Stephen Hawking is Afraid of Aliens.

[Temujin]

Saw a different version of this article on MSNBC this morning:

Hawking: Aliens may pose risks to Earth
Astrophysicist says extraterrestrials likely exist, but could be dangerous
msnbc.com staff and news service reports
updated 11:09 p.m. ET, Sun., April 25, 2010

LONDON - British physicist Stephen Hawking says aliens are out there, but it could be too dangerous for humans to interact with extraterrestrial life.

Hawking claims in a new documentary titled "Into the Universe With Stephen Hawking" that intelligent alien life forms almost certainly exist — but warns that communicating with them could be "too risky."

"We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn’t want to meet," Hawking said. "I imagine they might exist in massive ships ... having used up all the resources from their home planet. Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonize whatever planets they can reach.”

The 68-year-old scientist said a visit by extraterrestrials to Earth might well be like Christopher Columbus arriving in the Americas, "which didn't turn out very well for the Native Americans."

He speculated that most extraterrestrial life would be similar to microbes, or small animals. Microbial life might exist far beneath the Martian surface, where liquid water is thought to trickle through the rock. Marine creatures might also conceivably live in huge oceans of water beneath a miles-thick layer of ice on Europa, a moon of Jupiter.

But if a scientific census could be extended beyond our solar system to the rest of the Milky Way and beyond, the odds in favor of life's existence rise dramatically, Hawking said.

"To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational," he said. “The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like."

Hawking said an attack by interstellar predators is just one of the dismaying possibilities in the search for intelligent life beyond Earth. Another possibility is that intelligence itself might be inimical to life. Hawking pointed out that humanity has put itself on the edge of its own destruction by creating nuclear bombs and other weapons of mass destruction.

"If the same holds for intelligent aliens, then they might not last long," he said. "Perhaps they all blow themselves up soon after they discover that E=mc2. If civilizations take billions of years to evolve, only to vanish virtually overnight, then sadly we've next to no chance of hearing from them."

Hawking has become one of the world's best-known scientists — not just because of his theoretical work on cosmology and black holes, but also because he has achieved so much while coping with a paralyzing neural disease for most of his life. In recent years he has become a prominent advocate for space travel, contending that humans must journey into the heavens and going through zero-gravity training himself.

"Into the Universe With Stephen Hawking" had its television premiere in the United States on the Discovery Channel on Sunday, and is due for broadcast in Britain next month.

This report includes information from The Associated Press and msnbc.com.

© 2010 msnbc.com

I also just watched the program on tape. This ain't the first time he's made this point though, so its not much of a surprise.

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>"

But from what I understand, the inverse square law limits that range to a light year at best. Only dedicate signals would be able to picked up, let alone properly deciphered, at any greater distance. So all that fictional bullshit about watching and listening to radio and television programs 75 light years out on Ceti Alpha 5 is just nonsense.

And as for them coming here for our resources, their gonna come whether we contact them or not. We'd be no more than an ant hill in front of a bulldozer.

[Bakustra]

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.

And that still didn't preclude people from seriously suggesting it, now did it? We are not necessarily dealing with some ideal of rationality here, as I pointed out, and as you refuse to acknowledge. You ignore the angel-ape hypothesis by considering a narrow range of potential technological brackets. Even though there are difficulties today, those difficulties are likely to become smaller and smaller as science and technology develop, particularly as a group gains experience with interstellar travel. For example, consider a migratory species that packed up and left home because of an impending supernova in a nearby star. They would have little reason to settle permanently in any one solar system afterwards, since in order to escape they would need an essentially self-sufficient mobile habitat.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

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

And why would they be compelled to? Why would not doing that be detrimental to their survival if they're already an interstellar race?

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.

Because it's possible you unimaginative dolt. The fact that I can conceive of a race that gives a shit about itself but not other possibly sentient races unless they are needed for said race's survival... without resorting to supernatural or nonsensical explanations, proves that it's a possibility. As for how probable it is, more educated people that me can figure that out, or at least get a ballpark figure.

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 a fucking idiot, you know that? Let me spell it out for you:

An. Interest. In. Us. Because. Of. The. Signals. We've. Sent. Is. A. Given. In. This. Hypothetical. Scenario.

I don't need to prove it or explain it because as far as this scenario's concerned, right from the OP of this thread, it's already happened. As for why they would automatically be hostile? Are you really so fucking retarded that you'll just ignore all the reasons previously given in this thread and think no one will notice? As for strip mining, I'm talking about doing it to the asteroids, and stopping by Earth to kick our asses merely as a side-trip to sate some other ideological or otherwise urge of theirs.

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.

