukeDroklar If we are not alone, things look worse for us. But, the true implication of the Fermi Paradox may be just as unpalatable. No aliens but us can only mean the universe is a put-up job. Either a special creation, or a simulation.

[@The1stDukeDroklar]

@@Raygo. I disagree with your conclusion. Simply because intelligent life is a freak rarity does not mean we are a simulation or a creation. It simply means it is freakishly rare.

[@Raygo.]

@@The1stDukeDroklar If there is NO other life, anywhere, I believe my conclusion is correct.

[@Jacen777]

Or... the GOD and Creator of the universe simply didn't create anyone else. Perhaps HE only made us, the Angels. 😊

[@stueymon]

"What's to stop Mars and Earth destroying one another?" The protomolecule

[@homelessjesse9453]

Oh god. Please do not mention The Expanse. Such horrible sci-fi.

[@stueymon]

@@homelessjesse9453 you're a horrible Sci-fi

[@josephrobinson6171]

​@@homelessjesse9453lmao most people don't seem to agree

[@florinpandele5205]

"Universe might be a big party . We're just not invited." I think I will put it on my walls..

[@willmfrank]

"Look, don't invite those ape-descendants from Earth, will you? They may be mostly harmless, but they're still so amazingly primitive that they think digital watches are a pretty neat idea..."

[@miniverse2002]

There's still the possibility we're too early to the party.

[@scipio109]

As a biology student I have the feeling that human type intelligence is just VERY rare in the history of the planet there have been millions and there are still millions of species on this planet and only one has invested so heavily into intelligence as a survival strategy, we focus a lot on intelligence because we rely on it but it is only one way of doing things

[@Elemergent]

Yep. That's due to the high cost of creating and rearing offspring with the capacity for general learning as opposed to using a more specific innate intelligence for a species' lifestyle. With that said, however, I think the pressure for general intelligence would slowly increase through the eons because the ever-increasing complexity of the environment. And on other worlds the push for general intelligence could be higher with more complex natural cycles (e.g. multiple stars and moons creating dozens of seasons).

[@toddnolastname4485]

That's because our ancestors killed the rest off, except for those they took for mates. Homo Neanderthal. Homo Denisovan. And probably others.

[@icecold9511]

It is also energy intensive, meaning it has to serve a useful function to survival. Otherwise it detracts from survival odds. The vision of philosopher dolphins for instance begs the question "what would they do with it?" They can't make or use tools. It would be impossible to do metallurgy or many other tasks we can perform. The energy cost is also why I believe aliens would come along the predator lines. It doesn't take a lot of brains to eat grass, and that is low energy density compared to meat.

[@ChurchNietzsche]

Why? Human physiology hasn't changed significantly in the last 100k years. "Who we are Today" is really a socio-economic experiment that has been going on (Arguably) for 14,500 years. That's if you give "Egypt" and "Sumer" and man's earliest civilizations their "Earliest Accepted Dates" ... where are the other 85,500 years of history? If we can "Logically Trace Our Intelligence" ... to the Renaissance, and have touched the moon since. .. .. .. How illogical is it -really- to think that "maybe we've played this game before" ... the Steam Engine, the Airplane, and the Space Shuttle are less than 300 years apart. ... we've been walking around with this brain for 100,000 years. But some people believe we put our clubs down, for the first time ... 5,000 years ago.

[@RobOfTheNorth2001]

@@ChurchNietzsche it too 100,000 years to develop our technology to the point of acceleration. What really made it possible was the ending of the ice age 12.000 years ago. But we certainly had technology development before then - like flint tool making and such. It’s very slow to change.

[@sjonjones4009]

Or Simon can be an alien, lying to us about their existence to keep us from knowing. Well played, sir!

[@sephjvr5979]

My serious issue with the Goldilox zone approach to life is that we’re putting a limitation on the variations to life. Just because our composition primarily consists of water, carbon, Oxygen and the temperature of the environment. Does not mean that more “alien” forms of life thriving on, say… Methane or cosmic radiation can’t exist. We need to remove the restrictions on our approach to the discovery of life.

[@antonsimmons8519]

Scientists are actually looking for non Earth-comparable life as well, just on a far more limited basis. This isn't bias for biases' sake, I'd like to clarify. It's because Earth-comparable is what we KNOW, and therefore are by far the most likely to be able to detect. I promise you, anyone qualifying as a legitimate biologist of any type will be OVER THE MOON at the discovery of life that is nothing like what we've ever imagined or seen. They aren't avoiding it. It's their ultimate fantasy.

[@The1stDukeDroklar]

Except that with billions of years to study of life on earth, we should see evidence of the other types of possible life. The fact that we don't is strong evidence for it not being possible.

[@orangegalen]

Our problem is we have a sample size of exactly One: ourselves/Earth. We can theorize anything we want, but we only know how life exists by our standards ie. habitable zone+carbon+water=life. Alien life will be just that: alien. It could be a copy of us, similar but not quite like us, or extremely alien.

[@FallenPhoenix86]

@@The1stDukeDroklar Anything we find on Earth only proves life can evolve within the confines of the conditions found here, it does nothing at all to show whether life can or cannot evolve to tolerate differing conditions found elsewhere.

[@rubiconnn]

The thing is that carbon based life along with a requirement for water is actually likely. Because water is liquid it allows movement. Organisms can't exist if they are made of solid material, they will likely need some kind of liquid that allows movement of molecules. Water is also extremely abundant in the universe as it's made from elements way at the beginning of the periodic table. Secondly carbon would likely be the base of life because again, it's very common and it's molecular shape allows it to combine with lots of different molecules and elements, allowing a wide range of chamicals.

[@antonsimmons8519]

One of my favorite possibilities is of a species that just...figures everything out...then doesn't bother expanding or exploring because there's no point. They just live insanely long lives of leisure and make so little mark on the stars, they're basically undetectable unless you're right up close. Maybe even in stasis, living in VR.

[@The1stDukeDroklar]

As with all proposed solutions to the Fermi Paradox, it would have to be true of all alien civilizations to be a viable solution.

[@simonupton-millard]

Yes its possible the need to explore is a human one and other races are content with a few ships and colony plants to to esure there suvivel and gather resources, so not a big footprint for us to find

[@antonsimmons8519]

@@The1stDukeDroklar Now you mention it, I don't really see ANY solution fitting every species/solar system/planet. Not even close. It has got to be multiple answers. Thanks for that. Now I've more to think about.

