The Fermi Paradox: Pancosmorio Theory 

Comment for engagement purposes

@09:32 Somebody tell these goddamn aliens to put on some goddamn clothing already.

Weird editing ask. Can you add a 1-2 second intro to your videos before the quote? On desktop, the mouseover starts playing the video (but muted) and when clicked it starts the video from the autoplay timestamp, so everyone always misses the first couple words of the quote.

This is one of the episodes that makes me wonder if we are the VonNeuman machines? It's easy to make a small nanobot out of carbon.

Gr8 vid as usual I've been thinking a lot about "Mutually Assured Survival and Prosperity" lately there's a lot of incentive for civilisations to work together edit: MAS can be the default one, MASP is for those who are closer friends

Let's just keep to our solar system for now. everything we need to learn for extrasolar exploration will be learned as we master our own back yard.

While I favour the rare earth solution* I do have concerns about biotechnology as a Great Filter; entirely possible that someone or some organization, through malice or incredible recklessness, could create one of more microorganisms that would just utterly wreck the biosphere. Not really an issue at the moment, but within the coming decades, maybe a century, it's possible - a time frame before we have self-sufficient colonies that could survive without earth. And bioengineering is only going to get easier, and more accessible, over time; life is nanotechnology, all the - say - HIV virus on the planet could fit within a soda can with room to spare, the entire viral load in a person as a virus is killing them would fit within a microscopic water droplet. For all biology's limitations it is phenomenally potent in many respects, and with intelligent design not suffering a lot of the constraints that evolution operates under.... A lot of damage could be done. There will probably be a window in which it can't be repaired in time to save ourselves, especially if it's paired with a more directly civilization-crippling mass-death plague or other WMD usage. *(plenty of oft overlooked variables for filter-stacking that may be critical, like say, how life altering the greenhouse-heavy early atmosphere was offset by the warming sun meaning that complex life around smaller more stable stars may be unlikely - planets oscillating between iceball mass-extinctions and volcanic CO2-fueled thaws until their cores cool and vulcanism stops, meaning that only stars around the sun's mass range may be able to develop the kind of complex biosphere that gives rise to civilization(tidally heated ice moons have their own issues))

I'm all in for the Dark Forest Theory because it's so simple and elegant if scary af

Question do you beleive in giant impact theory 🤔 early proto planet clipping the proto earth

Love seeing new Fermi Paradoxes, Thanks Issac!

I always love the paperclip-crazed AI that poses an existential threat. Thanks for the humor Isaac.

Thani you for creating proper CC, not just auto-generated. I wish more channels followed your example.

We could just about be post-scarcity now,if 1% of the population were not hoarding 95% of the world's wealth.

Comment for the Comment God! Likes for the like throne!

You bring up a good point. People always seem to assume that humans will always live a maximum of 120 years, but life extension tech would render generation ships obsolete. If you live north of a thousand years, a couple 70 year round trips to Alpha Centauri wouldn't be such a big deal.

Man i rarely comment but its great having a place to go to explore fringe science ideas based in reality. Always at the edge of the unknown, gazing at its horizon with longing and wonder. Thats what this channel is to me.

I'm leaving this comment to feed the 'Al Gore Rhythm'.

The problem with Pancosmorio and other late stage great filters is that they all depend on all possible alien civilizations failing to discover an end route to problems that do not seem insurmountable. IMO, if late-stage great filters exist at all, they are not what we typically think of: they are filtering our ability to _detect_ advanced civilizations, not the existence of the civilizations in the first place. For instance, if our understanding of the laws of physics has some serious holes in it that allow for things like FTL communications, or violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics, there could be millions of advanced civilizations out there, communicating in ways we do not have the capability to detect, or hiding their technosignatures. That's a big IF, I'll grant, but it is possible.

All I can think of is that on the almost non existent chance there are aliens here watching us, they look at us talking about the fermi paradox and just can barely contain their snickering.

