Prudent or Paranoid ? - Have radio transmissions doomed Man ?

MarsDog · 2004-09-05 14:00:53

Space invader type of games allow a chance.
But against an Alien civilization capaple of living off interstellar comets, we are doomed.
-
Other life will also watch and listen, but likely not reveal itself, except to attack.
First contact might be Pluto sized, crashing into, and sterilizing Earth.
-
If we saw violent Alien Television news, it would be prudent to sneak up,
and destroy the Aliens, as a preventative war (similar to the Middle East wars).
-
Naive ignorance (or stupidity) allowed 9/11.
The first attack of Earth, by Aliens, might be the last one for Man.

Grypd · 2004-09-05 15:36:02

what you are saying is that a hostile race would bother coming all this distance and just wipe us out.

If there are so many races out there where are they and why have they not said hello

MarsDog · 2004-09-05 16:17:12

The suprise "Hello" will be instant Hell
-

what you are saying is that a hostile race would bother coming all this distance and just wipe us out.

Aliens will be here when it is convenient for them to launch an attack. It has only been half a century since we started to advertise our culture to the galaxy. Aliens will want to survive our expansion. They will wonder why we did not pay attention to the saying "Loose lips sink ships".

Gennaro · 2004-09-06 03:09:07

Well, then they better hurry up!

Say it takes 500 years to get here (including the time to catch our signal). By that time we will have expanded to the limits of this solar system and probably settled on some new ones as well (provided of course western man and European culture survives the present century, managing to deflect today's suicidal policies).

By the way, has anyone thought about how far our electromagnetical signals will go before being absorbed by the interstellar medium? Have a hunch that weak things like radio waves might peter out, somehow.

Personally, I believe they'll be delighted and curious to see us, just like we.

Euler · 2004-09-06 04:10:03

By the way, has anyone thought about how far our electromagnetical signals will go before being absorbed by the interstellar medium? Have a hunch that weak things like radio waves might peter out, somehow.

Based on what I have heard, the omnidirectional signals should peter out pretty quickly. I think that any civilization that can detect our radio emissions would probably be able to detect us in another way, either by having a probe in the solar system or by detecting us in the visible light spectrum.

It is hard to say whether the aliens will be hostile or not. If they are hostile, then they would likely send a big chunk of non-reflective radar-absorbent material at us with a high relativistic velocity. We would probably not even detect it until it hit us, and then the kinetic energy would be enough to devastate life on Earth. A few probes armed with nuclear weapons would arrive a short time later to scour the solar system and make sure humanity is annihilated.

Rxke · 2004-09-06 06:05:37

Yup, undirectional transmitters don't have the power to get very far.

The military stuff, OTOH... Hi-power radar, anyone?

(Great: blame the military for the Alien invasion, ironic, to say the least.)

Grypd · 2004-09-06 15:49:18

But here is the rub,
The seti crowd used one of the giant radio telescopes to send a message OUT, guite a few years ago.

The strength of that signal will not peter out

Rxke · 2004-09-06 16:18:16

Heh, yes...
Caused a major stink. Scientists hadn't asked for approval with government, was seen in some circles as a security breach, giving away our location to the unknown aliens...

Luckily the message said: 'Don't bother visiting, we taste very bad...'

Mad Grad Student · 2004-09-06 17:23:00

Luckily the message said: 'Don't bother visiting, we taste very bad...'

Yes, well, that might be what the "aliens" (I think that it's now thought that they sent the message to a group of pulsars, at least they won't get lonely!) will interpret it as. The message pretty much showed a circle, a crude drawing of the solar system a first-grader would laugh at, and a couple of guys resembling the characters in the arcade game Joust. Imagine the headline; "Message from Alien Civilization Recieved: We Like Arcade Games!"

But hey, this was at a time when the computers sending people into space had less power than those inside an average printer. If aliens with that kind of technology base sent us a message, I'd be impressed. Heck, I think it would be pretty impressive if we found alien civilizations at the Babalonian level, at least that's something.

Seriously, we don't have to worry about being invaded like the poor fellows in Independance Day (Having to act with Jeff "iSpokesman" Golblum in a two hour movie -shudders- oh those poor people). I think it's doubtful that there are any other civilizations in this galaxy, but even if there were why in the net would they want to invade us? Really, it just wouldn't make fiscal sense to sped billions of dollars (at least) to come over here and launch a huge military operation to kill of on pesky little species. Would we do that?

