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.
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.
It isn’t more efficient. That’s why I will always call humans dumb and arrogant. That’s not the argument being made, either. The argument was that it is easier to destroy, not more efficient.
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 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.
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.
It isn’t more efficient. That’s why I will always call humans dumb and arrogant. That’s not the argument being made, either. The argument was that it is easier to destroy, not more efficient.
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?