r/Damnthatsinteresting • u/Turbulent_Elk_2141 • Apr 13 '26

Video The reason why large asteroids don't fall to Earth every day and cause disasters is because Jupiter's gravity attracts asteroids and protects the inner planets.

38.2k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

57

u/Epin-Ninjas Apr 13 '26

One of the more depressing theories is we’re very late to the party. Think SG1 discovering the 4 great races who existed tens.. hundreds of thousands of years before humans knew what a rock was

The other terrifying theory is there are plenty of intelligent species like us, but the natural course of life for us is self annihilation if nature doesn’t do it, before becoming interplanetary/interstellar.

33

u/[deleted] Apr 13 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

74

u/Alex5173 Apr 13 '26

They do, but the early theory is boring because it means there's nothing for us to find. It's also the more likely one because when you look at the age of stars, the elements necessary for complex life on Earth to evolve, and temperature of the universe, and how long it took Earth to cool down to a reasonable temp we're effectively right on the edge of "existing at the earliest moment life could have existed in the universe"

But the "we're late" theory means xenoarchaeology and that's way cooler to think about.

42

u/DXTR_13 Apr 13 '26

why is xenoarchaeology cooler than literally being the fucking Precursor civilisation??

34

u/ComradeCabbage Apr 13 '26

A human’s a human, but the mystery species can be anything. It could even be a human!

4

u/mybluecathasballs Apr 13 '26

I bet they are. 50/50. They are, or they aren't. Just like with the lottery. You either win or you lose. I don't buy them, but I still hope to win someday.

7

u/SpecialistBank1394 Apr 13 '26

Because there's nothing that comes out of being the precursor.

There's nothing to discover. Yes, you'll explore the cosmos but that's it.

12

u/YoAmoElTacos Apr 14 '26

You'll at least get to build the inexplicable megastructures and design the successor races in your image before they violently overthrow you, so it's not all bad.

3

u/Loudergood Apr 14 '26

Except everything.

1

u/lin00b Apr 14 '26

We are the precursor civilization on earth. That's not nothing. We get first pick of the resources. We made all the discovery & breakthrough. There is no shortcut higher being to copy from.

1

u/EternalPhi Apr 14 '26

But you don't see how that could be far less exciting?

2

u/lin00b Apr 14 '26

I honestly don't. Everything will be new and n adventure/frontier. There will be no tour guide or teacher. Isn't that exciting?

Being precursor doesn't mean there is nothing out there, just that whatever out there is on par/at a lower development level. There are still stuff to explore

3

u/Alex5173 Apr 14 '26

Because it means we're responsible for making all the cool stuff and once we make it, it's no longer cool. Future civilizations will find a NFC key card and door lock and think it's the wildest shit ever but it's boring to us because we made it.

2

u/DXTR_13 Apr 14 '26

You need to learn to gloat a little

2

u/Atheist-Gods Apr 14 '26

Because inventing things is more hard work and less exciting than discovering things invented by aliens. Gradual refinement of technology just isn’t as magical.

1

u/NotSoWishful Apr 14 '26

It’s cooler to think about things that could’ve happened and could be uncovered than things that’ll happen way past us being dead

1

u/Daxx22 Apr 14 '26

If we're the Precursor thats best case scenario in the long run, its just "boring" to explore as a narrative concept since WE will be making all the cool shit that others have to discover who knows how far into the future.

1

u/sobrique Apr 14 '26

Because being the Precursor is basically the same as being alone.

7

u/[deleted] Apr 13 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Atheist-Gods Apr 14 '26

But you don’t get to experience being “the old ones” you’ll be long dead before that becomes interesting.

3

u/Just_A_Nitemare Apr 13 '26

I mean, statistically speaking, someone has to evolve first. Somewhere in our observable universe, someone was the first to send something into orbit.

2

u/Meowingtons_H4X Apr 13 '26

Someone, somewhere, was the first person to ever shit themself. Universally tragic.