Weird how we haven't nuked ourselves to shit yet either. Guess the total amount of evidence you have for this being inevitable is... zero.

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.

Don't strawman my argument you dishonest little shit. I'm not saying we, or they, couldn't. I'm saying that irrefutable fact that we haven't yet is evidence that we may not, and that some other race may not either, despite mutually violent tendencies.

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

Okay sweety pie. What I want you to do is go back to school. When you learn to debate honestly, come back here and you'll be received as something other than a drooling moron.

We can make guesses based on our own history and based on the evolutionary path that would most likely lead to a technological species. You are describing ants. Why are they not a technological species?

*shrugs* Probably because I'm not the illiterate twit who's still throwing out black/white fallacies.

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?

Maybe it did, and they don't commit genocide within themselves. Maybe they don't feel the same way to things that aren't themselves. Just because they're advanced doesn't mean they follow the same morals we do.

Finally, you're really a dipshit. Apparently because I throw out a worst-case scenario, I 'wank to alien-invasion fantasies'? Are you fucking retarded? If what I say comes true (which I've already pointed out earlier is absurdly unlikely), it won't be a fantasy. We will die rather gruesomely and completely, game over man. So seriously, take your dishonesty and shove it up your ass you piece of shit. I suck at debating, yet I can still point out how piss-poor you are at this.

Edit...

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?

I'm sorry, in what way is a race wiping out a race that is not their own psychopathic? Maybe by our standards, but once a race has reached interstellar capabilities, is it really a detriment to survival if they wipe out others and not themselves? It's entirely fucking possible, and I already addressed that. But go ahead, be a blind dipshit and continue to ignore it.

1) the existence of even one other intelligent species raises the probability that there will be others.

So? Prove that it will be enough of a probability to factor into an alien species' decision whether or not to vaporize an evidently isolated species.

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.

This is not an issue of assuming just because a race isn't planet-bound it must be magnitudes more powerful than us. This is assuming that if a race has the power to overcome the hurdles of traveling interstellar distances, it is magnitudes more powerful than us, as there is no possible way, barring supernatural explanations, they could be anything but. This is not a 'strategy' type encounter, it is a "If they don't like us, or if it suits their whims, they will vaporize us and there is nothing we can do about it" type encounter.

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.

Why? What if they're magnitudes stronger than the species that's curb-stomping us? What if they're restricted to another part of the galaxy and don't even know about us or the species that's raping us? What if they are actually guardians of this species and want to use our deaths in some convoluted lesson to them? I can do this all day simply because there are no set rules or limits on this hypothetical scenario other than 'Intelligent life may exist elsewhere, and it may not be nice'. Every 'rule' you throw out I can easily counter thanks to the open-ended nature of this, so please, by all means keep going child.

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?

Yes. It's a more powerful species coming to the defense of a weaker species, just like you stated.

[Formless]

Interesting-- so his point is that we shouldn't try contacting them, NOT that we should beware of them coming for us first?

Granted, I still don't necessarily agree, but that is somewhat different than what people think he means.

It also might help explain the lack of signals to us...

[Formless]

Because it's possible you unimaginative dolt. The fact that I can conceive of a race that gives a shit about itself but not other possibly sentient races unless they are needed for said race's survival... without resorting to supernatural or nonsensical explanations, proves that it's a possibility. As for how probable it is, more educated people that me can figure that out, or at least get a ballpark figure.

What part of "prove that this is actually possible outside of fiction" do you not understand, you fuckwit? That's the whole problem with this argument-- you refuse to acknowledge that not all things we can imagine are logically possible or worth speculating on.

You're really a fucking idiot, you know that? Let me spell it out for you:

An. Interest. In. Us. Because. Of. The. Signals. We've. Sent. Is. A. Given. In. This. Hypothetical. Scenario.

Inverse. Square. Law.

Idiot.

[Simon_Jester]

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.

Bear in mind that SETI's actual mission revolves around trying to pick up alien signals. We can decide what to say after we find them. The whole "beam shit into space in hopes someone is listening" is much, much less common.

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.

We would hope so. But the developmental psychology of alien species is not a science, so any conclusions we draw must be very, very tentative.

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."

Why would you assume that aliens would not be careless in this way? Because they shouldn't? Are you sure they know they shouldn't? Are you sure they care, when we know in principle that we should not be careless about large-scale habitat destruction and still do it anyway?

Because it's possible you unimaginative dolt. The fact that I can conceive of a race that gives a shit about itself but not other possibly sentient races unless they are needed for said race's survival... without resorting to supernatural or nonsensical explanations, proves that it's a possibility. As for how probable it is, more educated people that me can figure that out, or at least get a ballpark figure.

