It's also entirely possible that we are the first, or one of the first, technological civilizations in the galaxy. Given how little we understand about the appearance of life, the emergence of multicellular life from single cell life, and the emergence of intelligence from multicellular life, there's not way to put an estimate on these probabilities.
Think about the fact that in 3.5 billion years there hasn't been any new abiogenesis on the only planet in the universe we know for sure can sustain life, and in this billion years a single life form has ever evolved from a single-cell to multi-cellular life, aren't the priors pretty decent that life is an extremely rare phenomenon? Given the fact that the Milky Way is somewhere around 13 billion years old, how often can we expect a once in 3.5 billion years event have happened?
Generally on Earth colonization has happened in order to provide a tangible economic benefit to those supporting the colonization effort. With someplace that you can only travel to and from by slow generation ship its hard to find any such economic benefit in having a colony there.
If you look at how quickly life began after the oceans settled out, then look at precisely how complex even the most primitive forms of life are (in terms of likelihood of stochastic construction to the point of sophistication to support evolutionary mechanisms) it seems incredibly unlikely that we originated here.
It has huge assumptions. Namely the assumption that the current problems to colonization can be solved in a cost-effective manner.
The longest continuous length of time spent in what limited space flight we have is just under 440 days. Not to mention, all of it was spent in low Earth orbit. Once we go beyond that, we lose all protection from the Earth's magnetosphere.
Then there's also the loss of bone density due to lack of gravity. 1% per month is nothing to sneeze at.
We are not built for space travel. We are built to inhabit this planet. We have evolved to the conditions here.
And before you say that the generation ships will just fake gravity and have appropriate shielding. Where do you get that assumption? We can't fake gravity. We have a space station where they take 10 times the radiation as here on Earth because we can't even realistically shield that.
And then we get to "autonomous probes", the great handwave of people who think they can cleverly sidestep the "humans aren't built for space" issue.
Who builds them? For what purpose? What's our expected return? How can you justify the investment in time and resources to shoot into space, with absolutely no hope of even knowing there's a chance for a return on that investment until generations later, a probe that can at best return data.
And then there's the issue of it being an autonomous probe. Two words that hide a lot of other problems. A lot of other assumptions. One being that we'll have created an intelligence capable of running this thing.
In other words, the Fermi Paradox just assumes that all of these incredibly hard problems can and will be solved and that the solutions are logistically viable.
What if they're not?
Humans evolved specifically to live on Earth, to live somewhere else, they need to be severely altered. Now you just seeded civilization of another species, that might turn out to be confrontational or outright hostile. Why would you do that?
Too see how well this works out on the local scale see colonization of Americas.
There is definitely motivation. Some people want to colonise Mars. Not everybody, but likely enough people to make it happen. Elon Musk wants to make it happen, and while there is no guarantee he'll get his wish, I think he has a decent chance of succeeding.
And establishing a permanent base on the Moon probably falls into a similar category. Moon has certain attractions over Mars – e.g. much more feasible target for space tourism, as a near-Earth testbed for developing technologies that may then be deployed to more distant parts of the solar system.
If the US (or a US-led multinational consortium excluding China) establishes a permanent base on the Moon and on Mars, that would increase the likelihood that China would do it too, in order to prove themselves equal to the US. (In principle other countries might feel the same urge, but China is possibly the only country who feels that urge strongly enough, and has sufficient resources, to actually pull it off; the US policy of excluding China from space ventures also gives China a motivation that does not apply to many other countries with which the US is willing to cooperate.)
Whether there is a "need" – the boundary between "wants" and "needs" is a value judgement. People who want to colonise Mars likely have different values from people like you who don't see it as worthwhile.
Our current gas emissions would disagree.
Also, asteroids, gamma ray bursts, curiosity, sheer ambition, etc, etc.
The thing is: we don't need to convince all of mankind to colonize another planet. All it takes is a few people. Crazy rich Mr. Musk is one example. He may not be able to achieve it, but maybe all we need is a few other Musks in the next generations and suddenly we'll be in other planets.
The Fermi Paradox discussion is fascinating.
> suddenly we'll be in other planets.
Who is “we” in this case, how does it affect you and me? (The point being is that such long-term projects are beyond current society capabilities)
I don't see any scenario where a generation ship can plausibly be expected to colonize another planet.
While at first it might seem that Mars or any other planet is the solution to our environmental problem, the easiest solution to the problem would be fixing this planet. Colonizing Mars would take up so many resources that fixing Earth might be more cost-effective.
