Intelligent life elsewhere?

[l0rca]

The odds of having a war against aliens that are roughly on an equal footing, technologically, are even more incredibly remote than finding any aliens out there in the first place. So if two races are to meet in space, the odds are that one is going to always be WAY in advance of the other. If all alien races think the same way as us, the less advanced race is going to do everything possible to avoid warfare.

See Babylon 5 - "In The Beginning" for a fictional example of what happens to Earth when they get involved with an enemy that is only relatively a little more advanced than they are. Basically, humanity comes about two inches from extinction in very short order before some people stop the insanity.

Unfortunately, if we ever encounter an alien race that decides they want to do away with us the situation will probably be more like "War of The Worlds" or "Independence Day" only there won't be any computer viruses or real viruses to save us. And it will probably happen much faster.

Or it may turn out to be something like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" where either the biological nature of the aliens or their advanced technology makes it such that we get taken over and we don't even know it until it's too late.

So... we agree?

(I'm dense.)

 

[Red Siegfried]

So... we agree?

(I'm dense.)

I guess so. I wasn't trying to contradict you at all, I was just expanding on your idea with what I think might be some possible scenarios. I particularly wanted to state that I think that even if you have two species that are relatively close to each other technologically, the differences will still be vast and one would easily conquer the other if they chose to do so.

As for whether they would want to do that, I have no idea. The motivation behind an invasion and value of morality was more the gist of your post, I think. Mine was just that if they did want to invade, and had the capability to do so, it almost certainly wouldn't be an even fight. Not even close.

 

[Red Siegfried]

Getting closer back to the original thrust of this topic, I see no reason to believe that the Drake equation isn't a decent predictor of intelligent life in the universe. At least it's as good a predictor as anything we have.

Now, the odds of us actually meeting intelligent life are orders of magnitude less likely, unless we develop some amazing way to conquer the vast distances and times involved.

Of course, if you assume that the lifespan of the human race is extremely long, the odds become better. The odds of us meeting another race in our lifetimes is pretty much nil in my opinion.

I think our first evidence of the existence of intelligent alien lifeforms would probably be in the form of very old artifacts. In other words, we showed up, but they already left. Just missed em ... by a few million years maybe. (And that would be optimistic).

Now it got me thinking. We generally assume that civilizations progress in a even line, increasing in sophistication and technology constantly. In reality of course, civilizations rise and fall and species evolve. It could be entirely possible that an alien race could evolve into a spacefaring civilization, fall, completely lose all memory of their past progress, and rise again. And if this happens over an extremely long period of time they could evolve into a completely different species by the time their technology progresses to that point again. These peaks and valleys in civilizations make it even less likely that we will hook up with another civilization at the right time.

 

[logical muse]

Or it may turn out to be something like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" where either the biological nature of the aliens or their advanced technology makes it such that we get taken over and we don't even know it until it's too late.

This has already happened, right?

 

[Red Siegfried]

This has already happened, right?

Shhhhhhhh. Loose lips sink starships.

http://www.whatisdeepfried.com/zogg/zogg1.html

 

[Regnad Kcin]

When we meet them they'll all speak perfect English, right?

 

[Correa Neto]

In address to a number of people who're skeptical of "evil aliens", I don't think it's a question of projecting our fear as much as it is an objective look at the primary components needed to get an intelligent life-from into outter-space, as well as a critical look of the evolution of our own moral code, and objectively considering whether or not our own existance to another intelligent life-from is in their benefit.

Well, I partially agree. We are walking on a very thin line, since to speculate on what would be the behavior of an alien race regarding our species, we have to create extrapolations based in our knoweledge while, at the same time, keeping in mind that we are dealing with something that is completely alien... And that some of the data and concepts we used to build our extrapolations are not valid for the case. So, its a contradiction.

I will correct my original statement. Some -not all- project their fears (invasion, genocide, ect.) in aliens. Others extrapolate and think they may -or will- be hostile. I think they may or may not be hostile, but the odds of non-hostile aliens are bigger. And yes, quite probably this position was influentiaded by my personal bias.

