They took their time to get to the point - I had to skip over a few pages detailing the "great filter", a series of obstacles that would confront a technological species and life in general.
Their argument basically boils down to "if we discover no trace of life, that means that life has difficulty getting going in the first place well before it has a chance to destroy itself" - this is an argument from ignorance. The article writer admits the possibility of there being further barriers to development, but does not seem to realise that the occurance of life in the universe has no bearing on whether we will live to see the future.
It could just be that while non-sapient life is prolific in the universe, sapient life is less so. Environmental conditions throughout the universe could create evolutionary pressures that are not suitable for the evolution of intelligence.
I also think the author of the article grossly underestimates the true scale of the universe - there are hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy alone, and the galaxy itself is billions of years old - plenty of space for plenty of technological civilisations to arise, and plenty of time for them to fall.
And that's just one galaxy. There are about 350 billion large galaxies like the Milky Way in the visible universe, and about 7 TRILLION dwarf galaxies, making the total amount of stars in the universe approximately 30 billion trillion (That's 3x10²², or three followed by twenty-two zeros!).
It's quite possible that reason that aliens aren't here is because they're over there, and don't have either the technology to get here or simply haven't had the time to get here.
Regardless of the possibility of there being an technological alien civilisation in our local universal neighbourhood, the article's argument that "oh noes if life is common in the universe then we're doooooomed" is utterly fallacious.