What part of "prove that this is actually possible outside of fiction" do you not understand, you fuckwit? That's the whole problem with this argument-- you refuse to acknowledge that not all things we can imagine are logically possible or worth speculating on.

...

You seriously don't believe that there can exist an intelligent species that is destructive towards outsiders but not destructive towards members of its own in-group? That's very odd, because you're a member of such a species. Humans routinely behave callously and even murderously towards outsider humans. Some of us would, by all evidence, extend that policy to any aliens we meet, if they thought they could get away with it: look at all the "nuke Pandora!" shit that the release of Avatar triggered.

So I don't think the problem is Oni's overactive imagination. I think it's your underactive imagination. You find it implausible that a mirror image of our own species could exist.

You're really a fucking idiot, you know that? Let me spell it out for you:
An. Interest. In. Us. Because. Of. The. Signals. We've. Sent. Is. A. Given. In. This. Hypothetical. Scenario.

Inverse. Square. Law.
Idiot.

In that case, you should have actually said that you disagree with the entire premise of aliens ever noticing us at all, instead of going on and on about how any interstellar travellers are necessarily peaceful and all.

[Formless]

...

You seriously don't believe that there can exist an intelligent species that is destructive towards outsiders but not destructive towards members of its own in-group? That's very odd, because you're a member of such a species. Humans routinely behave callously and even murderously towards outsider humans. Some of us would, by all evidence, extend that policy to any aliens we meet, if they thought they could get away with it: look at all the "nuke Pandora!" shit that the release of Avatar triggered.

So I don't think the problem is Oni's overactive imagination. I think it's your underactive imagination. You find it implausible that a mirror image of our own species could exist.

Don't be a moron. This goes right back to the fact that homo sapiens would have no motive for conquest that wouldn't be outweighed by the technical difficulty of getting there. All I ask is that someone give me one reason to think a species which could have sufficient motivation to try and overcome those limitations is at all probable without proposing that they can arbitrarily ignore the laws of physics. Imagination has jack shit to do with it.

In that case, you should have actually said that you disagree with the entire premise of aliens ever noticing us at all, instead of going on and on about how any interstellar travellers are necessarily peaceful and all.

I said that they are more likely to be altruistic, not that they are necessarily going to be peaceful.

[Bakustra]

...

You seriously don't believe that there can exist an intelligent species that is destructive towards outsiders but not destructive towards members of its own in-group? That's very odd, because you're a member of such a species. Humans routinely behave callously and even murderously towards outsider humans. Some of us would, by all evidence, extend that policy to any aliens we meet, if they thought they could get away with it: look at all the "nuke Pandora!" shit that the release of Avatar triggered.

So I don't think the problem is Oni's overactive imagination. I think it's your underactive imagination. You find it implausible that a mirror image of our own species could exist.

Don't be a moron. This goes right back to the fact that homo sapiens would have no motive for conquest that wouldn't be outweighed by the technical difficulty of getting there. All I ask is that someone give me one reason to think a species which could have sufficient motivation to try and overcome those limitations is at all probable without proposing that they can arbitrarily ignore the laws of physics. Imagination has jack shit to do with it.

Why are you presuming that the aliens are necessarily system-bound before learning of our existence? I am not sure that this is a sustainable assumption.

[Formless]

The original proposal that they wouldn't be system bound was based on the idea that maybe they have used up all their resources on their planet, which severely underestimates how much resources can be found in a solar system. Not to mention the improbability of them coming to a middle of nowhere star like Sol. But maybe you know of another reason they might have for leaving their home system? Unless we're talking about Berserker probes (which I'll admit are a serious possibility), I'm not seeing it.

[Samuel]

Maybe they are heavily ingrained to follow one strong leader, thus one religion/idealogy has taken over the entire race.

You mean like... most monotheistic religions? There seems to be a huge gulf between "people like a supreme leader" and "everyone follows the same supreme leader".

[Patrick Degan]

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.

Strawman. Another thing I am not required to prove. Again, your claims, YOUR burden of proof. Get cracking.

Of course, your "point" about a hypothetical migratory group is hilarious.

Sayeth one of those in this thread who seems to have forgotten that this sub-board is titled "SCIENCE, Logic and Morality" and not "Whatever I want to pull out of thin air to argue anything". Most amusing.

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.

The fuel they can't spare to simply decelerate and check out any old star system they happening to be wandering past. Interstellar travel isn't going to be like going down Route 66, child, where you can pull off the next exit to gawpe at the Wigwam Motel. Nevermind that it would take them a very long time to reverse course from a relativistic frame to begin with or even to alter course by a degree or two. Given the light-year radius before any artificial signal would fade into static, they'd already would have to be practically entering the star system to even pick it up in the first place. If they're on their way somewhere else, the chances of them hearing anything are about zero.