[@The1stDukeDroklar]

@@simonupton-millard I would argue that exploration and expansionism are not just a "human one" and that they are prerequisites for all life that has ever evolved and survived for very long. It is a fundamental factor for all life to endure over long periods of time

[@The1stDukeDroklar]

@@antonsimmons8519 I recommend the channel by Isaac Arthur that has a deep dive series of videos examing the Fermi Paradox. Also, the Cool Worlds channel has a couple really good videos on the subject by a physicist that is really eloquent and a joy to listen to.

[@josephharrison5639]

When you hear the Catholic Church suggested that earth has been quarantined due to our sin, as an answer to the Fermi paradox

[@elverman]

We need to do a global petition asking aliens to stop hiding.

[@TarsonTalon]

We get a response: "No, we refuse to be cattle for our inferiors again. Shake off your parasites and get up here yourself."

[@aceundead4750]

What if they respond just telling us to shut up because they're trying to do scientific studies of the universe?

[@barcode6495]

Yes. Pls ask Elon Musk to send it out

[@gendygoblin8391]

What do you think green cards are letting us kno….oh wait…you meant…oh shit I’m in trouble. 😂 Jk I’m not racist I swear

[@sahhull]

I'll just ask the missus to stop hiding

[@bernieburton6520]

There's also the possibility that interstellar travel is nearly impossible. And that at best a civilization can't get out of their own solar system. And it's also the possibility that there's only one or two other intelligent civilizations in our entire galaxy. And we're so far apart that we'd never be able to notice each other

[@petekwando]

Certainly a possibility, but a lot of the factors that seem insurmountable to us might be less of a barrier for other species. For example, if beings from the planet Frombotz have a lifespan of a few centuries, then 2% of c might be something they can live with, where for us it would mean sleeper or generation ships. Similarly, there could be species out there with higher natural tolerances for radiation, who would need a fraction of the shielding humans would require to protect from cosmic rays. So, maybe a filter, but a looser one?

[@bernieburton6520]

@@petekwando unfortunately, sleeper ships are probably not possible. Suspended animation for a human seems incredibly unlikely to work at all. And generational ships would have serious problems. Especially since it basically means having to teach potentially dozens of generations of children over and over again. And every generation of children needs to be full of nothing but geniuses who can not only maintain this ship(which needs to be able to function perfectly for centuries and possibly even thousands of years) but also be trained in every field of science and medicine and engineering. No matter how you look at it, the only sensible method of interstellar travel is FTL ships. If it turns out that FTL travel is truly impossible. Than no civilization is going to be able to create the technology needed to colonize an entire galaxy. You could potentially have Non-intelligent life forms capable of spreading from star system to star system. It's certainly interesting to think of a species that just produces spores that could actually survive for hundreds of thousands of years between stars and eventually drop on to planets capable of sustaining life. But for intelligent life, us for example, we need to figure out whether FTL is actually possible or not before we get our hopes of interstellar colonization up.

[@The1stDukeDroklar]

Very true. The laws of physics are the same everywhere and those laws prohibit FTL travel. Any colony we would send out would not be able to communicate with us in a meaningful way. Therefore, colonies would evolve both physically and culturally differently over time. It would not be human colonies, it would be alien worlds we would be creating with the very likely possibility some would become hostile to humans. Since it would be all risk and absolutely no possible benefit to mankind... or an alien specie... why would we or they colonize outside of the home solar system.

[@antonsimmons8519]

That prompts me to think that what may be up with interstellar travel is that the same level of tech that makes it practical is the level of tech that also makes it irrelevant. ie. it makes anyone/thing BENEATH that level of understanding just seem like an ant or something now.

[@petekwando]

@@bernieburton6520 I agree that sleeper ships may not be possible, and generation ships present big problems that have been chronicled by many sf novels over the decades. But my larger point is, most of our speculation to date tends to assume the biological characteristics of the crew are a constant. This seems to me a very dubious assumption. In our case, the extension of human lifespan is a area which is almost certainly possible, and an area of research that is likely to bear fruit within the next half-century (I can speak from a very small bit of experience here, having worked in the genome engineering field for the past several years). For other civilizations, it may just be a natural function of their evolution, and statistically we might expect there is somebody out there with the right mix of traits - longer lifespan, higher radiation resistance, the ability to go into long term hibernation state - to make STL travel more practical. Really though, all I'm saying is that interstellar travel is unlikely to be THE filter, just one of several factors that knock some species out of the running.

[@philly83]

I could see aliens flying by, watch what's going on and be "nope, not going down there."

[@pakde8002]

LoL, he thinks we haven't been colonized. Precious, absolutely precious.

[@hightierplayers2454]

One of the saddest likelihoods is we get out there and its an archaeologist's dream, but only because everything we find is gone and we're left trying to figure out how this and that civilization or just life on that planet ended. We may get out there and find no life, but just death of life trying again and again with only evidence of its attempts leftover for us to find.

[@hightierplayers2454]

That's not at all what it means. It means that no matter what you do, no matter how you struggle, you WILL be wiped out eventually and join the galactic graveyard. You won't be eaten, no. You won't be dominated by an empire, no. You WILL, however, inevitably die out and be forgotten just like all the rest. That is the lesson here without question. If no civilization survives the Filter, that means this one won't either. Only the people conceited to the point of absolute ignorance would consider the inevitable death of all intelligence and life to be a good thing for us or our future.

[@miniverse2002]

We understand how they ended, we can take steps in avoiding it. If nothing else, we'll have greater knowledge on where the filter actually lies. The more interesting and scary possibility is we're the first or among the first. The test case if you will. The leader that may or may not crash into a wall. It'll be our story they'll find.

[@kellycollins3752]

Well the other planets, may have worms, bugs, and maybe even monkeys?😂

[@petekwando]

One factor that isn't quite a filter, but we should consider: the percentage of intelligent lifeforms that evolve in an environment that doesn't lend itself to technological development of the sort that leads to space colonization. There are plenty of scenarios: perhaps an aquatic species evolves on a water world where they never learn about combustion, or a world where mineral resources are rare on the surface, where atmospheric conditions render stargazing or flight nigh impossible. Again, the odds suggest this wouldn't be a barrier for every planet with intelligent life, but it might eliminate quite a few of them.

