Contacting Aliens 'A Bad Idea', Warns Hawking

[Admiral Buzzkill]

There is a great deal more evidence and reason to believe that Hawking is right than there ever has been to support or defend Roddenberry's grandiose and utopian notion that if life similar to ourselves exists those creatures would cooperate with us.

On the contrary, Hawking's position is based on a few flawed assumptions:

1. Intelligent life elsewhere in the universe will have biology compatible with our ecosystem.
2. Earth has resources that can't be found elsewhere.
3. An intelligent species capable of traveling between stars would find it more expedient to enslave/exterminate the rare pocket of intelligent life they come across rather than solve their resource problems technologically.

Say they do come to Earth for resources. What is it they could possibly need that they can't find elsewhere, even in our own solar system? Liquid water? Free oxygen/nitrogen/carbon dioxide? Items 1 and 2 are closely linked: if what they require to survive are the same things we require, then their biology is compatible with our atmosphere and they can't easily find similar conditions elsewhere. Those are some pretty big leaps, in my opinion.

Point 3 is a criticism often leveled at ID4, but can apply to any alien invasion story where the ETs show up to plunder Earth. If you're smart enough to traverse the gulf between stars, why aren't you smart enough to solve your resource problems?

I don't discount that aliens we encounter might be hostile, but I find it difficult to believe they would want something as mundane as our planetary resources. Religious fervor or just plain warmongering/eliminating the competition make a hell of a lot more sense.

It's not even a question of hostility. It's a matter of what life is.

If "xeno life" is biologically incompatible with "Earth life" but capable of using our environment, if it arrives here it will simply push us out. The version of life less capable of expanding and exploiting available niches is by definition not-life. It loses. Intelligence, ethics and choice have nothing more to do with this than they do competing bacterial strains in a petri dish.

 

[publiusr]

The distances are so vast that the iron law of logistics still applies. The farther an invader pushes into enemy territory--the farther he is from his resources and the closer the enemy is to his resources. Only the United States due to its logistical might was able to overcome this--and that just on a global scale with massive industry lost over the years.

Von Neumann probes would likely be overwhelmed by technology even more primative.

A spacecraft still has to follow the laws of physics. I'm thinking we may have already been detected and are being ignored. Or we are the first to evolve technology. Nuclear pusle drives and a few atomic weapons are all we could muster, and I suspect the same for other worlds if that.

 

[STR]

I see the the words "morality" and "ethics" a lot in here. Those are human constructs. Humans need them to keep society intact. Given an alien psychology does not in any way have to resemble a humans, there is no reason an alien would have to have any concept of right and wrong for them to survive.

The distances are so vast that the iron law of logistics still applies. The farther an invader pushes into enemy territory--the farther he is from his resources and the closer the enemy is to his resources. Only the United States due to its logistical might was able to overcome this--and that just on a global scale with massive industry lost over the years.

Von Neumann probes would likely be overwhelmed by technology even more primative.

The only reason why logistics is relevant to us is that we cannot fabricate everything we need at all times and at all places. If an alien had ANYTHING like a Trek replicator, including Von Neumann devices, where they can draw directly on raw resources to build their technology, logistics doesn't matter anymore. At best it's reduced to "does this area have the raw materials?"

 

[Jadzia]

I see the the words "morality" and "ethics" a lot in here. Those are human constructs. Humans need them to keep society intact. Given an alien psychology does not in any way have to resemble a humans, there is no reason an alien would have to have any concept of right and wrong for them to survive.

Any civilization would have to have evolved a concept of ethics and social structure in order to achieve anything beyond the will of a few individuals.

Ethics can be shown to be very beneficial in simple simulations of life. One of the most successful strategies in these simulations is something along these lines:

1. Help your own tribe only.
2. Only attack another to retaliate.
3. In matters of conflict, it is an eye for an eye.
4. Attempt to end any conflict after an indefinite period of time. (It has to be indefinite to prevent exploits.)

 

[STR]

Is ethics beneficial? Sure, we can agree that it has uses, at least for people. Is it necessary? Not at all. I'm even going to backtrack on my last statement. You don't even ethics to run a human society. You just need power to force your will on others. Look at the longevity of dictatorships around the world, none of which you can seriously call ethical or ethics-based for proof of their stability. Some latch onto religion or pseudo-ethics as a tool, that's for emotional fulfillment, and I'd REALLY like to see an argument proving emotions are necessary in sentient alien life.

