Should civilization live and prosper long enough for it to be feasible to travel to and colonize deep space, what is your opinion about how Humans should perceive aliens and their governments?
Would war be inevitable?
I don't think war would necessarily be inevitable; although, the whole relativistic bomb thing really does give me pause. If you're unfamiliar with the concept, check out these links:
Long story short, for truly space-faring species, being the "first actor" is the safe and logical choice.
"I suppose you know, Bob, if I ever see you again I'm just going to start shooting and figure it was self-defense." - Little Bill, "The Unforgiven"
War would be as pointless as contact. We war with what we want to eat, fuck, or live near.
If we could travel deep space, then we can have ecosystems in space. Thus planets are obsolete and so is war. Space is infinite, and you could be like sargassumfish in sargassum-weed. Like cosmic planetoid sized squid.
We can, with our basic tech, create ecospheres that can sustain/recycle life for years. Ayy-lmao can do that better. Ayy-lmao has realistic video games about invasion, and doesn't care for the real thing, with it's messiness and destruction of ideas, which might give them a chuckle at similarity, or a science boner, because we are one of the few "civilized" societies in existence. Civilization is fragile, and it stops being fun past a certain stage. The Ayy-lmaos would only war with us for funzies, and they might let us win like you let a dog win tug of war.
The worst possible thing they could do, is control us and make us stuck in a certain developmental stage, where we hyperadapt and become bees or something. But that hasn't happened yet. Break rules, question "reason" interrogate your inner beast. That is what any advanced alien race would want from a fuckbuddy race.
If it so happens that they are close enough biologically, they would just want us to be able to make mature decisions. They don't want to let humans in only to be classified as bestialists because you guys are pretty stupid in comparison to galaxy hopping ayy-lmao.
They have rooms that you can legitimately live in, but no we hate eating bugs and love paper walls.
>is control us and make us stuck in a certain developmental stage
We are already doing it ourselves buddy,aliens dont have to do shit.
We had a shot to make going into space a everyday thing but people decided to ditch the space program because we had other more fun things to do.
Days of space explorations will never be back,its up to corporations now to find something out there for profit and start doing some work into space travel.
Let's assume the humans are not the first intelligent species.
Let's also assume someone already figured out interstellar travel.
Even with a very modest growth rate of colonization, it would not take many millennia for a species to occupy the entire universe. So... where are they?
The easier, no frills, Occam's Razor solution for the Fermi Paradox is that FTL travel is impossible.
And for what people are seeing, I lean toward John A. Keel's explanation.
if you care, this would seem to express the most base sensibilities about mans great achievements and heart breaking shortcomings.
Man is a virus and I can only imagine he would become a scourge to any planet, just as he has to his own.
None of this is accurate. It took humanity many thousands of years to occupy MOST of the habitable planet. Right now we don't even have the population to put a single person around every star in our own galaxy. So I mean, that whole claim is just amazingly ignorant.
A daily goddamned reminder anymore, the Fermi Paradox is a thought puzzle, it is not a reliable statistical conclusion. Anyone treating it as a factual reading on the state of life in the universe is just waving their ignorance around like a giant flag.
Many thousands of years is a drop in the ocean of time. Do you think the aliens became intelligent just together with us--in a 10,000 years window out of the billions of years that metal rich stars formed?
I'm not saying no aliens--I'm saying no FTL.
I think we are just tiny ants living in a world that moves much slower from our point of view, but is much larger. There is life, it's just bigger than Earth.
This space moss is proof.
You seem to be mixing the Fermi Paradox and the Drake equation.
Anyway, let's take one example of a planet with intelligent-life-with-ability-to-use-radio-and-build-spaceships, Earth. In over 600 million years since multicellular organisms exist, intelligent life appeared only once (you are now going to whine that it takes time for high intelligence to develop - this only makes it more difficult to happen).
This suggests that high intelligence may be maladaptative - the poor things are only smart enough to be able to devour their ecosystem, and then they die.
Alien Type 1: Peaceful and decide to observe us instead of making their presences known
Alien Type 2: Malicious and would invade us, enslave us, destroy us from a far, use biological weapons which could stunt human evolution, etc.