في المستقبل البعيد وبفضل التكنولوجيا المتقدمة سوف يتساوى الخيال مع الواقع ويمتلك الإنسان قوى الآلهة ليحول الكون والأكوان المتعددة إلى جنة خالدة ❤

One form of pessimism I've maintained for years is humanity's commitment to protecting our ecosystem. That self destruction as a filter is not a matter of "will we" but a matter of "do we have the will?" Looking at the world today, its very hard to see how smaller more dedicated groups of people could possibly make themselves heard against big companies and the government in general. Then again, when I play fallout 4 and Jack Cabot asks "do you believe there's other intelligent life in the universe?" the only answer I ever pick is "I don't believe there's ANY intelligent life in the universe" implying that Earth is included in that! Though time is still the most likely answer to the Fermi paradox, I can't help being cynically tongue in cheek. My favorite answer along those lines is "The aliens all invent social media and lose their grip on reality, then when the asteroid or whatever shows up, they decide its fake news and don't do anything about it. Boom, paradox solved." Honestly I wish I could be as optimistic as Isaac. But I have a hard time being that optimistic.

If there exists the possibility to make a self sufficient environment capable of harboring life for a sufficient period of time, then it should be possible to make some approximation of colonization and habitation of other worlds, even if it is in domes and rockets. To me, the existence of our planet harboring life, and the ability for the species to generate growth lights that mimic sun light, are proof enough that extra-planetary colonization is possible. Doesn’t matter if it is stupidly difficult, just that it is possible.

Aurora was a really good read. Really felt like a cautionary tale about the problems of using a generation ship in specific. Sleeper ships would likely make more sense to start with, especially if we don't figure out how to realistically get a crew to their destination within an acceptable amount of time.

I would like to see someone talk about the Great Filter of Sociopathy which is the one I feel is going to stop us. I’ve not heard anyone else mention it.

9:00 "If you cant keep Earth habitable, you sure as heck can't make a dead rock like Mars work.." excellent. Arguably the homeostatic engineering requirements would be applicable to both types of environments, regardless of their state.

Fermi paradox series is my favorite on this channel!

Once an intelligence has adapted to living in space, what reason would there be to even attempt going back to living on planets? Seems like a rather dubious assumption lurks behind the premise of the paradox “solution” in question.

Having an eternal emperor, with an eternal will, and the heart to step into the warp, conquer it and lead humanity to eternal power and glory seems to be the obvious solution to this.

I still think the main reason we haven't seen or heard from aliens is that space is just so big that we can't see or hear them with current technology. I doubt there is an alien civilization anywhere within 1k-5k light years of us. At least not an advanced one, maybe one like in the movie Avatar where they're still primitive. This makes the most sense.

22:26 As an Australian, for whom European colonisation began via the First Fleet, your comment about fleets rather than individual ships makes perfect sense. Imagine if the Mayflower had been just one of a dozen ships. Of course, it does beg the question of how you coordinate let alone avoid collisions within such a fleet when travelling at 5% of light speed? Presumably semaphore and signal lamps aren’t up to the task.

on our scale, the Universe is old, yet on the scale of time, its incredibly young, just a few cycles into its trillions of years of expected lifetime, our star is only a 3rd generation star, we maybe, and quite possibly, be the FIRST within our locality to develop.

A theory that I have that I feel has merit, is simply that we're a pinch narrow minded. I theorizes its entirely possible that sufficiently advanced civilizations become so advanced they achieve local means to both bypass the needs to colonize worlds in ways that we understand, and that they could very well have achieved some level of higher existence. Think about it, in 200 years we've seen technological advances that cause entire paradigm shifts and shift what is possible so far forward not even fiction of the prior 30 years could even come close to guessing its impact. We are smarter than we think, and thusly a civilization that makes it a few thousand years into scientific understanding vs our 200 since the industrial revolution, may have the ability to manipulate and harvest sources of energy and matter we may only have theories for even detecting. Imagine zero point energy being a play thing to a sufficiently advanced civilization, why disturb the cosmos on a large scale when you can build worlds locally and envelope space and time, living eternally by themselves.

Likes for the Algodrithm, Comments for the Engagement Throne!