[@antonsimmons8519]

I recall reading a Star Trek novel in which a species' solar system was in the middle of a heavy dust cloud, and their night sky had no stars that weren't solar system objects, so to them, there had never been any question that they were alone in the universe.

[@The1stDukeDroklar]

Yes, while these are not great filters to primitive life in general, they certainly are great filters to intelligent life developing technology. There are so many filters and unique conditions found in our star, our solar system, and the earth and the moon, that when combined, the odds against intelligent life dwarf the number of stars in the visible universe. Cool Worlds has a good video by a physics team that goes into this as well as the channel by Isaac Arthur who has a series of deep-dive fermi paradox videos.

[@jayayerson8819]

On a water world with volcanic vents (or other source of both minerals and extreme heat), a suitably intelligent enough species would eventually develop an understanding of exothermic and endothermic reactions. However, if the species is not very social, it will take a long time to disseminate. Consequently, it is possible to imagine that there is no such thing as a great filter, but each step is a great delay. Imagine that we're the first because: - Potassium (and other less-common elements) and stable stars together in combination are rare, and this is the *easiest* path for life - Stable surface water is relatively rare, even though liquid water is not - Complex life will occur eventually in some environments, but the conditions causing this to develop faster are very rare - Intelligence is rare so far because it's rarely useful in the short term to spend so much energy on brain development, but becomes more likely in a relatively fast-changing environment - Technology is even rarer yet, because even most highly intelligent species find their bodies to be sufficient to survive and reproduce, and thus do not form large societies quickly, or are in more challenging environments. Consider that Dolphins are way smart, have been around since before our ancestors descended the trees, but they don't have... hands. Octopuses can be pretty smart, but rarely social. Either of these is going to slow you down. But so would geology that is too stable - you might end up with a snowball planet in the habitable zone, or anything.

[@The1stDukeDroklar]

@@jayayerson8819 You don't see any advanced life forms around thermal vents so your premise of a "suitably intelligent specie" evolving seems a stretch. A great delay? No matter how long you wait, you're not going to find advanced life evolving on the moon for example. So yes, there are definitely filters prohibiting life. Anything on a water world will never have fire so that is a great filter of ever developing technology. Yes, dolphins and other semi-intelligent creatures have been around far longer than mankind but the fact they are exponentially inferior in intelligence than mankind indicates they will never evolve tech level intelligent brains without being intentionally "uplifted" by mankind. There have been countless species over 4 billion years and none has made that biological leap to tech level intelligence.

[@jayayerson8819]

​@@The1stDukeDroklar This reads as a very hostile way to argue your point. I wasn't trying to destroy the original point so much as ask what if. You'd do better to ask questions in good faith if something seems unlikely, rather than dismissing it outright. Your points seem a little narrow and I can't help but think you're lacking both information and imagination. If you care to, you can read the following for a little of both. Fair warning that your arguments are shredded by well-understood science. We don't see creatures around thermal vents often, ~on Earth~, as there are other more easily habitable environments. I doubt this would be the case if there is life on Europa, since there are far fewer options. Though there are a few very well adapted deep-sea creatures, including a sea slug with iron armour. Not very smart, but better armour than most human soldiers had even 1,000 years ago. Given that we are discussing speculative science, I suggest you draw on specific planetary geological processes if you wish to dismiss this. The moon? Nicely blunt straw man. The concession that most environments in the universe are likely unsuitable for life to begin evolving should be read as implicit, so no points for that. Unless we're breaking known physics, anything that is possible could eventually happen - and there are other chemical reactions, rather different from lightning starting fires and probably less common, that can produce free gases (hydrogen, oxygen, CO2, etc) in water, given a sufficient source of heat and specific input materials (eg, limestone). However, given that cetaceans and cephalopods are very well adapted to their environments here on this planet, they have had little reason to change. There really haven't been that many species that have language and/or could out-think most 2 year olds. I'd estimate it as less than 1000, out of all the named species ever to live on this planet. That's a lot more than the 1 human species with complex technology, but it means that other specific conditions need to be fulfilled. No need to be so homocentric, though, as these arguments can lead to a dark path very quickly when applied to other human cultures - and without which I personally doubt we'd have imminent climate change. So far, all of your arguments have fallen pretty flat, even though my understanding of most sciences is first year undergraduate level at best. I would recommend that when people are excitedly speculating, perhaps they're not here for your edification. What if being social, intelligent, and high adapting into new environments are all shared requirements for technology - and that lacking one, the others take longer to progress? What if this required set of multiple inputs is important for most of the delaying steps along the way? I recommend you visit Isaac Arthur's channel for more information on this, and many other science and futurism topics.

[@motorway2roswell]

The rambling at the end of this video Reminds me of : "I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you/me"

[@angryatheist]

Speed of light is the filter We can’t get close so everything is just too far

[@polreamonn]

The speed of dark will always be faster.

[@wstavis3135]

After years of broadcasting messages, we finally received a reply: "Be silent! They are listening."

[@ClellBiggs]

I think the issue is that we assume intelligence is the ultimate outcome of evolution. On Earth that may be the case (and it may not, time will tell) but on other planets other evolutionary paths may be more beneficial. Life adapts to the environment it lives in. That likely rarely leads to intelligence. It's just what we think is the ultimate outcome because we want to find life we can relate to.

[@carlrood4457]

Right, think of all the species that exist or have existed on this planet and only one even has ever had the capacity to even conceive of such questions let alone try and answer them. Even on this world intelligence is exceedingly rare.

[@harrykuehn3894]

We are about to get whacked by the GREAT FILTER.

[@CharlesGriswold]

The universe is one big party and we were deliberately snubbed.

[@elfymcelferton2187]

On the bright side, no Vogons....yet.

[@pamelamays4186]

To paraphrase that old country doctor Bones McCoy, "It'll be life Jim, but not as we know it."

[@The1stDukeDroklar]

Zero evidence though of any other kind of life and we have billions of years to study. If other kinds of life are possible, we should see evidence of it right here on earth.

[@ronaldbeck1762]

Both travel and communication could be all around us and we are oblivious. Because we believe it's impossible. How do you detect something you don't understand ? It's not like we know what to look for ...

