Dealing with Other Interstellar Civilizations: From Science Fiction to Reality

originally posted by: Navarro

originally posted by: Signals
OP is on to something.

Answer me this...Do you feel regret when you squash a bug or kill a mosquito?

I don't.

Yet you'll certainly swat a mosquito if it irritates you, despite that the mosquito likely doesn't anticipate that its flight in close proximity to you could be irritating. Yet you'll have no quarrels with killing ants that've chosen to march through your house. They mean no threat to you, and are simply in pursuit of sustenance, but from your perspective they simply must go.

I get that, but after squashing the bugs in question I would have to be a special kind of angry to then go to the anthill, fill it with petrol and set it on fire, over and over again until there were no ants left, wouldn't I?

a reply to: Jonjonj
If you have a very large anthill in your backyard, as can often be found in the south, you might be more inclined to destroy that colony than you think. Besides, there are indeed people, male children in particular, who find themselves inclined to burn ants under magnifying glasses or to stomp their anthills. There's even scientists who pour molten metal down anthills just so that they can dig out the structure in order to see how large the colony was and its pattern. You think it impossible for another species to exterminate us because we're irritating, frightening, or just out of curiosity or malevolence?

originally posted by: Navarro
a reply to: Jonjonj
You think it impossible for another species to exterminate us because we're irritating, frightening, or just out of curiosity or malevolence?

Absolutely not! I just don't think it is as likely as you propose. I think it far more likely that they would either keep a discrete eye on us from a distance or perhaps, given a high enough development on our part, interact with us in a collaborative way.

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: Navarro

At our stage of development, the best reaction to meeting a new species is to run to a known safe world and never go home again. Or execute secret plan B and cause the engines to destroy the ship in a very thorough and permanent manner.

You have no idea what capabilities any random alien species might have. If they are lethally aggressive and deceptive, going home could destroy the world. Better not to give them any leads.

If I were in charge of ensuring the Earth isn't compromised/Humanity destroyed, I wouldn't accept the above protocols due to the known unknowns you highlight.

The only failsafe way to offset the known unknowns is to use personnel, systems and materials that cannot be compromised or co-opted, i.e personnel and systems that do not actually originate from Earth or have any data on Earth it's location or capabilities.

Clones, raised well away from Earth in their own blissfully ignorant staging zone would seem more sensible but I'd still have questions such as:

Does our method of locomotion leave tracks (think Star Trek and the subspace trails left by ships)?

Because humans and materials are made up of atoms that originate almost entirely from our Solar system; can you derive a likely point of origin based on Atomic composition/age/number of solar recyclings , another unknown marker??

If the Universe is full of life; would our biological traits suggest who we are and where we came from based on data (taxonomy?) from previous similar encounters?

a reply to: Jukiodone

You hit a number of problems at the end there.

1) how do you know that they can't track you?

2) your elemental composition will tend to indicate what part of the local area you came from

but

3) how do you know they didn't mark you for tracking in some way you missed

4) how do you know they didn't, intentionally or not, contaminate you with something you won't detect until it's too late

All you need is something that's going to be bad later, and sometimes knowing if something is going to be bad takes time or knowledge we don't have yet. What if they infect you with a virus that's totally benign to YOU, but, say, is hell on chloroplasts?

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Navarro
a reply to: Jonjonj
You think it impossible for another species to exterminate us because we're irritating, frightening, or just out of curiosity or malevolence?

Absolutely not! I just don't think it is as likely as you propose. I think it far more likely that they would either keep a discrete eye on us from a distance or perhaps, given a high enough development on our part, interact with us in a collaborative way.

I assign no behavioral probabilities to these alien species we've yet to even meet. I remark only on the possibilities, which are entirely endless. You remark that you suspect that most species would be inclined to observe us and to collaborate with us. I think you're attempting to personify a species by applying human reasoning to them. They don't experience the universe in the same way we do. How they appear, how they move, how they interact with their environment, how they manipulate objects, how they sense, how they think, it'll likely seem completely abstract to you and I, because that's the case between the various species of Earth.

This is Kasatka, a Killer Whale at SeaWorld. You observe her bite the foot of her trainer, and proceed to drag him around the tank. She took her trainer beneath the water and back to the surface, beneath the water again and returned to the surface again. Marine Biologists wonder why Kasatka attacked her trainer, and whether or not Kasatka even perceived the action to be an attack. Was she just playing? Has she been driven mad by years of captivity? Was she seeking revenge on her captor, or perhaps her abuser? Did she mean to show him what it's like to swim beneath the surface? What it's like to be a whale? Was she toying with him as her captors toy with her? Was she insulted that she visits him above the water's surface daily but he never visits her beneath the surface? Did she think the proper place for any creature to be is beneath the surface, and was attempting to demonstrate this? To coax him into overcoming his apparent fear of the world beneath that water's surface? To show him how to swim underwater? Or was she just having a bit of malevolent fun with him? We'll never know the answer because the fact is that she is indeed a whale, and so we don't understand her motivations. All we can say for certain is Katsaka didn't intend to kill him, because had her intentions been lethal, he most certainly wouldn't have survived.

