Would an alien race necessarily be pro-social

Great Debates
121

A few hundred ly is still enough of a neigbourhood for me. But see below

Good point - I hadn’t considered this, and it does render the whole reset thing moot (absent being in a really active stellar region where GRBs are more common, which we know we’re not)

Agreed - but that wasn’t what I was arguing (level of technology) - just that GRBs would give us a baseline for all evolution of complex life in the 100s of Ma not the 1000s, for the near neighbourhood. An entire order of magnitude is quite something to knock off the timeline, no?

But that was not considering the point about stellar mixing (of which, 400 Ma would do quite a bit, I take it)

Everything else, to me, hinges on the notion that we have* no idea* what a “proper” timeline for evolution or technological progress is, and so have no basis for saying what things might be like on other planets.

This is still stuck on the idea of a “ladder of progress”, I think. We don’t know what 10 000 years more of technology progress looks like, at all. We can predict maybe another 100. If that.

And “stone age” can vary from Olduvaian to Aztec, more-or-less. Whose to say what it might mean for an entirely alien species.

One part in 40 000 may be the margin you’re looking at - but, again, I must emphasise that you don’t have any other numbers for comparison. 1/40 000 is a poor ratio compared to what?

122

Your typo reveals that you seem to have some trouble thinking of all the myriad ways life could exist in the Universe outside of Earth-like life.

Agreed. Or might not be well-intentioned to us - an ecologically-minded species might be appalled by what we’ve done to our biosphere, and put us down for the good of our planet, or just completely take over from us (again, something dealt with more than once in SF - I like Brin’s treatment of this in the Uplift Saga)

123

I understand the time window, what I don’t get is the presumption that the cultures which find it necessary to explore and /or exploit space are random in our neighborhood. Eliminate the more primitive races, the solar system bound technologies, the insular species (space hermits, protectionists, etc), the cultures who’s philosophical or religious bent dictates avoiding other intelligent influences, the species with a “prime directive” and the ones that just don’t care about us or need what we have, and your sample becomes skewed.

I suggest that of the planets with life, and of those, the ones with intelligent life, and to put a finer point on it, the planets with life that endeavors to travel through space and succeeds at going beyond their immediate star system … and to further narrow the field, the cultures that wish to contact other intelligent life, might be a small percentage of the total. I’ll go as far as to say that, if an alien race either wants to study us (they haven’t been around long enough to have moved past direct interaction and possibly dissection), make friends, a la Star Trek (why?), or seize our resources, kidnap our women, or move in and settle, they would likely be very close to us, in terms of galactic timeframes, in evolutionary development and technology. The more advanced a technology gets, the less it seems to me, it needs to apply to it’s neighbors for resources. That might look like I’m starting to agree with you … but not quite.

I don’t think we can say with certainty that computer and propulsion technologies are that far away from intergalactic travel, We have apparently attenuated our space program, and so we may be poised for such discoveries, but too cheap or too poor to take the last few steps. I can fairly well imagine a race with similar technology to us that applies it’s full effort toward research and development of spaceflight or interdimensional travel. In my opinion, super advanced cultures that have existed for millions of years won’t need us or want our company, and that the spacefaring aliens that still perform intergalactic anthropology and/or diplomacy, or space immigration (real illegal aliens) may be closer to us in age and abilities than you think.

The super advanced aliens will have developed a prime directive, (or an Organian disgust for “primitives”). They may even protect us from "poachers. I’m afraid that most of the alien visitors who really want to interact with us may be skewed toward races barely more advanced than us. That’s not good, because if they are a few hundred years ahead of us, their weapons will be too much for us to cope with, but their social development may still be at an exploitive or imperialistic level.

124

There’s no presumption.
There’s a big difference between having to come up with ad hoc scenarios to counter a proposition, and having to come up with such scenarios to support a proposition.

In this case, the default, most obvious, conclusion (which you’re tacitly admitting now), is that if there’s a plurality of worlds with sentient life, those species will likely be millions of years apart in development time.

The fact that if we try hard enough we can contrive scenarios where that’s not the case doesn’t take away from that (although of course no-one’s even managed to do that: the attempts so far to come up with hypothetical synchronizing phenomena haven’t worked).

Frankly, yes, it does appear like my point, but focusing on the minority species rather than the majority.
My position is not the OP’s. I don’t think that advanced species will necessarily be pro-social, I just think for various reasons they won’t be hostile.