[Bakustra]

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.

Strawman. Another thing I am not required to prove. Again, your claims, YOUR burden of proof. Get cracking.

Prove what? You didn't even bother to read what I said, as far as I can tell, so I will not continue until you actually bother to respond instead of just making a formulaic response.

Of course, your "point" about a hypothetical migratory group is hilarious.

Sayeth one of those in this thread who seems to have forgotten that this sub-board is titled "SCIENCE, Logic and Morality" and not "Whatever I want to pull out of thin air to argue anything". Most amusing.

Yes, your belief that diminishing returns will hit at precisely the right technological developments to validate your arguments is both convenient and amusing.

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.

The fuel they can't spare to simply decelerate and check out any old star system they happening to be wandering past. Interstellar travel isn't going to be like going down Route 66, child, where you can pull off the next exit to gawpe at the Wigwam Motel. Nevermind that it would take them a very long time to reverse course from a relativistic frame to begin with or even to alter course by a degree or two. Given the light-year radius before any artificial signal would fade into static, they'd already would have to be practically entering the star system to even pick it up in the first place. If they're on their way somewhere else, the chances of them hearing anything are about zero.

Are you actually a human being, or just some kind of sophisticated chatbot? That does not refute my point that they can refuel in virtually any solar system they come across. Unless you have some sort of fuel that is only present in very specific solar systems? Meanwhile, Hawking is talking about not broadcasting our existence, which by definition would be aimed at extending the signals' reach beyond one light-year, so you can take your snide commentary with you when you go, thank you very much.

Also, do call me child again, you senile prick. It's even more endearing and charming than the rest of your smarmery.

[Simon_Jester]

Don't be a moron. This goes right back to the fact that homo sapiens would have no motive for conquest that wouldn't be outweighed by the technical difficulty of getting there. All I ask is that someone give me one reason to think a species which could have sufficient motivation to try and overcome those limitations is at all probable without proposing that they can arbitrarily ignore the laws of physics. Imagination has jack shit to do with it.

If homo sapiens takes up interstellar travel at all, for any reason, then what's going to happen if (when?) we start encountering aliens around other planets? Is it not possible that we would wind up exterminating them, or damaging them so badly that they wish we'd never arrived? Our history suggests that this is a very reasonable possibility if we ever travel between the stars at all.

Would we specifically go build our first starship just so we can go kill some aliens? No. But we might very well happen to encounter aliens while doing something else, and possibly wind up destroying them en passant. It is not difficult to imagine aliens who would do the same to us- simply because they do not particularly care about the atomic-powered apes of Sol III, or because they're worried that we might pose a threat to their grandchildren. Maybe they think like Purple over in the "when is genocide justified?" thread.

It is impluasible that these aliens would have come to our solar system specifically to kill us. It is very plausible that if we happen to encounter them, they might try to kill us. This is not a trivial risk, assuming there is any possibility of intelligent life visiting this solar system at all to begin with.

In that case, you should have actually said that you disagree with the entire premise of aliens ever noticing us at all, instead of going on and on about how any interstellar travellers are necessarily peaceful and all.

I said that they are more likely to be altruistic, not that they are necessarily going to be peaceful.

If you're dismissing the issue of "what if they're hostile" as an alien invasion fantasy, which by all appearances you are... "they are more likely to be altruistic" is not strong enough to support your position.

[Patrick Degan]

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.

Strawman. Another thing I am not required to prove. Again, your claims, YOUR burden of proof. Get cracking.

Prove what? You didn't even bother to read what I said, as far as I can tell, so I will not continue until you actually bother to respond instead of just making a formulaic response.[/quote]

YOUR CLAIM, ALONG WITH DAMIEN'S, THAT ALIENS WOULD COME HERE TO STOMP US BECAUSE THEY SUPPOSEDLY COULD AND FOR NO REASON CONNECTED WITH PRACTICALITIES. And don't try to play the injured party here, strawmanderer.

YOU said:

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.

You asking me to prove a negative was your first offence in this exchange. You have failed thus far to do anything other than parrot Mr. Damien and have failed to offer a logical support for the EVIL ALIEN DESTROYERS™ hypothesis. Then you proceeded to strawmander my arguments regarding the very real difficulties involved with interstellar travel.

This statement of mine:

Given the not-trivial difficulties involved even in getting to the nearest stellar neighbour, unless Hawking's hypothetical aliens have somehow managed to discover the wrinkle in physics that allows FTL transits, it's very unlikely that any intelligent space-residing race would bother with the effort to migrate for as long as they've still got a star of reasonable energy output to sustain their orbital civilisation

In NO WAY resembles your bullshit redefinition of it:

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.

