The stupidity of the alien cold war scenario

[Junghalli]

I'm pretty sure that that scenario is different, since you know your neighbor, what he is capable off etc. etc.

And even if you don't you can safely assume he'll probably share something like your moral system since he's been raised in human society. Something you can't assume for aliens.

[Darth Raptor]

This issue is exasperating, and often leaves me wondering just how alien aliens could possibly be. Eukaryotic life has got to be exceedingly rare, intelligent life even more so. Evolving sapience almost necessarily requires social instincts closely resembling, if not mirroring our own. I'd think their culture and mindset must have some large common areas with ours. They won't be some kind of unfathomable, malevolent hive mind. That would be the machines whose empire is built on the remains of a sympathetic alien race.

Then again, I'm not too worried as we seem to have this galaxy all to ourselves. No one else within a hundred light years has invented radio yet.

[Singular Intellect]

Then again, I'm not too worried as we seem to have this galaxy all to ourselves. No one else within a hundred light years has invented radio yet.

That's a bit like the natives who assume they have their lands all to themselves because they communicate with drums and expect an advanced civilization to be communicating with really big drums...

[Darth Raptor]

That's a bit like the natives who assume they have their lands all to themselves because they communicate with drums and expect an advanced civilization to be communicating with really big drums...

LOL! The default conclusion to the Fermi paradox is not "magic must be real". I guess aliens are just some people's Jesus.

[Junghalli]

Well, true, I figure most sapients would probably have some sort of rule against killing their own kind, because it's pretty necessary to the functioning of a society.

Whether they'd extend that rule to us is a whole other matter. If they only care about species survival their response to finding a more primitive intelligent species would probably be to wipe it out, just to be sure it can't become a threat someday.

[Singular Intellect]

That's a bit like the natives who assume they have their lands all to themselves because they communicate with drums and expect an advanced civilization to be communicating with really big drums...

LOL! The default conclusion to the Fermi paradox is not "magic must be real". I guess aliens are just some people's Jesus.

My point was it's theoritically possible any advanced race currently within range of detectable radio emissions may not even be using that form of communication anymore, and at a previous time where they might have is so far in the past we wouldn't be able to detect it.

[Darth Raptor]

My point was it's theoritically possible any advanced race currently within range of detectable radio emissions may not even be using that form of communication anymore, and at a previous time where they might have is so far in the past we wouldn't be able to detect it.

And my point was no, it's not theoretically possible, it's hypothetically conceivable. Even that's a stretch. The above being true requires science fiction hand waving. It's not arrogance or a failure of imagination on my part. It's a desperate, preexisting resolve to believe no matter what on yours (or that of the scads of people who've presented the very same argument countless times before).

We're alone. Be glad of it.

[Singular Intellect]

My point was it's theoritically possible any advanced race currently within range of detectable radio emissions may not even be using that form of communication anymore, and at a previous time where they might have is so far in the past we wouldn't be able to detect it.

And my point was no, it's not theoretically possible, it's hypothetically conceivable. Even that's a stretch. The above being true requires science fiction hand waving. It's not arrogance or a failure of imagination on my part. It's a desperate, preexisting resolve to believe no matter what on yours (or that of the scads of people who've presented the very same argument countless times before).

We're alone. Be glad of it.

I neither believe or disbelieve in the existence of any supposed aliens. My stance is "pending more data, inconclusive".

However, I would be interested in hearing your proofs there is no other intelligent life in our galaxy or universe. Particularily given we've only had the means to detect and produce radio emissions within less than a two hundred year span of time against a universal time span of billions of years.

[Patrick Degan]

My point was it's theoritically possible any advanced race currently within range of detectable radio emissions may not even be using that form of communication anymore, and at a previous time where they might have is so far in the past we wouldn't be able to detect it.

And my point was no, it's not theoretically possible, it's hypothetically conceivable. Even that's a stretch. The above being true requires science fiction hand waving. It's not arrogance or a failure of imagination on my part. It's a desperate, preexisting resolve to believe no matter what on yours (or that of the scads of people who've presented the very same argument countless times before).

We're alone. Be glad of it.

I neither believe or disbelieve in the existence of any supposed aliens. My stance is "pending more data, inconclusive".

However, I would be interested in hearing your proofs there is no other intelligent life in our galaxy or universe. Particularily given we've only had the means to detect and produce radio emissions within less than a two hundred year span of time against a universal time span of billions of years.

Burden of Proof Fallacy —it is not on Darth Raptor to prove that aliens don't exist. Barring data to the contrary, it is the default logical position.

[Darth Raptor]

I neither believe or disbelieve in the existence of any supposed aliens. My stance is "pending more data, inconclusive".

What's it like having such a crippling fear of being wrong? Are you also ambivalent on the wetness of water? Did you find the Matrix movies "eye opening"?

However, I would be interested in hearing your proofs there is no other intelligent life in our galaxy or universe. Particularily given we've only had the means to detect and produce radio emissions within less than a two hundred year span of time against a universal time span of billions of years.