Alien Type 3: Swarm, would most likely move from system to system absorbing all organic matter, an amoemba of sorts, chances of meeting this type are low but not impossible.
Alien Type 4: Scientific, would observe us, experiment on us, use us for their profit, could be hostile, good, evil, neutral, chaotic, just, etc. Most likely would observe us from afar.
Type 5: Parasites, parasites that take over organic creatures minds
Type 6: Overlords, desire universal conquest and enslavement of lesser species, we would most likely be extremely low on their priorities.
Type 7: Teachers, willing to teach us, yet how much, why and for how long is uncertain. Their goals would be like a scientifc type, but their reason are obscure, least likely to encounter.
Type 8: Unknown, what they are is beyond human comprehension
Type 9: Creator, able to create universes and be omniobservers another class beyond human understanding currently.
Type 10: Destroyers, like the Creators except destroy universes instead.
Type 11: The Void/All, everything and nothing the very essence of existence and nonexistence.
Here is a text by the author of the Accelerando novel, commenting on energy requirements for interstellar travel.
Here is another interesting text, this time not by a science fiction author.
For FTL drive to be possible, there would be some fine details of the universe that are very different from the current understanding - to say it bluntly, you are counting on space magic. It may very well be impossible.
Many of the greatest science discoveries were about limits to what is possible to do--for example, no perpetual motion, no faster-than-light travel.
I'm sorry to be stealing your Christmas from you Anon, but you need to grow up. No space colonization for you. And no extraterrestrials as well.
Even if aliens do exist, they would be millions of light years away. Its next to impossible for us to ever even know about each other. Much less visit each other. Hell, there are probably beings far away in another galaxy thinking the same thing.
As far as humans traveling to other planets to colonize them, its at least possible but no need to do it as long as our sun is still there. Humans will most likely be fossils by the time that is a real threat. It wont be humanity that kills itself. Even if all the nuclear weapons in the world were used, there would still be plenty of survivors...we will probably be killed off by a huge asteroid. a large rock smashing into us has to happen within 10 million years or so.
It would be way easier to terraform the Gobi, the Sahara, or this.
And do you know why this was not done yet? Because it doesn't pay. It would be easier to terraform an Earth desert than doing this on the Moon or Mars.
During the renaissance countries gave men thw power to do whatever they wanted to adavnce the fields of science.
If we think it is socially unacceptable then again, men will work in the shadows until the next age of discovery happens.
There's the possibility mankind is weak and refuses to treat hostile encounters outside the Earth as some specifically constructed attempt at survival near less known life forms capable of making us our own enemies.
Assuming this is done under the table, it would take way, way longer. Lots of money and guinea pigs would be needed for this. Some big organization would need to take this for who knows how much time.
Will the fossil fuels that power industrial civilization last until then?
Also what if I told you this new wave of medical assisted suicide is going to play a part in it.
Being able to transfer a animals brain into another host is the first step.
Knowing how much time it would take to transfer a brain into another host.
Deciding on what methods will be used to transfer the mind, sustain the mind and inprove upon it.
Step 1: Transfer the brain into a robotic body able to sustain the brain.
Step 2: Add cybernetic implants to copy the brain and work with thw brain.
Step 3: After the brain withers and dies the slow transfer of knowledge/memory will be unoticed and thw subject shall remain themselves.
Step 4: continue to improve the andriods
We are already getting closer and closer to acheiving the precursor technology needed.
Being able to control cybernetic limbs is a good step in the right direction.
Brain implants which alter human thought processes through electrical impulses is another good step.
Did you come up with this drivel? It's Hollywood tier.
What you call giving up, is what I call transcendening.
Why should we remain fragile minds and bodies.
Why should we not take fate in our own hands and carve the universe by our will.
While you and I perish those who evovle will become greater.
They are called Christians. Transcending the world of flesh, going "up" to a superior life apart from the horrors of the biosphere.
It's the same story with the religious serial numbers filed off.
Then my wayward friend how do purpose we live our lives by.