How valuable to Them would it be have empathy for us? If they could travel to our world, their technology and mathematic skills would be simply beyond us, and probably their life-span as well. They would either have been evolved to have, or made for themselves, bodies far better suited to handle the rigours of the universe, and perhaps even survive over thousands of years. They probably would not care for our resources, and would spit at our social code... but they might care to study us. That would be my wager -- we would be their science fun, and it would probably seem incredibly cruel to us.

I agree that science would be a main motivation. Now, regarding the remaing parts, well, again, maybe so, maybe no. There is a possibility that the study, methodology, etc. would "probably seem incredibly cruel to us". OK, but also probably not. I guess we have to deal with the following variables (OK, I may be falling in to the trap I mentioned above):
-The "scientific ethics" and "methodology" of such civilization. They may or may not consider ethic or as not being a good scientific practice interferring too much with the study subject.
-How abudant are civilizations like ours. They may or may not consider valid to cause damage to the development of rare civilizations, specially with the first topic in mind.
-The avaliable technology of the alien civilization. We have CT Scanners for non-invasive exams. What would these aliens have? Imagine what their surveillance sattelites would be! And their equivalent of our computer models...

And this is all assuming that science in the next few thousand, or million, or billion years will not change to such a radical level that denies us even comprehension.

Now, perhaps if we were able to evolve to a point where we could threaten them as much as they could us, we may form an alliance, but as of now, we might as well be the Neanderthals who can send funny little machines to a couple planets around our pitiful sun.

The questions are why and how should/could civilizations of such technological degree threaten each other. MAD comes in to mind...

 

[Soapy Sam]

Fishbob- Let me guess- Triticites arcticus ?
Or one of those...

Whoss the threadaboutagain?
Right. Yes. Of course there's life out there.
Of course there's intelligent life.
It's all too damn big and too old for any other possibility.

But that includes the possibility that most of it is so far away, so far in the past or so far in the future, that it effectively isn't there at all.

So that's a definite yes. And no.

 

[Starthinker]

I think the FACT that people channel dead aliens prove that there is life out there. This also proves that life exists in other dimensions.


I almost typed that whole thing with a straight face.

 

[Solitaire]

This is the point where true believers and skeptics have to make the same bitter question: then why haven't we heard of them?

There’s no reason to worry. Intelligent life is inherently unstable.

Look at the environment. Rich healthy, vibrant, then humans pop onto the scene and things collapse. There used to be big trees and song birds here. Now its small trees and a few crows. In 150 years half the top soil has washed away. What’ll happen in another 150 years? Obvious answer. Or look at technology. Wonderful gadgets and stuff, but nasty chemicals get released into the environment and don’t dissipate.

A journey across the stars takes smarts enough to know what’s dangerous in the long term and that just ain’t going to happen any time soon. So don’t worry about it.

 

[Red Siegfried]

There’s no reason to worry. Intelligent life is inherently unstable.

Look at the environment. Rich healthy, vibrant, then humans pop onto the scene and things collapse. There used to be big trees and song birds here. Now its small trees and a few crows. In 150 years half the top soil has washed away. What’ll happen in another 150 years? Obvious answer. Or look at technology. Wonderful gadgets and stuff, but nasty chemicals get released into the environment and don’t dissipate.

A journey across the stars takes smarts enough to know what’s dangerous in the long term and that just ain’t going to happen any time soon. So don’t worry about it.

I think you're overestimated our aptitude for destroying the environment. The examples you stated are not true over most of the Earth. The vast majority of the area that humans can live in is doing quite well, all things considered.

Maybe you don't get out of the city much?

I happen to think that our capability to clean the environment that humans live in is increasing faster overall than our rate of environmental destruction. In a couple of hundred years, this hysteria about environmental destruction will be considered a quaint old fashioned fear and our decendents will look back and laugh. The human race is not dependent on having big trees and songbirds everywhere to survive. All the nasty chemicals released into the environment haven't kept us from breeding like rabbits either.

