Hey everyone,

I’ve been mulling over a thought that’s both exciting and a bit unsettling, and I wanted to share it with you all for some healthy discussion.

What if the reason we haven’t had any direct contact with extraterrestrial beings isn’t because they don’t exist or haven’t reached us yet, but because they’re already here—observing us through their advanced AI?

This idea ties into the Fermi Paradox, which questions why, given the high likelihood of extraterrestrial civilizations, we haven’t encountered any evidence of them. Perhaps the answer is that they’re not traveling the stars in the way we expect. Instead of biological beings making the perilous journey across the cosmos, advanced civilizations might be sending AI probes to explore and monitor other planets—including ours.

Think about it: As civilizations advance, it makes sense they’d opt for safer, more efficient means of exploration. Instead of risking their own lives with interstellar travel, they could send AI agents to study other worlds. These AI could infiltrate our technology, learn our languages, understand our cultures, and monitor our development—all without us ever realizing it.

Inspired by the series The Three-Body Problem on Netflix, this idea flips the classic narrative of first contact. We often imagine the challenges we’d face communicating with aliens upon their arrival, but what if they’ve been learning about us for generations? They might already know every language on record and have a deep understanding of our history and politics—possibly even better than we do ourselves.

Flipping the script, if we discovered life on a distant planet, wouldn’t we consider doing the same? Sending AI probes or signals to gather information before making any form of contact seems both logical and practical, especially given the limitations of human space travel compared to the rapid advancements in AI technology. While the dream of warp-speed travel captivates our imagination, the reality is that AI development is likely to outpace our progress in faster-than-light travel.

This brings to mind the “Prime Directive” from Star Trek, which prohibits interfering with the natural development of less advanced civilizations. Perhaps these alien observers have a similar principle, choosing to watch and learn without direct intervention—unless certain criteria are met.

On the other hand, depending on their intentions, they might have already integrated into our critical systems—like defense, infrastructure, or communications—giving them the ability to influence or control outcomes if they deemed it necessary. It’s a bit eerie to consider, but with our increasing reliance on technology, it’s not outside the realm of possibility.

We’ve seen unprecedented leaps in technology over the past few decades. The rapid advancement in computing power, the swift creation of vaccines during global health crises—like the “technological hand of God” that seemed to guide us through the COVID-19 pandemic—and the developments in AI could be seen as monumental human achievements. But could they also be nudged along by external influences?

I’m curious to hear your thoughts on this. Do you think it’s possible that extraterrestrial civilizations are already among us through their AI? How would this perspective change the way we approach technology and space exploration?

In my opinion, there is another step to consider beyond the frequency of emergence of intelligent species. And that is: how many of these species possess or retain a "collective hive mind", motivating them to invest resources and lives in space travel across hundreds of light years, galactic colonization efforts, and so on.

If, as a species evolves, it becomes more individualistic—where every single existence becomes incredibly valuable to its possessor (especially if future technology can grant an eternity of youth and pleasure)—you won't find many willing to board a space shuttle and set off for a solar system 54 light years away. The risks include not returning, dying horribly in space or on a hostile planet, or, at best, discovering a Mars-like rock with a few bacteria on it. Or perhaps an advanced civilization that blows you up, or abducts you to make awful stuff.

If you're that curious, why not just send some tiny, invisible automated space probes, take some pictures, and bring back the data?

Our concept of exploration, colonisation, transcending the limits, might be biased by the fact we are just risking a few decades of your mortal, imperfect life. If the risk was to lose an eternity of fulfillment, possibility, growth, and enlightenment.... we would be much more careful.

Perhaps the "great filter" is simply an aversion to risk born from having too much to lose and not enough to gain from space exploration.

I'm baffled by how people wonder about the Fermi paradox when the answer is so obvious. The earth is extremely rare. Simple life like bacteria is probably very common and can be found everywhere. Complex life is very hard to form because it has only appeared in the last 500 million years. Even if Complex life forms, intelligence might not. And even if intelligence forms, it might not be as advanced as human intelligence. Intelligence Can be unhelpful as it costs a lot of energy. There could esaly be planets where intelligence ends with Neanderthal levels.

