6 ms·

Trying to notify intelligent life that we exist has a high probability of being the worst idea in all of human history, because there's a high probability that

Trying to notify intelligent life that we exist has a high probability of being the worst idea in all of human history, because there's a high probability that there will be no more human history after we meet them. But radio emissions swiftly degrade after not too long of a distance, so unless we build some kind of extremely high-powered transmitter then any scheme like this is doomed to failure. Luckily.

Zigurd 13y ago
That conjecture is much less certain than it is portrayed. Let's say we found a civilization of oyster-like creatures on a oceanic moon of a gas giant planet of a nearby star. Are we really going to go that far for a raw bar? "Conquering" stellar civilizations only happens in space operas.
- spacehome 13y ago
  The fact that your first thought is about the feasibility of eating aliens lends tonnes of support to the idea that it's in the aliens' best interest to wipe us out.
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    It looks like the greater danger is the inability to spot satire. They'll come and and prank us and we'll humorlessly launch nukes on them.
    - wmeredith 13y ago
      Almost did a spit take while reading that first sentence, thanks!
  - rahimnathwani 13y ago
    I don't know the original sources of this joke, but this version is pasted from http://www.chinasmack.com/2009/stories/what-if-district-9-alien-prawns-landed-in-china.html http://www.chinasmack.com/2009/stories/what-if-district-9-al... - Aliens land in Beijing, Beijing people would ask the aliens if they believe in capitalism or socialism. - Aliens land in Shanghai, Shanghai people would drag the aliens to the zoo to put on display. - Aliens land in Guangdong, they would be eaten… - Aliens land in Wenzhou, Wenzhou people will ask the aliens: is business easy to do on your planet?
  - pinkpussycat 13y ago
    I'm sure there's a new reality TV show somewhere in that...
- freefrancisco 13y ago
  The problem is not so much what the aliens might do to us, but what their microorganisms, bacteria/virus equivalents, might do to all of earth's life. Our microorganisms would survive and adapt, we might not.
  - Lambdanaut 13y ago
    Their viruses wouldn't have evolved to prey on Earth life. The alien germs would probably just die, or at best live a very sickly life here on earth while they slowly evolved to our climate (millions of years later)
    - mattlutze 13y ago
      Or perhaps their germs would drink in the nourishing radiation of our young, yellow sun, grow strong and learn to harvest corn while wearing fake glasses.
- Houshalter 13y ago
  There are things like paperclip maximizers (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer). Even a regular alien civilization is likely to be very, very different than us in entirely unpredictable ways (http://lesswrong.com/lw/so/humans_in_funny_suits/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/so/humans_in_funny_suits/). They may not have a moral system like ours, they may not value our lives at all. Such a civilization might destroy us simply because they don't want us to become too advance and compete with them. Or possibly become a threat to them. Or maybe just because they want our solar system someday. I'm not claiming that any of this is certainty. It really is very difficult to predict. But I caution against anthropomorphic reasoning. I also think it would be wise to be cautious about taking these kinds of risks, if we can.
  - saulrh 13y ago
    There's also the "Killing Star" argument[1]. Basically, when your weapons are relativistic planet-crackers, any civilization you can observe is an existential threat: any civilization that shoots destroys another [2]. Civilizations have survived evolution and presumably other first contacts, and will probably be willing to shoot first to avoid being shot. Any civilization you observe will go through this thought process, realize you are going through the same thought process, and will proceed to shoot because they assume you will shoot. [1] http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/aliens.php#id--The_Fermi_Paradox--The_Killing_Star http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/aliens.php#id--... [2] http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunexotic.php#id--Relativistic_Weapons--The_Killing_Star http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunexotic....