But if I'm wrong on both accounts, man, we're all screwed.

Dook · 2004-09-06 19:49:51

I think it's pretty useless to worry about aliens destroying the human race. Also, why would they send a giant rock to destroy the planet when it has so much to offer?

A few ships with very high power gamma emitters would do the trick quickly but there are many other ways as well.

Euler · 2004-09-06 19:56:01

I agree that invasion is unlikely. Extermination is a different matter. The motive is to eliminate a potential threat/rival rather than to gain territory or resources.

Really, it just wouldn't make fiscal sense to sped billions of dollars (at least) to come over here and launch a huge military operation to kill of on pesky little species. Would we do that?

Cheaper to do it now, rather than later when the humans will be better able to defend themselves.

Also, why would they send a giant rock to destroy the planet when it has so much to offer?

It is likely to be the cheapest and easiest way.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-07 05:18:09

A big unknown here is how rare Earth-like planets are and how difficult they are to engineer from other types.

If an advanced alien race evolved in an environment similar to our own, prefer it to living in orbiting cans, and such planets are exceedingly rare; then we may have motive.

Palomar · 2004-09-07 05:53:02

*Sorry, but IMO this is like being afraid of walking around in a cemetary at night for fear a ghost will get you.

Humankind's greatest threat has always been to
itself, and unfortunately (given trends and repetition of stupid mistakes) might be for a long time to come.

I don't fear the dead or aliens. It's some of my fellow humans who worry me.

--Cindy

MarsDog · 2004-09-07 14:05:42

A big unknown here is how rare Earth-like planets are and how difficult they are to engineer from other types

Halfways down the page:
http://www.daviddarling.info/archive/20 … eb01.html] Galaxy teeming with Earths argues Canadian astrophysicist

http://cic.setileague.org/cic/v2i1/lucy.htm]Lucy is shure to invite annihilation

http://cic.setileague.org/cic/v2i1/irony.htm]If Alens dont kill us, what will ?

Dook · 2004-09-07 16:26:49

It is likely to be the cheapest and easiest way.

What purpose would there be in destroying a planet to kill off the humans populating it? The planet would become useless unless of course the beings don't like atmosphere and sunlight and do not need plants or animals.

I think intelligent life is rather plentiful in the universe but earth like planets would be rare. Host planets would certainly have different levels of sunlight, oxygen, weather types, gravity, highly acidic or alkaline soils, and predatory animals. The earth may be a paradise like no other.

Euler · 2004-09-07 21:28:17

What purpose would there be in destroying a planet to kill off the humans populating it?

To stop the humans from taking over the galaxy. Besides, a kinetic energy strike would not destroy the planet, it would just devastate most of the complex life forms living on the planet.

MarsDog · 2004-09-07 22:19:37

The Aliens will be the survivors, annihilators of most life forms on their planet;
possibly exterminators of other Alien planets.
-
Will they like us raw, boiled, or fried; cage a few of us in a zoo ?
Will we be lucky and be asked to join an alliance against their enemy ?
-
Alien commanders will want efficient destruction.

Gennaro · 2004-09-08 06:13:58

The Aliens will be the survivors, annihilators of most life forms on their planet;
possibly exterminators of other Alien planets.
-
Will they like us raw, boiled, or fried; cage a few of us in a zoo ?
Will we be lucky and be asked to join an alliance against their enemy ?
-
Alien commanders will want efficient destruction.

This is getting weirder and weirder.

Hum, if they've destroyed most life on their homeplanet, how do they survive and sustain themselves?

If we "join an alliance" with your favvo aliens, how long before they turn against us in order to annhiliate an unnecessary risk? And how do we explain our behaviour to other peaceful neighbours? Ganging up with the galaxy's psychos doesn't strike me as such a good idea.

It could be that aggressive species gain an edge in survival because of their unprejudiced attitude towards the rare wonders of matter (alien prokaryotes), so in the end the universe would only consist of such "survivors". On the other hand, one could ask how popular such a species would be if becoming known. Me at least wouldn't have any regrets about annihilating them and so wouldn't any other eventual neighbour. Seems they would sooner or later face the odds stacked against them.
Indeed, if such aggressiveness had evolved I wonder how they could manage to get to the space fairing stage at all before wiping themselves out.

