You’re missing the point here. All life on earth is rather closely related. It is all based on DNA, it all evolved together. Apes? Well shit, they’re practically human, biologically. We’re talking about EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFE here, or did you miss that? Who is to say that they are even DNA-based?
I’m not a huge Trekkie, but it seems to me if we could come up with the Prime Directive for a TV show, any civilization advanced enough to master deep space travel probably thought of it as well. We may be having an eye kept on us, if there’s anyone out there and if they know we’re here.
I agree with roksez on the basic assumption that there has to be some basic form of worldwide unity before any civilization might be able to step off the homeworld with serious intent of exploration and contact. I personally feel that such a civilization would have moved beyond a class-based system of economic competition simply because the drive to make a profit kinda cuts into the drive to further space exploration; we as a planet haven’t done anything really huge since Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins first went to the moon, and the Shuttle these days is mostly used for satellite launches and some scientific experiments.
It seems to me everyone is attributing way too many human characteristics to these hypothetical aliens. My guess is that if we do encounter life on other planets, even intelligent life, we would be hard pressed to even recognize it as life, never mind worrying about what kind of political philosophies they may subscribe to. I wouldn’t be surprised if the very concepts of “hostile” and “friendly” (as we understand them) is completely alien to the aliens.
“For what a man had rather were true, he more readily believes” - Francis Bacon
That’s an excellent point, Mark Mal. Another thing we would have to consider: could we ever REALLY trust them? Trust is based in part on predictable behaviour, and we predict based upon our experiences with humans. These would not apply.
A lot of anthropomorphizing going on, here. Friendly/hostile/indifferent: No way to tell, without knowing their reasons for the visit. They may be desperately searching for nuclear waste. Mars may, in fact, need Cheerleeders. They may be more interested in the chemicals contained in our gas giants. Each of these motives would result in drastically different outcomes.
Even without some radically advanced technology, distance and time may not be such a big hurdle. A 100 year trip wouldn’t be much of a hardship for many of the well-known, longer-lived species here on our own planet. A Joshua tree wouldn’t even get bored on the trip.
The idea that we are alone in an infinite universe seems like a hard position to defend.
If history’s any guide, they’ll probably be vicious bastards who will try to enslave us or kill us in order to exploit our little planet. We’ll end up selling them Earth souvenirs and giving them clap.
Guys - you missed the point I was trying to make [which is my fault, I was in too much of a hurry]. All societies, including non-human ones, are both guided by and limited by economics. An economy, for the purposes of this discussion, is a system of obtaining, developing, and manufacturing the goods and resources a society needs to grow and develop [the invention of money is NOT a prerequesite]. Any economy that has developed the technology to travel interstellar distances will have to have developed the supporting technologys to achieve this. These supporting technologys must include sophisticated means of generating, storing and directing energy; an advanced level of physics, engineering and mathematics; and chemical and metalurgical sciences, including molecular chemistry. There are NO magical ‘special elements’–atomic theory allows for none, except transuranic elements whose lifespan is measured in milliseconds. Thus, any material that exists on Earth can be replicated synthetically any place in the Universe - if sufficiently advanced technology exists to do it. This includes life. Since it would cost vast sums on energy expenitures alone, taking resources or slaves from Earth, by force of arms OR by trade is economically impractical. Conquest of the planet would cost too much in resources when compared to terraforming a less-distant, lifeless planet. Robots and genetically modified organisms would be more docile than coerced human slaves, and easier to take care of. Any physical contact [i.e. - Martians landing on the White House lawn, etc] is extremely unlikely. Radio contact is more cost-efficient, assuming They use radio frequencies for communication. But suppose that life is extremely common in the universe? We might just be another bunch of primitives, like millions of other worlds. Contacting us could be a bore—“Been there! Done that! Damn primitive are all alike! How dull.” Lack of contact can best be explained by the facts that : 1–it would cost a lot; 2–we don’t have anything to offer that’s special; 3–why would they care? PS: I don’t want to hear from any sneering Hippy offspring who want to condemn me for being “materialistic”. I’m not. I’m not talking greed or personal gain, I’m discussing the real limitations place on interstellar travel.
We are a species less than 10,000 years removed from the dawn of agriculture and permanent settlement. What the heck do WE know of the behaviors or characteristics of sentient species who have been around for awhile? We are very very young and it is an incredibly immense space out yonder, most of it void. Turn it around: how soon will WE be checking out alien civilizations we discovered while exploring a sphere of, say, 20 light years radius? I’m tempted to say 250,000 years since agriculture, but, technological leaps being what they are, call me in a mere 10,000.