—especially as the follow-up in my original posting was:

But let's assume that an orbital civilisation (say, at Zeta Reticuli) has reached the end of its recoverable, recyclable resources within its own star system and their sun is approaching the end of its lifecycle, so they have to migrate. Why would they bother to seek out our little patch of space or any star system with habitable worlds in particular? Given that they would already have abandoned planetary living for space habitats long ago, what need would they have for a planet to live on? They'd simply pick the nearest convenient main-sequence star with sufficient luminosity and enough rocky asteroids, moons, and planets to mine and go there. A habitable world is not a requirement. Plus, they don't have to worry about fighting anybody to claim the mineral and energy resources of an uninhabited star system, which makes alien invasion scenarios even less likely.

That is not a matter of economics but necessities and practicalities. So you know just where you can shove that strawman of yours.

Of course, your "point" about a hypothetical migratory group is hilarious.

Sayeth one of those in this thread who seems to have forgotten that this sub-board is titled "SCIENCE, Logic and Morality" and not "Whatever I want to pull out of thin air to argue anything". Most amusing.

Yes, your belief that diminishing returns will hit at precisely the right technological developments to validate your arguments is both convenient and amusing.

I'm sorry, is that you pretending you've actually made a cogent point about anything?

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.

The fuel they can't spare to simply decelerate and check out any old star system they happening to be wandering past. Interstellar travel isn't going to be like going down Route 66, child, where you can pull off the next exit to gawpe at the Wigwam Motel. Nevermind that it would take them a very long time to reverse course from a relativistic frame to begin with or even to alter course by a degree or two. Given the light-year radius before any artificial signal would fade into static, they'd already would have to be practically entering the star system to even pick it up in the first place. If they're on their way somewhere else, the chances of them hearing anything are about zero.

Are you actually a human being, or just some kind of sophisticated chatbot? That does not refute my point that they can refuel in virtually any solar system they come across. Unless you have some sort of fuel that is only present in very specific solar systems? Meanwhile, Hawking is talking about not broadcasting our existence, which by definition would be aimed at extending the signals' reach beyond one light-year, so you can take your snide commentary with you when you go, thank you very much.

Also, do call me child again, you senile prick. It's even more endearing and charming than the rest of your smarmery.

Actually, it does refute your notion that any alien migratory group would simply decide, on a whim, to change course to check out what may or may not be "something" other than a blip or an anomaly, child. You also very conveniently ignore the difficulties in a course-change from a fixed orbital vector through the galaxy: if they burn up too much fuel effecting that course change, they won't have any left to decelerate again at the system they've decided to drop in on for a bit of sightseeing and they fly past, unable to stop. Anywhere.

And if you don't want to be called "child", then stop acting like one.

[Formless]

If homo sapiens takes up interstellar travel at all, for any reason, then what's going to happen if (when?) we start encountering aliens around other planets? Is it not possible that we would wind up exterminating them, or damaging them so badly that they wish we'd never arrived? Our history suggests that this is a very reasonable possibility if we ever travel between the stars at all.

Yes, IF. That's the key word. That is what I doubt-- that we, or any other species like us, would actually do it, if its even possible at all.

If you're dismissing the issue of "what if they're hostile" as an alien invasion fantasy, which by all appearances you are... "they are more likely to be altruistic" is not strong enough to support your position.

My point was never to dismiss it; I'm taking the skeptic position here. I doubt such a civilization could evolve or manage to avoid self destruction because the same kinds of behaviors that make them dangerous to us make them dangerous to themselves and each other, and I doubt that they could overcome the technical limitations or have sufficient motivation to do so either.

[Bakustra]

YOUR CLAIM, ALONG WITH DAMIEN'S, THAT ALIENS WOULD COME HERE TO STOMP US BECAUSE THEY SUPPOSEDLY COULD AND FOR NO REASON CONNECTED WITH PRACTICALITIES. And don't try to play the injured party here, strawmanderer.

YOU said:

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.

You asking me to prove a negative was your first offence in this exchange. You have failed thus far to do anything other than parrot Mr. Damien and have failed to offer a logical support for the EVIL ALIEN DESTROYERS™ hypothesis. Then you proceeded to strawmander my arguments regarding the very real difficulties involved with interstellar travel.

This statement of mine:

Given the not-trivial difficulties involved even in getting to the nearest stellar neighbour, unless Hawking's hypothetical aliens have somehow managed to discover the wrinkle in physics that allows FTL transits, it's very unlikely that any intelligent space-residing race would bother with the effort to migrate for as long as they've still got a star of reasonable energy output to sustain their orbital civilisation

In NO WAY resembles your bullshit redefinition of it:

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.