To assume extraterrestrials will generally desire to observe or collaborate with us is, in my opinion, a mistake. I think it's entirely evident that whatever they do will seem strange and irrational from our perspective, and understanding anything we observe of them won't come easy. The danger our astronauts will face when encountering these unknowns will undoubtedly be comparable to the danger faced by Katsaka's trainer. Observe the patience displayed by Katsaka's trainer in the video during the attack, and you will see precisely the patience that will be required of our astronauts during their encounters. It will be a difficult, dangerous, and often terrifying job. The aliens might do anything.

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: Jukiodone

You hit a number of problems at the end there.

1) how do you know that they can't track you?

2) your elemental composition will tend to indicate what part of the local area you came from

but

3) how do you know they didn't mark you for tracking in some way you missed

4) how do you know they didn't, intentionally or not, contaminate you with something you won't detect until it's too late

All you need is something that's going to be bad later, and sometimes knowing if something is going to be bad takes time or knowledge we don't have yet. What if they infect you with a virus that's totally benign to YOU, but, say, is hell on chloroplasts?

If we were to assume such a strategy of absolute paranoia, wouldn't it be reasonable to send unmanned probes in a fashion similar to today? Not only would they be cheaper to field, but they'd never need to return any base of origin. If you desired it, you could program it to self-destruct as necessary, or to otherwise not transmit any signals home upon the encounter, in order to eliminate that method of establishing an origin. However, I'd guess it's trajectory would reveal the general direction of its origin. It's composition and condition would also suggest how long ago it was manufactured, and thus approximately how distant its origin. You might be capable of fooling ET with a varied course in order to skew the direction of origin, but I imagine the composition and condition would always reveal a distance.

What makes you think it wouldn't be superior to simply attempt to gather information about them anyway? I'm certain that they could find us if they really wished to, so it would seem most reasonable to me to learn as much about who "they" are before that day comes.

a reply to: Bedlam

Agreed, and that is the point I was trying to make....

Relying upon retreating to a none earth planet or self destructing on contact is not a suitable strategy because it relies upon us detecting them first...which is something we cant guarantee, especially when the stakes are so high.

For all we know the SOP is to sneak up on unknowns and encase them in a VR world whilst reading their minds/hacking nav data!!!
Our patriotic astronaut is none the wiser so doesn't retreat/self destruct and the Earth is at risk!!

We would have to come up with a way (a failsafe) to ensure that even if not knowingly compromised, there is still no way "they" could derive a point of origin.

Because we dont know what methods might be employed, we either have complete demarcation (i.e literally dont use any materials from our solar system/never return or depart from our solar system) or stay hiding under our rock.

I loved your lapwing analogy BTW and given the above, making Earth seem none inter stellar capable and a bit retarded whilst getting on with the good stuff elsewhere would probably be our best strategy.

originally posted by: Jukiodone
a reply to: Bedlam

Agreed, and that is the point I was trying to make....

Relying upon retreating to a none earth planet or self destructing on contact is not a suitable strategy because it relies upon us detecting them first...which is something we cant guarantee, especially when the stakes are so high.

Ah, but you may not know they're there until it's too late. Or you might encounter them in transit, although that's unlikely enough to be impossible.

If you're going to visit your next candidate, show up and whoopsie! it's got inhabitants, you are then stuck.

Worse - if they were able to mask their presence from your initial telescopic survey, it's an indication they are possibly more advanced than you are. Not that you can judge that by observation, necessarily.

We would have to come up with a way (a failsafe) to ensure that even if not knowingly compromised, there is still no way "they" could derive a point of origin.

A good reason to not go home, alas.

Another possibility, but it's sort of Machiavellian, is to (if you could...) retreat to a known location of another advanced civilization you're avoiding as a waypoint to your safe harbor. It's a derivation of an old military trick...if you've got two enemies and you're sort of stuck between, provoke one, retreat through the other and let them duke it out while you flee.

originally posted by: Navarro
If we were to assume such a strategy of absolute paranoia, wouldn't it be reasonable to send unmanned probes in a fashion similar to today? Not only would they be cheaper to field, but they'd never need to return any base of origin.

You have to do it as a two stager, because communications are slower than light. If you want that data back, you have to fly somewhere with it. It might be worthwhile to set up your safe harbor worlds as collection points, and have a sort of staged courier thing with multiple probes doing crazy deep space vector changes and the like to throw off pursuit. But there's still a chance a mid-level civilization could track it anyway.