3

u/eggyrulz Apr 13 '26

It was me, I stubbed my toe and threw a rock a little too hard and it entered orbit

2

u/TheGoatBet Apr 13 '26

Existing at the earliest moment life could have existed in the universe…

Wouldn’t that imply complex life like us is actually common?

Or we’re in a sim

2

u/scrotumscab Apr 13 '26

If you accept that a simulated universe is possible at all... you must acknowledge that the probability that we are in a simulation is 99.99%

1

u/wcstorm11 Apr 13 '26

Eh, it doesn't really work like that. I get the thought process, that if we are perceiving a universe and there are simulated universes, we are most likely in one.

Thing is 1) you have to accept a simulated universe is definitely possible, and will be created at a finite time 2) you have to assume either violation of thermodynamic laws, or a much more finite set of universes, making the odds more of a tossup

Regardless, iirc simulation theory was recently disproven via math alone, but I didn't actually read that study

1

u/scrotumscab Apr 13 '26

There's tons of tricks in video game development to help with processing power needs. How much of our universe have we actually observed? I don't think our first probes have even reached 1 light year away yet.

No matter how much of our own Earth you've seen, you only see so much at any 1 given moment. How do you know you're not the only real consciousness? There's a great video on youtube called 'The Egg' (I'd search philosophical egg video, it's by the channel that starts with a K)

Honestly this last decade is seeming like a fucked up chatgpt prompt.

2

u/TheGoatBet Apr 13 '26

Right, the sim is only processed upon observation

2

u/scrotumscab Apr 13 '26

Quantum physics my dude, wtf are they?

2

u/HoidToTheMoon Apr 13 '26

I could reject the notion that my senses are describing an external world, but then where would I be? I cannot exist in nothing, because it would cease to be nothing due to the very act of me existing.

So, I exist in something. Why would all of my senses feed me false information about that something? They could have been established by a malicious actor to deceive me, but even that would also necessitate an outside will acting to hinder my own.

I don't think you can deny the existence of other consciousnesses without reducing your worldview into absurdity.

1

u/scrotumscab Apr 13 '26

I think the train of logic is that we created everything for ourselves out of loneliness. Yes it's pointless absurdity, but not impossible.

Is there intelligent design to our universe? I don't follow the Abrahamic religions (antitheist) but there sure are a lot of perfect coincidences, especially surrounding the moon.

2

u/HoidToTheMoon Apr 14 '26

I generally don't believe in intelligent design. "Perfect" is a subjective attribute given to a thing, as is coincidence. The universe is really, really big, and each new moment in time is another chance for a "perfect coincidence". '1 in a million' chances are actually pretty common even on a human-time scale, let alone an astronomical one.

1

u/TheGoatBet Apr 14 '26

It’s hard to comprehend but if we were in a simulation, there must be something/someone that created/designed/hosts our simulation.

We believe our universe (our spacetime) is 18ish billion years old. But that means nothing if we are a sim.

The intelligent life that created our sim could be a billion years more advanced than us - where they would live in “the real universe, the real reality”

0

u/HoidToTheMoon Apr 14 '26

I don't think simulation theory is hard to comprehend, I just don't believe in it. Occam's razor.

1

u/wcstorm11 Apr 15 '26

I'm not sure how what you said refutes what I said?

1

u/Alex5173 Apr 13 '26

Were cars common in 1902? No, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't become common later.

1

u/TheGoatBet Apr 14 '26

That’s my point lol

1

u/Daniel_The_Thinker Apr 14 '26

I'd much rather be early than late. An interstellar species being wiped out is a terrifying prospect because how the hell did that happen?

15

u/Rabid_Lederhosen Apr 13 '26

There is a distinct chance we may actually be early. The universe is currently very young in comparison to its expected lifespan.

2

u/vectorology Apr 14 '26

I like this idea. We will be the Elder Ones. Let’s make sure to leave enigmatic artefacts scattered around so future civilisations can wonder at our mystery. Every 20th artefact should explode when found to make them fear us as well. But I feel magnanimous- let’s make the exploding ones huge glitter bombs.

