this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2026
538 points (99.1% liked)

Science Memes

19892 readers
943 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 25 points 1 day ago (5 children)

I've been wondering this for years now. Sci fi and even actual scientific speculation tends to assume aliens would be way ahead of us in terms of technology because their planets may have been formed earlier. I don't think time alone matters. If they don't have resources, if fhey don't evolve the same way, if they have more difficulties in doing shit due to any number of reasons... They could be far less advanced than us. Maybe nobody in the entire universe has figured out how to realistically travel between stars yet. Maybe we are the only ones who have even managed to get off our rock.

[–] Honytawk@discuss.tchncs.de 20 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (2 children)

Imagine humanity in 1000 years. We would be among the stars.

Now imagine humanity in 10000 years, 100000 years or even 1000000 years.

A million years is still a fraction in the cosmic timescale.

It would be nearly impossible to have other civilizations be on exactly the same technological level as us. They would indeed be either much less advanced, or much more advanced.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 3 points 5 hours ago

With all the crazy ass things that can kill us off, I don't think we're alone in the universe, but we may very well be alone in time.

The Fermi Paradox might just the the likelyhood to get wiped out from motions to everything and we're too far away to get contact in this gnat's ass of a conscious timeline we're in.

[–] Bunitonito@lemmy.world 0 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

This is mostly uneducated postulation, but I think as we become more technologically advanced, technological advancements (and the knowledge of mechanics necessary to allow for them) become fewer and more far between as advancements occur.

I feel like the industrial revolution was a perfect storm of many advancements all happening in the same blip, and it allowed us to go from Wright to the moon in one lifespan, but 100 years later, we're still not far from that point, technologically.

I mean, look at radiological half life - that's the point at which there's a 50% chance that any one atom will decay, but when that atom decays seems to be mere chance more than anything. It's perplexing and maddening. But the more we stare at that, the more sure we are in the belief that the void, nothingness, is actually rife with energy just flitting in and out of perceivable existence, affecting observable particles, but we just can't see this vacuum energy. Almost like quantum mechanics is used as a workaround to try to make sense of those unseen forces (and when we can observe them, it'd likely be able to be described in a more classical sense).

Maybe the industrial revolution gave us some hopium lol, but we've been butting our heads into a wall for a century pining for a magical microscope. Maybe in 500 years it'll all look mostly the same, who knows

[–] SleeplessCityLights@programming.dev 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

The last 75 years of nothing is because of Neoliberalism. It is not conventially profitable to spend government funds on scientific exploration. Government funds are used to counter tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations. Along with just stealing the money through various means.

[–] Bunitonito@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

I agree with you for the most part. We've seen companies with dominance just sit on innovation and basically slow play it when competition keeps up, or go straight to lawfare or popularity contests (Intel cough cough). Kinda sucks we place more importance on the resources used to arrive at innovation than the practicality of those innovations. But where we're at now, it's like peeling an onion and what everyone wants to find is 3 layers down, so it's not like we can build more LHCs to smash particles, because the things we need to find are a couple skips past that point. We eventually find it, what next?

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 9 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

This is just arrogance.

We have only been announcing our intelligence for 100 years. It takes 100,000 years just to cross our galaxy. No-one knows we are here yet.

[–] SLVRDRGN@lemmy.world 5 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

There's also the Dark Forest hypothesis - the idea that maybe many alien civilizations exist out there but stay silent because revealing themselves would make them targets/prey to a more high-tech hostile civilization.

[–] Bunitonito@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

I'd imagine any intelligent alien life form would be intelligent enough to realize that they've reached a point at which they can simply life in a sustained utopia. Heal the planet, work less, fill time with hobbies and pursuits. Humans have this flaw, and it's that the mentally ill squander the world's wealth and use it for dick-measuring contests. A small minority of us will kill their own mother for a job promotion, and the people at the very top want to squander it all so they see another 0 in their bank account, or outrace the other 7 megabillionaires to the dick-measuring contest on Mars. I could only hope aliens aren't as as stupid. We could just litter the earth with trees, solar panels, 2 br condos, and hammocks, and have AI work for us, but nope. Every single die shrink leads to more transistor density and never any power efficiency because big numbers are better for shareholders. They sold us downstream

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 4 points 10 hours ago

3 body problem is a good book for thought experiments, but it didn't really discuss the arguments against the dark forest hypothesis

  • assumes universal hostility.

