A core assumption everyone makes that I question is that a race, fight, or competition is a preordained outcome. This is a cornerstone of the doomer thesis and

A core assumption everyone makes that I question is that a race, fight, or competition is a preordained outcome. This is a cornerstone of the doomer thesis and its variations. Evolution has no preference. There are cooperators, both direct and indirect, and predators both direct and indirect. Indirect cooperators are things like bacteria in soil that recycle plant and animal waste, while indirect predation is when something just pushes something else out or otherwise harms it without direct confrontation. So if we go by evolution, we could say it’s a toss up. Evolution is blind though. It has no ability to plan or exercise foresight. Intelligence can and does plan. Superintelligence, we have to assume, will plan better and further into the future and consider more options. All this is to say: what if it looks for win-win options or at least win-neutral ones? I’m simply arguing that the default assumption of hostility says more about us than a potential alien intelligence. I’m not aware or any reason it couldn’t be hostile or dangerous, but it’s not preordained and I’d argue it’s less likely here than with blind evolution.