A common argument is that life would not be anything like earth but that can only be true to a certain extent. Life would almost certanly need carbon and oxygen and water. Bacteria may be able to suvive conditions like this but complex life is much more fragile. Even with the perfect conditions, think about how many things had to go right for us to exist. The earth has come very close to extinction several times and many rare events have come together to make humans possible. We have no idea how many of these events were necessary for us to form but with each event added the odds of intelligence decrease quickly.

I acknowledge that this solution makes several assumptions and leaps of faith but this is by far the simplest solution to the Fermi paradox that makes the least leaps of faith.

In this series, I took a hard look at the Drake Equation and ran some serious data simulations to estimate the odds of alien civilizations in our galaxy. What do the numbers really say about the likelihood of past and future encounters?

After digging into the probabilities, I found that the chances of us crossing paths with extraterrestrial life are even lower than you might think. Or are they?

From Bayesian models to Monte Carlo simulations, I’ve quantified the uncertainty behind the UFO phenomenon in a way that goes beyond the headlines and conspiracy theories. If you’ve ever wondered about the science behind the Fermi Paradox and our place in the cosmos, this analysis might change the way you see things.

Check out the full breakdown on Medium https://towardsdatascience.com/calculating-contact-a-data-driven-look-at-alien-civilizations-2435267bd4ac and join the conversation. Are we missing the signs, or are the odds just not in our favor?

So, I probably sound stupid, and if I am, please correct me, but, since it takes most light centuries to reach earth, then the reason we can't see any evidence of notably advanced alien civilisations is because we're looking at the past, before they were advanced enough for it to be noticeable. It's just a theory, but tell me what you guys think.

In this video David Kipping brings up 3 criticisms of Robin Hanson's Grabby Alien Hypothesis, which has been posted on this subreddit before, but can also be found HERE if you need a refresher. Robin Hanson responded to this video today on his substack, and in my opinion refuted the criticism quite well, though both made interesting points. I would award this round to Hanson. What do you think? Here is Hanson's resonse.

Astronomer David Kipping

He's not arguing that we ARE alone, he's arguing that the odds of us being alone are essentially the same as the alternative, because the odds are unknown. Many people falsely believe that the odds are in favor of life existing elsewhere in the observable universe, but in fact there is no evidence to support that belief; which as Carl Sagan says in the video, makes it a faith-based belief.

I would like to address the Fermi Paradox by identifying The Great Filter by using the perspective of a Prime Directive. In order to do this, you must understand these three concepts.

The Fermi paradox is the discrepancy between the lack of conclusive evidence of advanced extraterrestrial life and the apparently high likelihood of its existence. As a 2015 article put it, "If life is so easy, someone from somewhere must have come calling by now."

Italian-American physicist Enrico Fermi's name is associated with the paradox because of a casual conversation in the summer of 1950 with fellow physicists Edward Teller, Herbert York, and Emil Konopinski. While walking to lunch, the men discussed recent UFO reports and the possibility of faster-than-light travel. The conversation moved on to other topics, until during lunch Fermi blurted out, "But where is everybody?"

The Great Filter is the idea that, in the development of life from the earliest stages of abiogenesis to reaching the highest levels of development on the Kardashev scale, there is a barrier to development that makes detectable extraterrestrial life exceedingly rare. This barrier may be identifiable.

I personally think the Kardashev scale is not the most logical one in it's most accepted form and a modified variant of it would be more appropriate with Type 1 civilizations being those that master harnessing fusion energy for both production on a planetary scale as well as for interplanetary travel. Why I think that will become more apparent as I continue.

