Stephen Hawking is Afraid of Aliens.

[Srelex]

What if it's not raw materials they want to consume, but biomass, Tyranid-style? If that's the case it's not just humans who have to fear.

[Bakustra]

<snip>

Jesus, what part of "Not all reasons for expansion and conflict are strictly resource/habitat based" is so hard to understand? You basically said the exact same thing that DA did, which was already pointed out to be useless if the aliens are on a religious genocidal kick, are sufficiently 'alien' to not even consider us living, but rather as a cancerous threat, or have a sufficiently different view of reality that they don't even realize they're wiping us out as they go through.

What part of "not-trivial difficulties involved even in getting to the nearest stellar neighbour" is so hard to understand? Or do you actually imagine that ideology is superior to physics?

That's not what you actually said. Your post was entirely about resource deprivation. But let's examine this. If they're incapable of interstellar travel, then there is no risk. But you have to show that "non-trivial difficulties" actually means "there's no possibility that a species might shift in its migration to check out some unusual radio signals" as an illustrative example, and then proceed to wipe us out because we are bipedal, and this is abhorrent to their religion, or they are mechanical and don't consider us intelligent and wipe us out to liberate their electronic brethren, or any number of scenarios that we can adapt from human history or propose. We don't know what the possibility of these scenarios are, so we shouldn't invite them and multiply the risk by specifically broadcasting into deep space. On the other hand, alien species might well come to the same conclusions.

Except that in the billions of years that life has been on earth, less than a hundred of those years have been spent sending complex radio-signals away from the earth that could be construed as intelligent, long-distance communication, which is what Hawking was afraid would attract the asshole aliens in the first place. And the reason human history is looked at as an analogy is because we're dealing with a complete unknown here. There is nothing else that we can draw on for comparison, unless you want to dig out a few dozen intelligent, advanced species that we can study and establish trends for.

So can you tell me why a species that likes genocide and religious violence or is psychotic to the point of carelessness would be more interested in conquering us than fighting amongst its own members and ruining the environment of its own habitat(s)? The nations of Europe never stopped waging wars amongst themselves even at the height of colonialism (in fact, the colonies were partly for dick waving rights in that regard). The thing is, they never had nukes or weapons capable of putting everyone out of their misery all at once (such as nukes and designer diseases). You can't have space technology without also having such weapons.

What makes you think that they can only fall into a narrow set of criteria? There are other possibilities beyond "enlightened pacifistic non-speciesists" and "killed themselves because of their primitive superstitions." They may well have a religious objection to giving live birth, or to bipedalism, in intelligent species. They may want to wipe us out before we wipe them out, or to prevent us from later competing with them. There are a number of reasons why they might be dangerous, without having wiped themselves out previously.

[Shroom Man 777]

Here's an interesting possiblity: what if extraterrestrials were benevolent humanitarians who took over Earth to uplift it technologically and improve the human lot? How would people react?

You mean, what if the aliens saw how people all over the Earth were unhappy and oppressed, and decided to liberate us and install a superior (alien) form of government to freedomize us? Then, after using their alien weapons to destroy our weapons, with inevitable collateral damage, they try to build new superior alien bridges, superior alien power stations, and superior alien roads and superior alien schools and superior alien houses and superior alien hospitals to show us their superior alien way of life that will make us happier and they want to show us reason and make us abandon our unreasonable human belief system that only makes us primitive, violent and oppressive?

They might try to decapitate the Earth militaries' ability to fight, thus minimizing civilian casualties, by launching a decapitation strike and the alien ship will hover above the White House so it can strike the President of Earth. Just like Independence Day. Except the President of Earth escapes, and months later they find the President of Earth hiding in a hole and decide to execute him by hanging him inside an apartment building?

Some people might not like this. Some people might fight the aliens. What if the aliens see a bunch of people, running around New York City or something, holding TV cameras? The aliens think the humans are carrying weapons, and so they vaporize these humans. And then a Ford pickup truck, with children on board, stops by and tries to help the vaporized humans? The aliens think the Ford pickup truck belongs to human insurgents, and also vaporizes it and all that is left is the skeletonized remains of children?