Super Earths are theoretically best for life but very difficult to get off of ( Rocket Equation ) to colonize your solar system let alone the galaxy this means that the best places to move in the short run may also be traps you could not get out of.

If i throw a handfull of sand over Niagra falls, what are the odds of finding those exact same grains of sand, throwing them again off Niagra falls a and each grain following exactly the same path as the first throw? That seems to be the chances of life on other planets.some say ferni paradox, i say "aint gonna happen' one offs are common when you look at it in that sense

9:01 The argument that a civilzation can't terraform another planet because they couldn't stop from wrecking their own might not always be true. On a new planet, you don't have to fight local government and businesses to stop adding more destruction to the mix. The civilzation might have the technology, but not the cooperation of its citizens.

As usual, paradoxes occurring mainly due to asking the wrong question....Fermi should have asked not "where are they, but WHEN were they, or WHEN will they be...

Perhaps the most feasible option is to create city planets like Coruscant and have artificial systems planet wide to control air composition and lab-grown food to avoid the need for fragile ecosystems and it will be more failsafe. Creating artificial "city planets" like Coruscant from Star Wars could be a more feasible option for long-term space colonization than trying to establish fragile natural ecosystems. Some advantages of the city planet model include: - Reliability and redundancy: Critical systems like life support, food production, energy generation could be distributed planet-wide rather than concentrated in isolated habitats or biomes. This decreases single points of failure. - Controllability: With artificial controls over the entire environment, atmospheric composition, temperature, resource cycling, etc. can be precisely regulated to human standards without relying on natural processes. - Density and specialization: High population density could allow for hyper-specialization of industry, agriculture, living/working areas. Economies of scale improve efficiency and redundancy of utilities. - Failsafe design: Redundant critical infrastructure, distributed power/life support, stockpiles of resources could ensure the system is resilient to local failures and disasters in a way fragile natural ecosystems may not be. - Simpler logistics: A single controlled biosphere is easier to sustain long-term without external inputs compared to multiple isolated habitats or mini-biospheres. Fewer failure points in transport/resupply networks. The city planet model could effectively solve many of the challenges proposed by theories like Pancosmorio regarding the fragility and resilience of off-Earth biospheres. Reliance on artificial life support infrastructure rather than natural ecosystems may enable stable, self-sustaining colonies to be established more feasibly.

I have put some thought into this enigma and thought what if all life came into existence simultaneously and have not been in existence long enough to reach each other at least in our case. So from that perspective it could still be thousands of years before we contact each other.

1) if we can't manage our own planet, we will not manage another. 2) We are not getting to the stars under capitalism. This is because capitalism cannot finance these large public projects, and anything they do try to finance is going to be a dystopian hellhole that nobody wants to go to. 3) Even our closest neighbor, Mars, which ostensibly does not have a biosphere, has a radioactive and toxic environment. Nobody is going to be able to safely live there under any circumstances. 4) Terraforming is a nice day dream. 5) The math shows, given reasonable conditions and assumptions, that life as we know it is incredibly rare. There is only a small handful of intelligent civilizations in the galaxy, and they are all suffering the same limitations that we are. The extent that we can go as a species is about our solar system. So much of supposed science is merely science fantasy.

I highly recommend the novel Aurora. It still has me pondering many things years after reading it (twice) especially concerning AI. KS Robinson has a great imagination. I also recommend his other novels particularly 2312. That one has many scenes that are awe inspiring.

One note, the economic system of market capitalism actively *prevents* the development of post-scarcity societies. They are inimical to each other as by definition in a market system, something with an unlimited supply also has no value, so no one will attempt to distribute or sell it. You can see this actively today in the form of digital goods - pretty much all digital goods are functionally 'post-scarcity' goods. They can be duplicated and delivered for essentially *no* cost. But in practice all companies that control digital goods will work very hard to throttle the supply of that good and ensure that there is in fact a price, even though the cost to them to duplicate it is functionally zero. The most obnoxious of these are probably the in-game stores for many games, where you're literally being sold 'goods' for the game that are very heavily and artificially throttled so that players are required to buy them. So yeah, anyone actually interested in a post-scarcity society is going to have to replace Market Capitalism first, or it will literally never happen.

