I’ve been thinking about how much weight we should actually put on the fact that we haven’t found evidence of another civilization. The galaxy is billions of years old. If technological civilizations have existed long before us, I understand the argument that at least some of them should have left something noticeable behind, especially if they expanded beyond their own planets. But how much of that expectation depends on what we currently understand technology to be? We’ve only had advanced astronomical instruments for a tiny fraction of human history, and we’ve barely searched the galaxy in any comprehensive way. On top of that, we’re using our own experience with technology to decide what evidence might look like. At the same time, I don’t think saying “we haven’t looked enough” automatically explains the Fermi paradox. Some hypothetical civilizations really might have produced evidence that should be obvious by now. So where exactly is that line? What kinds of extraterrestrial activity does our current lack of evidence genuinely count against? And what kinds could still exist without us having any realistic way of recognizing them? I’m curious what people here think we’re actually justified in concluding from the silence.   submitted by   /u/Naive_Fee9159   to   r/FermiParadox [link]   [comments]