Running naked amongst the trees?
Procreating ourselves into stagnation?
Waiting for a miracle?
Following some sort of idealogical cult?
I rather dream of something greater for humanity.
Someday the scientists would learn everything, then they would hang their labcoats for the last time and go home. "Learning" cannot be the purpose of life because someday "learning" will end.
What exactly do you mean by evolve?
I know what you're saying and I'm saying that you're relying too heavily on some fairly unfounded assumptions.
For instance, we have the technology to get to the Moon or Mars, now, but we haven't colonized either. Why not? Simple, because getting there's a lot easier than living there. The same almost certainly holds true for interstellar travel. Let's say we developed something along the lines of a basic FTL, right now. Let's say just for fun's sake, twice the speed of light. So just to get to Alpha Centauri and back, about five years, not even including the time to build the drive, ship, resources to somehow keep people alive in deep space for five years, etc., which would be time consuming regardless but might also rely heavily on rare materials, things which themselves may require decades to produce.
One ship, one trip, plausibly ten years to make happen. And there's no reason to suppose we'd find any place to set up shop there. And no means to set up that shop even if we did. Right now, realistically, absolute best case scenario, if we suddenly, right now, had that FTL technology and against all odds found a planet at the nearest neighboring star system of ANY use to us, a century to have a single colony there. This is, again, one of the best case scenarios.
With that FTL technology, even at the exponential rate humanity can advance and spread, it'd be thousands and thousands of years to even explore a quarter of our galaxy. Our galaxy has over 100 billion stars spanning over 100,000 light years .If our FTL drive did ten times the speed of light, it would still be close to a 20,000 year trip to get a single ship over to the other rim of the galaxy and back with any news. That's just to find out what's there (and of course by the time you got back, 10,000 years would have passed so lord only knows how good that intel is now!)
Too many assumptions, anon, and not enough thought about it objectively.
>You seem to be mixing the Fermi Paradox and the Drake equation.
No, both suffer the same problem. We lack the data to make such predictions in any meaningful way.
As for all the rest of that stuff, don't try to predict my arguments, certainly don't call them "whines" and why would you use what you yourself declare is a sample size of "one" to make blanket predictions? That's not how constructive thinking works.
You don't need FTL for space colonization. But most of your post is just ranting and a cheap excuse to try and sling around a few insults. Very little thought was put into your post.
>we have the technology to get to the Moon or Mars
No, we don't. America tried to resurrect it and failed.
>>17279527 >>17279523 >>17279532
The problem here is, it is extremely unlikely that an intelligent species happened appeared just now, together with us. It had plenty of time to colonize the universe. Where are they?
>>we have the technology to get to the Moon or Mars
>No, we don't. America tried to resurrect it and failed.
Okay so either you're denying the Moon landings happened or you don't understand what your own words mean. Either way, does not look good.
>It had plenty of time to colonize the universe. Where are they?
No, it hasn't. See, you're likewise running off of a host of really unjustifiable assumptions.
1: You're assuming that FTL means "instant travel anywhere." FTL could still take time to travel distance. I spell this out in my example above, which you imply you've read but apparently just couldn't understand.
2. You're assuming that everywhere would have places to colonize and that the galaxy would, as a result, be lit up now. But in all likelihood most stars and systems wouldn't provide hospitable long term housing for most species.
3. You assume that everyone would be screaming into the night, but our own planet is already culling out most of its broadcasts. Were another alien race with our tech to be watching us from even such as Sirius right now, there's no reason to believe they'd notice the presence of intelligent life.
Worst of all I think is the ridiculous approach to what the data we're getting is telling us. In our galaxy alone, what we're watching right now, depending on galactic region, relates to periods between 4 and 100,000 years difference. And we've been studying this with any serious intent, with any real idea of what we might be looking for, for less than a century. The realization that there are multiple GALAXIES is less than a century old. With data like that, anyone declaring that we've definitely determined who else is out there are ridiculously silly and sloppy.