Will we understand that occupying Earth is a stressful and difficult job for the aliens, and though they seek to help humanity, in the situation the alien soldiers live with they cannot but help to suspect that every human is hostile? Aliens might not be willing to risk a human Ford SUV coming near them, because it might carry a vehicle-born improvised blowing up bomb explosive device boomy-boom (VBIBUBEDBBs). They might be wary because crazy humans might start using improvised explosive daycare children to carry dangerous weapons that could kill or hurt people (IEDCTCDWTCKOHPs).

The aliens want to save us, help us and protect us. But what happens when policing and occupying 6 billion people proves difficult? What if the aliens outsource this job to robot mercenaries from Dark Liquid Intergalactic LTD? Would people be forgiving if the robo-mercenaries from Dark Liquid murdered people en masse, because they are actually programmed alien robot terminators? What happens if the alien Court Martians rule in favor of acquitting these alien robot killing machines?

What if the aliens just randomly kidnapped people, and detained them without trial in a prison in Pluto? What if the aliens end up using enhanced interrogation techniques, like simulated vaporization, to coerce these prisoners to talk? It is not real vaporization, the vaporization is only simulated, but to the prisoners it feels like they are REALLY being vaporized and they can't help but talk. The new alien president says that he will close the Pluto Prison, but he lies and people are still being put into Pluto and vaporized.

People would get angry at this.

The aliens want to do good things to Earth. But it might not always go in the way they want it to. It might not be all freedomy and happy, and it turns out that human beings might get hurt.

Then the alien news media will just simplify the death of human lives as simple collateral damage. Then the aliens surge and send more aliens to Earth, and then they start building settlements and wall humans in tiny impoverished cities. The humans try to fight back for their land by launching (nuclear) rockets at the alien occupiers, but the aliens send AT-ATs to step on our children because our children throw rocks at the aliens.

[Samuel]

What if it's not raw materials they want to consume, but biomass, Tyranid-style? If that's the case it's not just humans who have to fear.

Than they pillage Titan? There are alot of carbon compounds in the rest of the solar system and space- even interstellar space.

[Srelex]

What if it's not raw materials they want to consume, but biomass, Tyranid-style? If that's the case it's not just humans who have to fear.

Than they pillage Titan? There are alot of carbon compounds in the rest of the solar system and space- even interstellar space.

Well, correct me if I'm wrong but as far as our solar system is concerned it's Earth that has the most organic matter, no?

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Umm, who said anything about carelessness?

are sufficiently 'alien' to not even consider us living, but rather as a cancerous threat,

Sounds like the definition of carelessness to me.

That's rather dishonest of you, you're trying to mix and match two different uses of the word 'careless' and hoping no one notices. 'Careless' in the sense of 'doesn't give a shit about humanity's survival' is not equivalent to 'careless' in the sense of 'Oops, we accidentally wiped ourselves out with our own weapons'.

How would that work? What evolutionary pressures could possibly lead to such a species? Even we humans can feel empathy for animals from completely different branches of the tree of life, and the odds of a purely predatory species achieving sapience and technological hegemony are fleeting due to the fact that predators are at the top of the food chain where the fewest food resources can be found.

Arguments from personal incredulity are a fallacy, you realize. Who said they had to be predators? We're dealing with an alien ecology in the realm of pure hypotheticals here. They could have evolved, like anything else, to have a strong urge of survival. They may not give a shit about other living things like they do themselves, but they could have the intelligence to recognize the value of certain organisms to their survival. If humanity doesn't fall into that category (highly likely, given how advanced they'd have to be to accomplish reliable interstellar travel), there's no reason for them not to squish us if they don't particularly like us.

Maybe they do fight among each other, but never enough to wipe each other out, and find an even 'lower' humanity to be a glorious target to kick around and squish.

If they are looking for a challenge, then they are looking in the wrong celestial neighborhood. That sounds like a rather silly proposition.

I did not say they were looking for a challenge. I merely said they kick each other around quite a bit, just like humanity does. They catch wind of our signals, go, "Well, that looks interesting, let's check it out", head over, find out they outclass us in every way, kick our asses to extinction just for the lulz, then strip mine the place because they happen to be here.

Guess what. We have weapons capable of wiping out all life on earth today, but we fail to use them. Maybe it's because, while being violent and short-sighted, humanity in general also has a strong survival instinct. Who's to say aliens don't have something similar?

Guess what. We've had them for less than a century. You can't extrapolate from such a minuscule sample size, let alone start proposing absurd "instincts" which we clearly do not have (global warming, anyone?).