    - darkmighty 13y ago
      Too simplistic reasoning imo. If your civ can build impossibly large relativistic weapons, can't it survive an impact of one? Wouldn't the huge cost of building those/providing energy favor the pacifists? And so on. I think it's essentially impossible to predict what to expect from a point of view of specific technologies, and a more fundamental approach is more interesting: given the possible gains we might have, and the possible threats (termination should have a fair likelihood), the expected utility from contact should be hugely skewed negatively -- assuming -inf utility for termination and +finite for whatever gains.
blueskin_ 13y ago
I don't think there's a high probability. If an alien species has the means to reach Earth, either sublight or FTL, chances are they sorted out their own problems as a civilisation and as such, could probably teach humanity a few things.
Udo 13y ago
Stephen Hawking (of all people) and Hollywood have mistakenly identified a potential desire for our resources as the main motivation for this threat scenario. But in reality there is nothing on Earth that couldn't be much easier mined in any arbitrary star system, in any arbitrary asteroid belt. There are, however, still factors imaginable that might lead to a hostile (=genocidal) reaction from an advanced race - for example a reaction motivated by religion or paranoia. If we are within the reach of such a civilization they're already looking for us anyway though, it's unlikely additional harm will come from sending them a signal if they're already in the process of scouring the galaxy for places that are in need of a thorough ethnic cleansing. The probability of such a scenario can currently not be estimated since we don't even have a single data point on other civilizations in our neighborhood. We don't even know if FTL is possible in practice, a technology without which an assault on Earth may very well be impractical for the foreseeable future. One thing that might concern us, related to a potential explanation for the Fermi Paradox, is the possibility of attracting the attention of an embodied "great filter", for example in the shape of automated replicating drones that sweep the galaxy to eradicate all instances of technology they can find. But if such a filter exists, our eventual discovery will be inevitable anyway so sending an additional signal out into space would probably not make a difference. It's difficult to construct a credible scenario where sending a signal will be instrumental in our destruction, mainly based on the assumption that interstellar civilizations or entities with the motivation to destroy us would likely not be content with sitting around on the off chance that another planet might contact them. So who's our most likely recipient then? It's a civilization on a tech level comparable to our own. So for the sake of argument let's assume the roles are reversed: One day we get an interstellar call. There's another inhabited star system out there, maybe not too far, let's say 200 light years away. Let's assume the worst and, upon receiving a friendly "hello" type message, the world goes completely crazy and decides the remote greeters need to DIE! At this point, there is really not much we can do to actualize that desire. We could build a huge generation ship and send it on its way but it's going to be traveling for thousands of years. When (if!) it arrives, the other civilization will either be gone or so far advanced that it's beyond the point where our puny aging low-tech generation ship can do any damage. These are the assumptions we're operating under. Yes, they're assumptions, but for the most part they're based on the best we can do for reasoning and scientific knowledge today.

