3 ms·
@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 a
by 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 agoScarcity 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 agoOne 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 agoMaybe, 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.