This concept has always fascinated me, but at the same time I think the idea of the existence of absurdly huge life forms is discredited by fundamental physics and biology. It's the same reason why an animal the size of Godzilla can't exist here.
>Why no colonies?
Think about the implications of a Dyson-Sphere level civilization like we might or might not be observing around KIC-8462852. How long would you estimate it taking us to reach such a level of technology. and, once reached, how long would it take us to truly need to look beyond our own solar system for resources?
Maybe there aren't colonies because interstellar exploration is comparatively easier than wholesale relocation of sizable populations.
We lost the technology of the Saturn-V rockets. We don't know how to make them anymore; we no longer have the assembly lines for them; we cannot afford them. I'm not denying the Moon landings happened.
Kennedy commanded a huge allocation of resources to make those Moon landings; we can't afford even that now, and the Earth-Moon distance is nothing, compared to the distance to the nearest star.
I think interstellar travel is impossible, or at least very difficult. And that is the reason why there are no aliens here. It is also the reason why "we are stuck on this rock."
The universe is over 10 billion years old. There are a lot of stars out there. These are lots of chances for someone to have tried colonization. And we see them nowhere.
Frankly, any species capable of comprehensive space exploration and colonization has quite possibly abandoned planetary colonization to a large extent. As has been pointed out on numerous equations, planets are giant, lumbering targets just waiting to get pegged by asteroids and comets and who knows what. There are plenty who have conjectured that interstellar races would find a more RAMA concept superior, mobile artificial ecosystems that just pop into systems from time to time for energy/resources.
We didn't lose the knowledge of how to make rockets capable of putting humans on the moon... just...I mean, what the fuck are you even talking about? Come over here and get your slap!
Oh, I totally agree. Don't fight uphill against gravity any more than you have to, but to reiterate my previous question to >>17279534:
Even given the capacity for interstellar colonization, how long would you estimate it taking population pressure to necessitate such endeavours?
Bear in mind, I'm making the assumption that a Type II civilization would be capable of creating huge amounts of habitable space around one solitary star, thus minimizing the need to look far beyond their home systems.
One would build smaller units, not a sphere.
A sphere would be unstable. To build the smaller modules would be simpler.
With FTL possible, it would be easier to carry those modules.
Humans try to occupy all possible places. I mean, think of where they are building houses now. I think the same effect would occur with aliens: once the good places are filled, then the worse ones would be used.
We can't afford to build the rockets now because they demand too much resources. And it is to go to the Moon. Can you think how much resources would it take to make a travel to Mars?
Now let's take a little break.
I'm not saying:
* very intelligent aliens do not exist. It is possible, but difficult. I think they reach first a stage where they are too smart for their own good and destroy their environment before "lifting off".
* the Moon landings did not happen. I'm saying space travel demands too much resources, and this is also why we don't see aliens here.
I'm saying the universe is very old, there was plenty of time for a species to develop and colonize every piece of rock or dismantle it for resources, and we didn't see it happen. This kind of points to interstellar travel being impossible, or very difficult to be ever done in large scale.
The pressure to grow is the same once you reach the limits of the environment, no matter if it is a planet surface or a whole solar system.
And compounded growth assures those limits will be reached in relatively little time.
I don't have an answer to your question, but there are some possible loop arounds.
For instance, in the case of humanity, we've always got a segment of the population overeager for exploration and adventure. Were our species to develop a space travel exploration infrastructure sufficient to allow the level of individual and private enterprise and endeavor of, say, the European Age of Exploration, I'm confident we'd have all manner of people launching out into the great unknown!
There's a fun little theory about Star Trek I've always enjoyed that runs like this. Supposedly (despite their inability to properly depict this,) life on Earth at the time of Star Trek is a near utopia. It's post scarcity, economic imbalance has been solved, medicine is amazing and ethics abounds. There's certainly no resource or population pressure problems, so why so much exploration? The idea is that the people who join star fleet are the malcontents, those both unwilling and unable to settle down to placid, safe utopia. So they go out into the galaxy looking for trouble!
>Can you think how much resources would it take to make a travel to Mars?
Butn we've sent tons of shit to Mars. And Venus. And Jupiter.
