3 ms·

> The cosmos is not startrek -one doesn’t travel vast multigenerational distances in space and time to “just observe”. If we could travel to an extra-solar habi

by JadeNB 4y ago

> The cosmos is not startrek -one doesn’t travel vast multigenerational distances in space and time to “just observe”. If we could travel to an extra-solar habitable planet. Do you think we’d be like, huh, nice carbon based life, just like us. Awesome now let’s go back “home”. This sounds awfully knowledgeable about travel over multi-generational distances when neither you, nor I, nor any other human has ever done it. Maybe you're right that it's not what we would do, but how can you, I, or any human possibly know whether it's what an alien species would do?

mc32 4y ago
Neither people, nor animals, nor plants travelled long distances to habitable places to then be satisfied and turn back. It doesn't happen on a continental scale so it's even much less likely to happen on an interstellar scale. If it's half habitable, you're gonna make that place a "home". It's a nice fantasy to think you can zip back to the home planet after prancing around the galaxy making discoveries and reporting consequential and timely information back home.
- tluyben2 4y ago
  Yep, and we are humans with a track record of breaking the prime directive everywhere we went on earth, so why not other worlds? If there is microbal life on mars, we will kill it soonish.
- incongruity 4y ago
  First - there’s plenty of evidence of intercontinental trade prior to colonization/ migration in Humanity’s past. Second, you have a very anthropomorphic perspective built in to your thinking. What if they had lifespans measured in centuries or longer? What if they had radically different views of life and death and generational cooperation? Alien life is, by definition, alien. It’s hard to say what would/wouldn’t be true.
  - mc32 4y ago
    >there’s plenty of evidence of intercontinental trade prior to colonization/ migration in Humanity’s past. What? How is it possible to trade intercontinentally without there being a colony to trade with first? that makes no sense. One does not go to a deserted island to do trade, with whom, the birds?
    - incongruity 4y ago
      With the inhabitants who are already there, of course. Your contention is that intelligent life wouldn’t travel long distances without the intent of colonization. Human history sort of argues against that to a point. Europeans were trading broadly before developing colonial empires. Travel wasn’t the thing that ensured colonization.
glenstein 4y ago
I find it bizarre that you would jump in here to caution about the limitations of our knowledge, and not jump in in response to the previous commenter who proposed that visitors would just be observing. If anything, this is the commenter that is being more careful not to entertain familiar science fiction presumptions and is exhibiting the discipline that you're asking for.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  The previous commenter was being silly, in response to mc32 being silly, then mc32 switched to making a serious claim in response. > If anything, this is the commenter that is being more careful not to entertain familiar science fiction presumptions and is exhibiting the discipline that you're asking for. I really don't understand why you think this.
  - checkyoursudo 4y ago
    It's just a version of the Dark Forest problem. It is possibly much safer to drop an asteroid on any newfound civilization's head than to travel hundreds or thousands of years (at light speed) just to observe someone and try to figure out if they are going to drop an asteroid on your civilization's head first. IOW, the first-mover, the one who pulls the trigger first, the side that pushes the doomsday button first, etc ... the surprise attacker has a better chance of victory. (Good thing ʻOumuamua missed. Better luck next time, chumps!)

by JadeNB 4y ago

mc32 4y ago

Neither people, nor animals, nor plants travelled long distances to habitable places to then be satisfied and turn back. It doesn't happen on a continental scale so it's even much less likely to happen on an interstellar scale. If it's half habitable, you're gonna make that place a "home". It's a nice fantasy to think you can zip back to the home planet after prancing around the galaxy making discoveries and reporting consequential and timely information back home.

tluyben2 4y ago
Yep, and we are humans with a track record of breaking the prime directive everywhere we went on earth, so why not other worlds? If there is microbal life on mars, we will kill it soonish.
incongruity 4y ago
First - there’s plenty of evidence of intercontinental trade prior to colonization/ migration in Humanity’s past. Second, you have a very anthropomorphic perspective built in to your thinking. What if they had lifespans measured in centuries or longer? What if they had radically different views of life and death and generational cooperation? Alien life is, by definition, alien. It’s hard to say what would/wouldn’t be true.
- mc32 4y ago
  >there’s plenty of evidence of intercontinental trade prior to colonization/ migration in Humanity’s past. What? How is it possible to trade intercontinentally without there being a colony to trade with first? that makes no sense. One does not go to a deserted island to do trade, with whom, the birds?
  - incongruity 4y ago
    With the inhabitants who are already there, of course. Your contention is that intelligent life wouldn’t travel long distances without the intent of colonization. Human history sort of argues against that to a point. Europeans were trading broadly before developing colonial empires. Travel wasn’t the thing that ensured colonization.

glenstein 4y ago

I find it bizarre that you would jump in here to caution about the limitations of our knowledge, and not jump in in response to the previous commenter who proposed that visitors would just be observing. If anything, this is the commenter that is being more careful not to entertain familiar science fiction presumptions and is exhibiting the discipline that you're asking for.

Dylan16807 4y ago
The previous commenter was being silly, in response to mc32 being silly, then mc32 switched to making a serious claim in response. > If anything, this is the commenter that is being more careful not to entertain familiar science fiction presumptions and is exhibiting the discipline that you're asking for. I really don't understand why you think this.
- checkyoursudo 4y ago
  It's just a version of the Dark Forest problem. It is possibly much safer to drop an asteroid on any newfound civilization's head than to travel hundreds or thousands of years (at light speed) just to observe someone and try to figure out if they are going to drop an asteroid on your civilization's head first. IOW, the first-mover, the one who pulls the trigger first, the side that pushes the doomsday button first, etc ... the surprise attacker has a better chance of victory. (Good thing ʻOumuamua missed. Better luck next time, chumps!)