The OP argument isn't about the Fermi paradox. To see this, first note that those words don't appear in it. Second, consider the possibility that abiogenesis is just stupendously rare. This solves the Fermi paradox (regardless of whether you think this solution engenders problem of its own, such as why life seemed to develop so soon after Earth initially formed), but the anthropic issue raised by the OP argument would persist.
> Second, consider the possibility that abiogenesis is just stupendously rare
I think a better way to phrase this is that abiogenesis is stupendously picky, but also incredibly eager. My understanding is that current life developed about as quickly as it possibly could have, at least on a geological scale. It's possible that worlds we're finding that look "ideal for life" from the perspective of what we can detect from this distance may be missing something vital that Earth had.
> My understanding is that current life developed about as quickly as it possibly could have, at least on a geological scale.
This is commonly quoted, but actually not at all implied by the data, at least as long as you allow for the very real possibility that the road from inert matter to conscious observers required multiple improbable steps. For counter-intuitive probabilistic reasons, you can't infer the "improbableness" of a step from the amount of time it took to occur when several such steps occur.
I actually mean solely abiogenesis. From the perspective of the Drake Equation [0], I think it's likely that ne [1] is quite low, and fl [2] is quite high. I don't think we can speculate on fi [3], given a sample size of 1. Though as we seem to be somewhat of an anomaly across several great extinction events, a low estimate there seems fair as a starting point.
The great filter theory implies that the last two terms are also low, but again, my point was mainly focused on going from no life to basic life. Essentially I think that while there are improbably steps between inert matter and consciousness, abiogenesis itself does not seem to be one of them, though the suitability for abiogenesis likely is.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#Equation
[1] the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
[2] the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point
[3] the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations)
> My understanding is that current life developed about as quickly as it possibly could have, at least on a geological scale.
does not actually imply that abiogenesis is "eager". Our evidence is consistent with it being being so improbable that even if the universe were filled with young Earth's with the appropriate conditions, there would still be less than one such event to date per observable universe.
