3 ms·

5. No Aladdin's lamp. There's no FLT, no wormholes, no solution to the huge distances. And/or interstellar space is so full of toxins or plasmas no lifeform can

5. No Aladdin's lamp. There's no FLT, no wormholes, no solution to the huge distances. And/or interstellar space is so full of toxins or plasmas no lifeform can survive it. And/or all EM data transmissions are reduced/scrambled/swallowed/encrypted by the void. All the experiments are naturally locked in separate containers. 6. Klaatu barada nichto. We are indefinitely locked in solitary, incommunicado, for creating and using nuclear weapons. On ourselves. Immediately.

lainga 7y ago
I find (6.) somewhat anthropocentric in that it assumes nuclear weapons are the nec plus ultra of destructive power. You might as well have said in 1917 that we were incommunicado for inventing chlorine gas, or shotguns (whose use the Germans did object to as a war crime!)
- yborg 7y ago
  They aren't. We almost have the capability to do much worse ourselves already. If you want big-bang type weapons, you can modify an asteroid orbit to drop a K-T event on the planet. It's not very target-able, but if you want to try and wipe out civilization, it would be pretty effective.
- 8bitsrule 7y ago
  It's the ethics. I wouldn't 'hang out' with anyone who would shoot an unarmed civilian in the back. It's not about the gun. In case you haven't seen the movie, 'The Day the Earth Stood Still', I'm referring to the speech at the end. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASsNtti1XZs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASsNtti1XZs
nkrisc 7y ago
6. is interesting because nuclear weapons are hardly the worst weapon possible. Even a relatively small mass accelerated to relativistic speeds would be more dangerous than a nuke, or even a very large mass at far lower speeds (asteroid). Similarly a genetically engineered biological weapon would probably be far more effective if total destruction is your goal.

3 ms·

5. No Aladdin's lamp. There's no FLT, no wormholes, no solution to the huge distances. And/or interstellar space is so full of toxins or plasmas no lifeform can

by 8bitsrule 7y ago

lainga 7y ago
I find (6.) somewhat anthropocentric in that it assumes nuclear weapons are the nec plus ultra of destructive power. You might as well have said in 1917 that we were incommunicado for inventing chlorine gas, or shotguns (whose use the Germans did object to as a war crime!)
- yborg 7y ago
  They aren't. We almost have the capability to do much worse ourselves already. If you want big-bang type weapons, you can modify an asteroid orbit to drop a K-T event on the planet. It's not very target-able, but if you want to try and wipe out civilization, it would be pretty effective.
- 8bitsrule 7y ago
  It's the ethics. I wouldn't 'hang out' with anyone who would shoot an unarmed civilian in the back. It's not about the gun. In case you haven't seen the movie, 'The Day the Earth Stood Still', I'm referring to the speech at the end. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASsNtti1XZs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASsNtti1XZs
nkrisc 7y ago
6. is interesting because nuclear weapons are hardly the worst weapon possible. Even a relatively small mass accelerated to relativistic speeds would be more dangerous than a nuke, or even a very large mass at far lower speeds (asteroid). Similarly a genetically engineered biological weapon would probably be far more effective if total destruction is your goal.