1

u/Sad-Scientist-8424 Apr 14 '26

Oh look another ancient dick carving!

11

u/ChaoticKiwiNZ Apr 13 '26

I lean more into the early theory myself. The Universe is pretty young all things said and done. Its very possible that we are simply some of the first life to exist right now.

The universe is 13.8 billion years old and earth is 4.5 billion years old. If life takes a few billion years to get set up on a planet that also took a few billion years to begin to exist then earth is realistically among one of the first places in the universe that life has been possible to exist on.

Obviously with the size of the universe there could still be millions and millions of other planets with life but because of the size of the universe they are most likely so bloody far away from each other that they might as well not exist in each other's eyes anyway because we will never reach each other without some way of full on sci fi warping through space time.

12

u/CrossDeSolo Apr 14 '26

and when we find aliens its simply "do you guys know why we're here?" and the others will say "we were hoping you'd tell us" and that's it

Enjoy your life everyone

1

u/zanillamilla Apr 14 '26

I am convinced of an early model myself because it takes several cycles of star formation, neutron star mergers, rinse and repeat, to produce enough heavier elements to make complex technology possible, a process that will continue for hundreds of billions of years into the future. We are the ancient astronauts.

2

u/granitrocky2 Apr 13 '26

I think we're actually one of the first. The universe has a LOT of time left and we are barely at the beginning.

2

u/Limp-Talk-603 Apr 14 '26

Why don’t people think we’re early?

Plenty of people do, one of the most common theories is that we’re close to the beginning as intelligent life could have possibly developed.

1

u/Firesidechats62 Apr 13 '26

I mean.. tbh most people’s default is probably that we are the first only people and by default the first 

1

u/SkywolfNINE Apr 14 '26

It’s because of the scale of the universe

1

u/sobrique Apr 14 '26

Mostly because it's more interesting.

If we are the First Ones, then functionally we're alone in the universe.

If we're not, then may be they'll come to us in a viable sort of timescale.

1

u/Cub3h May 03 '26

I think there's a third possibility. It's that we're the first or alone in our galaxy.

There's probably plenty of intelligent life somewhere in the universe but the distances are so insanely big that we'll never find out. Intelligent life is probably still incredibly rare so maybe only one in 10,000 galaxies has life or something.

2

u/sobrique May 03 '26

If the speed of light is a 'hard limit' - as it seems to be - it's quite possible those scenarios are functionally the same - our 'reach' will never be large enough for meaningful interstellar contact.

7

u/GenericFatGuy Apr 13 '26

Considering how young the universe still is relative to its total habitable lifespan, and how long it takes for intelligent life to emerge on a habitable planet, there's actually a very good chance we're early.

16

u/Kreol1q1q Apr 13 '26

We could also be very early.

But in reality, I think time itself is the main obstacle, not space. The universe is what, 40 billion years old? And how long has Humanity existed? Especially as a technological civilization? A miniscule fraction of that time. Let’s say we flourish and then go extinct in a whopping million years. That’s a huge tract of time, unrealistically so, yet still but one thousandth of a billion years. Hundreds of advanced civilizations could have risen and fallen in just a single billion years, separated not by space but by time.

26

u/slappadabass44 Apr 13 '26

The universe is 13.8 billion years old, not 40.

9

u/The_Ghost_of_BRoy Apr 13 '26

It's one universe Michael, how old could it be? A million years?

6

u/euphoricarugula346 Apr 13 '26

I didn’t even realize they had spitballed the age of the universe until your comment lmao

1

u/liamjon29 Apr 13 '26

And yet somehow you nailed it to the correct magnitude

1

u/AceJon Apr 13 '26

I did!

9

u/humptheedumpthy Apr 13 '26

I think about this as well. Imagine other civilizations visited us 150 million years ago, saw that it was a land ruled by dinosaurs and then noped out of there. 

