bujin
New member
If we're alone, it's an awful lot of wasted space.
Only if you assume that the "purpose" of a universe is to cultivate life.
If we're alone, it's an awful lot of wasted space.
Also remember that advanced civilizations may not resemble us in any way, think of energy beings living inside stars, feeding off the reactions... kind of what SiberianTiger was saying.
I mean that traveling between stars on a large scale would highly possibly require wielding stellar energies and living cosmic lifetimes. Whatever life form might be capable of that, it's unlikely they would still dependent on planets and their biospheres as the only fitting places to live inside. On other hand, if they ultimately grew from a terrestrial civilization like our own, they might still preserve a bond to their homeworld, holding it intact as a precious reserve of genetics diversity. But at this point, I'm afraid, my speculation is simply running wild...
I guess you mean that highly advanced civilizations won't have any real need for masses of particles arranged in certain orders.
The problem with the Fermi paradox seems to me that, actually, our species seems to be pretty early in the galactic history. Our Sun is only 3rd Gen, and we can say with some certainty that earth-like planets cannot form about a 1.gen star, and the chances at a 2.gen star are much smaller, because of less abundance of heavy elements. It could thus be hypothesized that carbon-based live is very improbable to evolve around any 2.Gen star , and impossible at any 1.gen, and is therewith a relatively young apearance in the galaxy.One the other end of things is the Fermi Paradox.
We are certainly not the most successful organism to have lived on earth.