I see it like being overtaken on the highway — there are very few reasons for aliens to expend the energy needed to physically interact with us in the first place. And the reasons to do such a thing include:
Halt our expansion into the universe because of our penchant for destruction
Claim our planet for their own after destroying theirs
Extract our resources
???
After expending the energy and resources to get into Earth’s orbit, it’s probably a lot more efficient to subjugate or destroy the dominant life form than to try and figure out how to communicate with it to achieve the above objectives.
Back to the highway analogy: most aliens wouldn’t want war with us… but we’re unlikely to ever cross paths with such beings in this vast universe, due to either time or distance.
After expending the energy and resources to get into Earth’s orbit, it’s probably a lot more efficient to subjugate or destroy the dominant life form than to try and figure out how to communicate with it to achieve the above objectives.
Um, yes it is. This is a very well known general truism. Destruction is almost always easier than creation. For example which do you think is easier, painting a complex painting, or destroying a complex painting?
Um, yes it is. This is a very well known general truism. Destruction is almost always easier than creation.
Certainly spilled milk can’t be put back in the milk jug, but I don’t think that proves destruction is easier than creation rather it underlines that what makes destruction devastating is that it cannot be reversed in the way the construction of something can.
My point is, why do you narrowly frame the choice as either destroying a complex painting or creating one?
I did not say that war and conflict don’t happen, I am asking you to prove that in a general way they are more efficient than adaption, co-operation, co-existence or simple non-engagement and avoidance are as strategies.
The problem with that as even a hypothesis is the Earth is not unique what so ever as far as its constituent parts. Unless humanity itself was the resource of interest, there are billions of Earths worth of water, iron, uranium, carbon, oxygen, diamonds, etc, etc, etc between us and even most other planets within our quadrant of the galaxy.
Precisely and I know everyone has forgotten the concept of gravity wells* because Star Wars and other scifi shows constantly shows spaceships constantly flying up and down from planets like it is no big deal*… but ALL of those resources are stuck in the bottom of a gravity well which means the value of a bulk amount of any of that material is far less valuable than it would be distributed in space in other forms that could be mined without paying an immense energy tax (asteroids and smaller rock bodies than “planets” in general, i.e. why mine an earthlike planet when you could mine a pluto like planet or smaller?).
Sure, maybe aliens have Stargates or some other magic teleporting/portal device where they can appear magically on the surface of the earth and then warp back to somewhere outside the gravity well of Earth… anything is possible I suppose but if we can’t assume that nature doesn’t allow such a blatant paradox/violations of the conservation of energy than we can’t really have any speculative discussion about anything since it might just be superceded by magic at a later point.
The most valuable thing to an alien sentient species capable of such immense power would unquestionably be the genetic diversity of all living species on earth and that really would be the only scenario I could conceive of where aliens might desire to destroy humanity, I could see them having some kind of gardening philosophy where they could see we were a threat to the biological diversity of a potential ongoing source of genetic innovation and wanted to protect that by eliminating us… but even that is a stretch… from the timescale of an interstellar voyager, mass extinctions are simply the closing of one act and the beginning of another in the story of evolution, the evolution of life on Earth in all its complexity cannot be understood without taking into account mass extinctions… so then what would make an alien species decide to see the mass extinction that humanity is precipitating as fundamentally different?
Of course it is possible that an alien invasion force could show up and blow us up with lasers to harvest all our coal… but I think there are basic axiomatic assumptions people bring to the table about assumed ways that alien contact would bear out that are just downright silly and I will not stop making fun of them until this genre of conversation becomes more mature.
Yea, the only way I could see them intervening is if they were acrively against unnatural extinctions, and even that requires them to differentiate between the actions of species and the actions of physical objects (and to have such a distinction in concept in the first place). If they viewed humanity as akin to a bacterial infection about to destroy the host planet, I could see such a hypothetical species taking action.
Funnily enough about conservation of energy… it actually doesn’t hold up on the cosmic scale! It’s only true of closed systems, and the universe is a very open system. I forget the intricacies, though. PBS SpaceTime had an episode on the very topic some months ago.
All good points. I don’t see why that means they wouldn’t come and exploit our resources too. Maybe after they used up the other planets. Maybe they just like destroying things. People like to imagine aliens as moved past all the petty shit that holds humans back, but the ship of the aliens that we meet might just be “rich kids on vacation and want to shoot an elephant” type of aliens.
Yes, but one of those would have clear signs we’d see from afar first, and the other is wholly separate of your earlier proposition that they’d be corporate representatives looking for resources.
Why would Aliens desire war with us?
I see it like being overtaken on the highway — there are very few reasons for aliens to expend the energy needed to physically interact with us in the first place. And the reasons to do such a thing include:
After expending the energy and resources to get into Earth’s orbit, it’s probably a lot more efficient to subjugate or destroy the dominant life form than to try and figure out how to communicate with it to achieve the above objectives.