I never said there was no intelligent life in the entire universe, nimrod. I said there was no post-industrial civilizations in our corner of the galaxy save ours. Try to pay attention. The "proof" of that is a century or so of listening to nothing. And you can't prove a negative, BTW. Show me the ET in your closet.

[Singular Intellect]

Burden of Proof Fallacy —it is not on Darth Raptor to prove that aliens don't exist. Barring data to the contrary, it is the default logical position.

Does this mean the statistically probability of alien life is not an admissible arguement?

I neither believe or disbelieve in the existence of any supposed aliens. My stance is "pending more data, inconclusive".

What's it like having such a crippling fear of being wrong? Are you also ambivalent on the wetness of water? Did you find the Matrix movies "eye opening"?

I was unaware admitting "I do not know" is a "crippling fear of being wrong".

I never said there was no intelligent life in the entire universe, nimrod. I said there was no post-industrial civilizations in our corner of the galaxy save ours. Try to pay attention.

Really? Could you quote where you said that? I can't find it...all I found was

Then again, I'm not too worried as we seem to have this galaxy all to ourselves. No one else within a hundred light years has invented radio yet.

Which seems pretty insignificant data considering a hundred lightyears is only one thousandth the diamter of our own galaxy...

We're alone. Be glad of it.

That seems like a pretty positive assertion to me, based upon the assumption any other intelligent species in our galaxy must either have invented radio already or not have discontinued it's use a very long time ago.

The "proof" of that is a century or so of listening to nothing. And you can't prove a negative, BTW. Show me the ET in your closet.

I'm working on the premise of the argued statistical probability of life in our universe, unless that's a non admissible arguement.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Here's the thing, even if you buy the ridiculous logic of "do it to them before they do it to you, and they'll do it to you because you'll do it to them", there are two major problems.

1. Even at high fractions of C, it will probably take a long time for your vehicle to hit. Long enough for multiple generations to have lived and died. So the survival instinct urgency that might cause someone to needlessly commit genocide isn't there. Most people think the world will probably be a pile of rubble after a few generations, anyway.

2. How do you know that's their only colonized planet, or that they won't colonize more by the time your rocket hits? And if you're the only species deranged enough to wipe out another for no reason, what makes you think some other advanced species you haven't detected yet won't decide you're obviously too dangerous to go on living? Wiping out every species you see is not going to improve your chances for survival.

3. Launching your RKV won't stop them from launching theirs unless it hits before they detect you, and those things will take a long time to hit given the distances involved. Better for one species to perish than two.

[Darth Raptor]

I almost didn't respond to this point for point, because it irritates the shit out of me when people parse up a single paragraph.

I was unaware admitting "I do not know" is a "crippling fear of being wrong".

It's a symptom. Moreover, it's sophistry in this case. You don't actually know if I'm a Turing machine, but there's no reason for you to believe that's the case. Therefore, defaulting to the assumption that I'm actually another H. sapiens is perfectly justified. Likewise, forming a conclusive position when all gathered evidence points one way is also justified.

Really? Could you quote where you said that? I can't find it...all I found was

Quote:

Then again, I'm not too worried as we seem to have this galaxy all to ourselves. No one else within a hundred light years has invented radio yet.


Which seems pretty insignificant data considering a hundred lightyears is only one thousandth the diamter of our own galaxy...

Lord. It's implied, you pedant. Obviously, we know nothing about the star systems outside our frame of observation (~100 light years or whatever). Even the ones within that frame may support intelligent life, just not modern civilizations. Or they may have invented radio, and it hasn't reached us yet. Or, most parsimonious of all, they aren't there. THOSE are all reasonable hypotheses. That last one especially. They are actually possible. "Maybe they're the Xeelee and communicate through subspace telepathy, lol" is NOT.

That seems like a pretty positive assertion to me, based upon the assumption any other intelligent species in our galaxy must either have invented radio already or not have discontinued it's use a very long time ago.

It's the default conclusion, based on the FACT that any advanced civilization would be vomiting EM waves all over space without even trying. An advanced civilization does not "discontinue" the use of freaking electromagnetism without also losing its status as an advanced civilization. Either they haven't come up with it yet, or they've lost it. What else would they use? Show me the sorcerous alternative. Preferably without any bullshit handwavium or technobabble.

I'm working on the premise of the argued statistical probability of life in our universe, unless that's a non admissible arguement.

When it conflicts with empirical observation? You bet it is. The Fermi paradox suggests that we've greatly overestimated the statistical probability of advanced civilizations. Not that the Men in Black are keeping us in the dark. It says that *maybe* the only civilizations within the stretch of space we've listened to were in a pre-industrial phase during the period observed. It most certainly does *not* suggest that they're everywhere, yet somehow undetectable. That's why it's a PARODOX. Shit can't be both yes AND no!

[Winston Blake]

There are solutions, to a degree, as Valdemar once said, such as mass "clouds" in likely vectors/mines, using asteroids, or similar stuff, but frankly, the chances are that you're utterly fucked, since the offence merely requires a large rock in space and an ion rocket (or solar sails).