The Prime Directive is a sci-fi idea from Star Trek that can also be called a "non-interference directive." It is a guiding principle that prohibits its members from interfering with the natural development of alien civilizations. Its stated aim is to protect unprepared civilizations from the danger of starship crews introducing advanced technology, knowledge, and values before they are ready. It's a simple idea based on morality and ethics. It's akin to don't serve minors alcohol or don't let your 10 year old drive the car. It implicitly assumes that advanced technology and knowledge is dangerous in the hands of an immature civilization, which seems reasonable. It's similar logic as to why we don't let just anybody play with Plutonium. It's probably a good idea.

I want to take a moment to discus human progress and how it relates to the energy density of our technology. It's very obvious that our progress is directly correlated to the energy density of our power sources. First it was wood. Then coal. Then oil. Then nuclear fission. We are currently stuck here, but the next natural progression is nuclear fusion. If you understand the differences between fission and fusion, you should know that fusion energy is far more safe than fission energy and this is simply because of the physics. Fission is radioactive and basically a dirty bomb with no safety switch, while fusion is not radioactive and very easy to "turn off" in addition to being more energy dense. Fusion is simply better by every metric than fission.

Let's get back to The Prime Directive. If life evolves similarly everywhere in the Universe, then those advanced civilizations that have survived The Great Filter are very aware of it as well as why it exists. I am proposing that The Great Filter lies in the transition to mastering fusion energy on a planetary scale. I am basically proposing that other similar civilizations have blown themselves up with nukes before they mastered fusion energy on a planetary scale and that this is more common than not. Therefore, advanced civilizations that have survived this great filter are very aware of it. They would understand that contact at this point is incredibly dangerous for everybody involved. In fact, the worst case scenario from their perspective would likely be such a civilization becoming interplanetary because they simply are not a sustainable civilization and the drive to go interplanetary is basically to plunder resources or escape a burning planet. Those are not welcome visitors.

They also have very good reason to not hand over fusion energy (or better) to a less advanced civilization because without that learning curve they would actually become a serous potential threat to advanced civilizations simply because of a lack of maturity in understanding technology and it's responsible use. The stakes only get higher after mastering fusion energy and they are not prepared to wield it wisely if they have not proven a mastery of the nuclear realm. That means no assistance. Prove you can solve the problem on your own first. In such a scenario, a Prime Directive would hold that formal contact is only acceptable once a civilization proves planetary mastery of fusion energy at the very least. This means the entire planet runs on clean sustainable fusion energy. Additionally, the use of fusion energy for interplanetary travel would likely make formal contact an eventual necessity as it is simply not even reasonable to expect to go interplanetary with solar panels or chemical propulsion. This is because of energy density. It's basic physics and NASA has said, "nuclear propulsion may offer the only viable technological option for extending the reach of exploration missions beyond Mars, where solar panels can no longer provide sufficient energy and chemical propulsion would require a prohibitively high mass of propellant and/or prohibitively long trip times." Going interplanetary simply doesn't scale well until you get into the energy density realm of nuclear technology and this is basic physics. This also supports the hypothesis of ET monitoring nuclear activity because it's an important technological signature for any interplanetary civilization.

If physics and the evolution of life is similar all over the universe, then it's logical to propose that the answer to The Fermi Paradox is that The Great Filter is in our mastery and understanding of nuclear technology specifically for energy production rather than weapons, and that advanced ET civilizations that have survived The Great Filter have a Prime Directive to not make formal contact until a civilization has survived The Great Filter on their own accord. They absolutely would be watching and this would explain UFO/UAP. They are waiting to see if we blow ourselves up or figure out how to utilize fusion energy to create an actual sustainable civilization. They also would likely be hostile if we attempted serious interplanetary travel before surviving The Great Filter because we would be considered a serious threat. Basically, the Elon Musk idea of going to Mars to escape the mess we make on Earth makes us equivalent to an interplanetary cancer. Such a scenario makes no sense if we simply master fusion energy. We need not escape ourselves, but simply explore our neighborhood.