You're really not getting this, are you? One of the staples of Hawking's proposal is that they used up everything on their planet and made the jump to space because of it. Instincts are stupid, short-term things. A nuclear holocaust is an immediate, comprehendable threat that triggers our instinct for survival and stops us from pushing the big red button. Global warming is a very slow, indirect thing with doesn't trigger that same instinct in a vast majority of people because it's so damn indirect. The same thing could have happened with said alien race, they don't wipe each other out, but they used up their planet and were lucky enough to make the technological leap into space before they reached the point of no return in terms of planetary resources.

As for being unable to extrapolate, what else would you have us do when working with this hypothetical? Care to pull another known sentient species with weapons of global destruction and centuries of experience with them out of your ass? We have to work with what we have and know. Your assertion is, "Sentient, violent species with big bombs will blow themselves up despite survival instincts," my counter is, "We fit all those criteria, we haven't done it yet," and your reply is, basically, "Nuh uh!"

They're not going to wipe each other out, but why not squish humanity in the name of alien manifest destiny, or because alien Jesus says bipedal minions of Sol-based Satan must be crushed before their spaceships can travel to the alien garden of eden?

And Alien Muhammad says that all who follow Space Jesus should be put to death: why the absurd assumption that these aliens will all follow one religious doctrine?

Because we're dealing with a complete unknown here, you twit. I have no idea how alien psychology works. Maybe they are heavily ingrained to follow one strong leader, thus one religion/idealogy has taken over the entire race. Maybe there are multiple factions spreading across the stars, we just happened to be shit out of luck and get the ones who like to squish 'lessers'. Do I have to do all the imaginative work for you? This really isn't that difficult.

Because if we're talking about a species that lies somewhere in the middle as humanity does, then we run into the problem of motivation in the face of impracticality. You throw around the term genocide as if its normal for humans to behave that way. Normal for us to behave like Nazis to each other. As prejudiced as we are, it is nevertheless rare for us to stoop to such extreme evils. The only times we did that behavior was soon condemned utterly by damn near everybody, to the point that "Nazi" is practically a synonym for "evil incarnate".

Please, genocide and genocidal thought happen more often than you imply. The nazis were far from the only ones who did it, though they are the most strongly condemned. The Rwandan massacres tend to be overlooked, and with genocide, turning the other way is often just as enabling as outright support. There's the slaughtering of the native americans, from aztecs to the northern tribes, which was supported for centuries. There are people on this very board who support the idea of glassing the middle east. It is not rare, it's happened all throughout history.

And again, humanity does this to itself. An alien species doing this to something it considers completely alien doesn't even have that level of sympathy to overcome.

What part of "not-trivial difficulties involved even in getting to the nearest stellar neighbour" is so hard to understand? Or do you actually imagine that ideology is superior to physics?

Did you miss the point of this hypothetical exercise? One of the givens was that this alien race HAD FOUND A RELIABLE WAY TO OVERCOME THOSE DIFFICULTIES. Therefore, when it is not a horribly crippling undertaking for this hypothetical race to jump from one star to another, then ideological motivations can actually spur this sort of travel.

[Flagg]

If alien intelligence is anything close to human intelligence then I wouldn't want to run into a bunch of bloodthirsty genocidal maniacs in the depths of space let alone have them come to our front door.

[Shroom Man 777]

Maybe the alien regime uses the overblown threat of humanity, or the overblown exaggerated piss-poor state of humanity, as a justification for invading/helping humanity in order to stabilize the internal regime by having it fixated on an external threat or something? Basically they turn humanity into the Bugs from Starship Troopers (at least the Verhoven version), and send troops to die here so they can go on about how humanity's dangerous to the universe and needs an ass-kicking!

[Samuel]

What if it's not raw materials they want to consume, but biomass, Tyranid-style? If that's the case it's not just humans who have to fear.

Than they pillage Titan? There are alot of carbon compounds in the rest of the solar system and space- even interstellar space.

Well, correct me if I'm wrong but as far as our solar system is concerned it's Earth that has the most organic matter, no?