[@margarita8442]

could be multiple filters,, behind us and ahead

[@pultulf2462]

one could also think about the great filter being behind us while another one is ahead of us too. It is for sure in long term.

[@jeremythornton433]

Why does there have to be just one filter?

[@antonsimmons8519]

I think that's part of the "hard steps" line of thought on the subject. ie, there are multiple failure points, of varying degree and type, and each one is binary. You get past it or maybe your remains last long enough to be studied by someone else, much later. Maybe...

[@jamesleatherwood5125]

PBS Spacetime just put out a video discussing our "earliness" to the cosmos. its an interesting watch after watching this video.

[@TheEscapingFate]

The universe seems very old by our time scales, but it could actually be very early given how much time the universe likely has left. If we are early in the universe's capability of producing space faring civilizations, we could simply be among the first generation of civilizations to venture beyond the home planet.

[@wreckinball11]

Possible for sure, but 15,000,000,000 years when written is a big number with no other beings figuring out extra solar travel.

[@robsquared2]

Even given the time to evolve humans it could have easily happened billions of years ago, and if just one makes self-replicating probes we'd expect them to be around every star in 10 million years.

[@paulstewart6293]

It's crap to arrive first for a party. By the time it's warmed up, you're pissed and stoned collapsed in a corner. Life, don't talk to me about life....

[@southcoastinventors6583]

How much time is left is just as pointless how much time has passed, both are unknowable so no need to worry. The filter is the size and desire to spread of immortal beings.

[@AcornElectron]

Makes me laugh when we say years as if the time taken for us to go round our star means anything. What is time?

[@monckey44]

I love the editing on this channel. it fits it so well

[@pohldriver]

Humans have been intelligent a lot longer than 3000 years. Göbekli Tepe is an estimated 12,000 years old, with recent findings of apparent older sites in the area that could be upwards of 15,000 years old!

[@mwolkove]

Why haven't we been colonized yet? Space Britain hasn't noticed us.

[@robsquared2]

Another point: because of spatial expansion, at best we can probably get to a couple dozen galaxies.

[@reneaston3018]

Love u bruv 👌 don't ever stop what ur doing my g

[@rossharper1983]

Fascinating episode

[@ThatWriterKevin]

Thanks!

[@cicad2007]

I like this channel. Especially the graphics. Good work Simon! :-)

[@Peter-MH]

“where the **** are the aliens at?!” 😂 love it!

[@derekstein6193]

Still more reassuring than the Dark Forest hypothesis.

[@Paladiea]

Humans: *Drove their sister species extinct* Also Humans: "aRE we AloNE in thE UNiVeRSE?"

[@tureytayno3154]

Are you talking about the Neanderthals?

[@Paladiea]

@@tureytayno3154 Amongst others

[@darkskyinwinter]

Here's some of my favorites for filters: * We live in a phosphorous belt in the galaxy. Life won't have enough chemical complexity without phosphorous. * Humans had their environment flip on them several times and we had to quickly and drastically change how we behave. We went through a population bottleneck and lived. * It takes time for genetics to develop the ability to centralize genes and develop a template - like instead of having to coordinate 20-30 genes to flip to develop a resistance to a pathogen, there's just one or two. This isn't so much a filter, but a reason that everybody might have taken about 3-4 billion years to develop intelligence and multicellular life. * Intelligent life has to pull itself up out of the ocean. You can't forge metal (easily) underwater. Also no landmarks or territory depending on how much water. * Have to be in the right spot of the galaxy. Too close to the center and you get GRB'd, or supernova'd - sterilizing the planet. * Needing to reach all these filters within a time limit, before the sun of the planet changes enough that multicellular life can't be sustained. This also goes along with a theory of long-lived red dwarfs not being able to sustain life very well, but if they can, then this is out the window - plenty of red dwarfs around. My money's still on it being ahead of us. If the odds of that are 0.1% every 100 years - so that would encompass the Cold War & WWII for perspective - after 100,000 years, the odds we're still around are about 1/3, and near zero for a million years.

[@exhaustguy]

Nice list. I think the Rare Earth hypothesis is the best explanation for the Fermi Paradox. That means there are a much smaller number of opportunities for complex life than you get from just counting stars. Combine that with some low probabilities of some of the transitions and you can see why technological life is so rare. As you said there is a maximum time window on stars like ours. Red dwarfs are definitely a consideration, but one reason probabilities are reduced for them are the proximity of the water zone to the star and the subsequent exposure to radiation from solar flares.

[@TheDotBot]

Good list. Esp phosphorus, which is an extremely lucky one as even in (nascent) solar systems with phosphorus, it's usually on the edge and not where the inner planets would be. There's also a whole bunch of great filters affecting the solar system, which essentially mean that conditions on Earth are unusually stable. Moon stabilizing Earth's orbit, very quiet though relatively long-lived sun etc. Problem is, space is really, really big, light speed is a snail's pace at this scale. Even if life were commonplace, which it's not, it would be spread out over huge distances across space; industrial civilization would be rare and - if it exists at all - the chances are it couldn't interact with us in any meaningful way, if at all. It's not a problem of signal strength or technology or whatever, just vast distances. But it's more a mathematical problem. There are billions of stars out there (sth like 2*10^9 give or take a few powers of 10), but the prerequisites for life are high as we know now. Drake's N is a lot longer now with lots more parameters and deal-breakers to life and especially intelligent life, making N a lot smaller, but we have no idea how small. So the probability of any life anywhere is a huge number with error margins in orders of magnitude set against a tiny number that we can't even intelligently guess, and the instances of signalling life might at any one time average out at six times per galaxy or once every six visible universes, any guess is as good as any other. Whichever way, the chances of any form of contact are slim to impossible. The one sample we have is Earth. Even on a planet identical to Earth, microbial life would probably develop, but even signalling life would not be a given: We only developed in the last phase of habitable Earth, and signalling civilization only developed in an interglacial with extremely stable seasonal patterns that are highly unusual even on Earth, but essential for agriculture, and therefore also permanent settlement, civilization, industrialization etc. So we could have easily stayed as hunter-gatherers. We used to think we're on an average planet orbiting an average star in an average solar system and that all the chemistry we need is all over the universe. We now know that's not the case, but few want to entertain the possibility that we are _for all practical purposes_ completely alone in the universe.