As far as the Fermi Paradox goes I would say that all that's needed to solve it is that none of our current technologies can actual detect any theoretical alien civilizations. Not much of a paradox if you assume improved technological development makes our current methods look as primitive as binoculars compared to a radar array

The benefit of attempting to terraform Mars before Earth, is that it becomes a low risk test bed. We cant live on Mars outside sealed environments, if we mess up the atmosphere trying to set it up, we still wont be able to live on Mars outside sealed environments. On Earth, well we'd need to be much more careful. The tech we would need to edit Earth would have to be invented and tested while trying to rewrite Mars.

The Viking experience colonizing Greenland and Vinland might be good case studies of interplanetary or interstellar colonization attempts.

Tbh this seems like a weak argument to the paradox. This is assuming life can't get past biology and as we're seeing this seem to be less and less the case.

Have you considered the Starfield Theory? Space is just too boring

..."the early bird gets the worm. But the second mouse gets the cheese." The Mandarin

Makes me think of the old saying: “the second mouse gets the cheese”.

The trick could be then, pack a big O'Neil cylinder with a full ecosystem, and turn it into a cycler when in destination, trading biologicals between different colonies in system, letting the life adapt/modify to the environment. The task then is learning how to make resilient ecosystems in a bottle... Off to make terrariums like Life in jars channel

I don’t understand how I haven’t come across your channel before tonight. This is *exactly* the type of content I like to consume. This is so mentally stimulating. I will definitely be watching more of your videos! This is also entertaining and relaxing. I want to ask you something related to a conversation I had the other day. I had someone, whose channel I occasionally watched, who has a physics masters and was previously an F16 pilot, tell me not to pursue a physics degree while chatting on a livestream. He kept telling me AI was going to take all the jobs in the field soon(he also told me he doesn’t believe ADHD exists after I told him I have ASD and ADHD which was incredibly rude and easy to say when you don’t have it.) He even kind of laughed when I said the income would be better than a $15 minimum wage job. I’m 44, and because of my ASD and ADHD, have never been able to get it together enough to get a degree. High school did not go well for me because I never got any early intervention. I didn’t even get a diploma. I’m getting ready to take my high school equivalency because I’ve been working on my self confidence and self esteem. I’m great at math and science and I’ve loved both subjects since I was very young. You could call space science a hyperfocus for me. I’ve also been told I have a high IQ. My gut says that anyone trying to pursue a degree at my age shouldn’t be persuaded not to try to do it. My gut also says that AI is not going to take every job in the field in my lifetime. I could be wrong about both, though. I’m an introvert and science/math nerd who feels like I’d be right at home in a STEM field. What advice would you give me? Thanks! Edited for grammar

One should also consider that our knowledge is slightly twisted into expediency. Take for example habitable zones around stars. Generally that is established by looking at the energy output of the star and the distance at which water would stay in its liquid form. But that doesn't take into account the atmosphere. And atmospheric physics make a huge difference. Colonization of space is also hard. We humans might be close to be able to do that, but then again, in reality we are still far off. Also, I would not look at Aurora as pure doom. But if we assume that life will take shape wherever it can, then simpler life is likely to be more abundant that complex (multicellular) life. The book should remind people of colonization such as when Europeans came to the America's. The local inhabitants did not have immunity to whatever Europeans brought along with them. With all the likely consequences. Personally, I think the best chances are space stations, as big as possible with artificial gravity (perhaps just through rotation) and then resource acquisition from the rest of the star system. If we can do that; run a space station without constant supply from earth, then space colonization is possible. I like to think it is. But I agree with Fermi that it's a hard, very hard problem to solve.