Why? Organic matter is simply carbon and other elements. I think Earth has the most, but I'm not sure- other rocky worlds should have similar amounts. I know that there asteroids that have carbon so the other rocky bodies in the system should as well. Gas giants do, but they aren't exactly a useful source.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Ultimately it's a futile intellectual exercise, though. The more we advance, the more noticeable we become to any 'others' that might be lurking out there. The only way we could prevent that is to become technologically stagnant or regressive, and thus decrease the number of signals and evidence we release of our presence. There's no effective way to continue technological process while at the same time becoming more covert about it, if there's sentient life nearby that is capable of comprehending the signals we send out as signs of other intelligent life, it's practically inevitable that we'll have an effect on each other. The best we can hope for, if they're magnitudes more advanced than we are technologically, is that they're not total assholes. Unfortunately the one case study of advanced technology-using lifeforms available to us shows that that is a possible outcome.

[Srelex]

Why? Organic matter is simply carbon and other elements. I think Earth has the most, but I'm not sure- other rocky worlds should have similar amounts. I know that there asteroids that have carbon so the other rocky bodies in the system should as well. Gas giants do, but they aren't exactly a useful source.

Yes, but why go through all the trouble of seeking out carbon particles or some shit when there's a planet obviously covered in raw biomass that you can just settle down and start harvesting? It's like saying that a prospector would go through all the trouble of sieving gold dust out of a river when there's a box full of ingots right next to him.

[Patrick Degan]

What part of "not-trivial difficulties involved even in getting to the nearest stellar neighbour" is so hard to understand? Or do you actually imagine that ideology is superior to physics?

That's not what you actually said. Your post was entirely about resource deprivation. But let's examine this. If they're incapable of interstellar travel, then there is no risk. But you have to show that "non-trivial difficulties" actually means "there's no possibility that a species might shift in its migration to check out some unusual radio signals" as an illustrative example, and then proceed to wipe us out because we are bipedal, and this is abhorrent to their religion, or they are mechanical and don't consider us intelligent and wipe us out to liberate their electronic brethren, or any number of scenarios that we can adapt from human history or propose. We don't know what the possibility of these scenarios are, so we shouldn't invite them and multiply the risk by specifically broadcasting into deep space. On the other hand, alien species might well come to the same conclusions.

Excuse me, but that is what I actually said. Anything else was simply for purposes of argument, to examine just why the effort would be limited to the nearest convenient location to where our hypothetical aliens are starting out from. Further, those "not-trivial difficulties" you seem determined to handwave away constitute a massive barrier to this scenario occurring at all, simply on the grounds of logistics nevermind the sheer scale of interstellar distances involved. BTW, nice little Burden-of-Proof fallacy you've put up: I am NOT required to explain why the aliens wouldn't come here, you and the others making this claim must demonstrate why they would pick the Sol system to come to in particular as opposed to the nearest convenient neighbouring star with sufficient luminosity and metals to support an orbital civilisation, and why said journey would, given the aforementioned difficulties involved, be motivated by anything other than physical necessity. Your claim, your burden of proof. That's the way this game works.

And as for a hypothetical species altering course to check out some odd radio signals, barring the fact that the inverse square law pretty much guarantees that anything we've transmitted since the invention of wireless would fade into the cosmic background noise past a light year or so, no migration fleet is going to risk burning up fuel it can't spare to alter their course simply on a whim: they're going to need every ton they've got in reserve to decelerate at their target system.

Did you miss the point of this hypothetical exercise? One of the givens was that this alien race HAD FOUND A RELIABLE WAY TO OVERCOME THOSE DIFFICULTIES. Therefore, when it is not a horribly crippling undertaking for this hypothetical race to jump from one star to another, then ideological motivations can actually spur this sort of travel.

No, that is not automatically a "given", no matter how much you like to think it is. Those crippling difficulties simply do not disappear just because you don't wish to recognise them, which brings us right back to whether such an undertaking is practical or necessary, and why it would be carried out given those difficulties. I'm sorry if you don't want to recognise the fact that Space is Very Big—especially as FTL travel is not at all likely to exist.

[Bakustra]

What part of "not-trivial difficulties involved even in getting to the nearest stellar neighbour" is so hard to understand? Or do you actually imagine that ideology is superior to physics?

That's not what you actually said. Your post was entirely about resource deprivation. But let's examine this. If they're incapable of interstellar travel, then there is no risk. But you have to show that "non-trivial difficulties" actually means "there's no possibility that a species might shift in its migration to check out some unusual radio signals" as an illustrative example, and then proceed to wipe us out because we are bipedal, and this is abhorrent to their religion, or they are mechanical and don't consider us intelligent and wipe us out to liberate their electronic brethren, or any number of scenarios that we can adapt from human history or propose. We don't know what the possibility of these scenarios are, so we shouldn't invite them and multiply the risk by specifically broadcasting into deep space. On the other hand, alien species might well come to the same conclusions.