[@PerpetualSmile]

@@TheDotBot Alone in the galaxy, maybe. Alone in the universe? Not a chance

[@TheDotBot]

@@PerpetualSmile Based on what?

[@PerpetualSmile]

@@TheDotBot Based on the fact that there are billions of galaxies in the visible universe alone. The idea that we're the only intelligent life in the entire universe is absurd

[@realnizefilms]

Love the effects and editing in these vids 👍

[@shadowninja6689]

I think there's a third and much more likely great filter possibility, there could be multiple great filters, some that we've already passed, and some that we've yet to hit.

[@antiisocial]

I think there's probably multiple filters some of which are behind this, some of which are in front of us, and some of which we are experiencing right now. And some of them are probably tougher to get past than others. That seems to make the most sense to me.

[@EdricLysharae]

One of our great limiters is our mortality. We live such brief lives that we lack perspective and can't properly plan for the future. Not even our ability to pass on our knowledge can compensate for that limitation.

[@mattwhite8556]

I absolutely love these videos.

[@YoungGandalf2325]

We have yet to discover intelligent life on Earth.

[@carliecole2563]

I thought I found it once. But... Then he started to lick his big brother' furry little balloon-knot ass hole, annnnd that was when I gave up my beloved little Mr. Steve(... N Hawking II? Yeah, nope. He lost those latter 3-syllables not long after this incident?) Being this so-called "intelligent life," either?

[@Solinvicti]

The reason we haven't found intelligent life isn't because of any filters, it's because of distance. Space is fucking big.

[@jayp_2023]

I think part of the problem is that our telescopes are always looking at the past. There could be life in nearby systems (perhaps at our current level) but we wouldn't know about it as our telescopes don't work in real-time.

[@drake000666]

It's not a problem do, Intelligence life had billions of years to be in our Galaxy alone, you would think even one would setup a beacon that any intelligence even with just telescopes could see and understand within millions of light years, for me we should be seeing thousands of beacons and yet we do not see any :(

[@mar71n32n0v1lLL0]

@@drake000666 How about this: maybe there *are* thousands of beacons out there that are being passively picked up by our telescopes and myriad sensors... however, what makes us think we can even identify them as such in the first place? They would come from civilizations that are fundamentally different from our own, and I'm not talking just about the basic aspect of language. I mean every alien species could very well have different sensory receptors and processing, therefore their technology will vary in function from ours; they could be broadcasting welcomes, or warnings, or their equivalent of TV shows, as we are, yet because they can for example see and hear on extreme spectrums that not even our equipment can differ from background noise, we are not aware we are getting said broadcasts. We shouldn't assume the problem lies simply outside, and we are the unique ones out there. The "problem", if we dare call it that, could be the same for every civilization: we are too different to simply detect, isolate and interpret a broadcast, directed or otherwise.

[@EdricLysharae]

@@drake000666, statistically speaking, we are among the first life the universe will ever know. We are only about 1/7500th through the Stelliferous Era, so the golden age for life is likely far in the future.

[@miniverse2002]

Our galaxy is 100000 lightyears across. A million year old galactic empire would likely have visible numbers of megastructures by now. Colonization could be impossible or more subtle or we still don't have the resolution to see but the time lag would not be an issue at least for our galaxy alone.

[@EdricLysharae]

@@miniverse2002, which is why I think we are one of the 'elder races' so often depicted in sci-fi. The universe is still *quite* young, and we got in "just" when life like ours became viable. And we barely made it. Had we had one more global event that knocked back evolution by a billion years, our planet would not still have the correct conditions for complex life in about 800 million years. It may not always seem like it, but we were *damn* lucky.

[@Zuringa]

This is the most unbiased, for or against video I've seen on the subject. well done!

[@robsquared2]

Abiogenesis could have happened multiple times but additional times would be at an extreme disadvantage because things that had more time to evolve would be better suited and just eat the new life.

[@The1stDukeDroklar]

But there is no evidence of any other tree of life ever evolving. Anything that evolves runs into the same problem from those that have already evolved.

[@antonsimmons8519]

Astute.

[@personzorz]

@@The1stDukeDroklar but in this circumstance, you wouldn't expect there to be any

[@The1stDukeDroklar]

@@personzorz Just the opposite. In 4 billion years you WOULD expect to see other types of life if those other types were possible at all. His argument that other types might not evolve due to the carbon-based life already being here is not valid since we have countless forms of life here that all were at a disadvantage when they first evolved but they overcame that and thrived. It's a fundamental principle of evolution.

[@personzorz]

@@The1stDukeDroklar No it isn't. In evolution we have something called a 'priority effect' - whoever invades a niche first is likely to stay there and prevent the invasion by other lineages, at least until a mass extinction occurrs.

[@chrisyanover1777]

My guess is we are looking for radio communications but we have only have had radio communications for a little over 100 years and we are already moving on to new communications. Maybe we are not listening to the right form of communications?

[@anthonyx916]

This all seems to presume that interstellar travel is "easy" or at least feasible for a sufficiently advanced intelligence, or that we already have the means to detect signs of extraterrestrial intelligence if it exists. I don't think either is necessarily true... space is really big and stars are really far apart. We can only detect indications of extraterrestrial intelligence if it has gone to deliberate and extreme lengths to advertise its presence to us, and interstellar travel is so difficult and would take so long that perhaps no-one out there finds adequate motivation to make the effort. The "great filter" could simply be a consequence of limits of physics and the "bigness" of space keeping all spacefaring-minded civilizations forever trapped in a bubble around their home stars.

[@homelessjesse9453]

Possibly. But we're in the infancy of known physics. Tell me. If you interviewed some random person in the year 1900 and tell them about smart phones, what would their reaction be? It's very well possible that in 100 years, some form of warp drive, or folding time and space like Frank Herbert's Dune could be achieved.

[@carlrood4457]

@@homelessjesse9453 But air travel, for example, pretty much plateaued 50 years ago. Technology has practical limits. It's not just what we CAN to but what works. Sure we're capable of building faster planes, but they're incredibly inefficient and not economically viable. The internet and video conferencing has made such travel even LESS necessary.

