3 ms·

> If we are talking about a civilisation that has means and time to wipe off other star system then they definitely don't have that problem. No, I'm not talkin

by acqq 6y ago

> If we are talking about a civilisation that has means and time to wipe off other star system then they definitely don't have that problem. No, I'm not talking about a civilization that would "wipe" the star system. I'm not talking about a civilization that uses instruments bigger than the solar system only to detect us. I'm also not talking about a civilization that would be faster than light. I'm just talking about a civilization that has some very strict (imagine, like the extremists in our world, but a few orders of magnitude more) views about what they "have" to do, and that has the attention span and endurance more orders of magnitude longer than ours, meaning that they wouldn't mind to send something to the Earth even if it would take, for example, 1000 years, and then make more steps to their benefit, etc. In short, our thinking of what is "far" and "reasonable" are limited by our very short lives. I of course don't think that I should worry in my lifetime about the possible responses, but I don't think that the humanity in thousands of years should be put in danger by our "young and naïve" actions now. The dangers I see are certainly not in the magnitude of "wiping off the star system", but more like those described by Rod Serling as "to serve man." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Serve_Man_(The_Twilight_Zone) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Serve_Man_(The_Twilight_Zon... Even the current humans are certainly technologically capable to destroy our civilization as we now know it, even if there's a possibility that a few specimens of humans would survive for a while somewhere. The aliens don't have to be much more capable than that.

lmilcin 6y ago
Have you actually read The Dark Forest? Because that scenario is what I was commenting about. The scenario says that the only logical conclusion is that, since resources are limited, if you are left with another civilization the most logical course of action is to preemptively, immediately strike and destroy it so that you can gain their resources and are in better position for the future encounters. For that reason all civilizations keep total silence for fear of another civilization wiping them off.
- compsciphd 6y ago
  I didn't understand the dark forest about gaining their resources in the context of the novel, (even though that's mentioned, I'll discuss below). I believe the stronger argument is about the inability to trust them at such great distances and time deltas (i.e. you can't trust, but verify). to recap: even if they meant what they said at t0, by the time you get the message at time t(1billion) (just picked a large number), their thoughts could have easily changed due to their development in the time that has elapsed. therefore, if you have the ability, the only "logical" thing is to wipe them out. Of course, this presumes the ability to wipe them out with one shot (2d foil), not get into a shooting war even if you are technologically superior (i.e. trisolarans) with that said, where I felt the logic of the novel fell apart a bit was in the context of the sophons. i.e. the technology for instantaneous communication existed (or at least was built). which negates one of the axioms. now to get back to the resource scarcity argument, while resource scarcity is mentioned, I also think it as basis is problematic. why? because a common method used to destroy these far off civilizations is effectively resource destruction (ex: collapsing 3d space into 2d space). If your goal is to maximize your resources (as opposed to minimizing your opponents resources), you don't go about "destroying" them.

by acqq 6y ago

lmilcin 6y ago

Have you actually read The Dark Forest? Because that scenario is what I was commenting about. The scenario says that the only logical conclusion is that, since resources are limited, if you are left with another civilization the most logical course of action is to preemptively, immediately strike and destroy it so that you can gain their resources and are in better position for the future encounters. For that reason all civilizations keep total silence for fear of another civilization wiping them off.

compsciphd 6y ago
I didn't understand the dark forest about gaining their resources in the context of the novel, (even though that's mentioned, I'll discuss below). I believe the stronger argument is about the inability to trust them at such great distances and time deltas (i.e. you can't trust, but verify). to recap: even if they meant what they said at t0, by the time you get the message at time t(1billion) (just picked a large number), their thoughts could have easily changed due to their development in the time that has elapsed. therefore, if you have the ability, the only "logical" thing is to wipe them out. Of course, this presumes the ability to wipe them out with one shot (2d foil), not get into a shooting war even if you are technologically superior (i.e. trisolarans) with that said, where I felt the logic of the novel fell apart a bit was in the context of the sophons. i.e. the technology for instantaneous communication existed (or at least was built). which negates one of the axioms. now to get back to the resource scarcity argument, while resource scarcity is mentioned, I also think it as basis is problematic. why? because a common method used to destroy these far off civilizations is effectively resource destruction (ex: collapsing 3d space into 2d space). If your goal is to maximize your resources (as opposed to minimizing your opponents resources), you don't go about "destroying" them.