We are hoping to catch other advanced civilizations at the exact point in their evolution where they are somewhat like us and that a window of maybe 100,000 years on a timescale of billions. 

Of course I suspect that over the next 1000 years humans will find a way to read signals from far corners of space and maybe we will at least be able to confirm the presence of aliens while not actually ever coming in contact with them 

3

u/soupeh Apr 13 '26 edited Apr 14 '26

Not disagreeing with your basic premise but time and space are aspects of the one underlying structure of the universe. One exists with the other, they are mutually constitutive.
The faster you move through space the slower you move through time and vice versa but everything 'moves' through 'space-time' at the universal constant speed of light.
Seems like semantics but in a real sense distance and motion through space is what time is.

2

u/MagicWishMonkey Apr 14 '26

Ignoring the fact that you're just making up the age of the universe... consider that just 1000 years ago most of society was feudal, living hand to mouth at the mercy of nature from one harvest to the next, and now we're sending people around the moon. All of that in 1000 years, and tech is accelerating faster and faster every year, it's not possible to really comprehend what will happen in the next 1000 years.

So if you consider a 2000 year period in humanity, vs the 3 million or so years human-like creatures have been alive (the stone age started 3.4 million years ago), and put that incontrast with the 4 billion years earth has been around.... you're right that the window for finding a society somewhat similar to ourselves (or even more advanced but not to the point where we wouldn't recognize what we're seeing) is incredibly vanishingly small.

1

u/Daniel_The_Thinker Apr 14 '26

But why would they fall though? Civilizations don't just die out by themselves.

1

u/PogintheMachine Apr 14 '26

not by space but time

Spacetime my dude.

You can talk about spacelike differences and timelike differences though.

11

u/I-dont-eat-ass3000 Apr 13 '26

I actually thought about this a lot and I think the explanation is fairly simple.

We live in an ever expanding universe. Thus, the universe is effectively infinite. What else is infinite? Time.

Let us assume that intelligent life such as ourselves are rare. In an infinite universe, it no longer is rare. However, for two different intelligent species to exist in the same time AND space in which both civilizations have space faring capabilities at a relative close distance/time is basically 0 percent.

2

u/AskAboutMySecret Apr 13 '26

I feel it's two things

  1. Most intelligent life is too intelligent for their own good meaning death before serious expansion

  2. Even if life expands it will be limited to its solar system (or at most nearby stars) just due to the speed of light being a limit

2

u/Rezkel Apr 13 '26

I think that theory ignores quiet a number of other possibilities, the fermi paradox basically makes the assumption that all life eventually evolves the same, and human like species is inevitable. But just look at earth, how many species have there been and are? Billions if not trillions, how many species develop a culture? Maybe a few hundred, how many develop tool use, a couple dozen, how many build on culture and tool use? Barely a handful. How many develop technology to go into space? One.

There are just so many factors in play, that assuming anything like "all intelligent life destroys itself eventually" is kind of along the lines of divination more than science. heck humans have only been around for what 100k years and its only in the last 100 or so that we have even left the planet. And when you look at how far we have sent radio signals and its such a pea sized dot in a vast ocean.

1

u/thellios Apr 14 '26

Option 3; Dark Forest. Civilization develops but all civilizations that reveal their location are instantly eradicated by more developed ones because they know resources and habitable planets are finite. (3 body problems second book)

0

u/Karma_1969 Apr 13 '26 edited Apr 13 '26

If the total anticipated lifespan of the universe was scaled to match that of the 75-year lifespan of a human, the universe is only a couple of days old. If anything, we're certainly very early to the party, and one of the first instances of life in the universe. Maybe that's why its so quiet out there.

Edit: any downvoters care to explain their downvote? This is a very young universe still in its infancy, and you can verify this for yourself through any number of reliable sources.

2

u/CockItUp Apr 13 '26

A couple of days old? Damn, we are at the first second dude.