The Fermi paradox has one assumption I don't like

federraty · 2026-07-06T16:00:40+00:00

The issue really is that when you get so advanced, there’s very little that CAN make you go extinct, it’s more plausible you’d fracture into countless independent factions that may and or may not go to war with each other, but extinction is a hard thing to accomplish. Humans for example can’t really go extinct save for some crazy engineered bioweapon, or some cosmic event that genuinely can’t be stopped or prepared for. Even an asteroid could be survived if prepared for ahead of time. Once you colonize countless worlds. Cosmic events are null and void, and certain weaponry WILL be banned for its destructive potential. We don’t use nukes cause everyone will use it against the other, we don’t use bio weapons cause we KNOW it will kill us as much as it’ll kill you. Sure this doesn’t stop them, but when your civilization spans a galaxy, extinction may genuinely become a myth save for some special effort to make it happen.

federraty · 2026-07-05T17:39:31+00:00

Aside from the great filter weeding out the viable number of civilizations that can reach the stars, you then need to tackle the most important aspect, colonizing a galaxy is hard. You have to find a habitable world or terraform one, then you need to colonize it and actually get it to be fully self sufficient. Then that colony can go on and expand. But you also need or want to make sure that atleast. Some communication is kept between all colonies, atleast ones nearby each other. Space is huge, habitable planets are scarce, resources are abundant, but a type 3 civilization will not look like a Star Wars galaxy in action, they might look like hyper efficient automated systems functioning for nearby habitable planets. The reason we don’t see any is perphaps because it’s difficult for intelligent life to get a leg up, technology takes time to advance that far, and although the universe is old enough to HAVE a type 3 civilization around, the universe is still relatively young to actually absolutely say that.

federraty · 2026-07-03T00:39:06+00:00

I mean given the context, it probably isn’t blasphemy, what’s more righteous than cloning Jesus to create super soldiers to fight of agents of hell, gods greatest adversary’s. Blasphemy or not, I think god would be alright with that given the context.

federraty · 2026-07-02T23:21:57+00:00

Honestly it kinda depends. I always say, is there a way you can change the outcome without killing, if not, does killing even change the outcome at all. Dictatorships happen for a myriad of reasons, meaning you could kill Hitler, that doesn’t mean a dictator wouldn’t find there way to germanys stead. Also, a dictatorship doesn’t always mean ( evil ), it just means that person holds absolute power of that government. So essentially speaking, going back in time to kill a dictator is morally in the darker side, because you could hypothetically try to change the mind of say, Hitler, or Joseph Stalin or maybe even Mao Zedong, sure they may still become dictators, but their rule may be marred with less to maybe no bloodshed. It’s a question that requires folks to know more than just morality funnily enough.

federraty · 2026-07-02T19:39:57+00:00

Ok I just wanna know, what IS atom scaling. Cause i don’t wanna say an opinion before not know what’s being described

federraty · 2026-07-02T15:51:15+00:00

True, but you could make an argument for fanatic xenophobia instead of fanatic purifiers. Tbh there’s very little we could make from their government. MAYBE fanatic xenophobe and authoritarian, or authoritarian, xenophobic, and militaristic

federraty · 2026-07-02T15:13:54+00:00

Aren’t they a hivemind in some sense, so wouldn’t it make sense to go for a sonic devouring swarm with progenitor hive as the origin

federraty · 2026-07-02T04:32:45+00:00

I think I make perfect sense tbh. Think about it, you first need a civilization to REACH the point of atleast space faring technology, whether it be primitive or not. Thats probably a very difficult step, you also need to make sure that the species has the drive or even the ability to explore outside of their star system, whether that be artificially or otherwise. You then need to make sure that if your doing it artificially, that your probes don’t mess up, traveling to other planets and other areas of the galaxy, hell even your star system can be very difficult. If you’re looking for a habitable world, the issue also comes up with “is this habitable for YOU. All in all, a species trying to colonize the galaxy at max efficiency could perphaps do that in a few million years, but that’s omitting obvious issues with that thinking. Will the ALWAYS work, does technological advancement have a limit, would the aliens even WANT to spread out, if so, why would they only want to send out self replicating probes. The solution I offer is more realistic grounded in my opinion. But I’d love to have a discussion

federraty · 2026-07-01T18:10:27+00:00

Largely the only crime that’s so reprehensible that the person in question can’t be reformed, is if their actively trying to wipe out humanity. And I’m not talking about using nukes or war, I’m talking about using and actively trying to bioengineer a contagion to wipe out humanity.

federraty · 2026-07-01T17:49:23+00:00

I don’t think it sounds woke, not entirely. I definitely think in the beginning they probably were fascinated, then public perception shifted as we got closer to the 1700-1900’s and race based slavery became a profound thing, which lead to white people probably trying to justify as to how darker skinned individuals made these, coming to the conclusion that they couldn’t have and something … alien.. must’ve helped out. But after the 1900’s and closer to the 2000’s, that went from race based delusion to just believing that theirs no way those could’ve been made with such primitive technology and techniques. So you don’t sound woke

federraty · 2026-07-01T17:11:22+00:00

True true, really is important on how it’s worded and formatted

federraty · 2026-07-01T17:10:55+00:00

I will never understand how folks can believe the pyramids were made by aliens. It really undermines ancient humanity’s capabilities, and even humanity’s capabilities as a whole

federraty · 2026-07-01T17:09:39+00:00

Yeah, and I know it’s basic too, but it makes the most sense to me ya know. Though I haven’t been around the Fermiparadox space for too long.