I believe in universal love.

By the way, excellent links! Especially intrigued by the periodical galactic devastation thesis in order to solve Fermi's paradox. Like the Germans say, "echt Klasse"!

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-08 07:04:58

What if intelligent life is fairly common but for whatever reason we're the most technologically advanced in this galaxy? What if we really are the oldest sentient species in the universe? Someone has to be first, and it would explain a few things.

Perhaps we are the invaders some other emerging civilization has nightmares about.

Palomar · 2004-09-08 07:24:20

What if we really are the oldest sentient species in the universe? Someone has to be first, and it would explain a few things.

*Erm...like what?

Perhaps we are the invaders some other emerging civilization has nightmares about.

*Are you speaking of here on Earth or in outer space? :;):

Frankly I think it's a mistake to assume other sentient beings elsewhere in the cosmos are as disgruntled and violent as humankind has tended to be. It seems to also indicate a desire to justify our behaviors (ala "everyone else does it!"). Maybe the galaxy's psychos are right *here* (I'll exclude myself, though...thanks).

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-08 07:47:29

Quote
What if we really are the oldest sentient species in the universe? Someone has to be first, and it would explain a few things.

*Erm...like what?

Why we haven't heard anything from anyone else, for starters. Why no one has dropped by, things of that sort.

Frankly I think it's a mistake to assume other sentient beings elsewhere in the cosmos are as disgruntled and violent as humankind has tended to be. It seems to also indicate a desire to justify our behaviors (ala "everyone else does it!"). Maybe the galaxy's psychos are right *here* (I'll exclude myself, though...thanks).

We may well be the "galaxy's psychos" and everyone else is peaceful and calm, yet in a way that would seem to support the idea that we are the most advanced.

Human technological advancement has in large part been driven by our conflicts. The very technology that allows us to seriously contemplate space travel is the direct result of our wars. Were we a peaceful, content species it is likely we'd also be significantly less advanced.

Since all species are bound by the same universal laws, and evolution is itself often a violent process whereby some species live at the expense of others, it reasonable to assume that similar patterns would occur. Further, predatory animals are better disposed toward evolving intelligence, greater intelligence is a clear survival advantage while a regular diet of animal flesh provides the protein needed to develop complex brains. Predatory animals are by nature violent and aggressive. Herbivores show little potential for developing intelligence, they have neither the dietary nor behaviorial conditions to spur it. It is the violent species that evolve into intelligent beings, and they who reach out beyond the confines of their worlds.

If and when we encounter another sentient species we may find that they are more like us than we are comfortable with. And in time, we will both hone our skills on the same block that brought us into contact in the first place.

Palomar · 2004-09-08 08:05:49

*Okay, I agree...to a point. Don't want to rehash too much, but: Sometimes violence is necessary; sometimes it just is. What I'm concerned about is the attitude of gratuitous violence, or "violence for violence's sake." I don't go for that. Too many people are all hopped up on pop culture's continual barrage of violent images. It's glorified over and over and over...like sex, it sells. Consequences? What??

Humans have also been capable of defining and feeling love and cooperation; developing the concept of justice; articulating the concept of "love thy neighbor as thyself" and "treat others the way you'd like to be treated", etc. If those ideals were not in some way ALSO natural to humans, we never could have conceived those concepts let alone articulated them.

--Cindy

P.S.: While I'd agree most humans are naturally disposed towards violence to a degree, I still wonder HOW violent we really are. Children follow examples set by their elders, who followed THEIR elders' examples. All that social reinforcement... :hm:

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-08 08:22:17

Certainly I'm not suggesting that we (or another intelligent species) are violent brutes just waiting for an excuse to tear down the other guy. But evolving from animals who hunted others for at least part of their food breeds in not only a strong capacity for violence but also a taste for it. It doesn't mean it governs all our actions, just that it's in the mix of motivators and impulses.

We have many contradictory behaviors that are all natural, we're complex creatures. It just seems to me that making a case for extraterrestrials as peaceful, cooperative and non-violent beings is just as absurd as expecting a dimwitted barbarian horde with lasers and rocketships. They'll probably be like us, in the sense that we're capable of astounding achievements and beauty, but also capable of horrible wars and atrocities that rival any vision of Hell. Too far in either direction and you just don't get to be a spacefaring species.