Of course there's the aspect of a manned flight being more resource heavy, but you are absolutely deluded if you think it isn't feasible.
>We can't afford to build the rockets now because they demand too much resources. And it is to go to the Moon. Can you think how much resources would it take to make a travel to Mars?
No, we choose not to build those rockets now because the industrial infrastructure needed for them is obsolete and no longer exists. It would be insanely inefficient to rebuild that just for out of date rockets. Which is why we're designing better ones that reflect our current upgraded industrial state.
In summary, we still have the technology to put people on the Moon and Mars. We choose currently not to use it, that's all.
>I'm saying the universe is very old, there was plenty of time for a species to develop and colonize every piece of rock or dismantle it for resources, and we didn't see it happen. This kind of points to interstellar travel being impossible, or very difficult to be ever done in large scale
I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND YOU ARE WRONG. You're not paying attention to a single goddamned word I'm saying.
We have no idea what we've seen yet. We've only glanced at snippets of wildly disparate sections of the universe. We know virtually nothing about it. Only in the last couple of decades have we come up with what we consider solid evidence of planets around other stars. So for you to be making declarations of what we have or haven't seen is MEANINGLESS because we've only barely had the tiniest chance to even glance at the smallest fraction of it. So that's not evidence of anything except how ridiculous people claiming it is evidence of anything are.
So no it doesn't point to interstellar travel being impossible. ALL IT POINTS TO IS THAT HUMANITY HAS ONLY JUST BARELY BEGUN TO LOOK AT THE UNIVERSE AND WE KNOW JACK SHIT ABOUT IT. THAT IS ALL. PERIOD.
AND I also gave you several perfectly plausible explanations for why, even were we to finally get even a half decent look at our own galaxy, we wouldn't find what you keep claiming we should expect to find. You ignored all of that, too. Now, do you have anything to say that doesn't involve a: misrepresenting reality and b: ignoring what the fuck people are telling you?
The problem is growth. I don't think living beings have self control to stop growing; they are only limited by their environment. The "converting all the universe mass into good citizens" kind of growth, you see?
Humans try to occupy all possible places.
That is true, but I don't think we can presuppose the same of our hypothetical ETs. I'm not even sure we can say that about our own future civilization. What happens to our population growth once we hit what I'm calling for lack of a better term our "immortal generation?" Do we just let our growth explode or do we start trying to wean ourselves away from our biological imperatives and looking to maximize the quality of life for those already living?
>relatively little time
Relative to what, though? If we reach a point where we can rig any sort of Dyson configuration around Sol, then we're also capable of creating living space that dwarfs what we currently have at our disposal, be it planetside or in orbital habitats of our own construction. Think of the volume that such a configuration would enclose and ask yourself honestly how long you think it would take us as a species to overcrowd it.
Actually, this isn't really true, either. In fact, as humanity trends towards industrial revolution and stabilized economy, birth rates go down and dense urbanization increases.
Without growth, where would be the need to colonize the universe? No aliens would be seen here.
>Relative to what, though?
It would take 1900 years at the 1994 rate of growth for the population of 1994 equal the mass of Earth, and after 6000 years, the mass of the human population would equal the estimated mass of the universe.
Less than 10000 years is relatively little time.
The lack of aliens everywhere suggests they didn't take the growth route, at least.
Every second...of every day...of your entire life...
You are being raped by dark matter.
I love the whole "malcontent" idea, and I'd be right there with them; however, Roddenberry and the other creators of Star Trek and other science fiction staples rarely, pardon the pun, explore the implications of what tech at the level of Star Trek would change about us from a philosophical and ethical perspective. To wit, what if the Prime Directive took us into the realms of:
"Don't interfere with developing cultures, and don't corrupt a place where such a culture might one day arise."
In other words, what if they took temporal considerations into account as well? What would that do to our own pioneer spirit if we were to internalize the notion that simply by virtue of our presence, we could be preventing the rise of some future intelligent species?
Sadly, I'll have to hope this conversation is still around tomorrow, but I have enjoyed talking with you!
