It's too late to worry that the aliens will find us(newscientist.com)
newscientist.com
It's too late to worry that the aliens will find us
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727676.400-its-too-late-to-worry-that-the-aliens-will-find-us.html
9 comments
Heck, screw oxygen. Rationally, defense-oriented civilizations should smash all habitable-zone planets just to be on the safe side.
But you're right: the fact that our suspiciously life-supporting planet has been sitting here for billions of years unmolested does appear to indicate that there aren't any planet-destroying game theorists in our neighbourhood.
Alternative scenario: instead of a relativistic projectile, they sent a starship, which will leave us alone unless we develop enough technology to be a threat to its home planet. If we think that's a likely scenario we should all be sitting around worrying about how to not piss off the starship.
On the other hand, since knowing about the starship is a threat to the starship, we should try to avoid even thinking about whether there might be a starship.
But you're right: the fact that our suspiciously life-supporting planet has been sitting here for billions of years unmolested does appear to indicate that there aren't any planet-destroying game theorists in our neighbourhood.
Alternative scenario: instead of a relativistic projectile, they sent a starship, which will leave us alone unless we develop enough technology to be a threat to its home planet. If we think that's a likely scenario we should all be sitting around worrying about how to not piss off the starship.
On the other hand, since knowing about the starship is a threat to the starship, we should try to avoid even thinking about whether there might be a starship.
"Heck, screw oxygen. Rationally, defense-oriented civilizations should smash all habitable-zone planets just to be on the safe side."
Yeah, good point. If nothing else you reset the clock to zero, and that buys you an awful lot of time even under the worst case scenario.
"instead of a relativistic projectile, they sent a starship,"
A starship is a relativistic projectile that bothers to slow down. If you're going to smash a planet that acts up, you might as well just cut to the chase. All even-remotely-physically-plausible forms of interstellar travel are also intrinsically planet-busters, including the various exotic FTL drives that hover on the edge of plausibility.
Yeah, good point. If nothing else you reset the clock to zero, and that buys you an awful lot of time even under the worst case scenario.
"instead of a relativistic projectile, they sent a starship,"
A starship is a relativistic projectile that bothers to slow down. If you're going to smash a planet that acts up, you might as well just cut to the chase. All even-remotely-physically-plausible forms of interstellar travel are also intrinsically planet-busters, including the various exotic FTL drives that hover on the edge of plausibility.
A starship is a relativistic projectile that bothers to slow down. If you're going to smash a planet that acts up, you might as well just cut to the chase. All even-remotely-physically-plausible forms of interstellar travel are also intrinsically planet-busters, including the various exotic FTL drives that hover on the edge of plausibility.
Sure, but they might not be complete dicks. They might not want to kill us unless we're a threat to them.
The more I think of it the more unlikely the kill-everyone-immediately strategy seems. Suppose you're Robinson Crusoe. You've been all alone on an island for five years. One day you're out hunting and you see another human. Do you pull out your gun and shoot him in the head before he can do the same to you? Or do you take the calculated risk that he isn't a homicidal quick-draw champion?
Sure, but they might not be complete dicks. They might not want to kill us unless we're a threat to them.
The more I think of it the more unlikely the kill-everyone-immediately strategy seems. Suppose you're Robinson Crusoe. You've been all alone on an island for five years. One day you're out hunting and you see another human. Do you pull out your gun and shoot him in the head before he can do the same to you? Or do you take the calculated risk that he isn't a homicidal quick-draw champion?
That shouldn't be overlooked. A species that is social enough to cooperate and build a civilization, and curious enough to develop science, might stay their hand out of loneliness or curiosity.
OR
Or perhaps this is a grim answer to Fermi's Paradox: the galaxy is quiet because someone preemptively wiped out the competition a long time ago.
OR
Or perhaps this is a grim answer to Fermi's Paradox: the galaxy is quiet because someone preemptively wiped out the competition a long time ago.
The metaphor doesn't work because there are too many dissimilarities between meeting a human on an unknown island and meeting another species in space, under the conditions that life is forever planet-bound. You could slightly improve the metaphor if you meet the guy and he has a gun pointed at the head of everyone you ever knew or loved and behaved like an unpredictable raving lunatic (or at least someone that you fundamentally can not understand the motivations of). But you're still better off just dealing with the issue directly; metaphors will lead you very astray here, if only because metaphors are intrinsically populated with humans and human things in a problem domain that is most emphatically not human.
Or perhaps this is a grim answer to Fermi's Paradox: the galaxy is quiet because someone preemptively wiped out the competition a long time ago.
Except us?
Except us?
Clearly the only correct answer is to camp your starting location, occasionally peeking around an obstacle to see if anyone's out there, and turtling like there's no tomorrow.
It's worked so far. No possibly-homicidal-quick-draw-champion aliens encountered today! Good job, Team!
It's worked so far. No possibly-homicidal-quick-draw-champion aliens encountered today! Good job, Team!
Your alternative scenario boils down to "who cares if other people are watching, let's go develop warp drive so they will feel right talking to us."