  • Interstellar warfare is protracted and impractical.

  • Ignores potential cooperation and ethical diversity.

  • assumes aliens think like humans

[–] AvocadoSandwich@eviltoast.org 2 points 18 hours ago

Maybe we aren't the first, maybe we aren't the last. What if there is other intelligent life on other planets, but just because of the distance their signals have not managed to come to us and our signals haven't managed to get to them yet. That should be fairly possible simply because of the how big the universe is right?

[–] an0nym0us_dr0ne@europe.pub 5 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

There still is the „Early Bird Theory“.

When you look at us, the Earth, life has formed almost immediately after the conditions where given. On top of that the universe itself isn’t even that old. There is a good chance, that Fermi was right but we are just the first ones.

… which makes me think that whatever or whoever designed us had some work left to do. You left in some bugs buddy.

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 hours ago

There is a good chance... Probabilistically, the early bird theory is unlikely. If development of life were to follow a normal distribution, it'd be highly improbable that we'd be in the tails as opposed to the main body.

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 6 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

There's also a theory that we're too late, and that our existence is like the remaining microbes in a puddle of water in a desert.

The universe used to be lukewarm with conditions for life to exist everywhere, until it expanded and started cooling.

On a positive note, this could also mean that life lies dormant everywhere just waiting for the right conditions, so that anywhere that has the right conditions also has life.

[–] Honytawk@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 16 hours ago

Eh, I don't buy it.

Humans are proof that life is still possible in our universe. How could all life have died out when life is still perfectly possible?

Only way this is possible is if life didn't adapt (which I don't see life doing).

[–] bearboiblake@pawb.social 9 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Maybe they just don't want to leave their planet because it's dope af

[–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 3 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Some humans want to travel even when they're perfectly happy.

[–] qarbone@lemmy.world 5 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

That's ascribing human motivations to non-humans. They could be fundamentally non-curious, only using their relative intelligence to solve actual problems in their environment rather than pushing for "what if?".

[–] ericwdhs@discuss.online 0 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

This argument has never really made sense to me. If you picked a random individual lifeform from anywhere in the universe, then yes, there's a good chance it won't have much in common with humans. If you take the totality of all life in the universe however, we should see a smoother distribution of behaviors. Human-like behaviors would be within that spectrum by definition and should not be entirely unique.

Let's say of all the intelligent species in the universe, an average of 1% exhibit whatever motivations are needed to go interstellar, and that 1% of those species got a billion year headstart. Well, due to sampling bias, we should still see that 0.01% represented everywhere.

[–] qarbone@lemmy.world 0 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I was flummoxed for a while because it sounds like this isn't even related to what I was saying. Until it clicked that it wasn't.

I only said to be wary of anthropomorphizing non-human creatures. Saying all life explores is assigning the human definition of "going out and charting the uncharted" to all of the exploration that any creature that actually explores does. Other interstellar species could go into space for perfectly practical reasons, like their planet is dying or it's over capacity and they don't want to cull their population. Assigning "human wanderlust" as a facet of all (intelligent) life isn't correct.

[–] ericwdhs@discuss.online 1 points 5 hours ago

Sorry. I may be reading more into the chain than what's actually here. I'm just saying "aliens can't be expected to behave like humans" isn't really a viable explanation to the Fermi Paradox without some big caveats, because given a large enough sample of intelligent alien species, (1) they won't be monolithic, (2) some will exhibit human-like behavior on the premise that humans aren't special, (3) some will have arrived on the scene millions or billions of years before us, and (4) the "somes" from the last two points is enough that galaxy spanning civilizations should already be everywhere even if FTL is forever impossible.

If intelligent life is rare enough to preclude the "given a large enough sample" (I'm thinking one species per galaxy level rarity), then the solution to the Fermi Paradox is elsewhere.

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I wonder what another being would need of us if it was already able to travel through the vacuum of space while self-sustaining.

[–] bearboiblake@pawb.social 7 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

They'd want our coconuts, I bet. They're pretty cool, I bet aliens don't have coconuts. They might have some cool alien fruit to trade for coconuts. Or weed.

[–] icelimit@lemmy.ml 3 points 18 hours ago

Coconuts are mammals

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 4 points 20 hours ago

alien pointing at a coconut tree

Look, m'lord! Horses!

[–] Samskara@sh.itjust.works 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

Poetry, fashion, art, exotic pets.