I really do not get the idea of planetary colonisation being too hard to allow species to spread across space because you just do not need to colonise planets. Your standard O'Neil cylinder type habitat is not actually difficult to construct. you could 3d print most of it. It's a big sealed spinning tube you could construct and power for centuries using the materials of a single decently sized asteroid and maintain using a swarm of relatively simple drones. I've created small self-sustained ecosystems and that's relatively easy too life kinda just figures stuff out and even though you're talking on a much larger scale and time period for space travel that only really makes it easier, especially when you have as much money and time as you need to experiment. You don't need planetary terraforming, you don't need perfect replicas of earth, no star system is uninhabitable, no human ever needs to set a single foot on another planet for us to spread across the entire galaxy.

Great content as usual. Think we should vote Issac as king or something.

Personally i think 4 solutions are good. 1. Its all a simulation. 2. We are one of the first species to evolve technology and intelligence, and it just takes this long for life to get to this point. 3. Intelligent life is rare enough that we are spread out sufficiently so as to not be able to hear each other yet. And 4, my favorite... radio signals are dangerous and most species develop quantum communcation networks or otherwise sufficiently advanced technology so as to make radios not a prefered tech by sufficiently evolved civilization.

26:50 Where is the giant space monsters episode on January 1st?

Now Fermi paradox video with SFWIA? Yes please

Pancosmorio sounds like the name of a indie syfy civilization building game. That’s the engagement boosting comment for the video.

The Pancosmorio theory offers a very compelling explanation for the Fermi Paradox. Dismissing this theory by banking on speculative future technologies overlook the uncertainty of predicting advancements. While technology has progressed significantly, assuming that unforeseen challenges can be overcome with future tech ventures into speculative science fiction. These theories, like Kardashev's scale, provide frameworks but remain theoretical, underscoring the need to acknowledge our limitations in understanding and the vast unknowns in the cosmos when exploring the Fermi Paradox and possibilities of extraterrestrial life.

Imagine if all we met was more humans

Happy New Year (: Isaac, I have a question: Do you think that the observation of the fermi paradox (weakly) implies that a SuperAI doomsday scenario is less likely? One of the last Fermi Paradox videos triggered the idea - you usually say that being wiped out by something that then can leave techno signatures is no solution to the Fermi Paradox. Getting to our current tech level seems possible, and if another civilization got here, and also pursued AI and got wiped out by something willing to expand/be loud or grabby... I suspect we might see that. Of course, it's in principle possible that we are Firstborn in our observable universe, but to be honest it even seems improbable (with improbable->

feeling notified atm

I always felt like the question's of the paradox are also the answers. If there's so many stars in the sky that life on one of them is inevitable then finding that life among the countless number of planets would be nearly impossible. And if 13 billions years is more then enough time for life to arise then it's also enough time for that life to go extinct. The second statement also answers why we can't detect them, even if they transmitted signals for millions of years if we missed them by a few thousand years then their signals would have already gone past out world and are well on their way into the galactic void and so weak we'd probably miss them anyways among the infinite chatter of the CMBR. It's not just a matter of finding life in the right place but at the right time in a universe that has trillions of trillions of stars and trillions of trillions of years to hide that same life from us.

I love this theory, because it basically boils down to "space is too hard, man" and that's something I resonate with

Given the places humans live on Earth, I do not find this to be a reasonable filter. But great video!

The idea that we should expect advanced civilisations to be colonising planets is a bit like our ancestors assuming we'll all be going around colonising caves and watering holes.

Still enjoying all these years later

Another masterful video

Humanity will have to adapt 🧬 to each New Star spectrum ( we've evolved to live in G-Type) O,B,A,F,K and M same goes for Alien Planet's Ecosystem.

For us to have noticed a space faring society they'd have to have been really close to us. I think the far more likely answer to the lack of us noticing signs of other life is distance. As example if there was an alien race in Galaxy M87 but they only developed space travel 5K years ago, we wouldn't know about it for another 53 million years because that's when the light would reach us. If we were seeing lights that we thought gave evidence of alien life, the chances are the light was generated by them so long ago that they're all dead or at least moved on by now. Now I'm a lay-person, not a scientist, so I'm more than willing to be proven wrong, but seems to me unlikely we'll ever have alien encounters until we learn to travel faster than a photon.