Back to the highway analogy: most aliens wouldn’t want war with us… but we’re unlikely to ever cross paths with such beings in this vast universe, due to either time or distance.
4: Just talk and learn from us because they’re frickin’ curious.
I mean, that would be humanity’s motivation.
I assumed 4 would be some form of sex tourism.
That’s implied in “curious”.
Fair point.
Eh. The motivations of the people in charge of humanity would be resources or xenophobia.
We can’t even get along with other humans well enough to learn from them properly.
Why? How so?
Blowing shit up is always easier than understanding the shit you’re going to blow up.
No, it really isn’t!
Yes, it really is!
Easier, not takes less absolute energy.
Than what do you precisely mean by “easier”?
What else could it mean in this context? It means less mental exhertion and thought. You know, the things understanding requires.
Um, yes it is. This is a very well known general truism. Destruction is almost always easier than creation. For example which do you think is easier, painting a complex painting, or destroying a complex painting?
Certainly spilled milk can’t be put back in the milk jug, but I don’t think that proves destruction is easier than creation rather it underlines that what makes destruction devastating is that it cannot be reversed in the way the construction of something can.
My point is, why do you narrowly frame the choice as either destroying a complex painting or creating one?
I think history would beg to differ.
How so?
Centuries upon centuries of tribalism and war instead of diplomatic missions. Do … do you even know the history of humanity??
There’s a reason people call modern times the most peaceful time in history … while there are wars and genocides still going on.
I did not say that war and conflict don’t happen, I am asking you to prove that in a general way they are more efficient than adaption, co-operation, co-existence or simple non-engagement and avoidance are as strategies.
Because the part of the alien race that will contact us are the ones representing their corporations and they want more resources.
The problem with that as even a hypothesis is the Earth is not unique what so ever as far as its constituent parts. Unless humanity itself was the resource of interest, there are billions of Earths worth of water, iron, uranium, carbon, oxygen, diamonds, etc, etc, etc between us and even most other planets within our quadrant of the galaxy.
Precisely and I know everyone has forgotten the concept of gravity wells* because Star Wars and other scifi shows constantly shows spaceships constantly flying up and down from planets like it is no big deal*… but ALL of those resources are stuck in the bottom of a gravity well which means the value of a bulk amount of any of that material is far less valuable than it would be distributed in space in other forms that could be mined without paying an immense energy tax (asteroids and smaller rock bodies than “planets” in general, i.e. why mine an earthlike planet when you could mine a pluto like planet or smaller?).
Sure, maybe aliens have Stargates or some other magic teleporting/portal device where they can appear magically on the surface of the earth and then warp back to somewhere outside the gravity well of Earth… anything is possible I suppose but if we can’t assume that nature doesn’t allow such a blatant paradox/violations of the conservation of energy than we can’t really have any speculative discussion about anything since it might just be superceded by magic at a later point.
The most valuable thing to an alien sentient species capable of such immense power would unquestionably be the genetic diversity of all living species on earth and that really would be the only scenario I could conceive of where aliens might desire to destroy humanity, I could see them having some kind of gardening philosophy where they could see we were a threat to the biological diversity of a potential ongoing source of genetic innovation and wanted to protect that by eliminating us… but even that is a stretch… from the timescale of an interstellar voyager, mass extinctions are simply the closing of one act and the beginning of another in the story of evolution, the evolution of life on Earth in all its complexity cannot be understood without taking into account mass extinctions… so then what would make an alien species decide to see the mass extinction that humanity is precipitating as fundamentally different?
Of course it is possible that an alien invasion force could show up and blow us up with lasers to harvest all our coal… but I think there are basic axiomatic assumptions people bring to the table about assumed ways that alien contact would bear out that are just downright silly and I will not stop making fun of them until this genre of conversation becomes more mature.
Yea, the only way I could see them intervening is if they were acrively against unnatural extinctions, and even that requires them to differentiate between the actions of species and the actions of physical objects (and to have such a distinction in concept in the first place). If they viewed humanity as akin to a bacterial infection about to destroy the host planet, I could see such a hypothetical species taking action.
Funnily enough about conservation of energy… it actually doesn’t hold up on the cosmic scale! It’s only true of closed systems, and the universe is a very open system. I forget the intricacies, though. PBS SpaceTime had an episode on the very topic some months ago.
All good points. I don’t see why that means they wouldn’t come and exploit our resources too. Maybe after they used up the other planets. Maybe they just like destroying things. People like to imagine aliens as moved past all the petty shit that holds humans back, but the ship of the aliens that we meet might just be “rich kids on vacation and want to shoot an elephant” type of aliens.
Yes, but one of those would have clear signs we’d see from afar first, and the other is wholly separate of your earlier proposition that they’d be corporate representatives looking for resources.
You are asserting a knowledge of something that you cannot possibly assert.
Hah… I know right. I mean every answer to that question is “asserting a knowledge of something that you cannot possibly assert.”
Why else ask the question?