All speculative, of course, but basing such specualtion on the examples we have is all we can do.

Dook · 2004-09-08 08:51:50

To keep the humans from taking over the galaxy? You have to be kidding, right?

Human evolution has taken a very long time. I doubt that Star Trek is correct and that we are the ones with the most advanced technology in the galaxy.

In keeping with my balance theory I would expect there to be both good and bad extraterrestrials. The bad likely wouldn't be bent on annihilation but rather using more primitive species for whatever reason. Also any species that has the ability to travel through space from system to system would certainly be able to wipe out the human race with little effect on the rest of the planet.

The good extraterrastrials would be above war except for the purpose of self defense. They would be very honest and do no harm to all life. I like to think that one day we will evolve into this type.

C M Edwards · 2004-09-08 09:09:32

Human insanity has played almost as significant role in the technological advancement of our species as logical thought has.

Why would another, more logical species reach our level of advancement? Why would another species at our level of advancement enjoy complete sanity among all its members?

As for radio broadcasting, I agree it's a risk to develop the technology. So is not developing the technology. We're taking the nobler course, which is not the same as the logical course.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-09-05 14:00:53

Re: Prudent or Paranoid ? - Have radio transmissions doomed Man ?

#2 2004-09-05 15:36:02

Re: Prudent or Paranoid ? - Have radio transmissions doomed Man ?

#3 2004-09-05 16:17:12

Re: Prudent or Paranoid ? - Have radio transmissions doomed Man ?

#4 2004-09-06 03:09:07

Re: Prudent or Paranoid ? - Have radio transmissions doomed Man ?

#5 2004-09-06 04:10:03

Re: Prudent or Paranoid ? - Have radio transmissions doomed Man ?

#6 2004-09-06 06:05:37

Re: Prudent or Paranoid ? - Have radio transmissions doomed Man ?

#7 2004-09-06 15:49:18

Re: Prudent or Paranoid ? - Have radio transmissions doomed Man ?

#8 2004-09-06 16:18:16

Re: Prudent or Paranoid ? - Have radio transmissions doomed Man ?

#9 2004-09-06 17:23:00

Re: Prudent or Paranoid ? - Have radio transmissions doomed Man ?

#10 2004-09-06 19:49:51

Re: Prudent or Paranoid ? - Have radio transmissions doomed Man ?

#11 2004-09-06 19:56:01

Re: Prudent or Paranoid ? - Have radio transmissions doomed Man ?

#12 2004-09-07 05:18:09

Re: Prudent or Paranoid ? - Have radio transmissions doomed Man ?

#13 2004-09-07 05:53:02

Re: Prudent or Paranoid ? - Have radio transmissions doomed Man ?

#14 2004-09-07 14:05:42

Re: Prudent or Paranoid ? - Have radio transmissions doomed Man ?

#15 2004-09-07 16:26:49

Re: Prudent or Paranoid ? - Have radio transmissions doomed Man ?

#16 2004-09-07 21:28:17

Re: Prudent or Paranoid ? - Have radio transmissions doomed Man ?

#17 2004-09-07 22:19:37

Re: Prudent or Paranoid ? - Have radio transmissions doomed Man ?

#18 2004-09-08 06:13:58

Re: Prudent or Paranoid ? - Have radio transmissions doomed Man ?

#19 2004-09-08 07:04:58

Re: Prudent or Paranoid ? - Have radio transmissions doomed Man ?

#20 2004-09-08 07:24:20

Re: Prudent or Paranoid ? - Have radio transmissions doomed Man ?

#21 2004-09-08 07:47:29

Re: Prudent or Paranoid ? - Have radio transmissions doomed Man ?

#22 2004-09-08 08:05:49

Re: Prudent or Paranoid ? - Have radio transmissions doomed Man ?

#23 2004-09-08 08:22:17

Re: Prudent or Paranoid ? - Have radio transmissions doomed Man ?

#24 2004-09-08 08:51:50

Re: Prudent or Paranoid ? - Have radio transmissions doomed Man ?

#25 2004-09-08 09:09:32

Re: Prudent or Paranoid ? - Have radio transmissions doomed Man ?

Board footer