Especially note your use of "eye for an eye." Ethics are a way to curb the thirst for revenge, but if an alien did not have that desire, then there is nothing to curb.

 

[Jadzia]

I'd REALLY like to see an argument proving emotions are necessary in sentient alien life..

I'll try an argument from this angle:

A being without emotion is essentially a robot. It runs a program.

If a being has free will, then there have to be cognitive processes to guide that free will, and this is what emotions are.

Without emotions, all choices are arbitrary, and a being has no ability to value one experience over any other.

The emotionaless being would be indifferent to the causes of pleasure and pain, because it wouldn't fear pain, nor desire pleasure.

It could never want. It would never have ambition. It wouldn't have the will to survive. A being without emotion could make self destructive choices frequently.

So if a being has choice, I believe it would have to have emotions.

We might even try to stretch that further, and argue that emotion is evidence that free will exists. Why would a robot need to evolve emotions if it just runs programs? It would make no sense.

Now what about the Vulcans, who are supposed to suppress their emotions in favour of pure logic? It's fictional nonsense anyway, so is not the best example . But I will ask this -- The truth is they still have choice, and they must constantly choose to obey logic, and that choice must be emotionally guided. Logic by itself doesn't do anything. Beings do what they choose to do. And as long as there is choice, there is the guide that is emotion.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Aliens that obtain interstellar travel must have 2 attributes:
-they must be intelligent;
-they must be able to work together. Does this imply ethics?:
It could well be so - but these ethics apply only to working together among themselvs, not with strangers.
But ethics are not necessarily required - foe example, the aliens could have a hive mind, one will.

As for ethics - as in cooperation/leniency with others - the best argument was presented by Jadzia:

"Ethics can be shown to be very beneficial in simple simulations of life. One of the most successful strategies in these simulations is something along these lines:

1. Help your own tribe only.
2. Only attack another to retaliate.
3. In matters of conflict, it is an eye for an eye.
4. Attempt to end any conflict after an indefinite period of time. (It has to be indefinite to prevent exploits.)"

It must be noted, however, that 'ethics' is NOT the only strategy that is beneficial in 'simulations of life'.


What reasons would aliens have for attacking us?
Logically - ony one reason is realistic:
They want to destroy us because, in a few thousands of years, we will be advanced enough to pose a threat to them, and the aliens want to prevent this from coming to pass. In other words, the aliens want to nip the threat in the bud.

Resources - those on Earth lie in a deep gravity well, unlike those in the asteroid belt, for example - much cheaper to exploit the asteroids, from an alien's perpective;
Slavery - for manual labor, robots are far better (less troubles, more production); for intellectual labor, no alien smart enough to develop interstellar travel will be stupid enough to cede it to someone else.

Ideologically/religiously - all bets are off.
The aliens may want to dress us all up as ballerinas, for all we know.


About emotions vs free will:
Yes, logic is only a means to an end; it can never be the end itself, one can never logically derive axioms.
If vulcans used only logic, they would be catatonic - they'll have no purpose to use logic to achieve.
In the case of humans, emotions (including morals, etc) create the purpose, and logic is used to achieve this purpose.

That does not mean that all aliens will have emotions; they may well folllow a program, be an AI someone created long ago.
They may lack free will, perhaps consciousness, but they'll be able to survive very well - provided they were designed accordingly.

 

[Cheapjack]

I think that they will be bug eyed monsters and they might not even be capitalists!!

That thought keeps me awake at nights.

Seriously, I don't think that there is any evidence either way, but just cos WE invaded America and Mexico, doesn't mean they will invade us.

I think that there is probably quite intelligent life on Earth, like dolphins and whales and look how we treat them.

We should treat them with respect, not fear, if we meet them. They have probably already been here anyway and are waiting for us to mature.

I don't think that they could sort out all our problems, anyway, any more than we would think it right to sort out the thinking of a load of Elizabethans. They would have to do it on their own and so would we.

 

[Deckerd]

I don't buy resources either, it would be easier to farm their own (or our) asteroid belt and Oort cloud for natural elements and water. Unless that resource is us for some unknown reason, though I'm not aware of any natural chemical we produce that couldn't be replicated through sufficiently advanced technology.

Because we taste like pork?

 

[John Picard]

I think that they will be bug eyed monsters and they might not even be capitalists!!