—especially as the follow-up in my original posting was:

But let's assume that an orbital civilisation (say, at Zeta Reticuli) has reached the end of its recoverable, recyclable resources within its own star system and their sun is approaching the end of its lifecycle, so they have to migrate. Why would they bother to seek out our little patch of space or any star system with habitable worlds in particular? Given that they would already have abandoned planetary living for space habitats long ago, what need would they have for a planet to live on? They'd simply pick the nearest convenient main-sequence star with sufficient luminosity and enough rocky asteroids, moons, and planets to mine and go there. A habitable world is not a requirement. Plus, they don't have to worry about fighting anybody to claim the mineral and energy resources of an uninhabited star system, which makes alien invasion scenarios even less likely.

That is not a matter of economics but necessities and practicalities. So you know just where you can shove that strawman of yours.

So your entire point was that no alien species would engage in interstellar travel unless it was an absolute necessity. In other words, interstellar travel would then be uneconomical. Well, I suppose that we can neither prove nor disprove this without any further experience. After all, there are potential assumptions that would allow economical space travel and there are others that would not. While you will no doubt claim that I have the burden of proof, we cannot assume either way without evidence. So you must demonstrate that it would be uneconomical, and I would have to demonstrate that it would be economical, but we cannot assume one or the other. You then decided to go for a strawman of the actual position, which is something that I will kindly lay out for you:

IF we attempt to actively make contact with alien species via deliberately sending significant radio signals (such as ones that vary in specific sequences not found in nature)
THEN they have a larger chance of discovering us
WHICH MAY lead to severe consequences for us
of which we can include things like, say, disastrous attempts by the aliens to uplift us culturally, or any of a variety of scenarios. Most importantly, we will most likely be totally at the mercy of the aliens. This presupposes that aliens hear and investigate. It does not presume malice aforethought on the part of the aliens, just that the consequences of interaction between civilizations of wildly different technological capabilities doesn't tend to turn out too well when it has happened before and that our experience with intelligent species indicates that we cannot assume that the aliens will necessarily behave perfectly rationally.

Yes, your belief that diminishing returns will hit at precisely the right technological developments to validate your arguments is both convenient and amusing.

I'm sorry, is that you pretending you've actually made a cogent point about anything?

No, it's me highlighting that you only make use of those technological conditions that support your own argument.

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.

The fuel they can't spare to simply decelerate and check out any old star system they happening to be wandering past. Interstellar travel isn't going to be like going down Route 66, child, where you can pull off the next exit to gawpe at the Wigwam Motel. Nevermind that it would take them a very long time to reverse course from a relativistic frame to begin with or even to alter course by a degree or two. Given the light-year radius before any artificial signal would fade into static, they'd already would have to be practically entering the star system to even pick it up in the first place. If they're on their way somewhere else, the chances of them hearing anything are about zero.

Are you actually a human being, or just some kind of sophisticated chatbot? That does not refute my point that they can refuel in virtually any solar system they come across. Unless you have some sort of fuel that is only present in very specific solar systems? Meanwhile, Hawking is talking about not broadcasting our existence, which by definition would be aimed at extending the signals' reach beyond one light-year, so you can take your snide commentary with you when you go, thank you very much.

Also, do call me child again, you senile prick. It's even more endearing and charming than the rest of your smarmery.

Actually, it does refute your notion that any alien migratory group would simply decide, on a whim, to change course to check out what may or may not be "something" other than a blip or an anomaly, child. You also very conveniently ignore the difficulties in a course-change from a fixed orbital vector through the galaxy: if they burn up too much fuel effecting that course change, they won't have any left to decelerate again at the system they've decided to drop in on for a bit of sightseeing and they fly past, unable to stop. Anywhere.[/quote]

Oh boy, here we go again with taking assumptions as fact. No doubt it is on me to prove that it is possible for a migratory civilization to maintain a fuel reserve (or solar and magnetic sails) for maneuvering in case of emergencies (like, say, a black dwarf or neutron star) or indeed that there might be such a thing as a migratory civilization after all, because in the tiny universe you store in your skull, there is only a narrow range of conditions possible for interstellar travel, conveniently the ones you are declaring as fact in this thread.

And if you don't want to be called "child", then stop acting like one.

And if you don't want to be called senile, then you better get that memory of yours working properly.

[Samuel]

No. But we might very well happen to encounter aliens while doing something else, and possibly wind up destroying them en passant. It is not difficult to imagine aliens who would do the same to us- simply because they do not particularly care about the atomic-powered apes of Sol III,

How? Unless they start messing with the orbits of planets or the like, there is no reason for them to interact with us at all. There is the rest of the solar system out there for raw materials.