>Without growth, where would be the need to colonize the universe? No aliens would be seen here.
Look at your human history. Population pressure has hardly been the only motivation for expansion.
1: Economic opportunity, claiming of new resources.
2: The desire for exploration and personal challenge.
3: Superior living moving to a place more pleasant than your current.
4: Escaping current society, from government oppression to bureaucratic smothering.
I'm sure there are more but these are already four well established, historically precedented reasons humans have expanded their range other than population pressure.
Me too! I'm sure if it's not around another like it will be!
Yeah, Roddenberry was using Star Trek as a vehicle to primarily comment on modern society (and, you know, to have fun writing basic stories and make money,) which I think can curtail from the more "hard" sci fi notion of exploring, as you say, how the tech would change how we as a species think and see ourselves.
I agree that the notion has a "butterfly" effect problem, where is the limit to your potential interference. While I do appreciate the idea of avoiding contaminating a culture, I tend to favor the Speaker for the Dead notion that while you don't just hand out laser rifles and tell young species to go to town, when you meet a true sentience you start sharing and uplifting and helping rather than sitting back and watching coyly.
And then, after a bunch of pioneers arrive, somehow the population dutifully expands until the environment capacity is reached.
Humans now are consuming more resources than the Earth ecosystem is able to regenerate. On the whole, we are so deeply fucked. I'm bordering despair. No, technology won't save us from our consumption if we don't stop this party.
Or else the Klingons might come and tend them to a direction that suits them better.
>And then, after a bunch of pioneers arrive, somehow the population dutifully expands until the environment capacity is reached.
Often, no. For instance, the Arkansas and Missouri Ozark mountains are a good example. While a few areas are growing in population, the majority of the region has been diminishing in population for a century now. It's actually turning into a bit of a problem; where there used to be sufficient small towns and communities to accommodate travelers through the area, many of those have literally vanished. The distance between gas stations alone is becoming a genuine concern.
People tend to power towards coastal areas and established urban areas. Across most of the first world this trend is extremely pronounced. The result is that a goodly portion of available, even usable land, is being abandoned because everyone's over using the more desirable stuff socially and economically. Hell, there are many inland states in the US offering all sorts of incentives, up to and including free land, for people to live in these regions.
Now, resource-wise we as a species are being extremely inefficient and destructive, primarily because we've gotten locked into this rather base justification of short term greed. But, in truth, it's not as bad as it used to be. (The big problem is what the technology has allowed us to do.) But compare modern exploitation to, say, the european exploitation of the new world, not just the native people but their approach to the land, farming, wildlife, etc., we've actually come a long way in five centuries.
These small parts don't matter too much, unfortunately. Spaceship Earth now uses a lot of clever tricks to support 7 billion humans. You use 10 calories of energy to produce one calorie of food. You use nitrogen fertilizer made from natural gas. You crush rock to extract phosphorus. All of these from finite resources.
Without those tricks, Earth cannot sustain a population of even one billion. When fossil fuels extraction rate starts to fall because of depletion, the fireworks will come.
>is discredited by fundamental physics and biology.
I wonder how true this is though. Or you could go even beyond that.
That IS space moss, but it's being projected to a scale that is much bigger than what it actually is.. Maybe some accidental or deliberate manipulation of light.
Or that is space moss, and that is the actual size it is, and it's partly blurry because of the affects of light so we don't get the full picture. Of course from it's perspective we would be moving incredibly fast.
Or that's an incredibly large source of alien food.
Or that's some interdimensional blob that we can't possibly understand.
Obviously I'm going crazy here but who knows how big a self-replicating and complex structure could be. We could be a very tiny version of a process that happens throughout the universe in ways like this. Maybe the explosions and birth of stars leads to complex structures forming.
>how big a self-replicating and complex structure could be
Earth surface is alive, so, at least this size.
We, as small parts of it, can't see the whole just like our cells can't see us.
I truly believe most, if not all life on Earth is connected in some way. I think it's connected to the point where you can consider such a thing as a "global consciousness". If you consider us all "one", you could just imagine what the next stage of global evolution would be.