Fermi Paradox Predicting Humankind's Future?

An anonymous reader writes "The Fermi paradox says that if extraterrestrial civilizations exist, at least one of them should have colonized the entire galaxy by now. But since there is no evidence of this, humankind must be the only intelligent life in the galaxy. The Space Review has an article on how the Fermi paradox can be applied to human civilization. It says that, like the extraterrestrials, humans have three choices: colonize the galaxy, remain on Earth, or become extinct."

Comments

Re:More likely

[aditi]

"The speed of light is a real and unbreakable rule as a result nothing more than 4 or 5 light years away is reachable."

An insertion here about relativity: if the ship were traveling fast enough, you mightn't need several generations just for 4-5 years. Because of relativistic time dilation, the astronauts in the spaceship would feel considerably less time elapse, while the journey would seem to take decades to everyone on earth. The question then becomes whether people would be willing to spend trillions of dollars on something only their children and grandchildren would see.

Re:More likely

[Maxo-Texas]

You are correct... some interesting comments here http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/S R/rocket.html From the article, for 1g acceleration: Distance Location On Ship Time.
4.3 ly nearest star 3.6 years
27 ly Vega 6.6 years
30,000 ly Center of our galaxy 20 years
2,000,000 ly Andromeda galaxy 28 years

Re:More likely

[spun]

See? This is the kind of craziness I'm talking about. You have entered into an infinite regress. Where does this thing outside space and time come from? Either it arises from something else, or it is eternally present, or it is self created. If it arises from something else, nothing is answered, we just have added another layer to the question. If it is eternal or self created, why could the universe itself, which must be less complicated than any proposed creator, not also be eternal or self creating?

This is so ridiculous and illogical: you posit that something as complex as the universe needs a creator, you posit a creator that must be more complex than its creation, and then you say that creator itself is not created by somethign else. Please try to see how insane this sounds to those of us who have not been infected by your mental virus.

There is no responsibility that comes from being in a created universe. Just because somethin gcreated you does not put that thing in a superior position over you. It is in no position to dictate responsibility to you, to say that it is is another of those completely illogical things religion would have you believe.

There is no lack of responsibility that comes from being without a creator. All real responsibility is a form of enlightened self interest. I don't need a creator to tell me to be responsible. If being responsible makes sense, I am perfectly capable of figuring that out on my own. Turns out it does make sense, creator or no.

Whether or not there is a creator is a question that is completely seperate from the question of whether religion is a form of insanity. If there is a creator, it sure has done a piss-poor job of communicating its intentions in unambiguous ways to it's creations. Until said creator makes itself and its intentions known to me in a way that can't be faked by mentally damaged humans, the question of whether or not there is a creator is utterly meaningless.

The question of the impact of religious insanity on human well being, however, is an important one that can be answered.