As the Prime Directive of Star Fleet tells us.
The Prime Directive is a way of writing exciting television shows that allows you to put characters that ought to be far too powerful to actually be in a dramatic bind into a dramatic bind, not a model for actual interstellar behavior. For that to actually "exist" would require that every species in the galaxy not only has a "human-like" mind, but one of a very particular and unusual bent, most of which probably comes from watching a particular show. This seems unlikely.
(Far, far more likely in my mind would be the uplift scenario, that helping these civilizations would be seen as a moral duty once that was actually a real possibility. And it also sort of requires Star-Trek-like limits on technology as well; the Federation lacks the capability to rewrite a primitive civilization from the gene level up, but that seems an unrealistic limitation in real life. And that's not even what I consider the "most likely" scenario; I'm just saying that anyone who tried to instantiate the Prime Directive would probably break down into this moral duty idea pretty quickly. Why sit and wait for them to develop when you can just make it happen? Artificiality of development is a small concern next to potentially billions of unnecessary deaths. Whoever is out there, watching us war and burn and die and doing nothing, is not being an upstanding moral citizen.)
(Far, far more likely in my mind would be the uplift scenario, that helping these civilizations would be seen as a moral duty once that was actually a real possibility. And it also sort of requires Star-Trek-like limits on technology as well; the Federation lacks the capability to rewrite a primitive civilization from the gene level up, but that seems an unrealistic limitation in real life. And that's not even what I consider the "most likely" scenario; I'm just saying that anyone who tried to instantiate the Prime Directive would probably break down into this moral duty idea pretty quickly. Why sit and wait for them to develop when you can just make it happen? Artificiality of development is a small concern next to potentially billions of unnecessary deaths. Whoever is out there, watching us war and burn and die and doing nothing, is not being an upstanding moral citizen.)
Whoever is out there, watching us war and burn and die and doing nothing, is not being an upstanding moral citizen.)
Really? Do you go out of your way to stop fish and insects from killing each other?
edit: I admit this was a badly phrased example. Fish and insects rarely kill each other.
Really? Do you go out of your way to stop fish and insects from killing each other?
edit: I admit this was a badly phrased example. Fish and insects rarely kill each other.
Human history has shown that just dropping technological advancement on human cultures leads to trouble. If their culture is one of tribal warfare rather than modern civilization, there's a very good chance that all your aid will just be used to support their efforts to kill the other guy.
It could be that to aliens, our planet's shared culture is still too close to tribal warfare for them to be comfortable raising us to their level. It wouldn't be quite the same as the Prime Directive as a motive, but it would have the same effect in a lot of situations.
It could be that to aliens, our planet's shared culture is still too close to tribal warfare for them to be comfortable raising us to their level. It wouldn't be quite the same as the Prime Directive as a motive, but it would have the same effect in a lot of situations.
False dichotomy. You are not limited to writing a blank technological check to a civilization or leaving them utterly alone. A false dichotomy that demonstrates your thought is still far too shaped by viewing Star Trek, IMHO. I grew up with that show but I've come to understand it is really an incredible memetic hazard when it comes to trying to understand the universe as it truly is. If your concept of the universe includes anything that looks like Star Trek still in it, examine it immediately and prepare to discard it.
Am I limited to either putting my child immediately in the driver's seat of my car or tossing him out into the wild and letting him fend for himself? My point not being that we are metaphorically children; I don't like metaphors like that, we are what we are and we have no idea whether we are or are not like children. My point is that we are not limited to such constrained choices.
Am I limited to either putting my child immediately in the driver's seat of my car or tossing him out into the wild and letting him fend for himself? My point not being that we are metaphorically children; I don't like metaphors like that, we are what we are and we have no idea whether we are or are not like children. My point is that we are not limited to such constrained choices.
It's not influenced by Star Trek. As I said, my reasoning is completely unrelated to the Prime Directive — the effect just happens to look the same in the context of an advanced, peaceful culture meeting a more primitive, tribal one.
It actually comes from my observations of politics on earth. Countries with closely shared cultures and correspondingly close levels of advancement in certain areas tend to be more trustworthy with the technology they create than countries that were previously poor and balkanized. Most of our intrusion in Africa and the Middle East, even when it's intended to help, tends to just get more people killed. This is not to say that everyone there is a savage, but their culture just isn't at a point where it prepares the citizens or the leaders to handle elements of our culture properly.
I don't see how a parent and child relationship is applicable here either. It doesn't tend to happen that way in international politics, so I see no reason to believe it would be more like that on a galactic scale.
It actually comes from my observations of politics on earth. Countries with closely shared cultures and correspondingly close levels of advancement in certain areas tend to be more trustworthy with the technology they create than countries that were previously poor and balkanized. Most of our intrusion in Africa and the Middle East, even when it's intended to help, tends to just get more people killed. This is not to say that everyone there is a savage, but their culture just isn't at a point where it prepares the citizens or the leaders to handle elements of our culture properly.
