5 ms·
We have to assume that every civilization in the universe is hostile in absolute terms. We just have to look at ourselves if there is any doubt. However, it is
by yumraj 4y ago
We have to assume that every civilization in the universe is hostile in absolute terms. We just have to look at ourselves if there is any doubt.
However, it is likely that some civilizations may not be hostile towards us if they are either much more advanced than us to care about us for our resources or much less advanced than us to be of any threat. Of course in the latter case, it is we who may be hostile to them.
- blacksmith_tb 4y agoObviously these themes have been explored plenty in SF, personally I would tend to expect any civilization that could manage interstellar travel would have also made enough social / moral progress to not be ruthless. That doesn't rule out some kind of total mismatch between understandings that could be dangerous, but I'd still be cautiously optimistic.
- ASalazarMX 4y agoMy take is that only a civilization advanced enough to program their own genome at will would be truly moral. Natural genomes have grown out of a ruthless fight for resources, and we can't truly educate out our natural tendencies. Maybe also any civilization that evolved in an environment where there wasn't competition for resources, but that would likely stall evolution because there is no genetic arms race. I doubt such environment exists anyway, reproduction means competition for resources.
- Ekaros 4y agoThat leads to question would such civilization even attempt to expand or balance their growth and resource use in their local system? As colonization is inherently hostile and greedy action.
- ASalazarMX 4y agoJust as we're worried about being a single planet civilization that could be wiped by an asteroid, maybe they'd worry about being a single star system civilization that could be wiped out by a single disaster. So far it seems like life is not everywhere, so there should be many uninhabited planets for the taking.
- Konohamaru 4y ago> My take is that only a civilization advanced enough to program their own genome at will would be truly moral. Natural genomes have grown out of a ruthless fight for resources, and we can't truly educate out our natural tendencies. John Calvin and Thomas Hobbes still speak, even if coached in neo-Darwinian language. But this is not how Aristotle saw human nature. Humans have to be given habits to live in accordance with reason, but that is their nature. According to him, bad habits ruin humans. And the main source of bad habits is bad laws, so it all depends on the kind of society you are born into.
- blacksmith_tb 4y agoThat would simplify things, but clearly humans have made some moral progress (even if we may have some ways yet to go...) without anything quite that drastic?
- ASalazarMX 4y agoThe best humans wear a moral suit, attained trough intense education and effort. Humans don't overcome their instincts, we keep them in check either by conviction, or by fear of the consequences. Humanity is ridiculously far from enlightenment yet.
- xboxnolifes 4y agoI would expect that, or at lean toward the idea that, any interstellar civilization is no longer ruthless for internal conflict with their own species, but I wouldn't rule out the idea of them being ruthless toward other species.