Well it’s definitely unpopular.

Your third paragraph isn't logical. It's treating Occam's razor as if it were a physical law rather than a scheme for trying to guess the correct answer when you don't have enough information to determine it using a scientific approach. Even when used properly, Occam's razor doesn't guarantee anything about the accuracy of conclusions based on it.

But you're not just treating it as if it were a physical law but also extending it to the extreme and going from "when multiple explanations are equally plausible, prefer the one that depends on the fewest assumptions" to "any scenario can only arise from the simplest system that could cause that scenario to arise".

Just in the observable universe there are around 2 trillion galaxies. Our galaxy (pretty average as galaxies go) has more than 100 billion star systems, each of them with their corresponding planets.

Even if the average density of life is just 1 planet per galaxy (which frankly speaking, would be ridiculously low), you'd have a couple of trillion of planets with life. Intelligence of course would be scarcer, but I don't think it's that anomalous in the large scheme of things.

If you’re assuming that life outside Earth would look the same then I’d lean much more heavily into saying you’re right. But I think your premise is completely off: why would it look the same as it does here?

And I also think you’re ignoring just how vast and empty a lot of space is. Everything is spread completely apart. The universe really could be full of life already but it’s simply too far away from us for us to see it.

we arent even able to see planet surfaces in our closest neighbor solar systems. Everything outside of sol is just blurry specks if not just radio waves on a telescope

If a smaller, simpler, universe could handle life, we would be in that one. Not our current one.

I don't really understand this one. Why couldn't there be other, "simpler" universes that also have life? Why must we (as we currently are) be the maximally complicated life that our universe can support?

The closer the universe is to being infinite, the more likely ANYTHING that is possible, will happen. Like life, in whichever form.

It might not be technically infinite, but so incredibly gargantuanly vast, that to us finite Lil meatsacks, it basically is.

Even if the chance for developing life might be infinitesimal, there are a real lots of dice-rolls in that universe, so why should it be only us...

If a smaller, simpler, universe could handle life, we would be in that one.

That is a leap of logic that needs explanation. It sounds like you're misinterpreting Occam's razor. The razor is that an explanation is built with the smallest possible set of elements. It's a huge leap to extend that to us living in the smallest universe.

Your 2nd paragraph is potentially flawed, but maybe just incomplete.

We have areas that are exceptionally dry, exceptionally hot, or exceptionally acidic, among other things that have been found to be devoid of life. Even the geothermal vents example everyone points to needs a clarifier. Life lives near the vents, not on them. The temperature at the vent gets too hot for basic chemical process or even proteins to make sense.

I think watching the Pale Blue Dot video from Carl Sagan is also worth a watch just as a reminder of how big the universe is for the 'ejected into space' point too. The fastest we've ever traveled is around 25,000 mph briefly and life has been around for we think around 3.7 billion years. If we had been traveling as fast as we have ever traveled for the entirety of the time we think life has existed, we could make it around 140,000 light years (someone please check my math) compared to the observable universe being about 100 billion light years across. I think you at least get from one end of the milky way to the other with a bit to spare, just have to worry about anything that wasn't on that straight line and at least 200 billion galaxies to go (probably dramatically more).

Also, like, there's a reason the Weak Anthropic Principle was created along side the standard one and there's a reason we talk about the weak a lot more. The standard Anthropic Principle is really someone just saying that they don't want to talk about that anymore. It doesn't prove anything on it's own anymore than saying 'It is what it is'.

In order to understand the Fermi paradox you need to know the bitteroldcoot corollary: Why the fuck would anyone want to talk to humanity. They are brutal, murderous pieces of shit. If anyone ever landed on earth they would be dissected alive and their technology stolen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

Not every planet can support life - there's a pretty specific set of circumstances that have to occur (to support life that we're aware of). There are other planets in the universe that, as far as we're aware, meet these requirements, but they're a very long ways away. Multiple lightyears. Any bacteria ejected would in any conceivable case die long before reaching one.

What makes you think that out of all of the potentially life supporting planets in the universe, ours was the only one to develop life?

I don't think this is an opinion. It can't be proven or disproven, currently, but it's still a matter of fact.

This just scratches the surface, as someone highly knowledgeable in the topic, the ET hypothesis is phasing out and new concepts are brought in.

I agree with you, there are no ETs. If you dig at current information available you will also come to this conclusion.

Age of Disclosure - sorry