So in the Drake Equation, I think that F[L] is probably pretty low.
And because eukaroyte genesis is difficult and only happened once (and it took a billion years of bacteria & archea hanging out before we got a eukaryote), and eukaryotes are a prereq for multi-cellular organisms and thus intelligent life, F[i] is also really low.
So it seems like it was a close call. Life needed almost the full extent of that interval of stability to create an (arguably) intelligent species. There can be no reset and start over. This is it, for the solar system. If we fail to survive, this whole star and its planets have failed to produce viable intelligence.
If Earth turns out to somehow be unusually stable as a life-bearing planet, this might explain a large portion of the Fermi paradox. This might be a large chunk of the Great Filter.
"...5 billion years."
"Whew, that's OK, I though you said 5 million!"
The Sun will get significantly hotter over the next 1 billion years. Life on Earth will become impossible (unless artificially maintained) quite a while before the end of that 1 billion year interval.
Depressing, but it seems more plausible than things like "Great Filters of DOOM". It would predict that there is a lot of intelligence in the entire universe, but each cluster of intelligence is profoundly alone.
Seriously, if we taught this level of intelligent-life appreciation to every born soul... the world would be a better place.
Rather than starting with the teachings we do for youngsters; why not just teach them how freaking rare and lucky they are to be a consciousness present to hear that fact and then know that they can then expand the known universe... but do this in a much more deliberate fashion than we are now?
We need to be much much more deterministic from a species if we will survive for eons.
It doesn't really answer why we commit suicide. But it does give an answer to why we aren't happy.
I think we could easily last for eons, but yeah. We have to get people on board with that possibility.
We are slaves to our own genetic sequences to a much larger extent than we usually think.
It's pretty easy to show that the behaviors that lead to people killing each other are driven by mechanisms initially evolved to ensure that our own genetic sequences keep multiplying and spreading out, eliminating competition. And they're pretty dumb mechanisms, running on the lower levels of our brains, so don't expect them to be very selective, or run without failure. Sometimes they hit an internal bug and become runaway destruction loops, which sometimes even turn against the individual itself.
Many things that are typically considered "evil" can be traced back ultimately to these mechanisms that ensure that our own genetic sequences win the race. In a way, "evil" was actually useful, way back in time, in an evolutionary sense. It's just recently that we've acquired new desires and aspirations, which are in conflict with the old, narrow, dumb routines.
Because the knowledge that "us killing ourselves" collectively is bad for us collectively does not affect the decision for an individual to kill another individual.
Not enough game theorists in charge.
It moves the problem of starting everywhere to starting in one place (more likely)
An icey comet could provide radiation protection and it could accidentally go through a gravity assist to increase it's speed.
I suppose that the best evidence we could collect to prove or disprove panspermia is to see if it's happened between planets/moons/objects within our own solar system.