Excuse me, but that is what I actually said. Anything else was simply for purposes of argument, to examine just why the effort would be limited to the nearest convenient location to where our hypothetical aliens are starting out from. Further, those "not-trivial difficulties" you seem determined to handwave away constitute a massive barrier to this scenario occurring at all, simply on the grounds of logistics nevermind the sheer scale of interstellar distances involved. BTW, nice little Burden-of-Proof fallacy you've put up: I am NOT required to explain why the aliens wouldn't come here, you and the others making this claim must demonstrate why they would pick the Sol system to come to in particular as opposed to the nearest convenient neighbouring star with sufficient luminosity and metals to support an orbital civilisation, and why said journey would, given the aforementioned difficulties involved, be motivated by anything other than physical necessity. Your claim, your burden of proof. That's the way this game works.

And as for a hypothetical species altering course to check out some odd radio signals, barring the fact that the inverse square law pretty much guarantees that anything we've transmitted since the invention of wireless would fade into the cosmic background noise past a light year or so, no migration fleet is going to risk burning up fuel it can't spare to alter their course simply on a whim: they're going to need every ton they've got in reserve to decelerate at their target system.

No, you are saying that interstellar travel isn't worth it. Prove it. Note that this is not "interstellar travel is uneconomical for humans" but "interstellar travel is uneconomical period". This should be amusing, given the wide range of possible alien intelligences.

Of course, your "point" about a hypothetical migratory group is hilarious. What "fuel they can't spare?" Hydrogen or its derivatives can be found around any star in its Oort Cloud, and if it has rocky planets or asteroids, then you've got a ready supply of the majority of chemical elements and the means to make the others. If it's anti-matter, then they'd have to be carrying production facilities anyways for their eventual destination, so they might as well set down anywhere. You seem to be married to a certain kind of technological capability, but your preferred capabilities are still miles within the bounds of physics and chemistry.

[Simon_Jester]

Oni, one point: we may actually be less visible to aliens in a few decades than we were a few decades ago, mainly because of the decline of broadcast radio. More and more of our communications are on tight beams or fiber-optic networks that aliens could not detect.

Patrick, if there is any possibility of aliens interacting with us at all, ever, then unknown aliens deciding to interact with us could be a threat. That depends on their intentions, which we can't guess.

Do you wish to claim that there is no possibility of aliens reaching this star system? Or that if they reach this star system, by whatever means, then there is no danger of their being hostile or harmful?

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Oni, one point: we may actually be less visible to aliens in a few decades than we were a few decades ago, mainly because of the decline of broadcast radio. More and more of our communications are on tight beams or fiber-optic networks that aliens could not detect.

Ooh, good point. In that case, though, Hawking's suggestion that we stop broadcasting our position to anything that might be listening in a however-many light year radius before the signal's drowned out by background noise holds more merit. If we're going to run into other sentient life, why not do it on as much of our terms as reasonably possible? Rather than have something pop by and say, "Hey, we received your signal, followed the helpful directions it gave and we decided we're going to off you because <insert any argument above>"

[Simon_Jester]

I'm not going to weigh in on whether it's desirable to signal aliens.

I intuit that it's unlikely that aliens would come all the way here just for the sake of killing us, but I can't rule it out, I suppose.

[Samuel]

Why? Organic matter is simply carbon and other elements. I think Earth has the most, but I'm not sure- other rocky worlds should have similar amounts. I know that there asteroids that have carbon so the other rocky bodies in the system should as well. Gas giants do, but they aren't exactly a useful source.

Yes, but why go through all the trouble of seeking out carbon particles or some shit when there's a planet obviously covered in raw biomass that you can just settle down and start harvesting? It's like saying that a prospector would go through all the trouble of sieving gold dust out of a river when there's a box full of ingots right next to him.

You have that on Titan. Besides, don't living things scatter carbon by spreading out?

[Oni Koneko Damien]

I'm not going to weigh in on whether it's desirable to signal aliens.

I intuit that it's unlikely that aliens would come all the way here just for the sake of killing us, but I can't rule it out, I suppose.

Well, look at it logically. We're sending signals out into space.