[@homelessjesse9453]

@@carlrood4457 Well, not if you look at hypersonic missiles. We've certainly advanced. And what about quantum physics and dark matter? We've barely scratched the surface of anything when you take into account tech. I'm just saying it might be possible as long as humanity doesn't destroy itself. Time is relative after all. :)

[@omegatired]

Personally, I suspect there are warning buoys at the edge of our system reminding people that we bite, are not suitable for experimentation and that giving us FTL drive access is strictly forbidden.

[@margarita8442]

the distances are to far

[@janibeg3247]

everyone else is a very, very long distance away from us

[@RadekSuski]

I think it’s a way more than 3000 years.

[@aprosper]

Lol thank you. I was wondering if it was supposed to be 30000 years ago. Or 300000 years. 1000 bce seems pretty recent for intelligent life to be starting 😂

[@ThatWriterKevin]

Correct, it is 300,000 years. Sometimes Simon reads things wrong

[@dumbledoor4594]

Why do people alway ask, where is everybody? And not explain what they do to observe everybody?

[@dumbledoor4594]

If we assume intergalactic travel is just too impossible to achieve even for robots. What is the likelihood, that we would find an intelligent lifeform within the milkyway, and how would we or they observe them or us?

[@dumbledoor4594]

I'm just thinking that the likelihood might just be so low, that the aliens would be so far away from earth, that the signal from earth that could be detectable have not reached the aliens yet

[@dumbledoor4594]

And here we are talking just mere observation. Travelling the distance is even more unlikely, and with an obscene time horizon.

[@dumbledoor4594]

All in all, I'm still not convinced that there is a paradox at all. And so the question of a "great filter" is mute to me... Can anyone explain to me a likely scenario, that actually details why there is a paradox? I need more than just arbitrary likelihood calculation...

[@the-chillian]

7:00 -- These scientists are likely to be wrong. The kind of intelligence that eventually leads to complex technology capable of space travel only showed up on our planet 50-150,000 years ago or so, among an obscure species of chromosomally-abnormal African ape in what may have been a very unusual set of environmental circumstances. (NB: I identify this with the probable origin of language, since we cannot have achieved anything like our present condition without it.) Even then, the kind of understanding of the universe leading even to the desire to contact other worlds only emerged a couple of hundred years ago. This is a teeny tiny fraction of the age not only of the universe, but even of our home planet. For anything that took that long to emerge, we have to allow that it just may be very, very rare. Look, for instance, at the dinosaurs. They dominated most of Earth's ecosystems for longer than they've been extinct, and there's no evidence they had anything even remotely resembling our style of intelligence. Some of their modern descendants are extremely intelligent, but even now you'll never see a crow building a radio set. If 230 million years was insufficient for dinosaurs to develop technology, it may have emerged in our case only by the sheerest accident.

[@Nipplator99999999999]

I learned a long time ago, don't ask any question that you really don't want to know the answer of...sometimes ignorance is bliss.

[@tommygordon5125]

Yes.

[@smithbilly467]

9:50 Death is no disgrace. Mars Aeternum

[@nem447]

Earth is the ghetto of the galaxy, where traveling aliens wind their windows up and try not to make eye contact when they pass by.

[@EdricLysharae]

There are so many Great and Small filters that we had to clear to get to us. My hunch is that an equivalent of mitochondria symbiont adoption is very rare. We may find ourselves running circles around any other life out there, because we can produce so much more metabolic power because of our mitochondria.

[@ignitionfrn2223]

1:45 - Chapter 1 - The great filter 5:00 - Chapter 2 - The filter is behind us 7:10 - Chapter 3 - The filter is in front of us 9:55 - Chapter 4 - Are we totally screwed ?

[@DinoDiniProductions]

I think the simplest explanation is that no aliens in their right minds would want to come anywhere near us.

[@crazyphrog6289]

There is an even scarier option that was explored in the trilogy of books that starts with The Three Body Problem and explores the concept that there is a lot of life out there in the second book, The Dark Forest. But the problem is, they don't want any competition so any civilisation that sticks it's head up gets taken out. So they are all hiding to avoid that.

[@Nemoticon]

The problem with the The Dark Forest theory is that it depends on the story of a hunter who already lives in a fertile land with lots of other creatures for his ancestor to draw expreience from. It's a great book, but doesn't apply very well to the situation at hand. There is no context between the anology and what has been observed.

[@klepow]

There is also the possibility that an intelligent species isn't destroyed, but their civilization is. Since that's happened to us many times. It could even be worldwide, rather than the regional collapses that we've had in the past. We lose most of our technology, and our social structure, and have to start again. I can't imagine, if there are other intelligent beings, that they wouldn't go through the same things. We tend to think of history as linear, but it can also be thought of as cyclical.

[@stevenscott2136]

Some people even argue we're doing that right now, by any of several methods ranging from blundering incompetence to diabolical schemes. It's entirely possible that intelligent life just doesn't evolve in a way conducive to supporting an interstellar civilization.

[@c128stuff]

There are some additional things to consider with regards to both the start of life and the start of multicelular life. Life seems to have started pretty much as soon as it could, in conditions we'd consider not very friendly to life. We actually do not know how often it started or restarted, all we do know is that all the life we have found so far originates from the same 'start of life' event. It is entirely possible life started a few times over, to get wiped out again during the violent early days of the planet. Its also entirely plausible that once there is life, the conditions which allow it to start get disrupted enough by that life to prevent another, genetically unrelated form of life starting. As the fossil record of that is pretty much destroyed by plate tectonics, and any fossil record of ancient single cell organisms is... very hard to come by even if it wasn't destroyed, we just do not know if life started once or many times. What we do however know is that it started at pretty much the first opportunity (going by what genetics tells us). We might resolve this question with a bit of a detour when we find life outside earch, especially when that is somewhere in our own solar system. With multicellular life that is different, as there can be completely independent niches which can make it an evolutionary attractive option, and it happened so much later in time it is much easier to find traces of it. And hence, us only knowing about a single time life started, but about a few dozen times multicellular life developed doesn't say that much about the likelyhood of either happening. But it having taken 3 billion years for that important step to happen for the first time does say a lot, and strongly suggests the development of those niches, and subsequent development of multicellular life is anything but a trivial step, whereas life starting at pretty much the first possible opportunity, and very early on in the life of the planet, suggests it is pretty easy, even when we didn't yet figure out how it works. Last but not least, in some sense, there is a step inbetween those 2 phases which is really important. Most cells are in a sense multicellular themselves already, as organels like mitochondria, chloroplats etc, were once independent organisms which formed a symbiosis with a larger cell by starting to live inside of it, providing it with things it needs, and getting things like protection and nutrients in return. But that is not how things started, and that step is essential to the development of any more complex forms of life.