This also introduces the idea of interplanetary civilizations potentially acting as a kind of planet hopping cancer going from one to the other after turning them into wastelands. This is completely unnecessary if you have a planet wide economy based fusion energy rather than on fossil fuels. In such a scenario, the nuclear connection to UFO/UAP is that we are being monitored to see if we will a) blow ourselves up, b) become a threat by ignoring the creation of sustainable civilization, or c) master fusion energy and become approachable. Alternatively, there could also be ET with intentions of planet hopping to our planet because they are trying to survive The Great Filter. In such a scenario, it's unclear contact would be favorable for us.

The Fermi paradox asks why we haven't yet detected signs of alien civilizations. However, it does so with a premise: "in light of our current knowledge," thus starting from the assumption that "if our description and understanding of the universe/physical laws are correct."

Consequently, resolving the Fermi paradox by hypothesizing alien civilizations that are biologically very different from us or that use science-fiction-like technologies—theoretically plausible but not feasible in light of our current scientific knowledge—is incorrect. The simple reason is that if we are missing some fundamental information about certain phenomena or scientific laws or tech, the entire premise of the paradox would no longer be applicable, and any evaluation of the probability/improbability of a contact with other intelligent civilizations/life forms would need to be reconsidered.

In other words, if there is something fundamental that we are missing, our entire conception of physics, chemistry, biology and/or technology may have to be rethought. So, let us assume that nothing fundamental is escaping us.

The Fermi paradox must, therefore, be addressed within the framework of our current scientifical and technological established knowledge, without assuming elements that (despite their ‘’verisimilitude‘’ and and compatibility with physical laws) go beyond that knowledge.

1. Any alien civilizations we might detect are limited to our galaxy, plus Andromeda, and the smaller galaxies of the local group. Every other galaxy cluster is moving away from us due to expansion (dark energy) and is effectively out of reach. Their light still reaches us, but they have vanished beyond the horizon, for any practical purpose they are causally disconnected from us: no one will ever come from there or go there. This restricts any estimates (like the Drake equation) to a very very very small portion of the observable universe.
2. Given achievable technologies and energy scales we can manage, interstellar distances are simply enormous. Even assuming highly a more advanced and refined spacecraft tech we’re still talking about journeys of centuries to reach the nearest stars. Such travel would only be feasible with automatons/non-organic personnel (cryostasis or life forms with lifespans making such journeys feasible are not to be assumed, given the current state of our knowledge). A "flesh-and-blood expedition" would need very considerable effort in terms of logistics and planning and resources
3. Everything out there is in perpetual motion. The solar system moves, nearby star systems move, everything moves. The three-body problem makes it extremely difficult to map and predict the whole stuff. So for instance, if we aim to reach Proxima Centauri in 200 years, predicting exaclty where Proxima Centauri will be in 200 years and where Earth will be in 400 years (assuming a return trip) is very challenging. If space exploration is extremely slow and "energy demanding" (see point 2), "the galaxy’s map" must always be very updated and precise. There is a huge risk of arriving at the time-space point where Proxima Centauri was calculated to be 200 years earlier and, due to a small calculation error or lack of knowledge of initial conditions, ending up in interstellar emptiness.
4. Planets of interest (those worth the effort of colonizing/exploration) could be relatively rare. For instance, Alpha Centauri, Vega, Altair, or Sirius might be just barren rocks and gas giants. The first “truly interesting” planet might not be 4-5 light years away but 50 light years away, leading to exponential increases in the problems outlined in points 2 and 3.

So I think that with current scientific knowledge and understanding of technology, the resolution of the Fermi paradox is quite simple. Alien civilizations likely exist, have existed, and will exist in our galaxy/local group (application of the mediocrity principle) in considerable number, BUT they are confined to their own star systems or, at most, to neighboring systems. An advanced and intelligent civilization might have sent probes and sensors all around for geographic/cosmological purposes, but a "physical journey" over long distances by members of that species might be simply unfeasible or, at the very least, an exceedingly rare event.