And there's nothing you could do about Organians (or Q), using that as a generic term for a truly advanced civilization. If they're that good, though, they'd already be here. It's the Kzinti you have to worry about.

originally posted by: Bedlam


Another possibility, but it's sort of Machiavellian, is to (if you could...) retreat to a known location of another advanced civilization you're avoiding as a waypoint to your safe harbor. It's a derivation of an old military trick...if you've got two enemies and you're sort of stuck between, provoke one, retreat through the other and let them duke it out while you flee.

There you go....
That's 2 chapters alone on how an absolute lack of morality might be a very useful tool in such scenarios.

Write the book, write the book (*chants).

originally posted by: Jukiodone
There you go....
That's 2 chapters alone on how an absolute lack of morality might be a very useful tool in such scenarios.

Write the book, write the book (*chants).

We prefer to call it...situationally fluid ethics.

I have seen Star Trek TOS and TNG. And DS9. I have seen Battlestar Galactic too. You know what those are? They are movies and series, they are entertainment. It's called science fiction and if you think it's part of some conspiracy you have no idea how Hollywood or fiction writing works. Literally none.

Anyone who says Star Wars or Spielberg is part of some grand scheme of exopolitics acclimation is either a bald-faced liar or a schizotypal paranoic.

So yeah, thanks for your great contribution to humanity.

a reply to: Nicorette

You've also seen and obviously enjoyed Blade Runner also.

Despite all the ideas above my real concern is that any alien who arrives won't see us a food source.

Hollywood has been exposed as a propaganda pusher but hopefully unless the odd Rothschild lady was right about their time travel machines la la, the sci fi films are only likely to hint at new technology we can expect - bit like the pictures of helicopters in both the Egyptian pyramid and Leonardo da Vinci's sketch books.

a reply to: Shiloh7

You seemed to have missed the point. About entertainment.

originally posted by: Signals
OP is on to something.

Answer me this...Do you feel regret when you squash a bug or kill a mosquito?

Yes.
And when I chop vegetables for a stew, I consider the life of the vegetable, what it has sacrificed, how it will live on through me.
I'm visibly sad.

Especially with onions.

Harte

A couple points to ponder.
1. We do not have even the most rudimentary 'control' of the space around our planet. IOW, no planetary defenses to speak of. Remember the analogy of a country thinking that strong forts along river entrances and coast lines was a great defense if your walls were thick enough and you had a lot of troops', back in the 1600s-1900s? They didn't realize that there could be fast and lethal flying machines invented (in the future) making all that stuff moot. Fixed defenses are basically worthless, even then they were a poor plan, because of siege-based warfare (keep them in and starve them out).

To obtain 'control of the space' around Earth we would need ships with 'inertia-less drives', IOW, ships that can fly around as they do in the atmosphere and not need to still use circling the Earth and gravity assist to obtain orbit. To get the the ISS the shuttle has to make ever-widening orbits to finally reach about 300 miles up (the one or two times they went to the ISS). That is about on par with having a windup toy vs a modern jet fighter. No maneuverability. Having ground-based missiles, or even satellite based lasers or particle beam weapons is ludicrous against a highly maneuverable non-terrestrial threat.

2. There is only one or perhaps two motivations that a non-terrestrial species could have that are favorable or benign with regard to Earth and its inhabitants. The best we could hope for is benign or hands-off. I think it's silly to think there's any chance of encountering a 'favorable', friendly species coming here. BUT there are dozens of very hostile or frightening motivations a non-terrestrial species might exhibit, including an overtly friendly but secretly hostile posture.

It's a good idea, as Stephen Hawking says, to keep our heads down until we have control of our 'airspace' out past at least the Moon, with highly maneuverable ships and space-based weapons - not that we should shoot first, just that we should realize that now, we have nothing. We are, comparatively, primitives in wooden canoes, despite all our technology.

3. If a non-terrestrial species wanted to conquer Earth they could do it remotely. They could easily take over our computer systems, use nano-goo attack-bots, you name it. So even with mastery of LEO space and then relatively robust control out to an area including the size of the Moon's orbit, we have no defense against nano-attacks or electronic attacks. (without control of the Moon, for example, an ET threat could just set up there and lob rocks at us). Again a plethora of compelling reasons to keep your head down.

4. Having said that, its my contention that we are essentially 'alone' in the MW galaxy, though there might be a few 'intelligent' species on a few planets, they aren't space faring and they aren't coming here, and they probably died off already or haven't been born yet. Time sync is a big factor.

originally posted by: Navarro

As far as landing troops here, the only reason I could imagine them doing so would be either for the purpose of entertainment, the purpose of training, or for some philosophical or cultural purpose.

Or just hungry for a snack to tide them over.

or if in your into the "conspiracy" side of things we have be secretly space-faring for a few decades

Lovely thread though never looked at it this way before, more brainstorming is needed!