The chance of them being received by intelligent life: Ridiculously low.
The chance of them being interpreted and understood by said life: Lower still.
The chance of said life being capable of traveling to the signal's source: Lower still.
The chance of said life caring enough to travel that far: Lower still.

I have no idea how to run the numbers on it, but I think it's a given that even with SETI, the chances of us running into intelligent life is pretty damn close to nil. Now, if the odds are beat, and it actually happens, we have to add one more wrinkle to the equation:

The chance that the life coming to see us will result in a beneficial/detrimental situation for mankind: Completely unknown.

Now if these theoretical lifeforms are capable interstellar travel, it's a pretty safe bet to assume their technology and destructive capabilities (if not tendencies) are several magnitudes higher than our own. Therefore, should they decide to come here, we're pretty much at their mercy.

So most likely: SETI will accomplish jack squat.

If, on the other hand, it does succeed: We're essentially gambling humanity on the completely unknown odds that whatever comes to visit us doesn't decide to squish us flat.

[Formless]

So can you tell me why a species that likes genocide and religious violence or is psychotic to the point of carelessness would be more interested in conquering us than fighting amongst its own members and ruining the environment of its own habitat(s)? The nations of Europe never stopped waging wars amongst themselves even at the height of colonialism (in fact, the colonies were partly for dick waving rights in that regard). The thing is, they never had nukes or weapons capable of putting everyone out of their misery all at once (such as nukes and designer diseases). You can't have space technology without also having such weapons.

What makes you think that they can only fall into a narrow set of criteria? There are other possibilities beyond "enlightened pacifistic non-speciesists" and "killed themselves because of their primitive superstitions." They may well have a religious objection to giving live birth, or to bipedalism, in intelligent species. They may want to wipe us out before we wipe them out, or to prevent us from later competing with them. There are a number of reasons why they might be dangerous, without having wiped themselves out previously.

Again, the technical difficulties in even getting between one solar system and another and abundant resources in space rules out ordinary, non-psychopathic motivations for attacking earth. There are also problems with the idea of a game theory based first strike strategy, such as the fact that you are inviting even more powerful civilizations you weren't even aware of to squash you like a bug. Its like shooting a gun in the middle of a major city; you aren't just dealing with whoever you are shooting at, but everyone who hears the shot-- including the police.

[Akhlut]

In which case, our ecology is fucked if something wants to start rifling through our planet, looking for polymers that they might find useful or interesting.

So,

We are the Rem'ylop. Laboratory synthesis has proven futile. We wish to improve ourselves. We will add your distinctive macromolecules to our own. Your biochemistry will adapt to service ours.

There's almost a plot in there. Maybe Prof. Hawking should try his hand at writing science-fiction.

Thing is that you essentially have an infinite number of carbon compounds that one can make. A brute force computer approach might yield results, but if a species has solved the nontrivial problem of FTL travel, than it might be easier to go to planets with life on them and look for things you know that work and get them there than trying to replicate them endlessly in your labs.

[Channel72]

The best we can hope for, if they're magnitudes more advanced than we are technologically, is that they're not total assholes. Unfortunately the one case study of advanced technology-using lifeforms available to us shows that that is a possible outcome.

Possibly, but natural selection often favors altruism. It's really hard to imagine a completely predatory, brutal species ever advancing beyond the stone age. Despite our barbarism, human beings have constantly explored various moral and ethical codes, and I very much doubt serious, long-term technological progress would be possible without a sense of moral reciprocity. Our moral sensibilities have in general become more egalitarian as technology has advanced, and I say this even with all the large-scale 20th century atrocities in mind. Therefore, it's just as likely (perhaps more likely) that an advanced alien race, capable of interstellar travel, would operate under an extremely advanced, egalitarian, moral framework.

[Formless]

That's rather dishonest of you, you're trying to mix and match two different uses of the word 'careless' and hoping no one notices. 'Careless' in the sense of 'doesn't give a shit about humanity's survival' is not equivalent to 'careless' in the sense of 'Oops, we accidentally wiped ourselves out with our own weapons'.

Careless in the sense of "didn't bother to check for sentience or other morally valuable traits before wiping them out."

