4 ms·

To ensure that we don’t do the same.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
"They might be hostile. So lets send an army of robots to wipe them out." But if the army of robots fails, then they'll definitely be hostile. That's... putting a lot of trust in your robots to win when faced with completely unknown conditions.
- jayGlow 3y ago
  the dark forest requires a relatively simple cheap and effective way of sterilizing a stat system. if there is an easy way to do that then a first strike becomes a more reasonable first contract option.
  - jl6 3y ago
    Hopefully there is no way to drop a contaminant into a star to affect its output. A +/-10% change in brightness over a sustained period would probably neutralize us.
    - Enginerrrd 3y ago
      Planetary bombardment is almost certainly going to be the cheaper option there. Less mass and energy overall. You will still have to accelerate it to a significant speed though.
baja_blast 3y ago
But the environments that they evolved in and the environment we evolved is completely different. Earth to them would be unbearable for them to live on, and any resource they could possibly want would be readily available via asteroids. One last thing is the biology of Earth would most likely be toxic and incompatible with their biology.
checkyoursudo 3y ago
But if we have the capability to destroy another civilisation 120 light years away, then we also have developed far beyond the need to, and they will know that just as well as we will know that. I think it is impossible to survive as an exterminationist species to the point of having non-trivial interstellar reach. If you (as a species) were that inclined toward destruction, then you would not survive. The counter arguments of, “Well, look at us!” are not convincing to me. We might well be that destructive, but we certainly have not developed to the point of non-trivial interstellar reach. I am not even convinced yet that we will get to the point of intrasystem mastery much less interstellar reach before we destroy ourselves. I hope we can overcome our barbarity, but there is no guarantee.
- kcplate 3y ago
  >But if we have the capability to destroy another civilisation 120 light years away, then we also have developed far beyond the need to, and they will know that just as well as we will know that. That is a huge leap of faith and operating under a lot of assumptions not the least of which is that a completely alien intelligence would somehow operate in a utopian Age of Enlightenment and moral way and not in a way that we can’t even imagine or even understand because they are completely alien to us. I’m of the opinion that intelligent life is probably extremely rare (in the one place where we know life exists it took 20+ million species and a full third of the age of the universe to make the single intelligent life we have…and we do our best on a regular bases to make ourselves extinct) and that is a damn good thing because I cannot see how intelligent alien life wouldn’t be completely hostile to other alien life and not immediately skeptical of the other’s motivations.

"They might be hostile. So lets send an army of robots to wipe them out." But if the army of robots fails, then they'll definitely be hostile. That's... putting a lot of trust in your robots to win when faced with completely unknown conditions.

jayGlow 3y ago
the dark forest requires a relatively simple cheap and effective way of sterilizing a stat system. if there is an easy way to do that then a first strike becomes a more reasonable first contract option.
- jl6 3y ago
  Hopefully there is no way to drop a contaminant into a star to affect its output. A +/-10% change in brightness over a sustained period would probably neutralize us.
  - Enginerrrd 3y ago
    Planetary bombardment is almost certainly going to be the cheaper option there. Less mass and energy overall. You will still have to accelerate it to a significant speed though.

baja_blast 3y ago

But the environments that they evolved in and the environment we evolved is completely different. Earth to them would be unbearable for them to live on, and any resource they could possibly want would be readily available via asteroids. One last thing is the biology of Earth would most likely be toxic and incompatible with their biology.

checkyoursudo 3y ago

But if we have the capability to destroy another civilisation 120 light years away, then we also have developed far beyond the need to, and they will know that just as well as we will know that. I think it is impossible to survive as an exterminationist species to the point of having non-trivial interstellar reach. If you (as a species) were that inclined toward destruction, then you would not survive. The counter arguments of, “Well, look at us!” are not convincing to me. We might well be that destructive, but we certainly have not developed to the point of non-trivial interstellar reach. I am not even convinced yet that we will get to the point of intrasystem mastery much less interstellar reach before we destroy ourselves. I hope we can overcome our barbarity, but there is no guarantee.

kcplate 3y ago
>But if we have the capability to destroy another civilisation 120 light years away, then we also have developed far beyond the need to, and they will know that just as well as we will know that. That is a huge leap of faith and operating under a lot of assumptions not the least of which is that a completely alien intelligence would somehow operate in a utopian Age of Enlightenment and moral way and not in a way that we can’t even imagine or even understand because they are completely alien to us. I’m of the opinion that intelligent life is probably extremely rare (in the one place where we know life exists it took 20+ million species and a full third of the age of the universe to make the single intelligent life we have…and we do our best on a regular bases to make ourselves extinct) and that is a damn good thing because I cannot see how intelligent alien life wouldn’t be completely hostile to other alien life and not immediately skeptical of the other’s motivations.