Is it possible that space colonization is just economically unfeasible? For example let's say we currently are not colonizing space because the huge costs. What if we never invent technolgy that is cheaper and more feasible to sustain. For example now a Mars base would be pretty hard to build and sustain with our technological level. What if it stays that way even if humanity is given 1,000,000 years of safety, because there is no way how to make that sustainable? And we never advance much than 21 century level of Tech.

Or another take is that we might get to the end of technology sooner than we think. By end of technology I mean that it is physically impossible to invent tech far beyond our current level?

Basically, while it wouldn't explain a lack of signs of spaceborne civilization, I realized that a civilization that started out salt-water aquatic wouldn't really have a good reason for radio until getting damn close to space travel anyways. Simply put, salt water is a severe impediment to radio waves, it takes a lot of power to penetrate even 30 meters. So, what if intelligent life upon the land is very rare comparatively, leading to the actual engineering side of radio communication being rare among developing civilizations? Has this been explored yet?

In the actual book, where this theory comes from, there IS a solution to the crisis at hand in the end. And, weren't the 2 species able to communicate from the start in the book? So they could have talked about weather intentions with each other were hostile or not. The only reason the >!Triosalarinas!< are hostile in the book, is because >!they live on a shitty ass planet, that's constantly being destroyed be 3 massive stars.!< Had the species been peaceful, wouldn't they just have agreed to an alliance, or defense pact, already making possibly the first intergalactic peace federation? Even if extremely small to start, 2 entire civilizations working together, and brainstorming ideas on how to approach other potential civilizations to declare themselves peaceful, and if the enemy nation is hostile, they could probably assess if they could take said civilization together somehow.

That is of course, all assuming that those 2 civilizations could communicate. We don't know if we could in real life, but in the book there IS a solution (The Dark Forest by Liu Cixin). No matter how small the chance is, something like that COULD happen somewhere else in the universe. If a human can imagine it up, pretty sure someone out there, could to in a real scenario. Won't spoil the book, you should read it. It's great. But I don't really think this is the solution. And even then, again, one alien civilization could help the slightly less advanced civilization, to show them, they're friendly. One method the aliens could use, could be by a plot in the first book, I won't get into, because spoilers. This is similarly how Columbus first "Tamed" the natives. They first turned hostile, when after coulombs went back to Spain, to tell the Queen about the new world, that meanwhile the men had raped the native women. Which prompted him to enslave them. Which is history, with how brutal it is. But on an intergalactic level, I don't think such a level of misunderstanding could occur.

Do you agree? Any holes in my theories?

Ok this theory was created by me. What if the reason why we don't see any space empires or aliens is simply because aliens psychological attributes are different than ours? Perhaps, their minds do not have any desire to thrive or expand. Maybe they have minds that are completely happy in having no progress at all. Imagine a Buddhist monk who is highly enlightened. He does not want any riches, nor desires anything. What if aliens are that way? What if the way we see things, as humans, is wrong? If we are the only species that is so selfish that desires reckless expansion, colonialism and exploration solely for our pride? Extraterrestrials may be peaceful beings or beings with such a different psychology that human concepts such as "empires" of "colonization" of other plantes don't really work. What are your thoughts?

So I've had this idea bouncing around my head for a bit and wanted to get it out there to get some feed back on it.

You have an advanced alien race, they have unlocked the ability to travel the stars. But they live in the same universe we do and our universe is dying.

Entropy will burn out everything. No matter how big your space station, no matter how many planets you conquer, no matter how fuel efficient your Dyson Sphere is entropy will win.