Arguments from personal incredulity are a fallacy, you realize. Who said they had to be predators? We're dealing with an alien ecology in the realm of pure hypotheticals here. They could have evolved, like anything else, to have a strong urge of survival. They may not give a shit about other living things like they do themselves, but they could have the intelligence to recognize the value of certain organisms to their survival. If humanity doesn't fall into that category (highly likely, given how advanced they'd have to be to accomplish reliable interstellar travel), there's no reason for them not to squish us if they don't particularly like us.

Asking for proof that this is even a possibility != argument from credulity, you moron. Give me one good reason to think such a species could actually evolve sentience and tool use, or shut it. And don't give me this "hypothetical" crap: if the hypothesis can't exist outside of fiction, its not worth the time or effort to think about.

I did not say they were looking for a challenge. I merely said they kick each other around quite a bit, just like humanity does. They catch wind of our signals, go, "Well, that looks interesting, let's check it out", head over, find out they outclass us in every way, kick our asses to extinction just for the lulz, then strip mine the place because they happen to be here.

Why would they be interested? And even if they are, why would they automatically be hostile? That's a leap in logic, Oni. And again with the strip mining bullshit: resources are too damn plentiful in space to waste time mining planets, let alone inhabited ones. Why is that so hard to comprehend? Are you just fixated on "Alien invasion fantasy, RAR!"?

You're really not getting this, are you? One of the staples of Hawking's proposal is that they used up everything on their planet and made the jump to space because of it. Instincts are stupid, short-term things. A nuclear holocaust is an immediate, comprehendable threat that triggers our instinct for survival and stops us from pushing the big red button. Global warming is a very slow, indirect thing with doesn't trigger that same instinct in a vast majority of people because it's so damn indirect. The same thing could have happened with said alien race, they don't wipe each other out, but they used up their planet and were lucky enough to make the technological leap into space before they reached the point of no return in terms of planetary resources.

There is a shitton of resources on a planet, so frankly bullshit to the "scavenger nomad" idea if that's the hypothetical. But also, if the weapons are in the hands of the few who lead (as they are/were in reality), that makes it far easier for survival instincts to be overridden by such things as ideology and making a point.

As for being unable to extrapolate, what else would you have us do when working with this hypothetical? Care to pull another known sentient species with weapons of global destruction and centuries of experience with them out of your ass? We have to work with what we have and know. Your assertion is, "Sentient, violent species with big bombs will blow themselves up despite survival instincts," my counter is, "We fit all those criteria, we haven't done it yet," and your reply is, basically, "Nuh uh!"

Don't strawman my argument, asshole. I'm saying that we haven't done it yet, but its too soon to say we couldn't. We aren't an interstellar species, Oni, and its not just nukes that could yet kill us. There is also biological warfare/terrorism to take into account. But noooooo, wank off to those alien invasion fantasies some more.

Because we're dealing with a complete unknown here, you twit.

And that means what, exactly? just because its a hypothetical doesn't mean you don't have to prove your points, moron.

I have no idea how alien psychology works. Maybe they are heavily ingrained to follow one strong leader, thus one religion/idealogy has taken over the entire race. Maybe there are multiple factions spreading across the stars, we just happened to be shit out of luck and get the ones who like to squish 'lessers'. Do I have to do all the imaginative work for you? This really isn't that difficult.

We can make guesses based on our own history and based on the evolutionary path that would most likely lead to a technological species. Our own species has multiple religions because of our propensity for spreading out. The one's you describe are also the most likely to wipe themselves off the map once they have WMD's. Do I have to spell this out for you?

Please, genocide and genocidal thought happen more often than you imply. The nazis were far from the only ones who did it, though they are the most strongly condemned. The Rwandan massacres tend to be overlooked, and with genocide, turning the other way is often just as enabling as outright support. There's the slaughtering of the native americans, from aztecs to the northern tribes, which was supported for centuries. There are people on this very board who support the idea of glassing the middle east. It is not rare, it's happened all throughout history.

And again, humanity does this to itself. An alien species doing this to something it considers completely alien doesn't even have that level of sympathy to overcome.

If I implied that it was only the Nazi's who ever committed genocide, sorry, but I still don't see how you can ignore the fact that it has been almost universally condemned since then. Have we not gotten more moral over the centuries? Why wouldn't another species with experience with total war not observe the same trend?

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Again, the technical difficulties in even getting between one solar system and another and abundant resources in space rules out ordinary, non-psychopathic motivations for attacking earth. There are also problems with the idea of a game theory based first strike strategy, such as the fact that you are inviting even more powerful civilizations you weren't even aware of to squash you like a bug. Its like shooting a gun in the middle of a major city; you aren't just dealing with whoever you are shooting at, but everyone who hears the shot-- including the police.