...and a lot of antimatter. Every teraton an RKV puts into a planet has got to come from somewhere, and solar sails aren't going to cut it. Also, a light craft is better for a given change in momentum, since the energy increases with the square of velocity, but only linearly with mass.

Why does the enemy even need high-sublight projectiles anyway? This thing could be coming at a mere 30 km/s and we wouldn't see it until it was almost on top of us. We see celestial objects when they reflect or emit light. A dark object coming at us would be pretty much invisible to us until it's much too late, even if it's going nowhere near relativistic speed.

I think the argument in the OP was based on the worst we could expect or dish out, in a rock-hard realistic universe.

[Flameblade]

<captainobvious>

It's something I'm hoping everyone in this thread would already know but, something to keep in mind, regarding how alone we are, is that the "100 light-year bubble" is actually a lot bigger, just not as current. Any possible alien civilization that is further out, the data just isn't as current. The primary limitation is how detectable the signals would be at a given distance, not how much time is needed for the radio waves to reach us. An alien civilization started emitting large quantity of EM radiation from cause XYZ 1000 years ago. Alien civilization is 1000 light years away. We pick up signal now-ish. The difference a hard "100 light year radius", instead of a much fuzzier "100 year span of time for us to receive radio waves" is a pretty big one here, so I'm making sure it's pointed out.

</captainobvious>

[Junghalli]

On the radio bubble: I believe present SETI programs are only intended to pick up deliberate beacons set up by other civilization to tell the universe "we're here", not the ordinary radio transmission of an inhabited planet like Earth, so it's not necessarily conclusive. We ourselves have, I believe, only sent out one such deliberate beacon transmission, from the Arecibo radio telescope in the 70s.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/ ... on-11.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arecibo_message

Radio and optical searches currently underway are aimed
at detecting "beacons" built by putative advanced civilizations and
intended to attract attention. More sensitive searches (e.g., Project
Cyclops) that might detect normal activities of an advanced
civilization (similar for example to our military radars or TV
stations) have been proposed but so far not funded.

To me the fact that Earth has had a habitable environment for oxygen-breathing life for a couple of hundred million years and has never been colonized seems stronger evidence for the rare intelligence hypothesis.

[Sikon]

Given technology likely approaching the limits of what is physically possible after enough centuries or millenia of development, a quite plausible scenario for an uber-tech civilization's colonized territory is like a constantly expanding bubble with the expansion rate of the outer edges at least a substantial portion of the speed of light.

Self-replicating technology and the ability to produce an almost infinite number of interstellar craft is certainly possible within the laws of physics.

Shoot a relativistic planet-killer at such a civilization, and it is not necessarily traveling much (if at all) faster than the expanding colonization wave, not that there is any particularly critical target for it anyway.

If such an advanced civilization even could be destroyed, destroying all of its quadrillions of entities, such would likely take no less than a relatively comparable number of attackers. Even then, such might not be possible if, for example, by the time the attackers have traveled 1000 light-years after the corresponding eon of travel, colonized territory has grown by almost 1000 light-years farther out.

What a relativistic planet-killer could work against is a primitive planet-bound species. But there is not necessarily need to destroy it to be safe, not any more than humans conclude that they must exterminate all monkeys to prevent the monkeys wiping out our species. Or, for another analogy, imagine a tribe of neanderthals magically being found in the modern world: Even if they weren't friendly, it is not like they are much threat to millions of times their number of humans with superior technology, so we wouldn't conclude we must immediately xenocide them all to prevent them wiping out our civilization.

The preceding considers a scenario where there is an uber-advanced, developed civilization versus a planet-bound developing civilization.

What about a scenario where there are two planet-bound civilizations, one or both launching relativistic planet-killers at each other? That's unlikely for multiple reasons.

It is improbable for two technological civilizations to be at similar levels of infrastructure, size, etc. unless they are both uber-tech civilizations having reached physical limits. Life can exist for billions of years as non-technological life, and it could exist for at least billions of years with uber-tech, yet the transition in between should take orders of magnitude less time, considering the speed of technological evolution compared to biological evolution. There may be apes, and there may be angels, so to speak, yet few are likely to be in between at a given time.

A pair of civilizations are probably millions of years apart. They are unlikely to have coincidentally arisen in the same millenium, considering that the universe is billions of years old.

Besides, although relativistic planet-killers are technically possible to build, a civilization capable of giving a projectile billions of terajoules of energy would be an uber-tech civilization, not planet-bound. A Dyson Swarm space civilization launching such is possible. The equivalent of earth today launching such off coal power plants or the like is implausible.

If you can build an interstellar planet-killer, you no longer are dependent on a planet and no longer can be simply killed by such.

If a civilization actually can be destroyed by a relativistic planet-killer, it is probably more like an ant-hill than a mortal threat to the kind of uber-tech civilization which would be capable of launching the multi-billion-terajoule planet-killer in the first place.

Of course, an uber-tech civilization technically could exterminate such a lesser species, but, if they have even the slightest interest or reason not to do so, they don't have to do it.