So what if we don't see any advanced alien life because they all are focused on this problem? Either trying to find a way to reverse entropy or a way out of this universe.

why the hell would the aliens wanna come and talk to us humans when were down talking about skibidi rizz qyat why would they care about us i mean dude probably one surface level thought from them would kill and ordinary person so we couldnt help them in anyway so thats why we dont have proof of them

Dr. Fatima dropped a YouTube video. I found it compelling and insightful. https://youtu.be/_tw0aqmnmaw?si=NO0eYzWjl7DySiOG

Dr. Fatima's perspective seems like a useful place to explore the universe. What potentials might humanity develope into as a self-editing meme?

There seems to be an assumption that an intelligent species will continue to expand into space. From our own experiences, we know this takes significant resources and extreme timescales. In all cases of expansion in our history, there have been other motives than the greater good of humanity. European explorers went to the americas to establish colonies that could enrich the empires within the lifetime of the monarchs. US and USSR competed to be the first to the moon with the backdrop of proving who had the better social system, and for geopolitical purposes. When those motives were over, US dropped space exploration from its priorities for decades. Mars exploration is now being discussed, but I don’t see it getting significant public funding over programs that would enrich earthlings lives. Terraforming a planet, sending significant resources to another planet, for the benefit of a greater idea? Why are we assuming that an alien species would choose idealism? Quality of life is diminished for the planet sacrificing resources, and quality of life is diminished for individuals who go to lower developed planets. We know evolution leads to self preservation in limited resource environments , we should assume that other alien life forms are experiencing the same. All that to say, there could be a percentage of advanced civilizations who possibly exist on very long timescales who might benefit from colonial expansion, but this does put another reducing variable on the Drake equation in my opinion.

I hesitate to post a link to a Daily Mail article, because it's among the worst news UK news sources, but this report cites some actual real scientists writing actual real research papers – just in a more digestible format. .

"Two teams of astronomers, led by Matías Suazo at Uppsala University in Sweden and Gaby Contardo at the International School for Advanced Studies in Italy, ran the latest hunt for the tell-tale infrared data that might reveal a distant 'Dyson sphere.' 

The researchers merged data from the European Space Agency's Gaia satellite, the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) space telescope and the ground-based infrared telescope survey MASS2.

While there may be other explanations for the excess infrared signatures they found, Suazo noted, 'The most fascinating explanation could be actual Dyson spheres.'"

Humanity has to face it’s cancer: psychopathy. It’s the overarching problem that is responsible for almost all human suffering bar natural disaster. Inbreeding happens in humans and animals alike.

The animal psychopath has no advantage. If it can’t care, share or comfort it is cast out of the group or killed by it peers. Instinct is the highest governor of animal behavior. With humans, thanks to our complex language and imagination, psychopathy gained a foothold, especially since, with agriculture, our societies grew large and were able to hide our inbreeding. Humans have instinct too but it is overridden by imagination. Animals’ instinct spur them to run away from fire, away from larger animals.

Not so with humans. We harnessed fire to cook, melt metal and heat us. We saw a mammoth and our imagination made us see a year’s supply of food and a tent. In the last 10,000 years or so, we have allowed psychopathy to run rampant. Today, on average in every country, 4% of the general population is born psychopathic. As psychopaths crave a position of power, it is not hard to see how our political scene is now dominated by them. The early dictators may have been overthrown from time to time by people of good will, but in our time they are organized into oligarchies.

Their gaslighting is equally organized. Their think tanks study us and produce the most efficient divide and conquer schemes. They know us better than we know ourselves. We either get smart and un-divide ourselves or they’ll give us war after war until the cows come home. The real war, the one we should focus our attention on, is them, the psychopaths, against all the rest of us and this war has been raging since the days of Nebuchadnezzar. It really is the war to end all wars. I think it may well be (through a galactic form of convergent evolution) the solution to the Fermi Paradox.

For example, if we are well and truly alone, this resolves the paradox. I sincerely hope we are not alone; but those of us in that camp then need to explain the paradox! What's your favoured or most convincing solution?

The more advanced a civilization gets on the Kardashev scale, the more energy they have available and the more they are capable of doing stuff, including moving very big things.