I haven’t stated any such thing with certainty.

I would say, on the face of it, that interstellar travel looks more difficult to us, and that data point does count for something.

But my argument never depended on such an assumption.

I was simply saying that the fact they have interstellar travel licked, gives us some reason to suspect that they are the more advanced party. Call it circumstantial evidence, if you like.
It’s an independent data point to give us some reason to think, not prove, that they will have better tech on average.

And, for the reasons given above and elsewhere, the more advanced party isn’t likely to be a little more advanced. The gap is likely to be large.

125

**It’s more likely that two random species meeting will be separated by millions of years development time because of how long the universe has been around and how separated star systems are.

**
**In this case, the default, most obvious, conclusion (which you’re tacitly admitting now), is that if there’s a plurality of worlds with sentient life, those species will likely be millions of years apart in development time.
**

These two points are not the same. I don’t disagree (and never have) that:

" … if there’s a plurality of worlds with sentient life, those species will likely be millions of years apart in development time."

I do find your conclusion faulty:

“It’s more likely that two random species meeting will be separated by millions of years development time …”

I made the case that most of the species widely distanced from us by evolution and technology probably wouldn’t need or want to contact us. If a few do, I believe they are in the minority of species.

**The fact that if we try hard enough we can contrive scenarios where that’s not the case doesn’t take away from that
**

I didn’t have to try very hard to offer reasonable scenarios that challenge your position. I think they are as likely, based on available theories, (and don’t blatantly violate immutable Laws) as the examples you propose.

I don’t think that advanced species will necessarily be pro-social, I just think for various reasons they won’t be hostile.

And what are those reason, again? Why are those reasons any more sensible than the reasons I gave that aliens may be anything from uninterested to openly exploitive or warlike?
If their motives are truly alien, how do you arrive at the position that technological development equals peaceful intent? Much of our technology and scientific advancements have developed from weapons and war related tech. Are they Like us or unlike us? If they are largely dissimilar, from where do you observe that an alien race would develop toward altruism? If they are closer to to matching our behaviors, who’s to say that their aggression and xenophobic inclination were ever surmounted. What is the time frame for achieving an ethical and egalitarian utopia where respect for life supplants greed and power-lust?

**And, for the reasons given above and elsewhere, the more advanced party isn’t likely to be a little more advanced. The gap is likely to be large. **

Large as in laser guns and ion drives? Or large as in, “Q” is curious about our quaint planet? In the movie Alien, the problems of traveling between star systems have been solved to some extent. I think the juxtaposition of space travel technology and continuing greed and corruption described in that film illustrate my points. A race that needs to contact us won’t necessarily be far advanced culturally. A super-evolved species that might consider our well-being, on the other hand, may be among the minority of species that would bother stopping along the way to probe us.

126

When I say “meeting” I mean it in the broadest sense: any contact or encounter whatsoever, including a species deciding we are not worth the bother and flying away.
This may be a poor choice of words (though what word should I have used?), but I have been consistent on that throughout this thread.

Ad hoc scenarios in themselves are of little value, because you can always invent scenarios to support or challenge any proposition at all.
That’s why my argument has never been about “I can imagine a species that does X” – it’s just based on reasoning from what we know.

ETA: Violate what laws?

Firstly “not hostile” includes possibilities such as uninterested.

But secondly, I’m not even sure what part of my argument you disagree with at this point, given that you now agree with the millions of years+ likely separation, and have said things like “most of the species widely distanced from us by evolution and technology probably wouldn’t need or want to contact us”.

I haven’t said this, here, or in any of the past threads on the subject.

127

Since now you define “meeting” as including “uninterested” and “flying away”, I guess that your premiss is growing too vague for me to nail down and challenge. I’ll agree to disagree in a friendly manner, since I suspect you’re one more set of definition changes away from agreeing with me. Good times.

128

Once again, my position hasn’t changed in this thread, and is the same point I’ve made in past threads. If you confused my position with that of the OP’s, that’s your problem, not mine.

Actually it’s funny that you are accusing me of changing my position, since earlier in the thread you were repeatedly asking why species will be separated by millions of years in incredulous tones, and now claim that you agreed with that premise all along.

As for making a big deal over the word “meeting”, you didn’t answer: what verb should I have used (and you’ll note it was the verb I was using, not the noun)? Even if we use something like “detect”, in context it may have sounded like two species mutually detecting each other (well, for anyone not reading the actual content of my posts).

129

Fair enough.