Earlier quoted context omitted.
There seems to be a giant mismatch about what side is open minded. People who think its most likely aliens think it’s closed minded to assign that low probability, presumably because we’re this tiny corner of the universe. People who think it’s most likely not aliens Think it’s closed minded to assign everything else low probability, presumably because aliens are a tiny corner of everything else. Is it a misapplicati…
I thought the idea that there are gazillions of advanced aliens has been pretty much disproven by the fermi paradox. If there are gazillion, at least one out of all the diversity out there should have already colonized the entire galaxy and evidence should be plentiful.
With the material explained away, the lack signals is much easier to explain in that we haven't listened long and we can only hear very loud signals. (Or maybe advanced civs don't use light and use gravity waves or tachyon beams or whatever, but you don't even need to go that far.) The only way we hear a signal is if it's:
1. loud (high energy) and aimed directly at us, like a tight beam
2. EXTREMELY LOUD and aimed everywhere, isotropically
1 is unlikely since they'd have to know where we are; 2 is unlikely since you're talking about an insane level of energy. If it's the case that civs don't seem to be making Dyson spheres or harvesting whole galaxies for energy, being able to throw around that kind of power is prohibitively expensive. In both these cases, the inverse square law applies (for every unit x of distance, the light's x² less bright). Ironically, that means we're more likely to detect signals from an improbably close civilization (like 4 light years next door, in Alpha Centuari), than from farther away -- and even then, by a chance sweep of an umodulated asteroid scanning beam[0] or something, if we happened to be paying attention at the time.