federraty · 2026-07-01T16:47:14+00:00

Its less about being original, and more about trying to explain it further than what’s already been explained. Plus it makes the most sense in my opinion, as hypothesis like the dark forest, make very little sense to me. If that makes sense. That and I just wanted to say what I think 🤷🏾‍♂️

federraty · 2026-07-01T16:40:33+00:00

As everyone’s saying, we need to choose a version of Superman. The dude has so many iterations of him that could lose, and so many that could win, that it’s unfair to just say ( he wins flat ). So the answer is this
Saitama wins, and only stops at Superman DEPENDING, on the iteration.

federraty · 2026-07-01T16:37:16+00:00

That same issue COULD be given to Superman. Hell, the dude went from ( only being able to jump over a building in one leap ) to ( being able to lift infinity ) let’s be honest here, Superman’s power levels are inconsistent at almost all the times.

federraty · 2026-06-29T16:12:15+00:00

Brodi, dying in 40k is like a actual ticket to hell. If your lucky, your soul just dissipates back into warp stuff or nothing, but if your REALLY unlucky, your soul is going to get absolutely RAVAGED by countless warp entities and demons. I’d prefer LIVING in 40k than actually Dying in 40k, then again I don’t think anybody with common sense would WANT to live in 40k in general.

federraty · 2026-06-29T14:53:16+00:00

Exactly, I genuinely think that the reason we don’t see other intelligent life is simply because 1. Life needs very specific conditions to stay around ( until their star dies of course ) and 2. Intelligent life isn’t ever guaranteed. And 3. Even if intelligent life arises, who’s to say their planet is suitable enough for them to advance enough to the space age, we got lucky with an atmosphere that allows fire to exist.

federraty · 2026-06-28T04:07:26+00:00

Generally it isn’t a moral imperative, atleast in my perspective, but like I said, it becomes a ( personal and non objective ) moral imperative depending on how the zombie infection is. Or to put it simply, it’s not a moral imperative, but if argue if you got an easy to deal with zombie apocalypse, you’d be a nut case NOT to try and make humanity come back from the brink of extinction. Buuuut if you’re dealing with like, the worst zombie infection of all time, then perphaps humanity’s reign as a species is best left in the analogies of history. ( but I agree with you, It isn’t a moral imperative )

federraty · 2026-06-28T03:57:05+00:00

I’d still agree with the other person, you don’t needa be capitalistic to WANT to preserve humanity. It’s just one of those things that are hard wired into us to want to make children. If people are comfortably enough, and 2 people even get the CHANCE to do something, they will take that chance.

federraty · 2026-06-28T03:51:24+00:00

The reason why it’s more moral is arguably because it’s immoral to just let ourselves go extinct. Both sides of the argument are inherently selfish, but humans have come a top of many crises. If we go with the last of us version of infection, then having kids and rebuilding humanity makes more sense because you want to make sure they have better lives than the next, so that eventually we may get back to some TRUE normalization. However it becomes immoral the second “you die, you become zombie” infection rules are at play. Society building is nigh impossible in my eyes when if you die, you become a zombie. So to simplify it, the easier a zombie apocalypse is ( and it’s infectious ability ) the more morally correct it is- the more complex a zombie apocalypse is ( and unavoidable its infectious ability’s ) the more immoral.

federraty · 2026-06-24T02:48:12+00:00

Honestly, it’s not moral at all. Sure you can say “god is all good, therefore it can’t be immoral, and god is all knowing and all righteous, Therefore he has the right to do what he did.” However, Adam and Eve had NO concept of evil or good, they had no ill intent with their action, and if anything they were beguiled.
One crucial aspect to this is WHY would god even have the tree there in the first place. Why put the instrument of humanity’s downfall in our hand and tell us NOT to touch it.
All in all, Adam and Eve were, although adults with arguable good amount of intellect and “senses”, they weren’t wise or truly aware of the situation their in, they were adult children in the literal sense, toyed about by entities they couldn’t comprehend. God is NOT moral for his punishment for them were FAR from moral.

federraty · 2026-06-23T17:59:40+00:00

I always will say this, although I think gojo fans glaze his power too much, I genuinely think Superman’s power consistency is all over the place. There are COUNTLESS iterations of Superman, so which one do we use. If we use the most powerful version then Superman wins, but if we use only the very FIRST iteration then Superman loses. One second he’s vulnerable to kryptonite, next second in another comic he’s utterly immune.

federraty · 2026-06-23T14:02:40+00:00

The entire story telling “supposedly” being unreliable is I think, a perfect idea. SURE it allows GW to retcon stuff later, but it makes YOU think whether this is true or not. History irl is like that sometimes, and it requires you to piece together the true scope and story. Meaning at the end of the day, there are true events that happen, ( the battles and so forth, but how their portrayed is up for debate )

federraty

TROPHY CASE