That thought keeps me awake at nights.

Seriously, I don't think that there is any evidence either way, but just cos WE invaded America and Mexico, doesn't mean they will invade us.

I think that there is probably quite intelligent life on Earth, like dolphins and whales and look how we treat them.

We should treat them with respect, not fear, if we meet them. They have probably already been here anyway and are waiting for us to mature.

I don't think that they could sort out all our problems, anyway, any more than we would think it right to sort out the thinking of a load of Elizabethans. They would have to do it on their own and so would we.

Who is this *WE* in the part I bolded? Do you have a mouse in your pocket, because if you're talking about people in the United States (collectively), you're sadly mistaken. I've never taken part in any type of invasion, and the "You know what I mean" defense is not relevant to the discussion.

 

[Deckerd]

But invasions have been carried out in your name. The only way you can claim otherwise is to take another nationality.

 

[John Picard]

But invasions have been carried out in your name. The only way you can claim otherwise is to take another nationality.

Of America and Mexico. Nope, not in my name. So sorry.

 

[Deckerd]

I didn't mention either of those countries.

 

[John Picard]

I didn't mention either of those countries.

Either way, you're statement (specifically directed at me and any conquests or invasions) is incorrect.

 

[Deckerd]

No, no it isn't. If you're an American citizen then the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were done in your name.

 

[John Picard]

No, no it isn't. If you're an American citizen then the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were done in your name.

Damned Brits!

 

[Cheapjack]

I think that they will be bug eyed monsters and they might not even be capitalists!!

That thought keeps me awake at nights.

Seriously, I don't think that there is any evidence either way, but just cos WE invaded America and Mexico, doesn't mean they will invade us.

I think that there is probably quite intelligent life on Earth, like dolphins and whales and look how we treat them.

We should treat them with respect, not fear, if we meet them. They have probably already been here anyway and are waiting for us to mature.

I don't think that they could sort out all our problems, anyway, any more than we would think it right to sort out the thinking of a load of Elizabethans. They would have to do it on their own and so would we.

Who is this *WE* in the part I bolded? Do you have a mouse in your pocket, because if you're talking about people in the United States (collectively), you're sadly mistaken. I've never taken part in any type of invasion, and the "You know what I mean" defense is not relevant to the discussion.

By 'we', I mean humans with superior technology, whom some feel that aliens will act in a similar way to.

 

[John Picard]

I think that they will be bug eyed monsters and they might not even be capitalists!!

That thought keeps me awake at nights.

Seriously, I don't think that there is any evidence either way, but just cos WE invaded America and Mexico, doesn't mean they will invade us.

I think that there is probably quite intelligent life on Earth, like dolphins and whales and look how we treat them.

We should treat them with respect, not fear, if we meet them. They have probably already been here anyway and are waiting for us to mature.

I don't think that they could sort out all our problems, anyway, any more than we would think it right to sort out the thinking of a load of Elizabethans. They would have to do it on their own and so would we.

Who is this *WE* in the part I bolded? Do you have a mouse in your pocket, because if you're talking about people in the United States (collectively), you're sadly mistaken. I've never taken part in any type of invasion, and the "You know what I mean" defense is not relevant to the discussion.

By 'we', I mean humans with superior technology, whom some feel that aliens will act in a similar way to.

Based on earlier statements, that makes no sense. If aliens have such superior technology then it would make sense to mine asteroids and lifeless moons than to invade a planet with a sentient species.

 

[Cheapjack]

Stephen Hawking doesn't agree.

He thinks that they will rape and impregnate our women with alien seed and use us as slaves.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I don't buy resources either, it would be easier to farm their own (or our) asteroid belt and Oort cloud for natural elements and water. Unless that resource is us for some unknown reason, though I'm not aware of any natural chemical we produce that couldn't be replicated through sufficiently advanced technology.

Please forgive the shameless self plug, but in a Trek fanfic I depicted the Gorn as a race of interstellar insectivores whose entire space service was mainly geared for the cultivation of rare and exotic delicacies. The idea being they eventually come into conflict with the Federation over access to a certain planet that is home to a very tasty (and to them, very EXPENSIVE) crustacean species. In that case, the conflict is (basically) economic.

In this case, a biologically compatible species might come to Earth as poachers, simply because they find humans to be incredibly tasty and rare enough that man-meat will fetch a handsome price on the alien market.

IT'S A COOKBOOK!