ET life is outside the parameters of our simulation.

Isaac - you occasionally discuss O'Neill colonies and similar megastructures. I hope you did this and similar videos because there are so many "futureists"" who are planet chauvinists. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-DM88sUBTTRM.html Harold Hayes PBS The Roundtable TV Interview of Gerard K. O'of space colony fame and Isaac Asimov as science commentator.

Time is really the problem here. It's easy to imagine one very wealthy country with a very visionary government going all-in for an interstellar voyage. It's much harder to imagine the desire to SUSTAIN that effort lasting more than a generation or two, or the government that started the project in the first place still existing after two centuries. The colony ship will basically have to be fully politically, economically, ecologically and scientifically independent if it wants to have any chance to survive a thousand-year journey to another habitable world. And it's EXTREMELY questionable if a fully planned ecology/economy/society could remain stable for any length of time. So this works fine as a Fermi Paradox solution as long as one disregards the pseudoparadox proposition: that modes of colonization that do not materially benefit the founding nation are both viable and common. Enrico Fermi's original response becomes extremely valid when we consider that half a century after first landing people on the moon, we are still no closer to COLONIZING it. A research station or an outpost is one thing, but we have basically no concrete plans to ever move past "Level 4" on this scale. When we ACTUALLY begin to colonize the solar system instead of merely theorize/dream about it, THEN we'll be in a position to wonder why other civilizations aren't colonizing the stars.

Im engaging with this video

I do not understand why you keep talking about terraforming alien planets. If Earth creates O'Neill Cylinders and spaceships that can sustain life over decades or centuries, why would Earthlings bother colonizing planets when it would be much simpler to mine the alien moons, asteroids and Oort clouds and build more O'Neill Cylinders and create a Dyson swarm around the alien star? Heck, build a Ringworld.

The main issue is gravity. Sure, we can grow stuff in zero gee, but a colony at 87% Earth gravity? Or 108%? We have no means of testing anything outside of building a big enough space habitat. I suspect our total, long-term biology needs our specific gravity range.

Hmm... Pancosmorio? Never heard of it.

I really don't think there's a paradox here at all. I think the obvious solution is that we are just early to the game, and that fits the evidence. 1) Solar systems types. Planets would need to be in single star systems. About 85% of stars are binary systems and another 10% are trinary systems. These systems would be all but impossible to sustain life due to the drastic variations in temperature (as well as other reasons). This alone filters out 95% of stars. 2) Star type. Only about 8% of stars are the right type to allow for life. For instance, a red dwarf is not really viable for life. Our star type (yellow) appears to (generally) be the best candidate for sustaining life. We are down to just 400,000,000 viable star systems. 3) Star Age. Newer stars would, obviously, have had less time for life to have evolved. Systems older than ours would lack the heavy metals and carbon necessary for a planet that could sustain advanced life to form. Our star is not the oldest possible, but it's within a billion or so years of that age for the planet type. This means only about 5% or so of stars are at the right age to match or precede our development. This brings us down to about 20,000,000 viable star systems. 4) The star location. The star would need to be in a fairly inactive area of the galaxy. The vast majority of stars are formed closer to the center of the galaxy, and are therefore more prone to collisions and other catastrophic events. Roughly 20% to 30% of star systems are in relatively inactive areas of the galaxy. This would bring us down to about 4,000,000 viable star systems. 5) Planet requirements. The planet would need to not be tidally locked. The planet would need to have a strong magnetic field. The planet would need to be terrestrial. The planet would need to have sufficient liquid water and be of the right temperature range. Etc. While we have no realistic means of calculating these, evidence does indicate that it's far from likely. It's likely a 1 in a million type situation. If it is 1 in a million, then we are looking at somewhere around 20 viable planets that could have had life arise as early or earlier than our own. At this point, there's likely life all over the galaxy, but we are likely very early to the advanced life game.