First, you could move planets around, then stars, blackholes and eventually entire galaxies. Just extrapolating here.

If you wanted the rest of the universe to notice you, you could arrange a bunch of big galaxies in such a way that they would seem unnatural in their position. Like, lining up galaxies in a kind of cork screw spiral, that way they would look like they formed a circle from different angles. And some astronomers in different galaxies would start scratching their heads over how these galaxies came to be arranged in such a way, since the universe is supposed to look pretty much the same in every direction.

Giant Structure Lurking in Deep Space Challenges Our Understanding of The Universe

A colossal structure in the distant Universe is defying our understanding of how the Universe evolved.

Hah!

In light that has traveled for 6.9 billion years to reach us, astronomers have found a giant, almost perfect ring of galaxies, some 1.3 billion light-years in diameter. It doesn't match any known structure or formation mechanism.

Super-advanced aliens, obviously!

The most immediate link seems to be with something called a Baryon Acoustic Oscillation (BAO). These are giant, circular arrangements of galaxies found all throughout space. They're actually spheres, the fossils of acoustic waves that propagated through the early Universe, and then froze when space became so diffuse acoustic waves could no longer travel.

Ok, so maybe there is a natural explanation?

The Big Ring is not a BAO. BAOs are all a fixed size of around 1 billion light-years in diameter. And thorough inspection of the Big Ring shows that it is more like a corkscrew shape that is aligned in such a way that it looks like a ring.

Nope, it's aliens! :D

Which leaves the very unanswered question: What the heck is it? And what does it mean for the Cosmological Principle, which states that, in all directions, any given patch of space should look pretty much the same as all other patches of space?

ALIENS! Since the aliens know that space is supposed to look the same in all directions they built this giant ring/spiral structure out of galaxies, so that when other civilizations in other galaxies see it, they can figure out that they're there.

At the moment, nobody knows for sure what the Big Ring and the Giant Arc signify. They could just be chance arrangements of galaxies twirling across the sky, although the likelihood of that seems pretty small.

Yeah, because they were built by aliens!

"From current cosmological theories we didn't think structures on this scale were possible," Lopez said. "We could expect maybe one exceedingly large structure in all our observable Universe. Yet, the Big Ring and the Giant Arc are two huge structures and are even cosmological neighbors, which is extraordinarily fascinating."

Yep, must be super-advanced aliens.

Ok, that's enough out of me, shame that this galaxy structure is just a little far away. About 6.9 billion light years. But I'm convinced it's aliens until somebody has a better explanation.

I'm sure you're aware that a common argument against the existence of advanced alien life is that we have not observed von Neumann probes.

That given the age of the universe, a sufficiently advanced civilisation would have inevitably developed self replicating space craft which would spread across the galaxy.

However - I believe that for a civilisation to become advanced enough to develop self replicating technology it would need to have adapted instincts of restraint, self preservation and risk aversion.

We can see examples of these attributes in ourselves. Restraint has been engrained into our species by the reality of mutually assured destruction and the ability to extinct ourselves. Self preservation is key to the advancement of a species. No technology is developed without countless risk assessments. Risk assessment #1 for self replicating technology would be: how do we avoid this turning into grey goo.

Logically, the technology would not be sent out uncontrolled into space to endlessly replicate. There is no practicality to that act apart from the belief that it is the nature of an intelligent species to expand. Which early on it may be, however I do not believe after the risk averse milestone of M.A.D. that unfettered expansionism is inevitable. That in my view is antiquated. The technology would exist for a purpose. Be it to observe, to construct, to mine, to survey etc.

So if it existed without the purpose of colonisation, how would we possibly detect it?

In summary, it is my view that an advanced civ would be too risk averse to release a technology that it could not control, and the idea that one would release a perpetual technology to spread across an entire galaxy is rooted in antiquated attitudes towards colonialism.

If there is highly advanced civilisations then it is likely the technology exists, that it is not easily detectable, and that it was specifically designed not to be unstoppable.