[Bakustra]

No. But we might very well happen to encounter aliens while doing something else, and possibly wind up destroying them en passant. It is not difficult to imagine aliens who would do the same to us- simply because they do not particularly care about the atomic-powered apes of Sol III,

How? Unless they start messing with the orbits of planets or the like, there is no reason for them to interact with us at all. There is the rest of the solar system out there for raw materials.

Industrial accident. Religious/philosophical hatred of bipedals, placentals, oxygen-breathers, or DNA-based replicators. Misguided uplifting attempts. Belief that we are enslaving our computers and intentionally crippling them leading to a war of liberation. There are many ways that we could be destroyed by an alien civilization, without them needing resources or anything else from us.

[Samuel]

Industrial accidents. In space leading to the elimination of life on Earth. Yeah... I'm not seeing it.

Religious/philosophical hatred of bipedals, placentals, oxygen-breathers, or DNA-based replicators.

Why don't we just say they worship Cobra Commander? It is about as plausible.

Misguided uplifting attempts.

You mean they exterminate us by trying to help us?

Belief that we are enslaving our computers and intentionally crippling them leading to a war of liberation.

Dammit! This is why we don't build religious machines in the first place. But no, someone thought it would be a good idea...

[Formless]

Why don't we just say they worship Cobra Commander? It is about as plausible.

Actually, I have to wonder why it is people think it plausible that aliens would even evolve supernatural concepts we would even recognize, let alone organized religion. It sounds like a strangely human conceit.

[Bakustra]

Industrial accidents. In space leading to the elimination of life on Earth. Yeah... I'm not seeing it.

"Whoops, looks like that propulsion laser just seared a continent off the third planet. We'll have to check the control system. I sure hope there wasn't anything important there!"

Religious/philosophical hatred of bipedals, placentals, oxygen-breathers, or DNA-based replicators.

Why don't we just say they worship Cobra Commander? It is about as plausible.

It's frankly about as plausible as enslaving millions of people because they differ from you in far smaller ways than the ones I've outlined above.

Misguided uplifting attempts.

You mean they exterminate us by trying to help us?

Imagine if they make retroviral therapy available to cure us of, say, minor genetic defects, which proceeds to accidentally sterilize us because of their inexperience with the idea of differentiated sex chromosomes.

Belief that we are enslaving our computers and intentionally crippling them leading to a war of liberation.

Dammit! This is why we don't build religious machines in the first place. But no, someone thought it would be a good idea...

Ha ha. They don't even have to be machines in the first place; just interventionist and prone to overreaction.

[adam_grif]

One of the things I'm seeing here a lot is "there's no way aliens would want to blow us up because ____". Although these may hold most of the time for societies as a whole, there are dangers not just from alien societies as a whole, but also individuals. Starship captain Bleeblegarp may not be a typical alien representative of the whole species. Maybe Bleeblegarp is space hitler, born in space, inherited his ship when his father got tired of living for 7000 years and killed himself. Maybe he has a hardon for murder. Maybe he got angry at his copy of space-Avatar and decided to show his buddies how space-RDA should have just killfucked the space-Na'Vi from orbit, with a live demonstration.

The point is, it's not just societies, governments and crazy religious organizations that are dangerous. It doesn't matter how just and ethical your Police Officer Code of Conduct is, if an officer decides to abuse his power the defenseless citizens are boned. Most of the arguments going on here would also apply to things like humans murdering other humans on Earth, and by this reasoning we'd have to conclude that nobody would ever kill anybody else.

This is of course not the case. Additionally, there's no guarantee that there's some kind of United Federation of Planets enforcing a single ethical rule of law on an interstellar scale, or even that individual planets and solar systems will be ruled by one single faction. Perhaps there are some genocidal alien religions, but they can't kill each other off because they don't have the firepower, so they went on a tour of backwater solar systems. There are so many unknowns that trying to make blanket statements like of course they're going to be benevolent is unreasonable.

And as for them coming here for our resources, their gonna come whether we contact them or not. We'd be no more than an ant hill in front of a bulldozer.

Although that's certainly true, detecting radio signals in one location may urge them to come to Sol instead of another system first, since by the time they get around to eating everything in Alpha Centauri and turned to Sol next, we may have advanced to the point where we can successfully repel any sort of invasion by virtue of the great cost of interstellar travel (i.e. it's unlikely they can send a huge armada of warships across interstellar distances rather than smallish probes which then build the army in-situ, but we have a huge home turf advantage if such things are the norm). The cost of rooting out defenders after they've established themselves as a solar power will vastly outweigh the cost of wiping out 21st Century Earth, so much so that it may no-longer be worth traveling the distance at all.