But I'd tend to agree with your statement that life, not just intelligent life, is unstable. That's what makes it great.

 

[logical muse]

Shhhhhhhh. Loose lips sink starships.

http://www.whatisdeepfried.com/zogg/zogg1.html

Zogg! haha

 

[Hellbound]

A suggestion:

If anyone has time, find and read a book called "The Killking Star", by Charles Pellegrino and George Zebrowski.

Interesting scenario listed that gives a (I think) plausible reason for alient hostility. Also highlights some of the technical reasons why a huge difference in technology may not make that much difference (especially when looking at vehicles capable of traveling a signifigant (10%+) percentage of lightspeed). We actually aren't too far from the capability to create relativistic craft using antimatter as fuel. We have the technology now to create a simple craft, we can make antimatter, the remaining hurdles are crating a magnetic "nozzle" for the engine and the political and social will for such a project.

For perspective, an object of a few hundred tons (relatively small for an interstellar craft, at least in desings we currently believe plausible) entering an atmosphere (or contacting any matter) at a signifigant percentage of c would sterilize a hemisphere, more or less. To the bacterial level.

In any case, the biook includes a chapter or two of transcripts that occurred between various scientific and government agencies concerning what might be known about any extraterrestrial intelligence, without ever haveing met them or knowing the conditions of thier evolution.

I don't believe there's a higher chance of benevolent aliens than hostile, although I don't think hostile is mnore likely, either. Personally, I believe that the primary focus would be uncaring, especially if they are more advanced than us. I'd see a situation similar to today, where we clear wilderness areas for housing, development, farms, or whatever...and don't give too much thought to the animals or other lifeforms we kill. Even species closer to us in intelligence, such as chimpanzees, some of the great apes, or dolphins, are hunted for sport, eaten, or simply killed through carelessness without much thought. I think we'd most likely be an interesting curiosity, until the alien Zik`sirth`fgnsdjkl-t decided we taste good, or our pelts look nice on the wall, or that human spleens make an excellent aphrodesiac, or that Earth would be a great spot for their new "ExoDisney" theme park.

And all the flower-and-peace, happy-zippity-do-da about any race advanced enough for travel being moral and such? Show me evidence. Show me that our morality has grown with our technology, in any way. The only thing we've done is extend the sizes of our tribes, and any aliens would, by definition, be outside our tribe. Someone earlier mentioned the exponential progress of technology...yet evolution still proceeds slowly. Our technological capability has already outpaced the evolutionary biological changes that our early days brought on for survival, such as male aggression or a preference for sugar and fat.

I know this sounds cynical, but I'm really not. I just don't believe that anyone can make any sound judgement about the motivations of any alien race that might or might not exist. I wouldn't bet money on then either being benevolent or peaceful, or hostile and warlike. Personally, I think the best way to greet any alien race we encounter is with open arms, and a large gun hidden close at hand. Depending on the way things go, you give then a hug or reach for the gun. But that's just me

Also, even if this alien race is highly evolved and benevolent and peaceful, why do we expect their intraracial peace to extend to us? Especially if they view our behavior as savage, a bunch or warlike hairy apes? Might they not consider it best for all involved if we were not allowed to spread?

 

[kaisersean]

With regard to the technological question-

Isn't it possible that there's a sort of technological plateau? I mean, suppose you can pretty much figure out how everything works and what we're capable of changing? This may mean, for example, that faster-than-light travel really is right out, that Dyson spheres are essentially impossible to build, etc.

Please note that I am not suggesting we are reaching or have reached this plateau, just that perhaps it exists.

For any strategy computer gamers, think of it as finishing out the tech tree in a game like Civilization or such. You basically have all the stuff you need to know, even though you may not have "won" yet.