Zigurd 13y ago

That conjecture is much less certain than it is portrayed. Let's say we found a civilization of oyster-like creatures on a oceanic moon of a gas giant planet of a nearby star. Are we really going to go that far for a raw bar? "Conquering" stellar civilizations only happens in space operas.

spacehome 13y ago
The fact that your first thought is about the feasibility of eating aliens lends tonnes of support to the idea that it's in the aliens' best interest to wipe us out.
- Zigurd 13y ago
  It looks like the greater danger is the inability to spot satire. They'll come and and prank us and we'll humorlessly launch nukes on them.
  - wmeredith 13y ago
    Almost did a spit take while reading that first sentence, thanks!
- rahimnathwani 13y ago
  I don't know the original sources of this joke, but this version is pasted from http://www.chinasmack.com/2009/stories/what-if-district-9-alien-prawns-landed-in-china.html http://www.chinasmack.com/2009/stories/what-if-district-9-al... - Aliens land in Beijing, Beijing people would ask the aliens if they believe in capitalism or socialism. - Aliens land in Shanghai, Shanghai people would drag the aliens to the zoo to put on display. - Aliens land in Guangdong, they would be eaten… - Aliens land in Wenzhou, Wenzhou people will ask the aliens: is business easy to do on your planet?
- pinkpussycat 13y ago
  I'm sure there's a new reality TV show somewhere in that...
freefrancisco 13y ago
The problem is not so much what the aliens might do to us, but what their microorganisms, bacteria/virus equivalents, might do to all of earth's life. Our microorganisms would survive and adapt, we might not.
- Lambdanaut 13y ago
  Their viruses wouldn't have evolved to prey on Earth life. The alien germs would probably just die, or at best live a very sickly life here on earth while they slowly evolved to our climate (millions of years later)
  - mattlutze 13y ago
    Or perhaps their germs would drink in the nourishing radiation of our young, yellow sun, grow strong and learn to harvest corn while wearing fake glasses.
Houshalter 13y ago
There are things like paperclip maximizers (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer). Even a regular alien civilization is likely to be very, very different than us in entirely unpredictable ways (http://lesswrong.com/lw/so/humans_in_funny_suits/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/so/humans_in_funny_suits/). They may not have a moral system like ours, they may not value our lives at all. Such a civilization might destroy us simply because they don't want us to become too advance and compete with them. Or possibly become a threat to them. Or maybe just because they want our solar system someday. I'm not claiming that any of this is certainty. It really is very difficult to predict. But I caution against anthropomorphic reasoning. I also think it would be wise to be cautious about taking these kinds of risks, if we can.
- saulrh 13y ago
  There's also the "Killing Star" argument[1]. Basically, when your weapons are relativistic planet-crackers, any civilization you can observe is an existential threat: any civilization that shoots destroys another [2]. Civilizations have survived evolution and presumably other first contacts, and will probably be willing to shoot first to avoid being shot. Any civilization you observe will go through this thought process, realize you are going through the same thought process, and will proceed to shoot because they assume you will shoot. [1] http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/aliens.php#id--The_Fermi_Paradox--The_Killing_Star http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/aliens.php#id--... [2] http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunexotic.php#id--Relativistic_Weapons--The_Killing_Star http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunexotic....
  - darkmighty 13y ago
    Too simplistic reasoning imo. If your civ can build impossibly large relativistic weapons, can't it survive an impact of one? Wouldn't the huge cost of building those/providing energy favor the pacifists? And so on. I think it's essentially impossible to predict what to expect from a point of view of specific technologies, and a more fundamental approach is more interesting: given the possible gains we might have, and the possible threats (termination should have a fair likelihood), the expected utility from contact should be hugely skewed negatively -- assuming -inf utility for termination and +finite for whatever gains.

blueskin_ 13y ago

I don't think there's a high probability. If an alien species has the means to reach Earth, either sublight or FTL, chances are they sorted out their own problems as a civilisation and as such, could probably teach humanity a few things.

Udo 13y ago

Stephen Hawking (of all people) and Hollywood have mistakenly identified a potential desire for our resources as the main motivation for this threat scenario. But in reality there is nothing on Earth that couldn't be much easier mined in any arbitrary star system, in any arbitrary asteroid belt. There are, however, still factors imaginable that might lead to a hostile (=genocidal) reaction from an advanced race - for example a reaction motivated by religion or paranoia. If we are within the reach of such a civilization they're already looking for us anyway though, it's unlikely additional harm will come from sending them a signal if they're already in the process of scouring the galaxy for places that are in need of a thorough ethnic cleansing. The probability of such a scenario can currently not be estimated since we don't even have a single data point on other civilizations in our neighborhood. We don't even know if FTL is possible in practice, a technology without which an assault on Earth may very well be impractical for the foreseeable future. One thing that might concern us, related to a potential explanation for the Fermi Paradox, is the possibility of attracting the attention of an embodied "great filter", for example in the shape of automated replicating drones that sweep the galaxy to eradicate all instances of technology they can find. But if such a filter exists, our eventual discovery will be inevitable anyway so sending an additional signal out into space would probably not make a difference. It's difficult to construct a credible scenario where sending a signal will be instrumental in our destruction, mainly based on the assumption that interstellar civilizations or entities with the motivation to destroy us would likely not be content with sitting around on the off chance that another planet might contact them. So who's our most likely recipient then? It's a civilization on a tech level comparable to our own. So for the sake of argument let's assume the roles are reversed: One day we get an interstellar call. There's another inhabited star system out there, maybe not too far, let's say 200 light years away. Let's assume the worst and, upon receiving a friendly "hello" type message, the world goes completely crazy and decides the remote greeters need to DIE! At this point, there is really not much we can do to actualize that desire. We could build a huge generation ship and send it on its way but it's going to be traveling for thousands of years. When (if!) it arrives, the other civilization will either be gone or so far advanced that it's beyond the point where our puny aging low-tech generation ship can do any damage. These are the assumptions we're operating under. Yes, they're assumptions, but for the most part they're based on the best we can do for reasoning and scientific knowledge today.