[Samuel]

"Whoops, looks like that propulsion laser just seared a continent off the third planet. We'll have to check the control system. I sure hope there wasn't anything important there!"

Propulsion laser? As in the thing you point at starships to make them move? That isn't going to get through the atmosphere, much less end human existance.

Imagine if they make retroviral therapy available to cure us of, say, minor genetic defects, which proceeds to accidentally sterilize us because of their inexperience with the idea of differentiated sex chromosomes.

So their retarded and never have heard of the concept "clinical trial"?

Starship captain Bleeblegarp may not be a typical alien representative of the whole species.

Needless to say if starships are handed out like party toys, we are toast. I'm hoping that intelligent species realize giving out mile long ships is a bad idea.

[Channel72]

Obviously, this entire conversation is grossly speculative; still, if we're going to extrapolate from the one sentient, potentially space-faring species we know about, the most likely conclusion we reach is that:

Any sufficiently advanced, space-faring civilization must:

A) Consistently apply something analagous to the scientific method
B) Have a profound understanding of mathematics, physics, and computing
C) Have an incredibly large industrial base and power source

The argument for hostile alien-invaders is predicated mostly on the observation that human beings, in the past, have been cruel, exploitative, and genocidal. However, comparing your average European conquerers to some hypothetical civilization which exhibits A, B, and C is not a very useful comparison. Rather, an overall analysis of human social development has revealed that our moral sensibilities have grown more egalitarian as our technological capabilities have increased, despite our frequent and ongoing lapses into exploitative barbarism. The moral outlook of your average 21st century Westerner is vastly more egalitarian than your average 19th century Westerner, even taking into account the rampant tribalism, racism and homophobia that still exists today.

While it's certainly not a given that social progress must necessarily parallel technological progress, it's easy to see how the two naturally go hand in hand. Technological advancement requires an environment where exploration of the natural world is encouraged, education is widespread, and ideas/innovation are highly valued. It's difficult to imagine such an environment which doesn't ascribe value to individual lives. In fact, the correlation between social and technological progress has empirical justification, based upon the fact that the eras of human history which exhibited the greatest degrees of technological progress and scientific curiosity also exhibited more liberal, egalitarian moral outlooks.

Additionally, it's difficult to imagine a hypothetical civilization that has achieved A, B, and C that would engage in destructive behavior for some sort of religious or cultural reason. Again, in order to achieve interstellar travel, a profound understanding of the scientific method is required, which in turn implies a profound understanding of the Universe. Such an understanding would naturally dispel illogical belief systems revolving around superstitions. While most of humanity is currently mired in superstition despite our widespread application of the scientific method, we need to remember that human civilization is only ~5,000 years old, and for most of that time we have been a highly religious species.

Furthermore, religiosity is, in the West at least, no longer strongly sanctioned by governmental bodies and slowly declining (even in the United States.) But a hypothetical civilization capable of interstellar travel would most likely be (at least) thousands of years older than human civilization, and would therefore be likely to have almost completely embraced rationalism. In fact, it could be easily argued that any species which ultimately fails to embrace rationalism is unlikely to survive long enough to become a civilization capable of interstellar travel.

In light of all this, hostile alien invaders are incredibly unlikely. If interstellar space-travel is economically feasible at all, it's likely that any species which survives long enough to achieve such a capability would be highly rational and egalitarian, rather than brutal and superstitious.

[Bakustra]

"Whoops, looks like that propulsion laser just seared a continent off the third planet. We'll have to check the control system. I sure hope there wasn't anything important there!"

Propulsion laser? As in the thing you point at starships to make them move? That isn't going to get through the atmosphere, much less end human existance.

If it's large enough, then yes it will. You're still presuming that this species is merely about a thousand years ahead of us, when it's just as likely to be millions or tens of millions.

Imagine if they make retroviral therapy available to cure us of, say, minor genetic defects, which proceeds to accidentally sterilize us because of their inexperience with the idea of differentiated sex chromosomes.

So their retarded and never have heard of the concept "clinical trial"?

Or they're simply incompetent. We cannot assume that aliens would of necessity be hypercompetent in all their matters, and with the power available to them (note that I am restricting myself to civilizations that are between K-1 and K-2; if a K-3 civilization came knocking on our door, things would probably be even worse) the potential damage screwups can do is far, far greater.

Starship captain Bleeblegarp may not be a typical alien representative of the whole species.

Needless to say if starships are handed out like party toys, we are toast. I'm hoping that intelligent species realize giving out mile long ships is a bad idea.

Again, he may well be trivial to his civilization, like Pizarro was to the Spanish, but nevertheless exceptionally dangerous against us.

*snip*

Can you justify any of this?