1:19 If you've ever seen any of Isaac Arthur's previous videos you know immediately that this explanation fails because of non-exclusivity as well as the problem of machine intelligence civilizations which don't require thriving ecologies. Also doesn't include civilizations based on advanced cybernetics. Didn't even have to continue watching to know exactly how this theory would fall flat on its face. I would rate this theory as maybe a D- for plausibility in general, and maybe a C- for biological organism based civilizations.

Can you make analysis videos about fictional worlds/universes like No Man's Sky, Star Wars..... ECT?

20:42 "exploration...make for satisfying purposes to humans" Some humans. Most humans don't even leave their hometown.

My view is that the Fermi "Paradox" isn't actually a paradox. Insofar as it proceeds from a number of fallacious and/or false premises about what we'd "expect" to find and by what methodology and mechanisms.

This papers idea of minor late filters stacking up to make colonization implausible just doesn't pass the Paradox test. Arthur was right to be dismissive of this "pancosmorio" idea. If we had to have a G-type star, limited to just the 8 near by and only 3 of them had suitable planets close enough to the right orbit, the odds are fairly bad at producing daughter colonies that could then percolate, sure. But 1 in 4 is a shot I think most humans would be fine gambling with. Even 1 in 1000 is odds we're going to try and probably keep trying because we're stubborn like that. All it takes is one stubborn, aggressive and expansionistic species to say "fuck it" and spend millennia lobbing colony fleet after colony fleet at each and every star system until one of those fleets reports back it's succeeded and is stable. Then repeat the process for the next star system, and the next, getting better at it every time. We're probably stubborn enough to do that and we could legit do it with what will be a tiny, tiny fraction of our population. The K-II version of a cult compound on the edge of the Solar system could be the ONLY part of our civilization fanatical and stubborn enough to keep doing this, but that's all it would take and they'd seed the whole galaxy, eventually. If we're stubborn, aggressive and expansionist enough to bang our societies head on a multitude of failed colonies until they finally stick, someone else has already been that determined and already done it despite whatever abysmal failure rate interstellar colonization might have. This theory doesn't pass the test of the Paradox. The exact sort of species that are going to be motivated into space travel are going to be the ones stubborn enough to just keep trying interstellar colonization.

Are we alone? are there other forms of life out there? and is it the life in intelligence form? YES, YES and YES. But it is far away, way to far, to just go and visit, or do over night sleep in, ok.If we could deal with a travel of a light speed, then all we could look for is 100 years in radius , as humans do live about 100 years. Im sure we can find some life in 100 years radius , the problem is at the moment we can only travel 2% of light speed. TH

Comment for the algorithm god.

None of these Fermi's account for the obvious flying objects captured in many Mars Rover pictures, small enough to have slipped through censors but obvious when one magnifies them 😅

21:58 The reason the more need for a factual space station (cylinder), is required is the need to test long term survivability of plants in space. The most important need for any colonization will always be the plants. Spin gravity would aid, but still in some cases several days or months could be required to temporarily cease spin gravity, which in turn would kill the plants. If these plants could grow or stay alive during gravity less circumstances, this would then greatly impove any colonization attempts. But this is also true for human beings. If health related topics during a relative long period in weightlessness can be undone after or completely foregone, once again this would be an asset to any colonization mission. 22:12 Sending a fleet makes no sense. A big main ship and small vessels within does. The big ship would serve as a base of operations, while only the small vessels take-off and land. Initially the terrestrial resource would be transported up for as much processing as required, while most of the harvest would go to building terrestrial facilities, preferably underground. Once these would go operational, surface structures can be done. The big main vessel would need less transporting resources to over time until it's only upkeep. I'd keep that vessel, instead of landing and conversion, since something may happen that may require relocation to another planet. Conversion is faster, but keeping the vessel is safer, which at this point is pivotal for success. Unsafety can yield 100% loss and thus must be avoided as an unacceptable risk.

What is the cha ce that aliens have a similar body layout as us???

Hope to see David Brin's Uplift series mentioned. As for aliens vs AI... unless we're coming to them, wouldn't it just be their AI vs our AI?