[@BlueFrenzy]

The point regarding abiogenesis happening only once implies by definition that the window for life spawning is very short. It doesn't matter if it appeared one thousand times, it means that the conditions for life to appear are not here anymore and it didn't last very long. People keep using the argument of life appearing as soon as it was possible as an argument in favor of life being common, but the fact that this life stops appearing after a very short time implies a lot of things: 1- abiogenesis conditions are very limited. 2- those conditions are pretty different from a life thriving planet. What does it mean? It means that instead of requiring a planet with "the conditions for life", you need a planet that transitions between two phases, being phase 1, the one who is able to create life and phase 2, the one who can sustain life. How does this transition occurs? what are the limitations? Should it happen at a specific pace? we don't know. But it clearly could divide the number of imhabited planets by any factor.

[@c128stuff]

@@BlueFrenzy Unless life existing is what closes that window.

[@BlueFrenzy]

@@c128stuff But there's no way to know. And if life appears so easily, life would need to exterminate all other lifeforms. Because life at that time didn't have legs or wings. So if life has it so easy to spawn, our ancestors would have needed to exterminate every other lifeforms. It's possible, but certainly, very strange, knowing how lifeforms adapt and evolve and it tends to have more variety over time, not less.

[@c128stuff]

@@BlueFrenzy There is no way to know, for now, but that argument works both ways. Variety of life has been reduced significantly more than a few times, with like 90% of species getting exterminated by some events, repeatedly. This is something we know and for which a lot of evidence exists. So, species, even entire families getting wiped out is not exactly unheard of, or even exceptional. What is more, we *KNOW* that over 99% of all species which have existed during the lifespan of the planet are extinct. Hence, chances of no survivors from another form of life having started on earth are pretty high. The *ONLY* thing we can say for sure is that all life we know of on this planet is genetically relaated. We do not know all forms of life on the planet, and we do not know what species died out in the first billion or so years, and additionally, we do not know for sure if different early species did not end up exchanging genetic material, making it look like there is a single genetic origin of all life we know.. Life only having started once requires just as many assumptions, and without supporting evidence for either, there simply isn't anything better to say than 'we do not know'. Mediocre principe however strongly suggests the 'exclusive' option is not the one we should be using here, unless we have evidence supporting it.

[@scottnunnemaker5209]

One thing really complicating the search is the speed of light. Most of what we are seeing of the universe is extremely old, so even if today there was something to see there, we wouldn’t see anything. The other things is radio waves that travel at or close to the speed of light, you can look up online how far our own radio transmissions have gone into the universe and it’s practically nothing. So even if we were sending up transmissions everyday they might not reach any other life for thousands or millions of years and even then there is no guarantee that they are listening, have the ability to respond, or care that other complex life exists at all.

[@DB-xp9px]

we can't go "from galaxy to galaxy" since space is expanding faster than we'll ever travel. even getting across the milky way would take 100,000 years even assuming u could go at light speed. my personal believe is there is plenty of life out there but they're just as "alone" as we are since unless they're very close in our galaxy, there's simply no way to communicate with them. i mean, who is going to stay engaged in a conversation that takes 1000s of years to get the next "text"?

[@totalermist]

Bullseye! The same applies to interstellar travel. The whole concept of "colonising" other star systems breaks down once we consider the immense distances in both space and *time* . The latter is ridiculously overlooked/ignored by most most scientists, who simply assume that civilisations don't change over geological time scales and simply don't mind that it may take decades to just send a message to the nearest "colony", let alone visit there.

[@talltroll7092]

@@totalermist Much depends on whether you allow for the possibility of FTL travel. So far as we know, physics allows it... so long as you can find/make some very weird exotic matter that physics may not allow. Which is awkward

[@totalermist]

@@talltroll7092 The problem with FTL is that it opens another can of worms: defying cause-and-effect by means of time travel. It seems unlikely that nature allows for this. That's why I tend to not include it in any speculation.

[@dougmaronde5822]

This is my new favorite whistler channel

[@colinmarshall6634]

The thing that gets me is that humanity would be the exact invasive aliens that we depict in movies if we ever colonize off-world.

[@Sarsenwood]

We are a hegemonizing swarm. All shall be consumed.

[@marcussinclaire4890]

We definitely would be. We would be space orcs.

[@TTGdvar]

Exactly think about what the early colonial empires were like when they discovered native peoples on far off continents. We enslaved them and used them for economic benefit. I'd hate to see what would happen if humans encountered a species that was technologically at the medieval stage on another planet.

[@hkmp5kpdw]

We’ll make great pets...

[@gamereditor59ner22]

Great question.....🤔 So... Either we advance to recycle or we are f@#k....

[@Perceptious37]

one theory ive thought about is that humans got lucky to evolve when they did without megafauna and other crazy ancient predators. its mostly been big felines and wolves that would have hunted us, but nothing so large that would prevent the development of a city/civilization which would force us to be more solitary creatures or cause us to go extinct

[@carlrood4457]

That brings up another thing. The domestication of dogs and cats were extremely vital to survival. There's a reason they are by far the most common pets.

[@simonjones3863]

What are the chances that we have made contact and aren't being told. Far greater chance we are lying to ourselves than anything else.

[@kaczynski2333]

We're not alone; it's probable the window during which species use radio is pretty narrow. We simply don't have the technology (yet) to detect more advanced types of communications. That said, we are entering what is likely to be a common filter.

[@RichardRagan]

I think you forgot two other possibilities that dominate probable solutions: 1) the speed of light -- maybe it's simply impossible to move faster than the speed of light or to warp space or to jump through wormholes. Other habitable planets are too far away for us to see what's happening on their surface and there is no master species that can travel past their solar system. 2) The Dark Forest -- some superior alien like the Klingons, are hiding out there and when a planet, Earth, comes online (we send a technology out there that triggers an alert) the Klingons track us down and destroy our planet -- we never know what hit us.

[@TechNextLetsGo]

I think VR is a very possible outcome for why civilizations don't communicate. They chose to stay in a digital existence.

