I like 3.
Agree or disagree? Your choice.
What you've got to think of is the vastness of time as well as the vastness of physical space. If the universe has been around for 14bn years and our planet has been able to support life for around 1bn years (roughly 2.5bn years after the formation of our parent star), it stands to reason we are not the first star that was capable of this even if you think of the fact that each generation of star has progressively more heavier elements to allow for complex life.
And if that's the case - why is there no evidence left on Earth over the past hundreds of millions of years? Why did no one colonise Earth? We would if we found Earth 10 aeons years ago.
Especially as we now have evidence that life could exist in several other places within this system, and that microbial life existed on Earth as long as there were the conditions for it so you've got to figure life can't be that rare. Probability wise, that means that there must be at least a few races far more advanced than we are.
However, we have only existed on Earth for a tiny fraction of that time. And we have to be at the right level of advancement at the same time as a race within range. Let's say there is someone 3,000 light years away. And that is quite hopeful - but that means travelling for 3 millennia at the maximum cosmic speed possible, which would simply not be practical. Which suggests that true FTL drives are not in fact possible, and that would indeed explain the paradox.
Even if there's a vast 10,000 light year empire on the other side of the galaxy, we might not even see it. And even at FTL speeds it might even take them centuries or decades to get here.
I think it just means it's unlikely that we're gonna go outside and find a Star Trek like universe out there. Even if it is relatively common and there are dozens of races like us in this galaxy alone, I think it will seem rare enough amongst the millions of stars to find life as complex as us all over the place.
So, agree.