So if there is a tech plateau, maybe there's a number of races that have already hit it. And maybe we'll hit it before they're capable of getting to us or happen to find us. In that circumstance, even a much older alien species may not have a significantly greater advantage over us in pure technology.

Anyway. Some food for thought.

*Edit- Fixed annoying typo.

 

[sionep]

Intelligent life evolved at some othe solar system is quite possible IMHO. Would such a species pose a threat to us? I speculate that the answer is no.

I think, that the only threat to such species, is if they come here to mate and reproduce with humans. Half humans, half aliens would be the most scary thing since those beings are confused as to where their allegiance is.

 

[kaisersean]

I think, that the only threat to such species, is if they come here to mate and reproduce with humans. Half humans, half aliens would be the most scary thing since those beings are confused as to where their allegiance is.

Heh...it's...it's a joke, right? You don't *really* think that beings that followed an ENTIRELY different evolutionary path would be able to mate with us, right? Have we been watching too much Star Trek lately?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Greg Bear wrote a couple of interesting books, The Forge of God and The Anvil of Stars, about interstellar warfare.

SPOILAGE

The plot is that some civilisations produce self-replicating probes that scour the universe for planets with life on them, and destroy them when they find them. Just because they don't want competition, it seems. In terms of what we know about physics, this seems a fairly do-able way of committing mass genocide.

Other civilisations make a point of producing self-replicating Ships of the Law, which recruit crew from species' attacked by such probes, and which give their crew tools to enforce The Law: that species' that make self-replicating killer probes must be rendered extinct.

The first book is about the attack on the earth by these probes, and the second is about the Ship of the Law crewed by humans that went in search of the species that made the probes.

 

[Hellbound]

Kevin:

Talk about synchronicity. I just finished those two books last week The idea in them is similar to the theme from "The Killing STar", that I mentioned earlier. Althoguh in TKS, Earth is attacked and destroyed by self-replicating robots. The robots were the product of a biological race, and basically took over from the biologicals. The Earth was a target because the aliens detected the gamma radiation from Earth's first test of an anti-matter rocket engine (an engine which can produce near-relativistic speeds, thus allowing for the possiblity of R-bombing...driving a large mass into a planet at percentages of c, and effective and hard-to-prevent method of sterilizing a planet). The ideas and reasonings are explored in more detail in the book, including (as I mentioned earlier) emails between various SETI scientists and others concerning possible contact scenarios. I found some of these sections to be the most interesting, myself. Well worth a read.

 

[Z]

I thought about this once from a Biblical perspective... First, let me state outright that I think it's highly likely there are other intelligent species in the universe. Even some with interstellar travel abilities... or that there WERE or WILL BE.

Anyway, the Biblical perspective:

God makes Earth - and all the other stars and planets. Then, here on Earth, he sets up the Eden project... and it fails. OK, scrub Eden and let the experiment subjects loose on Earth.

What if the other 50,000 inhabited worlds out there (just a shot in the dark) are other instances of the same grand experiment?

And what if some of those instances DIDN'T fail??

Wouldn't it be in God's best interest if humans failed to achieve interstellar travel, if humans could be prevented from ever finding another Eden and gumming up the experiment?

Of course, I woke up one day and realized the Bible is full of that which is aromatic and promotes plant growth, and this made me relax a great deal.

Still, every once in a while, I worry for our heroes in space...

 

[Hindmost]

Whether or not life exists on other planets is something that will generate endless speculation. SETI has never sensed a repeating signal of any type that has recurred upon further investigation. Maybe the other planets still have dinosaurs.

If there is life out there somewhere, the chances of a visit to our corner of the universe seems slim. Many people do not realize the energy requirements needed for interstellar travel. Every ship that I have seen of a "UFO" is not big enough to carry the energy needed for travel between the stars. (also, making the ship saucer shaped is just really bad engineering...but good sci-fi.)

I suppose there could be a species out there with a long hibernation cycle that could show up in our spiral arm, but it is doubtful. SETI has the best chance of finding something....

glenn