[@EdricLysharae]

Ever read The Golden Oecumene by John C. Wright? He covers just that type of scenario, and it's a crazy ride. But the long and short of it is this: there will always be someone out there that wants to go out there.

[@stevenscott2136]

@@EdricLysharae Not necessarily. And even if someone does, he may not have access to the resources.

[@EdricLysharae]

@@stevenscott2136, ask how many people on this planet would volunteer if they had the resources. The resources do exist. The people do exist. Having situational circumstances that would perpetually keep these two variables apart isn't a satisfying solution to the Fermi Paradox. Seriously, read those three books. They're great! And sending signals into space is comparatively quite cheap, so yeah. If we ever do encounter an extraterrestrial civilization, I'm next to positive the discovery will come in the form of a radio signal, and it would likely take centuries/millennia before they'd be able to get a reply signal back from us. For me, the most comfortable solution to the Fermi Paradox is that technological civilizations are incredibly rare, and we are amongst the first of them.

[@travisslack4655]

I greatly enjoyed the video editing of this episode.

[@pamelamays4186]

In 200 years Simon's AI clones will be up and running and creating more KZbin channels and content.

[@TheInsaneupsdriver]

they're close to the cure for old age, it could just be him 3 or 400 years from now.

[@willmfrank]

What do you mean, "Will be?" Current SimonTube conspiracy theory suggests that this has already happened.

[@FusionDeveloper]

The Simon Whistler Paradox.

[@mho...]

WhistleTube will be the new all knowing skynet

[@knightwalkr]

I’d put the birth of intelligence back further than 3k years. Maybe 10k years.

[@BRADSPIG]

Seems whether we encounter aliens or not, humanity is pretty much screwed or destined to be 'fish food' in some way.

[@southcoastinventors6583]

No proof of that with 8 billion people and plenty of space and resources. Actually the opposite is true with our technology.

[@iangelling]

Have you ever been out on a Friday night? I wouldn’t go anywhere near us either.

[@justwannabehappy6735]

Again with this subject ? I think the answer is clear : we have no way of knowing at that point.

[@chris.eskimo]

Yes. The sheer VASTNESS of space is likely why we haven't found any other life. But, there MUST be alot out there!

[@watcherit1311]

You can always watch yet another video on a subject of cats.

[@ProfessorJayTee]

Great Filters may not exist at all, and this whole issue be a matter of the typical speed of development. Life may be slower than we think at beginning its development from non-life. This would slow down the timescale so that no one is very far "in front" of us; so no one has been detected, yet. This means only that we are one of the first species developing our way to intelligence. Others could be developing nearly on-parallel with us in fairly nearby locations. The nice part about this hypothesis is that it fits in so neatly with a lot of our Science Fiction, with multiple nearly-equal alien races meeting in space as they expand.

[@brokoryfoods]

If life and consciousness could be created out of simple molecules being put together by chance (abiogenesis) then we should have been able to see it happening all the time. Or at least replicate in a lab by putting all the minerals and carbon that are needed for life in a confined environment then heat it and make electric charges or whatever condition earth was back billion of years ago. The we should be able to see at least bacteria being born out of this mineral carbon and water mixture.

[@enjarichards8100]

Some search for intelligent life out there in the universe. I'm still searching for intelligent life down here on Earth. I may have found one or two organisms.

[@Eric79-f7i]

Oh man I love Simon's work, but he was Captain Kirking his narration HARD this week. Made it tough to follow. 😂

[@MMAFightMagazine]

At 12:28 "...The Earth is stuck out in the f***ing boonies..." Did i hear that right?!? Lol

[@theauraone7755]

Second.

[@jonnovember2136]

We are never alone! Aliens are out there... Aliens are not interested in primitive and backwards species...🌎💘☠

[@karintippett753]

There is a lot of assuming that other life forms would be made up the same as humans and that colonization is not just a human flaw, that all species would seek to colonize. Or, perhaps God has yet to create another species on another planet.

[@watcherit1311]

@Cancer McAids The fact that life forms tend to colonize (or are based on carbon) on THIS planet doesn't make it an universal universe law. SIngle cases are not reliable sources neither in science nor logic. Yet, Earth was a center of the universe not so long ago.

[@southcoastinventors6583]

Life purpose is to spread that all it does it simply the rate.

[@watcherit1311]

@@southcoastinventors6583 If that is true, why many humans/life forms spend their entire lifes in the same home area instead of finding new homes? E.g. Antarctica is much easier to colonize than Mars, yet there is still plenty of unused space and free land for an ordinary human to farm/fish/hunt. Don't forget - laziness is also an important feature of life. Aliens could simply be even more lazy than humans.

[@southcoastinventors6583]

@@watcherit1311 I did kind of imply that but I did mention that in another comment. That both the size, technological advancement, and effective immortality does slow the process down so the great filter might be indeed be laziness but that doesn't imply destruction of the alien species either. Life that doesn't spread is ultimately dead.

[@dtibor5903]

There are many great filters

[@djordan4648]

The filter, if there is one, is ahead of us. And we already have a name for it. Hubris.

[@frankfowlkes7872]

I think it is possible that conditions for life in our universe were not conducive until around 5 billion years ago when the Sun was born. That would mean we are among the first possible. I do though tend to agree with Scipio that we are still likely incredibly rare and did win the "cosmic lottery". I hope we spend our good fortune wisely!

[@chrisjohnston4445]

It's funny how scientists will completely dismiss any claims of "Close Encounters", but then shout, "WHERE IS EVERYBODY?!"

[@RyokoRHM]

It's almost like their entire ideology revolves around verifiable evidence.

[@chrisjohnston4445]

@@RyokoRHM Right, but you have to LOOK at the evidence presented in order to verify it or not.

[@benmcelwain5301]

Light speed lag is also a factor. Andromeda could hold a type 3 civilization for the last 1.3 million years and we would have no idea since it is 2 million light years away.

[@polreamonn]

And Andromeda is right next door.

[@Drozey710]

When we're they is just as important as where are they.

[@groovyengineer]

We seem to be quite adept at setting up many potential great filters.

[@jaramiemanson256]

Haha amca. Don't forget the towel.

[@masonhancock5350]

It‘s worse than that. We‘re not alone, but the others avoid direct contact.