I don't see how a parent and child relationship is applicable here either. It doesn't tend to happen that way in international politics, so I see no reason to believe it would be more like that on a galactic scale.
This implies to me that the ideal method for a more advanced civilization is to build a "honey pot" planet, sending out prime numbers or something, with redonkulous power. Advanced-enough-aliens-to-be-friends-or-enemies are attracted to such a signal, while you merely observe and decide what to do based on their reaction.
Nuked the planet? Find out where they came from. Tried to contact, and eventually left, after some vague friendly gesture? Might not try to kill you.
Nuked the planet? Find out where they came from. Tried to contact, and eventually left, after some vague friendly gesture? Might not try to kill you.
This whole issue is like Aztecs worrying that Quetyzcoatl is going to burn their villages if he sees their smoke signals, in between the human sacrifices and general non-white-Christianness which got them into trouble when an advanced civilization they couldn't have predicted but which actually existed knocked on the door.
I do not want to insult Quetyzcoatl by comparing likelihood of his existence to that of space aliens. Evidence of winged serpent gods is lacking, but since the Drake Equation means that anything which makes for a good sci-fi novel is good enough to write a grant proposal for, I suppose I should cover my bases.
I do not want to insult Quetyzcoatl by comparing likelihood of his existence to that of space aliens. Evidence of winged serpent gods is lacking, but since the Drake Equation means that anything which makes for a good sci-fi novel is good enough to write a grant proposal for, I suppose I should cover my bases.
I find interesting to note that Shostak doesn't take the time to debate Hawking on the potential dangers of extra-terrestrials but rather claims that deliberately attempting contact poses no additional risks. I will certainly claim no expertise on the subject of contacting extra- terrestrial life, I will note that directed broadcasts will reach far more star systems than background RF radiating off of the Earth, all else being equal.
I think our fears are unfounded. Development following an industrial revolution is so fast compared to the time scales involved in interstellar travel that we are unlikely to have anything of interest to a society even 500 years "older" than ours. It is somewhat akin to a three year old worrying about a sixteen year old wanting their tricycle.
I don't think the concern is about other societies wanting our tricycles, it's about them wanting our water.
Water? Water is one of the most common non-hydrogen, non-helium substances in the universe. There's several Earth masses' worth of water in the Oort cloud alone, and don't get me started on the interiors of Uranus and Neptune. The piddly amount of water in Earth's oceans is worth nothing.
Our water is much more accessible than the interior of Neptune. Even for a species with relativistic technology, I doubt delving into a gas giant will be completely trivial (kind of like the bottom of the sea is still a very inhospitable place for us).
Which is why I said "don't get me started" on them. Every solid body at or past Jupiter orbit is, however, something like 30%+ water ice.
You know, strange as this may sound, the length of a human life is but nanoseconds when looked at on galactic scales, I think I could live with having life cut short with the trade off that I'd die knowing the answer to the question is there anyone else out there.
The thing about having the Earth hit by a relativistic projectile is: you wouldn't die knowing that. You'd just die.
Detecting this leakage radiation won't be that difficult. Its intensity decreases with the square of the distance, but even if the nearest aliens were 1000 light years away, they would still be able to detect it as long as their antenna technology was a century or two ahead of ours.
How? If radio waves travel at the speed of light and the first radio transmitters were in operation in the late 1800's, this would mean that the transmissions would be no further than 150 light years or so.
There are stars in this range, sure, but I'm interested in how antennas outside of this range might be able to pick up the signal.
How? If radio waves travel at the speed of light and the first radio transmitters were in operation in the late 1800's, this would mean that the transmissions would be no further than 150 light years or so.
There are stars in this range, sure, but I'm interested in how antennas outside of this range might be able to pick up the signal.
[deleted]
At the present rate of ecological calamity, I'd be more worried that aliens won't find us.
I really can't take aliens seriously. But thanks for the laugh imagining aliens watching I love lucy.
Someone should make an alien invasion movie where all the aliens are disguised as characters from "I Love Lucy." A serious one.
Futurama already did a show where aliens invade because they want to find out what happens an a show that's a lot like Ally McBeal.
So... you're not a fan of statistics?
What's not to take seriously?
"I find your lack of faith disturbing."
And Earth has been broadcasting "I'm alive!" for at least 2.4 billion years, since the Great Oxygenation Event: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event Ever since then, any intelligence within the area of probably several hundred light years or more has had the ability to take a simple spectrograph of our planet, observe free O2 in the atmosphere, decide that's too likely to be the result of life for comfort, and obliterate the planet.
Nobody has. (Unless you believe the official Current Earth Destruction Status: http://qntm.org/board However, it appears to simply be instrument failure. Somebody really ought to fix that.)
Even on the galactic timescale, 2.4 billion years is not chump change.
Either the game theoretic optimum is not to smash your neighbors immediately (for instance, widespread orbital colonization is indeed practical and is what happens, which as people have observed changes the balance away from "smash"), or we are effectively alone. Either way I think we can discard the relatavistic-projectile-death scenario, except as a major, unplannable fluke.