6 ms·

This assumes every other civilization thinks like humanity does. While there may be many that do, there may be many that don't. And it seems that humanity's pro

This assumes every other civilization thinks like humanity does. While there may be many that do, there may be many that don't. And it seems that humanity's progress points towards a direction where people are much more peaceful than they are now, simply because the resource allocation problem might be solved with technology. And it also makes sense to assume that civilizations that don't move towards more peaceful existences would end up killing themselves given that technological progress usually gives individuals more power to be destructive. So another interesting thought is that if there are civilizations out there who are more advanced than us, it's likely that they are by default peaceful and not aggressive, because if they were aggressive they would have stopped existing due to escalating internal conflicts aided by advanced technology.

louithethrid 11y ago
The one whoe gets c on the rocks and those into your blocks, wins this argument. A strange game where not to participate, is not a option, but a embraced necessity. One can imagine a conquering civilisation though, that has peace enforced on the inside.
abrookewood 11y ago
Agreed. It also ignores the practical issue of actually getting to another planet in order to conquer it.
- est 11y ago
  This is the exact plot of Liu CiXin's fiction. Suppose you wanna conquer a civilization 1M lightyears away, but by the time you get there, the technology of the civilization will out grow yours. What's your strategy?
V-2 11y ago
@adnzzzzZ obviously we have no way of knowing, but for argument's sake, I believe for every assumption you make there's an equally compelling rebuttal. "This assumes every other civilization thinks like humanity does" Survival of the fittest is a fact of life, and whatever mindset one has about it may be irrelevant. As game theory proves, the majority, or even all players may dislike the game, but they have to play it all the same. "the resource allocation problem might be solved with technology" Perhaps there are resource allocation problems that can't, eg. the scarcity of habitable planets. "it's likely that they are by default peaceful and not aggressive, because if they were aggressive they would have stopped existing due to escalating internal conflicts aided by advanced technology" Or it could be a bell curve with a self-destructing "war of all against all" on one side, "peaceful but defenseless monks" on another, and the middle-of-the-road compromise of "disciplined legions where backstabbing is forbidden" being best fitted for survival, preying on less efficient civilizations from both ends of the spectrum alike.
- fsargent 11y ago
  Scarcity of habitable planets is absolutely solvable with technology - space ships, stations etc. Sufficiently advanced technology may also allow people to switch to more efficient bodies, or upload their consciousness to computers, or simply different forms designed for 'uninhabitable' worlds, or space itself.
  - wlesieutre 11y ago
    One series (that I'll leave unnamed to not spoil anything) suggests that the limiting factor isn't habitable planets, but wars ended up being fought over limited availability of metal in the universe. You can build your own space ships and stations, but eventually the raw materials have to run out no matter what you're making. There are of course other limits that may or may not be solvable, like most of that metal being stuck in relatively deep gravity wells. But it's still an interesting thought.
  - V-2 11y ago
    Maybe, of course, but we don't know that, that's my point :) There's also a question of costs, and artificial stations could be totally insufficient to sustain a civilization in long run.

louithethrid 11y ago

The one whoe gets c on the rocks and those into your blocks, wins this argument. A strange game where not to participate, is not a option, but a embraced necessity. One can imagine a conquering civilisation though, that has peace enforced on the inside.

abrookewood 11y ago

Agreed. It also ignores the practical issue of actually getting to another planet in order to conquer it.

est 11y ago
This is the exact plot of Liu CiXin's fiction. Suppose you wanna conquer a civilization 1M lightyears away, but by the time you get there, the technology of the civilization will out grow yours. What's your strategy?

V-2 11y ago

@adnzzzzZ obviously we have no way of knowing, but for argument's sake, I believe for every assumption you make there's an equally compelling rebuttal. "This assumes every other civilization thinks like humanity does" Survival of the fittest is a fact of life, and whatever mindset one has about it may be irrelevant. As game theory proves, the majority, or even all players may dislike the game, but they have to play it all the same. "the resource allocation problem might be solved with technology" Perhaps there are resource allocation problems that can't, eg. the scarcity of habitable planets. "it's likely that they are by default peaceful and not aggressive, because if they were aggressive they would have stopped existing due to escalating internal conflicts aided by advanced technology" Or it could be a bell curve with a self-destructing "war of all against all" on one side, "peaceful but defenseless monks" on another, and the middle-of-the-road compromise of "disciplined legions where backstabbing is forbidden" being best fitted for survival, preying on less efficient civilizations from both ends of the spectrum alike.

fsargent 11y ago
Scarcity of habitable planets is absolutely solvable with technology - space ships, stations etc. Sufficiently advanced technology may also allow people to switch to more efficient bodies, or upload their consciousness to computers, or simply different forms designed for 'uninhabitable' worlds, or space itself.
- wlesieutre 11y ago
  One series (that I'll leave unnamed to not spoil anything) suggests that the limiting factor isn't habitable planets, but wars ended up being fought over limited availability of metal in the universe. You can build your own space ships and stations, but eventually the raw materials have to run out no matter what you're making. There are of course other limits that may or may not be solvable, like most of that metal being stuck in relatively deep gravity wells. But it's still an interesting thought.
- V-2 11y ago
  Maybe, of course, but we don't know that, that's my point :) There's also a question of costs, and artificial stations could be totally insufficient to sustain a civilization in long run.