I feel like you're going around in some odd circles here. I'm not really super interested in trying to guess the odds of things we don't know about or things that have never (to our knowledge) happened, which makes me pretty skeptical of any concept built on the fermi paradox to be honest. Too many unknown unknowns.

Your assertion is that the things that face us now are somehow less likely to destroy our species than the things we faced before, thus the "great filter" must be behind us. Ignoring for a moment that we certainly don't even know all the potential species-killing events we potentially face (ie. unknown unknowns), I haven't seen you explain why any of the ones we have faced are less of a problem now, or why any of the ones we face now are less dangerous than the ones we faced before. You just assert it as true and then when pressed try to haggle on some percentages you seem to have pulled out your ass.

It’s also a possibility that no matter what the timeframe, it’s simply not feasible for biological humans to live outside the Earth independently. It’s worth a shot, but it’s also worth acknowledging it may never work despite our best efforts.