Is interplanetary diplomacy possible?

>>19013514
(cont.)

2. Technology Explosion

What if A is more technologically advanced? Is there no risk?

Wrong.

Let's say A and B are 100ly apart. a simple 'Hi' and its reply would take 200 years, less than the time it took us to go from hellium baloons to send people to space.

If A does nothing or proceeds to contact, there is a chance that a technology explosion (singularity) might occur in B's civilization. B might be able to surpass A technologically. Now since A has no way of knowing B's true intention, to ensure the first axiom (survival), A has only one optimal move: destroy any civilization when discovered.

This is logical, and it must be done in an economical way (as to not catch the attention of other civilizations).

The author proposes that relativistic strikes fit the criteria. Why risk your existence waiting for a reply gfrom a civilization for 100 years when you can just accelerate a few rocks to near the speed of light and hit their star?

He calls the universe a 'Dark Forest'. Every civilization is a hunter with a gun. It doesn't matter if they're friendly or hostile, angels or demons, old or young, as the end result is the same. They must be extremely cautious and try their best to keep silence, because they know there are a number of hunters out there. The only thing he can do is to kill it. In this forest, others are the eternal threat. Anyone who reveals its location will be destroyed.

What do you think /x/? Is this why the universe seems devoid of any ayys?

If we assume a further few axioms the idea becomes more practical:

1.Our species already has remote viewing. 1a.It does not appear to be limited by the speed of light

2.A more advanced species will also have remote viewing, and their capability will exceed ours'. 2a.They most likely use this ability to communicate over vast distances where EM communications would be impractical.

3. They would also use this ability to detect other civilizations in areas of space that interest them.

File: trapmaster.jpg (153KB, 760x596px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 760x596px

>>19013514
>1. Suspicion Chain

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_paralysis

Just make the damn contact and see what happens.

I think we need to think of it from a perspective of, if interplanetary is able to be done within reasonable amounts of time, then that means you could travel the entire world in seconds. A big reason we have states and countries now is because of the fact the land "feels" big to us because we can't travel it efficiently. Once the world is smaller in the sense that I could go to china for lunch and be back home in the US an hour later creating a worldwide government will only happen naturally.

From there it'd just be like the UN or something.

File: 1426939734467.png (277KB, 1348x1086px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 1348x1086px

Would something primal like the Zerg be really capable of interplanetary travel?

If they are .ore advanced than us chances are they don't need to kill everything like we do

>>19013604
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A042J0IDQK4

>>19013540
Yup, the theory is based on the assumption that communications are limited by the speed of light. If remote viewing or entanglement-based comms become practical, diplomacy becomes possible.

>>19013574
Again, the speed of light fucks us in this aspect. We could devise ultra fast local means of transportation, so you could commute to China everyday. That may even work in our solar system as a few hours/weeks of delay are not a big deal.

Once you talk about interplanetary distances though, a few years of delay (like 100, which are nothing in the cosmic scale) make communication impractical and expose you to the risk of having the other civilization become a threat to you.

>>19013554

Would you risk our entire species on a 'see what happens'?

>>19013621
But we could become more advanced than them in a relatively short amount of time. Different civilizations advance at different paces, that's true even here (see: Africa). You wouldn't know what they're capable of until it's possibly too late.

>>19013636
>Would you risk our entire species on a 'see what happens'?
>A has only one optimal move: destroy any civilization when discovered.
>This is logical
If everyone just tries to kill everyone else, only the strongest will survive. When there are a total of 100 civilizations in reach, you have a 1 percent chance that you are the strongest among them. That's not my definition of "optimal" and "logical".

>>19013514
another person who's concept of an alien species is limited to human thought and intention

assuming that aliens use resources and space the same way we do.
assuming that survival for them is a challenge they fight to protect.
assuming that they evolved in a way that promoted strength and hostility

the more likely problem is that aliens will communicate using something we can't understand or replicate (like pheromones) and diplomacy will be impossible because we simply can't do it