Is there a version without musi? It is so hard to listen to your shows because of the annoying music.....I just found the "Narration Only" version that you publish on the podcast channel. Thank you, thank you 👍

The only cost effective way, even in terms of energy, to build spaceships capable of reaching other stars is to source materials from our asteroid belts. How to mine, where to refine, and build is up in the air. But the source of raw material will have to be from the least expensive sources. Boosting thousands or millions of tons from this planet would just not be feasible.

Maybe our own imagination is the limit here. We haven't even explored our own deep sea ecology completely. Who knows what life can endure and yet thrive? Communication is another problem. It's possible that the only way to communicate with other intelligent species over vast distances needs much more scientific progress than we are (yet?) capable of.

We have several technologies that can be considered "complete" and that cannot be improved upon, so our technology is about to peak and we will soon find out: Think Spotify and RU-vid, as we can deliver the entire audio visual history of everything we ever made, to anyone nearly anywhere on the planet, and so this technology can almost be called 'complete' as diminishing returns have kicked in hard. Cars are about as efficient and as quiet as they can become and nearly drive themselves and beyond that, we start hitting diminishing returns. Phones haven't had an innovation in almost two decades, things just keep getting a bit better over time and the limiting factor is battery not technology. With the advent of AI, we will in one move make most jobs obsolete as automation becomes 'completed' technology as well.

I say this every time i see people talking about fermi paradox. the truth is, it doesnt work due to the simple fact that the universe(hell even our own galaxy) is just too massively big for us to notice ANYTHING as miniscule as presence of sentient life on another planet. for example, if ANY race were to try and find us, it would take then thousands if not millions of years, for them to even notice stuff we put out decades to centuries ago. humanity is just too young to produce enough noise to be noticed. and all we can see is so far away from us, its set LITERALY millions, if not billions of years ago. in other words, if we, were to find life on earth, the best we could hope, is to find traces from before the dinossaurs even existed on this planet...

I don't think planet colonization will be the answer. It's quite clear that it's easier to keep artificial habitat stable than whole planetary ecosystem. So we probably won't be colonizing any planets anytime before we actually get to colonize the empty space in between them first. That's why I don't get the idea we must colonize Mars as quick as possible. For me it always seemed that the route forward is building Earth orbit self-sustaining space habitat first. Close enough to interact if something goes wrong, easier or at least as difficult to construct as anything on Mars or Venus with their extreme weather and the technology is then perfectly moveable to planet colonization. If we come up with foolproof way to grow food and oxygen in low artificial gravity, then we can then just land that habitat on a planet. Like, okay, not land, cause ofc moving through atmosphere at such distance isn't that easy, but let's say rebuilt it on Mars. So at the point we will be moving between solar systems, I'm fully expecting we will be sending full self-sustaining habitats and colonization will be more about access to new raw materials than places to live on. I assume at some point we will figure terraforming, but it will be way into our galactic empire.

This one just seems so implausible, since in a worst case scenario you just prefabricate/terraform via drones and VI, and most early stage colonization would likely follow the naval tradition of everything critical has a back up.

I love these videos sadly my gaming obsession can't allow these videos because they are to enganing to be just a background white noise.

Comment for engagement purposes

The Fermi Paradox: I'm such a cool and interesting guy, why hasn't the most beautiful woman from the super future come to visit me yet? clearly means the future doesn't exist

Pretty fanciful series of musings at the end, Issac. Nuclear weapons, ideological blindness, geological epochs, etc. all have nearly succeeded in wiping out humanity or at least setting it back thousands of years. These will continue to happen and as the entropic power of one decision grows exponentially, so does the possibility that eventually some singular decision succeeds in destroying or paralyzing humanity before we ever become a interplanetary species! To me its optimistic to imagine a future were DNA printers and synthetic microbiology are trivially utilized in service of human flourishing - but gloss over the fact that to get there, we must get past a thousand of our own great filters such as a genetically engineered bioterror super pandemic, designer pets that mutate the flu into an incurable pathogen, GMO seaweed that lead to permanent environmental collapse, etc.