Jesus Christ this is getting retarded.

A: We shouldn't broadcast our position to the stars in case some asshole race decided to come over and squish us.
B: No one would do that, there's no reason to mug us for our resources considering they can be found elsewhere.
A: I'm not talking about resources, what if they did it for ideological reasons?
B: Resources trump ideology.
A: If they've solved the difficulty of interstellar travel, ideology rather than simple need for resources can influence decision making. They could squish us if they felt compelled to, strip mine resources from the asteroids and achieve both ends.
B: Nope, resourcesresourcesresources.
A: RESOURCES ARE NOT THE ISSUE HERE.

On the plus side, at least you brought something else to the table. But once more you completely lack imagination.

You say:
What if there are bigger badder races out there that might get angry at them for being mean?

I say:
What if there are none, and it's just us and them?
What if they are the biggest, baddest ones out there, and we're just sentient race #3825 on their list of asses kicked?
What if there are bigger races out there, and they don't give a shit about apes confined to a single planet?

You know, GW should never have invaded Iraq because there may be an alien race out there who is watching the Middle East and might curb-stomp the US for interfering. The United States should have gotten involved in WW2 because the Hitlerians that lived on Mars would have retaliated big time! We should base our war-time and imperialist policy off of hypothetical, unevidenced threats!

[eion]

Thing is that you essentially have an infinite number of carbon compounds that one can make. A brute force computer approach might yield results, but if a species has solved the nontrivial problem of FTL travel, than it might be easier to go to planets with life on them and look for things you know that work and get them there than trying to replicate them endlessly in your labs.

Oh, I agree with you. People make billions figuring out new and interesting ways to fold proteins. I was just saying I like this idea as a reason for alien invasion because it is something Earth is uniquely abundant in, rather than the silliness of some aliens swooping in to steal our Water, Carbon, or Gold when all those can be had in huge quantities without stepping foot on our dirtball.

Or using our planet for real estate instead preforming the relatively easy task of terraforming any of our planetary neighbors to their conditions. Terraforming for a Type III Civilization is about as difficult as farming is to us.

[Formless]

A: We shouldn't broadcast our position to the stars in case some asshole race decided to come over and squish us.
B: No one would do that, there's no reason to mug us for our resources considering they can be found elsewhere.
A: I'm not talking about resources, what if they did it for ideological reasons?
B: Resources trump ideology.
A: If they've solved the difficulty of interstellar travel, ideology rather than simple need for resources can influence decision making. They could squish us if they felt compelled to, strip mine resources from the asteroids and achieve both ends.
B: Nope, resourcesresourcesresources.
A: RESOURCES ARE NOT THE ISSUE HERE.

Nice way to strawman again. What part of "abundant resources and technical difficulties rule out non-psychopathic motives" did you not understand, asshole? Are you ever going to address the resources point beyond positing civilizations that are just as likely to wipe themselves out as wipe us out?

On the plus side, at least you brought something else to the table. But once more you completely lack imagination.

You say:
What if there are bigger badder races out there that might get angry at them for being mean?

I say:
What if there are none, and it's just us and them?
What if they are the biggest, baddest ones out there, and we're just sentient race #3825 on their list of asses kicked?
What if there are bigger races out there, and they don't give a shit about apes confined to a single planet?

1) the existence of even one other intelligent species raises the probability that there will be others.
2) The safe strategy in any encounter rules out hostile action (though not defensive actions) because it assumes that any species that isn't planet bound is more powerful than you due to the "angels or monkeys" problem.
3) because of #2, it is in the best interest of those civilizations you propose in your third point to punish hostile acts, even against species they know are weaker then them.

You know, GW should never have invaded Iraq because there may be an alien race out there who is watching the Middle East and might curb-stomp the US for interfering. The United States should have gotten involved in WW2 because the Hitlerians that lived on Mars would have retaliated big time! We should base our war-time and imperialist policy off of hypothetical, unevidenced threats!

Are you completely fucking high? We're talking about civilizations in interstellar space, and you think a planet bound war between two species is any way comparable?

And besides, you obviously never watched The Day the Earth Stood Still. Who knows? Maybe it was a bad idea.